House of Commons

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 18 September 2012

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

1. What steps he plans to take to ensure the future effectiveness of the integrated offender management framework through the funding of key partners.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Integrated offender management arrangements are helping to reduce crime and reoffending in local areas through effective partnership working and multi-agency co-ordination. A key strength of the approach is that it makes best use of the resources available locally. Many probation trusts and prisons are following an IOM approach. We hope that local partners will continue to invest in such approaches where they are delivering strong outcomes and offering best value for money.

[Nic Dakin]

I spent a day looking at IOM in Scunthorpe recently and was impressed by what I saw. Will the Secretary of State work with colleagues from the Department for Work and Pensions to give probation services using IOM the flexibility to provide intensive support to get offenders into jobs through projects such as Empower in north Lincolnshire, rather than allowing them to languish on an unresponsive Work programme?

[Chris Grayling]

Given my last job and my current job, I am probably pretty well positioned to ensure that the two Departments work closely together. I strongly believe in the linkage between the rehabilitation of offenders and work to try to get former offenders into employment, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the two Departments will work closely together to achieve that goal.

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

On behalf of the Select Committee on Justice, may I welcome the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor to his office and wish him well?

Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that he is responsible for spending a lot of public money to ensure that people who come out of prison are effectively managed and assisted so that they give up on crime, and that we use prison for those for whom it is necessary, but use other means to get other people away from crime?

[Chris Grayling]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his kind words of welcome. I look forward to having many dealings with his Committee, and no doubt some sharp questioning. Let me assure him that I view rehabilitation very much as a significant element of our criminal justice system. It will be a major theme of the work I do at the Ministry of Justice. Although people may have to go to prison in recognition of the offences they have committed, it is absolutely right and proper that we should do everything we possibly can to ensure that they do not go back.

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

I am pleased to see the Minister in his new role. Will he take a look at the “Choose change” project, which has been running in Manchester for a number of years, working with offenders in prison to prepare for all aspects of their lives on release? It has been an extremely interesting exercise in dealing with all the things that may lead prisoners back into crime on release, and practitioners in Manchester would very much welcome it if the new Minister paid a visit.

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Lady is making an early bid. I can assure her that I have every intention of spending as much time as I can away from Westminster, looking at the work being done in the public sector, as well as by those working with the public sector, to try to understand where we can improve and build on existing successes. I am sure that if I am in Manchester and the opportunity arises, I shall do as she suggests.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Let me take this opportunity to welcome the Justice Secretary to his place—and, indeed, the prisons Minister and the other Ministers to their places. They say a new broom sweeps clean, so let us have a go. The last Justice Secretary thought that indeterminate sentences were a scandal. We are all hoping that the new Justice Secretary, given his comments in the past, is looking at how to introduce some form of risk-based release. However, given the ruling by the European Court of Human Rights this morning, how long are we likely to have to wait?

[Chris Grayling]

The ECHR ruling this morning was very much about rehabilitation, about which I feel strongly and which needs to be clear and present in prisons, as well as after prison. However, I am very disappointed by the ECHR decision this morning. This is not an area where I welcome the Court seeking to make rulings, and we intend to appeal this morning’s decision.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

2. What recent progress he has made on changes to the arrangements for no win, no fee agreements.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Government have made it a priority to reform the costs of civil litigation and, in particular, the no win, no fee conditional fee agreements. A package of major reforms is being implemented in April 2013, under the provisions of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. I would also refer my hon. Friend to two written ministerial statements, dated 24 May and 17 July.

[Iain Stewart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her new role. Will she give the House an estimate of the cost of the current no win, no fee arrangements to the NHS, and of the savings that might consequently be achieved by the changes?

[Mrs Grant]

Defendants such as the NHS were required to pay inflated success fees under the old regime, as well as after-the-event insurance premiums. In 2010-11, the NHS Litigation Authority paid £200 million to claimant lawyers. Under the new reforms, those costs will be reduced, allowing more money to be spent on patient care.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her new job. I am sure that she will be an absolute star. May I urge her, however, to think carefully about no win, no fee agreements? Last week, scurrilous and despicable low-lifes in France invaded the privacy of a young woman who is able to take legal action because she is very wealthy, but many people in this country, including the Dowler family, would never have been able to take legal action in a privacy case had it not been for no win, no fee arrangements. Can we please, please ensure that we do not chuck the baby out with the bath water?

[Mrs Grant]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but we firmly believe that, while meritorious claims will continue to be made, unnecessary and avoidable claims have to be deterred. Legal aid will, of course, be available for those who need it most, and for the most serious cases, under the exceptional funding rules.

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

3. What assessment he has made of the effect on victims’ services of the work of police and crime commissioners.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect on victims’ services of the work of police and crime commissioners.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

We expect that the needs of victims will be one of the key priorities for police and crime commissioners and that the effect on victims’ services will be a positive one. PCCs will be ideally placed to commission the most appropriate services to support victims in their area.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the Minister explain how the necessary funding will be provided to the police and crime commissioners so that they can protect those services for witnesses and victims of crime?

[Damian Green]

Central Government currently spend about £66 million a year on supporting witnesses and victims of crime, and we aim to raise up to an additional £50 million a year from offenders, through the victims surcharge and other financial impositions, to be used for support services for victims and witnesses. The police and crime commissioners will therefore have sufficient budget to enable them to make their own judgments on how best to support victims in their area.

[Nigel Mills]

Many victims feel let down by the whole process. Does the Minister agree that the police and crime commissioners, with their local knowledge, will be able to ensure that victims get a fair deal throughout the investigation and sentencing processes?

[Damian Green]

My hon. Friend is right. Individual PCCs in specific areas will be the best placed to understand the needs of the local community and to commission the services to meet those needs, as they will be taking those decisions closer to the people who will be most affected by them. That is the whole thrust of this important reform.

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

May I first declare an interest, as I am standing as the Labour and Co-operative candidate for police and crime commissioner in south Wales?

Does the Minister agree that the treatment of victims and witnesses remains deeply unsatisfactory in many areas of the court system and in the criminal justice system generally? In providing resources to police and crime commissioners, will he ensure that attrition does not occur along the way and that those resources will be adequate to allow proper, enhanced attention to be paid to the needs of victims?

[Damian Green]

I am enchanted to hear a pre-bid for additional public spending from a candidate, even before the election. The right hon. Gentleman is demonstrating his experience there. As I have just explained to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), we are seeking to increase the amount of money that the perpetrators of crime pass directly to the victims, through the victims surcharge, but it will be a matter for the individual police and crime commissioner—whether that will be the right hon. Gentleman or one of his opponents—to decide how best to spend that money in their local area. I am sure that he would agree that such decisions are better made locally than centrally.

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

People are concerned that funding for Victim Support might be lost following the introduction of the new services, including that for mediation and conciliation. Does the Minister agree that those important services save the police a lot of time and resources?

[Damian Green]

I agree with my hon. Friend that mediation services do a very good job. He mentions Victim Support, which has, of course, asked all PCC candidates to sign up to five pledges. Many candidates of all parties—and, indeed, independent candidates—have signed up to those pledges. With the range of services involved, I repeat that it will be for the PCCs to make a decision, and they are best placed to do so in their individual areas.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

Victims will almost certainly be adversely affected when PCCs are elected in November, but the Government’s plans for the criminal injuries compensation scheme could make that even worse. After we forced last week’s dramatic eleventh-hour retreat, victims rightly want to know the Government’s next steps. Will the Minister confirm whether the Government propose to try once again to shove this deeply unpopular proposal through, rewrite it, apply cosmetic changes in the hope of dampening down the opposition on their own side or, as we hope, to scrap it altogether?

[Damian Green]

In the first instance, I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should attack all PCC candidates, including his own right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Alun Michael), who has just announced that he is a PCC candidate, and that the hon. Gentleman is telling the people of south Wales that his right hon. Friend would not spend the money as well as I would. That is an extraordinary assertion. As for the second half of the hon. Gentleman’s extraordinary question, we will, of course, look at what best to do, and we will want to bring back the scheme, but in a better form so that individual cases can be treated in a more individual and sensitive way. I assure him that if he condemns every PCC candidate as being unable to deal with public money before they are even elected, he really does not understand democracy.

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

4. What steps he plans to take to reduce the number of foreign nationals in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The UK Border Agency removed 4,649 foreign national offenders from this country in 2011, but there is, of course, much more to do, so we are seeking to negotiate more compulsory prisoner transfer agreements and to improve administrative processes so that foreign national offenders are removed at the earliest opportunity. We also hope to reduce the flow into the criminal justice system through conditional cautions and to reduce the number already serving prison sentences through the early removal scheme and the tariff-expired removal scheme.

[Gavin Williamson]

We would all like to welcome my hon. Friend to his new position and wish him the very best.

Over the last decade, we have seen a dramatic increase in the number of foreign prisoners detained in our prisons. Many people in South Staffordshire feel that we are having greater trouble deporting these prisoners because of the European convention on human rights. What my constituents want to know is: what is my hon. Friend going to do to reverse that trend?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend and his constituents are right to be worried. It is true that foreign national offenders will continue to challenge deportation under article 8 of the ECHR, but he will be pleased to know that this Government have changed the immigration rules. New rules came into force in July this year so that only in exceptional circumstances will family life, the best interests of a child or private life outweigh criminality and the public interest in seeing foreign national offenders deported where they have received a substantial sentence. That is a better balance between the interests of foreign criminals and the interests of the British public in being protected from them, which have been neglected for far too long.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

May I, too, congratulate and welcome the entire Justice team on their elevation, and wish well those right hon. and hon. Members who have been relieved of their duties?

The Prime Minister said in 2010 that he would

“personally intervene to send back thousands of foreign prisoners”

and alleviate the strain on our overcrowded and overstretched prisons. The last Government negotiated prisoner transfer agreements with more than 75 countries. I know that the Justice team and the Prime Minister believe in taking personal responsibility, so will the Minister tell us with how many countries this Government have finalised a prisoner transfer agreement over the last 28 months, and how many thousands of prisoners have been transferred during that period?

[Jeremy Wright]

I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows how difficult this exercise is. He knows perfectly well that prisoner transfer agreements are a matter of negotiation, and he also knows that compulsory transfer agreements are much more valuable than voluntary ones. Most of the agreements that he has described his Government as having achieved are voluntary, not compulsory. This Government will attempt to negotiate more compulsory agreements, so that we can continue to send home foreign offenders whom we do not want in our prisons.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Now that we have a fresh, dynamic new regime at the Ministry of Justice, may we please move the subject of foreign national offenders to the top of the Ministry’s agenda? There are more than 10,000 foreign nationals in our jails, and that is far too many. Jamaica, Poland and Ireland are the three countries that send most foreign nationals to our jails, but we have compulsory transfer agreements with none of them. Please will the Ministry get on with negotiating compulsory transfer agreements, so that these people can be sent back to their countries of origin?

[Jeremy Wright]

Let me say again that I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s concern. He has spoken out about this a number of times. However, I have at least some good news for him. European Union nationals account for about a third of foreign national prisoners. A European Union prisoner transfer agreement came into force in December last year, and EU countries are implementing it this year. I hope that that will not only help to remove foreign national offenders, but rank as one of the very few measures coming out of Brussels of which my hon. Friend wholly approves.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

5. What steps he plans to take to reduce the size of the prison population.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I have no plans to reduce the prison population. The only changes that I want to see in it will result from our returning more foreign national prisoners to their countries of origin, and—crucially—doing a much better job in rehabilitating offenders, so that far fewer people come back to prison.

[Paul Flynn]

I am not grateful for that cynical, backward-looking answer, which did not recognise the fact that not one of the fresh, dynamic teams that have been welcomed to the House for the past 42 years has reduced recidivism by one iota. People are still committing crime, and the same percentage of them are returning to prison. Can we say a word of regret for the loss of one of our few civilised, vintage politicians, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who demonstrated that he had a working brain and that he understood the benefits of remedial work in prison? Have we not, sadly, exchanged old lace for arsenic?

[Chris Grayling]

The hon. Gentleman can go on thinking what he likes, but as I have made absolutely clear, I also see it as a priority to ensure that this time we tackle the rehabilitation challenge, and that we stop people going back to prison again and again.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Has the new Secretary of State, whom I warmly welcome to his post, had a chance to look at a report from the National Audit Office which was published today? It says that the dropping of the previous Secretary of State’s proposal to let prisoners out early if they pleaded guilty, or to reduce their sentences, would lead to an increase in prison numbers, and that we therefore need to maintain our full prison estate.

[Chris Grayling]

I would have been very uncomfortable about inheriting a policy that allowed people to escape prison sentences by pleading guilty early. The National Audit Office report suggests that financial issues might be created for us. I can say that in the two weeks for which I have been in the Department, I have looked at the financial position, and I am comfortable that it is on track to achieve the savings that it should achieve during the spending review period. However, I want to ensure that that happens while also ensuring that the right people are still in our prisons.

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

One way of reducing the number of short-sentence prisoners would be to extend the intensive alternative to custody programme, which has been pioneered in Greater Manchester. When the Secretary of State makes his early visit to Manchester following the invitation issued earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green), will he take a look for himself at how that programme is reducing reoffending, and how it could be rolled out still further?

[Chris Grayling]

I have had several bids from the Manchester area, and I am sure that I shall be in the city in the not-too-distant future. I shall happily consider whether I can look at the best projects there. Clearly there is good experience showing how it is possible to increase the likelihood of offenders’ returning to a life of non-offending, and any lessons that we can learn will be welcome.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and his team to their posts. Does he agree that, with the annual cost per prisoner standing at about £40,000 and that figure rising to about £100,000 for young people, it is very sensible, partly in order to save money, to look for alternatives, in particular with regard to short-term schemes? Will he at least look at saving money in that way, which would also enable us to deal better with these people and help make sure rehabilitation happens?

[Chris Grayling]

My two initial thoughts are that the cost of prisons is too high but, alongside that, that the best way for us to save money is to break the cycle of reoffending that has people going back to prison, and back to prison, and back to prison. We release young people on to our streets with £46 in their pocket, to go back to the same places where they offended before and where the same people are, and we are surprised when they return to prison. That is what has got to change.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

6. What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the language services for courts provided by Applied Language Solutions.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The hon. Lady may be aware of problems that occurred when the contract started in January, but the National Audit Office’s recent report, published on 12 September, showed that ALS was filling 95% of its bookings and complaints had fallen. The Department continues to monitor the performance of ALS against the key performance indicators. We published a statistical report in May and plan to publish an updated report later in the year.

[Valerie Vaz]

I thank the Minister for her response and welcome her to her post. She brings a unique expertise to the team. May I also pay tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke)? He was a good Lord Chancellor.

The Minister will be aware that there is a legal duty under the Human Rights Act to provide interpreters, and a judge last month said ALS was dreadful—a plague on the courts and incompetent. What steps will the Minister take to ensure there is no waste of public money in delayed and adjourned cases?

[Mrs Grant]

The Ministry of Justice acted quickly to put a plan in place when it became obvious that there were performance problems. We are not being complacent and we will continue to monitor performance, but we are seeing some substantial improvements. The framework with ALS is intended to provide better value for money. It also provides an opportunity to reduce a great deal of the administrative burdens that were placed on the justice agencies under the old system. The contract is also expected to save the Ministry of Justice in the region of £15 million a year.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Minister must be irritated to be spending her first few days in office reading NAO reports detailing her predecessor’s cock-ups. Does she agree with the Chair of the Public Accounts Committee that the NAO inquiry into the language service contract has uncovered some shocking failings which have had a dreadful impact on clients of the Court Service and people who work in the interpretation service? If she does, will she now suspend the contract with Applied Language Solutions, or is she happy to see interpreters with no experience, qualifications or criminal records checks being used in serious and sensitive criminal cases?

[Mrs Grant]

I do not agree with that. We are seeing significant improvements—

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Really?

[Mrs Grant]

Yes we are, and the Opposition also need to accept that the NAO report accepted that the Government had good reasons for making changes from the old system.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

7. How many staff posts have been abolished in youth offending teams in the last 12 months.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Staffing of youth offending teams is decided by local authorities and their partner agencies, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that between 2009-10 and 2010-11 there were 835 fewer posts, which includes volunteers, part-time and temporary staff. That amounts to a 4% reduction. Over the same period, the number of young people supervised by youth offending teams dropped by 20%

[Lindsay Roy]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Over the last 10 years we have seen a 25% reduction in the number of young people on the secure estate or in prison, and over the same period youth crime dropped by almost a third. The Youth Justice Board’s focus on young people has been a remarkable success and, thankfully, the board has been retained. Can the Minister explain why his predecessor tried to abolish it?

[Jeremy Wright]

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman about the success of youth offending teams. It is the people on those teams—a mix from different agencies and organisations, working together—who are delivering the improvements he describes. It is not the case that the Government tried to abolish the youth offending teams. The Youth Justice Board is something different, but in any event the Youth Justice Board will stay, and we hope to work very closely with it to ensure that all the good things he has described continue.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

8. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of staffing levels in the probation service.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Individual probation trusts determine their staffing requirements. The contracts negotiated and agreed with the trusts take account of the need to ensure that services are delivered effectively, efficiently and economically within the resources available. The performance data we collect indicate that probation trusts are making effective use of their resources to protect the public.

[Steve Rotheram]

Many will recall that the Deputy Prime Minister said before the last election that he wanted to stop prisons turning into “colleges of crime”. Last week, the Minister revealed in a written answer to me that 4,175 offenders in England and Wales had been recalled to prison in the first three months of 2012 and that the rate is actually rising under this coalition, to more than 16,000 a year. Is that happening because the Government are failing on reoffending or because the probation service is totally understaffed?

[Jeremy Wright]

I do not think it is either of those two things. It is right to be concerned about the rate of recall to prison; the hon. Gentleman is perfectly right to say that. It is also right that I put on the record, because this is my first opportunity to do so, that the probation service comes in for a great deal of criticism but does excellent work. It looks very hard at risk when it releases prisoners from custody and it does its very best to minimise that risk. Where we find that reoffending or breaches of licence resulting in returns to custody occur, we will work hard with the probation service to learn the necessary lessons.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

9. What assessment he has made of the need to review the law on chancel repair liability; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Chancel repair liability is a long-standing interest in land under the law of England and Wales, and the Government have no plans to review the law relating to it.

[Peter Luff]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her richly deserved appointment, but I am rather disappointed by her answer. As the October 2013 deadline for the registration of liabilities under this archaic law approaches, more and more parochial church councils will face the kind of acute dilemmas faced by my constituents in Broadway. I urge her to bear it in mind that this law does need fundamental reform, for the sake of fairness and justice.

[Mrs Grant]

I am aware that my hon. Friend has an ongoing interest in this area, and I thank him for drawing it to my attention. However, chancel repair liability is a valid property right, which has been upheld by the House of Lords. Properties have been sold subject to the liability, and insurance can be made available. The requirement for registration will help greatly in dealing with the problem of discoverability, but I will, of course, keep the matter under consideration and monitor developments carefully.

[Chris Evans (Islwyn) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What progress he has made on televising court proceedings.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

Legislation to amend the current prohibition on televising court proceedings is included in the Crime and Courts Bill, which is currently being debated in the other place. Initially, we plan to allow broadcasting of judgments and advocates’ arguments from the Court of Appeal.

[Chris Evans]

I thank the Minister for that response. Will he give a cast-iron guarantee that when the legislation comes before the House, safeguards will in place to ensure that we do not see a repeat of what happened with sensational trials such as those of O.J. Simpson and Conrad Murray in the United States? Will the Minister assure us that if such things do occur, the judge will be able to stop televised proceedings?

[Damian Green]

Absolutely, and I think that the hon. Gentleman’s concerns will be shared across the House and, indeed, across the judiciary and the courts system more widely. I am very clear that although this reform is in the interests of transparency, which we hold to be very important, it must not give offenders opportunities for theatrical public displays. Victims, witnesses, offenders and jurors will not be filmed, so I hope that we will be able to avoid the problems that we all want to avoid.

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

Let me first congratulate the justice—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I shall let you first say “Number 11.”

[Mr Sharma]

11. What recent assessment he has made of the work of the commission on a Bill of Rights; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

The commission published its second consultation in July 2012; this is due to close on 30 September. In accordance with its terms of reference, the commission should aim to report no later than the end of 2012, taking into consideration responses from both consultations.

[Mr Sharma]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, for that rush; I was so excited to be asking the question.

Let me first congratulate the whole Justice team and thank the Minister for his response. Will he inform the House where he stands on the future of the Human Rights Act 1998? Is he with his predecessor in wanting it to be retained or would he prefer it to be abolished and replaced by a Bill of Rights? If the latter, which of the rights currently protected by the Act does he believe are no longer worthy of protection?

[Damian Green]

The hon. Gentleman should never apologise for his characteristic courtesy, which is welcome on both sides of the House. I will tell him what we hope to achieve through the commission: we hope to move to a position in which human rights are once again completely accepted. In this country, “human rights” has become almost a boo-phrase, which is ridiculous. They are the basic rights to which we and all democracies adhere, but in various actions inside the courts and outside, human rights have been abused and this Government will put an end to that.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

May I congratulate the Minister on his appointment? Is not an important right the British people’s right to a final say, and, with 80% saying in opinion polls that they want the Supreme Court to have the final decision, is it not right that we should consider how that can be done?

[Damian Green]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is precisely because of the strong feelings that we have set up the commission, which will report in a few months’ time. I hope that then we can have a well-informed debate about how we will take forward human rights in this country, preserving what is essential while avoiding the terrible abuses that have grown over the past few years.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Minister take this opportunity to say something positive about the European Court of Human Rights and the European convention on human rights, which have done so much to improve the human rights of minorities and individuals all over Europe, and stop listening to the neanderthal voices behind him of those who think there is some salvation in walking away from what was a very important step forward in European human rights after the second world war?

[Damian Green]

As I hope I made clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), I want to restore human rights and the basic ideas behind them to their place as not only a central part of our political debate but something that is unquestioned on either side of this House or anywhere outside it. That is what we should think about human rights; the problem is that they have been abused in both the European Courts and our domestic courts and in other parts of the system. We need a proper balance and, once the commission has come up with recommendations on that, that is what this Government will achieve.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

12. What estimate he has made of the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Estimating the number of women in prison who have been victims of domestic violence is difficult, as the information is not recorded centrally. However, surveys tell us that half of female prisoners report having been the victims of abuse of some kind. That includes abuse at any age, and is not necessarily domestic violence. The figures could also be a significant underestimate, as the hon. Lady knows, because admissions from victims of domestic violence are not always forthcoming.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I warmly welcome the Minister to her responsibility; she is a rare creature who cares seriously about this issue in her bones and not just in her words. If it is right that half or more of women in prison have been victims of domestic violence, sexual abuse and other kinds of violence, should not those victims be diverted from the criminal justice system rather than incarcerated in it?

[Mrs Grant]

The hon. Lady is very knowledgeable on such matters, having worked hard and effectively for a number of years, campaigning for both victims of domestic violence and female offenders. It was to my absolute delight that I was given this brief as a new Minister by the Secretary of State and I hope to draw on some of my experience before I came to this place while I undertake the role. Tackling domestic violence and women’s offending are priorities for the Government and me, and I am delighted to note that the National Offender Management Service has been working very closely with Women’s Aid to develop policies, strategies and training to support women who are in prison and to identify domestic violence. Considerable work needs to be done and I look forward to working closely with the hon. Lady and other Labour Members to drive through change and make a difference in this area.

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

14. What plans he has for the future of the role of the victims commissioner; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

As a former chairman of Epsom and District Victim Support, I well understand the importance of the support we provide to victims. I am making an early assessment of how to take forward the role of the victims commissioner.

[Mr Bacon]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that very welcome answer. Does he agree that when those whose job it is to help victims of crime turn out to make things worse, so that a victim has to complain, the subsequent inertia can make them a victim all over again? When a new victims commissioner is appointed, will my right hon. Friend ensure that their remit is expanded, so that such examples can be taken into account, which are in effect in the civil rather than criminal area?

[Chris Grayling]

I am aware of the circumstances that prompt my hon. Friend’s question. He makes a valuable point and I would like to discuss the issue with him further. I am open to providing appropriate and more broadly based support to victims if that proves necessary.

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

15. What recent representations he has received on coroners.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The Ministry of Justice often receives representations regarding coroners.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I add my welcome to the Minister in taking up her new role and also welcome the new chief coroner, who of course takes up his role this week. Will she take the opportunity to disassociate herself from the actions of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr Djanogly), who did much to obstruct the role of chief coroner, and will she welcome the extra accountability the role will bring to the coroner service, particularly in assisting bereaved families?

[Mrs Grant]

The chief coroner will take up his role either tomorrow or the day after, and the Secretary of State and I look forward to meeting him shortly thereafter. The first of his new powers will come into force next week. The Government are determined to improve the coroner system. There needs to be much more focus on the bereaved and we must ensure that we minimise delays.

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

In welcoming my hon. Friend to her new post, may I ask her what is the average length of time for an inquest and whether there is anything she can do to speed up the process? Will she meet me to discuss the case of a young boy who died on the A64 and the trauma suffered by his family during the course of the inquest?

[Mrs Grant]

The average inquest lasts for approximately 27 weeks. On the matter my hon. Friend refers to, I will be happy to meet her to discuss it in more detail.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

16. If he will take steps to ensure that time served in prison by a prisoner reflects the sentence handed down to that prisoner by the court.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Prisoners must be released in accordance with the legislation laid down by Parliament. Parliament has consistently maintained the view that custodial sentences should be served in part in custody and in part in the community. Sentencers take that into account when determining the appropriate sentence in each case.

[Philip Davies]

I warmly welcome the Minister and the Secretary of State to their roles, particularly given that I tried over the past couple of years to get their predecessors sacked. The Labour Government left us with a situation in which prisoners now have to be released halfway through their sentences, irrespective of how they behave in prison. Does the Minister think that is an acceptable state of affairs and, if not, what does he intend to do about it?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to be in line for the same kind of treatment as my predecessor. My hon. Friend will find that I agree with him on many things, but I do not entirely agree with him on this. I think that there is merit in having a period, after a custodial sentence has been served in custody, when we can supervise and monitor offenders and send them back if they misbehave, so I am not in favour, as I know he is, of an entire sentence being served in custody. However, I think that there is scope for reform in sentencing, and we shall certainly look at those opportunities carefully.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

17. What steps he plans to take to ensure that home owners have the right to protect their property from intruders.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

My hon. Friend knows well that I feel strongly about this issue. The Government and my predecessor have already made changes to the law, and I am now examining whether they go far enough.

[Priti Patel]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response and welcome him and his ministerial colleagues to their new positions. Will he consider introducing legislative changes to give certainty to home owners on the level of force they can use to protect their families and properties from intruders?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely believe that a householder who finds themselves in the unbelievably stressful situation of facing a violent intruder should believe that the law is on their side. I give my hon. Friend an assurance that I will make sure that that happens.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

18. If he will assess the effectiveness of the fitness tests that prisoner officers are required to take.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Prison Service fitness assessments test whether prison officers are capable of safely and competently carrying out control and restraint procedures on prisoners when necessary. The assessment has been validated by academic study. As with all Prison Service policies, it will be kept under review.

[Helen Goodman]

I am sure that the Minister has not yet had time to do the test, but it already means that a large number of prison officers are retired every year. Does he think that it is realistic for people to pass the test when he is raising the retirement age to 68?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady is right; I have not yet had the chance to do the test, but I have to tell her that I fancy my chances, because I understand that the pass rate is something like 99%. For her reassurance, the pass rate for those prison officers who are over 60 is something like 98%. It is worth making the point that most of our constituents would regard it as sensible that prison officers, who have to do difficult, challenging and sometimes very physical work, are fit enough to do it.

[Amber Rudd (Hastings and Rye) (Con)]

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

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Delivering an effective justice system is a key priority of this Government, so I am delighted to have been appointed Secretary of State for Justice and I am grateful to all hon. Members who have welcomed the new team. I am pleased to have such an experienced team who bring a wealth of legal knowledge to their portfolios, building on the excellent work of their predecessors. I should also tell the House that I have agreed with the Chief Whip that, on occasions, when necessary, the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Mr Evennett), will provide support to the team and the House. Our shared goal is to focus relentlessly on a rehabilitation revolution, improving our system so that it both punishes and reforms offenders.

[Amber Rudd]

There are British girls at risk of being taken abroad to be subjected to horrific, permanent violence. I know that the Ministry of Justice has been working with the Home Office on a draft declaration against female genital mutilation for at-risk girls to carry in their passports. Will my right hon. and hon. Friends ensure that the most robust legal language possible is used to maximise the document’s deterrent effect and better protect British girls?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I know that my hon. Friend has worked long and hard for many years to stamp out this abhorrent practice and that it affects a large number of women and girls in Britain today. I assure her that I will look very carefully at the language of the declaration to make sure prior to its being signed off that we will achieve optimum effect.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

The new Justice Secretary has already said this morning that he does not believe in reducing the size of the prison population. Will he tell the House how else his approach and policies will differ from those of his predecessor?

[Chris Grayling]

I look forward to many months of debate with the right hon. Gentleman. I believe absolutely that the rehabilitation revolution should be at the top of the agenda. We want to deliver a system whereby we no longer send young people inadequately supported back out on to the streets, to reoffend and then go back to prison. I believe in having the right number of people in prison. We need our courts to send to prison people who need a prison sentence, but I also believe in doing everything we can to prevent them from going back.

[Sadiq Khan]

We will wait and see whether the right hon. Gentleman keeps his brief, but I hope we will be debating for more than a few months; we could do with more certainty in the Justice Department. As the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has pointed out, the National Audit Office has said today that, as a result of this Government’s botched policies over the past 28 months, there is now a £130 million black hole in the MOJ budget. We also know that our prisons and probation services are overstretched. Will the Justice Secretary reassure the House and the British public that, unlike the previous Justice Secretary, he will not risk public safety or let victims down in his attempts to fill the black hole?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give that assurance. As I said earlier, I have looked at the Department’s finances and it is on track to deliver the savings that it needs to deliver. My view is that reform is about delivering more for less, not about endangering public safety.

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

T2. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that those who sit on jury service are not in the country illegally? That point was raised with me by a member of the judiciary.

[Mrs Grant]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The Crown court carries out checks on jurors on their first day. Passports, national identity cards or Home Office documentation confirming their immigration status must be produced.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T5. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of prisons recently said of HMP Liverpool that“resettlement resources were not adequate to meet the needs of the population held, with backlogs of the reviews necessary to address offending behaviour and little planning for short-term prisoners.”Given that HMIP report, what comfort can the Minister provide to my constituents that he is taking seriously the important issue of an overstretched service?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I have not had a chance to look at that report yet. I will look at it and come back to him. Generally, resettlement is hugely important. We are keen to see offenders get back into the community and straight into productive work, which is one reason we want offenders to be admitted quickly on to the Work programme that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State introduced so successfully in his last job.

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

T4. In welcoming the Secretary of State to his role, may I ask what are his initial impressions of how his Department’s relationship with the European Court of Human Rights will evolve?

[Chris Grayling]

Although good work is being done to encourage initial reforms, decisions such as today’s in the European Court of Human Rights suggest that its focus is wrong. Through the work of our commission and discussions across the coalition, we will put considerable effort into ensuring that the human rights framework in this country is something that we can all have confidence in, as the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said earlier.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T10. What assessment has the Department made since the riots last year of the initial lengths of the sentences that were imposed, the extent to which those sentences were reduced on appeal, and the extent to which proper pre-sentence reports were available at the initial hearings?

[Chris Grayling]

I have not yet had a chance to look at the detail of the sentencing packages after the riots, but it is clear that members of the judiciary responded in a robust way to a set of circumstances that was wholly and utterly unacceptable, and I praise them for it.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

T6. Does the Minister agree that it is perverse that someone who was on probation and had funding for a course, so that he could get the qualifications to get a job, has had that funding withdrawn halfway through the course because he has been taken off probation for complying with everything that the probation service asked of him?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am sure that hon. Gentleman will accept that I do not know the details of the case that he is raising. If he lets me have them, I will look into the matter and come back to him.

[John Cryer (Leyton and Wanstead) (Lab)]

Further to Question 6, is there any indication that any prisoner has received an inappropriate sentence because of the failings of Applied Language Solutions, given that, as the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), said, it has failed to fulfil 5% of its bookings even after the improvements that she talked about?

[Chris Grayling]

We have seen no such evidence. If the hon. Gentleman has a constituency case that he wants to bring to us, he should feel free to do so.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

T7. What progress has been made on the disposal of core buildings that are surplus to requirements and, in some cases, unsellable?

[Chris Grayling]

There is an ongoing programme to rationalise the estate across the MOJ, as there is across Government. We should always look to maximise the utilisation of public sector office space, and we will continue to do so.

[Luciana Berger (Liverpool, Wavertree) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Secretary of State shed more light on reports in the press today that the Government are seeking to change the definition of domestic violence?

[Chris Grayling]

That matter is being dealt with by the Home Office and the Government Equalities Office. We are continuing to review it. We regard domestic violence as a particularly serious offence. It does untold damage to the lives of women. The Government will continue to work to find ways of reducing the likelihood of people suffering from domestic violence.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

T8. Does the Minister agree that the British people have lost confidence in the Human Rights Act, with many seeing it as a charter for criminals? Will he consider bringing forward a British Bill of Rights and Responsibilities?

[The Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice (Damian Green)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to repeat that we have set up a commission to look at this important issue and that we want to get back to a position where human rights are taken to be one of the basic values of a democratic society, rather than having human rights abused in such a way that the whole concept has fallen into disrepute.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will be aware of the problems facing the market testing of eight of Her Majesty’s prisons. When will an announcement be made in the House about who the preferred bidder will be at the end of that market testing?

[Chris Grayling]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point. When I took over as Secretary of State, I made a decision to take two weeks in which to get around the task and not make decisions about anything. That means that the Department will not announce the outcome of the tendering process until after the conference recess, but it is better for a new set of Ministers to ensure that they know what they are talking about before they act.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

May I warmly and genuinely welcome the new Secretary of State to his post—unlike some Opposition Members—and may I give him a heads up to keep a beady eye out later this year for the report into youth justice by the Justice Committee of which I am a member? I encourage him to look seriously at any credible ideas that seek to divert young people from the criminal justice system in the first place.

[Chris Grayling]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will do that. I do not believe that any ministerial team or Department has a monopoly of wisdom, and we will look for best practice and good ideas that will help us to deliver a better level of support to offenders so that they do not come back and reoffend. I particularly look forward to working with members of the Justice Committee. They will no doubt scrutinise our actions intensely, and I hope that we can have a constructive relationship.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Further to his earlier answer, how will the Justice Secretary fill the £130 million black hole in the National Offender Management Service budget that has been highlighted today?

[Chris Grayling]

As I have said, I will not give a detailed accounting statement today, but I have looked at spending trends in the Department and I am satisfied that we are on course to meet our goals for the spending review period.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

My constituent, Lorraine Fraser, tragically lost her son who was brutally murdered by a gang of 30. Four of the murderers received life sentences, but two have been moved to an open prison under the Guittard arrangement, thereby depriving my constituent of the opportunity to attend the parole board, or present a victim impact statement. That has obviously had a devastating impact. Will the Minister agree to meet me and my constituent to discuss that worrying development?

[Jeremy Wright]

Yes, I will happily meet my hon. Friend. What he describes sounds concerning, but we will obviously need to look into the details of the case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The recent decision by the European Court of Human Rights ruled against Christians who were penalised for wearing a cross at work or taking a stand for their religious beliefs. That has caused great concern, and many people are asking where is the protection and religious freedom for Christians. What steps will be taken to prevent the erosion of justice for those with Christian beliefs, and to provide people with the protection that they should—and must—have?

[Damian Green]

The Government support people’s right to wear a cross, and the law requires employers to consider whether any provisions or criteria that they adopt would disadvantage employees of any religion. We have discussed court actions in a previous Question Time, and common sense is important on behalf of both courts and employers, so as to allow the legitimate expression of religious views in the workplace.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

The previous ministerial team offered the astonishing innovation of drug-free wings in prisons. What progress is being made to ensure that prisoners returning to society are not burdened with an addiction to illegal drugs?

[Jeremy Wright]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point, and of course the situation is worse than that because some prisoners actually gain a drug habit while in custody. There is a great deal of work to do, not only with drug-free wings but in reducing drug addiction across the prison estate. We will continue to work on that.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

In his previous job, the Secretary of State responded to a debate in Westminster Hall on work capacity assessments, and one issue raised concerned the long backlog in dealing with appeals against decisions made in the Department for Work and Pensions. In his new role, what is the Justice Secretary doing to deal with the backlog of cases in the Ministry of Justice?

[Chris Grayling]

Having done my previous job and given my current job, I will obviously examine that matter carefully. Of course, the hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that the backlog was not created under the current Government. We inherited it, on a much larger scale, two years ago.

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

Too often, victims of crime get inadequate information about their case. What are the Government doing to ensure that better information technology is used so that victims are given the right information at the right time?

[Chris Grayling]

I regard the provision of information to victims as one thing that we really need to focus on. I have sat with many victims of crime and their families who have said that one of the biggest frustrations has been not having information about what is going on. I assure my hon. Friend that, although it is early days in the job, that is very much on my mind.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I understand why Ministers chose to withdraw proposals on criminal injuries compensation whereby innocent victims of crime would not have been able to make claims, but I do not understand why they also chose not to press ahead with proposals on victims of overseas terrorism. Will the Secretary of State explain that and say when those proposals will be brought back to the House?

[Chris Grayling]

The key issue related to last week’s criminal injuries debate is that I want to ensure that we prepare for the unexpected. I do not see that there is a case for targeting resources at minor injuries that do not have a significant effect on the lives of those affected. I want to concentrate resources on people who suffer life-changing circumstances as a result of crime. However, I want to ensure that we have enough flexibility to deal with unexpected lower-level cases that do not conform with the overall norms of the scheme.

[Mr Edward Garnier (Harborough) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals is a non-state organisation that can bring prosecutions in its own name. Unlike the Crown Prosecution Service, however, when it loses cases because it has got either the law or the facts wrong, costs orders are never made in favour of the successful defendant. Will he investigate why the courts never award costs orders against the RSPCA and in favour of successful defendants?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend and congratulate him on receiving his knighthood. I will certainly look into the matter that he raises.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I, too, welcome the new ministerial team, because I am ever hopeful that, unlike his predecessor, the Secretary of State or a relevant Minister will meet me to discuss the scandal of 10,000 people driving legally with more than 12 points on their licences. Will he do so?

[Mrs Grant]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Lady.

Petition

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I would like to present a petition on behalf of more than 530 residents of Barrowford and many others from the surrounding parts of Pendle. The wheel clamping of vehicles on the side street of the Spar on Gisburn road, Barrowford, is having a detrimental effect on local businesses and further exacerbating parking problems in the local area. No explanation has been provided for the clamping of vehicles parking in the area, which has been used by people for many years, and the petitioners believe that the signage warning vehicle owners that they will be clamped is particularly poor.

The petition states:

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Barrowford, Lancashire, and others,

Declares that they are opposed to the clamping of cars on the side street of Spar on Gisburn Road, Barrowford by Mr John Kay.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage people engaged in wheel clamping on private land to anticipate the imminent change in law by desisting in the activity and dismiss fines already imposed.

And the Petitioners remain.]

[P001120]

Afghanistan (NATO Strategy)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

12:32

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the change in NATO’s strategy in Afghanistan.

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

There has been no change of policy in Afghanistan. As I told the House yesterday, the security of our deployed forces in Afghanistan or anywhere in the world remains a defence priority. The safety of our service personnel is an issue that all in government and in the military chain of command take extremely seriously.

In respect of the international security assistance force fragmentary order issued on Sunday, not for the first time the media have become a little overexcited. It might help the House if I quote a press release issued by the commander of ISAF forces in Kabul this morning. He stated that

“recent media coverage regarding a change in ISAF’s model of Security Force Assistance is not accurate. ISAF remains absolutely committed to partnering with, training, advising and assisting our ANSF”—

Afghan national security forces—

“counterparts. The ISAF SFA model is focused at the battalion level and above, with exceptions approved by senior commanders. Partnering occurs at all levels, from Platoon to Corps. This has not changed.

In response to elevated threat levels resulting from the ‘Innocence of Muslims’ video, ISAF has taken some prudent, but temporary, measures to reduce our profile and vulnerability to civil disturbances or insider attacks…The SFA model is integral to the success of the ANSF, and ISAF will return to normal operations as soon as conditions warrant.”

The commander of ISAF Joint Command has effectively directed a change to the level at which partnering and advising are scrutinised and authorised. Most partnering and advising was already at the kandak, or battalion, level and above. The change does not mean that there will be no partnering below that level. The need for that will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis and approved by the regional commanders in theatre.

The regional commander in Regional Command Southwest, where British forces are based, is Major General Mark Gurganus, a US Marine Corps general. He has endorsed the approach currently being taken by the UK-led Taskforce Helmand, including mentoring and partnering at below kandak level. That means that the UK partnering and mentoring operations will continue substantially unchanged by this order. It is normal practice that all elements of our operations are subject to oversight by the chain of command, and operations will continue to evolve and risk assessments will continue to be updated. The ANSF capability for independent operations is, in any case, steadily increasing, and our level of partnering activity on the ground has therefore been steadily decreasing.

The personal safety of our deployed personnel remains a defence priority, and we will take every step necessary to minimise the risk to them. We have always kept the level at which we mentor the ANSF under review and will continue to do so through the process of security transition. British commanders on the ground retain the flexibility to mentor at the appropriate level in consultation with the regional commander. We have a strategic plan that takes us to the end of combat operations in 2014 while strengthening the ANSF to take over security responsibility from us. I have every confidence in the way Com ISAF is executing that plan.

[Mr Baron]

May I thank you, Mr Speaker, for granting the urgent question?

At the very least there is confusion with regard to this issue. A NATO statement has made it clear that joint on-the-ground operations have been suspended until further notice. The decision announced in Afghanistan by General Allen has appeared to take the UK Government by surprise. Only yesterday, in Parliament, the Defence Secretary was rightly defending NATO’s continued work with Afghan troops on the ground. When did the Government know of this decision, and were they consulted on the matter?

This announcement threatens to blow a hole in our stated exit strategy, which is heavily reliant on these joint operations continuing until Afghan forces are able to operate independently and provide their own security following ISAF’s withdrawal. As a soldier myself, I know the real value of mentoring—coaching and training—at ground level, and there is no substitute for that. Anything else above battalion level is very much theory. If these operations are not going to take place at ground level, where does that leave our exit strategy? Will our soldiers be coming home early? The announcement adds to the uncertainty as to whether Afghan forces will have the ability to keep an undefeated Taliban at bay once NATO forces have left.

This, in a way, goes to the very heart of what our mission is in Afghanistan. For those of us who opposed our involvement in Afghanistan, there appears to have been confusion from the start. Al-Qaeda was driven from the country in the early stages. The mission has now morphed into one of nation building, human rights and democracy. Laudable though those aims are, they are very different from our original mission. I suggest that we need to be clear about this. Last week, the International Development Secretary talked of nation building. At the same time, the Defence Secretary, when visiting troops in Afghanistan, talked, rightly in my view, about it being wrong to risk the lives of our troops for nation building when they should only protect our vital national security interests. The importance of that distinction is that nation building requires defeat of the Taliban, whereas protecting our national security interests in preventing al-Qaeda from returning does not necessarily require their defeat, given their differences with al-Qaeda.

What is our mission in Afghanistan? Clarity is required. If we are remaining true to our original mission of eliminating al-Qaeda from Afghanistan, should we not now be doing more to encourage the Americans to conduct non-conditional talks with the Taliban in order to explore possible common ground?

[Mr Hammond]

There were a lot of questions there. First, my hon. Friend talks about consultation with Governments. This is not a strategic initiative; it is a tactical initiative, taken by commanders in theatre, operating within their delegated responsibility. We would not seek to interfere with the military judgment of commanders on the ground.

On information, I can tell my hon. Friend that this FRAGO was issued on Sunday evening. I was told about that during a meeting on Monday, along with information about several other measures that ISAF has taken. No particular significance was attached to it.

My hon. Friend talks about partnering at below kandak level. I should stress to him that US forces have not routinely partnered below kandak level. It has been the practice of the British-led Taskforce Helmand to partner and mentor Afghan units at tolay—company—and even platoon level. That is not a practice used by the Americans, so the impact of the announcement will be far less significant than he suggests. As I made clear in my opening remarks, General Gurganus, Regional Commander of RC Southwest, has this morning confirmed that he is happy for Taskforce Helmand to continue in its current mode of operations. In other words, he has endorsed the risk assessment and management approach that we have been using. We will continue our operations as we were carrying them out last week in Helmand.

My hon. Friend asks, at the more strategic level, about our mission in Afghanistan. I touched on that yesterday, and he knows my position very well: we can ask British forces to place themselves at risk for the defence of Britain’s national interest, and legitimately for no other reason. I am clear that the mission we are carrying out in Afghanistan is to protect Britain’s national security by denying Afghan space to international terrorists. That is our mission, and that is the mission we will complete.

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

The Government’s priority in Afghanistan is, rightly, to achieve the mission while protecting our forces and those of our ISAF allies. In that, as in Afghanistan policy more generally, our approach is to support and scrutinise the Government’s actions. While the details of today’s announcement are still not clear, it appears to mark a significant change in the relationship between UK, ISAF and Afghan forces.

May I ask questions about three areas? First, on the training of Afghan forces, if the approach is that we will not automatically and routinely partner with smaller Afghan forces at company level, what impact will that have on the training of individual Afghan recruits by UK forces and on the safety of UK forces, which will increasingly be patrolling without Afghan partners?

Secondly, on the ISAF announcement, the Secretary of State did not even refer to this new ISAF approach yesterday when he made his statement. I know him, and I know that he would not want to keep Parliament in the dark, so many are now assuming that the UK was not fully sighted yesterday on the ISAF announcement. What changed between his making his Commons statement on the UK’s approach and ISAF announcing a different approach just hours later? Did he discuss that with the US Defence Secretary and the Secretary-General of NATO?

The Secretary of State said in response to an earlier question that he knew about the new approach on Monday. Did he know about that before the statement was made? If he did, why did he not share it with the House? If he did not know before the statement, why was he not sighted on it?

Thirdly, on progress towards a 2014 timeline, today’s announcement will undoubtedly have an impact on combat operations and security, so how is ISAF adjusting its assumptions on what can now be achieved by 2014? Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced increased patrols outside the wire of Bastion. How, if at all, will the ISAF announcement impact on his announcement?

To lose a loved one in Afghanistan is heartbreaking. To do so in a cowardly insider attack multiplies that hurt. In dealing with that threat, we rightly seek continued consistency from the Government in their policy in Afghanistan. Our forces and our nation deserve nothing less.

[Mr Hammond]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman may not have seen General Allen’s press release, and had to write his speech before he heard what I had to say, but frankly he has completely ignored the information that I have given the House. I thank him for his support for the overall policy and strategy in Afghanistan, but I repeat that this is not a significant change. There is no change of strategy. We will continue, in Taskforce Helmand, routinely to partner at tolay level. The United States has never, or not in recent years, routinely partnered at levels below the battalion or kandak, so there is no practical impact on operations. [Interruption.] I will answer the right hon. Gentleman’s chuntering question in just a moment. This is not a different approach.

The right hon. Gentleman asked me specifically when I became aware that this approach had been implemented. It was during a routine meeting in the Ministry of Defence on Monday afternoon, after I had made my statement, when I was in a video telephone conference with the deputy commander of ISAF in theatre. We went through some of the measures that had been put in place. No significance was attached to this particular measure at that time. It is a tactical measure, decided on by commanders in theatre. UK commanders in theatre were aware of the measure and were involved in the discussions, but we do not engage in debate with commanders about tactical military measures; it is not appropriate. It is not a strategic change.

To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s last question, there will be no impact whatever on the additional patrols that I mentioned yesterday around Camp Bastion. This will not make any difference at all to them.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is notable interest in this urgent question, but I remind the House that there is a motion on a ten-minute rule Bill to follow, and after that there is the pre-recess Adjournment debate, which is to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee; I can assure the House that that debate is heavily subscribed, which means that there is a premium on brevity.

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

The reason why, in opposition, the shadow Defence ministerial team opposed naming an advance date for withdrawal was the fear that the Taliban would redouble their efforts in the run-up to that date. Given that we are where we are with such a date, is it not obvious that a move towards a strategy of maintaining one or more long-term strategic bases in Afghanistan would show the Taliban the need to negotiate a solution and a settlement? Without that, it will not happen.

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes reference to the widely held view that US policy favours the retention for the long term of a small number of US strategic bases in Afghanistan. That will be an issue for the United States. I can tell the House that the UK Government have no appetite for a long-term combat role in Afghanistan, and have made it very clear that we will be out of the combat role by the end of 2014.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I do not think that I have ever seen a Defence Secretary so humiliated. Twice he has had to be dragged to the House, instead of having decided to make a statement—first to talk about the original problem, and now to discuss the change of policy. Either his officials are informed but do not tell him things, or he is not in charge of his officials. It is time for this Government to get a grip, and to start telling the generals what to do, instead of re-reading generals’ press releases at the Dispatch Box. The fundamental problem remains the same: I do not believe that our country is willing to accept any more blood sacrifices, now that the strategy of fighting, training and patrolling with the Afghans has been blown away by Washington and the generals in the field. The Prime Minister announced today that the Cabinet will re-examine the policy. I say: the quicker the better.

[Mr Speaker]

We have got the gist. We will try to detect a question in there somewhere.

[Mr Hammond]

On the humiliation of Defence Ministers, the right hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) might want to have a look at the experience of many of his right hon. Friends under the previous Prime Minister who routinely humiliated his Defence Ministers by ignoring them and passing over them. It is very clear to me that politicians and the military have a role. I do not seek to involve myself in the tactical decisions that military commanders make; it is wrong for us to do so. There has been no strategic change whatever. This is a tactical decision for a short period of time; it will be reviewed and reversed, as General Allen made clear, as soon as the situation has stabilised.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State made the welcome comment that the international forces wished to lower their profile at a time of trouble, but then he seemed to imply that that applied only to American forces. What action has been taken to protect British forces? What is the approach to their having to co-operate with people who may intend their death, and would he not move more quickly to Afghans policing dangerous places in Afghanistan?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said yesterday, a number of measures have been taken by ISAF and British commanders to improve our own force protection. I cannot go into all the details, but I shall give an example. There is much evidence that there is a much lower risk where long-term partnering arrangements are in place—in other words, where a group of troops are working with a group of Afghan troops on a daily basis—and much more risk where these partnering and mentoring activities are on an ad hoc basis, so that relationships are not built. We have moved to make sure that the overwhelming majority of our contacts with Afghans are on the basis of long-term partnering where relationships are built, and thus greater safety is ensured.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Now that it has been revealed that the allies are unreliable, Karzai is useless and the Afghan forces are treacherous, it is time to get out.

[Mr Hammond]

I think what the hon. Gentleman meant was that it has been opined, not revealed, and his opinions are noted.

[Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con)]

Mentoring is one of the most important ways in which we have increased the capability of Afghan forces, and the Secretary of State has made it clear today that the instruction from ISAF in Kabul will not alter the British relationship to partnering. Does he not recognise, however, that the nuances between tactics and strategy can be lost on insurgents, and that the timing of this is unfortunate, so we must redouble our efforts to make it clear to the forces of terror that they cannot push our strategy off course?

[Mr Hammond]

Of course my right hon. Friend is absolutely right: this is the crucial message that needs to be sent to the insurgents. As I said yesterday, the stepping up of these insider attacks is, in fact, a reflection of the success of partnering and mentoring operations. The insurgents’ key fear is that as we withdraw from combat operations we leave behind competent and capable Afghan national security forces who will continue to contain their ambitions. That is what they fear, and that is what they seek to attack in mounting those types of attack, and that is what we will continue to resist.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I am afraid that the muddled response to this fits in with the muddled strategy on Afghanistan. May I ask the Secretary of State a clear question? What advice has he received from commanders on the ground and in this country about whether the level of partnering should be reviewed, reduced or kept the same?

[Mr Hammond]

As I said in my statement, the amount of partnering will steadily reduce with the transition to Afghan lead, then Afghan sole control. As a matter of fact, it has been reducing. [Interruption.] I can tell the hon. Gentleman that over the past few days, before that ISAF order was issued on Sunday, UK commanders had already reviewed—I discussed this with them when I was in theatre on Thursday—the activities of British forces to make sure that any unnecessary contact with Afghans was withdrawn during this sensitive period. We are flexible and cognisant of the broader atmosphere. We will take all steps necessary to minimise the risk to our forces consistent with maintaining the key strategy of partnering and mentoring to build up ANSF capability.

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

My right hon. Friend said that the new measures announced by ISAF were prudent but temporary. In what respect are they temporary? In what respect can they be?

[Mr Hammond]

General Allen has indicated that he intends to review the order in the light of the evolving security environment, and to return to normal operations, as he described it, as soon as possible.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many families in my constituency in the Rhondda watch events in Afghanistan closely because they have sons and daughters out there. The Secretary of State would have inspired a great deal more confidence in the mission and in the work of his Department if he had volunteered to come to the House and make a full statement yesterday or, for that matter, a full statement today, which would be printed and available to the Opposition before he appeared at the Dispatch Box, rather than simply being dragged here to answer an urgent question. It just feels, hideously, as if he is not in control of his brief.

[Mr Hammond]

What happened this morning was that the BBC picked up something that was issued on Sunday and jumped to a wrong conclusion. I am very happy to have had the opportunity to make the facts clear, both to the media earlier and now in the House.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that American soldiers who are mentoring seem to be slightly safer than our junior NCOs, young officers and soldiers, because they are not right on the front line? It worries me a great deal that we continue to allow our solders to go right to the front line, where they are seemingly in greater danger than their American colleagues.

[Mr Hammond]

I do not accept that our soldiers are in greater danger, but it is the case that our model differs from the American model, in that it includes routinely mentoring at company, or tolay, level. That is the model that we have deemed most effective. We have in place measures to minimise the risk to our forces, and those measures are continuously reviewed. As I said earlier, there is clear evidence that where that partnering is on a continuing basis and relationships are built, risks are minimised, and that is what we seek to do.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The role of our brave soldiers at the moment is to act as human shields for Ministers’ reputations. The danger to our soldiers has been prolonged by those on the Front Bench who have the power to stop it. Other countries have removed their soldiers from this dangerous area, and they are not doing what we are doing, which is arming and training our future enemy. Is this not similar to the end of the first world war, when it was said that politicians lied and soldiers died, and the reality was, as it is now, that our brave soldier lions were being led by ministerial donkeys?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I noted what the hon. Gentleman said, but may I ask him to make it clear that he is not suggesting that any Minister is lying to the House of Commons? It would be helpful if he made that clear.

[Paul Flynn]

That is precisely what I am saying. I believe that we have had lies from the Minister, and I believe that our soldiers have been let down, and they—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry. I asked the question because I wanted clarification, but I am afraid that it is not acceptable for any hon. or right hon. Member to accuse another Member of lying to the House. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that allegation.

[Paul Flynn]

I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, but I insist on retaining my accusation of lying. That is far more important than allowing a group of people to send our soldiers to die in vain in a war from which we should withdraw and from which the country wants us to withdraw. I accept the consequences of what I am saying.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman is ignoring the ruling of the Chair, and in so doing he is behaving, whatever his motives, in a grossly disorderly manner. In those circumstances, I am obliged to name Mr Paul Flynn, the hon. Member for Newport West. Under the power given to me, I name him, and I ask that the appropriate course is now taken by the Deputy Leader of the House.

The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), was named by the Speaker for grossly disorderly conduct (Standing Order No. 43).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 44), That Paul Flynn be suspended from the service of the House.—(Tom Brake.)

Question agreed to.

The Speaker directed Paul Flynn to withdraw from the House, and the Member withdrew accordingly.

[Mr Speaker]

We now move on. I think that the Secretary of State had, if memory serves, responded, but if not, he will now do so.

[Mr Hammond]

My response was simply going to be to note that the hon. Gentleman’s accusation was scandalous.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. I would point out that his response is to the House, which is why it is perfectly proper for him to respond.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has made it commendably clear that it is in our vital national interest to stick to the strategy that has been set in Afghanistan. When it comes to the security of British troops, does he take comfort from the words of Brigadier Bob Bruce, who will be leading the 4th Mechanised Brigade in its forthcoming tour of Afghanistan, who has said that we are sending to Afghanistan

“the best prepared and the best equipped…Task Force”

the United Kingdom has ever put into the field?

[Mr Hammond]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a stalwart supporter of the policy and the strategy, which, as I have emphasised this morning, has not changed. I am grateful to him for those words. It seems to me that although the Opposition protest their support for our policy, they are desperate to try to read into this ISAF operational notice a strategic change when there is no strategic change. It could not be clearer.

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State share with the House what his reaction was when, during a routine conversation, he was given this piece of information? Did he regard it as no more than routine, or did it begin to dawn on him that it might actually have been a major strategic decision?

[Mr Hammond]

As I have said to the House before, this is not a major strategic decision. I will answer the hon. Lady’s question directly. I was given the information, along with quite a lot of other information, during a meeting yesterday. I did not remark upon it, and when the BBC reporting was brought to my notice this morning, it was not immediately clear to me that the matter was something we had discussed the previous day. I was reminded that it had been among the measures that was mentioned to me during the course of the meeting yesterday afternoon. We are talking about one of a number of measures. It is not a strategic change; it is an operational matter being reported from theatre, alongside many others.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I wish to place on record my support for the line being taken by the Defence team and say that I have not received a single message from the military community of Colchester in recent days to say that the Government should alter their current strategy.

[Mr Hammond]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I think we might get further if we listened to the military advice, and in this case that is exactly what we have done. General Allen has made a tactical decision, which he is absolutely entitled and right to do, and we should allow military commanders in theatre to execute our strategic plan in the way that is best at the time and that best protects the safety of our troops.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State concede, hand on heart, that within two years he will have to bring the British troops home? They cannot be expected to remain in that situation for two years, under attack from the Taliban and completely unconfident of the loyalty of their supposed allies. Is he really going to allow more troops to die for a war that has not been won and cannot be won, and that will become increasingly unpopular with the public in this country?

[Mr Hammond]

I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman on many things, but I will say this. I recognise, as does everybody in ISAF, along with President Karzai, that the incidence of insider attack is sapping public morale in the ISAF home countries. That is why we are determined to solve the problem—to nip this trend in the bud and ensure we get on top of it. Huge resources have been put in by both the Afghans and ISAF to address the problem, and I am confident that we will see a significant improvement over the coming months.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

It has taken a long time to get on top of, and to minimise, the IED threat to our forces in theatre, but it has been done, often with some of the best ideas coming from the squaddies on the ground. In minimising green-on-blue attacks, will the Secretary of State ensure that every squaddie, of whatever rank, is encouraged to come forward with ideas, so that it is not just left to the commanders?

[Mr Hammond]

My hon. Friend makes a helpful suggestion. In my next conversation with General Bradshaw I shall ask him what specifically is being done to gather opinions and ideas from the ranks for implementation.

[Mr Andrew Love (Edmonton) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State says that the operational model under which troops work with Afghani forces has not changed, and he recognises that there are differences with the American model. What reassurance can he give the House that our operational model is not placing our troops in unreasonable danger?

[Mr Hammond]

I can reassure the House again that everybody, both in the Government and in the military chain of command, is focused on force protection—that is, protecting the security of our service personnel. We do indeed have a different model from the Americans, and if I may say so the British Army is very proud of the fact that it does things differently from our larger American cousins. We pride ourselves on finding different ways to tackle the problems we face, with different levels of engagement. If I may make a generalisation in characterising the way the British Army tries to do things, we try to get closer to the people and lower down the command structures, and we try to be more embedded than the Americans sometimes appear to be. That is our special niche approach and capability, and we have shown time and time again that it can be effective.

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

The Secretary of State mentioned earlier that a motive for the attacks was the despicable video that was published on the internet. Does he agree that another motive, which I have mentioned to both him and the Secretary of State for International Development, is the use of drone strikes, which have killed nearly 1,000 civilians in Pakistan and a higher number in Afghanistan? Does the Secretary of State not agree that we urgently need to look at reviewing the use of drone strikes, which is considered on the front page of The Times today?

[Mr Hammond]

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles to carry out strikes is continuously reviewed, but I do not believe there is any need for a wholesale change to the current approach, which is that UAVs will be used where they are the most appropriate way to execute a particular operation. However, this question came up yesterday as well, and I would just say this to my hon. Friend. We all regret civilian casualties, and ISAF takes huge steps to avoid or minimise them; but when we are talking about civilian casualties, the overwhelming majority that are incurred in Afghanistan are inflicted by Taliban insurgent action. It is defeating the insurgents that will reduce the number of civilian casualties.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend confirm that troops from 3rd Battalion the Yorkshire Regiment will be continuing their partnering and joint operations with the Afghan police and Afghan army this week, this weekend and over the next few weeks, before they are returned to the United Kingdom next month?

[Mr Hammond]

They will indeed be continuing partnering operations. However, in order not to mislead the House, I should say that at the patrol base where the incident took place on Friday, the local Afghan police have been disarmed as a precaution and the 3 Yorks troops are occupying the base on a sole occupation basis for the time being.

Points of Order

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

13:08

[Jack Dromey (Birmingham, Erdington) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Transport made a written statement of immense importance to the blind, the partially sighted and the disabled, in which he gave the go-ahead to station closures and destaffing of stations in the London Midland region. Together with Dame Tanni Grey-Thompson and the organisations representing the disabled, we have sought to ensure that they have access to public transport and are treated as equal citizens. However, it has been a sorry saga, which has taken an unprecedented amount of time. In the meantime, we have seen destaffing, some evidence of a deal being done behind the closed doors of the Department for Transport and, most recently, Transport Ministers refusing to meet the organisations representing the disabled. Has the Secretary of State indicated his intention to come before this House? Yesterday’s written statement paid scant regard to the needs of the disabled. He should be held personally to account to ensure that they have access to public transport.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was already aware of yesterday’s written ministerial statement on this extremely important matter. Having listened to him, I must say two things. First: no, I have received no indication from the Secretary of State for Transport that he wishes to make an oral statement to the House on the matter. Secondly, I am not currently able to identify a matter on which it would be proper for the Chair to rule in respect of the hon. Gentleman’s point of order, but I shall continue my search. I shall let him know if, upon reflection, I find a matter upon which I can rule. He is an experienced hand, and he is certainly keen to air his concerns on this matter, and he might wish to develop his thoughts more fully in an Adjournment debate.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Today, it has been revealed that the Metropolitan police has known for 10 years that the News of the World had commissioned a company called Southern Investigations to commit burglaries to secure information and to confirm potentially scurrilous—and, as it turned out, completely baseless—rumours, and that it knew that one of the executives at the News of the World, Alex Marunchak, was directly involved in that. That evidence, which has been given by an undercover police officer, reveals that he knew then that “Ministers, MPs and Home Secretaries” were the targets for those burglaries, because they could be bribed or influenced. You will know, Mr Speaker, that it is a fundamental principle of the House that we should be able to do our job on behalf of our constituents without fear or favour. May I urge you to contact the Metropolitan police, perhaps through the Serjeant at Arms, so as to ensure that all those MPs whom the Metropolitan police knew to have been targeted in this way can be told that they were the targets of this criminal activity?

[Mr Speaker]

That could be said to be a point of order, but I always view any paragraphs from the hon. Gentleman as a kind of treatise, and I think that it would be as well for me to reflect upon his treatise before I respond to him, and not to make any rash commitment today. These are matters that he and the hon. Member for West Bromwich East (Mr Watson) are especially, and very properly, given to pursuing, on the basis of considerable research and knowledge. I will do him the courtesy of further reflection, and I will revert to him and, if necessary, to the House.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Human Rights Watch has recently published further evidence of failed Tamil asylum seekers who have been deported from the UK by the UK Border Agency being tortured on their return to Sri Lanka. The whole House wants to ensure that this country has strong immigration policies in place, and that they are adhered to, but it will surely also be concerned about those reports of torture. Have you heard of any possibility of a written statement from the Home Secretary, seeking to clarify her policy on the deportation of Tamil asylum seekers in the light of that new evidence?

[Mr Speaker]

I have not, but my hunch is that the hon. Gentleman will wish to pursue this matter further. The House will doubtless wait expectantly for that.

Regulation of Signage and Ticketing Technology (Publicly-available Car Parks)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

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

13:13

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision relating to signage and ticketing technology for parking charges used in publicly-available car parks; and for connected purposes.

This is a straightforward Bill. It will get a better deal for the motorist and stop them being ripped off at car parks. Misleading and confusing signs are inexcusable; it should be simple to get the signs and pay machines right.

Last autumn, angry constituents came to see me when a new operator took over a town centre car park in Ebbw Vale. Within weeks, I had received a flood of complaints from blue badge holders. There were criticisms about signage, and about a complicated payment system in which drivers had to enter their car registration number into a fiddly key pad. I am fed up with poor signage in car parks that confuses and confounds the motorist. At that car park in my constituency, motorists were told, in micro-print:

“Do not leave the car park to retrieve change in order to purchase a valid ticket”.

The fact that they are unable to read that instruction before entry makes it hard for the motorist to do the right thing; it also helps the operator to pocket fines. However, the British Parking Association, which oversees the self-regulation of the private car parking industry, told me that that sign was acceptable.

Perhaps the greatest grievance brought to my attention was the extortionate parking charge notices. Like most MPs, I bat for my constituents. I am a reasonable person, and I think that motorists should pay to park on private land. However, I expect parking operators to tell drivers how and what to pay. Signs should be clear and unambiguous, and when drivers do pay, but make a genuine mistake when entering their registration number into a machine, they should not have to pay an additional parking charge of £40, as a constituent of mine was asked to do. They had already purchased a ticket and paid for their parking space, so there was no loss whatever to the operator. My constituent had done the right thing, but was still forced to cough up. That is just wrong.

I have met representatives of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, which passes on vehicle registration data to the so-called approved car park operators. I have also met representatives of the British Parking Association, the industry-funded body, which requires its members to abide by its members’ club code of practice. The BPA told me that it would like statutory regulation of the sector, but that that has been spiked by the Government. When I met the Transport Minister, I was told that an independent appeals service for unfair ticketing would be introduced under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012. That safeguard is welcome, but it fails to address the large-scale and deliberately exploitative ticketing operations of some in the sector.

Since raising this issue in Parliament, I have been contacted by people from all over the country who have been hit by car park operators’ sharp practice. Their anger and frustration is backed up by statistics from the DVLA. In 2011-12, the DVLA received 1.57 million electronic requests for driver information. Those requests give drivers’ personal details to car park operators, and the information is used to chase up motorists for payment. The number of requests went up by one third in the past year alone. When a driver allegedly breaks the rules, the car park operator gets their personal details from the DVLA and uses them to send them an instant penalty charge notice. In short, the operators are milking the motorist.

Now, following much consumer campaigning, the BPA is reducing the maximum charge, but it will still be a hefty £100. If drivers do not pay the charge, it increases and a solicitor’s letter often follows. That aptly named “threatogram” can often frighten the motorist into paying up. Such charges can cost the British motorist a staggering £125 million a year. In Stockport, a gentlemen won his case because the judge thought that the signage was poor, and that people could have been forgiven for thinking that they did not have to pay. It turned out that more than 11,000 people in the previous three years had not paid, but, yet again, the BPA thought that the signage was fine.

I am pressing for simple and fair signage. I want clear notices at the entrances to car parks, to let motorists know whether or not they have to pay. Drivers also need to know how to pay, and how much. One idea is to have large signs painted on the tarmac as well. That is certainly a low-cost solution. The BPA tells me that it plans to improve signage, including through the use of larger font sizes. Let us hope that it takes inspiration from the excellent Olympics signage that we have all seen in the past few months; it was first class.

Above all, the BPA must get on with this; otherwise, motorists will continue to be a soft target. I was disappointed, but not surprised, to find that the BPA is giving its car park operators up to three years to change their signs, even though we all expect the operators to make the changes quickly. That will mean another three years of unfair fines for many.

I am also worried about a developing business model for this sector, in which the landowner receives the hourly charge from the motorist but the car park operator receives the income from any extra charges. So, from the car park operator’s point of view, the more confusing the signage is, the better. When it is confusing for the motorist, the car park operators make more money. That cannot be right.

This Bill will end the open season on motorists; it will deliver clear, easy-to-read signs in all car parks used by the public. Payment systems, too, must be as simple as possible. Motorists who pay should not face extra charges when they have done the right thing.

If we want shoppers to use our high streets, we need to make sure they can park at reasonable cost. Confusing and misleading car park signs are quite literally driving consumers out of our town centres. They are going to out-of-town retail centres, where they can park for free. Nobody is arguing for free car parking in our towns. People should pay for parking and the landowner should get a reasonable return. Motorists should not be ripped off, however. This Bill would mean that, in future, motorists can use their local town centre without fear of being fleeced. Crucially, car park operators must clean up their act.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Nick Smith, Stephen Barclay, Nic Dakin, Chris Evans, Yvonne Fovargue, Diana Johnson, Barbara Keeley, Ian Lucas, Seema Malhotra, John Mann and Jim Shannon present the Bill.

Nick Smith accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 25 January 2013, and to be printed (Bill 71).

Backbench Business

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Conference Adjournment

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.—(Jane Ellison.)

health

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

13:22

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

One of my constituents, Mrs Collette Pridmore has three children, one of whom—her son, Jacob— suffers from a rare lung disease. Jacob is just eight years old. When Collette got in touch with me, she was extremely worried about her son’s future because she had discovered that the care Jacob receives at the Royal Brompton hospital in London was under threat. Because of the serious nature of his condition, little Jacob needs to spend many weeks each year at the Royal Brompton, where specialist clinical teams have the necessary skills to help him.

Collette suggested I visit Jacob at Royal Brompton and during my visit she arranged for me to meet the doctors and nurses who care for her son. To say that I was impressed would be an understatement. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will know of the good work done by the Royal Brompton, but for those who do not, let me explain something about the services they provide.

The respiratory children’s unit at the Royal Brompton treats some of the most vulnerable children in our country—those with serious lung disease and breathing problems. The Royal Brompton is home to the country’s largest children’s cystic fibrosis unit and the hospital’s experts treat children with muscular dystrophies, severe drug-resistant asthma and a range of other respiratory conditions. These conditions are quite rare, but the concentration of clinical expertise in one place means that knowledge is accumulated and shared, creating the best possible conditions for the care of children such as Jacob. The hospital also carries out research with Imperial college constantly to improve the treatments available.

My visit to the Royal Brompton was inspirational. I saw the very best that the NHS has to offer—the best specialist skills and an incredibly caring environment. These services provided by the Royal Brompton, however, are now at risk. Why? In one word—reorganisation. The threat to close the Royal Brompton’s children’s respiratory services is really not the finest hour for health service reorganisations. This is not an academic exercise; it is about the future welfare of some pretty sick and vulnerable children such as Jacob.

Unfortunately, Jacob’s doctors do not think they will be able to carry on caring for him in the long term, because their intensive care unit is being closed. Without the back-up of intensive care, they will not be able to offer the expert services they do now, because they think it will be unsafe to do so. So why is the intensive care unit being closed? Is it to save money? Is it because it is not a very good unit? Is it because no one needs it? The answer is none of those.

On 4 July this year, a committee of primary care trust chief executives, as part of the reorganisation of children’s heart services in England, made the extraordinary decision to end children’s heart surgery and intensive care at the Royal Brompton. As one of the best-performing and largest centres in England, many Members will have had constituents who have been treated there. The proposed closure will have severe knock-on effects on children’s respiratory medicine.

Although not all Royal Brompton’s young patients need the intensive care unit, many do need it should they deteriorate very quickly. Sadly for Jacob, this has happened to him on several occasions. Jacob’s doctor, Dr Claire Hogg, told me that without an intensive care unit on site, her only option, if Jacob became particularly unwell, would be to try to get him to the specialist intensive care unit at another London hospital which, depending on traffic, could be up to an hour away. To a sick little boy or girl, this could be a lifetime away—quite literally.

A couple of weeks ago Collette Pridmore brought some of the Royal Brompton’s doctors to visit me here. I was shocked by what I learned. Dr Duncan Macrae has discovered that new figures published after the review of children’s heart services took place show that the rate of population increase, particularly the child population, is far greater than previously estimated, most specifically in London where the child population is increasing at almost twice the national average.

This decision, leaving just two centres to offer children’s heart surgery for London and the south-east, was taken using 2006-based national population projections, which have been shown greatly to underestimate the numbers. Equally worrying is the recent data from the UK central cardiac audit database, showing that the number of children having heart operations is increasing year on year. How, then, did the review of children’s heart surgery, using out-of-date statistics on both population growth and the number of children needing surgery, come to the conclusion that London and the south-east can manage with two rather than three children’s heart surgery centres?

The review decided that the Royal Brompton should close its specialist centre and intensive care unit, despite the fact that the hospital is one of the biggest and best centres in the country. Scandalously, the intensive care units and children’s heart units at the other two London centres do not currently have enough beds for Royal Brompton patients, and at least one of them will have to spend large sums of money building new facilities. At a time when the NHS is strapped for cash, that alone is a good reason for reversing the decision to close the Royal Brompton hospital.

The proposed closure is not the result of Government policy. That is not to say, however, that the new Health team, now led by the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), cannot intervene. I very much hope that Ministers will agree to meet me and some of the medical staff from the Royal Brompton to discuss our concerns and to see what can be done to reverse this crass decision.

13:29

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

My local NHS says that it needs to reconfigure services because it has

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

As a result, it plans, through a programme ironically called “Better Services Better Value”, to close a wide range of services at my constituency’s local hospital, St Helier. Most of the controversy has focused on the closure of our A and E and maternity units, but we also face losing our intensive care unit, neonatal ICU and renal unit, as well as about 50% of St Helier’s 390 in- patient beds.

Since I last raised this subject in the House in July, a number of interesting things have happened. First, the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)—whose constituency, like mine, is on the borders of St Helier—lost his job as a Health Minister and launched a withering attack on the plans, describing them as “dangerous and flawed”. As a Minister in the Department for Health, he would know; although I imagine that he wanted to stay and to continue to be collectively responsible for St Heller’s demise.

Then the right hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), whose constituency contains St Helier, decided that he was so upset about the plans that he would take a principled stand by joining the Government as deputy to the man who is responsible for what has happened in the NHS over the past two years. Congratulations are due to him for showing his disapproval so strongly.

Ten days ago, Michelle Baker and Karen Russell, mums from my constituency and part of the Save St Helier campaign, organised a picnic with a purpose outside the hospital. Thousands of local residents joined in, and although it was billed as a fun day, we were deadly serious. The leader of Merton council, Councillor Stephen Alambritis, a former football referee, was cheered as he brandished a red card at the plans, while the medical director of “Better Services Better Value” was booed as he was handed our petition, signed by more than 30,000 people.

In other developments, it is becoming increasingly clear that, behind the scenes, the case for the closure is falling apart. NHS South West London was originally due to rubber-stamp the proposals in July, but the decision was unexpectedly postponed at the last minute. Then, last month, the team proudly issued a press release stating that a decision would be made on 27 September and that

“the aim is for it to go out to public consultation from 1 October”.

Dr Finch said that he was

“excited by the huge potential of the BSBV programme.”

Now even that decision has been put off for at least another month. Perhaps the delay is connected to polls of GPs and patients that showed that a majority were against the closure, but I suspect that that it is mainly due to the publication of the National Clinical Advisory Team’s report on the plans.

NCAT reports represent a key step in any hospital reconfiguration and need to be properly scrutinised, so on 17 July I requested a copy of the report under the Freedom of Information Act. Under FOI rules, I should have received a copy by 14 August, but it was not until a week later that I received one, along with a press release claiming that NCAT had

“given the Better Services Better Value review the green light to move forward”,

and that

“we are very pleased that the NCAT team have agreed that our proposals should be supported”.

However, although the press release gave the impression that everything was running smoothly, that impression was extremely misleading.

The most fundamental criticism of the closure plan is that it is predicated on the assumption that 60%—yes, 60%—of emergency patients can use primary care instead of A and E services. Obviously, it is very much in GPs’ interests for BSBV to succeed. It is led by local GPs, and they clearly have an interest in ensuring that more patients use primary care rather than hospitals, whether or not that is what patients want, because the money follows the patient.

NCAT has looked at the 60% target and, ever so politely, has laughed it off. The report says:

“The assumption that 60% of ED”—

emergency department—

“patients have conditions that can be managed by clinicians from primary care demands detailed… analysis. Elsewhere in the UK a consistent finding is…far lower, usually in the order of 15-20%. Reconfiguration based on the higher figure may not achieve the anticipated benefits.”

NCAT goes on to say:

“The ED consultants interviewed suggested that the primary care workload in their departments is in the order of 15-20%”

and that

“The estimate of 60% is often derived from coding data...patients who have no x-rays, no specific treatment, no follow up and are not admitted are regarded as ‘minor’ and therefore it is assumed that they could be seen by primary care clinicians. It is recognised throughout the NHS and particularly in emergency care, that such data lack reliability”.

The report also questions the assumptions behind the proposal that St Helier could be saved by becoming South West London’s elective hospital. It is hard to see why any patient would choose to travel so many miles from Croydon, Wandsworth or Kingston to a hospital that had lost so many services, to receive treatment that they could receive at their local hospitals, or why any ambitious staff member would want to work there.

NCAT says:

“The concept of a planned in-patient care or elective hospital serving the whole area was generally supported”

by clinicians. It continues:

“However there was no evidence that this would free enough in-hospital capacity to absorb the additional acute workload for the remaining three hospitals.”

The report adds:

“There was concern that the links between acute medical services and the community were not dependable.”

NCAT admits that, although most experts consider it a bad thing for maternity units to deliver more than 6,000 babies a year, South West London’s three remaining maternity units would have to deliver 6,500 babies each—in addition to the 2,500 babies delivered in midwife units and the 880 delivered at home.

NCAT concludes:

“Successful implementation…depends on a multitude of supporting improvements in primary care, community services and professional practice that are not well defined in the proposals.”

Worse, it admits:

“The reconfigurations are based on an optimistic view of capacity, recruitment, meeting increased demand in primary and community care and the challenges posed by the introduction of new ways of working.”

I could go on and on.

On the basis of such optimism, 200,000 people will have to make longer journeys to hospital in an emergency. An A and E department will close, although the number of A and E visits will rise by 20% in the next five years. Tens of thousands of women will have to worry about how they will give birth at hospitals further from home, and a maternity unit will close, although the number of births will rise by 10%. Thanks to the combination of cuts and GP commissioning, a flawed decision to close St Helier is about to happen. It will not work, and it must be stopped.

13:36

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

I am very pleased to have the chance to alert Ministers once again to the devastating plan, courtesy of NHS North West London, to close the A and E departments at the four hospitals that are closest to my constituency and my constituents. Unsurprisingly, there seems to be very little local support for the plan. As far as I am aware, no local GPs have spoken up in favour of it, other than the very few who are working alongside NHS North West London. I suspect that, like the rest of us, local GPs are highly doubtful about a plan that rests on the massive assumption that it is possible to dismantle four A and E departments in a small, concentrated part of London with little or no negative impact on the community that depends on them.

The plan envisages a scaled-down but super-efficient new system of care delivery. I think it fair to say that we would like that new system to be in place, up and running and serving the needs of our constituents, before supporting the dismantling of any of our A and E departments. There is cross-party agreement locally, in Hammersmith and Fulham as well as Ealing, that the plan is reckless and extreme. Last weekend, we held a rally on Ealing common at which all three parties spoke out against it.

Our main concern must be the increase in travel times. The proposals attempt to demonstrate that, at the very worst, just a few minutes might be added to some journeys made to hospitals further afield. I think that anyone who knows that part of London will be aware that those timings must have been conducted at 2 am rather than 2 pm, and I think that most of us would prefer slightly more realistic assessments to be carried out.

There must be real concern about adding to A and E queues at the hospitals that have been left to take up the patients who will no longer have access to A and E departments closer to home. Even if the new facilities work for some people—as I am sure that they will—many, many people will still want to go to straightforward A and E departments, particularly those that are familiar to them and that they know and love.

Those, obviously, are extremely important issues that will need to be considered, but we should also bear it in mind that Ealing has one of the fastest-growing populations in the country. It seems strange to us that anyone should consider dismantling important parts of the health infrastructure at a time when we expect to see a much larger local population.

The consultation will continue until 8 October, but, as I have said, the form is extremely long and tricky to fill in, and rather off-putting as a result. It takes a lot of time; indeed, it took me an hour and a half to fill it in, and I have spent a considerable amount of time focusing on this issue.

Naturally and unsurprisingly, in common with all other well-honed consultations, this consultation is designed to draw participants to its own desired conclusions—although with a bit of serious work and concentration, it is possible to avoid that. However, marching and filling in petitions is all very well and fine, but we must remember that it is only the responses to the consultation that legally count. The Conservatives had a stall on Ealing common last Saturday, and we handed out more than 500 consultation documents, because we felt that that was one way to help the campaign practically. We apologised to everybody in advance for the time that it was going to take to fill them in, of course.

I understand that the consultation received an award for its clarity of language, but the intention behind it is clear to us: to get its desired result, which is support for closing the four A and E services that are closest to my constituency. I hope that Ministers will resist any such recommendation.

13:36

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

I am very glad to have this opportunity to raise the important issue of the lack of maternity services in Berwick, and I hope that it will prove helpful that the Minister replying to the debate is a specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology.

Berwick is 50 miles from the district general hospital—although there is one that is slightly nearer on the Scottish side of the border, the Borders general, which we also use quite extensively. That is a long way to travel for a birth, but on 6 August all deliveries at the Berwick midwife-led maternity unit were suspended. Along with that went all overnight recovery stays for people who had given birth in the Wansbeck or Borders general hospitals. There are now no facilities to support home births in the area, which is contrary to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidelines, and no evening antenatal clinics because the unit is open only during the day.

Two reasons for the suspension of the services were cited. One was that staff were not getting enough experience of deliveries. That has been a long-standing problem, and a review was taking place to address it—and the problem could have been addressed. Reference was later made to two incidents that were seen as a reason for taking more urgent action. However, the details of those incidents have not been disclosed, probably because proceedings relating to them may still be taking place.

The announcement caused great distress to the midwives concerned, who are much respected locally, and caused fury in the local community. Plans for Berwick’s new hospital are being drawn up, and many people believe that the trust might be trying to avoid providing maternity services there. The trust has often assured me that that is not the case, but there is increasing suspicion. Meanwhile, these services are absent, so mothers have to travel 50 miles to give birth. That is not the only issue.

One mother told me she had been driven the 50 miles to the Wansbeck hospital and examined there, but the hospital staff said, “No, you’ve come here too soon. Go home.” She was then driven 50 miles home. Within an hour or two of arriving back, she became convinced labour was about to start, so she was again driven by car 50 miles to the Wansbeck, where she was examined and the staff said, “No, we think you should go home. There’s no need for you to be here at present.” She dug her heels in, however, and said, “No, I’m not going. I’m staying here.” Within the time it would have taken for her to return home again—taking her total journey to 200 miles—the baby was born at the Wansbeck infirmary. That story serves to illustrate that the issue is about not births alone, but all the associated journeys that may be involved. That is one of the reasons why we generally try to provide maternity services reasonably locally.

The review that is taking place should look at how we can ensure that we have maternity services in Berwick that have the full confidence of the trust and the clinical staff. The majority of local mothers initially opt for births at Berwick, but by the time of delivery, the majority of them have accepted advice to have delivery at Wansbeck or the Borders. One has to ask why that is the case. Any mother reading the NICE guidelines, which are given to mothers, will say, “Oh, ambulance transfer might happen after labour has begun!” An ambulance transfer takes two hours; that is the specified NHS time for an ambulance transfer from Berwick to Wansbeck infirmary. It is clear that doctors often feel that they do not want to take any risk at all, so they recommend that delivery should take place at the distant hospital.

Some of the problems and other characteristics of a small unit that might have led to this situation arising can be addressed. The experience issue can be dealt with by staff rotation, so giving them time in a busier hospital to maintain their experience. Having consultants on call, and ensuring they can get to the local hospital more quickly than a transfer can take place, is another necessary feature. Such matters need to be examined much more carefully. Also, there is a role for telemedicine and the practice of having a consultant at the larger centre make an early assessment of whether problems are arising that need to be dealt with. The number of births at our maternity unit have at times been very low because the majority of mothers have been advised to go elsewhere. There was an entire year in which there were only 13 births, but the numbers have increased again, and at the time when the closure took place, 40 women were booked in to have their births at Berwick.

My overriding concern is for the safety of mothers and children, but it ought to be possible for most births to be safely carried out locally. In our debates on this topic, many Members have referred to problems in transfers to hospitals 10 or 15 miles away, but I am talking about a transfer of 50 miles for every birth to a Berwick mother. The majority of mothers in the Berwick area want to have their babies born in Berwick, and they should be able to do so and have confidence that the necessary skills and support are in place.

At last week’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister set out that changes in clinical services should not be made without these four conditions being satisfied: support from GP commissioners, strengthened public and patient engagement, clarity on the clinical evidence base and support for patient choice. Those conditions are not satisfied in what is happening in my constituency, and they certainly would not be satisfied by a total withdrawal of maternity services, including delivery, at Berwick. I seek the Minister’s assurance that those conditions remain relevant and that the attention of the health care and primary care trusts involved in taking decisions about maternity services in my area will be drawn to their significance. I hope that the Minister and Department will assist the trusts in any way that they can to work up a good scheme to ensure that people in my constituency can have confidence in their future maternity services at Berwick.

13:48

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

May I take this opportunity to welcome the new Health Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter), to his post and wish him every success in his new role?

I want to draw the attention of the House and, in particular, the Minister to two key issues in relation to type 1 diabetes. Some Members may be aware that I spoke on this issue last week in a Westminster Hall debate, but today I want specifically to urge the new health ministerial team to support the artificial pancreas project that is being funded by the charity JDRF. If the Department can find any funding to assist the research, that would be very welcome.

I wish to ask the Department of Health to end the postcode lottery that exists in the NHS on access to insulin pumps. At present, there are no answers on what causes or how to cure type 1 diabetes. The only way to find a cure for type 1 is through greater investment in medical research. If additional funding can be made available to cure, treat and prevent type 1 diabetes, it will result in long-term cost efficiencies for the NHS. It will also help the UK to retain its position as a world leader in this type of medical research.

Type 1 diabetes is a chronic, life-threatening condition that has a life-long impact on those diagnosed and their families. It strikes children and adults, staying with them for the rest of their lives. It is usually diagnosed in childhood between the ages of 10 and 14, but more and more children are being diagnosed much earlier, from 18 months onwards. It is an auto-immune condition; it causes the body’s own immune system to turn on itself and destroy the beta cells in the pancreas, leaving the body unable to produce the life-essential hormone, insulin. Insulin pumps cost between £1,000 and £3,000. There are additional costs for the consumable attachments, infusion sets, batteries and pump reservoirs, for which patients might have to pay themselves. The cost of those consumables could amount to between £1,000 and £2,000 per annum for each patient.

By contrast, the Scottish Government announced in February 2012 that all eligible under-18s with type 1 diabetes in Scotland will now have access to insulin pumps. They have also said that the Government are committing funding of at least £1 million to help NHS boards deliver pumps to under-18s who need them, as well as tripling the amount of pumps available to all people with the condition in Scotland. That has been followed by a further boost of £1.5 million this April in Scotland to provide more young people with insulin pumps.

Type 1 diabetes is a very different, distinct condition from type 2 diabetes, as it is not linked to lifestyle issues, such as diet and exercise. People with the condition rely on a programme of finger-prick blood sugar tests and insulin pump infusions or injections up to 10 times a day to stay alive. Although these prolong life, they are not the cure. A child diagnosed with type 1 diabetes when they are five faces 19,000 injections by the time they are 18. People with the condition are at risk of devastating complications, including blindness, heart disease, amputation, strokes and kidney failure, to name but a few.

Type 1 diabetes reduces life expectancy by about 20 years and there is a small but very real chance of sudden death. The short-term complications include debilitating hypoglycaemia, which, if left untreated, can lead to unconsciousness, coma and occasionally even death. Children never escape the responsibility of checking their blood sugar level and parents never have a day off from worrying about their children, even at night, as the blood sugar level has to be checked. Parents cannot relax because one of them must get up at night to check that their child is okay—or even still alive.

JDRF has told me that about 500 people in each constituency have type 1 diabetes. Therefore, more than 26,000 children in the UK have type 1 diabetes, which is as many as one in every 700. Some 98.6% of the children and young people who have diabetes will have type 1. The incidence of type 1 diabetes is increasing by about 5% year on year.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making an excellent and powerful speech. I declare my interest as a sufferer of type 2 diabetes. I wish to emphasise the importance of prevention work. She has talked about type 1, which is difficult to prevent; but in general, the more money that is spent on preventing diabetes, the less money that will need to be spent by the NHS in the future.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, because he is a big champion of tackling diabetes, particularly type 2, and he will speak up at every opportunity. Good care for not only the young with type 1, but for older people who can try to prevent themselves from getting type 2 diabetes will, of course, save the health service a huge amount of money.

As I mentioned, JDRF funds a large research programme to develop a closed-loop artificial pancreas, to help children with type 1 diabetes to live a life without the constant need for painful finger-prick tests and multiple insulin injections every day just to stay alive. It would give people with type 1 diabetes the freedom from those injections every day and has the potential to prevent some of the devastating complications that can arise from the condition. It would also give parents peace of mind that their children are much more likely to have stable blood sugar results, thus keeping them out of hospital.

The project involves two pieces of equipment that are already available to people with type 1 diabetes: a continuous glucose monitor that measures blood glucose levels regularly; and an insulin pump, such as the one I am holding, that painlessly administers insulin. The main task is to develop a computer that can talk to the two components and calculate exactly how the insulin pump should react and when to administer the insulin. That would close the loop to make the device a functioning artificial pancreas. This artificial pancreas is not yet commercially available, although the research team have already completed trials of the artificial pancreas in a hospital setting and are now beginning trials where children take the artificial pancreas home to see how well it works in a real-life situation.

Will the Minister please give an undertaking to monitor this research carefully and, if possible, lend his full support to this piece of groundbreaking research, which could improve the quality of life for so many young people in my constituency and many thousands across the country—it could do more than that; it could transform their quality of life.

The second issue that I would like to raise briefly this afternoon is the inequality that exists in our NHS in getting access to an insulin pump. The Minister may be aware that the Medical Technology Group recently carried out a freedom of information survey of every primary care trust in England, publishing its findings in “Pump Action—A Review of Insulin Pump Uptake and NICE Guidance in English Primary Care Trusts”. The report shows significant inequality in the provision of insulin pumps across England and a lack of adherence to National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance, with low insulin pump usage compared to the NICE benchmark. The average rate of insulin pump provision for people with type 1 diabetes is 3.9%, compared with the 12% benchmark recommended by NICE; it is nowhere near the 33% recommended for children younger than 12.

There is, without doubt, a postcode lottery on insulin pump access. The percentage of people with type 1 diabetes using an insulin pump falls as low as 0.25% in Medway and 0.3% in Croydon. In my county of Derbyshire, the rate is 4.4%, with 120 people using an insulin pump out of the 2,746 people with type 1 diabetes in the area—that is well below the NICE guidelines. May I request that the Minister take urgent action as soon as possible to address this issue? It simply is not fair that people can be denied treatment just because they live in the wrong part of the country.

13:58

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May I, too, welcome the Minister to his place? Last week, two decisions were taken affecting the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which covers the Stafford and Cannock hospitals. The first was the decision by Monitor to undertake a review of the trust’s finances. The second was the decision of the commissioners not to reopen the accident and emergency department at night, although the trust had said that it was in a position to do so. What is common to both decisions is that there has been no consultation so far with my constituents or those of my hon. Friends the Members for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley), for Stone (Mr Cash) and for South Staffordshire (Gavin Williamson). These are their health services, which is why I have established a working group specifically to look at Stafford hospital, so that my constituents can make their proposals and views clear, both to Monitor and to the commissioners.

As hon. Members will know, there has been a public inquiry into the failings of Stafford hospital, especially those in the period 2005 to 2009, although the failings go back much further. The Francis report in 2010 exposed shocking care, particularly of the elderly and vulnerable. The public inquiry, which looks at why the NHS and others failed to pick up these problems, is due to report later this year, so I will not comment on that. The time of publication will be the time for very careful and mature reflection on what happened and how the NHS must change in response. As a senior member of the Royal College of Physicians said to me, it is the most important inquiry into the NHS in two or three decades.

Standards at Stafford hospital have improved considerably in the past three years, although there is no room for complacency. The Care Quality Commission recently lifted all its remaining areas of concern and the accident and emergency waiting time target has been met for the first time in a long time. There remains a substantial financial deficit, however, with an operating deficit of some £16.5 million last year and one of £15 million predicted for this year. At this point, I thank the previous Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), who is in his place as Leader of the House, and the former Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), for their steadfast support for the trust as it sought to recover, as well as the staff of the hospital and those from the Ministry of Defence who helped out at A and E for a few weeks.

The financial problems facing the Mid Staffordshire trust that Monitor wishes to tackle arise, in my analysis, from three sources. The first is underuse of the estate in Stafford and Cannock. It is essential in my view, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase, that both hospitals remain open, but the estate must be used efficiently as money that is needed for services is being spent on empty property.

Secondly, the consequences of the events at Stafford mean that patients who would normally attend Stafford no longer do so. Confidence in the hospital needs to return, and that confidence must be based on real progress. There are welcome signs that that is happening, but it will take time.

Thirdly, and most importantly by far, endemic problems face medium-sized acute trusts across the country. Mid Staffordshire is far from unique and that is where the Monitor review is vital as it has the chance to establish a sustainable model for district general hospitals around the country. There seems to be a view gaining currency that all medical care in the future will either be highly specialised or general, based in community hospitals, which will squeeze out the medium-sized acute hospitals. Not only does that not accord with the evidence, it goes against the wishes of the public.

I do not dispute the need to concentrate highly specialised care in larger hospitals where consultants in each specialty are available around the clock. That has happened for some time. However, there is an increasing and substantial need for emergency and acute care, particularly for the elderly, which is much better given as locally as possible and in close co-ordination with social care services. District general hospitals such as Stafford remain the best place for that.

Monitor therefore has an excellent opportunity to work together with the people of Stafford and Cannock to show how a medium-sized acute trust can flourish in the tough financial climate we face. Indeed, Monitor has a duty to do so under section 62 of the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which states that its main duty

“in exercising its functions is to protect and promote the interests of people who use health care services by promoting provision of health care services which…is economic, efficient and effective, and…maintains or improves the quality of the services.”

It also states that:

“In carrying out its main duty, Monitor must have regard to the likely future demand for health care services.”

The last paragraph is very important as not only is the population of the area predicted to rise substantially in the coming years, but there will be a greater demand for acute care.

It may be argued that none of Monitor’s duties requires that services be provided locally. I reject that. To provide services locally is economic, efficient, effective and an intrinsic part of their quality, so Monitor has a duty to promote health care services that are as local as possible. We also need to be very careful in the definition of the word “services”. In the debate in Committee on what was then clause 69, I said that

“it is extremely important to have clarity on what constitutes a service. Services can be salami-sliced down to very small items or, as others have said, they can be an agglomeration. One could say that, in an acute hospital, a service is not only the accident and emergency, but some—not necessarily all—of the other wards associated with it. That might constitute a block of service or, under other definitions, several services. How will Monitor interpret that word?”––[Official Report, Health and Social Care Public Bill Committee, 22 March 2011; c. 943.]

[Gavin Williamson (South Staffordshire) (Con)]

Everyone in Staffordshire knows how hard my hon. Friend has fought on behalf of Stafford hospital. Does he agree that the closure of Stafford A and E at night will put an increasing burden on many other local hospitals, including New Cross hospital in Wolverhampton and the University hospital of North Staffordshire?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I entirely agree. Of course, the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) has the Manor hospital in her constituency, too, and I pay tribute to the work done by her hospital, by my hon. Friend’s hospital in New Cross and by Stoke and Burton hospitals.

So, how will Monitor interpret the word “services”? To date, as far as I am aware, we do not know the answer to that question. I want to make a very clear case that Monitor must, in the case of emergency and acute services, view the matter in the round and not engage in accountancy-based salami slicing. One cannot separate an A and E from a medical admissions unit, a surgical admissions unit, a paediatric admissions unit, an intensive care unit and the related diagnostic and therapeutic services. They must be considered as a service block. Of course, there will be a difference between the block in a district general hospital and that in a major specialist hospital, as the latter will cover emergency and acute events that a district general hospital cannot.

That brings me to the question of the accident and emergency department at Stafford, which has been closed between 10pm and 8am since 1 December last year. Today a petition is being presented in Downing street to urge the reopening of the department at night. Up until Sunday 16 September, 4,381 patients who would have been treated at Stafford at night have gone to other hospitals. To put that in perspective, the A and E department treated 51,000 people in 2011-2012. That is more than 4,000 patients who could not use their local acute hospital in an emergency when previously they could. We need to see them back at Stafford.

The reason given for closing the A and E department at night was that it was not safe for 24/7 reopening. Subsequent events have proved that to be the right decision as the department was close to breaking point. However, a set of criteria were given for reopening and the trust considers that, after much hard work, they have now been met, although there are concerns about sustainability. The commissioners have decided not to go ahead with night-time reopening but instead to pursue what they call a model of 24/7 emergency and urgent care. My constituents and I were very disappointed with that, because, nearly 10 months after night-time closure, we still do not have an A and E 24/7 but also because we do not have details of what that emergency and urgent care model might be. What are the similarities and differences between emergency and urgent care and A and E as traditionally understood? That needs to be made clear, not just in Stafford and Cannock but everywhere such a model is proposed.

The commissioners’ statement made it clear that even while A and E was closed, children, maternity and GP cases continued to be received at Stafford at night. They are also working on how to bring back to Stafford the 15 or so patients who currently have to go elsewhere each night. That is welcome and sounds similar to the service prior to closure. So what is different? Can we not return to an open-door 24/7 service with effective triaging to filter out the unnecessary attendances that place a strain on emergency departments everywhere?

Mid Staffordshire trust may be exceptional in the long hard road it has to travel to regain the confidence of local people—and it has come a long way down that road—but it is not exceptional in the pressures it faces as a district general hospital. The Government have a chance to show how district general hospitals can thrive, providing emergency, acute and elective services to their people, working closely with social care and with the specialist hospitals in their neighbourhood.

14:07

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I recently spent the day out and about with the North West ambulance service and want briefly to cover my experiences with them.

The North West ambulance service is England’s largest ambulance service, with more than 5,200 staff, 109 ambulance stations and three control centres. It deals with more than 1 million emergency calls every year and although it also provides a non-emergency patient transport service, my day focused on the emergency medical response that it provides 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.

On Thursday 30 August I joined local paramedic Andy Swinburn in a rapid response vehicle that was responding to emergency calls across the Burnley and Pendle area. Although I am sure that many hon. Members would enjoy being in the passenger seat of an emergency services vehicle with the blue lights flashing, I wanted to witness the challenges faced daily by staff from the Barnoldswick, Nelson and Burnley ambulance stations.

During the shift, the vehicle I was in responded to nine blue-light emergencies, seven of which were in my constituency of Pendle. I am told that that was a quiet day, and it certainly was compared with the day before, when the air ambulance was called out twice to east Lancashire. For someone such as me, however, who had never spent any time with the ambulance service before, it certainly seemed anything but quiet.

During the day, the paramedic I was with dealt with everything from people having dizzy spells and epileptic fits to suspected heart attacks and someone who had serious-looking head injuries after falling from a ladder. In between calls and when I met other paramedics at the Nelson ambulance station, we discussed a range of issues from the classification of different emergency incidents and the value of the eight-minute response time through to problems caused locally by alcohol and drug misuse.

We also discussed the question of which hospital a patient is taken to, which has been an issue of much concern among people locally after Burnley general hospital’s A and E department was downgraded to an urgent care centre in 2007. The people involved in the calls we responded to during the shift were taken to Airedale, Burnley and Blackburn hospitals, depending on which was best placed to treat the individuals concerned.

We also discussed something of which I was previously unaware, which is that paramedics are currently unable to prescribe drugs. I would appreciate the Minister’s thoughts on that—I, too, welcome him to his new role. It seems entirely logical to me that if a senior paramedic can diagnose a problem while in someone’s home, they should be able to prescribe the required drugs rather than having to call out a GP or take the individual to hospital.

Another issue worth considering is the basis of commissioning of ambulance services. When asked about ambulance services, the public will invariably put the speed of response above all other concerns, including the quality of care. The eight-minute response performance indicator in part reflects what the public say they want. However, some of the paramedics I spoke to felt that if they were commissioned on the basis of being able to treat people with certain conditions at the scene, usually the person’s home, there could be considerable savings to the NHS. That links to my point about paramedics being able to prescribe the required drugs.

Although such a commissioning move would undoubtedly have a range of knock-on impacts, it was clear from the day I spent with the ambulance service that many people did not want to be admitted to hospital and would have much preferred to have stayed in their own home. I know that the Minister, given his background, will be acutely aware of not only the cost of hospital admissions, but the stress and other complications that such admissions can lead to.

Overall, I felt that the day gave me an invaluable insight into the work of our local paramedics and the ambulance service. Although I have never needed to use the ambulance service—thank God—it was hugely reassuring to see the professionalism and dedication of those who work in it. I will conclude simply by extending my thanks to the North West ambulance service, to Andy Swinburn, the senior paramedic I spent the day with, and to all our local paramedics for the remarkable job they do.

14:11

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

I rise to make a further contribution in this House on the deeply flawed decision by the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts, with regard to the Safe and Sustainable review of children’s heart services, to close the excellent Leeds children’s heart unit. I know that other colleagues will also speak about that today and that many across the House feel strongly about it. I welcome the new ministerial team to their posts and hope that they will now look at the matter.

To be absolutely clear, neither we nor the campaigners in Leeds challenge the premise of the national review, but the decision to close the Leeds unit is very questionable. One of the questions that has not been adequately scrutinised is whether the decision even concurs with the premise of the review, and I believe that it clearly does not. That is most patently a matter for ministerial interest, because a flawed and wrong decision is indeed the business of Ministers, so I hope that the Minister will take that away and reflect upon it.

I will just update the Minister and the House on the current situation. A referral is being prepared by the joint health overview and scrutiny committee for Yorkshire and the Humber, and that is part of the democratic process of scrutiny of our NHS, but it is being held up by the obstructionism of the JCPCT, which has made the decision. The JCPCT is refusing to hand over all the information requested, which is absolutely disgraceful. At the same time, implementation is being forced through as if there is an attempt to avoid the scrutiny that is essential in any major decision on the health service, and especially in so sensitive a case. Professor Deirdre Kelly, who chairs the implementation advisory group, has said:

“Implementing the decision on the future of children’s heart services is a top priority and we need the work to start now so that children can benefit during 2014.”

Sir Neil McKay, who chairs the JCPCT, has said—rather outrageously, considering the strength of feeling among children and families in Yorkshire and the Humber—that:

“Children and their families have waited far too long for these vital services to be changed”.

That is patently absurd when we consider that 600,000 people from the region have said that they do not wish the service to be closed and changed in the way that he and his committee propose.

Let me go further and say that the JCPCT secretariat is denying access to key documents needed to challenge the decision while at the same time releasing reams of largely irrelevant material. We do not yet have enough information on the weighting methodology used or detailed scoring information and assessment forms for each surgical centre, something that is crucial for determining whether the decision is as robust as Sir Neil McKay seems so desperate to tell us it is while trying to force it through. Councillor John Illingworth, who chairs the joint health overview and scrutiny committee, has said:

“This is completely unacceptable. JHOSC is the statutory body that should scrutinise the JCPCT decisions, but we cannot complete this process without a full disclosure by JCPCT. The reluctance of the JCPCT to release this non-confidential material is delaying the entire scrutiny process.”

The simple and outrageous reality that I want the Minister to take away—he is conferring with the former Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), but I hope that he will listen to this point—is that the JCPCT is deliberately denying the joint health overview and scrutiny committee access to the documents in an effort to block any real scrutiny of this flawed process. That is disgraceful, because that is the proper process. We need full disclosure, because this is a democratically referred renewal, as Ministers have explained from the Dispatch Box previously.

I must also bring into focus the rather unsavoury role being played by the Children’s Heart Federation. As a charity, it is being used to try to force the pace of implementation of a decision that has not yet been formally approved and ratified. Its chief executive, Anne Keatley-Clarke, has said:

“Further possible delays in implementing the planned improvements to children’s heart services across England would be extremely worrying and would also cause a great deal of further uncertainty and distress for parents right across the country.”

That is a dishonest suggestion, frankly, considering the distress that those parents and families across the country, and in our case in Yorkshire and the Humber, are already feeling as a result of the decision. To try to force it through and undermine the Leeds unit before the decision has been finalised is something that a charity should simply not be doing. It is an arrogant and insensitive thing to say and, in my opinion, brings the charity into disrepute. The reality is, to quote my constituent Steph Ward, the mother of Lyall Cookward, who has relied on the Leeds unit:

“The Children’s Heart Federation have acted in a disgraceful manner. Anne Keatley-Clarke and her organisation think it is perfectly acceptable to completely ignore the views of 600,000 people, so how dare they call themselves a national organisation when they are prepared to ignore such a large section of the country?”

Will the Minister give us a clear assurance today that implementation will not be forced through until the proper process has been followed and there has been full, proper and honest disclosure of all the material necessary to scrutinise the decision? We do not have that. I hope that he can at least give us that assurance today. In the end, we all accept that the review was commissioned. We can have an argument about the number of operations that should be carried out—incidentally, we still have the ludicrous situation in which Glasgow will be permitted to carry out only 300 operations a year but will be deemed safe and sustainable, yet Leeds, which can carry out many more operations, will not be. We have still had no word about that, but organisations, particularly the JCPCT, are trying to force through the decision as if it is finalised. It is not finalised, and the democratic body that is there to scrutinise the decision on behalf of us all has so far been denied the very documents it needs. If that is not sinister, I do not know what is. We must have full disclosure, we must have an open and transparent process, and we must have that now.

14:19

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I cannot resist the opportunity in the time available to raise the same issue as that which my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) has just addressed, particularly given the fact that we now have a new ministerial team. I am delighted to see the new Minister on the Front Bench.

I realise that the Safe and Sustainable review is independent of Government, as the former Health Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), told me on many occasions. It is clear, however, that there is a problem with the decision, particularly in the north-east of England, and I hope that we can try to find a solution today.

It is worth restating the issue. Despite claims by some, right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, parents, the charity and clinicians are fully supportive of the review’s objectives. It has never been in doubt that safer and more sustainable units are the way ahead, but we are concerned that the outcome does not meet the review’s objectives. It goes against logical health planning, patient choice and clinical preferences. The fact is that patients in Yorkshire, Humberside and north Lincolnshire will simply be offered a poorer service.

Patient choice has been totally disregarded. A survey of patients showed that those in the major postcode areas would go not to Newcastle, but to Liverpool, Birmingham or, indeed, London instead. At the decision-making meeting, it was said that those patients would be influenced by referring doctors. The assumption was made that they would be pointed towards Newcastle, but no justification has been given for that assumption. Indeed, all of the 20 referring clinicians in the Leeds network, whose views were never sought by the Safe and Sustainable review, have said that they would not refer patients there for surgical treatment.

[Greg Mulholland]

It is a pleasure to carry on campaigning with my hon. Friend on this issue and we will continue to do so. Does he still agree with what we have said before, namely that the reason the Leeds unit is to be closed is the flawed assumption that that will allow Newcastle to reach the target of 400 operations, even though it will not? The unit is being sacrificed for something that will not even happen.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful for that intervention, which brings me on to exactly that point. The review’s decision said that 25% of Leeds, Wakefield, Doncaster and Sheffield patients would go to Newcastle, when its own evidence said that they simply would not. Funnily enough, if 25% of those patients go to Newcastle, guess what? Suddenly, 403 patients a year will have surgical operations in Newcastle, which is just three more than the magic figure of 400. I do not believe that that 25% will exist, so Newcastle will miss the target of 400 operations, which is a key plank of the whole review.

We have heard about how public opinion has been discounted. A petition signed by more than 600,000 people was brought down to Downing street. That is an enormous number for one region, yet the review counted it as just one response. On the other hand, 22,000 text messages received in support of Birmingham were counted as 22,000 separate responses, which is blatantly unfair.

One of the most important issues is the co-location of services. What has impressed me about the Leeds unit is that it is part of the Leeds children’s hospital. All other surgeons get there within minutes, if needed. We are asking our patients in our constituencies to go to Newcastle, where all other services are some 3 miles away from the heart surgery unit. That is simply not acceptable and goes against the advice of the key recommendation of the Bristol inquiry, which was backed by the British Congenital Cardiac Association. The inquiry said:

“For these services at each centre to remain sustainable in the long term, co-location of key clinical services on one site is essential.”

It is important that we do not forget that.

The fact is that, allowing for patient choice and without the flow of patients from the populous areas of Yorkshire, as evidenced by the PricewaterhouseCoopers research, Newcastle will not reach the target of 400 surgical procedures. In 2010-11, Leeds delivered 336 procedures against Newcastle’s 271.

The impact assessment also showed that the options that included Leeds would have fewer negative impacts and that option B, which included Newcastle, would be particularly damaging for paediatric intensive care in Yorkshire and Humber.

It is also important to ask why Birmingham was chosen because of its density of population and Leeds was not, given the fact that we have a high south Asian population who, statistically, are more likely to need the service. As we have said time and again, doctors should go where the patients are, not the other way around.

Sheffield parents whom I have met at the unit travel three times a day to visit their children in hospital, because they have other children at home. We have to think about the impact this has on families.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his work on this issue. His point about distance is particularly relevant to my constituency. Cleethorpes is about 85 miles from Leeds and the parents will not travel to Newcastle, so it will not reach that figure of 403.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the support that he has given to the campaign by meeting his own constituents who, he is right to say, will not travel to Newcastle. His comments further highlight the ludicrous nature of the decision.

I have presented the problem, so what is the solution? I recognise that the review is independent of Government, but we have to tackle the problem—it will not go away, because we as Yorkshire, Lincolnshire and Humberside MPs will not let it. Our view is that the review could happily be implemented elsewhere, that both Leeds and Newcastle should be kept open and that a decision on their future should be delayed until April 2014. That would provide an opportunity for patients and parents who require the services to exercise their constitutional right to patient choice and to determine which centre they wish to access. By the end of that period, each centre would have to demonstrate that they were fully compliant with all the standards set by the Safe and Sustainable review.

This solution would amount to only a one-year pause. Given that legal proceedings are likely to take place, there will be a one-year pause in any case. The reconfiguration of all children’s heart surgery centres in England is not due to commence until April 2014 and a decision taken at that time on Leeds and Newcastle could be implemented in 2015. The definition of a centre that delivers a sustainable service is that it should have a minimum of four surgeons, so if, after the one-year pause, commissioners did not think that the Newcastle unit had a sufficient work load, the Leeds unit could explore how it could provide support in conjunction with Newcastle.

If either of the centres did not meet the standards, it would, frankly, let itself down. This solution gives them the opportunity to provide the services that families are so desperate to keep. There are many benefits to the solution: it would avoid the risk of a costly judicial action from supporters of either unit, which could sink the review in its entirety; it would give Leeds and Newcastle the opportunity to demonstrate their compliance with the safe and sustainable standards, which is what we all want; it would allow the less controversial decisions made by the JCPCT to proceed elsewhere in the country; and it would show, frankly, that the Government are listening to the concerns of the 600,000 people who signed our petition, and I am sure that the public would respond accordingly.

I know that this is not an easy decision, but there is a great deal of concern and anxiety in our region. I hope that the Government will not just give us the line that this is a review independent of Government, but acknowledge that there are serious concerns and great anxiety among our patients and families, and that it is time to look at the issue in detail, to listen and to act.

14:29

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak about community health services in Milton Keynes. Before I outline the issue that is causing concern locally, I will set out the background.

Milton Keynes council, the primary care trust and Milton Keynes Community Health Services have a 12-year history of working collaboratively to deliver jointly commissioned and provided services to the citizens of Milton Keynes. That has been possible because the three organisations share a common vision and common values, and are committed to the principle of local services for local people. The collaboration has supported a transformational approach, which has delivered financial efficiencies and good quality outcomes for people. There is a single joint management structure, which manages combined budgets and resources, and works to a single operational policy.

The collaboration covers mental health and learning disability services, intermediate care services for older people and community equipment. Additionally, there is an integrated pathway involving adult community nursing, end-of-life care, community matrons and social workers. I put on the record my deep appreciation of the invaluable role that those dedicated professionals play in our communities. They often go unsung, so I would like to take this opportunity to record my gratitude.

To achieve such a locally tailored, integrated model is one of the admirable aims of the Government’s health and social care reforms yet, oddly, our successful local model may be at risk because of administrative factors. I hope that common sense can prevail.

Last year, it was hoped that there would be a managed transfer of the community health services to Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. However, that was not achievable within the required timetable and the PCT enacted a temporary divestment to Bedford Hospital NHS Trust, in full agreement with the strategic health authority and in full knowledge of the anticipated later divestment to the foundation trust. That is an acceptable hosting arrangement that will allow the integrated model to continue.

On 14 December last year, the PCT wrote to the foundation trust, inviting it to submit a proposal for the managed transfer of the community health services, which was to be considered by the PCT board at the end of February this year. However, on 22 February, the cluster PCT received e-mail communication from the head of provider development at NHS East Midlands, which advised that it should follow an open tendering process.

On 11 April, following strong representations from the council and local health partners, a positive meeting was held with Bob Ricketts at the Department of Health, where it was indicated that a managed transfer of the community health services to the hospital would be possible, subject to SHA assurance. However—the situation gets more complicated—a letter from Sir Neil McKay, of NHS Midlands and East, advised that the transfer was no longer possible and that the PCT should proceed towards a competitive tendering process for NHS providers only.

On 12 June, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) and I raised questions in the House on this issue. In response, the then Secretary of State for Health urged the PCT and the SHA to ensure that any decision was in the best clinical interests of patients. He stated that it must meet the views of clinical commissioners of the future and those of the public, not least as expressed through the local authority.

Following that, NHS Midlands and East met Milton Keynes council and its partners to discuss the position adopted by the SHA. It was agreed that a meeting should be convened to assess the case for an integrated care organisation. However, it was also agreed that the cluster PCT should continue with a twin-track approach, including an expressions-of-interest process.

Finally, on 11 September, NHS Milton Keynes and Northamptonshire cluster PCT received advice from the NHS Midlands and East SHA to progress with an NHS-only competitive procurement for the services currently provided by Milton Keynes Community Health Services. There has, therefore, been a sequence of contradictory advice from different parts of the NHS, which has thwarted the ambitions of the council, local health partners and patients’ representatives to achieve the best local solution for our citizens—an integrated care organisation in Milton Keynes.

All that is happening at a time when the NHS landscape is changing. The SHA and PCT will be wound up next year, and there is an acute services review that may change the configuration of the local hospitals. My call, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North and many local people, is quite simple: the temporary hosting arrangement should continue for the time being, until the new NHS landscape is settled and a sensible permanent arrangement can be found. My hon. Friend and I have raised this matter with the Secretary of State. In welcoming the Minister to his new role, I hope that he will ask the Department to intervene in any way that it can to achieve the common-sense solution, for which there is much local appetite.

14:35

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

I thank hon. Members for their kind comments. A lot of ground has been covered in this debate and many good points have been raised about local NHS services. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I cannot give comprehensive answers about everything that has been raised, but I will do my best in the time that is available.

It was clear from all the points that were made in the debate that every hon. Member sees the NHS through the prism of the patient. That is the right way to regard how NHS services are delivered. Patients are the priority for our NHS services and for the Government, and they were the priority for the former Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), in his decision to push ahead with the NHS reforms. The basis of the “No decision about me without me” policy is that patients are the most important thing. They are why doctors and nurses do their work and why all Governments endeavour to fight for a better NHS.

I turn now to the concerns of individual Members. I believe that I am right to wish my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South (Iain Stewart) a happy birthday. A number of hon. Members have concerns about the competitive procurement processes for community health services in Milton Keynes. He mentioned the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). Our policy is clear that it is for the local NHS, and the primary care trust in particular, to look at the options for different procurement procedures and to decide what is best for local people. The local strategic health authority has played an important role in assuring the PCT’s decisions. Whichever option is chosen, it must be possible to put it in place before 31 March 2013, to avoid the continuing and damaging uncertainty for staff. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes South and other hon. Friends to discuss the matter further.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) talked about maternity services, which is a matter close to my heart. This morning, I visited Newham university hospital, which faces different challenges in maternity care. I looked at the fantastic new unit that has been opened at Newham, which will meet those challenges and provide high-quality maternity care to that part of London.

My right hon. Friend was right to point out that the challenges for maternity services—indeed, for all health care services—in more rural areas such as Berwick-upon-Tweed are different from those in more urban parts of the country, such as London. Women and families in Berwick, like women and families everywhere, deserve maternity services that focus on improving the delivering of high-quality health care for women and babies, and on improving women’s experience of care.

The decision temporarily to close the midwifery-led maternity unit and in-patient post-natal services at the Berwick infirmary, to which my right hon. Friend alluded, was difficult for the local trust to make. He is right to say that in making such decisions there should be regard to the rurality of the area. He made good suggestions about the potential for rotating staff to support rural maternity units. I understand that the decision was made to protect the quality and safety of maternity services in the area and, in particular, to protect the quality of care and safety of women in labour.

I have been assured that the trust is working closely with commissioners to look at the future of maternity services in Berwick. The review will be completed in the coming months. My right hon. Friend may be aware of the recent birthplace study, which discusses good and bad practice in supporting smaller maternity units. I am sure that the commissioners will have regard to that study in making decisions about the future of the unit in his area. He should be assured that I will take a close interest in the matter and support his advocacy on behalf of his constituents.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) made some points about the service reconfiguration of health care services in London. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) also mentioned that issue, and I am sure she would like to pay tribute—as I do—to my right hon. Friends the Members for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) and for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), for their work over the years campaigning for services at St Helier hospital.

Key tests must be passed to ensure that clinical services are suitable for reconfiguration. First, there must be support from local clinicians, and, secondly, arrangements for public and patient engagement and consultation—including with local authorities—must be strengthened and put in place. Thirdly, we need greater clarity on the clinical evidence bases underpinning proposals, and, finally, any proposals should take into account the need to develop and support patient choice.

The reconfiguration of front-line health services is up to the local NHS, and no decisions will be taken until there has been a full public consultation. St Helier hospital is part of the south-west London reconfiguration scheme “Better Services, Better Value”, which is in its pre-consultation stage and is led by local GPs, nurses, acute clinicians, other health care professionals and patient representatives. Under “Better Services, Better Value”, the number of accident and emergency and maternity units will be reduced from four to three, and the likely recommendation is for St Helier to become a local hospital with an urgent care centre.

Ealing hospital is part of the “Shaping a healthier future” scheme in north-west London. Proposals for that scheme include centralising A and E units, and having maternity facilities on fewer sites. However, I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton that there are no plans to close any hospitals, and certainly not Ealing hospital. As she said, a full public consultation began on 2 July this year and will finish no earlier than 8 October, and I encourage my hon. Friend and her constituents to continue engaging with that process. She outlined the good campaign that she has been running to encourage local engagement, and I am sure she will continue with that so that local voices can be heard when health care decisions are made in the area.

The issue of children’s congenital heart surgery was raised by a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland) and for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew). My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) spoke passionately about Jacob, the son of one of his constituents.

A number of hon. Members are concerned about the “Safe and Sustainable” review of specialist paediatric services, and particularly its focus on the reconfiguration of heart surgery services. However, as was made clear in a number of contributions, its findings were based on Professor Kennedy’s review of paediatric heart services at Bristol after the heart scandal there, and the “Safe and Sustainable” review is independent of the Government, as it should be. In those circumstances, and given the notice of legal proceedings and referrals to the Secretary of State, it is not appropriate for me to comment further on that review or its outcome, and that stands for my statement on the Floor of the House as well as for my correspondence with constituents. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West has written to the Department on this matter, and the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), replied with details of how anyone who wishes to raise concerns about the review can get their voices heard.

[Greg Mulholland]

I commend the Minister for his professionalism in both his previous career and his current role. Although I accept what he says, does he agree that our statutory process must be allowed to look at whether this review is, as we believe, a dodgy decision, or, as the Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts contends, a fair one? Does the Minister at least agree that such scrutiny should take place, and that the fact that it is being prevented because documents have not been released is wrong and must be rectified? That is all I ask him to say today.

[Dr Poulter]

As my hon. Friend is aware, there is a process for scrutinising all decisions and, as I have outlined, if the correct procedure has not been followed, decisions are open to judicial review. To reassure hon. Members, we have accepted, from a medical perspective, the principle that fewer units deliver better care for patients and better surgical results for children. Therefore, this review is not about closing units in any particular hospital, but about specialist surgical services. Day-to-day care of patients and paediatric care for those who have had surgery will continue locally even after this review, and that should reassure local patients.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way again, but I am mindful of the time.

[Mr Cash]

On that point, and in the light of the way this legislation has been redressed over the past year and half, does the Minister accept that before the legislation was introduced, and now, ultimate responsibility and accountability for all matters affecting the health service turned on the duties, accountability and statutory responsibilities of the Secretary of State? That is why the Minister is now at the Dispatch Box, just as the Secretary of State would be in other circumstances.

[Dr Poulter]

I accept that the Secretary of State has always had responsibility for the health service, and that was implicitly made clear in the Health and Social Care Act 2012. It is, however, important that we no longer have a system in this country that micro-manages the delivery of local health care services. We must listen to local doctors and nurses, and put them in charge of the configuration of local services because they are often the best advocates for the needs of local patients. Reconfiguring local services should be led—as per the four tests I outlined previously—on good clinical grounds where there is a clinical case for reconfiguration and where local communities have been consulted. That is something we should listen to and we must move away from the Whitehall micro-management of local health care delivery.

[Gordon Henderson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I will give way one more time, and then I will make some progress.

[Gordon Henderson]

Does the Minister accept that local people wanted Royal Brompton hospital to be kept open, and that the decision to remove the intensive care unit was not taken by local people? The Minister is arguing against himself.

[Dr Poulter]

The initial process for the reconfiguration was started, I believe, by John Reid when he was Secretary of State in 2002, after listening to evidence at the time. We should remind ourselves why we are discussing congenital heart services. All speakers have accepted the principle that there is good clinical evidence—acknowledged by doctors and specialists—that having fewer units actually delivers better care for patients. That was accepted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey. I am not going to go into the rights and wrongs of individual units as that is under judicial review and I will not be drawn further on that point today.

[Stuart Andrew]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Poulter]

I have been very generous and indulgent but I must make some progress. The process was led by doctors and nurses, and there is an ongoing consultation to engage with, review and reflect on decisions at a local level. That came out clearly in comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North West, but some of those processes are under judicial review and I will not, therefore, be able to comment further. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey will accept my reassurance that these reviews are carried out on good clinical grounds that take into account local factors such as whether local health care services are well designed. The important thing is that they are being led and developed by local doctors and nurses. We need such clinical leaders in the NHS, because they are the best advocates of patients’ needs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) has been a strong advocate of the needs of his constituents and the staff of Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I know that we will be meeting tomorrow to discuss his concerns further, and I will also meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who has sadly now left the Chamber. We will talk about a number of issues, and I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford in advance of that meeting that I and other Ministers will continue to do all that we can, as our predecessors did. He rightly paid a full tribute to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for all the work that he did as Secretary of State for Health to support staff of that trust and ensure that there are good outcomes for patients. On behalf of all members of the Health team, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford for his work as a strong advocate of the needs of local patients, and I look forward to meeting him tomorrow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson) rightly raised the issue of paramedic prescribing. He talked about the need for more flexibility in urgent and emergency care services, on the basis that it is better to have prevention than cure. We know that paramedics do a great job every day of looking after people and providing essential care on the spot and in the ambulance that saves lives before people get to hospital. The more we can do to support paramedics in providing preventive care in the community, the better for patients.

As well as allowing flexibility in urgent care services, paramedic prescribing would allow eligible paramedics to deliver more treatment in the home and the community where appropriate. That should prevent hospital admissions and reduce demand on the system. At the moment, paramedics can administer a range of medicines, but they cannot write prescriptions for patients. A new system of paramedic prescribing should benefit both patients and the NHS. Due to resource and capacity issues it has not been possible to take forward that work yet, but it will be considered within the new architecture of the NHS Commissioning Board along with other work programmes on resources and capacity. I shall certainly raise the matter, and the good points that my hon. Friend made, with ministerial colleagues.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Derbyshire (Pauline Latham) talked about diabetes care, particularly for type 1 diabetes. It is commendable that a lot of her focus was on younger people with diabetes. The number of patients with type 1 diabetes and known to be on insulin pumps has increased. At the moment, at least 3,700 children and more than 10,000 adults are on insulin pumps, and they are particularly important for younger people who may find it more difficult to control their diabetes. However, they are important for all people who have difficulty with their insulin and their diabetes control.

We want people to lead more independent lives, and we want to support people with long-term conditions to enjoy the same life as anybody else, so it is right that we do more to support people with type 1 diabetes. Those with difficult diabetes control have to be mindful of their disease on a daily basis, and if we can do more to ensure that their diabetes is not a factor in how they live their lives, that has to be a good thing.

The NHS operating framework for 2011-12 highlights the need to do more to make insulin pumps available. The NHS Diabetes insulin pump network is promoting good practice, but as we have discussed, pump therapy is not suitable for everybody. We are waiting for the conclusion of the first ever national insulin pump audit early next year, which will give us a clearer picture of the number of pumps provided and the services that are available. Importantly, it will also include the first investigation of how services are provided compared with the guidance issued by NICE in 2008 and updated in 2011, which my hon. Friend outlined.

My hon. Friend also raised the issue of artificial pancreases. There is small-scale use of them in children, but the clinical trials are not yet conclusive as to their effectiveness and ease of use and there are currently no NICE guidelines on the subject. We need to use the commissioning process to address the disparities in NHS care and better reflect good medical practice, and nowhere is that more true than in diabetes care. We need to ensure that where there are NICE guidelines on good practice, that practice is carried out.

Finally, I wish to reflect on service reconfiguration and social care, which my hon. Friends the Members for Pudsey and for Milton Keynes South raised. Social care reform is important, and we need an integrated approach to health and social care. We must ensure that we reflect the health care needs of local populations and do more to support people with long-term conditions. That is a key driving force behind the vision for the NHS that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House outlined in 2010 when he was Secretary of State for Health. It drives what should happen, and what does happen, at local level every day as doctors and nurses look after their patients.

Decisions about integration and what it means to have good joined-up care, particularly for older people and those with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, asthma, dementia and other long-term conditions, need to be made at local level, drawing on the best of local health care provision. The Government will ensure that the NHS Commissioning Board’s mandate includes guidance on what is good commissioning. I am sure that from 2013, when the Government’s reforms have gone through and we have an NHS that is truly locally led, there will be properly joined-up and integrated care that better looks after people with long-term conditions, focuses on prevention rather than cure and particularly focuses on looking after older people better.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before I call the first Back Bencher in the general debate, I inform Members that the time limit is going to change to 12 minutes, as the number wanting to participate has reduced. May I ask that if you do not need 12 minutes, you do not take it? That time limit will probably enable us to get everyone in in the time that we have.

General Matters

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

14:57

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. I wish the Deputy Leader of the House very well in his new post, and I hope that will be able to understand what Members say and reply appropriately. I had hoped that the relevant Minister would be here, but all good wishes to the Deputy Leader of the House.

I wish to set out why the Government’s recent statement on relaxing the planning laws was wrong and how it will affect my constituents. In most societies, certain freedoms are restricted for the public or common good, and the long-term use of land should be in the long-term interests of the whole community. I welcome the new planning Minister, the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), to his post, but I have to say that sadly he has got it wrong. Hot on the heels of the statement made by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 6 September came a report by the very organisation that Ministers had set up. Surprise, surprise, it said that the Government should allow building on the green belt.

The Secretary of State’s statement should have given us clarity, not ambiguity, but I will give some examples of how it will confuse a lot of people, including planning lawyers. First, planning inspectors will be allowed to decide on applications, instead of the local authority. However, the problem is not the speed with which planning officers have to deal with applications, but the lack of properly qualified staff. In most councils, cuts are affecting the number of staff who can make proper decisions on planning issues.

Having worked for the Treasury Solicitor’s Department and acted for the Planning Inspectorate, I know that the people there are capable and committed public servants, but the Minister is going to have to increase their numbers. There cannot be an increase in their work without an increase in the number of those who carry it out.

The Government are looking for options to speed up planning appeals. Here is one easy remedy: more judges should be appointed to the High Court to deal with judicial reviews and appeals. Having dealt with planning litigation, I know that there was a pretty robust system between the judges’ clerks and the planning barristers’ clerks, and time estimates for cases were well adhered to. The problem is not about cases getting to court but the fact that we need more judges to deal with them.

What of the other controversial issues such as allowing extensions of up to 8 metres? My constituent, Mr Arnold Pate, has already had to suffer from this. A law-abiding citizen, who has worked hard all his life, is reduced to sitting in his back garden with a large two-storey extension blocking his light. The officers recommended refusal, but the planning committee allowed it. No weight was attached to Mr Pate’s views. Under the new planning statement proposals, the voice of the electorate—my constituents, such as Mr Pate, and other Members’ constituents—will continue to be ignored.

What of the flexibilities in the national planning policy framework to tailor the extent of the green belt? There is already encroachment in Walsall. In the case of the Three Crowns pub, officers advised the planning committee that the proposed development would constitute an unacceptable development on green belt land. The majority of residents were against the proposal, but the planning committee passed it anyway, even though there were no special circumstances to outweigh building on the green belt. A substantial amount of time was spent arguing in favour of the proposed development, while those who were against it were allowed only three minutes to make their case. Construction has not yet started, apparently due not to planning but to financial issues. Despite previous decisions that the Three Crowns school site should remain in the green belt because of its elevation and the trees, the council plans to build eight detached houses, after a short consultation period that did not necessarily include all the residents.

Walsall South already has land to build on for housing on the former Servis factory site in Darlaston. Outline planning permission has already been given for housing development. The residents in the area want housing, but the owners of the site would like another retail development. I have mentioned Woodside close in a previous debate. The same application has been refused six times by the Planning Inspectorate. The residents association said that officers gave no weight to its views. How would repeat applications be covered under the new regime? Would residents have to put up with multiple applications? Will section 43 of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 apply to inspectors when they have to deal with the new work that might come their way? Another constituent of mine had to face the construction of a dormer bungalow on the garden next door. Despite guidance that people are not supposed to build in gardens, this was still allowed.

Walsall South is at terrible risk from these proposals. As other Members know, it is situated at the confluence of many motorways; it is a key area. The Local Government Association has given us figures, which are well known, showing that there are 400,000 plots across England and Wales with planning permission for work to start. The figure is about 25% higher than previously thought. Building work has only started at half those plots, so it would take developers three and a half years to clear the backlog. I fear that because the Government have lost the argument on the planning reforms and have had to rethink the national planning policy framework, they are trying to change the rules through a different route.

With the greatest respect to the Minister, I do not think that he has undertaken litigation in planning, as I have. I am no Luddite and the people of Walsall South are not Luddites. What they are concerned about—from the residents to the builders—is that the precious green belt in Walsall, particularly in the south of the town, should not be eroded to the point where there is an unbroken urban sprawl from Staffordshire in the north to Warwickshire in the south. As one of the planning consultants, Malcolm Griffiths, told me, people already suffer from large-scale extensions to properties in this part of Walsall, with little if any control over oversized extensions and no enforcement by the council.

I am reluctant to say this, but the Chancellor is right: it is an economic problem. The economics are not working; the lenders are not lending. A condition should be attached to any money that is given to the banks under quantitative easing whereby some of that money is given back to the people by, for example, relaxing the need for them to have large deposits when they want to purchase a house.

If the Minister wants to build homes on existing sites, he needs to harness the imagination and creativity of architects who propose interesting developments. Paris can have an innovative building such as the Pompidou centre that is in keeping with the skyline, but we have to have the Shard, which dominates our skyline. I am sorry; I had to get that in because I really do not like that building.

There is no need further to relax the planning rules, but there is a need to protect the countryside. As Beatrix Potter, the great protector of the countryside, might have written: “This is the tale of the bad policy.” I hope that it ends happily.

14:50

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

It gives me no pleasure to rise to talk about a failed procurement project that has cost every citizen in Somerset a great deal of wasted money and time. Southwest One is a joint venture between Somerset county council, Taunton Deane council, Avon and Somerset police and IBM—one of the world’s biggest IT firms. It is a classic example of how not to do public procurement.

At 2 o’clock in the morning five years ago, an unlikely cast of characters were gathered. The county councillors were red-eyed, the IBM executives passed round a pen, and everyone signed. It was done out of office hours and in total secrecy, even though it involved hundreds of council staff and hundreds of millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. Somerset’s chipper little chief executive, Alan Jones, said afterwards: “In five years’ time, people will look back on this agreement and say it’s the best thing we’ve ever done.”

I was, I admit, suspicious from the word go. IBM, as most people know, is no charity; it prides itself on fat profits. The joint venture was never equal anyway; IBM owned 75% of the business. However, it has taken five long years to get to the ghastly truth. I have now obtained a copy of the original IBM bid. There were only two serious contenders: IBM and BT—British Telecom. They were asked to do some blue-sky thinking, and IBM came up with some bizarre extras: pure fairy dust; total fiction; a romantic dream of our county and its wildly ambitious chief executive strutting the world stage hand in hand with IBM. Here are some of the promises: “We will increase the economic wealth of Somerset by £600 million every year!”; “We will create 400 new jobs—instantly!”; “We will build a new industry of environmental science!”; “We will provide the infrastructure for a new university!”; “We will deliver broadband to Somerset within a single year!”; “We will build an iconic headquarters!” I think that that is what my Spanish friends would call a load of cojones. Yet Councillor Jill Shortland, the then leader of the Liberal Democrats, and her pea-brained sidekick, Councillor Sam Crabb—once a banker, funnily enough, or so he claims, but more likely a junior clerk—swallowed the story hook, line and sinker.

One needs to be seriously stupid not to spot the holes in IBM’s bid. IBM pledged to get Somerset wired up for broadband within a year—impossible without the help of BT, and BT, quite rightly, was far too sensible to suggest it. In fact, Somerset is still negotiating with the Government for a multi-million-pound grant to wire up both Devon and Somerset, which is moving along. I am afraid that IBM was telling a huge porky. Councillors have highly paid officials to help them to spot pitfalls, and they should have been doing so, but these councillors were at best dim, if not reckless. The only other explanation is that palms were being greased.

So who recommended that Somerset should go with IBM? The project leader was appointed by the then chief executive, Alan Jones, and she was a lady called Sue Barnes. Ms Barnes, as it happens, was married to the chief constable of Avon and Somerset, Mr Colin Port. Six months after the secret contract, the police joined the venture—dare I say it?—funnily enough, on more favourable terms. The police received an enormous bung from Ms Barnes’s employers, Somerset county council. There is hard evidence that Somerset provided a subsidy to the force. I have seen e-mails from the assistant chief constable confirming it. Somerset’s former director of resources, Roger Kershaw, was given executive power to negotiate the arrangement. Apparently, no councillors were told. The payment to the police was deliberately concealed in the county’s accounts 2008-09. I am calling on the Secretary of State to reopen those accounts for inspection, because I am afraid that there is a can of worms in them.

Funnily enough, Mr Kershaw once worked for Warwickshire county council. Mr Port was a senior officer at Warwickshire constabulary. This is where the IBM data centre for Somerset is, and where its records are stored. Warwick—I do not need to tell anybody in this honourable House—is in Warwickshire. Mr Port went on to join the board of Southwest One, an obvious conflict of interest if ever there was one. It took substantial publicity before it dawned on the chief constable that his position on the board was untenable. By then the credibility of Southwest One was even more untenable. It promised to save taxpayers £200 million over 10 years, but the savings are minimal and the losses of Southwest One run close to £50 million.

Somerset was forced to chuck out its own computer systems and spend £30 million of taxpayers’ money on IBM kit and software called SAP. That dreadful system refuses to pay clients, double pays others, mucks up police rotas and puts sensitive information at risk. I am afraid that it is Mickey Mouse software. IBM used its Indian division to design the software to save money. When SAP ground to a halt, IBM flew in a contingent of Indian IT workers who stayed in Taunton, the county town, for months trying to fix it. Guess what? They failed.

Alan Jones claimed things were all going swimmingly. Roger Kershaw went to Canada at IBM’s expense to address a conference entitled “Successful Outsourcing”. Sam Crabb and Jill Shortland—both still councillors, both Liberal Democrats—tried to blame me and the trade unions for rocking the boat. The trade unions—would you believe it? The truth was crystal clear: no other local authority or police force has joined Southwest One, ever. It is a rubbish venture.

In May 2009, the voters removed the Liberal Democrats from control of Somerset county. The new administration got rid of Alan Jones, the chief executive, and it cost the taxpayer £341,000 to do so, but at least he was gone. Roger Kershaw, the finance director, quit before he was pushed. The new team started to renegotiate the awful deal with IBM. Many of the staff who transferred to Southwest One are, I am glad to say, back at Somerset county. Much of that work has returned to the county, but the ghost of this ghastly contract haunts us.

When the economic crisis arrived, public spending was cut, which meant less work for Southwest One. Unfortunately, there is a booby-trap in the contract that forces Somerset to compensate IBM if spending falls. Last week, the county council had to take the decision to take £2.7 million from contingency funds to pay the company off. If spending remains at the current level, which it probably will, Somerset will have to fork out £2.7 million every year for the next five years. That is £13.5 million pounds, plus a £5 million subsidy to the Avon and Somerset force. That vastly outweighs any mythical savings that Southwest One claims.

Just to rub salt into the wound, Southwest One is trying to extract more money from Somerset by suing. The marriage is over—that reminds me of another marriage that we are in at the moment—but there is no escape. On 27 September, five years to the day since the contract was signed, Somerset could legally terminate the whole mad thing, but the price of quitting is so high that we are stuck.

The blame lies fairly and squarely with Alan Jones, Roger Kershaw, Sam Crabb and—dare I say it?—other second-rate councillors. Al Capone would be rather proud of them in a bizarre way. They behaved as though they were working for IBM.

This is a national, not a local, scandal. The district auditor gave Southwest One glowing reports. The Audit Commission whitewashed the lot. There is now overwhelming evidence to prove that the auditors were grossly negligent. Southwest One should be—must be—examined properly by the National Audit Office. Only then can I see a happy ending to this ghastly fairytale.

15:14

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I wish to speak about the marking of the English and English language GCSEs this summer.

At the beginning of the school term, I was asked to visit one of my local secondary schools, which had been confidently predicting 58% A* to C grades in English and English language. The students have been marked down at 32%. At the same time, stories started to appear in the local newspaper, the Daily Echo, about schools in neighbouring Hampshire. Some schools that have regularly had 84% to 90% A to C grades achieved just 60%. It became clear to me, as it did across the country, that something had gone enormously wrong in the marking of GCSE exams this summer.

I wanted to speak in the debate because I believe that a huge injustice has been done to that group of students who sat the exams this summer. It is an injustice that has a real effect on their lives: I have heard already of students who have been denied access to the college or the course that they wanted, or who have not been allowed to go on to the apprenticeship that they had been promised, or who are worried about the future impact of having low grades when they might come to apply, for example, to selective universities.

Equally importantly, there are those students who, from the beginning of their school career, needed considerable support, inspiration, nurturing, cajoling and confidence building just to stay the course. They left school in June confident that they would achieve a reasonable result, but they now feel so bitterly let down that they say they are turning their backs on education altogether.

This is not the time for wider debate on education standards; that will take place another time. I want to focus on the marking of those exams this summer. I believe that the students are innocent victims, caught in the crossfire of a wider and sometimes highly partisan debate about education. We need to focus on the position that they are in, but up to now Ministers—and, I am afraid, the Secretary of State—do not seem to have understood the injustice that has been done. The concerns of students are being brushed off, like so much dandruff from the Secretary of State’s collar.

Why am I so convinced that an injustice has been done? First, because the students, however we look at it, fulfilled every expectation of their teachers and, in turn, of the exam boards. Students look to teachers to guide them on what they need to know—the skills and the aptitude that they need to demonstrate—but there is simply no evidence that, peculiarly this year, they were catastrophically let down by their teachers.

Let us look at the schools involved. It is not as though this is poor performance concentrated in schools that had traditionally been weak or had struggled to achieve decent results. As is very clear, the unexpectedly poor results occurred in schools that had traditionally been among the best-performing in the country. It defies belief that so many teachers in so many schools should, collectively, turn into poor teachers in that one month of June this year.

Those teachers were supported by the exam boards. In the school that I visited, because the controlled assessment was new, there were regular checks with AQA on the way the work was being moderated and to ensure that the approach to the teaching was in line with the exam boards’ expectation. The school was told that it was in line with expectations—a school that had been praised for the excellence of its moderation and the quality of its predictions.

We got the Ofqual interim report, but it really does not convince in any way that Ofqual has, clearly and transparently, got to the bottom of why the results turned out the way they did in so many schools.

One reason for my participation in the debate is that I am one of the architects of Ofqual. It was my joint decision with my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), when he was Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families and I was Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills, to establish Ofqual as an independent regulator. The truth is that the guarantee of independence that we delivered has not turned out to be a guarantee of competence. Ofqual has failed to deliver the quality of service that is needed to inspire confidence among students and teachers.

The interim report that Ofqual published failed to provide a convincing explanation of what happened; indeed, as the General Secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders said to the Select Committee on Education, in the one exam that we are talking about there has been extraordinary variation: 26.7% of those sitting it got a C grade in June last year; 37% got a C grade in January; and 10.2% got a C grade in June 2012. As he said,

“there is no evidence that those papers had any difference in the level of challenge in those examinations”.

In other words, it is all down to the extraordinary way in which the exam was assessed.

Ofqual tried to say that the problem related to January, but its figures do not tell a convincing story that gives a full explanation. In any case, students have the reasonable expectation that if they deliver what they were asked to deliver by their teachers and the exam board, that will be reflected in their result. For them to fail their exam, as they will be seen to have done, is deeply unfair; it will have a lasting impact on them.

Last week, the Secretary of State said, or is reported to have said, the following to the Select Committee—the transcript is not yet on the website—about the Welsh decision to reopen the question:

“the children who suffer are children from Wales who, when they apply for jobs in England, will hand over certificates that profess to be good passes, and English employers will now say, ‘I fear, through no fault of your own…that I cannot count your exam pass as equivalent to this other exam pass.’”

As with many of the Secretary of State’s statements, there is absolutely no evidence for that. Indeed, if it were true, we would be seeing schools, colleges and employers turning down children with the January qualifications, on the grounds that those qualifications were not good enough.

Ofqual says—I have given a health warning about its report—that performance overall is down by just 1.4%. Perhaps we should treat that statement with caution, but if that is the case, it can hardly be claimed that re-grading to around the expected levels would invalidate the whole set of qualifications this summer. It would, however, make a massive difference to the students affected. Allowing the injustice to remain uncorrected will do far more damage to the students than any possible consequences of allowing a re-grading consistent with the January results to go ahead.

Why did the Secretary of State not consider that course of action, or, given the questions around the Ofqual report, set up an independent inquiry? I am convinced that a re-grading is the only fair way forward, but I can understand that a necessary first step is an independent inquiry into what happened. I fear that the real reasons do not reflect well on the Secretary of State. He is a highly political, highly partisan Minister who wishes to play every issue for his personal promotion and party advantage. When the issue came to light, he thought, I am sure, “This is a party opportunity.” After all, Labour had introduced controlled assessments, and Labour—indeed, I, as Minister—had introduced Ofqual. He thought it was an opportunity to attack Labour’s record and burnish his credentials as a defender of standards; that is what he set out to do.

However, surely there has to be a limit to the amount of damage that we are prepared to do to innocent students just to promote a Secretary of State’s career and political stance. We are all in politics, and we all make partisan speeches at times, but none of us has the right to make others the victim of our politics.

I am convinced that an injustice has been done to thousands of students; they worked hard and did what they were asked to do. I am convinced that many of them will suffer as regards their careers, academic qualifications and job opportunities. This situation cannot be allowed to last, and the issue must not be lost in the wider, legitimate debate about educational standards. I hope that the Government will, at this late stage, agree to an independent inquiry, so that we can get to the bottom of what went wrong and make sure that the students concerned are treated fairly.

15:24

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

I wish to tackle the important issue of nuisance calls. Like many Members, I am fed up with receiving nuisance calls on my mobile and home telephone, and unsolicited texts sent to my mobile. It is a real problem for many of my constituents, much as cold-calling in person was many years ago. It was mainly energy companies who indulged in cold-calling in person, but thanks to many local campaigns across the country, most of the big six energy companies have stopped the practice. It is time to turn our attention to the issue of nuisance calls and texts.

There were 650 million silent calls made in the UK last year, and 45 million spam texts sent in Europe last year and every year. Some 3 million UK adults will be scammed out of £800 each this year by fraudulent marketing calls. It is clear that we have an industry in crisis and a country under siege. People should not have to put up with this menace, which puts many vulnerable and elderly people at just as much risk of fraud as if the crook or pushy salesman turned up at their door unannounced. Yet the two Departments responsible for various aspects of the industry—the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice—do not seem to think that there is a need for any change in legislation.

In response to a letter that I sent him, the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), said that although the Government do not believe that sweeping changes are necessary to the regulatory framework, the Ministry of Justice continues to keep the Information Commissioner’s Office powers under review. Thousands of people disagree and are backing my campaign to restrict this nuisance. They say that their experience shows that the current situation is simply not good enough. Many people have shared their horror stories with me. I would welcome the chance to meet Ministers from DCMS and the Ministry of Justice to discuss the issue.

The Sunday Post in Scotland has helped to promote my campaign nationally, and a spokesman for the newspaper recently told me:

“It's clear from the overwhelming response we have had from our readers this problem plagues our daily lives.

And yet regardless of asking for them to stop—and sometimes taking steps to halt them—the onslaught continues.

The will is there from people to put on an end to this once and for all. Now is the time for the Government to act on that will and strengthen existing legislation.”

I could not agree more.

Since launching my campaign only four weeks ago, over 10,500 people have signed the campaign petition at no2nuisancecalls.net—sorry for the plug. Like many others, I know that I have not had a fall in the last five years and am not entitled to any more payment protection insurance compensation, and I certainly do not want a payday loan. Nevertheless, I am continually contacted by text and phone by companies offering me those things.

I am registered with the Telephone Preference Service for both home and mobile numbers, but even that does not stop the onslaught. According to Ofcom figures, complaints to the TPS about unwanted marketing calls jumped to almost 10,000 for the month of July. That compares with just over 3,000 in December last year. In an online poll of 4,000 individuals for Which? magazine, 76% of respondents said that despite signing up to the TPS, they still receive many nuisance calls. Only 1% rated the service as excellent and said that they no longer received nuisance calls. Once again, the Under-Secretary seemed to miss that point; he said that the TPS was generally successful in reducing the number of unsolicited marketing calls received. That is not the experience of the majority of people registering with it.

Ofcom suggests that increased activity by PPI and accident claims companies is partly to blame for the rise. The problem is partly the result of the fact that PPI calls are not classed as sales calls but as a service or marketing calls. On texts, the law says that there must be an unsubscribe option such as “Reply STOP to this number”. However, there are two problems with that. First, there are serious worries about how much it would cost to send such a text. Secondly, such a reply tells the sender that the number is genuine and in use, which might merely engender further contact from that company and from others.

Recent research by the Association of British Insurers has found that more than three quarters of people—78%—have been contacted by a claims management company asking if they have been involved in an accident or mis-sold payment protection insurance. The ABI found that 92% of those who received such a message from a claims management company said that it was not relevant to them.

Complaints about abandoned or silent calls trebled in 2012, rising from 957 in December 2011 to 3,390 in July 2012. That is probably only the tip of the iceberg. In May 2011, the Information Commissioner’s Office was given powers to fine companies up to £500,000 if they broke the rules on unsolicited texts and phone calls. To date, however, the ICO has failed to prosecute any company for breaking the rules, in spite of the fact that it has received more than 7,000 complaints this year—a 43% increase on last year, when fewer than 5,000 complaints were received for the entire year.

I understand better than most the difficulties involved in carrying out complex police investigations, but we must understand what prevents those investigations from leading to prosecutions and fines. Until an example is made, those companies will carry on unfazed. The ICO has done great work on fining companies that fail to look after their data properly, but the strongest action so far on breaking of the legislation governing unsolicited calls and texts was a strongly worded statement in July this year which talked of the ICO “baring its teeth”.

All of that points to a huge problem that is on the increase—indeed, it is out of control. Some companies offer a service to help protect people from unwanted calls, but it can be costly—anything from £35 to £100—and often those companies are not up front about the charges. To be frank, why should we have to pay for such a service anyway? I believe, as do the 10,000-plus people who have signed up to my online campaign, that we have the right to be free from such calls without having to pay for the privilege.

As I have said, the problem is out of control, and requires urgent action. The Information Commissioner desperately needs to have the power to end this menace. I am therefore calling for the Information Commissioner’s powers to be strengthened to take in all forms of unsolicited contact, and for a single point of contact for any individual wishing to protect their privacy and block unwanted calls, texts, faxes and e-mails. That express wish should be taken seriously and acted upon.

I simply do not understand why we continue to allow this to happen, and why we are so permissive about our telecoms contact. If Barclays or HomeServe—two companies that, between them, were fined £5 million for silent calls—were knocking on our vulnerable granny’s door every day, then running away before she answered, we would be appalled. Instead, we tell those companies that they can do that only one day in 20: 5% of their calls are allowed to be silent. If claims management companies were knocking on her door, then bullying her into making PPI claims or taking payday loans, we would be up in arms. Instead, we hide behind the claim that those are merely surveys. If, because of all of that, we had to hire a doorman at significant expense to filter all the unwanted people at the door and only allow real visitors in, that would be completely unacceptable, yet that is the awful, frightening telecoms reality for many older, vulnerable members of society. It simply cannot continue. It simply must stop.

15:33

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

May I, too, welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his post and to the debate? I once replied to 400 speeches—40, not 400—in a pre-recess Adjournment debate, so I understand the task that faces him.

Last week, I said at Culture, Media and Sport questions:

“The all-party group on women’s sport and fitness wants to see our fantastic women athletes in the media, inspiring girls and women of all ages to take part in sport. However, outside the Olympics, women’s sport gets 5% of the media coverage and less than 1% of the commercial sponsorship.”—[Official Report, 13 September 2012; Vol. 550, c. 413.]

I asked the Minister whether he agreed that the situation must change. I was surprised at how effective my question was, because on Saturday the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport wrote to all national broadcasters telling them to reassess their coverage of women’s sport. I agree with that action, because the lack of media coverage for women’s sport is a vital issue.

Across our leading newspapers there are no female sports editors. Only 2% of the articles and 1% of the images in the sports pages of the national newspapers are devoted to female athletes and women’s sport. Earlier this year, the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation reviewed the sports pages across all national daily newspapers to assess the level of coverage given to women’s sport. I am indebted to the Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation for the authoritative reports and statistics that it produces on women’s sport. Over the three days of the review, those newspapers published more than 1,500 articles on sport, yet only 2% were on women’s sport. TV sports schedules were also reviewed. On one Friday, of the 72 hours of sport broadcast on three Sky channels, only three were devoted to women’s sport. I am sad to say that the online coverage of women’s sport reviewed was little better—although I should mention the Sportsister website, which is dedicated to women’s sport. However, apart from that exception, on the 10 sports news internet sites that were reviewed on one day in April, only 1% of the links were to articles on female sports, and there was not a single image of a female athlete on the front page of the top 10 websites.

That is the normal situation outside the Olympics, but if that level of coverage had applied during the Olympics, we would have missed a great deal. Team GB women athletes won 22 of our 65 medals, 10 of them gold. If our women athletes had received only 1% or 2% of the news coverage during that time, we would possibly have seen some of Jessica Ennis’s gold in the heptathlon, but what would we have missed? We would have missed Nicola Adams winning the historic first gold in the boxing; Victoria Pendleton’s individual gold; the team gold for Dani King, Laura Trott and Joanna Rowsell, and Laura Trott’s gold in the omnium; the rowing golds—won when we had got hardly any gold medals—of Heather Stanning and Helen Glover, Katherine Grainger and Anna Watkins, and Katherine Copeland and Sophie Hosking; Charlotte Dujardin’s magnificent gold in the dressage and her gold in the mixed team dressage; and Jade Jones’s gold in the taekwondo.

If women’s sport in the Olympics had received only 5% of media coverage or three of the 72 hours of broadcast coverage, we would definitely not have seen Gemma Gibbons’s silver in the judo or her emotional response, which for many ranks as one of the high points of the Olympics; Christine Ohuruogu’s magnificent defence of her earlier performance, with a silver in the 400 metres; Rebecca Adlington’s bronzes in the 400 and 800 metres swimming; the women’s team bronze in hockey; Samantha Murray’s silver in the modern pentathlon; the bronze for Beth Tweddle—a wonderful gymnast at the end of her career—on the uneven bars; or even Lizzie Armitstead’s race for silver in the pouring rain, our very first medal for Team GB.

It would have been ridiculous if we had not seen those moments in the women’s events, yet that is what happens all the time outside the Olympics, with very few exceptions. There is netball coverage on Sky and some coverage of women’s football on the BBC, albeit not enough—although I should mention that BBC2 is showing the England women’s game against Croatia tomorrow, an important qualifier for Euro 2013. There was even some live coverage of the England women’s cricket team in the T20 recently, but there should be so much more coverage of women’s sport.

Let us take women’s rugby as an example. The Rugby Football Union feels that there are great opportunities for growth in women’s rugby. The numbers of those playing are up 91% since 2004, with more than 13,000 women and girls currently registered as playing rugby each week across 533 clubs. England hosted the 2010 women’s rugby world cup, which was deemed to be the most successful world cup to date. The legacy of that event was a much greater increase in the number of women taking up rugby than in ordinary years. However, although the RFU feels that there are great opportunities for growth in the women’s game, I feel that they will be hard to achieve at the current levels of media coverage, which I outlined earlier.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that this is not only about encouraging women’s sport through the media of television, radio and so on? Is it not also about ensuring that there should be free entry to games wherever possible? For example, the Northern Ireland women’s football team are playing tomorrow night, and entry is free in order to encourage everyone to go. That is another way of encouraging media coverage and ensuring that games are promoted.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is right, but that has not happened in women’s football. I have to say, however, that I would be much more comfortable if people were prepared to pay to watch women’s rugby and football, because I think that those games are as good as the men’s.

That leads me to the subject of the success of the England women’s rugby team. They are an extremely successful team internationally. In the 2011-12 season, our team beat the current champions, New Zealand, in a three-match test series, as well as winning their seventh six nations tournament in a row, which was also their sixth grand slam. The England women’s sevens team won the European championships, the European grand prix series and two out of three International Rugby Board challenge series events. Despite all that success, however, only two of the games were broadcast live throughout the whole season. England will host the rugby world cup in 2015, and we must ensure that plans are in place to reach the widest possible audience, in order to inspire women and girls to watch and play rugby.

What needs to be done? As the Secretary of State said in her letter to broadcasters, the Olympics and Paralympics have shone a spotlight on women’s sport, and we need to ensure that that continues after the games. She also highlighted the fact that the substantial television audiences for the summer Olympics illustrated the public appetite for mainstream coverage of women’s sport. Indeed, 16.3 million people watched Jessica Ennis win her heptathlon gold, and 11.3 million watched Rebecca Adlington win her bronze medal in the 800 metres freestyle swimming event. As we got further into the tournament, we also saw capacity audiences watching the England women’s football team, and it was a pity that the team did not make more progress.

I support the Secretary of State’s initiative and her proposal to meet those broadcasters, but there is a need to go much further. The Women’s Sport and Fitness Foundation has identified three priority areas. First and foremost, there should be more media coverage of women’s sport. We need that increased media profile because it will be crucial to drive public interest and to fill the grounds for games. It will also be vital to drive the commercial sponsorship of women’s sport. Let us remember that women in sport are unfairly treated in that regard. They have only 1% of the total commercial sponsorship of sport. When we think of our great women cyclists, we must remember that there is no Team Sky for women. Lizzie Armitstead cycles in a team based in the Netherlands, which I understand is losing its sponsor at the end of 2012 She has had fabulous medals success, but will have no sponsorship by the end of the year.

As a second priority, our female athletes need to be showcased as role models. Having positive, active role models is crucial if girls and young women are to be inspired to lead physically active, healthy lifestyles. Surveys conducted since the Olympics have shown that 81% of adults agree that the female athletes at London 2012 were better role models than other female celebrities. It is not about dieting to be slim; it could be about exercising to be slim.

Thirdly, we must concentrate on increased leadership. Only 22% of leadership positions in sport are held by women. That figure needs to increase to ensure that sport is governed and run in ways that appeal to the widest possible market. I would like the Secretary of State to tell me whether she regards those three areas as priorities, and what action her Department plans to take on them in the coming months.

Finally, the all-party parliamentary group on women’s sport and fitness has asked the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to consider undertaking an inquiry into the media profile of women’s sport. Through the medium of this debate, I would like to urge the Chair and members of the Select Committee to consider that proposal, because this is absolutely the key time to make a difference to women’s sport.

15:44

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

I rise to address the issue of increasing the flexibility of labour markets, and the effect that it can have on small business growth. In doing so, I pay tribute to the many actions this Government have taken to encourage businesses, particularly small businesses. The Chancellor of the Exchequer’s huge achievement in maintaining our triple A credit rating status is worthy of note, thus keeping interest rates low, which has assisted businesses up and down the country to invest. Also important is the continuing reduction in corporation tax levels, which I think most businesses feel is most welcome.

When it comes to labour market flexibility, and particularly supply-side flexibility, we might usefully view it through the prism of one of the great macro-economic conundrums this country faces: on the one hand, we have reductions in unemployment and increases in employment, yet on the other hand, we have the apparently contradictory information that growth has been negative over the last three quarters. Some of that could be due to the fact that gross domestic product has been underestimated over that time, which would be consistent with the history of these circumstances when recessions are typically estimated at the time to be more severe than they are subsequently assessed as being. That certainly happened in 1990-91—three years later, economists decided that the recession had been 40% less deep than it had been estimated at that particular time.

Declining unemployment is probably due to increases in part-time employment, but also to the extremely positive action taken by Ministers and the Secretary of State at the Department for Work and Pensions, which has encouraged people off welfare and into work. There is one other reason why the employment figures might appear to trump the growth figures—our extremely flexible labour markets, which are due, in turn, to the supply-side flexibility introduced in the 1980s. Ironically, there are probably many thousands of people up and down this country who owe their current livelihood to the courage Margaret Thatcher had in the 1980s to improve the supply side of our economy.

Why, then, as I would argue, do we need to go further in reducing supply-side rigidities if our labour markets are so flexible as they stand? The reason is that we are competing in an internationally competitive global marketplace in which our future competitors are not going to be simply the likes of France and Germany, as we will increasingly be bumping shoulders with the likes of China and India, which have extremely flexible labour markets indeed.

If we are to improve labour market flexibility, it will have at least two effects on business. One is that it will make it easier for them to transact business; the second is that it will send a very positive message to businesses that the Government are very serious about supporting entrepreneurship and business. That will be particularly important, given that this country currently suffers from a lack of business confidence. UK plc is sitting on some £750 billion-worth of cash, which is not being released to invest in jobs and growth simply because it lacks the confidence to do so.

I think we should take some further action, and I strongly believe in the comments made by the CBI and the Federation of Small Businesses to the effect that we should look at the area of employment-protected leave of absence or maternity and paternity leave, and particularly at how it affects small businesses and micro-businesses.

Let me clarify, first, that I strongly believe in and adhere to the principle of employment rights. It is quite right and proper in a civilised society that companies and Governments should be helpful to women at their time of child birth and beyond. It is also an important tool of policy for ensuring that we increase and improve the engagement of women within the work force. That is my starting point, but I believe that our balance has become out of balance: it is now too much in favour of rights and there is too little emphasis on the onerous provisions that apply to businesses.

Last year, I asked the Library to prepare a comparative grid to show the levels of various maternity rights across various countries in the world. It is certainly the case that we are not the most generous, but we are among the most generous. In Australia, for example, the entitlement is to 18 weeks; in Greece, it is to 17 weeks; in India, it is 12 weeks—but in the United Kingdom, it is 52 weeks. Let us consider the problem that that may cause an employer in the United Kingdom, particularly a small employer whose business consists of, say, between six and 12 people. A key member of staff, such as a senior manager or director, is able to be absent from the workplace for more than a year—over 52 weeks. The employer must then make a contribution to maternity pay, and, in some circumstances, continue to provide a company car and a mobile telephone and pay for any membership of clubs or organisations that may have been granted as a work-related benefit.

Moreover, the absent employee will have been accruing holiday leave, and it is entirely possible that, at the end of the 52 weeks, the business will have to pay in full for the employee to be absent for a further month, or even two months. Any options agreements or share incentive schemes will continue as normal, although the employee may not be present to make any contribution to the success of the business. The employer will also continue to pay in full any pension contributions that have previously applied.

Huge uncertainty is caused by the fact that employees do not have to inform their employers whether they will be returning to the workplace until the period of absence is well under way. It is quite conceivable that, in a company with six to 12 employees, a senior individual who has been absent from the workplace will not inform the employer until the 11th hour—after an absence of at least a year—that he or she will not be coming back.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

We should also bear it in mind that replacing expertise does not involve like-for-like funding. Acquiring a locum can be very expensive for a small business, and as a result the owner of the business often ends up doing two jobs throughout the period of the employee’s absence.

[Mel Stride]

That is an extremely important point. One of the problems with excessively onerous employment rights of this nature is that they build up a fair amount of resentment among existing members of the work force who are often expected to work longer hours or, indeed, to change the pattern of their work in order to accommodate the person who is absent.

In no way do I wish to attack the notion of rights of this kind. I think that they are very important, for the reasons that I have given, but I hope that the Government will look closely at the balance in how they operate, particularly in the case of micro-businesses employing 10 people or fewer.

15:53

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

I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for facilitating today’s debate.

Six years ago, in August 2006, Luke Molnar, the 17-year-old son of my constituents Gill and Steve Molnar, died on the island of Tokoriki. Luke was a paying volunteer on a diving expedition arranged by a UK-based company, Coral Cay Conservation Ltd. On the day of his death, he went to assist a friend who had received an electric shock when he touched a washing line. When Luke touched the line, he received a massive electric shock which killed him.

It transpired that a local electrician had wired the washing line to the electricity supply in order to run power to a number of huts that were being used as accommodation for the volunteers. A coroner’s inquest held in Manchester in 2011 returned a verdict of unlawful killing and the electrician awaits trial in Fiji, but no proceedings have been taken against Coral Cay or its then directors. The company has since been taken over, and is under new ownership.

At Luke’s inquest, the coroner identified significant shortcomings in Coral Cay’s health and safety procedures, and highlighted the discrepancy between the claims made in documents and on its website with regard to the emphasis that it placed on health and safety and its actual practice. The coroner also noted that Mr and Mrs Molnar had placed great credence in Coral Cay’s claims about its approach to health and safety: that full and careful health and safety checks were carried out; that personnel on site were fully trained; and that there would be a full risk assessment of the site. None of that turned out to be the case.

Following the inquest, the coroner wrote to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills under rule 43 of the coroners rules, setting out his view that the regulation of companies offering such trips abroad, particularly for young people, should be carefully and closely monitored to ensure that the claims made in their literature and on websites were lived up to. I was very pleased when the then Minister, the right hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), met Mr and Mrs Molnar with me last September to discuss how that might work. It was broadly agreed at that meeting that the best way forward would be to work with the British Standards Institution to determine whether British Standard 8848—which covers such overseas activities and which is strongly supported by the Molnars as representing a gold standard—could be made more robust, whether approval processes for the standard could be strengthened, and whether a certification scheme could be put in place.

As a result, the Molnars and I have had useful discussions with BSI officers about the processes that exist. The conclusion that we have drawn is that there is currently a deeply confusing plethora of organisations, companies and standards. As a result, parents cannot rely on claims made by overseas adventure companies that their activities have been objectively assessed to comply with rigorous safety standards. Put simply, parents do not know what they can believe.

I have to say that the matter was not much helped by a parliamentary written answer I received on 22 May 2012 from the then Minister for Schools, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb). His response served to paint a picture of real confusion about the appropriate role of the Health and Safety Executive, the learning outside the classroom regime, BS 8848 and a range of organisations that purport to assess whether safety standards are being met. Some of those organisations doubtless do an excellent job, but the overall landscape is a minefield for parents desperate to be assured that their children will be safe.

Let me repeat that the Molnars and I strongly support BS 8848, which covers overseas activities. We also acknowledge the role that the learning outside the classroom regime plays, but I suggest to Ministers that its purpose is, in fact, different: although it purports to cover safety aspects of overseas activities, it is primarily a learning-focused, rather than a safety-focused, standard, and many providers and schools prefer BS 8848 for these activities as a result. As for the HSE, I am surprised that in that written answer the then Minister suggested that the work it is doing to develop a code of practice to replace the Adventure Activities Licensing Authority was a potential solution. The HSE has no jurisdiction overseas—and, in any case, I understand that that work is on hold.

I ask Ministers to consider more carefully how to promote the adoption of BS 8848 as the industry standard with which all overseas providers will be expected to comply, and also to consider, along with the BSI and as part of the five-year review of the standard now in progress, whether that standard could, and should, be extended to UK activities as well. I also invite Ministers to support the establishment of an independent register so that parents can be absolutely clear about whether an organisation’s claims to meet health and safety standards are merely self-declared or have been independently evaluated. I would like to see the elimination of duplication between the different accreditation systems, including the learning outside the classroom regime, BS 8848 and whatever eventually replaces the AALA, and clarity about their different purposes and roles. I would also like to see action to simplify and strengthen oversight regimes, so that independent evaluation and accreditation is put in place.

No one, least of all the Molnars, whose son was a keen and excellent diver, wants to stifle or prevent young people from participating in adventure activities overseas. No one wants to create a complicated bureaucratic structure that prices companies out of compliance, and no one can want one single further avoidable death. It is abundantly clear that the current system is confused and deficient, and Ministers have a responsibility to ensure that a regime that is fit for purpose is put in place. I passionately ask the Deputy Leader of the House to do all he can to secure a meaningful response from his colleagues in all relevant Departments on the steps they will take now to ensure that that is what will be achieved.

16:01

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

We are all aware of the three main emergency services, the fire, ambulance and police services, all of which are available to all of us whenever we need them. However, I want to talk about another emergency service—the mountain rescue service. It is called upon by the fire, ambulance and police services, and it stands by not only to help climbers and walkers who are in trouble, but to assist rural communities when conventional services cannot get to where they have to because of the weather. So when, on a winter’s day in Glossop in my constituency, which is very hilly, the ambulance service cannot get up a certain road, it will call the mountain rescue to help out.

The mountain rescue service, unlike its publicly funded counterparts, relies on a network of 3,500 volunteers operating in 56 teams nationally. Four of those teams are in my constituency—the Buxton, Edale, Glossop and Kinder teams, all of which I have visited. Every time I visit, I leave very impressed by what they do. Each team is a self-contained unit with its own equipment, supplies, vehicles and communications. The teams carry equipment required to remain operational—unsupported—for more than 12 hours, and they are trained in first aid and casualty care.

The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said in the past that in a

“cold snap, the values of the Big Society are more important than ever…Volunteers in mountain rescue teams worked round the clock to help the stranded…We should celebrate that community spirit.”

They are fine words, but celebrating the community spirit is not enough; we should support these men and women, who risk their own well-being in appalling conditions to save and help others. I am talking about people such as my constituent Paul Hitchen. On three occasions when I have been out with him and his wife socially, he has left us early because he has been called out to go up on Kinder Scout to rescue ramblers, hikers and the like. This has been in weather that may not have appeared too bad in the towns and the villages, but it can be a very different world on the hills of High Peak.

The Government do not fund the mountain rescue service; we do not fund it as a country. We actually take revenue from its funds, which goes into the Treasury’s coffers. It is estimated that if central Government had to provide these services, the cost would be about £6 million a year. I wish to acknowledge the funding for the mountain rescue that was announced last year, which will help the teams, but the vast majority of their money comes from voluntary donations; they do bag packs, coin collections and all sorts of other things to raise their money. Not only is that money necessary to purchase the vehicles, fuel, equipment and clothing they need to do their job, but the service also has to fund about £250,000 of VAT that is payable to the Exchequer each year.

It has been suggested that, while acknowledging the need to tax mountain rescue sympathetically, the Government would not want to pursue a policy that would favour one charity over another. However, distinctions are made elsewhere: the Royal National Lifeboat Institution can reclaim VAT and can access red diesel; St John Ambulance can claim back VAT on fuel and vehicles; and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals can do the same in respect of its rescue vehicles. The mountain rescue is not able to access many of the benefits that those other charities enjoy.

Some vehicles enjoy access to fuel that is not subject to duty, known as red diesel. Red diesel has a significantly reduced tax levy compared with the undyed diesel fuel used in the ordinary diesel road vehicles that many of us drive. It can be used in registered vehicles such as tractors, forestry vehicles, excavators, snowploughs, gritters and boats. Working vehicles, including four-wheel drives that are used mainly on the land, can also use red diesel regardless of whether they are being used commercially or for charitable purposes as long as the vehicle is used on a public road only for a distance of no more than 1.5 km while passing between different areas of land occupied by the same person. So, if the mountain rescue teams owned the land on which they operated or restricted their activities to specified national parks, they could get the lower fuel duty. They are volunteers acting for the benefit of the whole community who are willing to go out and help whenever and wherever they are needed and that works against them.

Let me give the example of a cold winter day in High Peak, on Kinder Scout, with a sheep in distress in one field and a rambler in another field. The farmer going to help the sheep could go up using red diesel, whereas the mountain rescue team bringing back the hiker would pay the full price for diesel. That team is going to rescue someone in distress, so to me the difference in the price paid seems wrong.

At sea, all rescue vehicles qualify to use red diesel. On land, conventional ambulances qualify yet they cannot get to the difficult terrain where the mountain rescue teams need to go. Yet again, mountain rescue pays for the fuel. Over the past decade, rescue teams in England and Wales have paid about £500,000 in tax on fuel as well as VAT on other items that they have had to purchase to carry out their work.

In answer to a written question, the then Treasury Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Putney (Justine Greening), said:

“It would be difficult to make a clear distinction between vehicles used by mountain rescue teams and privately owned vehicles”.—[Official Report, 14 July 2011; Vol. 531, c. 487W.]

I do not believe that to be the case and if I had more time—I am conscious that many other Members wish to speak—I could dismantle that argument. I believe that a mountain rescue vehicle dedicated to mountain rescue—let us face it, they are usually big ambulances with logos and so on all over them—could quite easily be allowed to run on red diesel.

The growing burden of high fuel costs and high inflation and the downward pressure on wages, particularly in rural areas such as High Peak, means that volunteers are less likely to be able to finance the provision of the service and I think we should help them. There has been a spectacular lack of common sense in seeking a way forward. The cost to the Treasury of permitting vehicles that are registered to mountain rescue teams and used for mountain rescue purposes and for no other to use red diesel would be negligible in the grand scheme of things. It would be simple to introduce and to police.

When national or regional emergencies devastate areas of the UK, mountain rescue is the only service that can help. It is adaptable and can go anywhere at any time. I think it is time that we replaced the warm words of support and congratulation with some practical action to help. No more excuses. No more time for reflection. Let us have some action. We could do a lot. We could make the change on red diesel that I am calling for today. We could make a direct payment to rebate the VAT, we could revise the ambulance rules to allow more all-terrain vehicles to qualify or we could just offer a direct grant.

I am aware of the difficult financial circumstances in this country, as we all are, so I ask the Treasury to allow mountain rescue to use red diesel in their own vehicles—I am sorry that no Treasury Minister is in the Chamber, but I hope the message gets back as I am determined to keep pressing the point. It would save each and every team in this country money that would help them to continue to provide the service. Some of us might never have used it, but I suspect that we will all—particularly those of us with rural seats—know somebody who has seen it in action. For example, the mountain rescue website gives details today of a busy weekend for the Buxton mountain rescue team.

I once set off on Kinder Scout in shorts and a T-shirt—[Interruption.] Someone laughs, but I promise hon. Members that it is not that bad. As I got higher up, the weather got worse. Fortunately, as I am from the area I was well equipped but by the time I reached the top of Kinder Scout I was wearing three layers of waterproof clothing and had my torch, whistle and everything I needed. I still saw somebody coming back the other way wearing flip-flops, would you believe, because people set off from what seems like a different world. The only people who can get to them if they get into trouble are the mountain rescue. There are many examples, such as the people who get stuck in peat bogs because they follow a global positioning system or satellite navigation device on the hills. We are at the mercy of the elements in High Peak and mountain rescue is our lifeline.

I repeat my call and hope that the message gets back to the Treasury, because if it does not I shall keep repeating it. Let us consider allowing such vehicles to use red diesel. When the call comes to mountain rescue for assistance, doing nothing is not an option. Now, in my view, it is our turn. Doing nothing is not an option for us, so we should consider this idea. We should do it, because it will not cost a lot, it is easy and it will make a big difference to mountain rescue teams up and down the country.

16:09

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

As I was coming to today’s debate, I thought of all the issues that are pertinent to my constituency and, I suspect, to all hon. Members’ constituencies, such as tax credits and housing benefit, both of which I hear about regularly in my constituency office. There are so many concerns that my constituents have spoken to me about and asked me to speak about. I have chosen to speak about the appeals against decisions on employment and support allowance and disability living allowance, which increasingly make up the greater part of my work load. It used to be housing and planning, but benefit issues now make up an equal amount of my work load.

Where do we begin on this issue? The best thing to do is probably to illustrate it with an example. One situation that still concerns me is that those who are recovering from cancer are being turned down for ESA and other support. I met a gentleman—this is truthful—who had 30 bouts of radiotherapy and 15 chemotherapy sessions to help him put his cancer into remission, and it has worked so far—thank the Lord. However, since the treatment, he has been unable to put the weight back on and has no appetite, leaving him a tiny 7 stone in weight. Anyone who knew him before the treatment and saw him today would know exactly what I am talking about. In our part of the country, we would say that he is skin and bones, as he clearly is, after all he has been through. He is lethargic, tired, severely underweight, but that is not taken into account in the standard ESA tests. Therefore, despite the fact that he is recovering from cancer and is in no fit state to work, his application was turned down. It would be dangerous for him to go into a working environment, yet that is what he has been asked to do.

Whenever these cases are taken to an appeals tribunal and the people there look at the circumstances, I sometimes wonder whether they do not see what I see. I cannot understand why they do not see a person’s inability to pass a test?

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

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that one of the big problems is the time involved in getting to an appeal. I had a case some weeks ago in which an individual went without money for his family for about nine weeks. Surely, that cannot be right?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and wholeheartedly agree with what he says. I could give a number of examples of constituents who have to travel a great distance to get to an appeal. The stress and trauma that they go through to get to the appeal before it is even heard is incredible.

We are all very aware of the financial situation that we find ourselves in—everyone has referred to it—the savings that need to be made and the fact that no one should receive a benefit unless they are entitled to it. I do not think that anyone here disagrees with that, but common sense would say that a person who has fought cancer and is in the early stages of recovery is entitled to a little help because they physically cannot work. It is little wonder that Macmillan Cancer Support has said that 40% of cancer survivors in Northern Ireland say that not all their health and social care needs are met and that cancer sufferers have ill health for years after. Although the circumstances in Northern Ireland are not unique, I suggest that perhaps in other parts of the United Kingdom they are probably equal to that. That needs to be taken into account when the standard ESA tests are carried out. Cancer has no one standard to fall into. To disallow people the help that they need when they are entitled to it is not acceptable and, I believe, must be addressed.

Macmillan Cancer Support recently sent me a brief—I am sure that many Members also received it—that makes for uncomfortable reading for those in government who have made the decisions on the changes and how they affect those people. Macmillan strongly believes that the Lords amendments on employment and support allowance are votes for compassion, common sense and compromise—the three Cs—and are very important. Few of us are untouched by cancer—indeed, I suspect that every family has been touched by cancer at some time—and many face financial uncertainty as well. It is clear that they should receive ESA and not be forced into work when they are still recovering.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

One of the issues that have recently come to my attention is that 80% of my constituents who have gone to appeal have been successful, which is a startling result. I would have expected the figure to be up to around 50%, or about a third. That shows that the initial assessments, as we discussed in Committee when this was coming through Parliament, have got it wrong. The current system for giving out these assessments is wrong.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which will apply elsewhere, although perhaps not as much as in my area, where a number of ESA and DLA appeals are regularly fought and won after the wrong decision was made the first time around. That shows that changes are needed.

I am also concerned that blind and partially sighted people are being excluded from ESA payments, despite the Government’s acceptance of the recommendations of an independent review last year to improve the work capability assessment process. Many constituents have sent me copies of the Royal National Institute of Blind People briefing paper. They are concerned, and it would be remiss of me not to raise the issues in the House or to appeal to the Government to consider them.

ESA gives vital support to blind, partially sighted and other disabled people who are unable to work, and provides them with immediate employment support to move towards work, where they are able to do so. Since April 2011, it has no longer been possible for blind or partially sighted people to qualify for ESA and the vital support that it gives, because changes to the assessment criteria fail to recognise the barriers that they face in relation to work. That has dramatic consequences for the individuals concerned, by unfairly forcing blind and partially sighted people on to jobseeker’s allowance, with an associated loss in income and vital support to prepare for work. They lose benefits when they come off such programmes. The severe disability premium would give them a better quality of life, by giving them more money to bring in people to care for them.

In November 2011, the independent review, led by Professor Harrington, of the work capability assessment recommended that consideration be given to the need to review the sensory loss descriptors, which are the criteria used to assess entitlement for ESA. The Government accepted that recommendation, but as yet no concrete action has been taken to change the assessment, so blind and partially sighted people continue to lose out. It is frustrating that, despite the recommendations and despite the fact that the Government asked for them, we have not moved on and achieved the vital changes that are needed.

The current impracticalities can be addressed only through revised descriptors in the communication and navigation activities of the WCA. To be specific, new descriptors should reflect the real challenges of obtaining a job, including ones concerned with awareness and with locating and finding.

I will focus on some of the key activities and illustrate the problems faced by those who apply for ESA and those who are blind and partially sighted. Activity 4 is an area of concern. It focuses on picking up and moving or transferring of an object by the use of the upper body and arms and manual dexterity. For someone who is blind or partially sighted, descriptors in this activity fail to account for whether the person can see, locate and know where safely to put the object. The criteria assessment and the questions asked of blind and partially sighted people do not even realise how that affects them—they should, but they do not.

Activity 7 centres on understanding communication, and there are practical problems relating to a claimant’s ability to read Braille. The addition of the ability to read Braille to understand a basic message was not in the previous guidance. If the objective is to consider adaptation—and it should be—a notice detailing the location of a fire exit in Braille is simply not realistic, unless the workplace is specifically and totally geared towards Braille readers.

Further impracticality arises from the expectation put on the interaction between a stranger and a blind person. It is inconceivable that a stranger would walk up to a blind person and hand them a sheet of Braille, especially in the context of a fire. That should not be used as a proxy to satisfy the descriptor and assessment on understanding communication by non-verbal means. It is another simple illustration of how the ESA process does not work for those who are blind and partially sighted.

Activity 8 is on navigating and its “getting about” descriptor scores only nine points for someone who needs to be accompanied around familiar and unfamiliar places. If the intention is to measure impairment functionality, the need to be accompanied is not a sign of adaptation, so the person should be able to score 15 points. Again, that descriptor should be changed, so that those who have limited capability because they are blind or partially sighted qualify for the 15 points and, therefore, for ESA.

The last activity is the awareness of everyday hazards. The descriptors in that activity are too narrow and apply only to people with cognitive impairments. They do not adequately consider the impact of sight loss.

Extremely ill people, people with health problems and people with sight problems who really need help and are looking to the system to provide it cannot get it. The descriptors prevent them from qualifying, when the opposite should be the case. My office is inundated with appeals against DLA decisions because of the guidelines that are in place. Over and again, the same problems are occurring, which is frustrating.

I watch people struggle into my advice centre who can hardly walk, who are suffering from cancer or who do not have the quality of life that the rest of us take for granted. I help them to fill out their forms correctly, which can take an hour and a half or two hours, in the hope that they will get the funds that they need to get the help that they cannot do without. They cannot afford to pay for carers because they do not have the funds that they need. The forms are complex and difficult.

I will give another example of how the system lets people down. I once fought a DLA appeal for a man who had only one leg. His other leg had been amputated. He suffered from diabetes to such an extent that he had to wake up during the night to inject himself. He also suffered from Crohn’s disease and—this is a very personal issue—he often soiled himself during the night before he could get to his crutches and make his way to the toilet. Despite all that, he was turned down for DLA.

I ask myself over and again, “Who are the people who are making these decisions? Do they really grasp what is going on? Do they know what problems the person who has applied for DLA or ESA has?” I would like to take them into that man’s house for one night and leave them to care for him. The next day, they would understand his problems. That would be a good example for most of these people.

I urge the Government to do the right thing by the most vulnerable in our society. I know that this is an Adjournment debate and that the Deputy Leader of the House will reply, but perhaps this will filter through to the people who make the decisions. Of course, we have to consider the money ledger and should not ignore the financial circumstances that the country is in, but we have to consider people’s lives and their mental health.

I see the frustration and anxiety of those who have depression, anxiety and other mental health issues. One woman who comes into my office screams in frustration and says that she will end her life because she is so stressed out by the forms after forms that come to her house. She says that she has no reason to live and that the pressure of filling in the forms becomes overwhelming. She then does not eat, which is another problem. That leaves the girls in my office distressed at the system. It does not take into account the state of this lady’s mental health, when it should do so, and does not understand what the issues are. That disconcerts me.

That woman could not find employment in any workplace. I am not an expert, but when I see people, I can near enough judge whether they are able to work. This lady would not be able to work. She has been trailed through appeal after appeal and wins each time. One wonders whether anybody looks at the background. The girls in my office are concerned that one day they will ring up to check on her and she will not answer.

The Government are right to stop those who are not entitled to benefits from claiming them. However, some people are entitled to help, and they seem to be the ones who are suffering the most. The ball is clearly in the Government’s court. What will history record about what has been done with the vulnerable and the needy? I hope that it will be positive.

16:24

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I am grateful for this opportunity to speak about Sunday trading. The point that I want to make is simple.

As Members may recall, on 30 April this year, the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Act 2012 was passed. Its effect was to extend Sunday trading hours temporarily during the limited period of 22 July to 9 September.

During the debate on the Bill, I expressed my concerns about those proposals, and in particular about whether they would be used as a precedent for a further—or permanent—extension of Sunday trading hours. I will not repeat those concerns in detail as they are on the record, but they included: the potentially negative impact on family and community life; the need for us all—as individuals and as a nation—to have a recognised rest period each week for our health and well-being; and the potential consequential pressure to work on Sundays, especially for some of the lowest-paid workers in our society, and the subsequent strain on their families. I also referred to concerns raised by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, and to the fact that for many people of faith, Sunday still has a special significance.

[Ian Paisley]

The hon. Lady is raising an issue that is crucial to our nation’s trade. Was she as concerned as I was on hearing the word “temporary”, which sometimes does not mean what it says on the tin? Temporary provisions in Northern Ireland lasted 30 years, but I hope that through the hon. Lady’s speech, we can obtain absolute clarity that temporary means temporary, and that the extension to the trading laws will cease on the date that was given to Parliament when this matter was first raised.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention because obtaining such clarity is exactly the purpose of my contribution to the debate.

My concerns—and other concerns—were shared by several colleagues during the debate on 30 April. Responding to the debate, the then Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), stated:

“The concern has been expressed that this Bill is somehow a Trojan horse, preparing the way for a permanent relaxation of the rules for large stores. Let me assure hon. Members again that that is not the case.”

Referring to my particular concerns about the impact on families and family time, he stated:

“I think she is absolutely right, so let me say to her that the Bill affects just eight Sundays and the deliberate inclusion of a sunset clause means that the Bill will be removed from the statute book after 9 September. Indeed, as the Secretary of State has made clear, if a future Government were to consider a permanent relaxation, they would have to undertake a full consultation and present new legislation to this House. As the Secretary of State also pointed out, we have no such plans.”—[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1352-53.]

I was pleased to hear the Minister’s words and I took them as a personal assurance, although I still abstained rather than vote for the proposals. I understood, however, that many of my colleagues also took those words as a firm assurance on behalf of the Government that the temporary alterations to Sunday trading hours would not be further extended or used as a precedent, and hon. Members voted accordingly on that basis.

Some weeks later, towards the end of the wonderful Olympic and Paralympic period of which our nation is so rightly proud, suggestions circulated in the press— I know not from what source they originated—that a permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours should perhaps be considered, following the limited extension period.

Such suggestions were completely at odds with the statements expressed by more than one Minister during the passage of the Bill. Another Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), stated at the time:

“I want to make it clear that this is a temporary measure and not a test case for a permanent relaxation of the rules in the future”,

and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills stated that the Bill was

“not a signal of the Government’s intent on the broader issue of Sunday trading;”. —[Official Report, 30 April 2012; Vol. 543, c. 1293.]

In the light of recent press speculation about a possible further extension to Sunday trading hours, I seek today, either from the Deputy Leader of the House, or after the debate from the new the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), clear confirmation that the assurance given on behalf of the Government still stands, and that despite references to an extension of Sunday trading hours, the Government have no such plans. The Government’s assurance was carefully noted not only by me and many colleagues in the House, but—crucially—by many millions of people across the country.

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House and the responsible Minister will take this point in the spirit of the utmost courtesy with which I express it, but there is an issue of integrity here. In issuing the confirmation that I seek, Ministers would put an end to continuing speculation that is a cause of concern to many. Of course, the extension of Sunday trading hours was in neither coalition party’s manifesto nor in the coalition agreement.

I turn to some comments that have been made since the summer extension of hours. The British Retail Consortium has recently announced that it does not want to lobby for permanent deregulation of Sunday trading hours. According to Retail Week magazine, momentum for a permanent change among retailers has begun to wane, which may be a result of the BRC’s announcement that retail sales fell by 0.4% in August, compared with August 2011 on a like-for-like basis, with no sign of the Olympic boost that was promoted as a reason for the temporary extension. According to the Association of Convenience Stores, independent retailers reported a loss of sales of up to 20% and a 30% drop in footfall over the Olympic period. That reported negative impact is of considerable concern to many small retailers, which often live on narrow margins, and to their employees.

[Jim Shannon]

Does that not knock the giant supermarkets’ feet away from under them? They said that if they opened longer on Sunday, there would be extra trade and extra jobs, but those figures prove that it did not happen.

[Fiona Bruce]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point, and I understand from answers to written questions that I have tabled on the issue that the Government are proposing to produce their own analysis of sales over the Olympic period. May I venture to suggest that any analysis would be of questionable conclusive value due to a number of variables that influenced retail sales during the Olympics, not least the fact that they were a wholly unique event? There was also the differing proximity of retail outlets to Olympic venues, the weather and the coincidental holiday period.

I remind the House that the Government have already given extensive consideration to a review of Sunday trading hours in their retail growth review and their red tape challenge. In both instances the policy was rigorously explored, and I understand that a clear view was formed that there was no need to amend the current trading hours, which represented

“a valued compromise for all parties.”

I should add that many people would welcome more protection for Sundays as a day of rest and a day for families, friends and those of shared faith. I commend the work of the Keep Sunday Special campaign, which continues to make a strong case for keeping Sunday a different and special day in our national life.

If shops were open longer, that would not mean that consumers had the funds or the inclination to buy more goods. Our quieter high streets during the Olympic period showed that, including some of the Cheshire high streets about which I have inquired.

Far from being pro-growth, any proposal further to extend our already long retail trading hours may actually have the opposite impact, as work or productivity expands to fill the time allotted, as the old saying goes. I am reminded of accounts that I have heard from during the war, when factories seeking to increase their production moved to a seven-day working week and found that production actually decreased. A subsequent return to six-day production led to an increase. The day of rest proved its value.

I wish to give two quotations from senior business leaders. They were not necessarily made subsequent to the Olympic period, but they are worth putting on the record. Justin King, Sainsbury’s chief executive, has said:

“We’re content that Sunday is special and we don’t see customer demand for a change in the current law.”

The former Marks and Spencer chairman Sir Stuart Rose has said:

“The fact of the matter is you simply spread the same amount of business over a longer period, but with more operating costs. It’s a zero-sum game.”

Time with family—time to care—is important. So many people at the end of their lives say, “I wish I’d spent more time with my family; I wish I’d spent more time caring.” We have all heard the expression that not many people, if anyone, would say, “I wish I’d spent more time at the office”, and I doubt that anyone will say, “I wish I’d spent more time shopping.”

I have been encouraged to hear it reported recently that the Prime Minister, on being asked whether he would support changes to the law in this regard, responded:

“We said at the time it was a specific thing for the Olympics and that was the proposal that we made.”

I request from the Deputy Leader of the House, on behalf of BIS Ministers, clear and unequivocal confirmation of the assurance given in this House when the Sunday Trading (London Olympic Games and Paralympic Games) Bill was debated and passed that the extension of trading hours for the period of the games was limited to that period and would not be extended. In doing so, he will put an end to the ongoing speculation and concern in this connection. I look forward to his response.

16:36

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

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I join her in hoping that we can rely on the assurances given during the passage of the Bill on Sunday trading.

Following the theme of relying on assurances and promises given, I want to talk about my constituent Gary McKinnon. I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House, who will respond to the debate. He is in a good position to do so, having been on the picket line, in effect, to protest about the treatment of Gary McKinnon. Earlier this year, he tweeted:

“DC must intervene on medical grounds to stop extradition proceedings.”

I could not put it better myself, and I hope that his response will echo that statement. In making it, he is in good company. The Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Justice Secretary, the Attorney-General and the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice have all stood shoulder to shoulder with others in the House, and others who have not been able to come here today, who stand alongside Gary McKinnon and the many campaigners on his behalf.

This could be, and I hope that it is, the last debate that we need to have on Gary McKinnon before a decision is finally made. The Prime Minister has said:

“Gary McKinnon is a vulnerable young man and I see no compassion in sending him thousands of miles away from his home and loved ones to face trial.”

In 2009, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“It is certainly wrong to send a vulnerable young man to his fate in the United States when he could and should be tried here instead. It is simply a matter of doing the right thing.”

He went on to say:

“Government Ministers have let this sorry saga drag on for seven years, heaping misery on Mr McKinnon, his family and his supporters.”

We are now 10 years into the sorry saga, with misery still heaped on Mr McKinnon, his family and his supporters. The Deputy Prime Minister also said in 2009:

“It would be fair and it would be right to try Mr McKinnon in Britain. But the clock is ticking. The Prime Minister just needs to pick up the phone to make this prosecution happen, I urge him to do so, before it is too late.”

The Attorney-General asked the Conservative party conference:

“Can someone tell me how counter-terrorism will be served by extraditing Gary McKinnon to the United States for hacking into Government computers in search of UFOs?”

The new Justice Secretary has said:

“I hope the House of Commons will send a message to the Government that really this is not what the extradition system is supposed to do. These new rules were set up for very serious offences, for terror offences. I don’t believe Parliament ever intended them to be used to extradite somebody with autism issues to face a charge like this.”

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s dedication over a long period in sticking up for his constituent, and I join him in what he is saying. Does he agree that it beggars belief that this has taken so long and we still do not have a decision? Does he agree that millions of people—the vast majority throughout the United Kingdom—want this case to end in justice for Gary McKinnon and his family and to put an end, once and for all, to the ridiculous idea that he should be sent to the United States?

[Mr Burrowes]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady, who has been very much an hon. Friend in the campaign over many years. Indeed, 10 years is an extraordinary time for someone to have his life hanging by a thread. Countless people are alongside my constituent and this must end—it must happen.

I wanted to bring the debate to the House because after today we are not sitting for a while and this is the time when we must reflect on why a decision has not been made, promises have not yet been kept and justice has not yet been delivered for Gary McKinnon. I have initiated a number of debates and been involved in others on extradition arrangements but specifically on Gary McKinnon, my constituent. Sometimes we forget and need to be briefly reminded of the chronology.

In March 2002, Gary McKinnon was arrested in his north London flat for allegedly hacking into NASA and Pentagon computers from his bedroom, where he was searching for UFOs and free energy. For 10 years, this young man with Asperger’s has been living every day, every hour and every minute in a very dark tunnel around his autism, and no light has come in, and living under the constant threat of extradition. However, in May 2010 the then Home Secretary stepped in to halt the extradition process, saying that we needed to review and consider medical evidence. I commend her very much for taking that step. In October 2010, the Prime Minister announced that the decision would be given in a matter of weeks, not months, but we are still here, waiting.

In November 2010, the Home Office requested further medical reports. As time has gone by, medical reports and assessments by the very top experts in the field of autism and Asperger’s have taken place. The case for keeping Gary McKinnon here has not got weaker; it has got stronger.

New evidence has been submitted to the Home Office from Professor Murphy in particular, and from Dr Vermeulen, Professor Jeremy Turk and Professor Baron-Cohen. All have concluded that Gary McKinnon is an extreme suicide risk. In April this year, Dr Vermeulen said that Gary McKinnon was unfit for trial and an extreme suicide risk. Professor Jeremy Turk said in his 2012 report:

“In my professional expert opinion I continue to believe that Mr McKinnon can and will commit suicide rather than be extradited to the United States… Mr McKinnon continues to be in one of the most fragile of mental states imaginable and the reality of his mental distress and of the grave threat to his life continues to be very real.”

Based on his face-to-face assessment of Gary McKinnon in April this year, Professor Baron-Cohen said:

“In my opinion, Gary’s diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome remains very clear, and he is at very high suicide risk. He has an autistic unshakeable belief that… his only logical solution to avoid this outcome”—

extradition—

“is suicide.”

The position is that we have had three 2012 face-to-face assessments. My constituent has always agreed to be assessed by any experts in the field of autism and Asperger’s. The problem we have had in recent months is that the Home Office has insisted on the involvement of another expert, Professor Fahy—no doubt an eminent expert, but not an expert specifically in the field of autism. We therefore need to bear in mind the words of Professor Jeremy Turk, who has overseen the care of Gary McKinnon, pretty much throughout. Professor Turk is an expert in Asperger’s and he said:

“I am happy to go on record as believing that Gary has had an incredible number of most scholarly and expert opinions which are striking in their agreement and consensus regarding his having Asperger Syndrome, and a major and life-threatening depressive disorder. I see no indications, nor any utility, in exposing him to further evaluations, his single major need now being clarity regarding his status in relation to the spectre of extradition that continues to hang over him like A Sword of Damocles.”

We want to remove that sword from over his head. We say, on the last day before parliamentary recess, that that decision needs to be made now.

The Gary McKinnon case has highlighted serious flaws in extradition arrangements. There have been debates, a resolution of the House relating to a review, and changes to arrangements, but at the end of the day—this is the point of my speech—I concur with what the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“Yet this case is about more than legal technicalities and political treaties. It is about compassion”.

It is about an individual who is living a nightmare. He is not just a case, or someone who is part of a campaign; he is an individual—a son and a partner—whose life has been on hold for the past 10 years. I want the House to hear the words of his indefatigable campaigning mother. Her son is, in some respects, like a child. We know from the expert opinion that Professor Simon Baron-Cohen gave in 2008 that Gary McKinnon’s

“emotional age or social intelligence is at the level of a child”.

His mother says:

“He hasn’t raped anyone, he hasn’t murdered anyone, so can’t understand how this can be happening to him, as no matter how much anyone may choose to exaggerate his crime, the fact is that his crime was tapping on a keyboard in his bedroom in north London in search of information on aliens from outer space. Gary rarely ever leaves his home as he is traumatised to the core. A boy who cycled, swam, composed music and sang, now sits in the dark with his cats and never wants to see or speak to anyone.

He has no life, and is broken, like a wounded animal with no outlet and no hope, seeing only the dark side and the cruelty that exists in the world.

My only child has lost 10 years of his youth and has aged and died before my eyes.”

Perhaps people will say that a decision to keep Gary McKinnon here would set a precedent. Perhaps the Home Office says that it would set a precedent for terrorists facing extradition. Let us consider other cases. Hacker Ryan Cleary admitted hacking into the Pentagon, NASA and the US air force. Aaron Caffrey hacked into US security systems and brought the port of Houston to a halt immediately after 9/11. Like Gary McKinnon, both were accused of hacking; like him, both have autism and Asperger’s syndrome; but unlike him, both have been tried in the United Kingdom.

Let us consider the cases of Róisín McAliskey and Shawn Sullivan. Like Gary McKinnon, they face extradition to the United States; unlike him, they face extremely serious charges of terrorism and paedophilia, and unlike him, they have had extradition requests refused. The only precedent being set by Gary McKinnon is that of facing the threat of extradition for 10 years, living in conditions not far short of house arrest. It is more like what would happen to someone living in Burma than Britain. It would be unprecedented to extradite him in the face of such compelling medical evidence. It would be totally disproportionate when he could be tried in this country.

In conclusion, I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to explain or find out—or, as is the convention, get a full Home Office response on—why a decision has not been made, given that two weeks have elapsed since the Olympics. We heard that the Home Secretary was overburdened and was, quite properly, focusing on the Olympics, but two weeks have gone by. The court set a deadline of 16 October, but can the Deputy Leader of the House assure us that the time scale for a decision is not affected by the parliamentary or party conference timetable, bearing in mind that Gary McKinnon’s life is hanging by a thread? If the decision cannot be made today, why not make it tomorrow? When a decision is made, will he ensure that the statement is made in the House?

Now is the time to decide. There is compelling medical evidence that provides a basis for a decision not to extradite Gary McKinnon, and to deliver justice and keep our promises to him. The final word goes to his mother, and I agree with what she says:

“Our government’s first duty is to protect British citizens, including our most vulnerable.”

There follow words to the Home Secretary:

“Please have the strength to do what is right and to give my son”,

and my constituent,

“his life back.”

16:49

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

Butterley reservoir spillway is located in the beautiful Yorkshire Pennine village of Marsden in my Colne Valley constituency. This stunning, stepped, stone spillway—not easy to say—was built by the Victorians between 1891 and 1906, and is a unique example of their engineering skill and endeavour. Overflow water from the reservoir flows down the stepped cascade, creating a wonderful visual image.

Yorkshire Water is poised to submit plans to rip out that stone-built, grade II-listed reservoir spillway and replace it with a concrete version. I have joined a rapidly growing group of local residents and heritage campaigners, backed by the cross-party support of local councillors, to form the Save Butterley Spillway campaign group, which has urged Yorkshire Water to repair and maintain the existing grade II-listed Victorian spillway, keeping it operational for regular water flows and to consider other options for containing unpredictable volumes of floodwater.

The Save Butterley Spillway group is not convinced that all options have been fully explored to preserve the unique heritage of this nationally significant Victorian structure. Indeed, Diane Ellis, one of the key members of the group, said:

“The village is popular with tourists, particularly walkers and cyclists, and visitors marvel at and admire Butterley spillway. The spillway looks like a grand staircase you might find at Chatsworth House or similar. As locals, we are very proud of it and we will do everything we can to save it”.

Yorkshire Water says that improvements to Butterley spillway are legally required to ensure that it is operationally fit for purpose and meets the very highest safety standards under the Reservoirs Act 1975. Yorkshire Water has reviewed and scrutinised its plans. The review involved members of Yorkshire Water, its contractors—Mott MacDonald Bentley—an independent panel engineer, local planners, and English Heritage. They looked again at solutions and said that they took into account criteria including reservoir safety legislation, health and safety legislation, heritage concerns and community feeling.

The outcome of the review, which was guided predominantly by the independent panel engineer, led to the same option that Yorkshire Water had originally proposed—to replace the existing listed spillway with a concrete structure. Yorkshire Water plans to use mouldings in an attempt to recreate the 100-year-old-plus stone look, but as one Marsden resident said, “Why would you be happy with a fake themed Irish Pub when you’ve just had the original thing destroyed?” To be fair, Yorkshire Water has consulted the local community and stakeholders, and it held a live webchat about this very subject this lunchtime. Later this month, Yorkshire Water intends to make an application for planning permission to Kirklees council, which will refer the matter to English Heritage, as it relates to a listed building.

The Save Butterley Spillway campaign group has three requests. First, we want full transparency of all documentation, including access to an unedited version of the panel engineer’s report. Yorkshire Water says that this is not possible, citing “The Control of Sensitive Water Company Information—Advice Note 11”, which apparently prevents it from making public certain information relating to details of strategic locations for reasons of public security. Will Ministers provide clarification on that?

Secondly, will the spillway remain listed? The position of English Heritage is that the existing proposal would involve the demolition of a listed building, and constitutes “substantial harm”, which must be fully justified, as set out in the national planning policy framework. Thirdly, how do the Government intend to protect Butterley spillway from a water company that has the freedom, under its general permitted development rights, to undertake inappropriate development?

The construction of Butterley reservoir and the spillway was authorised by the Huddersfield Corporation Waterworks Act of 1890. The first sod was cut on Thursday 27 August 1891 by Alderman James Crosland, the deputy chairman of the waterworks committee. The project was completed in 1906, and the spillway was given grade II listing status on 11 July 1985. It is described in the listing as

“rock-faced coursed stone with ashlar dressings. Overflow with stone weirs and stepped stone cascades. Sidewalls are of rock-faced stone with squared ashlar piers with moulded pyramidal copings. Copings to walls are stepped.”

We urge Yorkshire Water to look again at its plans and find a way to save Butterley spillway as an operational and iconic listed Victorian structure.

16:56

[John Hemming (Birmingham, Yardley) (LD)]

I am pleased, on behalf of the Backbench Business Committee, that this debate has been set up today.

Hillsborough is a cover-up that has failed, although it took a long time to fail. Sadly, there are too many cover-ups that continue to succeed. For example, David Southall’s experiments, where he made babies breathe lethal concentrations of carbon monoxide, were covered up by the investigator calling CO an “inert gas”. My constituent Michael Andrews has revealed how he has come under pressure to misreport statistics by my local hospital. The response of the hospital management has been to take action against the whistleblower.

There is a country where there are allegations that crimes by powerful people are not being investigated and prosecuted. A journalist has been refused entry to stop reporting about an issue. The chief of police has been suspended to stop him investigating crimes. Bloggers are being threatened to stop them talking about people. Decisions by the state not to prosecute cannot be challenged, nor is private prosecution allowed. The country is Jersey. The journalist is Leah McGrath Goodman, who is an American. The chief of police was Graham Power. Furthermore, Andrew Marolia, David Minty, David Wherry and Jonathan Sharrock Haworth have, with the assistance of the Jersey Government, obtained a super-injunction against ex-Senator Stuart Syvret—under the Data Protection Act of all things—to prevent from him saying things about them on his blog that are true. Mr Syvret has evidence that criminal offences are being swept under the carpet, but nothing is being done.

A lay judge—known as a jurat—called John le Breton has been allowed to sit as a jurat, even though he was vice-principal of Victoria college when he wrote to the governors in support of Andrew Jervis-Dykes, who ended up getting a jail sentence. Mr le Breton was appointed to judge on a case even though he is a personal friend of a director of the defendant—this is a defamation case where the local politician, Trevor Pitman, has been taking legal action against the local newspaper. The end result in Jersey is that part of these events has been struck from the state’s version of Hansard, and the culture of cover-up continues. Jersey is an independent country, but the UK Government have a responsibility for ensuring good governance in Jersey. The UK is not doing its job properly.

The UK is not as bad, but at times it has a good try. The situation in England and Wales is so bad that foreign countries are expressing concern about the abuse of human rights in the English courts. Over the weekend, there was a three-hour programme on Slovak television debating a case in England. In England, however, we are banned from discussing all the details of the case in the media. International conventions, such as The Hague convention and Brussels II bis, are predicated on the concept that each country can trust the legal system in each other country. As such, the country in which people are habitually resident determines the legal system that has jurisdiction. The existence of the Council of Europe and its European Court of Human Rights—it is not the European Union that deals with the ECHR—provides a body that can adjudicate on cases in the domestic courts. The Government of the Slovak Republic have publicly stated on the Slovak Justice Ministry website that they are willing to support their citizens in any case that reaches the Court. It is clear that the Slovak Government believe that there are a number of cases—not just one isolated case—where the human rights of their citizens are being undermined in England.

To my knowledge, this situation is unique. It does, however, raise the question of whether the human rights of UK citizens and others have been regularly and consistently abused in English and Welsh courts over a number of years. One recent Court of Appeal case involved a judge refusing permission to appeal because no evidence had been provided. The appellant had been given a deadline to provide that evidence by 4 pm on 23 September 2011, which they had met by submitting the evidence earlier that day, but the judge had looked at the case before that had happened. It is therefore not surprising that the judge had concluded that the evidence was not there. That was a clear procedural error by the court administration, but domestic proceedings have now been exhausted. The case also involved a citizen of another country. That country has not yet expressed its view on the matter.

A slightly worse problem is referred to in early-day motion 536. The family division of the Court of Appeal appears not to be correcting all the public family law cases that reach it and that it should correct. Clearly, if it were to correct more of the lower court’s decisions, questions would be asked about how well the system was working, but maintaining public confidence in the system is not a good enough reason to sweep problems under the carpet. Permission to appeal was granted in a case today, however, so that is not always the case.

The only objective analysis of psychological expert reports from Professor Jane Ireland found that around two thirds of the reports submitted to the family courts in care proceedings were either poor or very poor. However, that does not appear to be being picked up by the appellate system. My estimate, on a statistical basis, is that around 1,000 children are wrongfully adopted each year. One advantage of having foreign countries’ human rights commissions reviewing cases affecting their citizens is that we can try to get a better estimate of the total number of miscarriages of justice. It would be nice if our Equality and Human Rights Commission were willing to look at these issues as well.

Michael Mansfield has suggested that the country needs a “commission of truth” to discover cover-ups. My response, in part, is that we already have a body that can do more on this. That body is Parliament. Parliament needs to be willing—collectively, through a Committee—to consider a limited number of individual cases, to work out whether there is evidence of a cover-up. It would not take much use of the collective power of Parliament to identify where a cover-up had happened.

Over the years, our constitution has, to some extent, failed. That has created a situation in which matters that should be more widely considered are being left within the judicial estate of the constitution. That applies particularly to cases involving a lot of secrecy, in which people are prevented from discussing matters. I have already mentioned the fact that Slovak television had a three-hour debate on an issue whose details we are not allowed to discuss. There might be a report in the UK media today following today’s hearing, which, although anonymous, might give some guide as to what has been going on. In practice, enough material is available to enable a three-hour discussion on Slovak television, yet we in the UK are unable to debate the matter.

It is clear from my discussions about other cases that this involves not only the Slovak Republic and one other country; other nations are concerned about the matter as well. People are also leaving this country for these reasons. A Channel 4 report broadcast before the recess highlighted the fact that people were leaving this country because they felt they could not get a fair trial in the family courts in the UK. I follow such cases all around the world, and I will be happy to talk to colleagues about them if they are interested. Such cases demonstrate that the system is not working. However, I had some news today that makes me think that perhaps it might work better in future. These are complex systems.

From a scientific point of view, there has been a tendency to try to rely on unreliable opinion. I was a member of Birmingham city council for 18 years, and its deputy leader for a year, so I got quite used to the council’s operation. The Ministry of Justice believes that an assessment is the same, whether it is carried out by an employee of the council or by an independent assessor. I know, however, that councils are set targets. For example, Surrey county council has been working on its performance assessment figure C23 target to try to increase the number of adoptions from care. We know that the Prime Minister wishes to see more such adoptions taking place, and there is pressure on local government to increase their numbers. That tends to go down the management structure, and those people employed by the council are therefore subject to a conflict of interest. This is nothing new; it has been the case for over 12 years.

I think the Ministry of Justice is making a really big mistake when it considers in the family justice review that a report written by an employee of the council has equal merit to a report written by, say, an independent social worker. The advantage of having an independent social worker is that such a worker is genuinely independent. If a system is run on a cab-rank basis, some independent consideration of the issues is likely, which would not be the case if it was driven by the management structure of the local authority.

Anyone with any experience of local government will understand that biases and pressures are often placed on employees, and sometimes there are bullying management systems. The difficulty comes when judicial decisions are made that rely on that skewed information. As I say, this is nothing new; it has been going on for a long time. Hon. Members will be aware that I often bounce up and down about this issue. At least I now have some Government support—sadly, it is not from the UK Government, but from the Slovak Republic. I would prefer that the UK Government recognised what the Slovak Republic recognises, which is that there are very serious problems here.

I think this matter will go a lot further. Today’s hearing is very positive and things will develop from it. I am aware of the concerns of other east European Governments about exactly the same issue. They might decide to take a robust position in the same way as the Human Rights Commission did in the Slovak Republic. It is unclear whether any of these cases will get before the European Court of Human Rights so that we will see a representative from the UK Government arguing for the UK’s position and a representative from a foreign Government arguing from the alternative perspective. Obviously, if a matter is corrected in the Court of Appeal or in the Supreme Court, it will not get there, but it would be interesting to see how the European Court of Human Rights or the European Court of Justice, which I think has a similar jurisdiction for the purposes of EU members, dealt with this issue. This is a really big problem; there has been a really big cover-up, and it needs to be sorted out.

17:07

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to have the opportunity to talk about some specific issues that affect my constituency. First, I would like to pay tribute to the Government for their determination to move to a greater localist agenda, to give communities a far better say over what happens in their area. That can only be a good thing.

Northamptonshire was certainly subjected to enormous amounts of top-down bureaucratic management under the previous Government, who were determined to concrete over the green fields and to implement regional strategies for everything, which bore no relation whatever to what local communities wanted. We have definitely moved in the right direction as a Government. There are, however, some very specific problems that concern my constituency, and I shall raise just two of them today.

The first concerns wind farms. Northamptonshire is not known at all for being a windy place. In fact, it is one of the least windy counties in the country. Clearly, we are not given to providing enormous renewable energy resources—yet we have had so many wind farms approved in our county that we have contributed more than what could be seen as our fair share towards any renewable strategy.

I shall specifically mention the Spring Farm ridge development, in and around the villages of Greatworth, Helmdon and Sulgrave—historic villages with great character. The application by the developer, Broadview Energy, to build a wind farm in the area was rejected by South Northamptonshire council on 30 June 2011. The case went to appeal, and the appeal was upheld on 12 July 2012. On refusing the application to develop Spring Farm ridge, the council found

“that the development would have a major impact on the landscape as it currently exists, have considerable impact on some of the many heritage assets within 5km of the proposed wind farm, result in the loss of a perception of tranquillity to the well-used public rights of ways network, dominate the outlook, be unpleasantly imposing and pervasive to a neighbouring resident and be contrary to several local and regional planning policies”.

What is interesting is that the planning inspectorate accepted all those findings, but still upheld the appeal.

Since then I have had an exchange of letters with the Department for Communities and Local Government and with Sir Michael Pitt, the chief executive of the Planning Inspectorate. I explained how appalled local residents were to find that the planning appeals inspector had upheld the appeal despite accepting all the council’s contrary findings of invasiveness. The response of the DCLG, in July 2012, was

“local plans are the keystone of the planning system. Our aim is for every area to have a clear local plan which sets out local people’s views of how they wish their community to develop, consistent with the Framework and against which planning applications for planning permission will be judged.”

That is clearly in the interests of localism and takes account of the views of local communities.

Sir Michael Pitt’s response to the same question about how local views could have been so overruled was

“the recently published National Planning Policy Framework… provided an important and up-to-date expression of national renewable energy policy, and this has… been taken into account. Such decisions”

—appeal decisions—

“involve a careful balancing exercise. In this case, considerable weight was given to the Framework and the economic and environmental benefits of the proposal were considered to outweigh the adverse impact of the scheme.”

Therein lies the problem. Whereas we, as a Government, are in favour of greater localism and of people’s ability to have their say, the inspectorate—while not rejecting those findings, but accepting and welcoming them—is clearly determined to insist that the national desire for renewable energy outweighs those local concerns.

My first question to the Deputy Leader of the House is this: how can we enable local communities to feel confident that it is worth their while to express their views? In this instance, many thousands of pounds were spent and hundreds of hours of local communities’ time, energy and intellect were invested in establishing the planning-related reasons why the wind farm application might be turned down, only for those reasons to be completely overturned. What hope can we give local people that their voices will be heard—indeed, not just heard, but actually listened to—and that they will be able to resist developments that are completely contrary to local wishes?

My second question to the Deputy Leader of the House is very specific. When will the regional strategies finally disappear? According to a second response from Sir Michael Pitt,

“Planning law requires that Inspectors determine an appeal in accordance with the adopted Development Plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. The weight afforded to plan policies reflects both their progress in terms of formal adoption and whether more recent policy, either local or national, has superseded them to some degree. In this case the Inspector carefully considered the relevant Development Plan policies and also other material considerations as well as the views of local residents.”

I have the impression that the inspectors were looking more to the past and the regional strategy of the last Government than to the future and the present Government’s desire to let local people have their say. When will that change?

My final question to the Deputy Leader of the House is this: will the existence of a regional plan or, indeed, a neighbourhood plan allow communities to reject either the principle or the siting of a wind farm? Will the implementation of the new local plan under the Localism Act 2011 enable them to reject such an unwelcome siting successfully?

Already, in my small area of south Northamptonshire, a wind farm application has been approved on appeal for Spring Farm ridge. Applications have been approved for Winwick, near Daventry, and for Boddington, and are pending for Ml, Roade, Stoke Goldington and Milton Keynes. The Tove valley and Ml application is proposed, and a new wind farm is proposed for Wappenham. How shall we ever convince local communities that they can fight their corner with some prospect of success?

The second point that I want to make is slightly different. It concerns the west Northamptonshire joint planning unit, which was set up under the last Government to force the local planning authorities of Northampton borough, Daventry and South Northamptonshire, with the support of Northamptonshire county council, to implement the last Government’s regional spatial strategy. In other words, it was the tool to implement the previous Government’s top-down RSS, without a great deal of consultation with local people, but the WNJPU still exists under the new Government. Although theoretically it is made up of democratically accountable councillors, each of the four councils that take part in its leadership have only two representatives on the committee. There is no democratic accountability, therefore—in fact, quite the opposite, as each council planning authority is incentivised to stitch up their neighbour and avoid looking holistically at the entire area. That has been incredibly divisive in South Northamptonshire and Northampton, where we have ended up with proposed developments and approvals for development sites that have run entirely counter to local community requirements and wishes.

One such example is at Collingtree, which is in my constituency but on the outskirts of Northampton. The WNJPU is proposing to approve in principle a plan for 1,000 new homes there, despite the local community’s concerns. It has concerns about traffic congestion caused by vehicles coming to the site, where delays of up to half an hour already occur at peak times. It also has concerns about flooding, because there has regularly been flooding of previous developments that were supposed to have proper flood defence plans. Public transport provision is a worry, too. The estimates for this 1,000-home development include only 1.5 cars per property. Unless public transport is superb, that will not be adequate. Yet another major concern is school provision. The residents of Collingtree feel these concerns are not being taken into account by the WNJPU, which is a relic of a previous Government with a top-down ethos.

I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to advise me on what I can do to help my constituents ensure that their voice is heard. Can he help me to get the WNJPU disbanded and have planning powers given back to the local planning authorities, where they should be? Does he agree that local plans should be accepted and recognised as good for the community only if they are supported by that community and that it is therefore unacceptable for organisations such as the WNJPU to continue operating undemocratic area-wide plans?

17:18

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). I had no idea there were so many issues involving wind farms in her constituency. When I travel up the M1 to Leicester on Friday, I shall be looking out for them, and I know that if local people need a champion against them, they have the best possible MP, as the hon. Lady’s speech today illustrates.

I wish to talk about violent video games. I want to make it clear that I am not against video games as such. I know that members of the public—and, indeed, Members of this House—play them and that the Prime Minister’s favourite video game is “Fruit Ninja”. I am not against those who play video games, therefore, but I have had concerns about violent video games for a number of years.

The issue was brought to my attention by the mother of a 14-year-old young man, Stefan Pakeerah, who was stabbed repeatedly by 17-year-old Warren Leblanc in Leicester in 2004. During the trial it became clear that Warren Leblanc had become obsessed with a game called “Manhunt”. My interest in examining the issues associated with video games began with that case. Mrs Pakeerah and I had meetings with successive Prime Ministers, all of whom promised to do more to deal with violent video games.

I am glad to say that progress has been made, and I will discuss that later in my speech, but unfortunately some of the games have become even more violent. Only a few weeks ago, the coroner in the inquest in the case of Callum Green, a 14-year-old who committed suicide in Stockport after playing “Call of Duty” on a regular basis with his stepfather, said the following about video games:

“It’s very important that young children don’t play them or have access to them.”

Anders Breivik, who has recently been convicted of the murder of 69 young people on an island outside Oslo, was shown in his trial also to be obsessed with “Call of Duty”. In March 2012, Mohamed Merah killed seven people in three gun attacks in Toulouse, and he, too, was obsessed with the same violent video game.

I am not saying that over-18s should be prevented from playing any games that they want; my concern has always been that these games fall into the hands of under-18s, some of whom become susceptible to the violence played out in them. People have asked what the difference is between somebody getting into an 18-plus film and somebody playing a video game. The difference is that a violent video game is interactive. Obviously I do not support under-18s going to see violent films, but even if they get in to view a film they are not participants in what is going on.

A lot of independent research has been done on this matter. The university of Indiana found that young men who played violent video games for 10 hours a week exhibited less activity in frontal brain regions associated with emotional control and cognitive functions. Other research conducted by universities all points to problems that occur with young people—those under the age of 18—having access to these games, which is why the previous Government set up the Byron review. Tanya Byron, a celebrated columnist for The Times, produced an excellent report, but the tragedy is that her recommendations have still not been implemented.

The Deputy Leader of the House will be making his first speech from the Dispatch Box, and I congratulate him most warmly on his appointment. He is a former member of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, and I said to other members of the Committee, “Look how well he has done.” If they all work hard and eat their cereals, they will end up speaking for the Government one day. I congratulate him, because I know that when he replies he will be examining the points I am making. Will he please tell us when he anticipates the Byron review being implemented? Tanya Byron did a great job, and it is extremely important that if we set up commissions—I know that this was done under the previous Government—we actually accept their recommendations.

There are three responsibilities associated with violent video games, the first of which is the responsibility of the video games makers. We, in London, are at the heart of the creative industries. The Government have recently given tax breaks to video games makers, who have a responsibility to ensure that when they produce games of a violent nature they accept that there is a possibility that the games will fall into the hands of children.

When we started this campaign, many years ago, the size of the warning on the packet was very small—it was non-existent. It was then increased to about the size of a 1p piece and, eventually, to the size of a 10p piece. The first responsibility is that when the packaging is produced it should make it very clear that the video game is violent so that everybody knows that it is for someone over the age of 18.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

On that specific point, games such as “Call of Duty” have clear age guidelines that are regulated by PEGI—Pan European Game Information—and clearly show the age-rating and a brief summary of the content. However, we all need collectively to ensure that parents are aware of the new rating systems so that they can make suitable decisions on behalf of their children.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, who is absolutely right. That was the third of my three points. The first was about the game’s maker, so let us move on to the second, which is about parents.

I am the parent of a 17-year-old and a 15-year-old. I know that the Deputy Leader of the House is the parent of two young children, although I do not know how old they are. When I go into my children’s room—they have a joint room where they have their computers—even I do not pick up the video games they are watching and check whether the content is suitable for their age, but that is the responsibility of parents. I wonder how many parents buy video games to ensure that their children enjoy themselves playing the games and leave their parents in peace. Parents have a big responsibility to check the contents of what their children are watching, and if we can do that we will help with the problem of violent video games.

I urge anyone who has young children under the age of 18 to go tonight into their bedrooms or sitting rooms—wherever the video games are kept—and check the age limit on those games. I would be amazed if they did not find that at least one or two were meant for those over the age of 18.

The third element of responsibility belongs, of course, to the Government. I mentioned the implementation of the PEGI system and I was delighted to hear in May 2012 that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was going to end the dual ratings system to ensure that there is one easily enforceable ratings system. That is a very important step forward, because if the Government try to clear away the additional regulations and make one clear set of guidelines that everyone can understand that will make a huge difference to those who manufacture video games and those who sell them.

Part of the Government’s responsibility is for enforcement. During our last Attorney-General’s questions, I asked how many retailers had been prosecuted for selling 18-plus games to those under the age of 18. I was told that no retailers had been prosecuted; perhaps the Minister can update us on whether those figures have increased. The responsibility rests with the retailers, those who sit at the checkout counters and those who sell games at outlets such as GAME to check the age of those who buy the games, and I do not think that that happens. When someone goes to a supermarket and takes a violent game up to the checkout counter, the pressure on those sitting at the tills means that it is difficult to check first the rating and then the age of that person.

I want to see better enforcement. If those games are sold to those under the age of 18, I want to make sure that those responsible—I do not care whether it is GAME, Tesco or Sainsbury’s—are prosecuted. I think that a high-profile prosecution—I know that all Governments are keen on such prosecutions—would make a huge difference to those wishing to sell video games.

I will end by referring to the words of one person who is responsible for the sale of more video games than any other person in the world, Shigeru Miyamoto, the creator of Super Mario. In a recent interview he urged children to drop their joysticks and venture outside every once in a while. Let us do the same. The university of Essex conducted a survey of 315 Essex 10-year-olds in 2008 and compared them with the same number of 10-year-olds in 1998. It found that the number of sit-ups the kids could do had declined by 27%, their arm strength had fallen by 26% and their grip strength had fallen by 7%, because they were sitting at home playing video games rather than going outside. There is a health aspect to this. If we want to ensure that our children are less obese, let them put down their joysticks, as Super Mario says, and go out and start playing. Ultimately, this is not about censorship; it is about protecting our children.

17:31

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this pre-recess debate on an issue close to both your heart, Mr Deputy Speaker, and that of the Deputy Leader of the House: the role of councils and social housing managers in the regeneration of our cities. By way of background, the housing estate owned by the city council in my constituency is managed by Gloucester City Homes, an arm’s length management organisation. GCH has already played an important part in regeneration through its successful management of the council estate. Its record of improvements has led to a remarkable series of stars and awards, and I know the high levels of trust and confidence that tenants now have in GCH and the difference its proactive approach is making to thousands of lives.

But for me and for my constituents, there is more to be done, not least because, like many cities, we have a significant council house waiting list of some 5,000 people and a need for more social housing. I would love to see Gloucester City Homes replace outdated blocks of flats in parts of the city, especially in Matson and Podsmead wards, with new homes and more attractive landscaping that would be in keeping with, for example, the wonderful setting of Matson on the slopes of Robinswood hill. That would require significant capital investment, which would, because ALMOs are owned by councils, contribute to the Government’s public sector borrowing requirement, add to the vast mountains of debt built up under the previous Government’s less than eagle eyes and, therefore, not be helpful to the health of our public finances.

Gloucester’s challenge, therefore, was to come up with an imaginative proposal so that GCH could use its balance sheet and predictable earning stream for a capital investment programme to regenerate our social housing. GCH and the city council made a detailed proposal to the Department for Communities and Local Government last autumn, with new community council—CoCo—ownership, where the council would own only a third of the equity of the company and the remainder would be outside state ownership. I understand that the Government have both principle, meaning responsibility for any residual liabilities in a worse-case scenario, and practicality, meaning debt write-offs, to consider. None the less, I also understand that the previous Housing Minister, who was sympathetic to the cause, had to face cross-Department interests, particularly from the Treasury, which complicated decision making.

Now, almost one year on and at a time when all Government Members are keen to see faster progress on housing and infrastructure development, I urge DCLG and the Treasury to help find a way forward for Gloucester City Homes to contribute to the Government’s national, and our own local, ambitions for regeneration, construction and growth.

I received a welcome letter this week from the new Minister for Housing, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr Prisk), saying that DCLG officials will meet Gloucester City Homes in Gloucester shortly. I would be delighted if, before the first anniversary of our proposals, national and local government and the ALMO agreed on a brief process that would enable action as soon as possible. If we can get on and lead by example in Gloucester, where the CoCo model has such wide support, the new Minister may also be able to unlock further opportunities across the land and stimulate new social housing that will make a difference to people’s lives. As Winston Churchill once noted:

“We shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us.”—[Official Report, 28 October 1943; Vol. 393, c. 403.]

I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will relay my encouragement to the Ministers and officials concerned.

17:35

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I am glad to have this opportunity to discuss a vexed issue of tax policy, namely air passenger duty, which has been described succinctly by the TaxPayers Alliance as an unwelcome burden on family holidays, a cost to business and redundant now that the European Union’s emissions trading system is being applied to aviation.

I declare an interest at the outset as the constituency Member of Parliament for Peterborough, which houses the international headquarters of Thomas Cook, so tourism and leisure issues are important to me. This is also a wider issue relating to business competitiveness, the impact on family budgets and household incomes, and the ongoing debate about sustainability, the environment and climate change.

The fair tax on flying campaign has been one of the most successful campaigns in recent parliamentary history. More than 130,000 individuals have written to their MPs in support of early-day motion 174, which calls on the Government to undertake a comprehensive study of the full economic effects of aviation tax in the United Kingdom, including its impact on employment.

APD was introduced in 1994 at an original rate of £5 per person for short-haul flights and £10 for flights elsewhere. In 2008, the then Government announced that the per-plane duty proposal that they had suggested the previous year would not go ahead and that, instead, APD rates and geographical bands would be restructured. Following the general election, the coalition Government have explored plans to switch to a per-plane duty, as outlined in both the coalition agreement and the 2010 emergency Budget. The overall APD tax take increased significantly from 1 April 2012, after the Government implemented an 8% APD increase.

A typical family of four pays an average of more than £115 in APD each year. A family of four flying in economy class to Florida from the UK would pay £262 in APD, whereas in France the equivalent tax is £38. Compared with seven years ago, APD rates have risen 160% on short-haul flights and up to 360% on long-haul flights, with inflation over that period being about 18%.

The tax has a significant and deleterious effect on the economy. The British Chambers of Commerce found that APD could cost the economy a staggering £10 billion in lost growth and up to 250,000 fewer jobs over the next 20 years. Many European countries, including Belgium, Holland and Denmark, have abandoned their aviation taxes because of the negative effects on their economies. In the longer term, analysis undertaken by Oxera in 2009 shows that the UK economy will forgo £750 million in wealth and 18,000 jobs because of the rises in APD since November 2010, with about half of the extra revenue raised offset by tax revenue losses in the wider economy.

Although it has to be conceded that the research on APD is piecemeal, it does point to significant damage to the economy in the long run. The Government’s figures project 7,000 fewer flights in 2011-12 as a result of the APD increase in 2010. A 2011 report by York Aviation estimated that APD would result in Scotland losing 1.2 million passengers, 148,000 tourists and £77 million in revenue by 2014.

Aviation is vital to the UK economy. It contributes £53.3 billion or 3.8% of GDP. It supports 963,000 UK jobs—352,000 directly in the sector and 344,000 indirectly through the supply chain. A massive amount of economic activity is dependent on the success of tourism, leisure and aviation.

[Keith Vaz]

There is a burden on the traveller not only through the additional tax, but through the increase in the cost of visas.

[Mr Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the impact on people who take long-haul flights, such as to India or the Caribbean.

APD is having a significant impact on people who want to come to the UK from growth economies, such as China. Such people would spend money and drive growth. In 2011, the Tourism Alliance produced a report entitled “Air Passenger Duty: the Impact on Visitors from China”, which found that the UK’s share of the Chinese market had more than halved from 0.5% in 2001 to 0.2% in 2010. If the UK had retained its share of the outbound market from China, it would have gained more than £1 billion in additional tourism revenue from China over the last decade.

Britain has the highest air taxation of all European Union and G20 countries. It is so high that the Treasury will collect more than twice as much in passenger taxes this year as all other European countries combined. Only five other countries in Europe have a similar tax. In August 2010, the German Government approved an air travel levy. It was introduced on 1 January 2011 and ranges from the equivalent of about £7 per passenger for short trips to £39 for long-haul trips. That is well below the UK’s APD, which starts at £13 for short-haul trips. In 2009, the Netherlands followed Belgium in abandoning its equivalent of APD because, although it raised the equivalent of £266 million in one year, the Dutch calculated that the loss to the wider economy was more than £950 million. Germany has set its rate at about half the UK’s level.

Given that one of the Government’s economic ambitions is for Britain to have the most competitive tax system in the G20, it is extraordinary that the World Economic Forum’s recent tourism competitiveness report ranked the UK 134th out of 138 countries for air ticket taxes and airport charges. That was before the 8% rise in the last Budget.

This tax is having a direct effect on constituents across the country—ordinary working people on modest salaries who want to go on holiday. That is the important point that Treasury Ministers need to think about when preparing next year’s Budget.

The British Chambers of Commerce has found that UK airports believe that rises in APD have contributed to a number of key routes being lost at local airports. Peel Airports, which operates Liverpool John Lennon airport, Robin Hood airport Doncaster Sheffield, and Durham Tees Valley airport, provided an analysis of its lost routes in a joint submission to the Treasury by the Northern Way, a coalition of regional development agencies in the north of England. Following the doubling of APD in 2007 and the subsequent rises, Liverpool John Lennon lost six domestic services, five European services and two long-haul services to north America, and Robin Hood airport Doncaster Sheffield lost one domestic service, six European services and three long-haul services.

People will inevitably say that this tax is about maintaining some kind of traction on air travel and aviation in order to reduce the dangers of climate change. However, attempts to justify the tax on environmental grounds have been unpersuasive, and particularly with the application of the EU emissions trading scheme to the aviation sector, I believe that the aviation tax should eventually be phased out.

In his 2011 book “Let them Eat Carbon”, the chief executive of the TaxPayers Alliance, Matthew Sinclair, noted research by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that suggests that by 2050 aviation will still be responsible for only 5% of the human contribution to climate change. That figure, although significant, is still pretty marginal. With aviation expected to continue to make up such a small share of global emissions, stopping people flying is not critical to limiting climate change, and we know that aeroplanes are now quieter, cleaner and more efficient than ever. APD is excessive, unfair and inefficient as a means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and it is duplicated in a number of other policy interventions. I therefore believe that it should eventually be abolished.

In their working paper “The impact of the UK aviation tax on carbon dioxide emissions and visitor numbers”, Mayor and Tol found that the 2007 increase in UK aviation tax had had

“the perverse effect of increasing carbon dioxide emissions, albeit only slightly,”

while reducing the number of travellers to Britain.

A 2008 cost assessment by the Department for Transport found that the aviation tax was excessive following the doubling of air passenger duty rates in February 2007. The Government have since—surprise, surprise—stopped carrying out such studies, but results show that even with a high estimate for the social cost of carbon, it is hard to justify the current APD rates on the basis of aviation’s contribution to climate change.

In the run-up to the autumn statement and next year’s Budget in March, the Government have an excellent opportunity to reconsider this tax, which I believe is regressive, inefficient and, above all, damaging to what we all care about—British jobs and British growth. Even more important, we as hon. Members must defend the interests of our constituents. They are not wealthy and do not own Learjets and jet across the world at the drop of a hat, but are decent working people who wish to have a holiday with their family. At the moment, we are clobbering them, but next year we have a real opportunity to right that wrong and bring in a fair tax regime that will compare with other such regimes across the world. We should do the right thing, and I believe that over the next few years, this tax should come to an end.

Although no Treasury Ministers are sitting on the Front Bench, I hope that they will listen to people power—some 130,000 people have written to hon. Members about this issue, and it is time for a change.

17:48

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Rail franchising has been much in the news over the past week or two, although principally with regard to the west coast main line. Today, however, is the closing date for the Department for Transport’s consultation on the invitation to tender for the east coast main line—an issue of paramount importance to my constituency.

Until 1990, my constituency of Cleethorpes had a direct service to King’s Cross, and four trains went in each direction. Before that, the route ran along the east Lincolnshire line, although that fell foul of the Beeching axe in 1970 after a long struggle.

An open access operator was considering the possibility of providing a service, in which case the line would run from Cleethorpes, through Grimsby and Scunthorpe, and join the main line at Doncaster. I hope that the invitation to tender that goes out from the Department in the coming weeks will include a requirement for a direct service from Cleethorpes and Grimsby to King’s Cross. I imagine that the most likely route would be through Market Rasen and Lincoln, joining the main line at Newark.

The Government have recognised northern Lincolnshire and my constituency as prime areas for economic growth, as the designation of the biggest enterprise zone in the UK shows. There have also been other moves such as the welcome reduction in Humber bridge tolls. The port of Immingham, which would be served by a stop at Habrough, is the largest port in the country by tonnage, and 25% of all rail freight moved within the UK, again measured by tonnage, starts or ends there. There is also potential for a stop at Barnetby, which is currently the stop for Humberside International airport. Since the airport terminal is a mere quarter of a mile from the train line, perhaps there is potential for a new station and the development of connections to London, which would help the development of the regional airport strategy.

Paragraph 5.1 of the document that the Department for Transport has issued states that one key objective of the new services should be to

“support economic growth through provision of train services of appropriate frequency, journey time and capacity.”

The franchisee should also use

“flexibility in the train service requirements to optimise services, delivering a balance of commercial and passenger benefits in line with value for money and affordability criteria”.

Paragraph 9.3 states:

“We intend that the train service specification should provide greater flexibility for the franchisee to respond to demographic and market changes and commercial opportunities than is the case under the current arrangements.”

The Government have indicated their support for potential economic growth in northern Lincolnshire, and those aims and objectives clearly support that. A through train service could provide an additional boost, so I urge Ministers to include it in the Department’s invitation to tender for the east coast franchise.

17:52

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I wish to raise a matter of importance to my constituents and those of many other Members, namely the availability of borrowing to small and medium-sized businesses and, particularly, the monitoring of that lending activity.

Most of us will have spoken to local business people who lament the lack of access to finance and lending facilities. Over the recess, I met a small number of business owners who indicated that their experiences had improved little in the past year. Although banks have repeatedly stated that they are open for business and ready and willing to lend to small and medium-sized enterprises, I continue to receive complaints about aggressive management of existing loans, reduced overdraft facilities and a general lack of flexibility in the approach of banks, all of which place otherwise viable businesses under stress.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that, in some cases, when businesses approach banks to seek an extension of their facilities, bank officials are pressuring them into accepting unwelcome changes to the terms and conditions of their existing loans, or into reducing their borrowing through asset disposal. In the current economic climate, people’s ability to shop around for a better deal is somewhat constrained. The wider impact of that on our economy and its recovery is reflected in the fact that the Government have placed considerable emphasis on initiatives to increase the availability of bank lending specifically to the SME sector. For example, one key aim of Project Merlin was to ensure that banks would commit to lending more money, especially to small businesses. However, that has been superseded by new credit easing plans. Initially there was the national loan guarantee scheme, which was again aimed at encouraging such lending.

As market conditions changed, making it less economical for banks to raise unsecured funding, the Government again responded. On 1 August, they introduced the funding for lending scheme to incentivise bank lending to UK households and businesses by allowing banks that increase lending to borrow more from the fund, and at lower cost. Taken in conjunction with the business finance partnership, the enterprise finance guarantee scheme and other recent announcements by the Treasury and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it is clear that lack of access to affordable lending for business is recognised as a significant problem, a barrier to recovery, and an area to which the Government continue to give considerable attention in search of a solution.

We could probably have a lengthy and lively debate about how effective some of those interventions have been, but I want to focus on two specific issues in the monitoring of lending activity: first, the degree to which announcements of new UK-wide initiatives lead to an improved situation for Northern Ireland’s consumers; and, secondly, the lack of consistency and clarity in the way in which lending generally, and new lending in particular, is defined by the banks.

First, as banking is a reserved matter, work undertaken at UK-wide level will, and indeed should, have a direct impact on my constituents, but there is considerable scepticism as to whether it has done so meaningfully to date. In Northern Ireland, only one of the main banks participated in Project Merlin, owing largely to the structural differences between the Northern Ireland and UK banking sectors. Two of the four main Northern Ireland banks have parent banks in the Republic of Ireland, while a third has its parent bank in Denmark, leaving only one with a parent bank here in the UK. Furthermore, no regional targets for lending were included in the Merlin scheme, with the result that its effectiveness in Northern Ireland, and the reasons behind that performance, were not able to be monitored or to be taken into account when devising replacement arrangements or new incentives. The result was that the national loan guarantee scheme replicated some of those problems where participating banks accounted for a smaller proportion of the Northern Ireland business market than would have been the case in most other regions.

To bridge the gap in regional monitoring, quarterly figures have been provided to the Northern Ireland Finance Minister through the British Bankers Association statistics, “Bank Support for Businesses in Northern Ireland”, for monitoring purposes. These confidential figures are based on the information provided to the BBA by the four main Northern Ireland banks and are intended to allow monitoring of the levels of lending to SMEs, as well as other activity. However, as banking is not devolved, the Finance Minister can neither require banks to provide that information nor require them to do so in a particular format, and as the statistics are deemed commercially sensitive there can be little open scrutiny of their content.

This is a matter that Northern Ireland Members have raised often in this House and with Treasury Ministers. In a statement to the Northern Ireland Assembly earlier today, the Finance Minister indicated that the Treasury has agreed to monitor the participation of Northern Ireland banks in the funding for lending scheme, which is a huge step forward that I strongly welcome. However, for that monitoring to be meaningful and effective, there must be some transparency and consistency in how lending is measured and reported by banks.

That leads me to my second point. For some time, there has appeared to be a gap between the headline figures for new lending by the banks and the experience of those who are seeking to borrow money and finding it difficult to do so. This may be at least partly a result of the lack of consistent definition of what constitutes new lending. This is not a new problem, nor is it unique to Northern Ireland. Research that I obtained from the House of Commons Library confirmed that the Merlin agreement did not include any detail on the definition of “lending” or, in particular, on what constitutes new lending. Since then, the underlying problem of the inconsistent definition of what is included in bank lending figures and what constitutes new lending has apparently remained unresolved.

In the summer I wrote to the main Northern Ireland banks about the breakdown in new lending that they had made available to businesses over the course of the past year. Each institution stressed that the information was commercially sensitive. Furthermore, I would not want to expose those who shared more detailed information with me to a criticism of their approach when it may be no worse or, in fact, better than that of some of their competitors who chose not to be so open and frank. I will therefore refrain from citing any specifics that could identify individual lenders and focus instead on broad trends, which indicate that the actual figures for what the average person would consider to be new lending may well be considerably less than the headline figures that are published. In one case, over 90% of advertised new lending was to existing customers. That is perhaps not surprising, as there are strong commercial reasons why it would be easier to lend to an existing customer than to a new customer. An established relationship, with knowledge of the borrower’s credit history, business cash flow, management strength, and business model, gives the lender confidence that they will be able to service the debt and ultimately repay their loan. However, the fact that that bias extended to 90% of all new lending in that year was more surprising. Given that the remainder would include people who were switching facilities from other banks, and therefore had a well-established credit history, it demonstrates what a small proportion of overall new lending is likely to be to new businesses, correlating with the anecdotal evidence that they, in particular, struggle to get access to the finance they require. Given the importance of innovation and new business set-ups to the economy, and the emphasis placed on those by the Government, this is an area of real concern.

Further examination showed that that new lending also included overdraft renewal and loan restructuring. The lending offered to customers in such circumstances might be no more than was originally the case—it might even be reduced—but it would still be captured by the bank as new lending. Furthermore, it might be accompanied by a worsening of terms and conditions with the result that, although offered and counted towards targets for new lending, it might never be drawn by the company with that agreement. However, it would still count towards new lending in that an agreement had indeed been reached and approved.

From my discussions with banks, there seems to be considerable variation in what is captured by their internal systems as new lending for monitoring and recording purposes. For one bank, new lending figures would not include an extension of existing overdraft facilities or extending the repayment period of an existing loan, in contrast to some of its competitors. However, it also revealed not only that its definition of new lending would capture an existing loan that was increased, but that the entirety of the final loan sum would be captured as new lending, not merely as an increase in the borrowing.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does the hon. Lady agree that one purpose of quantitative easing was to free up money to help small businesses? Instead, the banks have been using it towards their own debts.

[Naomi Long]

It would certainly appear from the brief analysis that I have undertaken of banks that service my constituency, and indeed service Northern Ireland, that there has not been a significant increase in lending to small business. That should concern us all.

To return to my point, if a business with a loan of £90,000 borrowed an additional £10,000, the entire £100,000 loan would be captured by that bank’s system as new lending. That is perhaps an extreme example, but it shows the significant distortion to new lending figures that might occur, depending on what is captured by the bank’s internal systems. Given that most new lending is to existing customers, that factor could be very significant. The effect may be offset somewhat by comparing new-lending figures with a bank’s stock of lending—that is, the outstanding loans to be repaid—but there is a lack of transparency and consistency in what is measured, and indeed publicised, by banks, particularly as they most frequently use the new-lending figures to defend themselves against criticism that they are making it difficult for SMEs to access lending.

While the UK Government clearly recognise the importance of access to borrowing for UK households and businesses, there needs to be increased monitoring of the impact and a tailoring of initiatives to Northern Ireland markets, where the banking sector is distinct and different from that in other parts of the UK. The matter is not devolved, and proactive consideration of it in this place is crucial.

Furthermore, in the interests of transparency, there needs to be a clearer and more consistent definition across the banking sector of what constitutes new lending, and of the methods of measuring and reporting on banks’ lending activity generally, so that when such figures are quoted in isolation they remain meaningful and a useful tool to measure the impact of Government lending initiatives where that matters most—in the businesses across my constituency and the constituencies of other Members.

18:03

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

With great pleasure, I shall take the opportunity to discuss expanding the opportunities of the national citizenship scheme. The scheme is aimed at 16 to 17-year-olds from different backgrounds to provide an opportunity to make a difference in their local community. Last year, 8,000 young people took part, and the ambition is to extend the scheme to all 16 to 17-year-olds. With that in mind, I want to set out what I saw during the summer recess and what I hope to see in much greater numbers in the future.

The scheme gives young people from all backgrounds valuable life experience, as it takes them away from home and gets them to work together. It builds confidence and skills, including teamwork and communication skills. Crucially, it improves employability. During the summer recess, I visited the National Citizen Service schemes in Swindon on no fewer than five occasions, covering each and every stage of the process, from the outdoor and planning stages to projects in action and, ultimately, the graduation ceremony.

Across the constituencies of North Swindon and South Swindon, 43 young people from Swindon college and 27 people from New college took part. The teams enjoyed a week at PGL Liddington, during which they learned survival skills, though I note that when I went along and offered my great expertise they promptly, and probably rightly, ignored everything that I suggested. They also went camping in Weymouth ahead of the Olympics.

Then the two colleges split into four teams. Each chose a distinctive local issue that mattered to them, and on which they wanted to make a difference. I went to visit as they prepared to make a difference with their projects. The first team supported the community games tour, which was inspired by the Olympics. The team took over the publicity and promotion relating to that local project, which was run by Swindon borough council to encourage young people to try new sports. I visited the Meadowcroft fields in Upper Stratton, where the team encouraged young people to take part in dodgeball. We MPs are often asked to participate in things that might be mildly embarrassing, and that we would rather not do, but I was very keen to do this. I was excited to take part in dodgeball. “DodgeBall”, a comedy, is one of my favourite films. Unfortunately, a very professional five-year-old managed to take me down within about 10 seconds, so my experience of dodgeball has not led to much. The team cleverly split up into groups handling print media, social media, and leaflet design. A lot of young people got to participate in new sports that they would not otherwise have tried.

The second team supported the Swindon food bank—the Swindon branch of the food banks run by a national charity. They organised a fundraising concert featuring local young musicians and bands, and made fundraising appeals at local supermarkets. That was inspired by the fact that some of the group had received help in the past from the food bank; they were keen to help get their colleagues to put something back into that very good charity.

The third team supported the Swindon special care baby unit. They had organised a sponsored sleep-out, locked in the New college grounds. It meant spending 24 hours sleeping in a cardboard box, with just a sandwich to eat. I asked whether any of them were going to smuggle in their mobile phone, so that they could text their parents to ask them to drop off a sneaky McDonald’s, but they assured me that they were committed to the cause. They raised a considerable amount of money.

The final team supported the women’s refuge by bag-packing in local supermarkets. They showed amazing maturity and confidence in negotiating with national retail giants to get permission to do that bag-packing. Again, one of the team members was living in the women’s refuge, and she was able to use that to get all the other students to understand how that organisation can help. The team raised valuable funds.

The hard work, dedication and enthusiasm that the young people showed for their projects, and for Swindon, is reflected in the reaction of those whom they helped. Lee Thompson, the project manager at the Swindon food bank, said:

“The first thing that struck me was their enthusiasm and their obvious enjoyment in participating in the scheme. They were certainly brimming with ideas of how to help Swindon Foodbank.

The students’ action has made a direct difference in their community. The money they raised enabled us to buy 157 kilos of food, enough to provide 196 meals or two days worth of food for the foodbank.

At a time when teenagers get bad publicity regarding their selfish attitude to society, the NCS students at New College changed my view and I hope that the scheme can be expanded as I feel it goes a long way to making well rounded citizens of the future.”

The scheme has benefited not just Swindon but the students. Lynn Wilkinson, who led the scheme at New college, said:

“The NCS program highlighted and enhanced the skills of a diverse range of young people with project planning and implementation, and…a little effort, determination and self belief. Each individual proved that they had the skills, determination and passion to help the communities of Swindon.”

The scheme has given the young people real-life experience, as well as teamwork and leadership skills—practical skills of real use to employers. I know that, because before I became an MP I had a business employing young people, and we would get deluged with CVs. The sorts of skills that we are talking about could set these young people apart from the hundreds of other people who might be applying for opportunities—opportunities that young people now have to fight to get. It was a real credit to the young people that they took advantage of the scheme. Richie Titcombe, a New college student, said:

“I intend to follow a career in public services, I have used the NCS programme to enhance my CV and the chances of gaining an insight into charity work or work for supporting services. All in all I worked with a great team with clear goals, directed by the NCS staff whose experience and dedication gave me a new outlook on supporting my community and how a little goes a long way.”

Crucially, not only did the students gain new skills, improve their CV and help their community but they enjoyed the experience. A study said that 92% of people who took part last year would recommend the scheme to friends, which certainly seems to be the case in Swindon. When I went to the graduation ceremony, students were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about their experience—they had gained the skills that I have discussed and made new friends—and, crucially, they did not intend it to be a one-off. Many of them wished to continue to help, either with the organisations with which they were involved or other organisations. They were all determined to encourage next year’s students to take advantage of the scheme. Their parents were incredibly proud of their children’s efforts. They were giving up their summer holidays, but they came along and beamed with pride at the graduation ceremony.

Francis Oakland, another New college student said:

“Great fun!! Taught me to stand on my feet and chased away a few fears, I would recommend it to all my friends just for the people you meet. You learn to get over petty frustrations and how to work and co-operate with others. A big thanks from me.”

It is vital that we continue to expand the scheme and invest in the skills of our young people, helping to prepare them for life beyond school. I welcome the funding tranche of £2 million that has been announced for next year’s scheme. However, Swindon college in particular is concerned that it has not been told when it can begin recruiting or the numbers for which it will be funded. It needs that information so that it can plan for next year, so I urge Ministers to provide all that information and let my colleges, which are desperate to lead on this, do so.

I am delighted that the students who graduated this year—only two did not complete the course, which is staggering, given that they gave up their free time—have already selected 10 Swindon ambassadors, who will go to many of the national events—I believe that they are coming to Downing street to fly the flag for Swindon—and enthuse next year’s intake.

As a final plea, I urge people to work with excellent organisations such as the Scouts, other volunteer organisations, sports clubs and so on, which are short of volunteers. There is a genuine opportunity for them to pitch to those students before they graduate to say, “You have made a real difference in your local community. We have programmes so that you can take that to the next level and continue to make a real difference.” This is a positive story, and we should all do everything that we can to encourage more young people to benefit from the scheme.

18:12

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson), who has enlightened us all and encouraged us to participate in volunteering, which is an important community activity.

I welcome the Deputy Leader of the House to his new position. I should like to use this debate to express my constituents’ concerns and to seek his advice and perhaps ministerial guidance on how to pursue the matters that they have raised. We have heard a lot about national campaigns today, but a big local campaign is under way in my constituency. I should like to draw to the Minister’s attention the way in which quality of life for my constituents—local residents in Tiptree, one of the largest villages in the country—has been undermined by the failure of our local authority to enforce planning conditions on the training round in Grange road, which is used by Colchester United football club.

The facility is used outside the hours agreed in the original planning consent for the site. The noise, disruption and foul language—that is what really upsets my constituents—are distressing for families living near the ground. They are forced to keep their windows closed and stop their children playing in the garden because of the noise and the bad language shouted out in the training ground. Residents feel, in an era of localism, that they have been let down and ignored by the council, which should support them and enforce planning arrangements, rather than, as my constituents believe, turn a blind eye to their concerns. Residents are up in arms and dissatisfied with the replies that they have received from the council in response to their complaints. That is such an important issue for my constituents that I pledged to raise it in the House, so I would welcome some guidance from the Deputy Leader of the House on the matter.

Let me turn to business matters. We British were once famously dubbed a nation of shopkeepers. Having grown up in a family of shopkeepers, I know how important local shops and retailing are in providing local jobs in our constituencies, in towns and villages across the country. However, over the past decade, our high streets up and down the country have struggled to provide jobs and many of the essential services that over time we have taken for granted and to act effectively as the hubs in the communities that they once were. That is why I welcome the work that the Government have done in creating a new vision for the future of our town centres.

In particular, I would like to use this opportunity to praise everyone in Witham town who was involved in putting together the two bids for Portas pilots that we submitted. They failed, but irrespective of that, my constituents who put in the hours on the bid did a tremendous job and made an incredible case for Witham. Interestingly enough, in yesterday’s debate, I highlighted the fact that parts of Essex have consistently been overlooked for infrastructure investment in this area and many others. I should like to make a plea to the Government and urge them to support the Witham town application to become a town team partner and secure the new funds that are available. If nothing else, we in Witham look forward to working with the Government and taking on board many of the innovative ideas that have been proposed in the Portas schemes and the new vision that is being introduced for town centre management.

The House has heard me say on a number of occasions that 83% of local jobs in my constituency are in small and medium-sized enterprises—a high figure compared with the national average of 68%. The House has also heard me say before that Essex is very much the county of entrepreneurs, playing a vital part in the national economy, but I should like to restate my long-standing concerns about bank lending to small business.

Small businesses are at the heart of my constituency and our local jobs market. I should like again to highlight the case of the chocolate maker Amelia Rope, my inspirational constituent, who, despite her international order book and sales in some of the world’s most famous shops, including Liberty and Selfridges, has continuously struggled to secure bank lending to invest and grow her business. Interestingly, despite the fact that I took her to meet the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills back in 2010, she maintained in an interview with the Evening Standard about three weeks ago that nobody is looking after people such as her, which is something I hear from many local businesses in my constituency. I urge the Government to reaffirm their focus on making bank lending a priority, so that these incredible entrepreneurs, who are risk takers, can do everything that they can to stimulate private sector growth, create jobs and get our economy back on track.

Also on the theme of business, as the summer ends, many home owners will be worried about rising energy costs and heating their homes. The Government should be congratulated on the focus that they are giving to tackling fuel poverty and encouraging customers to switch suppliers and find cheaper tariffs. However, more effort is needed to help small businesses with their energy costs. The Association of Convenience Stores is running a campaign for fair energy contracts for local shops, to help small businesses to get a better deal from their energy companies. At the moment, 27% of small shops have been hit with rather large charges for backdated bills, often as a result of energy companies asking them to pay for up to six years of energy, owing to incorrect billing in the first place, even when it was the fault of the supplier. That is simply not fair; nor is it right or proper, and it can land businesses with bills totalling thousands of pounds and threats of disconnection. About 36% of small shops have also been overcharged— I speak from experience on this, because my parents’ last business fell into precisely that category—and 31% have reported above-inflation rises in their energy tariffs.

I urge the Government to look closely at that campaign, in the light of the fact that our shops and small businesses are struggling. We do not have enough small shops on our high streets or in our villages, and they have their own challenges with cash flow. The campaign could bring about change, and it would send out a tremendously positive message if the Government were to take action to help small firms to keep their energy bills down and, importantly, to be treated much more fairly by some of the energy companies.

I have spoken before about Essex roads, and the matter that I want to touch on next is a constant issue for my constituents and for people in Kent. It involves the Dartford crossing. Next month, the crossing’s toll charges will rise by a third from £1.50 to £2 for a car, and the charges for commercial vehicles will go up from £2 to £2.50 for a two-axle light goods vehicle and to up to £5 for heavy goods vehicles. A lot of my constituents use the M25 and the Dartford crossing, and many of them are complaining about the increases and raising the question of fairness. Thousands of motorists rely on that crossing every day.

There are two issues: one is the price of using the crossing—as I have said, the toll charges are going up—and the other is that we have a major problem with traffic flows and jams, as recent correspondence with the Highways Agency has confirmed. The crossing is a vital economic link for businesses in my constituency and across the south-east. Records from the Highways Agency show that the crossing’s performance is questionable, with journey time reliability in the year to May 2012 being just 57% for southbound journeys and 60% for northbound ones. That is below the 83.5% national average for journey time reliability on our motorways.

People who use the crossing daily know of the paralysis, logjams and huge tailbacks. Over the past three years, there have been only six occasions northbound and one southbound on which the tolls have been suspended due to the severity of the traffic. It is a fact that traffic jams cause delays and have a cost to the economy. The economic costs of delays at the crossing are estimated by the Highways Agency to be £40 million, but the introduction of new technology to support free-flow charging arrangements is at least two years away. People in the south-east are paying more for a poor service.

I would welcome the Deputy Leader of the House’s thoughts on that matter, and I urge the Government to look again at the arrangements for charging at the crossing, as well as at their affect on the economy and at the costs that families and businesses are incurring. I look forward to his responding to the debate, and on behalf of my constituents I hope that the Government will take on board some of these issues in a positive way.

18:23

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I should like to start by thanking Members for their congratulations. I had expected to have only one principal responsibility today—namely, to respond to the many contributions to this debate. I was not expecting to have to name a Member of the House, as I had to do earlier. I welcome this opportunity to respond to Members now, and I hope that I shall be able to do justice to all their contributions. I have been in the House for 15 years, but I confess that my knowledge still does not extend to the detail of all the points that have been raised. However, I welcome having been given this opportunity to learn about the Butterley spillway, about Jersey’s jurisdiction and about the very precise planning arrangements that apply in Northamptonshire. I shall attempt to answer as many points as I can.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) expressed concern about planning. Clearly, the Government’s concern at the moment is to ensure that the economy is growing, and planning has to play a part in that, albeit in the context of sustainable development. We should therefore be able to reassure her that the green belt is not under threat. She also expressed concern about powers being taken away from local authorities, but authorities need to be concerned only if they are not managing their planning applications effectively. Also, they will need to resource their planning departments accordingly, to ensure that planning applications are dealt with promptly. We want to see housing developments and commercial developments happening as soon as possible because of the jobs that will be created in that way and the extra revenue that will come to local authorities on the back of it. The hon. Lady raised some specific questions, to which I hope the Department for Communities and Local Government will want to respond in detail.

The hon. Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) focused on a constituency issue, involving IBM and Southwest One. The first thing to say is that a legal dispute is under way, so I apologise if I can refer in only general terms to the matters that were raised. The Government are clearly very much in favour of local authorities doing their own procurement. We encourage local authorities to consider pioneering procurement solutions with a view to delivering savings for local residents. Equally, of course, if things do not work in the expected way, we would expect local authorities to learn from any mistakes made as part of a procurement process. Within Government, we are doing a lot of work on procurement and on commissioning—looking at how local government can work better on commissioning and share information and knowledge.

The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham), who is not in his place, raised the issue of GCSE results. This matter has been well trailed in recent days and weeks. The Secretary of State for Education responded to questions on that subject yesterday, and Education questions happened a fortnight ago. The starting point—the right hon. Gentleman should know, because he was the architect of it—is that there is an independent regulator, Ofqual, whose responsibility it is to look at these issues. One positive point for those concerned about this matter is that the Secretary of State explained in questions a couple of weeks ago that if Members felt that particular schools provided exceptional cases, those cases could and should be raised with Ofqual.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh West (Mike Crockart) spoke about nuisance calls, which I suspect we all experience on a daily basis. At home, we have been registered with a telephone preference service for at least 15 to 20 years, yet we still receive a high volume of calls inviting us—apparently because we had an accident—to pursue various matters. Action should be taken, and I know my hon. Friend is pursuing this vigorously. He has raised the matter with the Leader of the House previously and I know that the Information Commissioner has written to him on this important matter, which the Information Commissioner is actively pursuing. He and I and, I am sure, all other Members, would like to see some resolution so that we are not bombarded by these unsolicited calls at all times of day and night. My hon. Friend said that he would like to meet Ministers from both the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Ministry of Justice to discuss this matter further. I hope they have heard that call and will respond to it. Clearly, with a 10,000-signature petition, this is an issue that people are extensively worried about.

I turn now to the contribution of the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). Speaking as a keen sportsman myself, I am very keen to achieve a real legacy from the Olympics, particularly a legacy for women in sport. The hon. Lady claimed credit—rightly or wrongly, I do not know—for securing a statement from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport just a couple of days after her request to make it clear that the Government expect the media to continue to cover women’s sport in the way that they did during the Olympic and Paralympic games. The screams that came from our household were certainly just as loud for Jessica Ennis as they were for any of the male athletes such as Mo Farah and David Weir, who is Wallington’s golden boy—four times gold medal winner in the wheelchair events. I share a bit of the hon. Lady’s pain. She spoke of having had to respond to 400 speeches, and then corrected herself by saying that it had been only 40. I understand a little of what she felt.

[Barbara Keeley]

That was a slip of the tongue, but I must say that it sometimes seems like that many. The Deputy Leader of the House has been fairly lucky today, as some Members did not make their contributions, but I hope that he does not find himself responding to that number in the future.

[Tom Brake]

I certainly hope not. It would be a very full House if I did.

The hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride) spoke of the need to encourage business growth. That is something to which the coalition Government are fully committed, and we have already seen some very positive results during the first two years of the coalition. Some 900 private sector jobs have been created, the deficit has been cut by a quarter, and inflation has halved since its peak. All that contributes to encouragement of business growth. We have also seen many successful investments, particularly in the automotive industry.

The hon. Gentleman referred to maternity and paternity rights. It is clearly the Government’s role to ensure that the balance is right. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the impact on small businesses, but the Government are considering ways of strengthening families, and we need to take into account the role that maternity and paternity rights can play in that respect. We are also reviewing regulations, which will help businesses, and we would encourage people to take part in, for instance, the current consultation on pub regulations.

The hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Kate Green) referred to the tragic case of Luke Molnar, who died in the way that she described. Let me take this opportunity to express my condolences to his family. I know that the hon. Lady has been working very hard on the case. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the British Standards Institution are still actively exploring how the guidance could be made more widely available and how it might be improved. The hon. Lady made some very clear demands in her speech, which I am sure the Department has registered and to which I am sure it will wish to respond in detail.

The hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham) rightly raised the issue of mountain rescue. He described the exceptional volunteers who are involved in it, the roles and activities that they undertake on behalf of people in distress, and the risks that they confront. He tried to pre-empt one of the Government’s arguments in referring to the ease or otherwise of distinguishing between a mountain rescue vehicle and a privately owned vehicle. It is true that the Government believe that there are some problems in that regard, but, as the hon. Gentleman will know, shortly after he raised questions about the matter on a previous occasion, a £200,000 fund was provided to cover the cost of procuring rescue equipment for teams in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is also worth pointing out that charities benefit from a substantial contribution in gift aid which is worth £1 billion a year to them. However, the hon. Gentleman was a passionate advocate of the tax changes that he was seeking. I am sure that the Department for Transport and the Treasury heard the points that he made, and they may wish to respond.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about employment and support allowance and disability living allowance, of which all Members probably have some knowledge as a result of their casework. The hon. Gentleman may wish to pursue individual cases further, but I can tell him that the Government have moved in a positive direction and have been more generous in relation to cancer patients’ access to the ESA support group. The Government have looked at the work capability assessment and the Harrington proposals, and have made improvements. The Government are not deaf to the issues that have been raised. We entirely agree that we must do the right thing by the most vulnerable in society. That is precisely what we are doing, but there will always be individual cases that require further scrutiny.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the subject of Sunday trading and sought some firm guarantees from me and the Government. As she will know, a permanent relaxation of the Sunday trading laws was considered and rejected as part of the Government’s recent red tape challenge in June 2011. A review is rightly under way of the impact of the temporary suspension for the Olympics and Paralympics. If the Government decide on a permanent relaxation of the restrictions, new legislation would be needed and Parliament would have its say on that. My hon. Friend offered some fairly convincing evidence from the British Retail Consortium and the Association of Convenience Stores, however, showing that the impact on their business had been negative, so this might not, in fact, be a good way to increase trade after all. I agree with her, too, in that I would never say that I wish I had spent more time shopping.

My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) raised the issue of Gary McKinnon and his family. There is always a risk for Members that past comments made in this place will catch up with us, and that was the case for me in respect of my hon. Friend’s opening remarks. It is, perhaps, safest for me to say that my hon. Friend has put a lot of strength and passion into his campaign, and he is a very articulate advocate for the McKinnon case. The sole issue for the Home Secretary to consider, however, is whether extradition would breach Mr McKinnon’s human rights. The courts have allowed time for the Home Secretary’s medical experts to consider the new representations made by Mr McKinnon’s representatives. I assume that there will be an announcement on that on or around 16 October, and it may well be appropriate for us to hear about that in the House.

[Mr Burrowes]

Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why we have not had a decision yet, or at least get an answer to that question from the relevant Department? I also ask for an assurance that the timetable for a decision will not be constrained by any parliamentary or party conference timetable.

[Tom Brake]

As my hon. Friend said, other issues have had to be addressed. The Olympics and Paralympics are now over, but there are other matters to be considered, too. I hope that he will get some satisfaction on this question very soon, but it would not be appropriate for me to specify a time. This issue has been on the Government’s radar for many years, however, and we all want a swift resolution, especially for Mr McKinnon and his family.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) talked about Butterley spillway. As I said, I would be pleased to know more about this issue, and the campaign group that has been established and put that grand staircase on the map. He outlined the actions that Yorkshire Water is taking in relation to the different options it is considering. He made some specific requests and it would be appropriate for the relevant Department to respond to those. Such requests included asking for full transparency of all documents. He also asked questions about whether or not the structure will remain listed, and they need a response.

My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) has a reputation for campaigning on issues associated with family courts. He probably wanted to put on the record, and he certainly effectively did so, what he had to say about Jersey and its particular case. He rightly said that he bounces up and down to raise this issue frequently—

[John Hemming]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I suspect, from his posture, that he is about to do so again.

[John Hemming]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his new role, which gives him the challenge of answering this question: I understand from people I have spoken to after I made my speech that there have been protests today outside the British embassy in Bratislava about malpractice in the English family courts, so does he feel that it might perhaps be in the Government’s interest to drop their family justice review and support my Family Justice (Transparency, Accountability and Cost of Living) Bill?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It would certainly be appropriate for the Government to respond to his suggestion, but it would also be totally inappropriate for me to agree to it at this time. He also suggested that a Committee should be set up to consider cover-ups. Again, I am not sure which Department would deal with those, but I am sure that it has noted that request.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) talked about localism. Clearly there is total agreement in the coalition on some issues, and the need to promote localism is definitely one of them. Both parties identified the issue as something we wanted to address, given that the UK has become one of the most centralised countries in the western world. When raising the issue of wind farms, she highlighted the fact that there may be a conflict between localism, which we want to prioritise, and different agendas to which the Government are equally committed in ensuring that we are the greenest Government ever. She posed a number of questions that would be best answered by the Department for Communities and Local Government in writing. I am thinking, in particular, of the issues she raised about where the priorities lie between strategic plans, regional plans and neighbourhood plans, and what opportunities there are for local residents to have an input in that process and change the outcome.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who is no longer in his place, has been a consistent campaigner on violent video games. He will be aware that a new statutory system was introduced on 30 July, which will mean that a person who sells a game rated 12-plus to someone below that age will have committed a criminal offence and could be subject to a fine of £5,000. He made a point about prosecutions, and he may need a response about how many prosecutions there have been in respect of that subject. In an intervention, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Justin Tomlinson) rightly raised the role of parents in this matter, and I should put on the record the fact that the “Control. Collaborate. Create.” campaign has been launched. It includes the re-launch of the askaboutgames.com website, which is a resource to help parents better to understand what games are and whether they are appropriate for a given age group. The right hon. Gentleman asked a specific question about the Byron review and what has been implemented that might require a detailed response. Some aspects have been implemented, and the changes to the video games classification system followed its recommendations. A further response detailing the date for implementation of other aspects, if known, might also be helpful.

The hon. Member for Gloucester (Richard Graham) spoke about the Gloucester City Homes ALMO, which he described in glowing terms. I am sure that it is as effective as mine, the Sutton Housing Partnership. He quite rightly called for it to be able to access capital to ensure a decent capital investment programme to allow the affordable homes needed in his city to be built. We would all support that, in terms both of providing additional homes—there are few parts of the country where there is no pressure on affordable homes—and of creating the jobs that come with the building programme.

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) spoke about air passenger duty, and I might not be able to satisfy him entirely. I agree that aviation is vital to the UK economy, but the Government undertook an extensive consultation on air passenger duty last year. We received 500 responses and we have published our response, including a summary of the views received. At this point, the Government have no plans to commission further research into the impact of air passenger duty, and although he is right that there has been a substantial increase of 8%, the increases for 2013-14 will be in line with RPI. If air passenger duty is cut as he suggests, its contribution to the Government’s deficit reduction programme will have to be compensated for somewhere else. He mentioned that people power has been very effective in the campaign and I am sure that not a single Member of Parliament or Minister is unaware of the campaign, given the volume of the representations that we receive.

The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers), who explained that he could not stay to hear the wind-ups, rightly plugged his desire to see through-trains to King’s Cross as part of the franchising process, which has been effectively put on the record.

The hon. Member for Belfast East (Naomi Long) referred to the importance of ensuring that lending was going to small businesses in particular. Project Merlin was successful, and last year there was a 20% increase in lending and a 13% increase in SME lending compared with in 2010. As she said, we have moved on to a different arrangement with the funding for lending scheme. She made some very sensible points about the importance of ensuring monitoring at a Northern Ireland level so that it could be seen to be effective there, too, and some strong points about the definition of new lending, so that we know that it amounts to new lending. I am sure that her comments will be read closely by the Treasury, which might want to pick up on some of them.

The hon. Member for North Swindon talked about the national citizenship scheme in Swindon. I have a few notes on that, but I cannot tell him anything about it as he has been there five times, was there at the beginning and has watched it develop. The Government are committed to the scheme. Some 8,500 young people participated last year, 30,000 places are available this year and the Prime Minister has announced that a further 90,000 places will be available in 2014. It is the Government’s intention and our ambition, which he shares, to try to make this a universal scheme so that every single 16 and 17-year-old can participate. He also got in a good plug for Swindon college and its need for some clarity on when the money will be available. If more clarity can be given, I am sure that he will secure a written response.

My final point on the hon. Member’s contribution is that it was good to hear in this Chamber a positive story about young people, because too often all we hear are the bad stories, which give the wrong image and do not celebrate the excellent, hard-working, committed and intelligent young people across the country who are participating in schemes such as the one he described in Swindon.

Finally, my hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) touched on a range of issues, including planning conditions relating to a training ground being used by Colchester United football club, the importance of shopping streets, an appeal for Government support for Witham’s bid for infrastructure investment, bank lending to small businesses—something that was touched on earlier—and, in particular, the difficulties Amelia Rope is having in securing support for her business. Businesses such as hers, which have received a lot of publicity and are clearly doing well, are exactly the sort that we want to secure lending to ensure their expansion so that they can provide additional jobs.

My hon. Friend mentioned fuel poverty and the importance of ensuring that small businesses can switch tariffs. I was due to have a meeting earlier today with a charity called Make It Cheaper, which provides a free switching service for small businesses and charities. I cannot vouch for it, because I have not met it, but it might be able to deal with the problem she highlighted about encouraging small businesses, as we need to do with consumers, to shop around and take advantage of the best offers available.

My hon. Friend then referred to the Dartford river crossing. She might be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), when still a Transport Minister, recently announced that the Department for Transport will carry out a full review of the local residents discount scheme to consider how it can be improved and how take-up can be increased so that residents benefit from the discounts available. The Government have clearly acknowledged the concern about congestion. She highlighted the fact that, although there is supposed to be a scheme in place to ensure that charges are suspended when congestion is particularly severe, the evidence indicates that there are very few occasions when it is invoked. Perhaps the Department needs to look at that more closely.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Deputy Leader of the House is giving a very comprehensive reply, but there are a few minutes remaining and I have had no opportunity today to mention the sadness that is felt across Greater Manchester at the deaths of PC Nicola Hughes and PC Fiona Bone of Greater Manchester police, who were killed today in what appears to have been a gun and grenade ambush in Tameside. Will he take this opportunity to join me in expressing the terrible sadness that is felt across Greater Manchester at the loss of two very brave police officers?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that timely intervention and concur with the point she makes. Thanks to her, the House will now be aware that, regrettably and tragically, two female police officers were shot during an incident at Tameside in Greater Manchester. Both were bravely carrying out their duty. I am sure that Members of the House will want to express their sympathy to their families, friends and colleagues. Of course, the Home Office and the Government will ensure that Members are kept up to date as far as possible as things develop in that very sad case we have learnt about in the past couple of hours.

I think that I have responded to all Members who contributed to this afternoon’s debate and hope that I have been able to do so in sufficient detail for them to feel that it was worth staying the course. I would like to take this opportunity to thank all members of staff in the House, all Members and their staff for the excellent work they have done and wish everyone all the best for the conference recess.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Wheel Clamping

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

18:55

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I would like to present a petition on behalf of more than 530 residents of Barrowford and many others from the surrounding parts of Pendle. The wheel clamping of vehicles on the side street of the Spar on Gisburn road, Barrowford, is having a detrimental effect on local businesses and further exacerbating parking problems in the local area. No explanation has been provided for the clamping of vehicles parking in the area, which has been used by people for many years, and the petitioners believe that the signage warning vehicle owners that they will be clamped is particularly poor.

The petition states:

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Barrowford, Lancashire, and others,

Declares that they are opposed to the clamping of cars on the side street of Spar on Gisburn Road, Barrowford by Mr John Kay.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage people engaged in wheel clamping on private land to anticipate the imminent change in law by desisting in the activity and dismiss fines already imposed.

And the Petitioners remain.]

[P001120]

Community Funding (Infrastructure Projects)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

18:56

[Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger (Bridgwater and West Somerset) (Con)]

I am delighted to introduce the final debate before the recess. This is the last chance in the parliamentary calendar to highlight an issue that causes concern for my constituents, councillors and colleagues, and, indeed, Members throughout the House.

The plan to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point, just a few miles from Bridgwater, is an enormous and vital undertaking. Hinkley is absolutely vital to the national interest. Without new capacity to generate power, the electricity needs of the entire country simply will not be met. Let us be clear about it: the lights would, unfortunately, go out in the future.

Infrastructure projects on this vast scale are complex and incredibly costly. The work to construct the new plant will involve a huge team of people and a considerable amount of local disruption for decades and beyond. The peace and quiet of Bridgwater and West Somerset are in for a bit of a shock. However hard we try to minimise the effect, and however carefully the company, councils and planners work together—which they have—it will still not be easy to balance everything. The process of making electricity with nuclear reactors may be tried and tested—the risks are always minimised—but the legacy will last for several lifetimes, no matter what we do.

We have heard a great deal about legacy this summer. Building the Olympic park at Stratford was, by comparison, a short-term and relatively cheap venture. Hinkley is considerably more than that. The investment needed is gigantic and it may yet require the collaboration of the deep pockets of the Chinese. I cannot overstress the sheer size of the project. Hinkley is not a five-minute wonder. It will be part of our lives for several generations. It will take at least 10 years to get it up and running and there will be thousands of workers involved. The very face of the area that I represent will be changed for ever by the presence of our new nuclear power station.

I believe that a great deal of good can come our way because of Hinkley, and that nuclear power is the only viable option to bridge the national energy crisis that we will face in the future. People need to feel, however, that they have not been forgotten in all this. Hinkley’s construction must come at a price. We need a real commitment from the Government that community benefits will not be an afterthought.

I want the Minister to address the question of money head on. The current estimated cost of Hinkley is about £10 billion, which has an awful lot of noughts. I would like only a tiny fraction of that sum—just a few million a year—to be made available to help local communities and prove that the Government are genuinely concerned about the legacy of nuclear power stations and major infrastructure projects.

Community benefit is not a radically wild policy; it was a deliberate development to compensate for the changes that enormous projects always bring. It was conceived to enable local people to feel more involved in the developments that affect their lives. We might call it a fair method of cash-back. It also fits perfectly with the coalition’s determination to add a little localism to our lives and gives local communities a bit more say in how vast new schemes, such as Hinkley, should be undertaken.

This formula has been around for 40 years. It started in the Shetland Islands at Sullom Voe, where an oil terminal was planned to deal with the riches being drilled from the North sea. A special Act of Parliament was needed to establish the legal framework that allowed local councils to deliver community benefits. Every barrel of crude oil that has come ashore ever since has involved a payment from the oil companies into a special fund that benefits the area.

That principle has been extended since those days both in Scotland and south of the border. Oil may be yesterday’s news. Today’s fashionable fuel—

19:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Evennett.)

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Ian Liddell-Grainger.

[Mr Liddell-Grainger]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am glad that you did not name me.

Today’s fashionable fuel is wind power, although far too much windy rhetoric is spoken about its extremely doubtful benefits. Happily, no developer can get away with bunging up a wind farm without contributing a generous wad of notes to the local community in return. Purists may argue that wind power is entirely carbon-neutral, and that it therefore deserves to be on the list for community benefits.

Nuclear power is seen as a different kettle of fish. I do not accept that argument. Nuclear power does not burn fossil fuel, so it, too, is carbon friendly. Nuclear generators and wind farms both come with legacies. It is dealing with those legacies that community benefits should be about.

I will take Drigg in Copeland as an example. It is a small community on the north-west coast, not far from Sellafield. When the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority wanted to build a containment plant for low-level nuclear waste, it chose Drigg. It also helped to establish a community fund that has benefited the people of Drigg by several million pounds and will continue to do so for many years. What I am getting at is that the principle of large developers dipping deep into their pockets to help the local community has been established for a long time, including for nuclear schemes.

Some might say there is already a mechanism in place that guarantees such help: section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That provision affects all our constituencies. Do not get me wrong—my constituency is very grateful for section 106. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), in whose seat Sizewell sits, feels exactly the same. I am grateful for her support. Section 106 ensures that developers contribute to easing the disruption that their developments cause, but it was never meant to cover anything else. Sedgemoor district council, West Somerset council and Somerset county council have worked successfully with EDF to hammer out a section 106 deal, which was struck just over a week ago. It will involve EDF spending £94 million to help pay for road alterations, housing the work force, training and many other things.

Section 106 was never designed to deal with the long-term legacy. Section 106 agreements must be directly related to the development, and are limited and inflexible. They are capable of addressing only a narrow range of projects. In truth, the entire planning system cannot address the scale, scope and nature of the burden that will be borne by local communities as a result of hosting new nuclear developments. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his colleagues understand that. I believe that they do.

The national infrastructure plan made it crystal clear that a lot more could and should be done in the way of community benefits for new nuclear power proposals. It was published as long ago as November 2011 and promised that the Government would bring forward proposals for nuclear community benefits by 2012. At the start of the year, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Department recognised that nuclear developments had special features that justified going further than section 106 agreements. Nine months later, we are not much the wiser.

It is no secret that a great deal of discussion has been taking place between different Departments, including the Treasury, on how such legacy benefits might be developed, and that is welcome. All the right noises are being made by most of the right people, but we humble souls at the coal face—or in this case the nuclear face—cannot decipher what the muffled sounds mean. This has been going on for the best part of a year and we keep being told to wait for a definitive statement. We are famously patient souls in Somerset, as you well know, Mr Speaker, but I have to tell the Minister that we are beginning to get a bit twitchy, and a little confused, because of how fast the project is moving. The confusion comes because we remain unclear about the Government’s attitude to using a proportion of Hinkley’s business rates to kick-start local community benefit funds. It is obvious that Ministers have different views, but they are also not saying the same things.

The Department for Communities and Local Government wants to let local authorities hang on to some of the business rates because, quite rightly, that demonstrates “localism”—a good coalition buzzword. Theoretically, councils should be able to use business rates to attract enterprise to their area, and if a proportion of those rates goes straight to the council rather than to the Treasury, that is seen as a device to let local governments stand on their own financial feet, which as my hon. Friend the Minister will accept, would save the Treasury a lot of money.

Some of those ideas are enshrined in the Local Government Finance Bill, which is now grinding its way through the parliamentary process. There are limitations, however, of which the most annoying is that if a wind farm receives clearance to put up turbines, the council can retain a chunk of the business rates because wind is supposed to be renewable. Strictly speaking, however, nuclear power is not renewable. It may be essential to produce energy when renewable windmills fail to renew—as I am afraid they frequently do—but we still cannot get at those business rates.

When Hinkley is ready for operation, the rateable value of what it does is likely to be around £10 million a year. Under the current system, that money will go straight to the Treasury, which I believe is unfair on Bridgwater and West Somerset and Somerset councils and their residents. We will have to learn to live with Hinkley, as will our children and grandchildren, and I think we deserve a bit more. At present, however, the rules say that because the energy is not renewable, we do not qualify for business rates. That is not joined-up thinking, and much still needs to do be done.

Even if the Minister announced tonight that a national infrastructure project such as Hinkley should allow local councils to retain a slice of the business rates, there would still be another mess to sort out. The official, “preferred allocation of business rates” appears to have been calculated by someone whom I suspect is locked in one of those Whitehall offices we hear so much about—someone who has never been near Hinkley and has no idea about the local geography of the area I represent.

The formula for allocating business rates is based on where the project is. Hinkley Point is on the coast just inside the boundary of West Somerset district council. Let me, therefore, say a little about West Somerset council. The area is delightfully rural—it is Exmoor; it is beautiful—but much is in the middle of nowhere. The roads are tricky, the population sparse, and the council finds it difficult to make ends meet because of the settlement received from the Government. Everybody knows that the only way to get heavy traffic—or any traffic—in and out of Hinkley is via Bridgwater and the M5. Therefore, although West Somerset district council will suffer some disruption, most will be borne by Sedgemoor district council and Somerset county council.

It does not need a genius to work that out, but when the rules were devised, there seems to have been a shortage of thinking. Thanks to the way the rules are drafted, West Somerset council will qualify for all the cash, and Sedgemoor and Somerset county council will not receive any in mitigation. That is a muddle and I know it is not what was intended. I am sure that the Minister will agree—at least, I hope he will.

Sedgemoor council, Somerset county council and EDF believe that business rates should be split in proper recognition of the effect of the project on all communities in the area. First, however, we need an intelligent rethink about which projects should qualify. The Department for Communities and Local Government conducted a consultation exercise before the rules were established, and spelled out the terms of reference for energy projects. That was meant to prove that only wind power schemes would qualify for business rates, but in fact those terms of reference put nuclear power on top. I will quickly demonstrate that, if I may, by going through the Department’s checklist: creating a diverse energy mix—yes, Hinkley ticks that box; decarbonising our economy—we tick that box; creating energy security—we tick that box; protecting consumers from fossil fuel price fluctuations—we definitely tick that; driving investment and jobs—we tick it again; meeting carbon emissions reductions—yes, we’ve done it; incentivising development for growth—that is seven out of seven. We tick all the boxes.

No wind farm could ever tick all those boxes, no matter how big or how good, and Ministers need to think about that issue. I am puzzled because I know that the Minister, and his predecessor, know that to be the case, and I am grateful for their support.

I confess that I am a little worried about the mixed messages that have been sent. In July, Sedgemoor council received an encouraging letter about business rates from the Minister for Government Policy. It is worth quoting just one sentence of it:

“The design of the business rates retention scheme will ensure that there will be significant outgoing benefits to those authorities hosting low carbon energy infrastructure—not just renewable energy projects.”

At face value that was what we wanted to hear, but barely a month later a Minister in another Department contradicted him.

The clock is ticking. We need decisions, because as the Minister knows, the infrastructure project is in place. I suggest to him that if the business rates are £10 million, we would like about £4 million to be retained in the local community. I realise that would probably cause trouble in the Treasury, but I invite him to come down to Hinkley to meet the local community. He was very helpful in his previous job in the case of Bridgwater college, and I am grateful to him for that. We would welcome him down there and show him exactly what we do. I do not think it is necessary to get another Bill through the House, but we do need meaningful dialogue to ensure that the project works.

19:09

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

I hope to bring energy to energy, and I hope, too, in the weeks and months to come to electrify the House without undue hot air. In that spirit, I welcome the debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset (Mr Liddell-Grainger) on securing it. He will know that Benjamin Disraeli said that, as a general rule, the man with the most information is the most successful man, and my hon. Friend has illustrated tonight that he has the information at his fingertips, which is what makes him such an assiduous and effective representative of the people of his constituency.

As my hon. Friend said, nuclear energy is a vital part of the UK energy mix. Its benefits are significant, but of course there are also significant challenges in hosting new nuclear power stations, particularly, as he said, the impact that that will have on communities. For a community, hosting such a station cannot be achieved without some compromise. However, we agree that the case for new nuclear power being deployed in the UK is compelling.

Alongside the challenges that exist, I want to outline the significant rewards, to which my hon. Friend alluded. They include long-term jobs and sustainable economic growth. The Government see nuclear energy as a vital part of our country’s energy strategy. It provides security of supply and ensures that there is affordable electricity, thanks to its competitiveness with other low-carbon technologies.

Perhaps one ought to say at this point that, although some people assume that we automatically mean renewables when we speak of low-carbon technologies, nuclear power is indeed a low-carbon technology that can help us meet our carbon emission targets. It can be deployed on a large scale and provide continuous supply. For example, the planned nuclear development at Hinkley Point could provide about 6% of the UK’s electricity and power approximately 5 million homes. A new nuclear programme will contribute substantially to the Government’s growth strategy, by providing jobs and skills, bringing investment into the UK through construction supply chains, encouraging local business growth in the vicinity of plants and enhancing the social fabric of surrounding communities.

In our nuclear national planning statement, the Government have designated eight potentially suitable sites for new nuclear development—seven in England and one in Wales—but if the scheme is to be delivered, we must address the issues of community interest and values that my hon. Friend raised. It is my desire—no, it is my mission—that that is delivered. We must turn these plans into action.

The rewards to a community of hosting a large energy infrastructure project are a pressing matter for the House and my Department to consider. The purpose of a community benefits package is to ensure that communities and local authorities have a sense of ownership of a project to build a nuclear power station in their locality. They should feel satisfied that, although the project is primarily of national interest, it brings benefit to local communities. Accordingly, they should engage with developers to share ownership of the project’s success.

In recent years, my Department has extensively consulted local authorities, parish councils, community groups and individual residents affected by all the potential sites that have been identified. That consultation has been followed up with frequent visits, stakeholder meetings and correspondence involving those groups, particularly in my hon. Friend’s constituency, in which, as he said, Hinkley Point C has long been regarded as the most likely site of the first new power station in more than 20 years.

The issue of community benefit is regularly raised during these contacts. Local authorities have naturally taken the lead with the Government, but it is clear to us that in doing so they represent the wider views of community groups, individual residents, and so on. When these matters are raised by hon. Members who combine my hon. Friend’s assiduity and effectiveness, those representations reach their very apex in this mother of Parliaments. We will therefore take very seriously the points that he has made, which I hope to deal with in the few words that I say to the House. Should I not be able to complete my response to him in the fullest form, I will write to him, and of course I accept his invitation to engage with him on these matters more fully. It is absolutely right that Ministers should do so, and his invitation is gratefully received and, I hope, accepted in the spirit in which it is offered.

The Government recognise that each new nuclear power station will be a very large project with significant impacts in small communities. As my hon. Friend made clear, they are generally sited in comparatively isolated rural locations with small populations. Aside from the lengthy construction period, the plant is likely to operate for 60 years and so will affect our children and grandchildren; the impact is generational, as well as significant during the period of construction. Such large projects bring about significant national and local benefits, and there will be significant local economic growth as well. I am therefore grateful for the support from the local authorities and residents, without which there could be delays to the new build programme, adding significant costs to the overall construction process and ultimately leading to an increase consumer prices.

Although the majority of local residents broadly support a new nuclear power station, the Government recognise that there will be concerns in rural communities that are asked to host a large infrastructural projects. That is the sort of thing that I want the opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend and other interested parties when we take these matters further in the way that he has described.

Let me deal with section 106 agreements, with which my hon. Friend and all Members will be familiar from their own constituency experience. These agreements are used during the planning process to mitigate and compensate for the impact on local communities for the disruption of delivering such infrastructural projects. To put this in perspective, a new nuclear power station will take between seven and nine years to construct. The scale of the construction project is significant; it is one of the largest infrastructural developments planned for the UK.

Let me say at this juncture that when we speak of infrastructural investment and its macro-economic relationship with growth, we often speak of housing and roads, and those matters are quite properly worthy of our consideration, but too rarely do we recognise the highly significant role of energy infrastructure in delivering growth. Perhaps in the past we have punched below our weight in these terms, but no longer. I intend to punch powerfully to make the argument about the macro-economic relationship between the development of these stations and the effect that they have on the wider economy and on the communities affected.

I recognise that there will be considerable disruption during the construction period. There will be a work force of 5,600 people at the height of construction, with heavy traffic and noise from the construction process. Even with the best of intentions and mitigations, that may cause concern. The planning system allows for payments to be made to local communities, to compensate for the disruption to the lives of residents. As my hon. Friend acknowledged, section 106 agreements are legal agreements between local authorities and developers that are used to mitigate such effects. The agreements are locally negotiated and varied to reflect local circumstances, but in the case of infrastructure as substantial as a nuclear power station, there is scope to address the extensive impacts on the community of the kind to which he referred.

EDF’s application for development consent at Hinkley Point sets out a detailed statement of its undertakings under section 106. As my hon. Friend suggested, large sums of money are involved. I am sure that he would join me in welcoming the recent agreement between EDF and the local authority to find appropriate compensation and mitigation through the planning process to allow the project to progress constructively. Of course, £94 million is a large sum of money, and I am sure that it will be spent in a way that benefits all the communities affected by the construction phase of the development.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

The invitation is, of course, extended not only to Somerset, but to Suffolk, where, I hope, Sizewell C will be built at some point. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for his eloquent description of the restricted uses of section 106 agreements and how community benefit money might be used in a wider context to ensure that all the community benefits, not solely those in a very narrow tunnel, so to speak.

[Mr Hayes]

I shall deal with both those points. First, of course, I look forward to discussions with my hon. Friend about her local circumstances. Indeed, last evening over coffee, we had a brief initial discussion on that very subject. Secondly, she will know that section 106 agreements are locally negotiated. I hear what she says about the breadth of their effect, which I am prepared to discuss further with her and with my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset.

Aside from section 106 agreements, however, which mitigate and compensate the impacts, there are a number of ways in which the community will directly and indirectly benefit from hosting a new power station, such as increased long-term employment and increased spending in the local economy. However, there is also the issue, raised by my hon. Friend, of business rates retention. I am pleased to reassure him that business rates from new nuclear sites will be treated in the same way as growth from other sectors. Therefore, increases in a local authority’s business rates that arise from a new nuclear plant will be retained by the local authority in accordance with the principles set out in the Government’s proposals for business rates retention. It is likely that that will amount to a significant increase in funding for local authorities over the first 10 years of operation.

I do not believe that section 106 agreements are sufficient in themselves to provide a full basis for community benefit; nor do I believe that retaining business rates for 10 years is an adequate reflection of the recognition that a local community deserves for the long time scales involved in its operation. That, of course, affects our judgment on these matters, as my hon. Friend pointed out.

More importantly, section 106 agreements do not address the need to create sustainable economic growth for the long term or look for ways to make the area attractive to other investors and the wider public, which is precisely the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey).

The national infrastructure plan, published in 2011, committed the Government to

“engage with developers and local authorities on community benefit and bring forward proposals by 2012 for reform of the community benefit regime to provide greater certainty for all parties”.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater and West Somerset said that he was getting twitchy about this. I do not want him to get twitchy, as it would be a most unappealing prospect, so I commit—sooner rather than later, in the terms that he used—to clarify our position on this matter.

Now that I am on this task—missioned to do this job—I can assure my hon. Friend that I will draw the matter into sharp focus, and we will indeed deal with it in the short term. My officials have been working on a number of ways, including business rates retention, in which a community benefit package could be delivered. The principles of such a package are, it seems to me, very clear: meaningful action on behalf of the community; spending decided by the community; fair and equitable practice across all sites—indeed, we have the representatives of two affected communities here this evening—and the intergenerational impacts, which we have referred to.

The broad principle behind the provision of both section 106 agreements and a community benefit package is that this should be directed by the local community to projects that can help to resolve both community and individual impacts that arise from the proposed development, but which cannot be included in a section 106 agreement because they are not judged essential for the project to go ahead. That rather more permissive view of community benefit must lie at the heart of any changes that we make, in line with my hon. Friend’s apposite call for the matter to be dealt with speedily.

The focus should therefore be on planning and investing for the time post-construction to enable long-term sustainable growth through redeployment of labour and creating new business opportunities once the main construction phase is completed. Doing so would help to ease the transition between the sizeable influx of employees, the fluctuation of employment during the lengthy construction period and the more stable and sustained employment associated with the operational phase of the plant. That would enable local businesses better to plan for the future and to provide more certainty for the longer term. It could also allow other infrastructure projects to go ahead, to provide additional long-term jobs for the area, better transport, community facilities and so on.

That brings me to a very important feature of a community benefit package: the right of local communities, principally, to be empowered to determine how to transform themselves, in line with the principles of localism. Localism is dear to my heart. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am an admirer of Joseph Chamberlain, who, of course, framed his career in Birmingham long before he came to this place and became a figure of such national importance. In those days, energy was in the hands of local authorities—a fact rarely mentioned in the House and sometimes forgotten. They not only had responsibility for energy, but gauged the effects of investment in resources on their locales. The sense of ownership that I described was implicit in those arrangements. It is important that we borrow from those days the principle that local communities must feel a profound sense of ownership of major projects. They must never feel that the projects have been imposed on them, regardless of their will or their interests. An imposition of that kind will not happen under this Government; I give the House that absolute assurance.

In Somerset, my Department has constituted a Hinkley strategic development forum, comprising representatives from central Government Departments, the local authorities, the local enterprise partnership, the local chamber of commerce and EDF, to maximise local benefits from the development. Such forums would be a suitable vehicle to help steer plans for the allocation of community benefit. Indeed, we feel that all district councils are working constructively to ensure that the whole area benefits from the development of Hinkley Point C. We are clear that any package needs to be meaningful to the local community and to provide some of the things that I mentioned earlier.

This debate adds further weight to the case for a package that is entirely suitable, well fitted and decided locally, as far as that is possible for a project of this size and national importance. Fairness and equity need to be managed as part of these discussions to ensure that the principles apply not only to each new nuclear site, but to other large infrastructure projects, such as geological disposal facilities.

In conclusion, as my hon. Friend correctly points out, discussions have been ongoing for some time on putting together proposals for a community benefits package that meets all the criteria of being meaningful, making a difference, managing to achieve a sustainable local economy and having a lasting impact for generations, and we are on track to bring forward those proposals by the end of the year; I have this evening already committed to doing that.

I am, however, sympathetic to the points that my hon. Friend raises, and I recognise that ongoing uncertainty for the local community is simply not helpful. I will therefore personally drive forward these negotiations across the Government. I will look to meet the Economic Secretary to the Treasury in the near future to discuss the issue and other important matters of the kind raised by my hon. Friend, relating to investments. We must plan our energy future on the basis of the sort of engagement that he has articulated so powerfully in this short debate. We should be in a position to provide clarity on all these matters sooner rather than later, to use his terms, and so can give the residents of his constituency and others the certainty that they need.

In these matters, clarity is the prerequisite of certainty, and certainty is the prerequisite of the kind of engagement and support that is absolutely necessary if we are to drive forward an energy strategy that has nuclear power at its heart. There has not been an Energy Minister with a greater insight into these things than mine, for I draw experience from a long apprenticeship in local government. I hope that I can bring that insight to our deliberations on this matter and others. I look forward with excitement to further meetings with my hon. Friend and to my visit to Somerset, and I do so very much in the spirit in which he brought these matters to the House tonight. If that is not sufficiently electrifying, regard it as a first step; I will attempt to be still more electrifying as I grow into this role.

Question put and agreed to.

19:29

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Tuesday 18 September 2012

Defence

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Military Bases: Kirknewton

[Sir Menzies Campbell]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 18 January 2012, Official Report, column 830W, on military bases, when the former Secretary of State for Defence discussed the creation of an Army base at Kirknewton with the Scottish Government and the First Minister of Scotland; and whether a written note was taken of the discussions.

[Official Report, 20 February 2012, Vol. 540, c. 469W.]

Letter of correction from Nick Harvey:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the right hon. and learned Member for North East Fife (Sir Menzies Campbell) on 20 February 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Nick Harvey]

The previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and the First Minister of Scotland (Alex Salmond MSP) held two face to face meetings. These were on 11 January and 26 May 2011 and took place when they were both in London and Glasgow respectively. The meetings were not minuted.

They also had a number of telephone conversations during the period of the Basing Review, in which they discussed a range of issues.

The correct answer should have been:

[Nick Harvey]

The previous Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and the First Minister of Scotland (Alex Salmond MSP) held two face to face meetings. These were on 11 January and 26 May 2011 and took place when they were both in London and Glasgow respectively. A junior member of staff who attended the meeting on 11 January 2012 took some notes.

The right hon. Gentleman and the First Minister also had a number of telephone conversations during the period of the Basing Review, in which they discussed a range of issues.

House of Commons Commission

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Written Questions

[Chris Ruane]

To ask the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, pursuant to the answer of 4 September 2012, Official Report, column 320W, on written questions, how many written questions were tabled on average per day, including non-sitting days (a) in each session since 2005-06 and (b) from the introduction of the restriction on e-tabling to date.

[Official Report, 14 September 2012, Vol. 550, c. 433W.]

Letter of correction from John Thurso:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) on 14 September 2012.

The full answer given was as follows:

[John Thurso]

The information requested is as follows.

(a) The following table shows the number of written questions tabled on average per sitting day in each session since 2005-06:

[John Thurso]

The information requested is as follows.

(a) The following table shows the number of written questions tabled on average per sitting day in each session since 2005-06:

Petition

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Petitions

Tuesday 18 September 2012

“Opt-in” filter for internet service providers

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Petitions

The Petition of a local women’s group in Wiltshire,

Declares that the Petitioners regard the accessibility of adult and pornographic material on the internet as having harmful effects on young people, both girls and boys; notes that a similar petition has been signed by seventeen people; further notes the campaign of the Member of Parliament for Devizes to require internet service providers to introduce an “opt-in” filter for accessing adult material online, and declares the Petitioners’ support for this campaign.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage internet service providers to have an “opt-in” filter to prevent children accessing adult or pornographic material on the internet.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001121]

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 18 September 2012

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

EU-UK Relationship (Reform)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

I am delighted to be serving under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone, and to be debating a subject that is of great interest to you personally. I congratulate the Minister on his appointment—I believe this is the first time he is responding to a debate in his new capacity.

I am going to talk this morning about the work of the Fresh Start project, which is a group of Conservative MPs who have spent the past year looking at all aspects of Britain’s relationship within the EU and at how we can get a better deal for British taxpayers. In his foreword to the Fresh Start project’s review, which we published in June, the Foreign Secretary wrote:

“The eurozone crisis is setting in train what may well be profound changes in the structure of the European Union. These will pose very important choices for every country in the European Union, inside the eurozone or out.”

He added:

“Public disillusionment with our membership of the European Union has never been so deep.”

A July 2012 YouGov survey shows that two-thirds of those surveyed want a referendum on or before the general election in 2015. If given a choice today, almost half—48%—would pull out and 31% would stay in, but were the Prime Minister to renegotiate a new deal to protect British interests in the EU, the poll suggests that people would vote in a completely different way: most—42% to 34%—would vote to stay in the EU in a post-reform world.

[Mr John Baron (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)]

Given those findings, does my hon. Friend not think it strange that a letter sent to the Prime Minister at the end of June, signed by 100 of his parliamentary colleagues, urging him to consider putting a referendum on the statute book in this Parliament calling for a referendum in the next Parliament has not even been answered? Does she think it would be worthwhile for the Minister to answer that question today? I apologise that I will not be here for his reply to the debate, but I have a Foreign Affairs Committee meeting to attend.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have been following that matter and know that the Prime Minister has said that he will be responding shortly, so I am sure that my hon. Friend’s question will be noted.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend recognise the need for contingency planning and negotiation before a referendum? Will she be urging the Minister that contingency plans need to be created now and announced well before the European elections in 2014, and will she tell the Minister that, in this country, the F-word is impolite?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I almost entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I favour the idea of reform followed by referendum, but I think the reform is absolutely key and the poll survey shows that the British public think so, too. If the public saw reform, they would be content to remain a part of the EU.

What happens next is about politics, not economics. According to Eurostat, at the end of the first quarter of 2012, euro-area Government debt stood at 88.2% of euro-area GDP. On the other hand US national debt is more than 100% of GDP and in Britain it is 86.4% of GDP. My point is that if all euro-area debt were to be consolidated, the position within the eurozone in terms of consolidated debt would be no worse than either the UK or the US. This is about politics, not economics. It is about the extent to which eurozone members are prepared to underwrite one another’s debt. Politicians must make up their minds what they are going to do about the crisis.

Let me quickly run through where the big eurozone countries stand on debt pooling. Germany is firmly opposed to eurobonds at this stage, but supports greater central oversight of national budgets within the eurozone as a way to export German fiscal discipline.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. Does she recognise that the second largest party in Germany, the Social Democratic party, is in favour of eurobonds? The position of the German Government might well change after the federal election to be held at this time next year.

[Andrea Leadsom]

The beauty of democracy is that it is not over until it is over. It is important to think about who is in power now and not who might be in power in the future. In June, Angela Merkel said:

“I don’t see total debt liability as long as I live.”

She also said:

“Apart from the fact that instruments like eurobonds, eurobills, debt redemption schemes and much more are not compatible with the constitution in Germany, I consider them wrong and counterproductive.”

Angela Merkel has been clear on the fact that she does not believe that debt pooling is the way forward. That does not mean that Germany is opposed to eurobonds in principle; but from Berlin’s point of view, a full fiscal union must be established first. German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schäuble put it very clearly when he said:

“We have to be sure that a common fiscal policy would be irreversible and well coordinated. There will be no jointly guaranteed bonds without a common fiscal policy.”

Italy’s Prime Minister Mario Monti, who is a technocratic, not a democratically elected leader, has said that his position is quite similar to that of Germany in that he believes that central oversight of national budgets is a necessary precondition to eurobonds.

In Spain, the centre-right Government are keen on introducing eurobonds in the next few years and seem to be ready to accept losses of budgetary sovereignty to achieve that. Mariano Rajoy has proposed a three-stage path towards debt pooling: in 2013-14, eurozone countries should adopt measures to meet the fiscal and economic convergence criteria imposed by the European Council; in 2015-16, a European fiscal authority should be created that would oversee national budgets; and in 2017-18, when fiscal targets would be imposed on the eurozone in its entirety, full eurobonds could be issued.

France has not made its position entirely clear. It tends to favour more solidarity immediately and fiscal union later down the track, but in the name of Franco-German solidarity, it seems to have dropped the idea of Eurobonds, at least for the moment.

Most importantly, what about the UK? At the Lord Mayor of London’s banquet, the Prime Minister called for a looser EU

“with the flexibility of a network, not the rigidity of a bloc.”

That is an important indicator of where the UK stands. It is important to recognise that the EU is already multi-layered.

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

For a long time, I dealt with the common agricultural policy, which is far too prescriptive to cover 27 countries with different climates and different soils. We want a flexible approach, so that this country can deliver good agricultural and environmental policies.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend.

The concept of a multi-speed Europe is already a reality: some countries opt in to Schengen, the euro, defence co-operation, and co-operation on justice and home affairs, and some opt out. A multi-speed Europe is already a reality, not something we are inventing for the first time.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

Is not the danger in saying that we have a multi-speed Europe that it implies that everybody is going in the same direction albeit at different speeds, whereas there are millions of us in this country who do not want to be going in that direction at any speed?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I entirely respect my hon. Friend’s views and perhaps I should say “multi-tier”, because his criticism is very fair—“multi-speed” is the wrong term. The point that I was trying to make is that there can be different relationships with the EU, not that different countries are all trying to get to the same end-point. His criticism is fair; I apologise for my careless writing there.

The key advantage of the EU for Britain’s national interest is that of a trade area. I think that most people, whether or not they are in favour of Britain’s membership of the EU, would accept that Britain will continue to trade with the EU. In fact, 48.6% of UK goods exports now go to the EU as a whole—

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

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrea Leadsom]

However, one can slightly reduce that figure if one looks at the Rotterdam-Antwerp effect, if that was the point that my hon. Friend was going to make.

[Mr Turner]

Not exactly. I was going to say that we can all be in favour of trading with Europe, but we do not have to be in Europe.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes. I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am coming straight on to that point now, so I am very pleased that he has raised it.

The EU is already a significant trading partner, but there are significant opportunities for growth. Services account for 71% of EU GDP, but only 3.2% of that comes from intra-EU trade, and the UK Government continue to push for the completion of the single market, especially in services. Financial services gave us 11% of our tax receipts in 2009-10, providing a trade surplus of £31 billion in 2010. Financial services is an incredibly important sector in which there is enormous capacity for growth. Of course, that is why the Prime Minister used his veto last December.

What are the alternatives to EU membership? There are probably four. First, there is most favoured nation terms, under which around half of manufactured exports to the EU would face an average tariff of more than 5%, with some sectors being particularly badly hit, such as UK car exports, which would face a tariff of 10%. That would have a significant effect on UK business, making us a far less attractive location for foreign direct investment. In addition, the UK would lose its influence on framing EU regulations, so it would be required to buy in to EU regulations in order to trade with the EU but would have no say in framing them.

[Mr Binley]

Will my hon. Friend give way again?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I would just like to get through my list of alternatives and then I will give way, if my hon. Friend wants to make a point. I am conscious that lots of other people want to speak.

The second alternative is the European economic area option, or the Norwegian option. The UK would be outside the customs union and hence subject to complex and costly rules of origin. The UK would still be subject to most EU regulations, but it would have limited or little ability to shape them. Access to the single market for goods and services would be maintained; the UK would not be subject to common agricultural policy, common fisheries policy or regional policy; and the UK budget contribution would probably be significantly reduced.

The third alternative is a free trade agreement or the Swiss option, under which the UK would be outside the customs union and subject to rules of origin, but would not be formally subject to EU social or product regulation. In practice, all product regulation would probably be replicated in order to export to the EU. Again, under this option the UK would not be subject to CAP, CFP or regional policy, and the budget contribution would probably be significantly reduced. Free trade would be subject to a negotiated agreement.

Fourthly and finally, there is the option of being part of the customs union, or the Turkish option, under which the UK would be a member of the customs union, with free access to trade for goods, but services and agricultural products would not be covered by that option. The UK would be required to negotiate free trade agreements with any country with which the EU opens trade negotiations. We would be outside the EU treaties and institutions, so we would not be subject to CAP, CFP or regional policy, and it is not likely that we would have to make a significant budget contribution. We would not be subject to social regulation, but we would be subject to all product regulation with no ability to influence the shape of it.

[Mr Binley]

Mr Hollobone, I must point out that I am sitting on a Statutory Instrument Committee this morning and I know that you would not want me to miss that, so I will have to go very shortly.

Will my hon. Friend destroy the myth and say that, because of the £57 billion deficit with Europe, Europe is not going anywhere in trade, simply because it is not in its interests?

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is absolutely correct in principle, but as my hon. Friend—being a business man himself—would admit, we cannot simply change overnight, so we would be subject to an exceedingly long-term renegotiation with enormous complexities along the way. It is not quite as simple as he puts it, but yes, essentially I agree with him—it is certainly in the EU’s interests to continue to do business with us, even more than it is in our interests to do business with the EU.

Personally, I think that if we were to leave the EU, the world would not end, but my point is that it would be far better for Britain to negotiate better terms and to remain part of the EU.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on her leadership of the Fresh Start project. Does she agree that the explosion of the EU’s internal contradictions—the collapse of its relentless drive for federalism based on corrupted economics—creates a huge opportunity for this country, and that the majority of people in this country want us to take the opportunity to set out a positive vision of the Europe that we would be pleased to belong to—a Europe based on sovereign nation states trading with each other, which indeed was the Europe that people voted for when they were last given the chance to vote on Europe? Does she also agree that if we are to trade our way out of the present debt crisis, we need to lessen our dependence on the sclerotic eurozone economies and focus more on increasing our trade with the rest of the world, and that the EU framework needs to support that process? In my own field of life sciences, the EU’s policy on genetically modified products, for example, undermines that process.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention; he has made some really good points and I will address just a couple of them. It is absolutely the case that the EU is regulating us into being globally uncompetitive—uncompetitive not only within the EU but outside it as well. There are huge opportunities in China and the other emerging economies for Britain’s services, high-technology, financial services, manufactured goods and so on. Reform is essential.

As for the collapse of the euro project—the European project—it is true that, although we can certainly tolerate those who want to create some kind of federal Europe, at the same time Britain cannot be hampered by that movement. In a sense, therefore, their move to ever-greater fiscal union indicates the need for us to move towards having a far more clearly defined role that works better for British interests.

The Fresh Start project is all about saying that what we need is to renegotiate our EU membership—to remain within the EU but to have our absolutely best attempt at renegotiating a relationship that works for Britain, with full and free access to all EU assets, but without being hampered in a global world by EU regulation. What I want to see is fundamental reform.

What the Fresh Start project started to do just over a year ago, and with the support of more than 120 Conservative MPs, was to carry out a serious research project to see how different policy areas within the EU have affected Britain and British national interests; to make a cost-benefit analysis; and to see what we could change and how we could do that. It has been an enormous piece of work, which makes a splendid door-stop—I see that my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) is weightlifting today as he carries copies around with him. I congratulate him on doing so.

In June, just before the recess, the Fresh Start project published our green paper setting out the options for change. We colour-coded green those things that we can do ourselves, of which there is a surprising number: the British Parliament could simply decide to reform the way that we do certain things and get a better deal for ourselves without even making reference to our European colleagues. Amber options are those where negotiated treaty change would be necessary, but it has often been the case that we have never even attempted to negotiate those treaty changes and we should certainly have a go at doing so. The red options defined in the options for change are those things where we need to say, in Britain’s best interests, that we are no longer willing to entertain EU sovereignty over British sovereignty, and therefore we wish to withdraw.

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

On the green options—the things that can be done straight away—does my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is a consequence of the pro-Europe Labour Government, who gold-plated so much EU legislation to interfere in our lives and used the EU as a good excuse to do it?

[Andrea Leadsom]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; he makes a very good point. That was never more true than in relation to the working time directive. Having recently carried out an inquiry with all the royal colleges, I know that the evidence is overwhelming that the training of doctors is suffering seriously as a result of the negotiated on-call hours, which the last Government presided over and allowed to happen, to the detriment of our NHS. They should be ashamed of that.

[Emma Reynolds]

I am sure it was not deliberate, but that is not exactly an accurate account of what happened. We negotiated an individual opt-out, which this country retains. The European Court of Justice interpreted the rules on doctors’ on-call hours in a way that we felt was against our national interest, so we were then trying to negotiate whether being on-call constituted working time. It was no fault of our Government.

[Andrea Leadsom]

That is absolutely not my understanding, but that is not a discussion for now, so we will have to park that.

The Green Paper was published in June and the Fresh Start project is now moving to phase 2, which is to suggest a manifesto for change by Christmas. I am delighted that 10 Conservative colleagues have each agreed to chair a policy area in which they have a particular expertise, and they will look to get buy-in from other colleagues to achieve a consensus on what specific reforms we will recommend that the Government pursue. By Christmas, we will end up with a specific manifesto for reform, which will be a shopping list of things that Britain would like to see changed.

One of the Government’s biggest challenges is the fact that FCO officials wring their hands when we talk about a shopping list of reform proposals.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

No they do not.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Yes they do. I have had several conversations with FCO officials who say that people can negotiate on only one or two points at a time. That is the way in which EU Commissioners and European parliamentarians squash the genuine national interests of one member state. They say, “You can talk only about the rebate, or only about 0% increase in the budget. You cannot talk about all the other issues that you want to include in your shopping list.” That will be the biggest challenge to any reform.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

My hon. Friend’s comments remind me of the story about a man wandering down Whitehall who asks the policeman, “On what side is the Foreign Office?”, to which the reply is, “Hopefully ours, sir.” I congratulate her on the fantastic work she has done with the Fresh Start group, which distractions have not allowed me to take part in, but which I look forward to now.

Is not the real tragedy that those who say that we must stay such a close part of Europe, because we trade more with Belgium than with China, Brazil or India, miss the point that we should have been trading much more with China, Brazil or India, beyond the EU? The tragedy is that this country is not leading the crusade for a much more global, liberalising, deregulating, reforming and pro-competition Europe, and we should be. That is what most of our constituents and we all actually want.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and am delighted that he will be getting involved with the Fresh Start project himself. He is absolutely right. Is it not interesting that it is since this Government came into office that exports to China, Brazil and India have radically increased in percentage terms from the incredibly low level under the Labour Government, who preferred to create non-jobs in the public sector rather than real jobs in the private sector?

I want to run through a few ideas that have come out of the Fresh Start project and suggest them to the Government for serious consideration. There is no doubt that we have not only the opportunity, but the absolute need to get in there and make British interests very clear, long before the next European parliamentary elections in 2014.

Let me quickly run through some of the green options, which are things that we could be doing ourselves but are not doing at the moment. The UK is a significant member of the EU—one of the big three—and has worked with a number of allies to develop its vision of a free-trading, economically liberal EU. The UK has been enormously successful in achieving its strategic aims of enlargement and deepening of the single market. At the time of crisis in the eurozone, it is key that the UK sets out the vision of the EU that it wants and develops alliances in that direction. It is essential to set out a vision for a free-trade area that is globally competitive and determined to advance in the markets outside the EU and not just within it.

We could improve the scrutiny of EU legislation, including pre-legislative scrutiny. I welcome the European Scrutiny Committee’s inquiry into that and the work of the Hansard Society in looking at much more parliamentary scrutiny, including having specific EU questions, not just FCO questions, and having a Europe Department rather than just a Europe Minister in the FCO.

We should certainly look at pre-legislative scrutiny where, as in Denmark, Parliament gives authority to Ministers before they go to negotiate on our behalf, instead of them coming back to us with something that is almost done that we just need to rubber-stamp at the eleventh hour. There are good examples of where good pre-legislative scrutiny has made a big difference, such as the proposed ban on the short selling of equities. Owing to the excellent work of Members of the European Parliament, that was reduced to a ban on the short selling of sovereign debt only. That was a massive saving grace to liquidity and free financial markets.

Better Brits in Brussels is an important issue. We have 12% of the EU’s population, but now only 4% of Commission staff. That has been allowed to slide abysmally. We have not done enough to allow our brightest and best young people to obtain the language skills they need to pass the European Commission test. I am delighted that the Government have restarted the European fast stream. That is an important move on which we should absolutely spend our time. When we visit MEPs and Commissioners in Brussels, we find that they have all gone native; they even speak with a sort of weird part French, part German, part English accent—if there is such a thing. They lose track of whom they represent. What we need is British people in the Commission representing British interests.

We want to remove gold-plating in social and employment laws as soon as possible. We have interpreted some EU directives in a hard and fast way, not least on the opt-out for doctors. As I understand it, in all too many cases, we offer doctors a contract for up to 48 hours a week, and then invite them to opt out of working only 48 hours a week. That is not exactly a terribly tempting offer. We need to look seriously at gold-plating.

We support deregulation at the EU level. The EU has agreed in principle to subsidiarisation for micro-businesses. It is not an EU competence to delve into micro-businesses if they are British-only businesses. They should not be subject to EU regulation, and we should be pressing as hard as we can to exempt British micro-businesses from any EU intervention whatsoever.

Finally, Britain could be using the European Court of Justice to our own ends far more than we are to challenge EU proposals. An example of a good decision by this Government to challenge the European Union is our challenge of the European Central Bank’s proposal that clearing houses with more than 5% of turnover in euros should be based in the eurozone. That is blatantly stealing Britain’s business in a lucrative area, and we are absolutely right to be challenging that decision at the ECJ. We ought to take those opportunities more often.

Those are just some of the green options for reform that Britain could be doing much more on. Other areas require us to get far more sleeves rolled up and people wading in, and I want to cover two. I recognise that a lot of hon. Members want to speak, so I will hurry up. The greatest of those areas is to achieve a rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. There is no doubt that there will be a fiscal union—[Interruption.] Opposition Members laugh. They are not even prepared to listen, which I find astonishing. They should care that the British public have had enough of their ever closer part in the European Union. It is absolutely astonishing.

We should look at whether, for those who are not part of the fiscal union, we could have some sort of rolling opt-in and opt-out of EU policies. The logistics could be incredibly complicated, but when Governments change, policies are often completely changed. It is ridiculous to have an EU where something decided 35 years ago has never changed and a member cannot opt out of it. It would be far better for the countries that do not intend to be part of a federal Europe if they could opt out. When Governments change, they could have a window of opportunity to decide on which policies they want to remain a part of, and which areas of EU jurisdiction they want to remove themselves from. That is entirely possible. That would give the European Commission something else to do, so it can pay itself even more and employ even more staff, so it should be delighted at the prospect.

Perhaps the most logical major reform of all is to repatriate structural funds. We are in the middle of negotiations for the next multi-annual financial framework, which will determine the EU’s budget strategy from 2014 to 2021. The negotiations are subject to national veto, and so offer a huge opportunity to the UK to seek restraint and sensible reform that will better serve the British taxpayer. Perhaps the best example of that is to repatriate the local bit of EU structural funds.

From 2007 to 2013, provision for EU spending on the structural funds amounts to some €280 billion, which is about 30% of the total EU budget. During that period, the UK will make a net contribution to the structural funds of some £21 billion; that is the UK’s contribution after taking into account the money it receives from the structural funds. We pay £30 billion, and we get £9 billion back after the money is converted into euros, administered and 140,000 full-time equivalent European staff have decided which UK regions should benefit. In fact, under the European definition of UK regions, only two, west Wales and Cornwall, are net recipients of structural funds. All the other regions are paying significantly more for every £1 they get back in structural funds, which is a completely ridiculous state of affairs. Additionally, the European Union determines the allocation, not the British Government.

Spending plans are based on EU regions that simply do not fit economic and political realities. There is a top-down structure in which all spending plans require the approval of the European Commission and must comply with EU guidelines. So structural spending completely frustrates local innovation,

No rigorous performance criteria link disbursement of funds to clear results. The think-tank Open Europe finds no conclusive evidence that structural funds have had a positive overall impact on growth, jobs and regional convergence in the EU. The rules on the administration of the funds are excessively bureaucratic. For wealthier member states, including Britain, the funds completely irrationally recycle large amounts of money, via Brussels, not only within the same country, but within the same regions. The UK could negotiate the repatriation of regional spending to richer member states, focusing the structural funds solely on poorer EU countries, which would reduce the total EU budget for the next multi-annual financial framework by some 15%.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am listening to my hon. Friend with great interest. So far, she has not mentioned Mr Barroso’s speech of a couple of days ago. I wonder whether she appreciates that, however sensible her ideas may be on lists of functions and attitudes, the European Union does not have the slightest intention of entering any negotiations in that direction. That is the problem. I agree with most of what she says as a matter of aspiration, but the problem is we are not dealing with a European Union that is remotely on the same page.

[Andrea Leadsom]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, but he contradicts what my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley) said, which is that the EU will not allow us just to walk away, because the EU needs us more than we need it.

There is an opportunity for reform. There is no doubt that, as a non-eurozone member, we will not be subject to the calls for ever greater union. The absolute burden is for us to define what we want that renegotiation to look like. If we do nothing because we are afraid the EU will not listen to us, we will get nothing. We would then end up in a position in which we are either in or out. Having a good go at reform is the way forward, whether we succeed or fail; doing nothing would not be in Britain’s best interest.

Richer member states are perfectly capable of funding their own regional policy and determining which regions should benefit from structural funds. If we were to repatriate those local structural funds to richer member states, we would end up with a 15% headline cut in the multi-annual financial framework for the next period and every one of those richer member states, bar five, would receive a significant reduction in contributions, which is a win-win and something we ought to look to other member states to support.

There are so many areas of reform that would be in Britain’s better interest. I could go on and on, because the opportunities are widespread and the need for reform is urgent. The Prime Minister has prioritised seeking safeguards for financial services, which is Britain’s most important industry, employing more than 1 million people and generating more than 10% of our tax take every year.

Another key area is the social and working time directive. Do we want our 1 million young people currently not in employment, education or training to get jobs, or de we want to prioritise rights for existing workers? Those are the choices that we have to make, and the social and working time directive is undoubtedly hampering the opportunities for young people to get work.

Do we want more and more EU regulation that affects small and micro-businesses? Do we want to see the training of young doctors in the NHS hampered by EU regulation of on-call hours? The Fresh Start project has raised, researched and sought to answer those questions. By Christmas, we will have produced a short and punchy manifesto for change that will be a shopping list of reforms across all EU policy areas, including business, immigration, justice, agriculture, energy and many others. I know Front Benchers are keen to see reform, and I sincerely hope they will accept and adopt as Government policy the work of such a large group of Conservative colleagues.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Will those who would like to speak remain standing while we note who you are and how many of you there are?

Under Standing Order No. 47 and the direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I will now impose a time limit, otherwise the wealth of talent before me simply will not fit into the time available. The debate finishes in 54 minutes. As a minimum, I have to give the Front-Bench spokesmen 10 minutes each, so I will call them at 10.40. There are 34 minutes for 10 Back Benchers, which means the time limit will be three minutes; the bell will sound after two minutes. If there are interventions, you will not all get in.

10:06

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate.

In the few minutes I have, I will address the impact of EU regulation on fishing and farming and why changes are important. I will also address why a referendum is important, because clearly the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should make all final decisions.

I presume we are all well aware of the bureaucracy that particularly impedes the fishing industry. There has been a reduction in the days at sea, the quotas boats are able to catch and the numbers involved in the fishing industry. Alongside that, scientists have shown that there are more fish in the Irish sea than Europe, which controls the Irish sea, seems prepared to accept. For example, I am reliably informed that the white fish industry, which only has four boats left in Northern Ireland, conducted a joint survey and examination with scientists on cod in the Irish sea, and the data that were collected show that there is more cod in the Irish sea than is indicated by Europe. If Parliament and the local Assemblies had power, we would be in a position to change that right away so we might rejoice in the stability of our fishing industry instead of worrying about the future and where we go. That is an example of where we are with the fishing industry. Ten years ago, Portavogie in my constituency in Northern Ireland had more than 100 boats; they are now down to 60. That indicates the problem.

We also have red tape in farming. Again, there are regulations imposed by Europe on poultry and pigs. We energetically—perhaps “evangelically” is a better term—enforce all those regulations, but other EU countries ignore the regulations and do not seem to care.

National opinion polls show that 61% of voters would leave the EU today; the YouGov poll shows that even more people want to leave. The time is right for the people of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to decide what happens in relation to the EU. I support what the hon. Lady has said, and I ask the House to do likewise.

10:09

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

It is, as always, a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate.

As chairman of the Lords and Commons “Better Off Out” group, I agree that we should repatriate powers from the European Union. The only difference is that I think that we ought to repatriate all powers. Other countries in Europe should not have the power to tell this country what to do. Given all the problems in the eurozone, it is a fruitful time to renegotiate our relationship with the European Union.

However, based on the precedents, I fear that the hope of success is not great. Nevertheless, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that in a few months or in two or three years’ time, those who wish to stay in the European Union and repatriate some powers will be successful. The British people will then be faced with what I call an in/in referendum: they will be given the choice of the status quo—staying in as we are now—or staying in with 17/20, 18/20 or 19/20 of the status quo and repatriating a few powers. I suspect that for millions of people in this country, that will simply not be good enough.

The question is what those people should do who think, as I do, that we would be better off outside the European Union. Faced with an in/in referendum, those who wish to be outside the European Union should take part in the referendum and, as a third option to come out will not be granted, simply write the word “out” on the ballot paper. Even if those votes are not counted, it will be clear how many spoiled ballots there are. We will know how many voted for the proposition, how many voted against it and how many voted to come out. That is one way for those of us who think that we would be better off outside the European Union to make our voices heard.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Without interventions, we are on track to get everybody in.

10:12

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), who has been a fiery speaker on these issues ever since she arrived in Parliament and is obviously making a big name for herself. I completely and utterly disagree with her. She made a fundamentally old-fashioned speech. It was as though Joseph Chamberlain and Arthur Balfour were among us again and protectionism was the order of the day.

We must turn around how we look at the issue. If we keep looking at it from the inside of the European Union rather than the outside, we will miss the fact that the growing economies—Russia, China, Brazil and the whole of Latin America—do not look on each individual country in Europe and think, “How can we do business with them?” They look at the whole of Europe and think, “How can we make investments that make sense across the whole of Europe?” The hon. Lady cited rising figures for exports from the UK, but she failed to mention that during the same period, EU exports to China, Russia and Brazil have grown faster than those in the UK. Many people suggest that visa liberalisation would do more to improve our trade with those countries, but I am hesitant about liberalising visas to Russia, Mexico, Brazil and China at the moment; I think that there could be profound dangers.

Several hon. Members have said that shared policies are a problem. Personally, I think that the common agricultural policy operates in an immoral way. It means that people in poor parts of the world are unable to feed themselves properly because we deliberately overproduce. However, if there were no common agricultural policy, there would be a French agricultural policy, an Italian agricultural policy and doubtless a British one, which would be even worse. I would like us to keep the policy but slash it in half.

Similarly, there are many aspects that benefit us directly. We need strong borders around Europe so that UK borders are strong. When Brits travel abroad, as they do in their millions every year, we need to ensure that they enjoy good medical standards. Brits buying homes in Spain need the rule of law. We need more Europe on some issues, rather than less. For instance, on mobile telephony, I have never understood why, when Europe is meant to be a single market, we are charged more for making a phone call in France or Germany than here at home in the UK.

Somebody said that we should trade with Europe and not in Europe. That is fundamentally naive about the politics of Europe. As for the idea of having a rolling opt-in and opt-out programme, it would mean that every country would abandon all its treaty obligations at every general election. That fundamentally misunderstands the whole nature of international law.

I agree with the hon. Lady about two things. One is an element of the repatriation of structural funds. It is crazy that we recycle money through Europe and that nobody can then follow the money, which is why the auditors cannot track it. The other is EU questions.

10:15

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. It is also a great pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant). I return his compliment by saying that he spoke exceptionally well, and of course I disagree with every word that he said. He has a great ability to speak for the Labour party, which has made it clear that it wants more Europe, not less. That should be the message that goes out from this Chamber: Labour wants more and more Europe. That is perfectly fair, and I congratulate him on saying it.

I do not know whether you have noticed, Mr Hollobone, but more than 20 Conservative Members of Parliament have attended this debate. There are two Members representing the Democratic Unionist party and one representing the Liberal Democrats, but as for Labour, until the hon. Member for Rhondda came along, there was just the shadow Minister and her Parliamentary Private Secretary. It shows how little interest Labour has in Europe.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate and on how well she spoke. I regret that she was able to make that speech; in my opinion, she should have been in Government. She is highly talented. The only reason why she is not in Government is that she put her principles first and voted for the EU referendum. She is a highly respected Member and deserves to be listened to. Equally, I am delighted that we have a Minister who should also have been in Government a long time ago. I am sure that now he is here, there will be a change in the direction of Government policy. I live in hope.

A few years ago, I could have made the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire made. I have now come to realise that what she described will not be achieved by staying in Europe. The only way that we will achieve it is by leaving Europe and renegotiating. I think that it would be simple for the Prime Minister to unite the Conservative party, give us a huge leap in the polls and bring UK Independence party members back to voting Conservative. He could use the idea suggested by my hon. Friend, which is to renegotiate, then put two options to the British people: accepting the renegotiation or coming out of the EU. After the renegotiation, the Prime Minister can decide whether he will campaign for the new terms or for coming out. That would unite the Conservative party, and it is what I want to see our Prime Minister do when he leads us in the next general election.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call Julian Lewis, then Bill Cash and Alec Shelbrooke.

10:18

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

Mr Hollobone, thank you for announcing the batting order in advance. I have waited many years to find myself between a Bone and a Stone, and today I have achieved that poetic distinction. Having said that, I deeply resent the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has just made the speech that I was about to make, particularly the remarks about my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom)—the Front Bench’s loss is the Back Benches’ temporary gain—and my hon. Friend the Minister, who worked extremely hard in opposition as the shadow Minister and richly deserves his belated promotion.

That great Eurosceptic Tony Benn would not thank me for saying that he has something in common with the arch-federalists, but I am afraid he does. Whenever Labour lost an election for being too extreme and left-wing, he would always say that the result of that election showed that the Labour party had had not enough socialism in its manifesto, rather than too much. That, I am afraid, is what we are experiencing with Europe at the moment: the worse it gets, the more federalist it wishes to become. History owes a debt of gratitude to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), without whose intervention the previous Labour Government would have signed us up to the European single currency. That goes to show that everybody is good for something. It is only a pity that the modern Labour party does not subscribe as firmly to the blocking tactics that former Prime Minister employed so successfully, to the benefit of the country.

I do not mind looking back a little, because the longer one is in this place the more one sees the same things going round and round. Again and again, people such as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) are derided as being in some way on the fringe of politics, as outlandish, extreme and wrong; they are then proven to have been right, and the people who were actually wrong always end up carrying on as if nothing had happened. I am a little concerned that our current Chancellor of the Exchequer seems to accept that there is a remorseless logic to fiscal union for the people on the continent. Fiscal and political union on the continent is not in Britain’s interests and we should oppose it. We should not allow ourselves to be drawn down that route. Our benefit lies in a system of free, interacting nation states within Europe.

10:21

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

My appeal is for all the Eurosceptic movements—the Euro-realists—to join together. The situation has now become critical. The Barroso speech sets out an agenda of more integration and a federal Europe, and we are now confronted by the reality that they are not listening to us. They did not listen to us on Maastricht—it was our own Government who did not listen to us then. Fortunately, the Prime Minister himself has now said that he thought there should have been a referendum on that treaty, and that that would have sorted the matter out there and then. However, we are where we are. I am not seeking confrontation; I am seeking solutions. The situation is far too grave for us to be in a state of difficulty due to personalities or whatever else: we have to unite around certain central principles.

I welcome the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom). She knows that I believe—I said so in an intervention—that time has run out. In the Liaison Committee the other day, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that he agreed with me that the situation in Europe was now unacceptable. I used the word “untenable”, but we came to an agreement. I suggested that we should have a convention so that we could get ahead of the curve and provide our basis, based on the principle of consent—on the fact that the people of this country, and for that matter the people of other countries, should decide, not the Euro elite and not the Governments who created this failed project, this undemocratic situation that has been allowed to develop. We need to get together. He said that that was a perfectly reasonable suggestion and that conversations were taking place in Europe. Unfortunately, the reality is that they have now been overtaken by the Barroso agenda. I fear that my right hon. Friend is, if I may say bluntly, in a contradiction: on the one hand, he says that it is unacceptable, but on the other hand he says we will not leave the European Union.

This kind of negotiation, or renegotiation, involves asking such fundamental questions about our relationship that other member states will not accept them. When they do not, our option will be clear: however much we might not want to, we will have to leave the European Union if that is the position that we have arrived at. The Barroso speech indicates that we are on a different page, so I call for urgency. We should have a referendum before the next general election. We should create the circumstances in which we are able to ask the British people, “What kind of Europe do you want?”

10:24

[Alec Shelbrooke (Elmet and Rothwell) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on the immense work she has done in leading on this important subject.

I was born in 1976, two years after the last referendum on Europe. A great many of my colleagues—I look at my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker)—have had absolutely no say in Europe. We are now Government Members and this cancer of Europe has eaten away at debate throughout almost my entire political career, from the moment I was delivering leaflets on the doorstep 20 years ago. It is time to get this problem sorted out.

The constant rush for federalisation will have precisely the opposite effect to what the European Union was set up for in the first place. The laudable point of a European union was to try to prevent another war in Europe, but if people’s sovereignty is withdrawn, they will strike back: eventually, right-wing parties will get elected and say enough is enough and rise up in nationalistic fervour. Those who do not think that such things could happen only have to look back 20 years to Yugoslavia and see how dangerous it can be when people do not feel they have control of their destiny. We need a sensible way forward.

I do not propose that we withdraw from the European Union, although I fear, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) outlined, that might be where we end up; but we do need to renegotiate the relationship and to withdraw from the interference in our lives. When I say to people, “You had the vote and you decided,” they reply, “No we didn’t. We voted for a common trading area.” That is the point: the people voted for a common trading area, not for a European Union of increasing federalisation. This review is a very important piece of work. The Minister would have the support of the vast majority of Government Members if the Government worked to ensure that we have a common trading area, not a federal Europe.

10:27

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

I join in the congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) for all she has done to bring reason and detailed consideration of the facts to the debate on Europe. In doing so, she has contributed to the growing recognition, not just in the Conservative party but in other parties and in the country as a whole, that we need a better relationship with Europe. The question now is not whether we want or need a better relationship, but what the relationship should be and how we should get it. I will focus on how.

Some of my colleagues think the answer is an in/out referendum, which they see as a “get out of jail free card”. It is not. It is wrong in principle to pose abstract questions to the electorate, but it is also unwise in practice. A detailed study of every referendum since the second world war, where there are opinion poll data, shows that on average there is a 17% swing back in favour of the status quo. I remind my hon. Friends that that means one has to start with a 34% lead for change to have a 50% chance of winning. If we start from the present position, with roughly half of people being in favour of leaving and a third in favour of staying, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire said, the idea that we would automatically win a referendum and that a majority would vote for “out” is probably a mistake. What we should do and what we ought to do in constitutional principle is negotiate a new deal. That is why we elect Parliaments and elect Governments, and we should elect a Parliament committed to doing that.

Because a new deal will require unanimity among our partners, that will be possible only if our partners are the demandeurs: if they are going to be coming to us saying, “We want a new treaty, we want to change the existing treaties,” and they are probably going to be doing that on several occasions. The question that we ought to be confronting, and it would be proof that we are considering these matters seriously if we do, is whether we should go for a big bang solution and put forward everything that we want to change in one negotiation, or instead emulate the Euro-federalists and employ salami-slicing tactics—a slice here and another slice for the next treaty, and so on.

We should record that the first change will be the most difficult, because Europe has the doctrine of acquis communautaire, under which no power once ceded to Europe can be referred back to individual nation states. The EU will put up the most almighty opposition if we merely want to repatriate powers over regulating birdwatching. If we want more serious things, the opposition will be even greater, but we have to establish first the precedent that powers can come back to member states; then, we can get ever more. Personally, I think salami slicing is probably the approach to use, but we should be discussing these issues. When we do, we will prove that we are serious about getting the new relationship that this country wants.

10:30

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate and on a comprehensive speech.

We are coming to the end of the debate and a lot of what I should have liked to say has been said. The only thing that I disagree with a little bit is the idea that we are, in any way, going to reform the European Union. We can tinker here and there, but we cannot achieve fundamental reform of the EU, partly because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) said, the other member states are simply not interested. The whole project is not about subsidiarity at all, or about recognising and respecting the rights of sovereign states; it is about ever-closer union. That is its objective. Because of that we will not achieve the kind of reform that we would like.

That is not to say that while we are in the EU we should not try for reform. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr Paterson) was promoted in the reshuffle, because I worked with him a lot in Northern Ireland and know that he is the sort of man to take on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and, more importantly, to take on the EU, because it is in that Department that the EU has its worst effects. There is a chance for some change there, but overall I do not see us creating the kind of EU that we want. So we have to go for an in/out referendum.

My hon. Friend the Member for Elmet and Rothwell (Alec Shelbrooke) gave his age away, so I shall give mine. I am 54—[Interruption.] I know I do not look it. I have been a Member of Parliament for 15 years and have been in business and I have never had a vote on whether we should be in the EU, either in a referendum or in this place. I have never had any say at all—although I have paid tax and been in business and politics—and neither have my constituents.

When the Conservative party went into the previous general election, it said that it wanted to connect people again with politics—with the decisions that affect their lives. There is no bigger example of how they feel disconnected, and why they feel that way, than the EU. They cannot influence what it does and we Members of Parliament cannot. It is time that the people were given the right to say in or out.

10:33

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing this debate. I am glad that I am among hon. Friends from the coalition, although they are thinning out and perhaps their number will have thinned out even more after my contribution.

Many people are saying that the eurozone crisis and the vulnerability of the eurozone at the moment provides the opportunity for the UK to repatriate some of its powers, but this is wrong thinking. The single market is the key to our economic success and is about much more than tariffs and quotas; it is about environmental standards, product standards, property rights, how qualifications are measured and even about social and employment standards.

There is a much more important national interest for the UK at the moment: risks from deeper eurozone integration include the UK lacking access and influence. We must ensure that we retain our full rights. For example, the hon. Lady mentioned that financial institutions dealing in significant amounts of euros may have to relocate physically within the eurozone. We must fight that and speak up for our financial institutions.

The Norwegian and Swiss models have been mentioned, but those countries have to accept much European legislation and regulation to maintain their membership.

We are making progress, even now. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey), who ensured, when a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, that many regulations relating to small businesses were repealed by the EU. The EU will consider many more of the regulations applying to small businesses with a view to limiting or reducing them.

We have had a useful debate. I am sorry that other hon. Members have not been able to play a bigger part in it. This is a key issue for us and a key national issue as we face this economic crisis.

10:35

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing today’s debate. I also congratulate the Minister on his appointment. I did not realise that we would have such an early opportunity to debate such an important issue.

The hon. Lady’s debate concerns the reform of the relationship between the UK and the EU, but it is worth mentioning briefly that we are against the nuclear option of reform: leaving the EU, as some Government Members have called for. We Opposition Members believe that the UK should remain in the EU. We reject many of the arguments advanced by hon. Members today, saying that it would be in the UK’s national interest either to leave the EU or reduce our relationship to one based on trade.

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful that the shadow Minister is so honest and courageous so early on in her speech. She has made a clear pledge that the Labour party will definitely never give this country an in/out referendum.

[Emma Reynolds]

I did no such thing. Perhaps if he listened a little more attentively to what I said, the hon. Gentleman would not make such pointless interventions.

The EU remains the largest and richest single market in the world and accounts for more than half of our total exports. We export more to the German Länder of North Rhine-Westphalia than to China and India combined. We do more trade with Ireland than with the so-called BRICs—Brazil, Russia, India and China—put together. Without our exports to the EU and the rest of the world, the British economy would have gone back into recession a year ago.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Given the hon. Lady’s typically robust response to my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), are we to take it that the Labour party is not ruling out giving an in/out referendum to the British public?

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman seems to understand me better than the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone). Our position is that a referendum at this time would be a distraction from the Government’s priority of getting the economy back on track. The question about what our relationship with the EU will become is open now, given the nature of Mr Barroso’s speech last week, mentioned by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash). We will see how that relationship develops in terms of what kind of political and fiscal union the eurozone states want to form.

[Mr Cash]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the timetable has been accelerated by that speech and those who thought that it might be better to keep the matter open, including the Prime Minister, are now effectively finding that time has overtaken them—or soon will.

[Emma Reynolds]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. It is not yet clear at what point the European Commission, the German Government or other Governments will want to put treaty change on the table.

[Mr Cash]

It is. He said so.

[Emma Reynolds]

In his speech, Mr Barroso mentions putting that treaty change on the table before the 2014 European parliamentary elections—I have read his speech closely—but it is still unclear whether that will happen in time for those elections. There will be a report by Herman Van Rompuy to the Council in December, which will be an important time for our Government to start to have a policy on the European Union. I shall come on to that.

Many of the hon. Members present who argue for withdrawal offer a false choice between trade with emerging markets and EU membership. They say, “Remain in the EU, or trade with the likes of China, India, Brazil and Russia.” We must of course improve our export performance to the rest of the world, but we will not build real export success if we start by cutting ourselves off from our largest existing market and our largest collective negotiating tool. The EU provides the collective political weight that we need to maximise our influence in negotiations. Hon. Members need not take that from me, they can take it from the Europe Minister, as set out in written evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee as recently as May of this year, when he said:

“On trade, one voice representing half a billion consumers is heard more loudly in Beijing, Delhi and Moscow, than 27 separate ones.”

British businesses, workers and consumers will see the benefit of EU free trade agreements, such as the recent FTA with South Korea, which is worth £500 million to UK exporters, or the potential future agreements with the US, Canada, Singapore and India.

[Mr Laurence Robertson]

When will that happen? I take a deep interest in Irish politics, and we export more to Ireland’s 4.5 million people than we do to more than a third of the world’s population in those emerging markets. We keep hearing how good it will be, but when will it happen?

[Emma Reynolds]

That question might be more appropriate for the Foreign Office Minister. The point that I am making, if the hon. Gentleman will listen, is that it is more likely that we will be able to prise open markets and change the rules of the game on intellectual property rights and other issues if we are part of the collective weight of the European Union. China, with 1.3 billion people, has much more interest in forming a trading relationship with a European Union representing 500 million consumers than with a single country within that Union.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady said about being in Europe to negotiate such trade terms. Will she clarify whether that means that we should have much further integration to open up those markets?

[Emma Reynolds]

That was not my point. We have much more influence and weight in international trade negotiations acting as part of the European Union than we do alone. I now want to make some progress.

Our membership of the European Union is also vital to attracting foreign direct investment. I want to agree with one point made by the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire, which is that it would not be in our national interest to be in the position of Norway. A recent report by some Norwegian academics pinpoints a democratic deficit in Norway’s relationship with the EU, because the country is bound by the single market’s rules, regulations and laws, over which it has no say. If we were to put ourselves in that position, it would not be in our national interest, so I agree with the hon. Lady on that.

We are in favour of our membership, but we are not defenders of the status quo. We would like to see a Europe that is more outward looking, that is stronger in the world, that is—crucially, at the moment—better able to deal with the eurozone crisis and that reforms some of its internal policies. We would like to see the multi-annual financial framework more focused on growth and job creation, a reform of the common agricultural policy and, crucially, a completion of the single market in services. The only way to achieve such reform, however, is to have influence in the EU and not to be stranded on the sidelines.

Regrettably, as a result of the Prime Minister’s walk-out at the European summit in December, our stock in Europe sits at an all-time low. [Hon. Members: “ Rubbish.”] If hon. Members visited European capitals and discussed with other politicians the stock of UK influence, they would have a pretty bad surprise. Negative tactics such as vetoes and empty chairs are instruments of last resort; they are open to member states and we should be prepared to consider their use in defence of a vital national interest, but in December no vital national interest was defended. The Prime Minister’s protocol on financial services was rejected as a retreat from existing single market rules, and the rest of Europe simply carried on without us. The Prime Minister’s action therefore incurred a loss of influence for no tangible gain. Ironically, as a result of what he did in December, the Government are more reliant on an institution that many Conservative Members love to hate, the European Commission, which we must now depend on to protect the single market and its integrity.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I have to disagree completely with the hon. Lady. The Prime Minister’s use of the veto, far from giving us less influence in Europe, had the opposite effect. What was astonishing was the complete wall of ambassadors and others from the European Union coming to see many of those known to be interested in the EU to find out what the problem is, what was going on and what it is exactly that Britain wants. So she is completely wrong—what the Prime Minister did was a wake-up call and definitely in the interests not only of the City but of Britain.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) responds, she needs to think about bringing her remarks to a close. She has about two minutes left.

[Emma Reynolds]

I could not disagree with the hon. Lady more—I have made that clear.

Today’s debate is reminiscent of the 1990s: the divisions of the Tory party have not yet healed. We have seen three different positions on the Government side: no change and stay in; stay in and argue for repatriation and renegotiation; and to get out. The Conservative party is utterly divided. As long as the Government put the party interest before the national interest our stock in Europe will remain low and our ability to argue for reform will remain incredibly limited. It is regrettable that the Government are divided at home and weak in Europe, and that they are therefore incapable of being a strong and effective voice for reform in Europe.

10:47

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

I am delighted to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Hollobone. I am sorry that the Minister for Europe, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), could not be present this morning. He very much wanted to participate in this important debate, but I was enthused to understand that I would be responding within my first 10 days in my new ministerial role.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) on securing the debate and on the articulate, intelligent and comprehensive way in which she introduced it. I thank all colleagues who have participated, many of whom fall into the category of what I call distinguished and principled colleagues. In the time available, I am afraid that I will not be able to answer all the specific questions.

I also want to put on the record the Government’s thanks to my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire, for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) and for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), who deserve enormous credit for the valuable, significant and serious work of the Fresh Start group. I hope that my hon. Friends and others will continue to engage with such a vital issue, in particular as we analyse the balance of competences in a process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced just before the summer recess and about which I intend to say more later.

[Mr Cash]

One fundamental competence that I hope my hon. Friend agrees needs to be reviewed is whether the British people are able to govern themselves by their own consent in general elections. Does he not agree that that is the most fundamental democratic question that needs to be addressed on the European issue?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend will not be surprised to hear that I will not answer that question directly this morning. I urge him and others, however, to engage positively and constructively with the forensic analysis of the balance of competences, which will feed into a national debate about the relationship that we should have with the European Union.

I want to be up front in ensuring that all hon. Members understand that the Government have been absolutely clear that there should be no further transfer of competence or powers from the UK to the EU over the course of the Parliament. That is in stark contrast with the Labour Government’s record. They were clearly wrong to sign the Lisbon treaty without consulting British voters in any way. They were quite wrong to give away £7 billion of our rebate and to get nothing in return, and they were quite wrong to drop out of our opt-out from the social chapter, which means that employment laws are decided in Brussels, not here.

[Alec Shelbrooke]

Does that not illustrate the folly of the comments by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds)? She said that Britain is more isolated by taking a stance. We gave away all that money, and what did we get for it?

[Mark Simmonds]

I agree with my hon. Friend. The Prime Minister’s veto back in December played a significant role in ensuring that he and the Government are always seen to be protecting the UK’s national interest. That is absolutely right. The comments of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North East (Emma Reynolds) on this matter are confusing, particularly in view of her unwillingness to rule out British membership of the euro, which the Government have done.

[Chris Bryant]

If we are talking about things that will happen in the future, I would be delighted to know when the Government expect to have a resolution of the next financial perspective. The advice of the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire is to have a shopping list for the next couple of years, but a shopping list normally involves some spending, and I wonder whether, to secure some of the things she wants, the Government will abandon the rebate in that perspective discussion.

[Mark Simmonds]

It is clear that the UK’s agenda and priorities—I hope to come to them in a moment—are about driving global competitiveness and economic growth to alleviate some of the problems that are prevalent in the eurozone. That includes further trading with the eurozone and—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman), who is no longer in his place, made this key point—not just with the eurozone, but further afield. This debate is extremely timely, and provides an early opportunity to discuss the issues. It is clear that events in the eurozone will have wide-ranging implications, and its ultimate shape is unknown and uncertain. The Prime Minister made it clear on the Floor of the House in June that as Europe changes to meet the current challenges, our relationship with it may also change. It is vital for Britain’s national interest, and for the European Union’s strength and prosperity, that we meet those challenges.

The coalition agreement that was set out at the beginning of this Parliament stated that the UK should be a positive participant in the European Union, working with our partners to ensure that all European nations are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century, by far the most important of which is global competitiveness. I am the first to acknowledge that there is still much more to do to restore growth, both inside and outside the eurozone. The Government remain vigorously committed to developing the European single market, to smarter and less costly EU regulation, and to more free trade between Europe and the rest of the world. We need a Europe that delivers prosperity, job and wealth creation, and security, and a Europe that is more outward-looking, more dynamic and more competitive on the global stage.

[Emma Reynolds]

Would the Government not have more authority and influence when talking about growth in other European countries if we had growth here in the UK?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Lady makes an interesting point. It is vital in a globalising world to remain on the competitive side of the line. The reforms that this Government have put in place since the May 2010 election will make a significant contribution to that. They include making our tax system the most competitive in the G20, making the UK the best place in Europe to start, to finance and to develop a business, encouraging investment and exports as a route to balancing the economy after the shambolic economic mess that the Labour Government left to the coalition Government, and creating a more educated work force. Over time, those changes will deliver economic growth.

Aligned with that, the single market is a significant driving force for prosperity. That is why we will continue with an ambitious programme of deepening the single market while seeking to reduce unnecessary burdens. The single market supports UK jobs, prosperity and growth through increased trade and, vitally, helps the UK to attract inward investment from inside and outside Europe. We want the single market to continue to encourage competition and innovation throughout Europe, to help to increase productivity in the UK, and to bring down prices for consumers so that UK businesses can benefit from a single regulatory regime, simplifying regulation, liberalising services and developing a single digital market that will bring benefits to the UK.

Our national interests, our influence and our values are all advanced internationally through the co-operation of states. However, as many hon. Members have rightly said, there is no doubt that the EU requires reform, and we certainly do not agree with everything the EU does. It is absolutely clear that reform is required now more than ever. In our view, the UK should champion growth and the single market, and take the opportunity to shape Britain’s relationship with Europe in a way that advances our national interest in free trade, open markets and co-operation.

We have led the debate on reducing the burden of EU regulation on business, and securing agreement on a breakthrough step to exempt micro-businesses from new EU proposals, but clearly more needs to be done. We have secured agreement on a unitary patent after 23 years of EU negotiation. Amid all that change, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced an analysis of the balance of competences between member states and the EU. That vital review will be an audit of what the EU does and how it affects us in the United Kingdom. It will look at where competences lie, how they are used, whether exclusive, shared or supporting, and what is important for our national interest. The process will begin in the autumn, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to participate.

[Mr Bone]

Can my hon. Friend answer the question that our hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) posed earlier? He and I delivered a letter to No. 10 Downing street with more than 100 signatures from Conservative Members requesting legislation in this Parliament for a referendum in the next Parliament on the balance of competences

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. I confirm that the Prime Minister met my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on 9 July to discuss the contents of the letter, and I understand that a formal reply will be sent to him shortly.

We have pressed for an open trading agenda that presents real opportunities and allows us to benefit from investment in the UK. Our commitment to free trade is why the UK is still the leading destination for foreign investment into Europe.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps my hon. Friend will bear with me. I am coming to a conclusion, but I will be happy to discuss with him afterwards the point he wants to make. I am running out of time, and I want to make a couple of key points.

The UK has been leading the way in trying to facilitate free trade negotiations and agreements, and it has done so successfully with South Korea. It is leading the drive for such agreements with Japan, Singapore, the USA and Canada.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) referred to the Barroso speech. I confirm that we are looking closely at its contents. We agree with some of the President’s analysis of the EU’s financial problems, such as the unsustainable levels of debt, the lack of competitiveness and some irresponsible behaviour in financial institutions, but the direction of travel is not always one that the UK wishes to take.

In conclusion, the immediate priority must be to restore market confidence, to drive growth, to negotiate more trade agreements, to open up new markets, and to create wealth and jobs through competitiveness, innovation and liberalisation.

Energy Resources (Lancashire)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

10:59

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

Given how many times I have previously raised this subject, I thought that I might bore the Energy Minister if I did so again. However, there has been a reshuffle and there is a new Minister, so I now have a new audience. I take this opportunity to thank the previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), who always dealt with the matters I raised seriously and with his usual good humour. I am sure that the same will be true with the new Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), whom I congratulate on his new position.

Put simply, my constituents and I are concerned that a huge amount of energy exploration and production is going on across Lancashire and a lot more is planned. Energy production of almost every variety is being planned across the county, much of it in or around my constituency. We have wind turbines in abundance, both onshore and offshore. We have nuclear power in Heysham and the possibility of a new reactor there. We had the discovery of shale gas just outside my constituency—the fracking process, which was being undertaken by Cuadrilla, is currently on hold—and Halite Energy Group has applied to store natural gas in salt caverns in Preesall. We have small-scale hydro and solar schemes across the county, and we even have a serious proposal for a tidal barrage across the mouth of the River Wyre in Fleetwood, which has been on hold since 1991; we are still waiting for a national statement on tidal power.

If any or all of those schemes go ahead, we face the additional pylons and substations needed to transfer the power from Lancashire to the national grid. To underline the problem, I add that before any of those new schemes have happened, the existing wind turbines in the Irish sea have led National Grid to consult on brand new pylons that would cross the Lake district. The power would come over land or under the sea to Heysham, which is just outside my constituency, and arrive at the village of Quernmore, where a new substation is proposed; then, to connect the power from the existing turbines in the Irish sea to the national grid, large new pylons would be erected down the core of my constituency and others to reach Pendle in Lancashire. That proposal takes no account of any of the other plans that I mentioned a moment ago.

My question in a nutshell is: with all those proposals, where is the overarching plan? Who assesses the effect of the multiple types of energy? How will all those energy developments impact on one another? Can the fact that other schemes are planned be considered as part of the planning process by the relevant planning authorities? I am also concerned because applicants resubmit applications that are almost entirely the same in nature, for the same sites, time after time, in a sort of salami-slicing process designed to wear down opposition. The Minister has a lot of questions to deal with, so to give him time, I shall highlight just one or two major proposals in my constituency.

We are near the end of the planning process for proposals to store gas in excavated salt caverns under the River Wyre in Preesall. This is the third application: two previous applications from a company called Canatxx were refused; and the third application to store the gas is from a new company, Halite. Residents are concerned about safety—we had the collapse of an old salt cavern in Preesall—and about the impact on the unique geology of the River Wyre. Alongside the Protect Wyre Group, I and my fellow MPs will again oppose that third proposal. I pay tribute to the Protect Wyre Group, which is a residents’ association that has fought year-in, year-out against the proposals, with no extra money. It has none of the resources of energy companies, but it is defending its bit of my constituency. What concerns the group is the repeated applications, which it tries to deal with by fighting planning battles. The uncertainty in the meantime reduces property values because of worries about safety and the possibility of compulsory purchase orders in the area.

I even question the need for the development, and this is where the Ministry comes in. We understand that there have been more than enough applications for natural gas storage to meet national needs for years, yet we in Wyre and Preesall are faced with yet another application. Where is the overall national concern about how many applications will be allowed in the process? The joined-up nature of the plans is what I question.

The application to store gas in Preesall is also relevant because it highlights how one scheme might impact on other. Gas storage on its own may be deemed safe, but what if fracking were given the go-ahead on a larger scale just across the River Wyre in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies)? Because of minor earthquakes, the Department of Energy and Climate Change has suspended the operations there, which were being conducted by a company called Cuadrilla, but how do those operations affect the proposal for the storage of natural gas in salt caverns on the other side of the River Wyre? My understanding is that the planning inspector is looking at the link as part of the Halite application, but I am unsure how much weight a hypothetical development elsewhere carries when reaching a conclusion on the application that is in front of the planning inspectorate.

I turn to the shale gas development. As I have stated in previous debates, I am not against the development of shale gas, and many of my residents also see the national need for gas. However, local people—particularly people living in Bleasdale—are concerned because they get their water not from the mains, but from bore holes. One can see why they are concerned about the protection of watercourses if the process is pursued. They will need reassurance about tight regulations and controls where underground watercourses may be affected.

As I have mentioned in other debates, Lancashire is in danger of becoming like a British Texas, given all the energy exploration, but the key thing about Texas is that, despite the obvious blight, the wealth then goes to local people. What I find difficult to explain to people is that we are part of the Duchy of Lancaster, and it is the duchy that controls and owns the mineral rights. Any farmer who grants permission for fracking to go ahead and gets the drills going will not get much return, and nor will the county or the district. If the process is to be pursued and supported nationally, local people must see a benefit, and from what I understand, the employment benefits are not large.

Fracking also has an impact on the scenery. If, in addition to the pylons and wind turbines, storage wells are to be built all over that part of Lancashire, the natural scenery will be destroyed. I am also concerned about the new substations and pylons needed for the transportation of the gas.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, many people in Fylde are concerned about fracking. I call on the Minister to recognise that what I am pushing for is tight, robust regulation that is fit for purpose. We also have to take into account population densities, because as my hon. Friend mentioned, our area is not like Wyoming or South Dakota. Lancashire is a densely populated place, which must be a major factor.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

As usual, my hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. It is not so much that the people of Lancashire are opposed to the development; they see opportunities in it both for them and for the country, but they are concerned about who will regulate it and who will provide assurances about safety. At the moment, the only people in Lancashire doing the running on this issue are those who are against any kind of development, and a lot of my residents are left wondering who is telling the right story.

I want to underline to the Minister the mineral rights issue. That is a key issue in Lancashire. Who is to get the benefits if the developments go ahead? I know that the Minister’s brief does not include planning, but knowing him as I do, I am sure that he has a wide interest in energy impacts and in the planning process. I have mentioned before that repeated planning applications unsettle local residents, especially when it comes to wind farm developments. In another example, in Claughton moor, at the other end of my constituency, the original application submitted by the developer was for 20 wind turbines between 110 and 126 metres high in an area of outstanding natural beauty. It was rejected unanimously by the planning authority, but the applicant then came back with another application, this time for 13 turbines. That was rejected and then rejected again on appeal, but we are now faced with a third application, this time for 12 turbines. Hon. Members can see what is worrying residents. If the third application is thrown out, will there be a new application for 11 turbines? When does the process cease?

It is all right for the developer and, presumably, the energy company behind it—they are willing to speculate over a long period with a great deal of money—but what about the local residents? Here, I pay tribute to the Friends of Eden, Lakeland and Lunesdale Scenery, the FELLS group. They are volunteers, who have steadfastly fought and fought and fought the applications, but they are beginning to ask: when does the process come to an end? Residents in Preesall are in exactly the same position. They are fighting the third application from Halite. Will that be the final application? Will that be the end? I believe that the Government must step in and say, “Enough is enough.”

We in Lancashire recognise that there is an important national need in relation to gas, electricity and, indeed, any other kind of energy. Lancashire is clearly prepared to play its part. As I am sure the Minister knows, it was, historically, the centre or part of the centre of the industrial revolution. In the energy revolution, however, we face so many applications and the possibility of all sorts of things—pylons in particular—scarring the countryside, that we are asking: who will take a balanced view on this? Will I and my fellow Members of Parliament for Lancashire face a succession of repeated applications, with residents worn down trying to deal with those applications?

I would like to get a plug in for the proposed tidal barrage on the River Wyre. There is another oddity in the energy balance in this country. It has always seemed to me odd that even though this is an island with seas and the power of the waves, we are right at the bottom of the table when it comes to using that energy. I know that the Government have brought through new proposals, but I repeat that what some of us want is a national statement on tidal power. The proposal for the River Wyre has existed since 1991. In 1991, the county council went through a whole planning process in relation to that tidal barrage, but now, all these years later, we are still sitting here with the price of electricity rising.

People can argue for or against a tidal barrage. Many people would argue that it would have far less impact in the form of scarring of the natural scenery in my part of Lancashire than other proposals and that it would have huge potential for regenerating the town of Fleetwood and in terms of flood protection. The proposal is being handled by a small group of people who are determined to try to get it on the agenda, but there is no possibility, it seems to me, of solid financial support to see whether it is a runner in 2012. I say to the Minister that if it was a possible runner in 1991, it must be even more of a possible runner in 2012, particularly given that the revived proposals for the Severn barrage are on such a massive scale. What some of us have proposed in Wyre is the Wyre tidal barrage, because it would be on a much smaller scale, being seen as a pilot to test the engineering necessary for a scheme as huge as that on the Severn.

We all strike a different balance between the different parts of the energy process. Some of us prefer this, some of us think that that might be better, and some of us like the other. What I am trying to underline in the debate is that the pressure on Lancashire, particularly my part of the county, is such that residents are questioning where national, joined-up government is in the approach taken to these matters. In the next few months, as I mentioned, we will have the proposal from National Grid for new pylons in relation to existing wind power from the Irish sea. That proposal and others will ratchet up the debate. There will be the final hearings in relation to Halite and there is the possibility of a new nuclear station at Heysham. Interestingly, the support for a new nuclear station at Heysham is pretty widespread because people can see the strength of the proposal and the job opportunities that it would provide. Given the safety record of the present Heysham power stations, which is second to none, there are very few quibbles from the majority of the population in my area about the proposal. Again, however, although the proposal has been made, I am not sure exactly where it lies in the national strategy.

What we want in Lancashire is a share of the cake. I underline the duchy and mineral rights issue, which is real. What we want in Lancashire is, obviously, jobs. What we want in Lancashire is support to make up for the disastrous lack of planning by the previous Government over 13 years. People understand that, but no one has got to grips with it. We want some security. We want to know that the Government are taking a balanced view and that Lancashire will not just become a Texas where there is no money, where the scenery is scarred by the different attempts by different energy companies to get their proposals through, and where residents have finally given up the fight because they have to carry on with their normal lives and their own jobs or work. We need some reassurance from the Department that people are considering these issues and considering them sympathetically. Lancashire can deliver so much—so much—but we need that security for our residents. They need to know that they will not be ignored, that they will not be trodden over by energy companies and that the scenery that they have will be protected.

11:17

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

It is always a delight to serve under your benevolent and sagacious chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) on securing the debate. Disraeli said,

“Man is only truly great when he acts from the passions”

and my hon. Friend has shown that passion admirably today on behalf of his constituents and the area that he represents. I hope that I can equal that passion in my determination to do right by his constituents; of course, we must do right by the national interest simultaneously.

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the circumstances in Lancashire with regard to energy infrastructure—gas storage, shale gas, nuclear and wind. He covered all those matters in his remarks. He knows that securing sufficient energy is vital for the UK’s future—for national well-being but also for economic growth—but it is also vital that communities play their part in making key decisions about the character of that investment. It is right that they feel a sense of ownership of those decisions and that they are fully involved and consulted before any such decisions are taken. After all, those issues, as he said, will impact on them now but also for years to come. They are matters of considerable concern for those who look to their children’s and their grandchildren’s future, as well as to the immediate prospects that he has described.

I think that the Government can be proud of the approach that we are taking to these concerns, not least through the sustainability appraisal process for the national policy statements at a strategic level, but also at the project level for nationally significant infrastructure, where interactions between developments are considered independently and objectively. The debate is an excellent opportunity to highlight the Government’s overarching strategy for energy and infrastructure and to provide reassurance to my hon. Friend and other Members. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who has been a worthy champion, in his place and I would not ignore my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace). My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made a powerful case on behalf of his constituents in defence of what he identified as the strategic changes and cumulative effects of energy matters. My hon. Friend the Member for Fylde has been notable for his keen interest in the development of shale gas particularly. I will say a little about it today, but more in due course.

We should be in no doubt about the massive scale of investment required to ensure our energy security over the coming decades and to make the transition to a lower-carbon economy. Our electricity plant is old and needs replacing. About a fifth of our existing capacity is due to close over the next decade and will be replaced by energy sources that are increasingly intermittent, such as wind, or inflexible, such as nuclear. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood knows, almost all our existing nuclear plant is due to close by about 2023. Despite being aware of the time scales, in recent years, as he described, we simply did not see the necessary levels of investment.

For the first time in a generation, we faced the prospect that at the end of the decade there would simply not be enough electricity to meet demand. That is clearly not merely unpalatable, but wholly unacceptable for our economy and wider society. Our priority therefore is to rebuild our power sector to guarantee our energy security, and to do so in a genuinely low-carbon way at the lowest possible cost to consumers. Those are the balancing elements in the task that I have been set in my job: to ensure energy security at the lowest possible cost, to attract investment, and of course to do so in a way that is sensitive to local communities and delivers the sense of ownership to which I referred a few moments ago.

To put it in crystal clear terms, we need twice as much investment in every year of this decade, as in the last decade. To put it in numbers, we need £110 billion invested in our energy infrastructure in this decade alone. I learned that fact on the first day I came to this job, and I came to appreciate, perhaps as never before, the scale of the task. Every part of the country has a role to play, and all stand to benefit from secure energy supplies, the jobs created—as my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood and for Fylde mentioned—and the stimulus to the UK economy. We need to proceed in a way that is appropriate in terms of not only the energy mix that we deliver, but the environmental impact of the investment. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood made that point repeatedly and powerfully here and previously.

The energy national policy statements designated in July last year set out the need for new energy infrastructure to deliver power to the low-carbon economy. They help to ensure that the UK is a truly attractive market for investors in energy infrastructure, by ensuring that the planning system is rapid, predictable and accountable. The overarching national policy statement EN-1 sets out an overview of the Government’s strategy, and the policy that will lead to an 80% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, while maintaining security of supply and ensuring affordability for customers.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

At the last two meetings I had with the Minister’s predecessor—at one stage my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood also met with him—it was made clear to us that there were more than enough applications for gas storage in the pipeline to cover national need. Will the Minister reaffirm that that is still the case and that this particular application does not necessarily make or break the national strategy?

[Mr Hayes]

I am looking at gas storage closely; indeed, I met with my officials on it in anticipation of the debate. We will shortly publish our gas strategy, and it is inconceivable that consideration of storage will not form part of it. I have personally asked to take a very close look at the matter for the reasons my hon. Friend highlights. It is critical to see it as part of the solution to the challenge I describe, but to do so in the round. I hear what he says and will certainly feed it into the discussions we are having. The policy statements were subject to a rigorous sustainability appraisal process, which looked at the strategic impacts of a range of policy options.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood mentioned shale gas, which I will speak about at some length. As he knows, the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change carried out an inquiry into shale gas, which confirmed that, providing good industry practice is followed and careful regulation applied, hydraulic fracturing—fracking—is unlikely to pose a risk to ground water or aquifers. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering recently reported on a detailed study into the potential risks of shale gas extraction and how those can be managed.

Let me be absolutely clear: before there is any return to the exploration necessary—long before production, by the way—I will ensure that rigorous measures are in place to minimise risk, to take local community interest into account, and to allow for a rigorous and thorough planning process. It would be absolutely wrong to proceed on any other basis. As a result of the debate, and of course the earlier work that all my hon. Friends here today have done, I am happy to meet them to talk through the issues prior to publication of any further statement from the Government on the subject. We shall make those arrangements through my officials in the normal way.

Clearly, there is a need to navigate a careful path in overseeing this interesting new energy source. The Government have been active in ensuring that regulations and monitoring systems in the UK meet that need, not least in their current consideration of the comments received in response to expert reports on seismic tremors in Blackpool last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood will be aware. The constituency in which much of the activity takes place is often described as Blackpool, but is in fact the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde, which is partly why he has been such a champion of the interests of local people. We published the report of a panel of independent experts and are considering the comments received. The Environment Agency has concluded that any further fracking operations in Lancashire will require permits, which will of course be subject to public consultation.

To ensure full co-ordination of the work of the regulators, we have established a strategy group, chaired by the Department of Energy and Climate Change, including the Health and Safety Executive, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Environment Agency, to oversee the strategic and regulatory issues of shale gas. It is right to say that shale gas in the UK is still in its earliest days; just one well in the UK has been drilled and fracked, and the production prospects are unknown at this stage. However, it may prove to be an interesting, additional energy source, providing that the regulations are in place and all the necessary precautions are taken. My hon. Friends take a measured, moderate and sensible approach to such things.

As you see, Mr Hollobone, I am rushing through my speech at immense speed. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood also mentioned pylons. Network companies, such as National Grid, are required to make a balanced assessment of the benefits of reducing any environmental impacts against the costs and technical challenges of doing so, following extensive consultation with stakeholders. My Department will assess each application on a case-by-case basis, taking advice from local authorities. We will certainly take into account visual amenity and other impacts, as well as consultations with, and representations from, affected communities.

In addition, I will personally work with the Planning Minister. As a result, once again, of the debate, I have arranged a meeting with him to do just that. It is important to keep such things under regular review to see whether the existing system is fit-for-purpose in delivering the outcomes we all want. After all, are we not in politics to pursue truth and beauty? Is beauty not the expression of truth? We must not see things in entirely utilitarian terms; perhaps that has been the problem with the debate in the past, but now I am here to put that right.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood also mentioned wind power. It is of course right that we meet our targets for emissions, and he will also know that there is a renewables target. We consider such matters carefully in all respects. I hear what he says about cumulative impact and I know the views of the House on these matters. I will look again, as any new Minister would, with appropriate rigour and vigour.

My hon. Friend made many other remarks, with which I have not been able to deal, but, as is my habit as a Minister, I will write to him picking up in detail all the matters that he raised. My officials are already busy constructing that letter. It has been a pleasure to speak in the debate and a pleasure to hear from him. Let us move forward together, in confidence, delivering energy security sustainably.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Teachers Pay

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

14:30

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

I congratulate the Minister for Schools on his new role, and I welcome him to that post. One downside of having such a role is ending up on a Tuesday afternoon, when he probably has better things to do, for over an hour and a half in a half-empty Chamber answering a debate. Fortunately, I have prepared a Castro-like peroration that should adequately fill that time, and more, should we need it.

I apologise in advance, Mr Hollobone, because you will also have to put up with my presentation not being as seamless as I would wish and with my being more discursive than I ordinarily am. That is largely a product of the fact that, having extensively prepared for this debate, I e-mailed myself my thoughts and considered analysis, only to discover about half an hour ago that the e-mail had not actually arrived. I therefore had to reconstruct everything from the beginning all over again. However, I broadly know what I want to say, and I genuinely want to put it on the record. It is worth while to discuss what will soon be a topical issue, particularly at the Liberal Democrat conference, where we will debate regional pay.

Teachers pay has always been subject to national negotiation, and most teachers have been paid on the same scales across the country. There have always been independent schools. Some, such as Eton, have paid a lot more than the state’s going rate; some—the poorer ones—have paid a lot less; and some have shielded themselves behind the state system. It was quite common for independent schools to have a pay spine that adequately reflected the state system, which enabled an easy interchange of teachers between the state and the independent systems. However, most independent schools had arrangements that allowed them some of the benefits of the state system as well as additional opportunities—for example, to give people particular allowances or perks for coaching sports and the like. Independent schools had real advantages from that arrangement, partly because teachers could obviously retain their pension arrangements when they moved from sector to sector.

There was a halcyon day long ago when the particular scales and positions on offer at an individual state school were determined by the local authority. Certainly, in my early days on a local education authority we discussed whether this or that school should have, for example, further scale 4 posts or deputy head or senior teacher posts. Those days disappeared when schools argued quite vocally for more control over such matters. The tendency started in Cambridge, with local management of schools, and it spread rapidly through the country and was eventually enforced by the Government.

The whole picture of teachers pay is one of increasing flexibility. One flexibility offered recently has been the ability of head teachers to be remunerated irrespective, almost, of the size of their school. At one time, a head teacher’s wage was entirely fixed by the number of pupils in their school. In their wisdom, the previous Government saw fit to give governing bodies some discretion over that. Not surprisingly, right across the country, head teachers salaries went up very appreciably, regardless of the size of their school.

In the previous Government’s education policy, the thinking was that teachers who wished to stay in the classroom and were good classroom teachers should be remunerated more flexibly. Yet again, a new offer was put on the table and it was taken up avidly in many schools, in which pretty well everyone, regardless of the quality of their teaching, was given additional funds. Historically, there was a real identification of the need to remunerate teachers in areas of appreciable stress, particularly inner-city areas. That goes back a long way. I think that, under the previous Conservative Government, teachers working in areas of identifiable deprivation were given an additional salary for remaining there. The net effect was not quite what was intended: in some cases, such teachers simply stayed there, because to move anywhere else would normally have resulted in a loss of income. They were to some extent beaten into submission over a period, and they remained for decades in the same school, ploughing the same furrow.

Recently, people have thought of bringing performance management into teachers remuneration. That is clearly reflected in the current scales and the arrangements whereby teachers can move between different scales. It has to be said, however, that the research is mixed on the actual benefits, and I have seen research from the OECD that raises some questions. Locale has obviously been another determinant of teachers pay. Historically, for as long as anybody can remember, there has been a London weighting that reflects the difficulties that teachers sometimes experience in acquiring affordable housing in the London area. Finally, another flexibility that can be identified is that Governments have periodically put extra funding on the table to attract teachers in particular shortage subjects or to welcome into schools those who had not previously been teachers.

There have been variations over time. I accept that such variations will continue and will have different effects, and that some of the intended effects will be wholly successful and some will not. However, the bulk of the changes that I have outlined have been relatively uncontentious, because they were seen as clear and necessary and they recognised adjustments to schools’ needs. The picture resulting from those various manoeuvres has not been a big political difficulty for anyone. It is quite clear that there are different degrees of teacher turnover throughout the country—teachers find it hard to move out of some areas and hard to move into other areas.

The profile of teachers to some extent varies across the country, in different places at different times. I suggest that the profile of the teacher work force in London represents a younger cohort than, for example, in the north-west, where I live. However, the teaching force of England, under the arrangements for teachers throughout the country, has by and large subscribed to the argument that it is a good principle to have equal pay for equal work.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

For the record, will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that in the context of national pay scales for teachers, we are talking—this is rare these days—about England and Wales?

[John Pugh]

I am happy to do so. Historically, however, equal pay as a principle has not been adhered to, because there was a phase—long before the living memory of anyone in the room—when female teachers were paid less than male teachers. There has been a recent drive in local authorities to equalise pay in schools, for, say, people working in catering establishments. Previously, manual workers in local authorities were usually female and were paid less than their male equivalents.

[Kevin Brennan]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that. On that basis, does he regret as much as I do the Government’s decision to abolish the support staff body that was trying at least to set some guidance on pay scales for such staff?

[John Pugh]

I am aware that most local authorities have had to dig deep into their coffers to adhere to a principle, which, at the time at least, was thought to be largely uncontentious but entirely necessary. In fact, it was prohibitively expensive for a large number of councils.

The principle of equal pay for equal work is not peculiar to teaching or to the public sector. Many national employers—I shall not bother to list them now but I can provide the details if Members are interested—are not aware of where their workers live and, by and large, wish to pay people the same amount for the same job. As this is such an obviously transparent principle, we do not want to depart far from it or we would require a good reason for doing so. That is where my argument takes off. I am suggesting that equal pay for equal work is a sound principle and that to depart from it requires a solid reason.

A reason that has emerged in recent days, which no one would put as blatantly as I will, is that we do not need to pay equal pay for equal work because we can get away with not doing so. Most people would not generally announce such an argument in all its gory detail because if we follow it through, we would probably end up paying women less than men and migrant workers less than native workers, and do a whole series of things that would be regarded as poor industrial practice. None the less such practice may be implied by some talk about market-facing pay.

Another reason why teaching can depart from the principle of equal pay for equal work is that it can be applied to an individual employer. It could be argued that state independent schools—academies and the like—cannot differentiate within their work force, but they can differentiate between their work force and other people who work for other institutions. In that case, teachers are seen not as a national work force but as an individual work force assigned to a particular school. We are, therefore, accepting the principle that each individual school can make up its own mind. I am told that 35% of academies have, to some degree, departed from national pay and conditions. The majority of them, for quite sound reasons, have not done so because it creates more ructions than people need or welcome. Even independent schools that are not in the state sector prefer, for quite solid practical reasons, to abide by the national pay schemes. If our employers play fair by all their employees, I cannot argue with them and say that they are not offering equal pay for equal work.

There are two other arguments that I want to attend to and dwell on. One argument for paying teachers differentially in different areas, which has been put quite forcibly in recent times, is that it will have other non-educational benefits for those areas. We might refer to that as the crowding out theory, which is quite well analysed in the document “Crowding out: fact or fiction?” Notwithstanding that it is prepared for Unison, it contains a lot of pretty solid research in and around the subject. It insists that if teachers in a low-wage area are paid less—in other words closer to the average wage for those areas—more people would seek work in the private sector and fewer would seek work as teachers.

It is not obvious to me that we want fewer people seeking to be teachers in areas of disadvantage, or that more people seeking work in the private sector where jobs are scarce and oversubscribed would be a good thing. There is no real shortage of vacancies in the private sector in those areas where teachers are paid above the average wage for that area. Certainly, the idea of getting more teachers to drift in that direction would not necessarily solve any problems, nor would it make a difference to the number of jobs available in either sector. I simply do not follow the logic presented there. It is quite clearly the case that in the private sector, there is a real dearth of jobs.

[Kevin Brennan]

Just to keep the hon. Gentleman going on that point, is it not also perfectly possible that, as a result of his argument, there could be fewer jobs in the private sector as a result of such a policy, because its net effect would be to reduce the spending power in that locality? That would impact on the availability of private sector jobs, as the demand for labour is a derived amount.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman could almost be quoting from this excellent document on regional pay, which is submitted by more than 20 Liberal Democrat MPs. The point is that the one thing that we will do if we repress the amount of money going into the areas of less advantage is to reduce demand for private sector opportunities, services and goods. That is demonstrable. If we want to balance out the economy, as the Government do, and so they should, that is not a part of doing that. We could argue that as a result of public sector jobs being that little bit cheaper, we will get more public sector jobs in those areas, so the total amount of money will not diminish. However, I am not aware that it is the Government’s current intention to increase the number of public sector jobs.

[Kevin Brennan]

Would not the whole point of such a policy be to bring about a fiscal transfer away from those areas in order to be able to pay a greater salary to public sector workers in other areas?

[John Pugh]

Yes, I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman’s analysis. We could assume—this would be the sole salvation of the theory—that there are lots of people currently teaching or in other public sector areas who have the in-demand skills that cannot easily be found in the private sector in the less advantaged areas. However, I see no evidence that that is the case. It rather goes against the general view that we need to attract science graduates into schools and away from better paid jobs in industry, which both Governments have endeavoured to do. The theory baffles me and it is incapable of intelligent presentation. A confirmatory bit of evidence that might lead us to think that there is something seriously flawed about this theory is that it is rarely voiced by people who are genuinely engaged with the business of regenerating disadvantaged areas. I have been to many events where the main topic has been the regeneration of the north and I have not come across anyone who has ever said, “What we want is for somebody to take public sector wages down a slice. That would do it.”



Curiously, the only people whom I have heard put those sentiments are bright young men in think-tanks in London; people who have their feet firmly on the ground, particularly the ground in the north, tend not to say those things, if ever. As an argument for regional pay for teachers, that does not seem to be sustainable.

I want to look at another argument for having variations in teachers pay across the regions that has emerged very recently. It is a different type of argument and, frankly, it is one that, when I put together the analysis for the Liberal Democrat submission on regional pay, we did not really take on board. The regional pay submission deals quite adequately with issues such as crowding out, and so on, but what we did not expect was an argument that public services themselves would improve if teachers were paid differentially across the country.

The new argument emerged from some research carried out by the university of Bristol—by Carol Propper and her team, I think—into the benefits of a regional pay system, or, to put it the other way round, the disadvantages of a national pay system. Members will recall that the research was covered quite extensively in the press, and it seemed to have the consequence of leading people to believe that if pay in London or the south-east was markedly better than pay in Humberside or the midlands, not only would that be “a good thing” or make it easier to get teachers to London, but it would improve the performance of schools in London; and that a national pay system actually disadvantaged educational outcomes in the south-east and other areas of high average wages. The research received an enormous amount of media coverage about two weeks ago, and it paralleled previous research by the same body at the university of Bristol which argued that similar sorts of effects could be observed in the health service—that, for example, people in certain high-demand or high-wage areas were more likely to die as a result of a heart attack than people in other areas, simply because there were national pay scales.

Looking briefly at that research, it is based on an examination of pupil progress between key stage 2 and key stage 4 and of average professional wages in different parts of the country. It notes that pupil progress, as measured by class data in a value-added way, does not seem to be as significant or as appreciable in high-wage areas as it is in low-wage areas—in other words, those who live in a wealthy part of the country are less likely to see the same degree of value-added progress in their school as others elsewhere do. I will explain that in a little more detail. We are not talking about attainment here, as attainment by pupils in wealthy areas is better than that of pupils in poorer areas. We are talking about the difference from key stage 2 to key stage 4, and in particular whether key stage 4 replicates or improves on key stage 2.

When that research was reported, the press coverage was fairly stark and fairly crude. I have to say that the press release for the research was also fairly stark and fairly crude. I do not believe that the report is wholly warranted by the data as presented by the Bristol team, but the quality of the research is pretty hard to judge, because the correlation established is not based on raw data; it is arrived at after data have been manipulated and tweaked in a very complex way. The description of what was done to the data is a little opaque for the faint-hearted and for journalists, and perhaps also for policy makers. I wanted to terrify the Hansard writers by reading out the equation, or set of hieroglyphics, that is presented in the research. It is enormously formidable, I am afraid. It says that it is:

“A simple education production function…which considers the importance of controlling for alternative labour market opportunities when examining the degree to which teacher wages affect student outcomes”.

I can only illustrate this visually, but there follows a line of hieroglyphics containing so many variables that it would take a brave man to say what each individual one means. I must say that there is an opacity to this equation—the way that the variables are treated—that makes it rather difficult for all but the most resolute to understand how the data have been treated, and consequently we have seen nothing so far in the way of peer review. The equation is described as being relatively “simple”, but anybody who has looked at page 9 of the Bristol research will have been terrified by what they saw and may not have ventured any further; consequently they will be reluctant to engage in intensive peer review.

The theory claims to establish only an association between being in an area where average professional wages are high and not seeing an enormous amount of value-added effect between key stage 2 and key stage 4. That is not the same as a causal connection. As far as I can follow it, the research does not claim that national pay causes lesser progress in wealthy areas, although of course that could be claimed and in fact many of the press reports read into that research exactly that claim. Furthermore, the research does not necessarily imply any clear policy response even if a causal connection were to be established. After all, regional pay along the lines anticipated by the researchers might actually widen the differences in attainment between richer and poorer areas. We might argue whether or not that would be a good thing.

There are other associations that we could talk about, which show the difference between establishing association and establishing a causal link. It is generally the case that in areas of wealth, the behavioural challenges presented by pupils tend to be less, and in areas of deprivation the behavioural challenges presented by pupils tend to be greater than those found elsewhere, but it would not be safe to draw the conclusion that pupils in the wealthy areas need to play up a bit in order to get better results. That would be a wholly inappropriate conclusion. As I say, establishing association is not establishing a causal link; that is the first point.

My second point is that it could be said that research by the university of Lancaster into value-added, which Members may be familiar with, shows that there is only a loose connection between what a school does and value-added measures. There is a lot of research on this subject, which brings into question what value-added data actually tell us. Also, it is interesting to note that selective grammar schools that teach their pupils well score comparatively poorly on value-added measures. We may not be assessing the school in the way that we believe we do with the current value-added measures.

I do not want to be counter-intuitive and suggest that teachers’ salaries in areas of high cost make absolutely no difference, but I am sceptical that they make the difference that the Bristol research suggests. Obviously, if a teacher moves to an area such as London, a lot of their salary will be used to pay the mortgage; people have always recognised that and the need for a London weighting—it has added to an already overheated market, but I think people can see a broad case for it, none the less. Housing aside, however, living in the capital is not necessarily more expensive than living in Yeovil or Norwich. Certainly transport in London is a lot cheaper than in those places, and utilities and consumables are at least as cheap, if not cheaper, in London.

I do not dispute that high house prices have an influence on staff turnover; they clearly do. Often when a young couple want to start a family, they have to move to areas of cheaper housing to find family-sized accommodation. Therefore, quite naturally, London’s teacher profile tends to have a disproportionate number of second wage-earners, many of them female, and young teachers who have not yet got to the stage when they want to start a family. That may be a good thing; it is not necessarily a bad thing.

The Propper thesis, however, is that national pay schemes lead to worse outcomes and experiences. That is the nuts and bolts of it—the heart of it. It is fundamentally what Propper is leading us to believe, and it is the conclusion that some people are inclined to draw. How does one respond to that?

[Kevin Brennan]

Is it not also part of the theory that much of what teachers do is—I think Propper used this word—discretionary, and therefore there is a wage disincentive effect that means that teachers are, in effect, lazier in certain areas than in others?

[John Pugh]

From the value-added data, there is an implication that in high-value areas—wealthier areas, where housing costs are higher and where we may want to make some adjustments in teachers’ salaries—something is happening in the teaching force that explains the difference in the value-added data between such areas and others.

My response to that is to set Propper against Popper, by whom I mean Karl Popper, author of “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. I am sceptical about economics as a science—certainly as a predictive one—but the one hallmark the philosopher Karl Popper taught us to look for in any theory was: how might it be falsified? If a theory cannot be falsified and yet is potentially falsifiable, it is a good theory and worth sticking to. The question one has to ask is: if the theory holds water, or if the data stand the interpretation given, how would one know that?

I would like people to ask themselves this question: what ought not to happen if Propper’s theory is true? I will suggest just one thing. What ought not to happen—what we ought not to find—is that lessons in wealthy areas, where the teaching pool is smaller, are as good as those in less wealthy areas. That is easily testable by looking at not the data, but Ofsted reports and the number of lessons that the reports say are satisfactory and less than satisfactory. I presume—I have not checked this, although I have tabled questions—that those reports show nothing that will confirm the Propper hypothesis, and that lessons in Barnet are just as good as those in Salford. I expect that to be the case, so I do not think that we need to be over-detained by the theory, despite the publicity it has received. We should put the theory rapidly to a clear test and see whether what the theory leads us to anticipate in fact happens. I suggest that it does not, and we probably know that.

Why is all that important? Why have I gone out of my way to criticise both the crowding out theory and the Propper data? It is because there is an important issue concerning the debate on regional pay that is probably bigger than that debate itself. Politically, it is stupid for any Government to antagonise the teaching profession, which normally thinks, in a communitarian spirit, that regional pay is not necessary and which will not be persuaded by the need, rationale and motives behind the regional pay push. I think it is unnecessary to antagonise a group that is already sufficiently involved in asking questions of the Government regarding policy on pensions, pay freezes and the like.

The big game for all of us is to improve educational standards in the country. We need teachers to buy into the Government’s agenda and to make it theirs. In my experience of education policy, nothing much is achieved without teachers embracing, endorsing and involving themselves in it. We have seen Secretaries of State over the years come forward with initiative after initiative, and only some of them have had an impact. Those have been the ones that teachers have been able to believe in themselves, such as local management of schools, which I mentioned earlier and which I think is widely believed in. The ability to build a consensus across the piece, which is necessary, will be hampered if we get into a debate about regional pay apropos teaching. It is simply not worth the candle for the limited dividends it potentially can bring, even for those whose support it, and it will produce only tears at the end of the day.

Improving education is a long and collaborative process. Yesterday in the Chamber, the Secretary of State introduced quite significant reforms that we need to examine. Not all teachers have necessarily bought into them straight away—they have concerns about them, and they wish that they had been consulted in advance as well as post hoc—but it is possible to get everyone behind the same agenda, and if we do not do that, we simply do not get any results. We saw elements of that yesterday in the Chamber. I was watching the debate on the monitor, and I noted significant contributions from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and the former chair of the Select Committee on Education, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Both said exactly the same thing to the Secretary of State: if we are going to make progress—the kind of progress that no one disputes should be made—there must be a prevailing consensual atmosphere.

[Kevin Brennan]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the problem with the way in which the Secretary of State has gone about reform in this area—an area in which we all believe there should be reform—is that he has chosen to do so in order to make a political point about rigour and standards, not an educational one? If he had wanted to make that point, he would have shared his approach with the Opposition, teachers and the devolved Administrations, rather than ridden roughshod over everyone.

[John Pugh]

I think the Secretary of State said, at the end of his statement yesterday, that he was offsetting the 10 years of drift and confusion—frankly, I think that was a rather schoolboy remark. Teachers listening to it will have recognised that there have been difficulties in exams, that changes have been made and that we need to make further changes, and teachers will get behind further changes, but to say that 10 years has achieved nothing and that today we will start on a new venture in which everything will be that much easier, is to mistake what has always happened throughout the history of British education. When things work well and progress is made, everyone has their shoulder behind the wheel because everyone can see the sense of it. When we try to appropriate success or schemes that other people either do not acknowledge, do not understand or do not appreciate, we hamper the degree of progress, even by our own lights, that we intend to make.

I have gone on long enough and my Castro-like peroration is now at an end. There is not an intelligently defensible case for regional pay—certainly, neither the Propper hypothesis nor the crowding out theory provides such a case, although I am happy to debate them ad nauseam—but even if there were, it would be a political minefield that, judging by the extent of the political opposition, is not likely to lead to beneficial results but is likely to lead to a scarring debate that will hamper progress in significant areas of education.

15:11

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) for his speech and congratulate him on securing this debate. His peroration was not Castro-like at all; it was considerably better argued than a Castro speech and considerably shorter, although it was perhaps long for this Chamber. As usual, his extremely well argued speech was a philosophical trot through the issues.

I also welcome the Minister for Schools, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws), and wish him good luck in his new role. As he knows, his job is very important. This is the first time I have faced him since the reshuffle. We came into the House at the same time. In fact, we made our maiden speeches on the same day, so I have watched his progress with great interest; obviously, I will watch his progress with even greater interest in the months to come. In the reshuffle, a number of Education Ministers have gone: the hon. Members for Brent Central (Sarah Teather), for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr Gibb)—whom the Minister replaces—and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). One other Education Minister wanted to go but was unable to do so. If, as often happens after a reshuffle, training is offered to Ministers, the Schools Minister might want to suggest an assertiveness training course for Lord Hill for the next time he tries to resign from the Government.

The Schools Minister takes his post at a time when teacher morale is at a pretty low ebb, and he needs to do something to try to improve that situation, because low teacher morale is not good for learning or for standards and outcomes. He may be aware that I was a teacher in a previous period of low morale in the 1980s, which sadly resulted in a great deal of disruption because of an approach to pay and conditions that led to a great deal of unhappiness among teachers. In the context in which we meet today, at a time of low morale with the Government considering the whole issue of national pay and conditions, it would be a welcome step if the Minister took a grip and rejected, for many of the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Southport, the approach to teachers pay to which the Secretary of State seems philosophically wedded.

The Minister may be aware that the School Teachers Review Body is currently considering teachers pay at the Secretary of State’s behest. The other day, I read with interest the Secret Teacher’s contribution to The Guardian on teachers pay, which summed up quite well some of the teaching profession’s anxieties. The Secret Teacher’s birthday is on 28 September, which is the deadline the Secretary of State has given Patricia Hodgson, the chair of the School Teachers Review Body, to return her recommendations on teachers pay. I hope the Minister does not use that information to try to ascertain the secret teacher’s identity, but the Secret Teacher points out just how anxious teachers are about the steps the Secretary of State is taking to consider market-facing pay, regional pay or whatever we call it in the end. The Secret Teacher also points out that one of the common features of high-performing jurisdictions, which, by the way, we are too in this country—perhaps the Secretary of State should say that more often—is long-term investment in pay to attract a higher quality of applicant to the job. The Labour Government tried to emulate that.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned that teachers pay is now linked more to classroom performance, and I make no apology for that. Certainly when I was a teacher, often the only way for a teacher to get paid more, apart from through the incremental points for experience, was to take on a responsibility outside the classroom. Some of the best teachers ended up doing administration rather than what they should have been doing, which was standing in a classroom and using their excellent teaching skills to help young people to achieve their potential.

There is a great deal of unhappiness among the teaching associations and unions on teachers pay, and I hope the new Schools Minister will take an approach of dialogue, consensus and working in partnership with the teaching profession to work through some of those issues, rather than taking the more confrontational and “impositional” approach that the Secretary of State tends to take from time to time.

On regional pay in education, the hon. Member for Southport gave a fairly comprehensive presentation on the arguments. The argument seems to be that, where local pay and costs of living are below average, the Government can get away with saving money by paying less. That is certainly one reason why the Government could go for local and regional pay. Another argument is that relatively high pay in the public sector makes it harder for the private sector to recruit, which he referred to as the “crowding-out” argument. He also referred to research from Bristol university, which I will come back to towards the end of my remarks.

Why would the imposition of local and regional pay on teachers be the wrong approach? Well, there are a number of reasons, both educational and economic. Earlier, we discussed the potential damage if spending power is taken out of the economies of more deprived areas. Economics is a dismal science, as the hon. Gentleman hinted in his remarks, and it would be a big mistake simply to take a micro-economic argument in isolation from the macro-economic argument, which is exactly the mistake the Government are making in their overall economic policy on the deficit. On regional pay, if a significant amount of spending power is taken out of those areas of the country by reducing the wages of reasonably well paid public servants in the hope that that would make the private sector more attractive to them, the Government would have to posit a huge increase in private sector productivity for that to have a positive economic impact. Those of us with our feet on the ground know that, in practice, cutting fairly well paid jobs in such areas would take spending power out of the local economy, thereby damaging the provision of public services and damaging the private sector by suppressing demand for goods and services, so there is a strong economic argument against going down that road. It would also make it harder to recruit good teachers in more deprived areas. As the hon. Member for Southport suggested, the job is often more challenging in such areas, which are not necessarily seen as the most desirable places to live in.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the basic philosophical issue of equal pay for equal work. Yes, we could take a purely laissez-faire approach and pay different people at different rates for the same work; but we still have a national education system, despite the increased number of academies, and it seems to me that we should try to hold on to that basic principle.

As to the overall impact on teacher morale—I referred earlier to the Secret Teacher article—there is no doubt that it is at a low ebb at the moment. Introducing relative pay, or reducing it in some areas, especially in the current context of pay freezes, would have a major impact on teacher morale. The question would arise, I guess, of how to stop schools paying what they wanted to. The only way would be to reduce the funding available in areas where it was intended that pay should be reduced. There are thus also huge implications for school funding, which are not being planned for.

Bureaucracy is also an issue. What structure would be required to determine the rates that would apply; or would that be left purely to the market? There is no real evidence that relatively high public sector pay damages the private sector. At a time such as now, when there is high unemployment, including graduate unemployment, there is, if anything, an excess supply of labour available for the private sector to recruit from. Regional pay variations in similar jobs are relatively small. Large organisations in the private sector typically tend to have national pay structures as well, with limited variation, except, of course, for the same variation that has existed for some time in the teaching profession, for London and the south-east. Of course, the TUC recently gathered evidence about regional pay. Its research found that very few large private sector employers use local pay. That was attributed to the wish to have some sort of control over labour costs, and to avoid a duplication of the bargaining process, with the time and resources that that would entail. The complexity of regional or local differentiation outweighs the possible gains for those employers.

[John Pugh]

The hon. Gentleman is surely also aware that what is envisaged may be more complex than was at first thought even by those who support the concept. The Department of Health, under the previous Secretary of State, made a submission suggesting regional pay—but only at a certain level of the hospital structure. As to facing the market, in the higher reaches of the hospital structure the market was national rather than regional; so even within one institution regional pay might not be right. Equally, it is recognised that there are hot spots within regions, where it would not be desirable to pay much less than London rates.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman puts his finger on the point that I was making, which is that the policy introduces a level of complexity that leads to cost—the opportunity cost, and the time that people will have to spend on resolving anomalies and complexities in the system, unless the Government intend to take a laissez-faire approach to public sector pay. As far as I know, that is not what they propose, but the costs, otherwise, cannot be ignored.

There are good reasons why regional pay is not common practice among large private sector employers. A lot of the commentary about regional pay seems to be based on poor knowledge of private sector pay systems, and of the existing flexibilities within the public sector pay system, including those affecting teachers. A recent “Today” programme on Radio 4 posed the question why a teacher should be paid the same in Sunderland as in Surrey. Well, those teachers are not paid the same. The pay system has four bands or zones, and teachers in Sunderland are in a different band from those in Surrey. It seems there is not enough knowledge generally about the current system; people do not understand that it is sufficiently flexible to remove any need for a much more laissez-faire approach to teachers pay.

The teaching unions have made a joint submission to the pay review body, and as its report is imminent I shall summarise some of their points. In their view, local pay in teaching would not contribute to the raising of standards, because schools in disadvantaged areas already face the greatest challenges in recruiting and retaining teachers, and in providing opportunities for the most disadvantaged students. Local pay would create even greater obstacles to overcoming inequality and raising standards of attainment for all—an objective that I think all hon. Members share.

The unions believe that local pay would be likely to inhibit teacher mobility and create long-term teacher shortages in areas where pay was reduced. There is no particular reason why it should assist with teacher supply problems elsewhere. It also offends against the principle that we discussed earlier: the rate for the job and equal pay for equal work. The unions believe that pay cuts would be likely to fall more heavily on women teachers, so there is an equality aspect to the issue. The Government would, I think, need to carry out a full equality assessment of any proposal to introduce a regional or market-facing pay system.

The approach would also make determination processes costlier—something that we have already discussed. Other interrelationships with pay flexibility should be considered, because the limited use of existing pay flexibility for recruitment and retention suggests that schools do not believe that the pay structure should develop further in that way. Increasing the scope for variations in pay could lead to schools competing for staff—at local level anyway—through wages. Another issue is reconciling the introduction of local pay with a clearer and more transparent funding system for schools, and more effective financial planning by schools. The unions echo the points that I made about private sector employers and the local economy.

That leads me on to the Bristol research, which the hon. Member for Southport spoke about. As he said, in August a study by the centre for market and public organisation at the university was published, under the somewhat non-academic title of “Wage Regulation Harms Kids”. It claimed to show that pupils’ performance at GCSE is affected by how teachers pay compares with pay generally in the area. As the hon. Gentleman said, it suggested that where pay is generally high compared with teachers pay, pupils do worse, and vice versa. The conclusion that is drawn is that there should be more variation in teacher pay, and, in particular, that teachers in high-wage areas should be paid more.

[John Pugh]

I think the hon. Gentleman used the phrase “do worse”, but I believe the conclusion is that those pupils improve less: in high-wage areas, generally speaking, attainment is better, or higher.

[Kevin Brennan]

I think improving less probably is doing worse; but I take the semantic point, and those who want to perform a textual exegesis on our deliberations this afternoon can take a look at it later, when they consult Hansard.

The argument runs that where teachers have low pay compared with others in their area, teacher recruitment will be more problematic, and teachers will be less motivated. That relates to the point that I was discussing earlier with the hon. Gentleman. “Wage Regulation Harms Kids” says:

“The nature of teaching is that a large proportion of the work is discretionary (lesson planning, after-school programmes, time invested in individual children) so there is scope for reductions in effort in response to relative wages.”

The case is based on the contention that teachers in more affluent areas are lazier than teachers working in other areas, because the ratio of their wages to wages for other jobs in the area is lower than that of teachers in other areas of the country. The study offers no real objective evidence to support that contention. The hon. Member for Southport has gone through the methodology used; it is almost entirely an exercise in statistical correlation, and relies less on causation than on an association of numbers from the evidence that it considered. No evidence is offered that the amount of teacher pay compared with pay in the area generally has a causal relationship to pupil performance, despite the report’s title.

Nor does the document consider any alternative hypothesis for the statistical link that it claims to have identified, which seems strange. It makes no attempt, for example, to consider Ofsted ratings for teaching, as the hon. Gentleman suggested could be done in different areas, to see whether there is inspection evidence that teaching is worse or teachers lazier in more prosperous, high-wage areas. It does not consider whether the challenges of teaching in less well-off areas require more of teachers and, conversely, whether a lot of schools in more prosperous areas are coasting and not being challenged by the nature of the task. It might have nothing to do with pay. That explanation is at least worthy of some investigation by such a study.

The case of London is especially relevant, as the hon. Gentleman said. London has high and rising standards, certainly in recent years, but also the largest gap in the country between teacher pay and pay generally. It does not seem to make a great deal of sense. Much of the analysis is based on dividing the country into just two areas and comparing them. That is a very broad-brush approach that can miss many local variations. I will not go on, but there are also problems with the report’s grasp of how teacher pay works and some confusion about external tests at key stages 1 and 3, which no longer exist. That did not inspire much confidence in me either.

The Secretary of State has been known from time to time to take pieces of research such as the programme for international student assessment tables, ignore the parts that he is not keen on and highlight only the bits that he is keen on, or even to ignore completely some pieces of research, such as the pupil achievement research on trends in international mathematics and science study. I am not suggesting that he will necessarily do so, but if he is planning to use this piece of research to justify the introduction of regional pay on the basis that teachers in areas such as his constituency are lazier than teachers in other parts of the country, without any real evidence for doing so, he is on extremely shaky ground.

I end with a couple of questions for the Minister. What is the Government’s current position on regional pay? We have heard conflicting voices from within Government in recent months; one minute it is on, the next minute it is off. Will he give us an update on the latest position? Does he think that Yeovil teachers should be treated differently from teachers in Surrey for doing the same job, and paid a different rate? Does he grasp how demotivating this debate is for the teaching work force that he now has the privilege of serving, in addition to the pupils and parents of this country, in his role as Schools Minister? What assurances can he give us that all of this is not just a softening up for the ultimate privatisation agenda that some of us think the Secretary of State has in mind in the longer term?

15:35

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) for the kind comments that he made at the beginning of his speech, and I congratulate him on securing this important debate. As he mentioned a number of times, the issue is incredibly important for many people across the country, particularly in the north and in his constituency, and he will understand that it is an issue throughout much of the country beyond the south-east, including the area that I represent in the south-west of England. The Government acknowledge how sensitive it is for many people who work and do extremely important tasks within the public sector.

My hon. Friend has raised the issue at an important moment. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan), mentioned, the School Teachers Review Body is considering the issues and will report relatively shortly. I think the shadow Minister said that he was expecting the response on 20 September. The latest information available to me indicates that it is more likely to be published towards the end of October. The shadow Minister will be aware from his own experiences in Government that the report will be made initially to the Secretary of State, who will then have to decide when to publish the evidence, alongside the Government’s response to the recommendations. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister will be assiduous in considering the evidence base and the response and following up with any issues and observations they have.

Before I go into the detail of my response to my hon. Friend, I should say that I agree with him on two strategic observations that he made about this debate. It is incredibly important that measures should be evidence-based. There is a lot of prejudice on different sides of the debate about issues of flexibility in pay, regional pay and local pay, but there is complete agreement between my hon. Friend and the Government that it must be evidence-based. He mentioned that he published his own report on the issues, bringing to the surface some of the evidence available on the issue of regional and local pay, even though it is not uncontested territory.

My hon. Friend referred earlier to having tabled a question to the Department about the regional variations in quality of teaching measured by the Ofsted framework. From my recollection of the last few days, he can expect a letter from the chief inspector on that issue pretty soon. I will be interested to hear his analysis after he has looked through the information, which I think will be quite detailed. It will perhaps take the debate further.

He and the shadow Minister made an important point. We acknowledge that education is an area in which the Government cannot simply press a button in Westminster or Whitehall and create particular policy responses across the country. There are 23,500 schools in this country, and education is delivered not by Ministers but by the people who teach in schools, head teachers and all the others who contribute in educational settings. Motivating and inspiring those people, and supporting them in the common aspiration of improving the education of young people, involves a partnership between the Government and those who serve in education. We are conscious of the need to keep them motivated and to make them understand that the Government want to support them in doing their job as effectively as possible.

The shadow Minister indicated that he is concerned about morale in some areas of the teaching profession. I have no doubt that there are various different propositions to make in this area. From my own visits to many schools across the country, particularly in my own constituency having taken on this role only recently, I think a lot of teachers and head teachers acknowledge that the Government, in difficult financial times, have put in place a good financial settlement for schools, given the pressures on other areas, including the pupil premium, which is ensuring that schools, particularly in disadvantaged areas, have the funding needed to tackle some of the challenges they face.

Before I respond to my hon. Friend, I would like to say that I am grateful to the shadow Minister for his kind comments about me taking up this role. I look forward to working with him as co-operatively as I can, and as the usual cross-party niceties allow. I would also like, as I did when I spoke a few days ago in the House, to pick up on his comments about the three Education Ministers who left in the reshuffle. I think he was indicating and hinting that those three individuals were passionate about their work and were regarded as very strong in the areas they championed. I think all hon. Members wish them all the best for the future, whether they agreed with every one of their policy proposals or not. I have no doubt that all three will go on contributing to the debate about education and children’s services.

In preparation for the debate, I read with interest my hon. Friend’s recent paper on the subject of regional and local pay. As I indicated, it is an important and timely contribution to a timely and topical debate. I will address some of the points he raised in that paper, as well as the points that came up in his speech. First, however, it is important and useful to set out, to some extent, the approach the Government are taking on reforms to teachers pay and the debate about regional and local pay across the public sector.

In the autumn statement in November 2011, the Chancellor said that pay review bodies would be asked to consider how and if public sector pay could be made more responsive to local labour markets. He then wrote to pay review bodies in December 2011. His letter to the School Teachers Review Body said:

“there is substantial evidence that the difference between public and private sector wages varies considerably between local labour markets. This has the potential to hurt private sector businesses that need to compete with higher public wages; lead to unfair variations in public sector service quality; and reduce the number of jobs that the public sector can support for any given level of expenditure.”

Those are some of the suggestions that my hon. Friend was commenting on in the debate and in his paper.

As my hon. Friend will be aware, there are already four geographical pay bands—the shadow Minister commented on this—that apply to teachers pay: inner London, outer London, the London fringe, and the rest of England and Wales. The current pay bands have rigid boundaries, which at the point they were devised took account of areas that historically had higher teacher vacancy rates and costs of living. The starting salary for classroom teachers is £21,588 in the England and Wales pay band and £27,000 in the inner London pay band. I think I am right in saying that all parties across the House, and my hon. Friend, acknowledge that there are some areas where there are very high costs, and where not having a degree of flexibility in pay would mean that it would be very difficult to recruit people who worked in those areas. Many of us are very passionate about ensuring that young people, particularly in areas such as inner London where there are big challenges in many schools, should have very high quality teachers and they should not be penalised as a consequence of teachers not being able to live and teach in those areas. The debate, then, is not whether there should be any element of regional variation within the system of teachers pay, but whether we should have different or greater variation.

The single most important determinant of a good education is for every child to have access to a good teacher. The available evidence suggests that the main driver of variation in student achievement at school is the quality of the teachers. The effects of high-quality teaching are especially significant for pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds, and research from the Sutton Trust has suggested that poor pupils may lose out on a whole year’s worth of education if they spend a year in a class with a poorly performing teacher, when compared with the education that they would have received from a very good teacher. International evidence shows that the top performing school systems consistently attract more able people into the teaching profession, leading to better pupil outcomes. That is a reason why the pay incentives and the overall levels of pay have to be right, as my hon. Friend would agree. Competitive salaries, in line with other local graduate professions, help to ensure that high-quality graduates are attracted into and retained within the teaching profession across the country.

[John Pugh]

The Minister is suggesting, and I agree, that teachers in disadvantaged areas have probably greater potential to make a difference to children’s lives. It is relatively unsurprising, then, that value added is identified in those areas of relative deprivation, as the Propper data show.

[Mr Laws]

That is a good point, but it is perhaps not the whole debate. I will explain why as I proceed through the comments that I have to make.

Recent research from the OECD showed that our teachers are amongst the best paid of all OECD countries. There was an improvement under the previous Government, which we welcome—that is good news. However, alongside ensuring that salaries are competitive we need to consider the case for arrangements for teachers pay that drive up the quality of teaching by rewarding good performance; giving schools as much freedom as possible to spend their money sensibly as they see fit to meet their pupils’ needs; ensuring the best teachers are incentivised to work in the most challenging schools, as my hon. Friend has acknowledged; and ensuring—an important point both for and against the argument for regional pay—the best value for money for the taxpayer in the money that it is allocated. That is why the Secretary of State, responding to the Chancellor, has asked the experts, the School Teachers Review Body, to consider how reforms to the teachers pay system might support schools and head teachers to recruit and retain the best quality teachers. That is in line with the approach being taken for other public sector work forces and will ensure that any changes that are made—this is my hon. Friend’s concern—must be based on the best evidence available.

In his remit letter to the STRB, the Secretary of State asked it to consider a number of factors: first, how we might reduce rigidity within the pay system so that it best supports the recruitment and retention of high quality teachers in all schools; secondly, how teachers pay could be better linked to performance and whether there are existing barriers to that within the current system; and thirdly, whether to make teachers pay more flexible following the commitment in the 2011 autumn statement to ask pay review bodies to consider how public sector pay can be made more responsive to local market conditions. The question of how teachers’ pay can be made more responsive to local labour markets is only one of the things—an important point that I want to draw out from today’s debate—that the Secretary of State has asked the STRB to consider, and it is important that I set out all of the issues on which the Secretary of State has asked for recommendations.

To support the STRB’s consideration of its remit, the Secretary of State submitted written evidence. The STRB has also taken into account evidence from bodies representing employers of teachers, school governors, and teacher and head teacher unions. The Secretary of State’s evidence raised concerns that under the current system the rate at which teachers are paid is more closely associated with the time they have served as a teacher than it is with their performance in the classroom. Almost every teacher on the main pay scale progresses to the next spine point each year, and almost half of qualified teachers across all pay scales are on a higher spine point than the previous year.

Our analysis of vacancy rates shows that some schools find it more difficult to recruit and retain teachers than others. There are different vacancy rates between different regions, between local authorities in the same region, and between schools in the same local authority. There are also differences in vacancy rates between subjects, as my hon. Friend is aware. For example, there are above average vacancies in English and mathematics posts, but below average vacancy rates in the arts and humanities. Where vacancies are filled, some subjects are significantly more likely to be taught by non-specialist teachers, which is a major concern. For example, 21% of physics lessons are taught by non-specialist teachers, compared with 10% of history lessons.

The Secretary of State’s evidence to the STRB suggested five options for reform that it may wish to consider, illustrating the range of approaches that are available to it when making its recommendations. In late October, following careful consideration of all the evidence submitted, the STRB will make its recommendations to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State has stated his intention to then issue a second remit to the STRB that may ask it to produce more detailed recommendations, or to consider further issues on which it has not yet reported. Hon. Members will be pleased to know that no decisions have been made and the Government remain open-minded about these reforms.

My hon. Friend’s paper and his speech clearly set out a number of key arguments made in the recent debate about regional pay for public sector workers. I should like briefly to touch on some of the issues that he highlighted. I remind him that issues relating to how public sector pay reflects the local labour market will be considered alongside other priorities, which I mentioned earlier.

[John Pugh]

Will the Minister consider the following point? We have used the expression “responsive to the local labour market” all the way through, as though we know in every case what the local labour market or the pool of workers is that we are pulling from. It would be useful to have an additional piece of research figuring out, when, say, a school head teacher or head of department post is advertised, the actual field of applicants. Where do they come from and how do people move between one area and another? In teaching, people at a certain level are prepared to move appreciable distances. Often in an advertisement in the paper, a school is appealing to the labour market of the whole nation, not just the local labour market. We cannot talk as though the local labour market is a fixed thing that we always understand.

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He will also appreciate that the reasons that motivate people to take on particular posts or to stay within geographic communities are based not just on pay, but on other connections that individuals may have with an area.

The first of my hon. Friend’s arguments was that the private sector might be disadvantaged in local labour markets where public sector workers are relatively highly paid. He referred to this as the crowding-out hypothesis. As the Secretary of State’s evidence to the STRB showed, there is variety in supply and demand within the teacher labour market, including in the relative pay of public and private sector workers. This appears to be reflected in vacancy rates, with schools in some regions finding it more difficult to attract candidates into vacancies. However, as the Secretary of State’s evidence also shows, there is variation between regions, between local authorities and between schools in the same local authority. Schools also appear to experience greater difficulty appointing specialists in some subjects compared with others. Stakeholders have submitted a large amount of evidence to the STRB and the other pay review bodies in this regard and detailed representations have been made on crowding out. I am confident that the experts will therefore have all the information they need to consider this specific issue carefully when making its recommendations.

My hon. Friend’s paper also considers whether the Government could make savings by reducing the pay of public sector workers in line with local labour markets. Increasing autonomy for schools is central to the Government’s education reforms. Although of course we wish to achieve value for money in all public spending decisions, we have clearly prioritised autonomy for head teachers to allocate the funds available to them in the way that they think is most appropriate to provide for the needs of their pupils, subject to the disciplines that any of us would expect in the public sector. Where pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds attend school, we have made sure that there is additional money through the pupil premium, which my hon. Friend strongly supports, for head teachers to spend on the additional support that they think is necessary. However, there are always advantages and disadvantages in such an approach—my hon. Friend set them out carefully—and those matters will be carefully considered by the STRB in its deliberations.

The final point mentioned by my hon. Friend was public sector pay in other countries. He specifically mentioned in his paper the experience in Sweden. As is well documented, the Secretary of State and the Government wish to learn carefully the right lessons from all education systems that perform most strongly in international comparisons. We have considered the Swedish system, but we are interested in all public education systems where pupils perform well compared with their counterparts in other countries, particularly where the attainment gap between the least and most advantaged children is small compared with the large gap that still exists in this country. We trust that the STRB will take into account systems employed in Sweden and elsewhere in the world. These will inform its recommendations to the Secretary of State.

Regional pay has been at the forefront of recent debates about public sector pay reform. However, my honourable Friend will recognise that, although we have asked the STRB to consider how teachers pay could be made more flexible locally or regionally, there are issues other than regional pay under consideration when it comes to teachers specifically. Increasing the flexibility that head teachers have to determine the pay arrangements suited to their school could be a key element of the drive to increase autonomy from government. We want head teachers, particularly in the most disadvantaged schools, to be able to use the additional funding that they have through the pupil premium to attract and retain top quality teachers to work where the pupils need them most. We need carefully to consider whether the current system enables them to do that.

Our approach all along has been to provide the STRB with the evidence that we think is most relevant to its deliberations and to encourage others to do the same. We are encouraged that contributions to the debate are being made by organisations and individuals who are not among the statutory consultees of the STRB. My hon. Friend has made his case clearly and publicly.

In setting out the Government’s approach after the Chancellor made his statement last year, my hon. Friend will be aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made a speech at a union conference in June, saying:

“Despite some of the more excited press reporting, the only thing we have decided is to look at the evidence…before we decide anything, we want to hear from everyone with a contribution to make to this debate—employers, academics and, yes of course, the Trades Unions. There will be no change unless there is strong evidence to support it and a rational case for proceeding.”

I thank my hon. Friend for his contribution to this important debate. I am sure that, like me, he looks forward to reading the STRB’s report and the Government’s response, and I have no doubt that he will respond again in detail to those.

GCSE English (Marking)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

15:58

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone. I congratulate the Minister on her new role, to which I am sure she will bring great energy and commitment.

Unlike the current Ministers, I have no experience of work in the media or policy think-tanks. I simply bring experience of how things work or do not work in the real world outside Westminster, where real families toil, real kids go to school and real professionals work jolly hard to achieve the best they possibly can for our young people. I have a lifetime’s experience of teaching English. The easiest exam to prepare kids for was O-level English literature, and the exam that gave the most perverse, unfair outcomes for kids was O-level English language. The Government’s theoreticians may think a return to O-level will be a good thing, but I very much doubt it.

Criterion-referenced GCSE English has gone through many changes over the years, but today’s world has been transformed from the world of 1988, when the first cohort of students took the then new school leavers’ exam introduced by the Conservative Government. In all its manifestations, however, I can say without hesitation that GCSE has been far more demanding for students than its predecessor. It is a much tougher qualification to prepare students for and has a much tougher assessment regime for them to meet, but it has been fairer—until now, when a Government obsessed with ideas rather than realities are presiding over a monumental injustice.

At its heart, the GCSE fiasco this summer is not about Ministers and MPs, or exam boards and technical stuff. It is about something a lot simpler and a lot more important: it is about whether the assessments given to young people this summer were fair. The head of Ofqual, in her outrageously flippant remark that some candidates “got lucky”, seems to recognise that she failed in her duty to ensure that the outcomes in one year were fair to all candidates. As the editor of The Times Educational Supplement wrote this week:

“Obsessed with maintaining standards between years, Ofqual has failed to maintain them within a single one. It has completely undermined confidence in the exams it is supposed to protect.”

The Ofqual report “GCSE English Awards” lets the cat out of the bag. A technical document, designed to whitewash, it is obsessed with controlling statistics, not standards. It makes it clear that young people’s achievements at 16 are capped by their achievement at 11. The whole review hinges on

“the predictions made by the exam boards of results for each GCSE…based on prior attainment data”—

key stage 2 results—so that achievement at 16 is being capped by achievement at 11. An exasperated National Union of Teachers collectively sighs:

“Such an approach begs the question—does secondary education just not matter?”

Excellent analyses by the National Association for the Teaching of English and the National Association of Head Teachers demonstrate that Ofqual and the Government are, in essence, returning to norm referencing by the back door. Although the Secretary of State, in a very brief answer to my question yesterday, said that norm referencing was off the table, it is very much on the table, and I think that there needs to be some honesty about that. It is hardly surprising that the whitewash document also includes an admission, on page 19, that

“this year’s English results have come as a shock to some schools, and some of the school-level outcomes are hard to explain”.

You bet they are, if the aim is to cover up a monumental cock-up.

What is clear to me from talking with local head teachers in the Scunthorpe area whose students have been affected is that something significant and exceptional has gone wrong this year. They are solid, decent professionals whose judgments I trust, and they are universally telling me that if we look back across their schools’ predictions for the past five years in GCSE English and GCSE maths—the two key progression qualifications—their predictions for students attaining C and above have been consistently within a 4% tolerance of the final outcomes, except for this year, when maths remains within that tolerance, but English is more than 10% out. These are professionals who know what they are doing, and they tell me that the same students predicted a C this year would have achieved a C last year.

[Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab)]

I will be brief, because I had the chance to speak in the main Chamber. What my hon. Friend’s professionals are telling him in Scunthorpe is precisely what professionals are telling me in Southampton. I was, with the current shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, one of the two architects of Ofqual. We took the decision to establish an independent regulator. Does he agree that we have to face the fact that the guarantee of independence, which we delivered, was no guarantee of competence? The worst thing we can do now is to overlook the fact that Ofqual has got this wrong and to say that there is nothing that we can do to right the injustice that has been done to thousands of students this summer.

[Nic Dakin]

My right hon. Friend makes a salient and pertinent point. What is important is that young people in Scunthorpe, in Southampton and indeed throughout the land are treated fairly. The regulators recognise their own incompetence when one of them comes out with comments such as some students “got lucky”, but that is not good enough, is it? The incompetence that they recognise should not stand in the way of young people being treated fairly.

It is worth noting that, nationally, 26.7% of students doing the foundation paper in June 2011 got a C grade, while only 10.2% got a C grade in June 2012. Those statistics corroborate my local head teachers’ view that students taking the exam in June 2012 were disadvantaged compared with similar students who took the exam in June 2011.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the conditions on which Ofqual was set up by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) and the now shadow Chancellor was that its duty was to maintain confidence in the exam system? How does a comment from the chief executive of Ofqual that some kids “got lucky” maintain such confidence?

[Nic Dakin]

It is clear that there is no confidence at all in Ofqual among education professionals, among people working in industry and business who I met the other day—they clearly do not have confidence in Ofqual—and, most importantly, among parents and the students themselves. Ofqual has failed that crucial test.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

If the exam marking was so fundamentally flawed and the exam was too easy or whatever, why was the barrier between A and A* not changed? Why were those marks kept the same? Why was the C grade changed?

[Nic Dakin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As I shall explain, there were impacts on other grade levels. The focus has primarily been on the borderline between C and D because that is such a crucial progression lever for young people, but there have been effects on other grades as well.

Why does this matter? It matters because GCSE English is a progression qualification: it makes a difference to individuals’ lives, to what they do next and to where they go next. It matters because we have a duty to young people to ensure that the assessments at 16 are fair. They have clearly not been fair this year. Worse than that, the Secretary of State and the regulator obfuscate, appearing more interested in covering up and protecting themselves than in ensuring that young people are treated fairly. Worse still, as my hon. Friend says, the focus has been on the unfairness to students missing out on a C and having to adjust their careers accordingly, but as a former principal of a sixth-form college I know that those students getting a B instead of an A will be disadvantaged next year when they apply for higher education. Their choices will be limited.

On 23 August, the Secretary of State for Education received news of the fall in success rates for students in their GCSEs with a certain smug satisfaction: failure for young people was success for him. It was all about rigour, standards and other buzzwords, not about achievement, progression and fair outcomes. Gradually, though, a darker story began to emerge. As schools analysed the results, they identified a significant change in how GCSE English had been marked in June compared with January. Something had gone very wrong, with grade boundaries being significantly adjusted in year to ensure that fewer students met their predicted grades.

In one school in my constituency, because of the boundary changes, the percentage of students achieving five A* to C grades fell from 80% based on January marking to 62% in June. As a consequence, the percentage of students achieving the important five A* to C grades including mathematics and English fell from 62% to 52%. At another local school, the changes meant that 25 pupils did not achieve the C grade they were predicted to achieve, and the school’s English results fell from 53% achieving C last year to 40% this year. At another school, almost 25% of the cohort taking exams were negatively affected by the boundary changes. These are drastic and startling figures, and I assure you, Mr Hollobone, that in all my years as an English teacher and then a sixth-form college principal, I have never seen anything quite like it.

One local head teacher described the impact on students and the school as catastrophic. Students who had achieved a C in English in January were re-timetabled for extra maths; they achieved their maths C in June, but because the school did not draw down their English marks until June, the C they had banked in January became a D in June. How on earth can that be fair?

Schools are very good at self-evaluation, but this episode has undermined their confidence in what they are doing. Their confidence in teaching GCSE English has also been undermined as further confused messages such as those we heard yesterday come out. There is also a lack of confidence about how they are preparing this year’s cohort for next year’s exam, so the impact of this year’s cock-up is being felt not only by this year’s students, but by next year’s students. That is why it is so important that the Government act now to put things right for the youngsters and schools affected.

The Association of School and College Leaders believes that one quarter of all secondary schools in England and Wales have been damaged. At first, it was thought that tens of thousands of pupils were affected, but the situation is far worse. We now know that 133,906 pupils have been affected on the boundary between grades C and D alone, before all the other boundaries are taken into account. If that injustice is not reversed it is likely to have a long-term impact on the social mobility of the students affected. Research from ASCL shows that those affected are disproportionately from areas of high deprivation, ethnic minority groups and poorer families. Parents have written to me to explain that their children have been devastated by the news that they cannot pursue the courses and jobs they had set their minds on. I have an example here of a student who has moved on to further education, whose mother writes:

“My daughter is one of the many thousands involved in this injustice and we've now heard that the AQA resit for English Language is 7th November. This fiasco needs to be sorted NOW before it’s too late! As it is she is having to do extra work to ‘revise’ for the resit on top of her college assignments. It’s simply not fair.”

Similarly, teachers have told me about the anxiety that the situation has caused them, with one describing Ofqual’s actions as immoral and inhuman.

Last week, The Times Educational Supplement published letters between Ofqual and Edexcel showing that the regulator had, at the 11th hour, pressured the exam board into revising the grade boundaries against its professional judgment. Ofqual told the exam board to

“review the English award at grade C in order to produce outcomes that are much closer to the predictions and so in line with national standards”.

We must remember that the predictions are based on key stage 2 assessments at age 11. In its response, Edexcel protested that

“we have put considerable effort into producing what we consider to be a fair award”,

adding that

“our award is a fair award and we do not believe a further revision of our grade boundaries is justified”.

Those are the professionals, who have looked at the work, not just carried out a statistical exercise. Ofqual then sent a final letter, warning Edexcel that

“their expectation”

was

“that Edexcel will produce outcomes...that are within the 1% of the overall prediction”.

Edexcel then capitulated.

Last week, the chief regulator and the Secretary of State appeared before the Select Committee on Education to answer the growing avalanche of questions. It was a master class in obfuscation. After their appearance, the Chair of the Select Committee spoke for everyone when he said:

“There are many important questions in this to which we do not have satisfactory answers”,

adding that the explanations given were “inadequate”. The Secretary of State has hovered between bullish and sheepish in his response to the gathering storm. He blusters and hides behind an unaccountable quango, which in turn hides behind a cloak of statistical confusion.

Adding further to the unfolding chaos, the regulator in Wales—the Welsh Government—has taken clear action by ordering the Welsh board to re-award grades to Welsh candidates. That means that students in Wales will be treated fairly, but my constituents who did the Welsh board English GCSE—believe it or not, Mr Hollobone, the Welsh exam board is popular in Scunthorpe—will not. How on earth can that be proper? How can it be just?

There is a further contradiction and a further worry. The Secretary of State seems to be saying that GCSE results must not go up, but that in every school more than 40% of pupils must get five A* to C grades. Those who have signed up to a conspiracy version of history see that as an agenda not only to fail students, but to fail schools. A consortium of schools, academies, further education colleges, local authorities and professional associations is taking legal action this week. I wish them success, but it should not have come to that—wasting public money, time and energy on legal costs and process. Ofqual and the Secretary of State should be big enough to hold up their hands, admit that they got it wrong and take action to put it right. That is the moral code that we teach our young people, and our leaders should also follow it.

Who is accountable for the cock-up? An unelected quango that is doing the Secretary of State’s bidding. Surely it would be better if he were directly accountable to the young people of this country and ordered an immediate independent inquiry into what has happened or, better still, followed the Welsh Government’s example and ordered Ofqual to instruct the exam boards to re-award their grades, so that all students taking the exam this year are treated fairly and in line with their contemporaries the year before.

Being a modern MP, I asked my Twitter and Facebook followers what questions they wanted to be answered. Overwhelmingly, they were variations on the following. Can the Minister explain to youngsters and their families how pupils can get a lower mark in January and do better than someone who gets a higher mark in June? That is what happened this year. While the Minister is considering that, I will ask three further questions. Will she urge the Secretary of State to stand up and be counted, to apologise for this year’s cock-up and to take action to ensure that this year’s students are treated equally and fairly, based on the professional judgment of the exam boards—the people who have seen the children’s work? Will she say whether she is happy that achievement at 16 is apparently being capped by achievement at 11, in a move back to norm referencing? Finally, will she ask Ofsted not to fail schools that can demonstrate that they missed the threshold owing to the impact of GCSE English marking this summer?

16:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Elizabeth Truss)]

I thank the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin) for securing today’s debate. I recognise that he has a lot of expertise in the sector. He taught English at Greatfield high school, and is a former principal of a further education college, so I respect the knowledge that he has brought to today’s debate.

I want to restate what the Secretary of State has already made clear. I have great sympathy for all those students who did not receive the grades they were expecting in this summer’s GCSE English results. There is a process whereby hon. Members can register their concerns with Ofqual, which is rightly dealing with queries. If schools or students are concerned, I suggest that they raise those concerns with Ofqual as soon as possible.

The hon. Gentleman asks me to set out what action the Government are taking, and what action I believe they should take. It will come as no surprise to him that, as the Secretary of State made clear at the Select Committee earlier this week, it would be totally wrong for the Government to intervene in marking or grading decisions. That is Ofqual’s responsibility, and as other hon. Members have said, Ofqual was set up by the previous Secretary of State to oversee and maintain standards and qualifications. Grade boundaries and maintaining standards is a matter for Ofqual, which is directly accountable to Parliament. It is important that where there are independent regulators, they should conduct investigations and answer queries—in this case, that process is still ongoing—without undue political interference.

Ofqual published its initial report into the concerns about GCSE English, finding that the June grade boundaries were properly set and that candidates’ work was properly graded. It has also said that the January grade boundaries were set generously. The hon. Gentleman has referred to Glenys Stacey’s comments on that matter.

[Nic Dakin]

First, does the Secretary of State have a role in ensuring the competence of the regulator? Secondly, Ofqual has not looked at any work; it is a mere statistical sample of 75%. It is not even a technical analysis of 100%, according to the report, which is signally flawed. Does the Minister accept that point?

[Elizabeth Truss]

On the hon. Gentleman’s first point, our exam system is undergoing reform. I shall comment later on the modular system and the impact that that had on grading decisions.

Ofqual is looking at the details of individual students and why they got the expected results, while others did not. That is why I am encouraging hon. Members to send concerns to Ofqual, which will produce its final report in October. It is the right body to investigate the matter, rather than the Department for Education, because otherwise we end up in a system where politicians interfere with the grading review. The hon. Gentleman alluded to Wales, and that is a problem with the approach being taken there.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned problems with the current system, presenting a rosy description of GCSEs in the years since their introduction. Although he spoke about O-levels, I am not able to remember sitting such exams, because I took GCSEs. Therefore, I sadly do not have his wealth of knowledge about different qualifications going back through history. The specific problem with English GCSE was the modular examination system, which we are changing. A lot of convoluted technical processes were created that made it more difficult to moderate and mark the exams. The Government and the Secretary of State have been clear about wanting to move away from a modular system to one in which students study subjects in depth, and where what students have learnt can be assessed at the end of the course. We think that modular exams and re-sitting exams get in the way of sound subject knowledge and sound subject teaching.

We believe that modular examinations were a factor in what happened with the English GCSE exams, but that is a matter for Ofqual to investigate. As I have said, the report is expected at the end of October. It will be up to Parliament to examine the findings, as Ofqual is ultimately accountable to Parliament, which returns to the question that the hon. Gentleman asked about what the Secretary of State’s role should be.

We are restoring the end-of-course exams for students starting GCSE courses this September. Yesterday, the Secretary of State announced the new English baccalaureate certificates that will be introduced in the core subjects. They will be linear and results will be given at the end of the course. I understand that that does not answer the specific question of what happened with students this summer, but again, that is being investigated by Ofqual. The proper role of politicians is to consider how the system can be reformed to work properly, rather than intervening in specific decisions that it is right for the regulator to make.

On the hon. Gentleman’s rosy perception of the past few years, there is widespread, bipartisan agreement that the level of grade inflation cannot be justified. He also had warm words for the examining bodies, even though they have been criticised for the role that they played in that inflation. I do not think, therefore, that they can be entirely part of the solution—in other words, we need to consider different approaches to GCSE exams.

Since 2000, England’s performance in international reading, mathematics and science tests have flatlined. Andreas Schleicher from the OECD has described the UK as stagnating over that period. The specific comments about the English results cannot hide the fact that under the previous Government we did not see the increase in standards that was seen in comparable countries. In 2000, the UK was ranked 12 places ahead of Germany in mathematics, but by 2009, it was 12 places behind. In 2000, the UK was 16 places above Germany in science, but it is now three places below. In reading, it was 14 places above Germany, but it is now five below. We cannot ignore international evidence showing that what was being reported as happening as a result of our exam system was not accurate, compared with fast-improving jurisdictions across the world.

[Nic Dakin]

I say gently to the Minister that those points are for another debate. We should focus on the hundreds of thousands of young people who have been negatively affected by something that, as the general secretary of ASCL said, has gone seriously and significantly wrong. Such people do not say things like that glibly. Something is wrong here and it is in an area that the Government, if they had intestinal fortitude, would do something about.

[Elizabeth Truss]

The reason it has gone wrong is because of the system we inherited, which was based on modular examinations. While we saw grade inflation in the UK, we were being overtaken by other countries.

[Mr Denham]

I urge the Minister to consider this point: the students do not care about the wider debate on examination standards. Something has gone wrong in the assessment of the English language examination this year. It has nothing to do with the debate about wider standards or how things are run, and it is frankly insulting—I must say that to the Minister, who is new in the job—to talk about other issues when students are wondering what will happen to them.

[Elizabeth Truss]

It is relevant, because the modular English exam was introduced by and the system was set up under the previous Government. The former Secretary of State was clear when he established Ofqual that it was an independent regulator of standards. It is not right, therefore, for Ministers or the Secretary of State to interfere with the marking process. Ofqual must conduct that investigation and the proper process is for schools and individuals, with the encouragement of MPs who feel that the treatment has not been fair in their constituencies, to apply directly to Ofqual. I have made that point clear, but there is no doubt that the long-term problems in our system have created incentives for schools and exam boards to behave in particular ways, and those issues need to be sorted out. That is the point behind the introduction of the English baccalaureate certificates. The race to the bottom between exam boards needs to end, so that we have a system that accurately reflects standards. At the moment, it does not.

I am extremely sympathetic to students who did not get the results that they expected. However, the proper course of action is through Ofqual, which is conducting the investigation, and the proper role of politicians is to reform the exam system so that we deal with issues such as modularisation, which caused these problems.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We now move to the next debate. I would be obliged if the Parliamentary Private Secretary would remain in his seat so that we can carry on with the debate in the Minister’s absence.

Rail Services (Paddington to Herefordshire)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Westminster Hall

16:29

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

Ensuring that my constituents have first-rate rail links has always been a top priority. Proper rail services are vital to businesses, local families and in helping to ensure that we are the greenest Government ever, but it has been apparent for many years that the railway service from London to Hereford is unacceptable. The timetable offered by First Great Western was poor, and that did not promote tourism or business investment in the area. In fact, it hardly worked at all.

The Department for Transport’s invitation to tender for the operation of the franchise should therefore serve as an opportunity to help to improve rail services across the United Kingdom, not allow them to remain poor or even unchanged. Sadly, that has so far been a missed opportunity. The invitation to tender only requires

“broadly the same number of trains to run between end-to-end destinations as is the case today”.

The Minister, who has entered the Chamber, might find my giving him the first page of my speech very helpful. I believe that what is in the invitation to tender will, at best, lead to a continuation of the status quo. At worst, it will decrease the number of direct trains going to and from Hereford. I am sure that the Minister agrees that that is not what he wants and it cannot be acceptable.

First, the rail services to and from Hereford must not get worse. I believe that, to guarantee that, First Great Western must not be awarded the Great Western rail franchise. Secondly and most importantly, we owe it to the constituents of Herefordshire actively to promote a vastly improved timetable. Currently, weekday connections from Hereford to London start at 5.35 am. That train is scheduled to arrive at London Paddington at 8.51 am. It is therefore near impossible for anyone living in Herefordshire to get to an office in London by 9 am. If the trains started just 35 minutes earlier, at 5 am, that would allow enough time to make it. At the end of the day, the trains do not leave late enough. On weekdays, the latest direct train leaves London Paddington at 7.22 pm, and on Sundays it is even earlier, at 5.42 pm. Those running times are extremely restrictive and only serve to isolate Herefordshire and its people. Crucially, there are only five direct trains between Hereford and London a day.

I, along with my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin), for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff) and for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman), want to see an hourly service. At the moment, trains start too late, finish too early and do not run frequently enough. Within the terms set out in the tender document, it is solely up to the new franchisee to decide whether those times will improve.

With proper investment to ensure more services, Herefordshire could begin to compete with Birmingham, Warwick and Newport, where people currently choose to travel. “The Eddington Transport Study” found that good transport links can support the regeneration of an area where there is existing potential. That was the case with the Jubilee line extension into the docklands area of east London. The Confederation of British Industry and the Federation of Small Businesses considered that investment in transport was one of the most economically productive areas of public spending. That was in a report by the Select Committee on Transport in 2010-11.

Herefordshire is trying to take part in a superfast broadband pilot for rural areas, and that should boost our local economy. Of course, a lack of good transport could undermine that excellent development. A report released last week by Sustrans has revealed that our current transport planning system is forcing people into buying cars that they cannot afford or leaving them stranded, denying people access to jobs, schools, hospitals and shops. Obviously, that is unacceptable.

North Herefordshire is a very rural constituency, and efficient transport links are fundamental to its prosperity. My constituents are losing faith in the railways, and that will lead to reduced demand. However, it does not have to be like that. It is up to us to provide the services in order to attract more passengers. Regular, reliable, affordable and punctual services will lead to more passengers and more commuter fares being fed through to the Exchequer. It will boost local economies and those further afield by enabling people to visit shops and restaurants more frequently.

Alongside timetable changes, I would like to encourage a more efficient train service. “The Eddington Transport Study” concluded that the most obvious and direct benefit of an improvement in transport is a reduction in the time spent travelling. My constituents have voiced concerns that, at present, connection times on indirect services offered by First Great Western are often too long or even too short to reach the connecting train. I was therefore saddened to read in a letter from the former Transport Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mrs Villiers), that the invitation to tender allows for journeys that are now provided by through trains to be delivered using a connection. The invitation to tender obviously allows for a downgrade of our current service at a time when we urgently need an upgrade.

For train services to become a viable transport option for my constituents, the issues that I have set out need to be addressed. Furthermore, we need improved reliability, affordable fares and clean carriages. My constituents understand that delays occur, but First Great Western has a poor record of communicating information about those delays. Less than half of those surveyed for the Office of Rail Regulation’s national rail trends yearbook felt that First Great Western dealt well with delays. There have also been endless complaints about difficulty collecting fares on board at the end of the line. That not only loses revenue, but leads to inaccurate records, pushing up the price of fares for those who do pay and incorrectly reflecting demand.

What do other bidders offer? The Department for Transport does not allow the details of other bids to be exposed, so we must put our faith in the DFT’s decision alone. I believe that urgent change is needed, so I urge the Minister to alter the terms set out in the invitation to tender document. I know that that is hard and I also know that his office would prefer him to have an easier life and to leave the document alone, but it must be remembered that 15 years is a long time for us to bear the responsibility of a diminished service.

At present, the tender does not push for the improvements that we on the line so desperately need, and worse, it allows for the current standards to slip. My constituents and I need reassurance that the awarded bidder will actively try to deal with the problems. The franchisee must remember to deliver on their promises. I believe that that should be enforced by the Government.

There have been a number of concerns about the franchising process—namely, those recently voiced by Virgin Rail Group. At a Select Committee sitting in the House of Commons, Virgin criticised the Department for Transport’s failure properly to assess the relative risks of the bids that it received. It asserts that premium payments depend almost entirely on projections of passenger numbers. I have reservations about First Great Western’s chance of achieving those passenger numbers, given its current record of service on the London-to-Hereford route.

In the course of its previous franchise, which has been under way since April 2006, First Great Western has seen a larger-than-expected decline in passenger numbers. That has meant that payments that it was scheduled to make to the Treasury have been reduced. With it having previously pulled out of the Great Western franchise, it would not seem sensible to re-award the franchise to First. That still leaves the Minister three other bidders. I know that he is aware of the shortcomings of the service and will redouble his efforts to deliver for the people.

Aside from the franchise agreement, I would like to draw attention to the need for infrastructure investment on the Paddington-to-Hereford line. As it is only a single-line track between Worcester and Hereford, only a limited number of services can run per day. As trains going in both directions need to share the same track, the capacity of the line is reduced. Also, if one train is delayed, there is an inevitable domino effect on all later trains—they are all delayed. I would like investment in that line to ensure that there is a passing place outside Ledbury. That would be an excellent way to help to improve services and ensure that Herefordshire achieves its potential. The Office of Rail Regulation yearbook confirmed that First Great Western Ltd paid the Government £103.7 million in 2010-11 and £110.1 million in 2011-12. It is fair to say therefore that some of that revenue could be re-invested into the infrastructure of the route.

I would be most grateful to the Minister if he focused on three key things that need to change. First, I would like to re-emphasise my belief that the invitation to tender document must be improved. At a time when we need to boost our economy and get Britain going again, it is all the more important that our rail services are as good as they can be. Allowing broadly the same number of trains to run between end-to-end destinations is simply not good enough. We need a guarantee that our service will improve, not a document that allows it to get worse.

Secondly, there is a vast need for infrastructure improvement due to the single track between Worcester and Hereford. It is clearly an enormous hindrance to an efficient running timetable and must be considered. Working with Network Rail, we could double parts of the line, which would undoubtedly help to secure more direct London-to-Hereford train services. Thirdly, and crucially, my priority is to ensure that there are more and better direct services on the London-to-Hereford route. That needs to happen now, without obstruction or delay.

I know that the Minister understands the difficulties my constituents face daily. I am confident that a new train operating company can transform the services. The appointment of the new operator must of course be taken very seriously, and so should the terms set out in the invitation to tender document. I recognise how difficult it is for him to do this, but he is a highly skilled and brilliant politician and this is his moment to rise to the challenge, to deliver for the people, to soar with the eagles and to ensure that we deliver on our election pledges for the environment, for growth, for Britain.

16:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to reply to that wonderful peroration from my hon. Friend the Member for North Herefordshire (Bill Wiggin), whom I congratulate on securing the debate. He is now free to make his points because, I am sorry to say, he is no longer with us at the Department for Transport in the capacity in which he served previously.

As my hon. Friend said, on 27 July this year the Government issued the invitation to tender for the new Great Western franchise—Great Western, of course, being the description of the area, rather than implying which company might deliver the service. It is the future franchise operating train services on the route between London Paddington and Hereford, so the debate is timely and I welcome his contribution to it. The Great Western rail network plays an important role in the economy of the many parts of England and Wales it serves. Rail connectivity provides crucial support for jobs and growth, and delivering high-quality rail services is a means of tackling road congestion and pollution by encouraging modal shift.

My hon. Friend set out with great clarity the importance of the Great Western rail network to his constituency. The Government have prioritised investment in our rail network in response to passenger concerns about overcrowding and to support jobs and growth. The programme of capacity expansion to which we are committed is bigger than any seen since the Victorian era. He will be aware that there are now more people travelling on the network than at any time since 1929, even though the network is much reduced in size. I am happy to be able to tell him that the usage figures for Hereford station in his constituency show that in 2007-08 fewer than 900,000 people used the station annually, but the figure had reached over 1 million by 2010-11, so there has been significant growth in passenger numbers. The figures for Ledbury station show that in 2007-08, there were 162,000 annual usages, up to 189,000 for 2010-11; and the numbers for Colwall station have risen from 56,000 to 61,000. All three stations on the line, particularly Hereford, have shown significant growth, but I have not mentioned Leominster.

[Bill Wiggin]

Leominster is on a slightly different line. A problem we face at the end of the line is the failure to collect fares, so although the Minister’s figures show an increase, the actual increase might be even greater, because there has been such an appalling effort made to collect the fares and therefore the statistics that go with them.

[Norman Baker]

It is obviously right that people pay their fares and we take fare evasion seriously. It is not only a loss to the railway, but unfair on the passengers who pay for their tickets properly. The Department has focused on it, not least through rolling out smartcard arrangements and gating across franchise areas.

A number of the most ambitious and important changes will take place in the Great Western franchise area, so if you will forgive me, Mr Hollobone, I will refer to the line as a whole, as it is relevant to my hon. Friend’s constituency. The Government’s announcement that the Great Western main line between London and Oxford, on the route to Hereford, will be electrified has been warmly welcomed by all; that will be taken through to Newbury, Bristol and Swansea as well, and brand-new intercity express trains are planned for those routes. The bi-mode version of the new trains will be able to use electric power where new electrification has been installed, and run under their own power on sections of line beyond, so it is entirely possible that the new franchisee will want to run intercity express programme services with new trains to destinations such as Hereford. I am sure that my hon. Friend would welcome that if it came to pass. The Reading station area is being remodelled and the station itself rebuilt to modern standards, which will reduce delays. The Crossrail tunnels are already under construction there.

Ultimately, those projects will generate major benefits for passengers and for the economy of the area served by the new franchise, but delivering such an improvement programme is bound to have a short-term impact on services, so a major challenge for the new operator will therefore be to facilitate the efficient delivery of the programmes and maximise the benefits they can offer for passengers once completed, while minimising disruption during the introduction of the improvements. Franchise bidders will be expected to present robust proposals for minimising disruption during the upgrade works, with a keen focus on the needs of passengers.

This is not just “jam tomorrow”. A success story of Britain’s railways is the large number of additional passengers now using them, although that can of course bring crowding, and overcrowding. As the Department for Transport’s statistics show, train services on this part of the network have some of the highest levels of crowding, which my hon. Friend’s constituents have no doubt mentioned to him. I am therefore pleased to say that this year, additional carriages, funded by the Government, have been introduced on to First Great Western train services. The busiest services operated by high-speed trains, including some to and from Worcester, now have an additional standard class coach. I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes the recent arrival of five fully refurbished class 180 trains, which now operate nearly all services to and from Hereford and Worcester not operated by high-speed trains, bringing a much improved level of comfort for passengers. The turbo trains displaced from those services are being used to add extra capacity to First Great Western train services closer to London.

The Government’s plans are not limited to big, attention-grabbing schemes such as those. We recognise that the wider improvements will not benefit the largest number of passengers unless accessibility at stations is improved. The Government’s access for all scheme continues to fund improvements to access for disabled people at stations. I am pleased to say that improvements to accessibility are planned at stations on the route, with lifts and a new footbridge for Hereford; improvements, including a ramp, at Malvern Link station; and work under way to establish how lifts can be introduced to Worcester Shrub Hill station. Elsewhere, lifts have been installed at Leominster station in my hon. Friend’s constituency—indeed, he has been assiduous in pressing for that.

Shortly after taking office, the Government consulted on plans to reform the way the rail franchising system operates, and this is perhaps coming to the kernel of the issues my hon. Friend wanted to raise today.

[Bill Wiggin]

Before the Minister leaves the access for all programme, I want to say that I am grateful for the lifts in Leominster. They were supposed to be monitored so that drunk people do not damage them and people do not get locked in. Unfortunately, they were not monitored as they should have been and people have been locked in. Can we make sure that the monitoring happens, and will he include Ledbury in the next round of the access for all scheme, because the demand there is equally important?

[Norman Baker]

I am sorry to hear that there has been a problem with the lifts at Leominster. We will certainly pass on those comments to the train operating company and Network Rail. I am deeply surprised to find that my hon. Friend has anything approaching anti-social behaviour in his lovely constituency; nevertheless, I will take away what he says. We have allocated a further £100 million under the access for all programme in the forthcoming control period, and I will ensure that the position at Ledbury is examined at part of that process for ongoing works.

Returning to the franchising system, the new Great Western operator is being given greater flexibility to respond to customer demand in a commercial way within a framework set by the franchise that protects key outcomes for passengers, taxpayers and the economy. I will mention in passing that both coalition parties endorsed that general approach in the run-up to the general election and subsequently in the coalition agreement. The requirements on the new operator are set out in the invitation to tender published on 27 July. Our starting point for the development of the new train service specification has been the current level of train services, rather than the lower contracted minimum in the existing First Great Western franchise agreement. My hon. Friend will know that services have been added since the last franchise was set, so it is important to recognise that we are taking the current high level rather than the low level that existed under the previous Government.

[Bill Wiggin]

I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I urge him to ensure that the high level goes to the end of the line. My understanding is that the tender document insists on a number of services per day and increases the number of those to Worcester and Malvern, but it needs to reach the end of the line at Hereford and not just raise the game halfway. That is really the nub of the argument.

[Norman Baker]

I take my hon. Friend’s point and I will come on to give more details about how the franchise system will work in respect of his constituency.

We expect the franchise to include requirements on passenger satisfaction—for example, in relation to stations—and we have set stretching objectives for managing the changes I described a moment ago to deliver an operationally sound and efficient railway that provides enough capacity for passengers. The new franchise will be for 15 years, and we believe that the increased certainty will encourage private sector investment in the railways. A longer franchise should also make it easier for the new operator to build the long-term working relationships with Network Rail and other stakeholders, such as local authorities, that are crucial to an efficient and successful railway. The initial alliancing project in South West Trains has shown good initial results.

Part of the Government’s approach is to provide greater flexibility for operators to react to their passengers’ changing needs as well as to commercial opportunities, and to support operators in delivering a more efficient operation. That is why we have adopted and developed a less prescriptive approach to franchise specification that seeks to avoid the micro-management of the past while protecting key services. In doing so, we have sought to balance the needs of passengers, the railway industry and the wider economy.

The Government believe it is right to give operators greater say in how to deploy their train fleet more efficiently, for example—this is my hon. Friend’s point—by permitting a connecting service where a through train is currently provided and by redefining the relationship between journey flows and station calls. In respect of my hon. Friend’s constituency, bidders for the franchise must continue to provide, as an absolute minimum, 16 services in each direction between London and Worcester each weekday. However, we are aware that about 60% of passengers from London to Hereford choose to change trains at Newport or Birmingham, so we considered whether it is appropriate to prescribe the detail of the exact current service pattern for the next 15 years. Accordingly, we decided that, of the 16 trains to Worcester, eight must provide easy connections to Great Malvern and five to Hereford, as a minimum. The connection must be to another of the franchisee’s services, not to a different operator. As such, operators will need to consider whether to run through-trains or to lease additional rolling stock to provide a connecting train, if that is what they wish to do. As I said, it is entirely possible that through-services will prove to be the more viable option for those operators. If there is a connection, it must not require excessive waiting time and must provide an accessible route that can be navigated easily by passengers with luggage, those travelling with children, or people with disabilities.

Operators are, of course, free to continue to provide through-journeys or a higher frequency of services, as has recently been illustrated by the west coast franchise competition. In that respect, the Government’s policy is to mandate today’s service levels more flexibly and to encourage bidders to propose investment and improvements over the longer term of the franchise. We will look closely at bidders’ proposals later this year, but in the meantime I encourage my hon. Friend to speak to the bidders to set out what he wants for his constituents.

In addition, we have mandated that, as a minimum, Worcester should receive 85 daily calls, measured as station departures—47 at Shrub Hill and 38 at Foregate Street. A minimum of 71 calls per week day will be required for Malvern Link, Great Malvern, Colwall, Ledbury and Hereford stations, but the operator can allocate them in a way that best meets demand. That is designed to guarantee a comparable level of service to today’s, without prescribing the timetable itself.

My hon. Friend is concerned that the new franchise arrangements may lead to a diminution of services in his constituency. By not micro-managing or setting in stone exactly what has to be delivered, we are giving bidders an opportunity to provide an improved level of service for his constituency. Indeed, with railway numbers increasing year on year, as they have been, it is important to give space to a successful bidder to improve services and if possible, if they choose to do so, within the franchise arrangements to increase the number of through-services. That is not an impossible outcome. We are engaged in the biggest rail building programme since Victorian times. We are looking at how to increase, not decrease, the extent to which people can travel by train. If I may say so, we should therefore see the arrangement not as a threat, but as an opportunity for franchise bidders to develop services that do more to meet the needs of passengers than would a rigorous, rigid franchise arrangement.

[Bill Wiggin]

I fully accept and welcome the Minister’s intentions. What he is trying to do is very good. Does he agree that the easiest way to demonstrate that flexibility and achieve improvement is simply to increase the number of compulsory journeys, by perhaps just one, to the very end of the line? Thus, on paper, there would be a minimum improvement, even if train operating companies failed to take advantage of all the flexibility that he has so kindly given them. That way, it is beyond debate—it would be clear that a sixth journey to Hereford is a raising of the standards and that, beyond that, everything else is a bonus. I think that that is what he is hinting at.

[Norman Baker]

I want to answer my hon. Friend’s three key points before we finish. The invitation to tender has been issued; it was dealt with by the then Minister of State, who is now the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. In a sense, that moment has passed: the invitation to tender cannot sensibly be withdrawn and nor should it be. That would cause all sorts of problems for the Department and, indeed, for the bidders, so it is not an option.

I recommend that my hon. Friend does what many local Members do—I, too, have done it, in absenting myself from departmental decisions on my local franchise—which is to engage with bidders by talking to them and putting the case that he wants to see for his particular lines. I have certainly found being able to put the case for what I want in my patch to be a rewarding experience, and that bidders have been quite receptive. In this new world, in which we are giving franchise bidders more flexibility to develop services, I would not underestimate the opportunity for bidders, which they welcome, in talking to local Members, understanding what they want and building that into their plans. He and other local Members have that key point of influence where they can talk to franchise bidders and influence them accordingly.

On infrastructure improvements, my hon. Friend will be aware that, as I have mentioned, we are engaged in huge works across the country to improve the railway network. There is always enthusiasm about looking at any scheme that provides value for money. As I understand it, a 15-year period potentially allows a bidder to include in its bid that particular improvement—a passing place at Ledbury—as part of the offer that it makes to the Department. Bidders are putting forward such schemes in other bids, and he could encourage his bidders to do so. Alternatively, he could engage with Network Rail in relation to both what is left in control period 5, or indeed what is in control period 6, to make sure that such an improvement is properly programmed in for future work. We are now seeing significant improvements to track capacity across the country, including redoubling between Swindon and Kemble, so the concept of providing more capacity is certainly one that Network Rail is up for at the moment. There is more of an open door for such schemes than there has been for many years.

On direct services to Malvern, I cannot do anything about the invitation to tender that has been issued. However, I can say that, personally, I think there is a good case for more direct services, and I hope that the franchise bidders will reflect that in their bids. No doubt, they will listen to my hon. Friend’s comments and my response, and I hope that that will be reflected in the sort of bids that he wants, as and when they come into the Department.

Question put and agreed to.

16:58

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

Tuesday 18 September 2012

Banking Act 2009

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

The Treasury has laid before the House of Commons a report required under section 231 of the Banking Act 2009 covering the period from 1 October 2011 to 31 March 2012. Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Cash Ratio Deposit Scheme

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

Cash Ratio Deposits (CRDs) are non-interest bearing assets deposited with the Bank of England by banks and building societies. They are used by the bank to finance its unremunerated activities, in particular its efforts to secure price stability and the stability of the financial system in general, from which these institutions are key beneficiaries.

The CRD scheme was extended to include building societies, and was placed on a statutory basis, when the Bank of England Act became law in 1998. The scheme was reviewed in 2003, when the threshold above which institutions are obliged to place deposits with the Bank of England, was amended following a public consultation. The outcome of the following CRD review in 2008 resulted in a reduction in the CRD ratio to 0.11% from 0.15%. As part of the CRD scheme review in 2007-08 the Government made a commitment to conduct a further formal review at the latest in five years’ time. The Treasury, working closely with the bank, will now begin that review.

The review will include an assessment of the detailed arrangements of the scheme as well as the continuing suitability of the scheme itself compared to alternative sources of funding. It will also address the impact of the scheme on the eligible institutions. The broad conclusions of the review will be the subject of a public consultation.

Financial Policy Committee's Macro-Prudential Toolkit

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

I have today laid before Parliament a consultation document, “The Financial Services Bill: the Financial Policy Committee’s macro-prudential tools”.

Establishing the Financial Policy Committee within the Bank of England as the UK’s macro-prudential authority is a key element of the Government’s reforms to the UK’s system of financial services regulation, as set out in the Financial Services Bill. The Financial Policy Committee will identify, monitor and address risks to the stability of the UK financial system as a whole.

It is vital that the Financial Policy Committee possesses the necessary tools to address the systemic risks that it identifies. Alongside broad powers of recommendation, the Financial Policy Committee will also have specific powers to direct the regulators to take action, which will be set out by the Treasury in secondary legislation, subject to the affirmative procedure.

Recognising the importance of these tools, the Government have committed to consulting on its proposals for the Financial Policy Committee’s direction-making powers, during the passage of the Financial Services Bill.

This document therefore sets out the Government’s proposals for the Financial Policy Committee’s initial toolkit, which have been informed by the recommendations of the interim Financial Policy Committee in March 2012.

The Government propose to make the Financial Policy Committee responsible for setting the level of the UK’s counter-cyclical capital buffer and to provide the Financial Policy Committee with a direction-making power to impose sectoral capital requirements.

The Government intend to provide the Financial Policy Committee with a direction power to set, and vary over time, a leverage ratio cap, but no earlier than 2018 and subject to a review in 2017 to assess progress on international standards.

The document contains draft secondary legislation that will provide the Financial Policy Committee with its directive tools and an impact assessment that contains illustrative estimates of the net benefits of these macro-prudential tools.

The Treasury seeks responses to the consultation on the proposals by 11 December 2012, in advance of laying the secondary legislation before Parliament once the Financial Services Bill receives Royal Assent.

Copies of “The Financial Services Bill: the Financial Policy Committee’s macro-prudential tools” are available in the Vote Office, Printed Paper Office and the HM Treasury website.

Tax Policy Consultation and Draft Legislation

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government’s approach to tax policy making places great emphasis on policy consultation and scrutiny of legislation.

Over the summer, HM Treasury and HM Revenue and Customs have been seeking the views of interested parties on over 35 of the tax policies announced at Budget 2012. Responses to these consultations will be published on or by 11 December 2012.

As part of the next stage of consultation, draft legislation for these measures, to be included in Finance Bill 2013, will also be published on that date. This will be supplemented by draft explanatory notes and tax information and impact notes. The draft clauses will be open for consultation until 6 February 2013.

Police and Crime Commissioner Elections (Guidance)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

Guidance has today been issued to civil servants in UK departments on the principles which they should observe in relation to the conduct of Government business in the run up to the elections for Police and Crime Commissioner roles in England and Wales outside London. The elections will take place on 15 November 2012.

The guidance sets out the need to maintain the political impartiality of the civil service and the need to ensure that public resources are not used for party political purposes. The period of sensitivity preceding the elections starts on 25 October.

Copies of the guidance have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Cabinet Office website at: http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/election-guidance.

Committee on Standards in Public Life (Triennial Review)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

I am today announcing the start of the triennial review of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (CSPL). Triennial reviews of non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) are part of the Government’s commitment to ensuring that NDPBs continue to have regular challenge on their remit and governance arrangements.

The review will be undertaken by an independent external reviewer, Peter Riddell, Director of the Institute for Government, who will want to consult widely with relevant stakeholders, including Parliament, the devolved Administrations, the main political parties, academics, ethics regulators and others with an interest in the work of the Committee. He will be issuing an issues and questions paper in due course and the findings of the review will be published. Peter will be supported in the review by the Cabinet Office. At his request, he will not be paid for his time.

In common with all such reviews, Peter Riddell will undertake the following:

to challenge the continuing need for this NDPB—both its functions and form; and;

if it is agreed that it should remain as an NDPB, to review its control and governance arrangements to ensure that it is complying with recognised principles of good corporate governance.

The aim will be to complete the review in the autumn.

Departmental Statistics

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I would like to update hon. Members on changes to the publication of the Department’s statistics.

Today my Department has announced its response to the consultation on proposed changes to the Department’s statistics. From October this year, we will no longer publish statistics at a Government office regional level. Instead the Department will plan to publish, where appropriate, statistics for local enterprise partnerships and upper-tier local authorities, complementing existing statistics by local authority.

The coalition Government have abolished regional government. The unelected regional assemblies/regional chambers, the Government offices for the regions, the regional FiReControl programme, the regional development agencies have been terminated, as is intended for the regional spatial strategies, subject to the strategic environment assessment process outlined in my statement of 3 September 2012, Official Report, Column 5WS.

The Government office regions were an inefficient tier of administration based on arbitrary boundaries. They did not reflect the areas that local residents most identified with, nor were they areas with common economic problems and market conditions, nor were they the most sensible boundaries for co-ordinating functions such as fire and resilience.

The continuing use of the former Government office regional boundaries no longer provides a coherent framework for assessing public policy. Many of the Government’s policies now use alternative local geographies, for example local enterprise partnerships, the new homes bonus and city deals. Publishing statistics at a regional level is no longer necessary or informative, and we see little point in producing statistics at taxpayers’ expense for their own sake.

The old regional classifications are also misleading—they fail to quantify both the pockets of deprivation that can exist within regions or the differences between rural and urban England, and there is an inconsistency of approach to the size and population of each government region. They are arbitrary lines on a map that have no resonance —in contrast to England’s long-standing cities, boroughs and counties which have a real sense of local identity and popular support, dating back centuries in many cases. England has no history of regional government, whereas it does have a great tradition of local governance that this Government wish to strengthen.

There is also a European dimension to the regions in the form of Eurostat’s nomenclature of units for territorial statistics standard (the appropriately named “NUTS regulations”). It is the view of Ministers that the NUTS1 hierarchy is no longer appropriate for structural funds in England moving forward from 2014. Ministers reject the notion of a “Europe of the Regions” where nation states and national Parliaments are sidelined, and replaced with distant regional governments answerable only to a federal European super-state. Dismantling such arbitrary, unelected regional administrative structures will assist in that goal.

Ministers have carefully considered all the representations made in the consultation. I would note that, for the purposes of historic comparisons, nothing prevents academics and other interested parties from compiling and analysing the open local authority data by the old regional government boundaries if they wish.

The consultation response also notes the implementation of a new form on local authority housing statistics which reduces and rationalises the data we are asking local authorities to provide, reducing burdens on local government. It also reports on the responses on land use change statistics which confirmed their importance for monitoring the outcomes of planning policy. A copy of the response has been placed in the Library of the House.

Research Commissioned by the Previous Administration

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

Today my Department is publishing the 13th group of reports presenting the findings from research projects commissioned by the previous Administration.

This Administration inherited a significant backlog of unpublished reports that were commissioned by the previous Government which we have been publishing in groups themed on a particular topic.

The reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements. We are publishing these documents in the interests of transparency and as part of our freedom of information commitment to publish the results of all commissioned research.

The 16 reports published today represent the findings from 15th research projects at a total cost of £1,453,505. These findings cover the topics of building, planning and the environment.

Planning reports

(i) Evaluation of minerals policy statements (two volumes)—This report by the British Geological Survey considered the implementation of a number of the minerals policy statements and minerals policy guidance notes, and evaluated the impacts of the policy’s implementation. This report was commissioned in January 2010 at a cost of £60,000.

(ii) Investigating the influence of settlement pattern and morphology on the sterilisation of shallow coal resources—This report by the British Geological Survey assessed the impact on shallow coal resources of using separation zones around urban areas. This report was commissioned in January 2010 at a cost of £9,000.

(iii) Research to understand the rural impacts of regional spatial strategies—This report by land use consultants noted that the regional strategies were not rural proofed and, had an urban-centred approach and that planned housing provision in rural areas was on a declining trend. This report was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £21,542.

(iv) A quality local development management service—The last Government’s Killian Pretty report recommended that Government should review the then existing national planning indicator (National Indicator 157) on timeliness for progressing planning applications and proposed a new satisfaction with the planning application service indicator. There was concern from applicants, local planning authorities and others that the performance regime focused on the eight and 13-week time-scale targets had unintended effects on behaviours and outcomes. In response the Department commissioned research into alternatives. The research report by Addison and Associates with Arup recommended monitoring 37 different indicators. This report was commissioned in November 2009 at a cost of £72,816.

(v) A tool to assess the impact of EU directives on UK sub-national planning policies (two reports)—This research by Ove Arup aimed to develop a tool to assess the impact of future EU directives on national planning policies. Directives used in developing this tool included the marine strategy directive, the water framework directive and the habitats directive. It noted that EU directives create significant tensions with the need for development to meet demand. The marine strategy directive would cost key business sectors between £439 million to £1.2 billion in additional costs. The research was commissioned in 2009 at a cost of £81,025.

Building and the environment reports

(vi) Mapping the standard of existing stock and its turnover—This report by Building Research Establishment considered the work to develop a model of the existing housing stock in England and Wales, which could be used in assessing the impact of current and future policy in relation to energy use, carbon emissions and water consumption. This report was commissioned in 2008 at a cost of £56,305.

(vii) Case studies of change of use of dwellings—This report by Faber Maunsell looked at achieving satisfactory acoustic performance for buildings to be converted from industry or commercial use to residential use. Although sound insulation was the main concern of this project, all other relevant requirements of the building regulations were to be considered and methods of compliance outlined. This report was commissioned in 2003 at a cost of £115,860.

(viii) Lessons from Stamford Brook—Understanding the gap between designed and real performance. This report by Leeds Metropolitan University conveyed the results of a research designed to evaluate the extent to which low-carbon housing standards could be achieved in a large commercial housing development and incorporated into future building regulations. The report was commissioned in 2002 and the Department’s contribution was £215,000.

(ix) The safety of stairs investigated over a range of rise and goings—This report by Building Research Establishment considered people’s use of stairs. It conducted analysis of subjective opinions, objective behaviour on stairs and foot placement data to establish the effect of guidance within part K (Protection from falling, collision and impact) on the design of public, private and institutional stairs and the risk of falling. The report was commissioned in 2003 at a cost of £219,682.

(x) Investigation of real fires—This report by the Building Research Establishment provided feedback on the performance of real buildings in real fires. The findings noted the overall effectiveness of the building regulations in providing for the safety of life in the event of fire and most of the significant issues that have been identified during this study fell outside the scope of these regulations. The report was commissioned in 2007 at a cost of £241,067.

(xi) Modelling the current and potential accessibility of the housing stock—This report by Building Research Establishment considered the accessibility of the existing housing stock in England with particular reference to its utility for older and disabled people. The report uses data from the English Housing Condition Survey to identify the frequency and suitability of a range of built features within homes to arrive at an overall assessment of their accessibility and future adaptability. The report was commissioned in 2006 at a cost of £56,305.

(xii) Future administration of the energy performance buildings directive quality assurance regime—The objective of the work was to set the long-term standards and quality assurance arrangements for the energy performance of buildings directive (regime and infrastructure, including accreditation schemes and energy assessors), to ensure that robust, repeatable and accurate energy performance certificates, display energy certificates and air conditioning reports were produced in a consistent manner. It was commissioned in June 2009 at a cost of £75,280.

(xiii) Review of the impact of the draft European basic safety standard directive on building regulations—This report by the Building Research Establishment examines the implications of the proposed European ionising radiation basic safety standard directive for building regulations. This research was commissioned in February 2010 at a cost of £24,829.

(xiv) Glazing under abnormal loads—This report by Buro Happold and the Building Research Establishment addressed the issue of abnormal loads on glazing and the response of glazing systems. The research was commissioned in particular to examine the role of building regulations in mitigating the risks involved from abnormal loads on glazing. It reviewed structural assessment methods currently used to design buildings with glazed systems and assess their adequacy in the area of abnormal loadings. This work was commissioned in October 2003 at a cost of £157,052.

(xv) Safety of masonry parapets—The overall aim of this project was to determine and analyse the most common structural problems associated with masonry parapets and the potential hazards and dangers that may arise. Having identified the problems, conclusions and recommendations need to be made regarding measures that ought to be taken in the specification, design, construction and maintenance of masonry parapets to ensure that they remained safe and structurally sound over the service life of the building. This work was commissioned in October 2003 and cost £61,212.

(xvi) Radon: Current and future performance of radon protective measures—This report by the Building Research Establishment (BRE) reviews the performance of radon protective measures in new buildings. The research notes that radon protection measures installed 20 years continue to provide a high degree of radon protection, and were not adversely affected by improvements such as extensions, conservatories, double glazing or insulation. This work was commissioned in February 2010 at a cost of £53,505.

These reports and findings are of general policy interest, but do not relate to forthcoming policy announcements and are not necessarily a reflection of the current Government’s policies and priorities.

Copies of these reports are available on the Department for Communities and Local Government website. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of the Houses.

Sporting Legacy

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The Government are determined to deliver on the commitment to “Inspire a Generation” and secure a lasting sporting legacy from the games. We already know that 1.3 million more people are playing sport every week in England than when we won the bid in 2005 but we also know that we need to maintain the momentum from London 2012. That is why we have put in place the following 10 point sports legacy plan:

Elite Sport

Elite Funding

Through UK Sport, we have committed lottery and exchequer funding of around £125 million a year over the next four years for elite sport. This will provide the sports’ governing bodies with the certainty they need to put long-term plans in place to try and emulate, or better, the success our athletes have enjoyed in London. In return, and in the volunteering spirit of the games, all funded UK athletes will be asked to offer up to five days a year of their time to inspire the next generation through school and community sport.

World Class Facilities

We have invested in new world class sports facilities that will support community and elite sport for future generations inspired by London 2012. After the games, the London Legacy Development Corporation (LLDC) will begin a £300 million construction project to remove the temporary venues and facilities and transform the Olympic site into the Queen Elizabeth Olympic park. On the Olympic park, the stadium, aquatics centre, velodrome and copper box will be transformed into their final legacy configurations and the hockey arena moved to a new location in Eton Manor at the north of the park alongside. The Lee Valley white water centre, the Eton Dorney rowing centre, the Hadleigh farm mountain biking centre and the Weymouth sailing centre were developed or improved for the games and will reopen to elite and community use. There will also be a legacy from the investment made into facilities used as games time training centres including:

Three new facilities—(Europa Gym at Bexley, Redbridge Leisure Centre, Mayesbrook Park).

One temporary facility (Basketball)—Two competition specification floors for use in major events around the country.

Two refurbished athletic tracks—(Mayesbrook Park, Newham Leisure Centre).

Two hockey pitches at the Old Loughtonians club.

Six building and sports floor upgrades—(Barking Abby School, Hackney Community College, Langdon School, Sobell Centre, Rokeby School).

In addition, a number of the temporary facilities used for the games will be relocated to communities across the UK. Considerable progress has been made to date on the disposal of a number of assets including:

Pools: Up to nine pools comprising 3x50 metres and 6x25 metres pools are available for possible relocation to legacy end users. Sport England will lead the management of this process.

Shooting Enclosures: Business cases received from UK applicants for 25 metres and combined 10/50 metres shooting enclosures are being considered at present.

Re-allocation of one of the hockey pitches from the Riverbank Arena to the Richmond Hockey Club (in SW London), where it will also be used by the University of Westminster.

Major Sports Events

To maintain the moment from London 2012, we have already won the right to host the following major sporting events throughout the UK:

Fuel Poverty Update

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

In March 2012, Professor John Hills from the London School of Economics published his final report into the issue of fuel poverty in which he recommended that the Government move away from the current definition of fuel poverty, which he argued was not fit for purpose. At the time we committed to moving to a new framework for measurement and consulting on that approach. Today I am laying before Parliament a consultation which seeks views on the approach we intend to take.

On the definition of fuel poverty, I intend to adopt the overall framework that Professor Hills proposed in his review. I believe that this is a better measure of the problem of fuel poverty than the indicator we are currently using because it will allow us to properly understand the problem, and therefore design effective solutions. By adopting a more accurate measure, this will help us to target our resources at those most in need.

The consultation also considers the question of implications of a change to the definition for the fuel poverty target which is set out the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act. The definition of fuel poverty that we are proposing to adopt is a relative one, while the target is focused on eradication as far as reasonably practicable by 2016. The consultation therefore also seeks views on whether, in changing the definition, we should also seek to align the target with this new understanding of the problem.

Finally, I am also announcing my intention to publish an updated strategy in the new year, which will set out the final decision on the new definition of fuel poverty, our intentions on the target and will be an opportunity to set out a refreshed plan for tackling fuel poverty, to ensure the Government are using their resources as effectively as possible.

The consultation will run until 30 November, and I will set out the Government’s response with our intention on each of the issues as soon as possible after the consultation has concluded.

Meanwhile we will continue to deliver policies that we know are making a difference, through the warm home discount scheme requiring energy suppliers to provide support to low income and vulnerable customers with their energy costs, and the new energy company obligation, which will run in parallel with the green deal, and is intended to focus particularly on households that cannot achieve financial savings without additional support, including the poorest and most vulnerable, and those in hard to treat homes.

Afghanistan (Monthly Progress Report)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I wish to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, together with the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development, is today publishing the 20th progress report on developments in Afghanistan since November 2010.

On 8 July at the Tokyo conference the international community, including the UK, agreed to help the Government of Afghanistan meet their country’s development needs for the years up to and after security transition in 2014. Specific pledges were made to 2017, with strong commitments from the international community to provide financial assistance to Afghanistan through the “Transformation Decade” to the end of 2024. This support is vital to ensure that the Government can provide continued stability and prospects for their people when international military troops withdraw at the end of 2014. Our support will depend on the Government taking forward key governance and economic reforms, including on protecting the rights of women and girls, outlined in the Tokyo mutual accountability framework (TMAF). At the request of the Government of Afghanistan, the UK agreed to co-chair the first ministerial review of the TMAF benchmarks in 2014.

The insurgency remains a tangible threat in Afghanistan as the separate attacks in Nimruz and Kunduz provinces on 14 August demonstrated. However, as transition progresses and the Afghan National Security Forces (ANSF) increasingly move to the fore on operations, we are seeing more evidence that violent incidents are being evermore displaced away from the protected communities where the majority of Afghans live. While there are still areas where the insurgent has relative freedom of movement they are finding it hard to concentrate their forces as they would wish. It is likely that they will continue to rely on improvise explosive devices (IEDs), high-profile attacks and assassination attempts as means of conducting their campaign and maintaining relevance.

Insider attacks (incidents where members of the ANSF attack their international security assistance force (ISAF) partners¹) remain a serious concern. We are working with ISAF and our Afghan partners to reduce the potential for such incidents, but while being adamant that they will not derail our strategy for transition.

The UK continued to support the development of the local economy in Helmand province. UK aid has delivered technical and vocational education and training to more than 7,300 Helmandis, giving them the skills to get jobs and start businesses in the emerging private sector. Our assistance is also helping local government officials in Helmand take control of vital infrastructure, including roads, canals and irrigation systems.

I am placing the report in the Library of the House. It will also be published on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).

¹Also known as green on blue attacks.

Proceeds of Crime

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

Following the debate in the House of Commons on 12 June, the Government decided not to opt in at this stage to the draft directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime in the European Union (European Union Document No. 7641/12).

The Government welcome the overall aims of the directive and recognise the benefits of increased international co-operation to recover assets held overseas. However having analysed the contents of the directive, and consulted with policy and operational partners, the Government identified a number of issues with the directive, including a serious problem with article 5 of the directive which introduces provisions on non-conviction based confiscation in limited circumstances.

The UK has strong powers which are successfully used to tackle criminal finances. Our powers are already compliant with or stronger than many of those contained in the directive. As the directive offers no direct benefit and the risk to our domestic regime posed by article 5 is sufficiently serious, we decided that the best course of action is not to opt in at this stage.

We will take a full part in the negotiations on the directive and will seek to shape it in the national interest before carefully considering the case for a post-adoption opt-in.

Legal Aid Reform

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

During Commons consideration of Lords amendments stage of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders (LASPO) Bill, the Government undertook (17 April 2012: column 226)¹ to consider whether to extend legal aid for advice and assistance to welfare benefits cases in the first-tier tribunal where these involved a point of law. The vast majority of tribunal appeals do not involve points of law, but the Government said that where these could be identified by an independent person they would consider making legal aid available.

Having considered the matter carefully, the Government consider that a system of independent verification is not feasible. But they will make available, subject to merits and means tests being satisfied, legal aid in the form of advice and assistance for those welfare benefit cases in the first-tier tribunal where the first-tier tribunal has itself identified an error of law in its own decision.

Under tribunal rules, when the first-tier tribunal receives an application for permission to appeal, it must first consider whether to review its own decision. The tribunal may only undertake a review of its decision if it is satisfied that there was an error of law in the decision. If the tribunal reviews its decision, it may invite representations from parties as part of that review. Alternatively, it may take action as a result of the review (in effect, to change its earlier decision) without first giving every party an opportunity to make representations; in that case any party that did not have an opportunity to make representations may apply for such action to be set aside and for the decision to be reviewed again.

Legal aid will be available to assist appellants in these two situations: to make representations when invited by the tribunal, and in relation to an application for action to be set aside and for the decision to be reviewed again where representations were not sought. We intend in due course to lay an order under section 9 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, for approval by each House, to reflect this position.

The Legal Services Commission intends to begin a tender for welfare benefits work in 2013. The tender will cover the work described above, and advice and assistance for onward appeals on a point of law in the Upper Tribunal, Court of Appeal and Supreme Court as described in paragraph 8 of part 1 of schedule 1 to the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. One of the criteria for awarding contracts in this tender will be price competition.

The indicative timetable for the welfare benefits contract is:

Local Major Transport Schemes (Next Steps)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

Earlier this year we launched a consultation paper setting out options for how we should devolve funding and prioritisation of local major transport schemes following this spending review period.

Transport is vitally important to local economies, and new infrastructure can provide the missing links that are often so crucial in getting economies moving and creating opportunities for new investment and employment.

We want to ensure that decisions on new transport infrastructure are made more efficiently, and at a more local level than previously. Local enterprise partnerships are well placed to understand how transport investment can be used to boost economic recovery and growth and that is why we want them, working with local authorities, to have a key role. Indeed more Government funding was announced yesterday for local enterprise partnerships to boost their ability to contribute to the growth and jobs agenda.

I am pleased to say that our consultation proposals were met with approval from the majority of respondents, particularly local authorities and local enterprise partnerships. A summary of the responses received was published in July. I have today published firm proposals, confirming that, in all of the key areas, the Department will proceed on the basis as set out in the consultation paper.

I fully support the key objective of removing Whitehall from the process of making decisions on which local schemes should or should not go ahead. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that the new local decision makers have arrangements in place to achieve the value for money that we know the right schemes can deliver and to take account of other important factors such as environmental impact. Most respondents accepted the need for robust local assurance frameworks and we will shortly publish detailed guidance on this, to enable local areas to submit their draft frameworks by December.

Transparency is also essential, to ensure that priorities are widely publicised and understood and can be effectively shaped by local people that have a key interest in them. Evaluation will also assume an even greater importance, to enable all parties to look critically at whether key outcomes were achieved and to learn lessons for future investment decisions.

We have asked local areas to confirm the geographical basis for their local transport bodies by 28 September. When they have done so, I will set out indicative funding levels that each area should use as a planning assumption. I can confirm that the distribution of funding between different areas will be on a simple per capita basis. The total level of funding available will of course be subject to decisions made in future spending rounds.

I look forward to working with local transport bodies over the coming months as we embark on this transition to a truly decentralised system and they begin developing their infrastructure plans for post 2015.

High Speed Rail (Phase 1 Consultation)

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

The Government’s decision on 10 January 2012 to take forward proposals for a national high speed rail network followed a major public consultation exercise that attracted around 55,000 responses.

The decision to proceed took account of a range of evidence including analysis by my Department and High Speed Two Ltd of issues raised in consultation as well as comments from a wide variety of interested parties through a range of engagement approaches. The Government’s independent response analysis consultants, Dialogue by Design (DbyD), carried out a detailed analysis of the consultation responses and a summary of their analysis was published alongside the Government’s January decision, with an addendum report published in July:

“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Consultation Summary Report”, available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/hs2-consultation-summary.

“High Speed Rail: Investing in Britain’s Future—Addendum”, available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/publications/high-speed-rail-addendum/.

Since publishing the addendum report in July, it has become apparent that a further very small proportion of responses were not fully analysed by DbyD. For these responses, the answers to one or more of the seven consultation questions were omitted from DbyD’s analysis. In total, approximately 0.4% of answers provided to individual consultation questions were affected.

The table below shows how many of the seven consultation answers were omitted from the analysis in each case:

Penfold Review

Tuesday 18th September 2012 Written Statements

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

Today I am publishing an interim response to the consultation that closed on 24 August detailing proposals to streamline the process of applying for the stopping up or diversion of a highway, where this is required for the purpose of property development.

This interim response is considering only option 1 of the consultation. The remaining options and consultation responses will be considered and a full response, including proposals for a way forward, will be published by the end of November.

The foundation of all three of the main policy options is a speeding up of the process by allowing stopping up and planning applications to run concurrently, namely option 1.

The large majority of respondents, comprising three main groups, namely developers, local authorities and those affected by stopping up decisions, gave broad support for allowing stopping up and planning applications to be made concurrently, with agreement that it would speed up the process and reduce burdens. We will seek an early legislative opportunity to implement this change.

The Government committed to improving the stopping up application process in the 2011 autumn statement and this will help to deliver the Government’s growth agenda, by removing unnecessary burdens faced by businesses, speeding up the application process and removing unnecessary bureaucracy. The change will play a useful role in encouraging investment and therefore growth in local communities.

This interim response to the consultation document will be available in the Libraries of both Houses and on the Department’s website.