House of Commons

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 31 October 2012

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

1. What recent assessment her Department has made of the humanitarian implications of Rwanda’s support for militia activity in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The humanitarian situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has worsened; in fact, 2012 has seen about 2.3 million people displaced, which is the highest number in many years. That is in part linked to the activities of M23 and other militia. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point about Rwanda, the UN group of experts will report in November. I will critically assess the situation when I make the next decision on budget support in December.

[Ian Lucas]

I congratulate the Secretary of State on her appointment to her extremely important role.

Yesterday a Congolese citizen told me that she could not understand why the Government were supporting individuals whom the UN experts had said were attacking and creating mayhem in eastern Congo. Was the decision to reinstate aid supported by officials in the Secretary of State’s Department?

[Justine Greening]

My predecessor set out in his written ministerial statement the basis on which the Government’s decision was taken. My understanding is that it was based on officials’ advice.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to her position and say on behalf of the Select Committee on International Development that we look forward to engaging with her? She will be aware that we produced a report on conflict in the DRC, and we are undertaking one on the situation in Rwanda in the light of budget support being reinstated. Does she accept that the dilemma we face is that Rwanda is a country where development money delivers real results for poor people, but where issues such as freedom of speech and plurality are compromised? That is a dilemma we have to resolve.

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. It is worth remembering that 5 million people are living in poverty in Rwanda. Our programme of support is aimed at helping those people in particular. When we came into government, we attached more conditionality to our general budget support, not least through the partnership principles. It is things such as the partnership principles that I will look at in reaching the decision we will take in December.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the Secretary of State on her new appointment. She told my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) that officials were consulted and that her predecessor sought their advice. Were other donors and allies who had suspended payments to Rwanda consulted about their views on the impact of the UK’s unilateral decision to reinstate aid?

[Justine Greening]

I was not in my role when that decision was taken, so I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman’s question directly, but the International Development Committee is planning to look at this issue, and I am sure it will be able to ask and get answers to those questions for him.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

Is it not worth putting on record the fact that Rwanda has made tremendous strides in the last 15 years since the troubles of the 1990s, in no small part thanks to substantial assistance from the United Kingdom Government? That is something we should absolutely be proud of.

[Justine Greening]

I think we should be. In recent years I have spent time in Rwanda, which is a good example of where achieving things on the ground is often complex. Life is not black and white; we have to deal with real people and situations and navigate our way through them to the best of our ability. We know that there are still millions of people in Rwanda living in poverty. The aid programmes we have invested in there have been extremely successful, so there is absolutely a need to continue that work.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

2. What steps she is taking to encourage private capital investment in the Economic Community of West African States.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

Through DFID offices and international programmes, we are helping west African countries to build infrastructure, reform laws and institutions that govern business, strengthen financial services and develop sound projects, to make them more attractive to private investors and stronger trading partners for the United Kingdom.

[Richard Fuller]

I thank the Minister for that response. I am sure that, like me, she recognises the critical role that small and medium-sized enterprises can play in west African states in ensuring development. We welcome the global SME finance facility that the Government have put in place. Will the Minister keep an open mind about expanding that facility, particularly for west African states, and will she join me in welcoming the steps that Governor Fashola has taken in Lagos state to improve the ease of doing business in Nigeria?

[Lynne Featherstone]

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work in Nigeria. I know of his interest in development in west Africa. Small and medium-sized enterprises—in fact, all businesses—are most important. Nigeria—and, as he mentions, Lagos in particular—is the growth hub of Africa, as the Prime Minister highlighted when he visited it last year. UK aid will continue to help to create an even better climate for business by supporting better regulation, better infrastructure and more efficient and productive markets.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Does the Minister agree that, should the United Nations Security Council agree to the deployment of troops in north Mali, it will be essential that we do our best to look after the civilian population there and to ensure that humanitarian aid can be delivered?

[Lynne Featherstone]

The right hon. Gentleman raises a really important point. Whatever the military action, our responsibility is to ensure that humanitarian aid is delivered as fast as possible.

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

3. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

The humanitarian situation in Syria is deteriorating rapidly: 2.5 million people are already in need and more than 350,000 have fled to neighbouring countries. The UK has already provided £39.5 million of funding for essential food, heating and shelter to help people to cope with the coming winter. I am assessing with other agencies how we can ensure that we are well prepared if the situation deteriorates further, as many people suspect it will.

[Meg Hillier]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. With access to large parts of Syria becoming increasingly difficult and challenging, what work is she doing with the international community to ensure that people in those areas can receive the aid that they need?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. Approximately half the support that we provide has been for refugees, and half to help people inside Syria. I have had discussions with the International Committee of the Red Cross and the World Food Programme, the key providers of aid within Syria, and we are working with them to ensure that they can do their job efficiently. Clearly, they are neutral and dispassionate in regard to the politics, and it is vital that we use them.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The Christian community in Syria is one of the oldest in the world, and one of the largest in middle east. Indeed, was it not St Paul who was converted on the road to Damascus? If the wrong people come out on top in the Syrian civil war, there is every chance of a bloodbath in the Christian community on a biblical scale. Will my right hon. Friend do everything she can to ensure that the humanitarian provision addresses that very real fear?

[Justine Greening]

I will. We want to ensure that the humanitarian support that we are providing is there for all parts of the Syrian people. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the situation is particularly precarious at the moment, not least because the opposition forces are fragmented and it is therefore unclear what form an emergent Syria will take. However, I am working closely with the Foreign Secretary on this matter, and I can assure my hon. Friend that I will bear in mind the point that he has made.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State liaising closely with her colleagues in the Foreign Office to ensure that the maximum political pressure is placed on China and Russia to ensure that they adopt a more enlightened approach to the situation in Syria?

[Justine Greening]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman of that. Clearly, if we are to make any progress through the United Nations, it will be critical to get buy-in from those two countries. So far, that has proved to be extremely challenging. There is clearly a diplomatic route to making progress, as well as a humanitarian one.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Save the Children’s recent report from the Zaatari camp in Jordan tells of Syrian children who have survived the most appalling atrocities, including arbitrary detention, torture and sexual violence, as well as others who have not survived. Will the Secretary of State tell us what is being done to support those children, and what steps are being taken to monitor the atrocities that they are reporting?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is shocking to see how what is now the Syrian civil war has affected children in particular. Half of our support has gone to refugees, many of whom are children fleeing with their families. The fact that we have provided trauma support for 28,000 children will give the House a sense of the scale of the problem that we are tackling, and we have announced a further £3 million of support for UNICEF’s work. We are providing not only counselling but clinical care in places such as Jordan to Syrian refugees who have experienced sexual violence. That is an incredibly worrying aspect of the work that we are doing, but we are absolutely committed to doing what we, as a country, can do with our partners to help that situation.

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

4. What estimate she has made of the number of people in (a) Israel, (b) Gaza and (c) the remainder of the Occupied Palestinian Territories who are in employment; and what assessment she has made of the factors preventing equalisation of employment levels in the region.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

In the second quarter of this year, unemployment was 7% in Israel, 28% in Gaza and 17% in the west bank. We support the International Monetary Fund’s recent assessment that Israeli controls on external trade and access to Area C of the west bank are a serious constraint on Palestinian employment levels.

[Mr Turner]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that more needs to be done to persuade Israel to remove the barriers that prevent Palestinians from crossing the border in order to find work, and, indeed, to seize more opportunities to create work in Gaza and the rest of Palestine?

[Mr Duncan]

Yes, we want people and goods to be able to cross borders freely with the minimum constraints necessary to ensure Israel’s security, and we want the Palestinian Authority to be able to exploit its own resources, such as the gas fields off the coast of Gaza, so that the PA can pay its own way and eventually require less support from the international community.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

The crazy economic and employment situation in Gaza is exemplified by the position of its fishing industry. Fishermen are prevented by an Israeli blockade from fishing more than 3 km offshore while, at the same time, fish can be imported through illegal tunnels, yet the indigenous people of Gaza cannot, by and large, afford to buy those fish. Would it not be better to lift the blockade, open the crossings and close the tunnels?

[Mr Duncan]

We are deeply concerned that the situation in Gaza remains dire, with 38% of Gazans living in poverty and 66% depending on food aid. Their ability to fish and exploit their own resources properly within international law is something that we would of course encourage.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend and the previous Secretary of State achieved an enviable record of support for the United Nations Relief and Works Agency and Britain’s reputation in addressing some of the economic issues. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that that support is going to continue?

[Mr Duncan]

Yes, I can give my hon. Friend the assurances he seeks. We work very closely with UNRWA, and I regularly meet Filippo Grande who runs it. I have visited the area with him on many occasions, and look forward to doing so again, while also expressing our support in terms of hard cash for the future.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

The Minister will be aware that water security has huge implications for economic and social development in the region. What specific actions are the UK Government taking to ensure that water is no longer used as a weapon against some of the most vulnerable people in the region?

[Mr Duncan]

We are well aware of the access restrictions to safe drinking water in the west bank and Gaza. The UK Government regularly discuss these issues with Israel, and we continue to call for the full implementation of the relaxation of access restrictions for Gaza that Israel announced in June 2010.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

5. What steps her Department is taking to use its aid budget to support strategic trading alliances between the UK and emerging nations.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

The European Union leads on trade negotiations for its member states. DFID considers trade to be a key element to sustainable poverty reduction in developing countries. It helps to generate wealth, create jobs and raise incomes. We work with others to help to strengthen the multilateral trading system, and we provide practical support to enable poor countries to participate more effectively in international trade.

[George Freeman]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Given that the best form of aid is trade, and given the urgent need to rebalance our trade away from the sclerotic eurozone and the potential of our world-class biosciences to tackle food security, does the Minister agree that there is a huge opportunity, through strategic collaborations in agricultural science, to unlock relationships with emerging nations such as India to the benefit of us both?

[Mr Duncan]

The UK’s aid budget is, of course, untied, but technology transfer is an increasingly important part of DFID’s programme. For example, through our AgResults programme, we will harness technological innovation so that we can improve agricultural productivity and food security in some of the world’s poorest countries. Part of the Government’s strategy for life sciences is to export the benefits of our research to the developing world.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for all the work he has done over the years to support the people of Yemen, but he will know that half the people of Yemen are still malnourished. How can we ensure that we give them the capacity to be able to use trade-related skills in order to help themselves?

[Mr Duncan]

We see trade as an important ingredient in all our development activities. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman’s own personal interest in Yemen and can assure him that the UK has been in the lead in garnering international support to raise pledged donor contributions reaching $8 billion. The key now is to ensure that those funds are disbursed honestly and effectively.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

7. What steps she is taking to ensure value for money in her Department.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

I am determined to ensure that our budget has the maximum possible impact, and that every pound we spend reaches the people and projects for which it was intended. With that in mind, since taking office I have already reduced the thresholds for ministerial approval. I have also instigated a review to improve the use of our consultants. I shall meet our top suppliers over the coming weeks to ensure that we have better value for money, and in the meantime I am starting to sign off all new supply contracts worth over £1 million.

[Steve Brine]

I am incredibly proud—as are many of my constituents—that the Government are standing by some of the world’s poorest people at a time when things are so difficult at home, but a number of my constituents are understandably concerned when India, for instance, is reported as saying that it does not need or, indeed, want our money. How does the new Secretary of State intend to bridge that credibility gap when it comes to the way in which some—and I stress the word “some”—UK aid money is spent overseas?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend has raised an important matter which I, too, recognise. I have already engaged the Indian Government in discussions—at the World Bank meeting a few weekends ago—and I shall continue those discussions, as a matter of urgency, over the coming weeks. I think that as the aid budget enables countries to develop—and far fewer countries are classed as lower-income than 10 or 20 years ago—and as they move from aid-based to trade-based support, we must work with them carefully to establish what constitutes a responsible transition package, and that is what I am discussing with the Indians.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

I, too, warmly welcome the new Secretary of State to her post. Of course we all want to see value for money, so in the spirit of openness and transparency, will she tell the House when she will publish her report on the Department’s use of private consultants?

[Justine Greening]

I have already made it clear that we will take a number of actions in relation to the work that I arranged to be done, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to wait and see what steps we are able to take. The key to all this is ensuring that we understand when we should do things in-house and when we should opt for external support, and then working out how we can secure much better value for money. Many of the countries in which we operate are fragile and conflicted, and therefore need specialist skills. I think that it is right for us to use consultants; the question on which I have challenged the Department is how we can use them far, far better.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I welcome all the Ministers to their new responsibilities.

When Lord Ashdown conducted a review of the impact and value for money of DFID emergency aid, he emphasised the importance of resilience and preparedness in disaster-prone areas. Does the Secretary of State believe that the potentially tragic impact of Hurricane Sandy on, in particular, vulnerable Caribbean nations offers us an opportunity not only to provide immediate assistance, but to evaluate progress on that agenda of preparedness and resilience?

[Justine Greening]

I am sure that it does. When I attended the UN General Assembly session in New York a few weeks ago, a meeting of so-called political champions was convened to discuss the important issue of resilience. If we can build resilience into our country development plans in the first place, that will be far more effective in terms of taxpayer money than having to pick up the pieces after a catastrophe.

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

8. If she will estimate the cost to European aid programmes of the Israeli occupation of the west bank.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

We estimate that between 2006 and 2010 the total value of European aid programmes on the west bank averaged $1 billion per year. Our funding aims to support the creation of an independent, viable Palestinian state with a flourishing economy. Our assessment is that, over time, such a state would become self-sufficient, and would no longer require aid.

[Mr Denham]

Many of us consider high levels of aid for the west bank to be an essential investment in the peace process, but now that Israeli settlements are making a two-state solution impossible, how will the Government ensure that the Israeli Government rather than European taxpayers pay the costs of the illegal occupation?

[Mr Duncan]

I understand the concept that the right hon. Gentleman has presented, namely that our aid somehow subsidises the occupation. The solution to the problem that he has raised is an enduring peace process that will enable a secure Israel to live alongside a viable Palestinian state, so that aid, compensation or any other such financial support can be rendered less necessary.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

It has been a busy first few weeks in the Department. I have attended the United Nations General Assembly, where I was able to discuss the humanitarian situation in Syria. I have travelled to a World Bank meeting in Tokyo, where I met the Indian Finance Minister, as I have just said. I have taken the opportunity to meet my counterparts at the European Council of Ministers in Luxembourg. [Interruption.] I have introduced new financial controls and instigated a review of consultancy in the Department. I have also managed to visit country programmes in Kenya and Somalia. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Secretary of State should also manage to be heard, and she would be helped in that if we could have a bit of order for Mark Pawsey.

[Mark Pawsey]

In the crisis that is developing in the eastern Congo, there is evidence that women and children are being affected most. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that support gets to those most in need?

[Justine Greening]

We are the third largest humanitarian donor to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we focus on working with organisations that specialise in meeting the needs of women and children, such as UNICEF, and with organisations that have a specific mandate to protect the most vulnerable, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to their new posts.

The Secretary of State has said empowering women and girls is a central departmental goal, but as a recent International Development Committee report highlights, the Government’s actions have not lived up to their rhetoric on ensuring that women’s empowerment and rights are central to development. Given the specific support that is needed, how will the Secretary of State rectify that?

[Justine Greening]

I take issue with the hon. Lady’s assertion that we have not focused on women and children. Doing so is absolutely crucial, and it has been at the heart of everything we have done, not least through the Prime Minister’s family planning summit, which he held with my predecessor earlier this year. As the hon. Lady will be aware, the millennium development goals focus on areas such as education, women and children, and we are determined to see that continue in the post-2015 goals.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

T2. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary on being appointed not only to her new post, but as international champion against violence against women. Will she demand more action from Governments in areas where there is a high prevalence of female genital mutilation, and give support to the brave local campaigners doing amazing work on the ground to combat such human rights abuse?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Lynne Featherstone)]

I thank my hon. Friend, and pay tribute to her for taking such a passionate interest in this issue. Tackling female genital cutting is a priority for me, and there is now a rising desire in Africa to tackle it. Senegal, Burkina Faso, Uganda and the African Union have all indicated that they want to take this forward. We are currently designing an ambitious programme to help end FGC, and supporting civil society organisations working on the ground is likely to be a key component of our work.

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

This week in London the Prime Minister will co-chair the first meeting of the UN high-level panel on post-2015 development goals. In this important week, does the Secretary of State accept that we will end the grotesque inequality that continues to scar our planet only through new, responsible capitalism—where ethics and profit are no longer competing options, Governments are active in support of sustainable growth, there is zero tolerance of tax-dodging and corruption, and unfair trade barriers are removed? Does the Secretary of State accept that this radical aid-plus agenda, combining responsible capitalism with social justice, will require a major shift in her Government’s approach to international development?

[Justine Greening]

In talking about the golden thread, our Prime Minister has been very clear about the importance of the key building blocks for all states and societies, such as access to legal rights and respect for human rights. I think having an inclusive society is another important building block, which is why female rights are equally important. We should also listen to the people who are playing a leading role in transforming their countries, such as President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia. I draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention to an article she has written in The Times today entitled “Aid is not an alternative to self-sufficiency”. She starts off by quoting Margaret Thatcher, and the article gets better from then on.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T3. India has twice the number of billionaires as our country, yet is home to more than a third of those globally who subsist on less than 80p a day. Will my right hon. Friend set out for the House the steps the Government are taking to make sure that our aid goes to the most needy in India, and is not spent on projects that could and should be supported by the Indian Government?

[Justine Greening]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. My predecessor had already overhauled our development programme in India so that it was more targeted on not only the poorest states, but the poorest communities in those states. However, as India continues to develop, it is right that we continue to examine that programme, which is what I am doing right now.

[Rosie Cooper (West Lancashire) (Lab)]

T4. Following the success in meeting millennium development goal 4 on clean drinking water, the then Secretary of State committed to doubling the number of people with access to safe drinking water and basic sanitation, but we have yet to see any new plans. Will the Secretary of State update the House on what progress has been made on that objective?

[Justine Greening]

We have focused a lot of our development aid on making sure that there is access to clean water and sanitation, as some of the starkest statistics are in that area. Just one in 20 people in Afghanistan has access to a pit latrine, which tells us the scale of the problem we are seeking to address. The hon. Lady is absolutely right about this, and I assure her that my Department carefully focuses on clean water provision. I will write to her with more details.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 31 October.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

Before listing my engagements, I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Corporal David O’Connor of 40 Commando, the Royal Marines, and Corporal Channing Day of 3 Medical Regiment, the Royal Army Medical Corps. We owe them and all others who have lost their lives a deep debt of gratitude. Their courage, their dedication and their sheer professionalism will never be forgotten by our nation, and our sincere condolences are with their colleagues, their friends and their families.

This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others, and in addition to my duties in this House I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I am sure that the whole House will want to associate itself with the Prime Minister’s remarks about our brave service personnel and to send our deepest condolences to their families.

Will the Prime Minister confirm that if he cannot get a good deal for Britain in the EU budget negotiations, he will use the veto and reject any advice on this matter from those who gave our rebate away?

[The Prime Minister]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. This Government are taking the toughest line in these budget negotiations of any Government since we joined the European Union. At best, we would like it cut, at worst, frozen, and I am quite prepared to use the veto if we do not get a deal that is good for Britain.

But let us be clear that it is in our interests to try to get a deal, because a seven-year freeze would keep our bills down compared with annual budgets. Labour’s position is one of complete opportunism. Labour Members gave away half the rebate, they sent the budget through the roof and now they want to posture rather than get a good deal for Britain—the nation will see right through it.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I start by joining the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Corporal David O’Connor of 40 Commando, the Royal Marines, and Corporal Channing Day of 3 Medical Regiment, the Royal Army Medical Corps. Their deaths are a reminder of the unremitting danger that our troops face on a daily basis on our behalf. They both showed the utmost courage and bravery, and our condolences go to their family and friends.

The Prime Minister has an opportunity today to get a mandate from this House for a real-terms reduction in the EU budget—which he says he wants—over the next seven years, which he could take to the negotiations in Europe. Why is he resisting that opportunity?

[The Prime Minister]

I think the whole country will see through what is rank opportunism. People have not forgotten the fact that Labour gave away half our rebate in one negotiation and agreed a massive increase to the EU budget when in government. Now, today, Labour has not even put down its own resolution on this issue. The nation will absolutely see straight through it. The right hon. Gentleman is playing politics; he is not serving the country.

[Edward Miliband]

When it comes to consistency, the Prime Minister seems to have forgotten what he said as Leader of the Opposition just four months before the last general election—[Interruption.] I would have thought that Government Members were interested in what the Prime Minister said when he was Leader of the Opposition. He said:

“At a time when budgets are being cut in the UK, does the Prime Minister agree that in reviewing the EU budget, the main purpose should be to push for a real-terms cut?”.—[Official Report, 14 December 2012; Vol. 502, c. 647.]

That is what he said when he was in opposition. So when it comes to opportunism, this Prime Minister is a gold medallist. At a time when he is cutting the education budget by 11%, the transport budget by 15% and the police budget by 20%, how can he be giving up on a cut in the EU budget before the negotiations have even begun?

[The Prime Minister]

We have to make cuts in the budget because we are dealing with the record debt and deficit that Labour left us. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to talk about consistency, perhaps he can explain why his own Members of the European Parliament voted against the budget freeze that we achieved last year. Perhaps he can explain why the Socialists group in the European Parliament, of which he is such a proud member, is calling not for an increase in the budget, not for a freeze in the budget but for a €200 billion increase in the budget—and while they are at it, they want to get rid of the rest of the British rebate. Is that his policy?

[Edward Miliband]

It is good to see—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Government Back Benchers, including Ministers, are apparently approaching maturity. They must tackle their behavioural problems before it is too late.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister is certainly getting very angry, Mr Speaker, but perhaps he is worried about losing the vote this afternoon. The reality is that our MEPs voted the same way as his on the motion before the European Parliament 10 days ago. He cannot convince anyone on Europe. Last year he flounced out of the December negotiations with a veto and the agreement went ahead anyway. He has thrown in the towel even before these negotiations have begun. He cannot convince European leaders; he cannot even convince his own Back Benchers. He is weak abroad, he is weak at home—it is John Major all over again.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman’s position is completely incredible. He says he wants a cut in the EU budget but he does not sanction a veto. We have made it clear that we will use the veto, as I have used it before. So let me ask him: will you use the veto?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will not be using the veto. I ask the Prime Minister—this is about the 10th time I have done so—to respect parliamentary procedure in these matters.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

The south-east region is often regarded as the engine driver of the British economy, but the Solent region faces many challenges, particularly with the announcement of job losses at Ford last week. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the case for a city deal for Southampton and Portsmouth is particularly compelling?

[The Prime Minister]

It is particularly compelling that we ensure that Southampton has a city deal. I understand that it is on the list. Obviously the news from Ford was very disappointing; it was a blackspot in an otherwise strong performance by the British automotive industry. I know that the Business Secretary will work very closely with Southampton city council to do everything we can to help people find jobs.

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

Q2. May I ask a straightforward question which should command a straightforward answer? In the forthcoming police and crime commissioner elections, it is predicted that the turnout will be as low as 20%. Does the Prime Minister think that that gives democratic legitimacy?

[The Prime Minister]

I want the turnout to be as high as possible, but I recognise that in new elections for a new post that is always a challenge. It is even a challenge when we have dedicated Labour MPs resigning from this House to stand as police and crime commissioners. One point that the police and crime commissioner will be able to make in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency is that we should celebrate the fact that since the election crime is down 20%.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Q3. In recent months, northern Lincolnshire has benefited from several positive announcements from the Government and the private sector that will boost the local economy. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that Kimberly-Clark announced last week the closure of its factory at Barton-upon-Humber, in my constituency, with the loss of up to 500 jobs. Will he assure me that the Government will do everything possible to attract new business to the area?

[The Prime Minister]

I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance, and I know that that is sad news for the workers at Barton-upon-Humber. I understand that the local council is working closely with Jobcentre Plus and the company to establish a local taskforce to help employees to find alternative employment, and the Government will give that our support.

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

Q4. Following the press reporting of the Hillsborough disaster and the phone hacking scandal, self-regulation of the press, by the press, is simply no longer acceptable to the public. More than three quarters of respondents to two recent polls backed an end to media self-regulation. Prime Minister, your Ministers have been briefing against Leveson. Whose side are you on—the public or the press?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am not on anybody’s side in this. Members really must adhere to the proper procedures of this House, which they ought to know by now.

[The Prime Minister]

I think that we should wait for the Leveson report to come out. A lot of work has been done. I want a robust regulatory system, and what matters most of all, as I said in the House last week, I think, is to ensure that newspapers can be fined if they get things wrong, that journalists can be properly investigated, and that there are proper prominent apologies. We know what a proper regulatory system should look like. We do not have one now; we need one for the future.

[Jack Lopresti (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Con)]

First, I echo the Prime Minister’s tribute to our armed forces and fallen comrades. The country owes them, their families and their loved ones a huge debt of honour and gratitude.

Last week, we saw the sentencing of former staff of Winterbourne View hospital who were found guilty of ill treatment and neglect. I had hoped that those prosecutions would help to bring some closure, or at least a sense of justice served, to the victims and their families, but we learned this week that patients from Winterbourne View may have been subject to further abuse and neglect elsewhere. Does the Prime Minister agree with me and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), the former Minister for care services, that care providers such as Castlebeck, which ran Winterbourne View, should be subject to prosecution for wilful corporate negligence?

[The Prime Minister]

I pay tribute to what my hon. Friend says about our armed forces.

On Winterbourne View, anyone who saw the television pictures showing how very vulnerable people were being treated would have been absolutely shocked. They, like me and him, I am sure, would want to ensure that the law goes exactly where the evidence leads. If further prosecutions are needed, they should happen. We saw shocking pictures of the shocking things that happened. We should judge our society by how we deal with the most vulnerable and needy people, and what happened was completely unacceptable.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is welcome that the British economy is out of the longest double-dip recession since the war, but Lord Heseltine says today:

“the message I keep hearing is that the UK does not have a strategy for growth and wealth creation”.

Whom does the Prime Minister blame for that?

[The Prime Minister]

What Michael Heseltine actually said was:

“The Coalition is fundamentally on the right track...I praise its work”

on the

“industrial strategy plans…pioneering city devolution”

and

“the revolution in education and tackling unemployment.”

Frankly, we can spend all afternoon trading quotes, but I think that Michael Heseltine is making a much bigger point. In this excellent report, he is saying that our economy became too centralised over decades, with regions and nations of our country falling behind. Manufacturing halved as a share of national income under the previous Government. During the boom years in the west midlands, for instance, there were no net new private sector jobs. He is dealing with the big issues; what a pity that all the right hon. Gentleman can do is stand up and try to read out a quote.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister says that Lord Heseltine’s report states that he is on the right track, but goodness knows what it would have said if it had stated that he was on the wrong track. Lord Heseltine says that there is no strategy for jobs and growth, that business has no confidence in the Prime Minister, and that deregulation—the Prime Minister’s chosen approach—is not the answer.

Let me turn to a specific aspect of Lord Heseltine’s report: recommendation 61, with which I am sure the Prime Minister is familiar. Lord Heseltine says:

“The Government needs to set out a definitive and unambiguous energy policy”.

This is obviously an appropriate day to consider that recommendation on energy. By the way, it is good to see the Business Secretary in the Chamber, and I am sorry that that growth committee he is on is so unmemorable that he cannot remember it.

This is an appropriate day to be considering this recommendation so his—[Interruption.] I am rather enjoying this. The Prime Minister’s Energy Minister says he is against wind farms and enough is enough, while his Energy Secretary—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Let me say to Government Back Benchers: it is very straightforward. Either they calm down or the session will be extended, at whoever’s inconvenience that may be. Let us be very clear. It is incredibly straightforward.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister’s Energy Minister says he is against wind farms and enough is enough, while his Energy Secretary says he is gung-ho for them. Who speaks for the Government—the Energy Secretary or the Energy Minister?

[The Prime Minister]

Today the jokes have been bad and the substance has been bad too. It is not a good day. I will tell you why it is a good day to talk about energy policy—because today Hitachi is investing £20 billion in our nuclear industry. Today is a good day to talk about energy because there is more investment in renewable energy under three years of this Government than under 13 years of the Labour Government. It is a good day to talk about energy policy because we have got a green investment bank up and running. That is what is happening under this Government. There has been no change towards renewable energy. Let me explain exactly. We have a big pipeline of onshore and offshore wind projects that are coming through. We are committed to those, but all parties will have to have a debate in the House and outside about what happens once those targets are met. The right hon. Gentleman ought to understand that, if he could be bothered to look at the substance.

[Edward Miliband]

That was a completely useless answer. There are investors all round this country who want certainty about energy policy. It is very simple for the Prime Minister. He has one Minister who says he is totally against wind energy—that is the Energy Minister whom he appointed, having sacked the previous guy—and there is the Energy Secretary who says he is gung-ho for wind farms. The Prime Minister just has to make a choice about where he stands. After all, he has a wind turbine on his house, so I thought he was in favour of wind turbines, but here is the reality. Lord Heseltine says in his report that there are people who are resistant to his ideas. We know who they are: the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. The evidence of the past two and a half years is that deregulation, sink or swim—their answer—is not the answer. Lord Heseltine is right and they are wrong.

[The Prime Minister]

I have one thing to say. Not you, Mr Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman—he’s no Michael Heseltine. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I want to hear Mr Swales and I feel sure the people of Redcar do.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

The Russians want to award the prestigious Ushakov medal to Arctic convoy veterans. The Governments of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the USA have agreed. The UK Government have refused. Will the Prime Minister get this decision reversed quickly so that my constituent, John Ramsey, and the rest of the dwindling band of veterans get the recognition they so richly deserve?

[The Prime Minister]

I have every sympathy with my hon. Friend and his constituent. That is why we have asked Sir John Holmes to conduct the review not just of medals in general, but to look specifically at some of the most important cases, of which the Arctic convoys is probably the most pressing. As my hon. Friend asks, he is getting on with it.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Q5. The Foreign Secretary said yesterday that the rules of the House require that Ministers answer questions. So, there is a stash of embarrassing e-mails, isn’t there? Adam Smith had to publish every single one of his e-mails and ended up resigning. Why will the Prime Minister not publish all his e-mails? Can he really be a fit and proper person to judge on the future of press regulation if he will not come clean with the British public?

[The Prime Minister]

There is another rule of the House, which is that if you insult someone in the House, you make an apology. I am still waiting. It is this Government who set up the Leveson inquiry and I gave all the information that Leveson requested to that inquiry.

[Simon Hart (Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire) (Con)]

Q6. The Owl and the Pussycat is a coffee shop in Laugharne in my constituency. Its business rates have just been hiked by 700% and the council is coming after it for the money even though it has not yet heard the appeal, which means that the business might have to close and jobs will be lost. The situation is not unique to Wales, so will the Prime Minister come to the rescue?

[The Prime Minister]

I have every sympathy with the business my hon. Friend mentions. Of course, business rates are a devolved issue, so this is something that needs to be taken up with the Welsh Assembly Government. In England we have doubled small business rate relief to help half a million small firms, made it easier for small firms and shops to claim small business rate relief and given local councils new powers to levy local business rate discounts, for example to support the sorts of shops and pubs he refers to. I think that is the right approach for England and I am sure he will want to take that case to Wales.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Q14. In 2007 the Prime Minister identified Lewisham hospital as one of 29 hospitals he would be prepared to get into a “bare-knuckle fight” over, yet on Monday it emerged that Lewisham’s A and E and maternity services could end up paying the price for financial failures elsewhere in the NHS. Which side of this bare-knuckle fight is he now on?

[The Prime Minister]

We are on the side of the fight for increasing the resources going into the NHS—that is a decision we have taken—including extra money going into Lewisham, and the hon. Lady is on the side of cutting the money going into the NHS. What we have done, which the previous Government did not do, is to set out that there will be no changes to NHS configurations unless they have the support of local GPs, unless they have strong public and patient engagement, unless they are backed by sound clinical evidence and unless they provide support for patient choice. Those sorts of protections were never in place under the previous Government, but they are now.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Q7. In the light of last week’s positive growth figures, does the Prime Minister agree that policies requiring yet more spending, more borrowing and more debt are the precise opposite of what our country needs?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Last week’s news was welcome. The economy is growing, unemployment is coming down, inflation is coming down, the rate of small business creation is going up and a million more people are employed in the private sector than there were two years ago. The one absolute certainty is that the worst approach—Michael Heseltine confirms this in his report—would be to see more spending, more borrowing and more debt, because that is what got us into the mess in the first place. The Labour party has only one growth plan: the plan to grow the deficit.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Prime Minister for his condolences on the death of my constituent, Corporal Channing Day. She was a courageous young lady. She always wanted to join the Army and for eight years served as a medic. Her job was to save lives—to run the line of fire in order to give aid. Imagine what it meant to a wounded soldier to see someone running to help them when all hell was bursting around them and to know that they were not alone. Corporal Channing Day is not alone today. She will soon return to the bosom of her family, to her mother, father, sisters, brothers, friends and family, who loved her dearly, and to the community, which is immensely proud of her achievements. This House and this great nation of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland salute her courage, bravery and heroism.

Prime Minister, will you agree with me that Army medics are often the unsung heroes of conflict, and will you agree to meet me and my colleagues to discuss the implementation of the military covenant in Northern Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

I would be very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to talk about the implementation of the covenant in Northern Ireland. It is something I have spoken about with the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland. I know that there are issues about its implementation, but I hope that it can be done, and I would be happy to have that meeting.

The hon. Gentleman spoke very strongly and movingly about Corporal Channing Day. I think he is absolutely right that those in the Royal Army Medical Corp do a fantastic job. It has been a huge honour and privilege for me to meet some of them, including in Afghanistan. When you see the service they provide, you really can put your hand on your heart and know that British military personnel in theatre are getting medical care that is as good as that which anyone in history ever got. What they do is truly remarkable.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Q8. If he will make it his policy that the accident and emergency and maternity departments at Kettering general hospital will not be downgraded or closed as part of the Healthier Together review of NHS acute services in the south-east midlands; and if he will ensure that patients and clinical staff at Kettering general hospital will be involved fully in that review.

[The Prime Minister]

Healthier Together has promised that Kettering hospital will retain its accident and emergency and maternity services. Any suggestion otherwise, including by the Opposition, is simply scaremongering of the worst kind.

[Mr Hollobone]

Kettering has the sixth highest household growth rate in the whole country, and accident and emergency admissions are up 10% year on year. Given that Kettering general hospital has been at the very heart of the local community for well over 100 years, do not local people deserve a clear assurance that our much-loved and badly needed local hospital has a bright future ahead of it?

[The Prime Minister]

I gave my hon. Friend the strongest possible assurance. The point that I have made, and which I made to the hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), is that there cannot be any changes unless there is full public consultation and unless there is the support of local GPs and strong public and patient engagement. In the case of Kettering, that is not on the agenda. As I said, any suggestion by the Opposition is simply scaremongering of the worst kind, and I can see that they are at it again.

[Lindsay Roy (Glenrothes) (Lab)]

Q9. The importance of skills in promoting economic growth has been emphasised again and again in all parts of the House, so why did the number of under-19 apprenticeship starts fall last year?

[The Prime Minister]

The number of apprenticeships under this Government is about 900,000; it is a record number and it has hugely increased.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

Q10. The Government recently announced plans to extend the freeze on council tax for a third year. Unfortunately, Labour-run City of York council increased council tax by 2.9% this year and has moved with remarkable speed to confirm a 2% increase next year. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such a rise is apparently out of order and not in the interests of York constituents, and will he urge City of York council to look at this again?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly join my hon. Friend in doing that. The Government have made money available so that councils can freeze their council tax for a third year in a row. This is a very important way of demonstrating that we are on the side of people who want to work hard and get on and who struggle to pay the bills. Frankly, all councils should look at the money that is available and recognise that a council tax freeze is in the interests of all our citizens.

[Dr Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test) (Lab)]

When did the Prime Minister become aware of the plans to close Ford plants at Southampton and Dagenham, and was he aware of those plans when the Government awarded a large sum of money from the regional growth fund to that company just a few days earlier?

[The Prime Minister]

Obviously these issues were discussed, and we work very closely with all the automotive industry companies in the United Kingdom. As I said earlier, the news from most of them—from Nissan, from Toyota and from Jaguar Land Rover—has been extremely positive. What happened at Ford in Southampton is clearly very regrettable, but we must do everything we can to help those people into work.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

Q11. I am delighted that the economy is finally growing, and green growth is a key part of this. Is the Prime Minister still committed to this being the greenest Government ever, particularly when it comes to his policies on renewable energy?

[The Prime Minister]

Under this Government we have seen more investment in green energy in three years than we had from Labour in 13. The green investment bank that we promised is up and running. The carbon floor price that we spoke about is in place. This is indeed a very green Government and we are sticking to our promises.

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

Q12. The number of people waiting more than four hours in accident and emergency units has more than doubled in the past two years, and the Prime Minister will not intervene to stop the closures of A and E units at Central Middlesex hospital and Ealing hospital; and we now know about Lewisham—and I suspect, despite his weasel words, Kettering hospital too. What confidence can my constituents have that if they end up in casualty they will not have to wait longer for A and E services too?

[The Prime Minister]

I have to say to the hon. Gentleman that I could not have been any clearer about the future of Kettering hospital, and for him to say that is scaremongering of the worst kind. Let me tell him what is happening at the hospitals that serve his constituents. In May 2010, there were 52 patients waiting longer than 12 months. How many are there now? None, under this Government. That is what is actually happening, because we are putting the money into the NHS and Labour would take it out.

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

Further to the result of the vote on 18 October regarding the contentious decision to axe 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and given that we have very recently, only last night, met the Secretary of State for Defence, will the Prime Minister meet me and other interested Members from across the House to discuss this issue?

[The Prime Minister]

I am always happy to talk to colleagues about this issue, as are, I know, the Ministry of Defence and the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend knows, we have had to make difficult decisions to put in place the future structure of the Army, with 82,000 regular soldiers and a larger reserve of 30,000 Territorial Army soldiers. I think that is the right approach. Clearly we have had to make some difficult decisions about regiments and about battalions, and in that we were guided by trying to save as many regiments and cap badges as possible. I think that the proposals have taken that into account and are right, but of course the Defence Secretary will go on listening to representations.

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q13. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the overall cost of the changes to child benefit, which are due to be introduced next January, will be more than £100 million?

[The Prime Minister]

The changes that we are making to child benefit, where we are taking child benefit away altogether from those people earning over £60,000, are going to save around £2 billion. It is necessary to take tough decisions in order to deal with the massive deficit—bigger than Greece’s, bigger than Spain’s—that the hon. Gentleman’s party left us. I have to say that I find it completely inexplicable that the Labour party, which says that it wants those with the broadest backs to share some of the burden, opposes the idea of taking child benefit away from people who earn over £60,000, £70,000, £80,000 and £90,000. I do not see why those on the Opposition Front Bench should go on collecting their child benefit when we are having to make so many other difficult decisions.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Douglas Gill International in my constituency on its Queen’s award for enterprise for successfully exporting sports marine wear? Does he agree that this is a fine example of British business on the up, promoting the best of British and, indeed, the best of Erewash?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. We need to have export-led growth in this country and a rebalancing of our economy. That is what the increase in exports, manufacturing and industrial production is all about, but we need to go further and faster, which, indeed, is what Michael Heseltine’s excellent report today is all about.

Points of Order

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

12:31

[Sir Roger Gale (North Thanet) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. It has not escaped the notice of this member of the Procedure Committee—and I doubt that it has escaped yours—that during topical questions to the Secretary of State for International Development, two of the questions were put by Front-Bench spokesmen and neither of them was topical in its content. There is a grave danger, is there not, that the whole purpose of topical questions might be undermined if they are monopolised by Front-Bench spokesmen instead of Back Benchers?

[Mr Speaker]

What I would say to the hon. Gentleman is that I always keep a beady eye on these matters. I will reflect carefully on what he has said. It has been a practice of long standing for Opposition Front Benchers to come in to an extent, but there is a balance to be struck and I am very happy to consider whether that balance is right. I accept the point of order in the spirit in which it has been volunteered to the House by the hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Procedure Committee and who is now, I think, the most senior member of the Panel of Chairs.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

I am not sure that there is a further to that point of order, but we will take the hon. Gentleman’s point of order nevertheless.

[Robert Halfon]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. There are reports that film moguls are going to be allowed to use Big Ben. Could you ensure that Members of this House will be able to vote on that decision if it is made?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman is usually keenly attentive to his chances to contribute to debates in the Chamber. May I suggest to him that the debate on the Floor of the House on 8 November might be a suitable opportunity for him to seek to catch my eye or that of the occupant of the Chair at the time? He will then be able to develop his thoughts on this matter in full detail.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Might it be possible to place in The House magazine an article, perhaps written by the Clerk, on the importance of using the third person singular, rather than “you”, in this House? This is not just fussy parliamentarianism, but a very important point that allows us to exchange the most bitter views without making them personal. We should not “you” it, but make references in the third person. We should not throw away what is quite an important protection for us. We can be friends outside the House whatever anger we have in this Chamber, provided that we keep it to the third person.

[Mr Speaker]

I appreciate the support of the right hon. Gentleman and think that his point is valid. I will reflect on his particular suggestion. Certainly, if there is to be an author, it is scarcely conceivable that there could be a better author than the person whom he has just identified.

If there are no further points of order and the appetite for them is exhausted and the Clerk is suitably complimented, we can move to the 10-minute rule motion.

European Union Free Movement Directive 2004 (Disapplication)

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

12:34

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to disapply the European Union Free Movement Directive 2004/38/EC; and for connected purposes.

I am pleased to introduce the Bill, which is intended to restate a basic tenet of national sovereignty—the control of our borders, and the principle that who comes to live and work in our country from foreign countries should be a matter largely for the British people and their elected representatives in this House, and not solely at the discretion and by leave of a foreign political entity. Free movement between sovereign countries should first and foremost be dictated by our own national interests. That basic truth seems to have been lost in a rush to be as communautaire as possible since 2004, to the detriment of many of the constituents in whose name we serve.

Few would deny that it was a major error of judgment for the Labour Government not to exercise their right to a moratorium on the free movement directive for seven years, as most other EU countries did. It could be argued that it retarded efforts to tackle welfare dependency, low educational attainment and problems with skills and social mobility among many indigenous British workers.

A recent YouGov poll found that 78% of voters who had deserted Labour since 1997 wanted net migration to be reduced to zero. Even 67% of voters who had remained loyal to the party believed the same thing. There is no evidence to suggest that they regard EU migration differently from non-EU migration.

I argue that the forthcoming free movement of potentially huge numbers of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens to the UK from early 2014 will render the Government’s welfare reforms null and void, such will be the likely distortion of the labour market. In addition, as things stand, it is very likely to put a huge strain on delivery in pinch points across the UK, an issue to which I will return later. The UK Statistics Authority estimated that in the second quarter of 2012, there were 1.4 million EU citizens in work in the UK, 107,000 unemployed and 436,000 economically inactive, and 388,000 children of EU citizens.

The Bill is not about ending immigration from the EU, although there is little empirical or academic evidence that mass EU migration since 2004 has been a definitive net benefit to the UK. Instead, it is intended to ensure that Her Majesty’s Government vary the free movement directive, not least as a response to significant public concerns about immigration. It is about not repealing but disapplying the current directive.

The Bill is about ensuring that the most talented and hard-working foreign workers and their families come to this country from the EU to help our economy grow and thrive in a fiercely competitive global marketplace. It also highlights an asymmetry in the Government’s stated policy on reducing net migration to the tens of thousands. We rightly focus on that policy, but we accept EU migration as a fait accompli.

Hon. Members will recall a television documentary shown in 2006 entitled “The Poles Are Coming!”, which presaged the impact of mass EU migration on my constituency. I make no apology for seeing the issue through the prism of my constituency and the impact that uncontrolled and unplanned mass migration has had on it. Peterborough is a regional hub for transport, logistics, food processing and packaging, agriculture and horticulture, but youth unemployment nevertheless stands at 11.5%, almost twice the regional average, and almost 12,000 people in my constituency are on out-of-work benefits. Some 34,480 national insurance numbers have been issued in Peterborough since 2004, in a local authority area whose population in 2001 was 156,000, and new arrivals make up one in five of the population, which is currently estimated at 184,000.

There is an acute shortage of primary school places. In nine of the 33 primary schools in my constituency, two thirds of the children do not speak English as their first language, and in two schools the figure is more than 96%. The problem is one of not just resources but churn—the in-term movement in and out of schools of hundreds of children of itinerant and other seasonal workers—which regrettably has an impact on educational attainment. Likewise, health services in the city are under considerable strain. The number of births in the city leapt from 3,395 in 2003 to 4,680 last year, and GP registrations of EU migrants have almost trebled over the past 10 years.

The free movement directive is primary legislation that governs the right of member state nationals, and their families, to move or reside freely in other member states for up to three months, without any conditions other than that they hold a valid passport and identity card. The directive specifically makes it clear, inter alia, that people should have “sufficient resources” for themselves and their family members so as not to become a “burden” on the “social assistance cover” in the host country, and that they should hold comprehensive sickness insurance.

The host member state is not obliged to provide social assistance during the first three months of residence, and UK law precludes EU citizens and family members from residing purely on the basis of that initial right to reside. Indeed, the UK has a habitual residence test. Perversely, however, some benefits such as jobseeker’s allowance are granted under UK law. That is an example of the UK gold plating as the directive’s exemption is clear.

Host member states are permitted to require EU citizens and their family members to register with the authorities and impose proportionate and non-discriminatory sanctions on those who fail to do so. The UK Government fail to do that, and—bizarrely—the Home Office told me in a parliamentary answer last week that such actions are “optional”.

Member states are also permitted to restrict rights of entry on grounds of

“public policy, public security or public health”.

However, the UK Government have failed ever to test those conditions or the specific issue of “proportionality” that is implicit in the directive in respect of the deportation of persistent and prolific criminals who are EU citizens. The Government have rarely invoked their ability to refuse or withdraw any right under the directive in cases of

“abuse of rights or fraud”.

Recently, the Spanish Government, which are facing calamitous levels of unemployment, have begun to interpret the free movement directive much more robustly. All EU citizens and family members have to register with the authorities if they wish to reside in Spain for more than three months, and through that process the Spanish authorities can check whether the requirements of the directive regarding residence after that period are fulfilled. The authorities also require notification of any change of address or marital status.

In summary, the free movement directive confers the right to reside on many people who do not work or who do not have enough resources to be self-sufficient. It allows ready access to the UK’s welfare system and throws up obstacles to the implementation of robust systems to check that nationals from other EU member states, and their families, are abiding by the rules and do not pose a drain on the health service or a criminal threat to society. It prevents automatic deportation of nationals of other EU member states when they have committed a crime.

The formula in the Bill for stopping objectionable aspects of EU law, such as the free movement directive, is straightforward. The legislation simply has to state that its provisions apply notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972.

Under my Bill, EU nationals and their family members would have the right to reside in the UK for up to three months, on the basis of a valid passport or ID card. That would facilitate tourism, and give those willing the opportunity to find work. With the right to reside for three months, EU nationals would have to be in work or self-sufficient, and they would gain access to benefits only in exceptional circumstances. EU nationals and their family members would need to be registered, and they would have no access to public funds during the first 18 months of residence. After 18 months, British citizens would be given priority over EU nationals for local authority housing allocation, which is in particularly scarce supply. There would be no right to reside based solely on being in vocational training until the EU national in question had completed five years’ continuous employment.

The right of permanent residence would typically be granted only after a continuous 10-year period of legal residence, rather than five years as at present. EU nationals and family members would be deported after being convicted of a crime in the UK and sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, or more, in the same way as other foreign nationals.

Time does not permit me to elucidate further, but this Bill would be popular and promote fairness and equity, not least for the hard-pressed UK taxpayer. It would facilitate the migration of only the most talented EU citizens to our country, and seek to restore the almost forgotten principle of member state subsidiarity and UK national sovereignty. It is for us to decide about our borders and who we allow into our country, and for those reasons, I strongly commend this Bill to the House.

12:45

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I rise to oppose this sad and bad Bill. The Bill is sad because I find it uncomfortable to hear in the House remarks about fellow Europeans that cast them in a uniformly negative light. There are more British citizens living and working in other EU member states as a share of our population than there are EU member states’ citizens living here. The Bill is a message to the 700,000 to 800,000 British citizens who are made to feel welcome in Spain despite complaints that they are taking advantage of Spanish health care, old-age care and social security services; it is gravely worrying to the many British citizens who are opening businesses all over the EU; and it is an insult to the many EU citizens who live and work in our country and contribute enormously to all levels of our economy.

This is a bad Bill, and I wonder whether the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) has discussed it with employers in Peterborough and the wider region, which is one of the great agricultural and food processing centres of our economy. The east Europeans are there, as they are in Hull, which is also a great food processing centre in the English national economy, because local employers cannot find local workers to do the work. That has been the pull of immigration throughout the ages. Enoch Powell had to allow many people from different Afro-Caribbean countries into the NHS, and the textile factories and foundries of west and south Yorkshire had to invite many people from Pakistan, because they could not get the legendary indigenous working class to do those jobs.

Mr Evan Davis of the BBC made a programme on that very subject. He went to King’s Lynn and the region and tried to find local workers who were willing to get up at 5 am to fill the sandwiches or to pick fruit and vegetables in uncomfortable conditions, but he could find none. The Bill would condemn to abolition the many firms in the hon. Gentleman’s region and elsewhere in the country that use that labour.

Let me turn to my more fundamental objection. The Bill is part of the growing attempt by the Conservative party to break apart our relationship with the EU. The four freedoms—the movement of goods, capital, people and ideas—are fundamental. We cannot sustain the other three freedoms and say that we cannot have the free movement of people. In the 1980s, we were grateful for the free movement of people, when the “Auf Wiedersehen, Pet” generation had to leave their own country because of the disastrous economic policies of the Prime Minister—I forget her name—and go and find jobs in Germany.

If the hon. Gentleman wants to destroy the four freedoms, he should come out and say so, but he should not think we can have sauce for the British goose, but not sauce for the German Gans or the French oie—I do not know what the Polish word for “goose” is. We cannot have a rule that says we will control every EU citizen who comes into our country and not have the 26 other EU member states saying exactly the same thing. The Minister for Immigration has made that point repeatedly in Home Office questions.

Specifically on the question of the 2004 enlargement, the hon. Member for Peterborough has confused—I do not mean this disrespectfully, but he may be confused—the free movement of citizens and the free movement of workers. The moment countries join the EU, their citizens have complete free movement as citizens. They must obey local laws—they must register with a police station in Germany, and register and have a residents permit if they want to live in France. I do not object to that part of the hon. Gentleman’s Bill. That is why I was in favour of national identity cards—I do not want to raise old issues, but they are how the rest of Europe has some idea of who comes to live within the different frontiers of EU member states.

The hon. Gentleman is right that the free movement of workers could have been delayed by seven years. To begin with, France and Germany applied those measures, but within two years they found they had become unworkable and lifted them. With the free movement of people, Poles, Slovakians and so on came into France and Germany. Different nationalities go to different areas of the world. People from south-east EU member states, including the incoming Romanians, tend to gravitate to Italy and Spain, while we get Poles—for historic reasons, we have a huge Polish community here, and have had since the end of the war. We have Ryanair and easyJet flying backwards and forwards with utterly full planes between all the main British and Polish cities.

I welcome that for one simple reason: Britain has always depended on a flow of European workers, particularly the citizens of the sovereign Republic of Ireland. The greatest number of non-British EU workers on the Olympic games site, which was finished magnificently and on time thanks to a huge input of EU workers, came from the Republic of Ireland. If the hon. Gentleman’s Bill was put into full force, we would be saying to every friend and family in Ireland, “You’re not welcome here, except on highly restrictive terms”. Coming partly from a Scottish-Irish family, I find that very depressing. The free flow of people between our two countries has been a positive thing.

The hon. Gentleman is right that after 2008, when we had the crash and the sudden spike in unemployment, employment conditions got extremely tight. As we speak, unemployment is rising in Leeds, Bradford and Rotherham, as again we create a two-nation Britain under this Government. The plain fact is that hundreds of thousands of firms as well as landlords, as well as our tax and national insurance system—everyone who works has to pay taxes and NI—have benefited from the contribution of non-British EU workers. Hundred of thousands of firms that might otherwise have relocated outside the UK in search of hard-working and, yes, low-wage workers—that is a problem—stayed in the UK.

The answer to that is to build more houses and schools, and to ensure that workers in all firms are treated properly. We should be applying the agency workers directive and the new living wage idea to ensure that employers cannot discriminate against local employees—because they would have to pay everybody fairly. That is my solution to the problem. The solution is not to put up barriers or destroy the free movement of people. If we do that, we kiss goodbye to the free movement of goods and capital. Let us not think that we can take away one pillar of what makes the EU work and assume that the other pillars will stay standing. They will not. Any discrimination that we choose to apply against any fellow EU citizen will be turned back and applied to us. We need visas to go to Australia and many Commonwealth countries, and many of the latter refuse to accept our agricultural products, but they are fully accepted in every EU member state.

I once asked Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, “What about the Poles coming to Britain?”, and he said, “Every time a Pole feels he has to leave Poland for Britain it is a disaster, a national tragedy, a loss to our nation.” He is right. We need to build the economies of these countries. Mrs Thatcher massively increased UK contributions to the EU in the 1980s in order, she said, to help grow Ireland, Portugal, Spain and Greece. At that time, those countries were growing, and Ireland became a country of immigration, not emigration.

For those reasons, I ask the House to reject the Bill. I do not propose to divide the House, but, without wishing to challenge the integrity or position of the hon. Gentleman, I hope that every decent Member of Parliament will think a bit more deeply and understand that a Britain open to the world is good for us. We cannot be open for business and closed to foreigners.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Mr Stewart Jackson, Heather Wheeler, Mr Frank Field, Priti Patel, Mr Philip Hollobone, Gordon Henderson, Henry Smith, Mr Andrew Turner, Zac Goldsmith, Caroline Nokes, Kate Hoey and Mr James Clappison present the Bill.

Mr Stewart Jackson accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 December 2012, and to be printed (Bill 86).

Local government Finance Bill (Programme) (No. 3)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Local Government Finance Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 10 January 2012 in the last session (Local Government Finance Bill (Programme)) and 21 May 2012 (Local Government Finance Bill (Programme) (No. 2)):

Consideration of Lords Amendments

1. Proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion three hours after their commencement at today’s sitting.

Subsequent stages

2. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question being put.

3. The Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Local Government Finance Bill

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

Consideration of Lords amendments

[Mr Speaker]

I must draw the House’s attention to the fact that financial privilege is involved in Lords amendments 1, 2, 4, 5 10 and 19 to 85. If the House agrees them, I will cause an appropriate entry to be made in the Journal.

Clause 1

Local retention of non-domestic rates

12:56

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 1.

[Mr Speaker]

With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments 2 and 19 to 82.

[Brandon Lewis]

This group contains all the amendments made in the other place to the provisions allowing for a business rates retention scheme. The scheme will, for the first time in a generation, allow local areas to share in the proceeds of growth. Continuing the precedent set when the Bill was considered in this House, each amendment was introduced by the Government to make the changes that we believed would improve the Bill. The majority of the amendments are highly technical and, in several cases, have been introduced in direct response to the discussions that we have continued to hold with local government on the operation of the scheme. Other recommendations give effect to local government’s preferred approach or, in one case, to a recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Owing to their largely technical nature, I do not plan to explain each amendment in the group in detail—though I could be tempted—but I will outline what they do. They enable the Government to deliver on our commitment fully to fund the five-year discount on business rates up to the state aid de minimis level for businesses moving to an enterprise zone before April 2015. They provide for the scheme to operate on local government’s preferred administrative approach. That approach—the collection fund approach—is currently used for council tax, and so is familiar to it, and works well. They also provide for the appropriate assurance of calculation and information supplied under the business rates retention scheme.

The amendments will also clarify some points of detail for local government. In particular, they will remove any ambiguity about the basis on which local authorities can apply for a safety net payment on account—an important process. Authorities anticipate that they will need safety net support and will be able to access that support before the end of the financial year, and to simplify the arrangements for designing a pool without reducing the safeguards in place for pool authorities by removing the duty to undertake consultation with those likely to be affected by a pooling designation or revocation and in direct response to strongly held views of local government on this point.

Taken together, these technical amendments to the non-domestic rating provisions will give effect to smooth implementation of the rates retention scheme, and I urge hon. Members to agree to them.

13:00

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

As the Minister said, many of the amendments in this group are technical. I do not wish to take up too much time on them—[Interruption.] That is the Minister’s job, not mine. If his Whips want him to talk for longer, that is his problem. There are a number of issues I want to raise in relation to one or two amendments.

We do not have a problem with Lords amendment 1 or the subsequent amendments dealing with discretionary rate relief in enterprise zones, or with Lords amendment 2, which implements a recommendation by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We support that, as we did in the other place.

The group of amendments beginning with Lords amendment 19, however, which deals with administration of the rate-retention system, raises a couple of questions on which I would appreciate clarification from the Minister. Billing authorities are being required to estimate their income before the start of the financial year. That estimate will determine the amount to be paid to Government as a central share and the amount to be paid to precepting authorities, to be transferred to their own funds. There are a number of amendments consequent on that change. If amounts are different, I understand that they will appear as surpluses or deficits on the authority’s collection fund. However, will the Minister clarify what would happen where a firm paying a major proportion of the authority’s business rates closed down mid-year—an example we have raised throughout the Bill’s progress? Surely that would lead to a deficit in the collection fund, so what would the local authority’s position be? Can a collection fund be run at a deficit, or would the shortfall have to be made up from reserves? I should make it clear that I am talking about a really catastrophic event, such as a firm that pays maybe 20% or 30% of the business rates in an area closing down, as happened with Alcan in Northumberland, for example.

As the Minister said, Lords amendments 34 to 38 deal with the arrangements for assurance. It is rather typical of the muddled way in which the Government go about things that they are having to make arrangements to take effect subsequent to the abolition of the Audit Commission before they have actually abolished it—so far they have only a draft Bill. The amendments ensure that the Secretary of State will define the assurance requirements though directions and produce certification instructions—I am sure he will work on them personally over the Christmas holiday. The amendments show the mess that the Government have got themselves into. They have no legislation ready to abolish the Audit Commission, yet they are having to put in place provisions in this Bill. The Government have ended up giving yet more power to the Secretary of State, in what was supposed to be a Bill to give more power to local authorities.

I would be grateful if the Minister clarified those points before we move on to the next group of amendments.

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

I welcome the stance that my hon. Friend the Minister has taken with this Bill. It is sensible to adopt the Lords amendments that he has outlined, and I am glad to see them. When I was responsible for the Bill in my previous role, they seemed to me to offer useful clarification and to strengthen the Bill.

I am particularly pleased that my hon. Friend referred to pooling. It is important that we encourage local authorities to explore to the maximum the opportunities that pooling makes available. The reason for that—the reason I think the Lords amendments are helpful—is that as the economy picks up, as it will, development opportunities will in many cases enhance the interdependency of neighbouring authorities. My London borough of Bromley is a good example. Many people in Bromley work in central London, but they are effectively part of the same economic area. The borough council pays for the services it gives people as residents, who contribute to the London economy through their work in the west end, the City of London or elsewhere, including, in some cases, across London borough boundaries—they may work in Croydon or somewhere such as that.

There is therefore great merit in giving local authorities not only the maximum flexibility to pool, but the maximum encouragement to do so, because one would not want a council to approve a substantial development on its boundaries that might bring it all the financial benefits, but which needed planning support from neighbouring authorities under the duty to co-operate and their good will because of where the work force come from. Pooling is important, and the Lords amendments give us sensible flexibilities.

Importantly, pooling fits with some of the other parts of the Government’s localism agenda. One of the arguments made earlier—I noted it in their lordships’ discussion—was about enabling local authorities to have adequate critical mass with their retained business rates, which they can use for tax increment financing, for example. The Bill has been important in taking steps forward on that. A pool will have a greater critical mass of funding, which can be used to approach the markets and enables greater leverage.

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend did a great deal of work on the Bill, for which I thank him. The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government visited Manchester some months ago, where we saw some fantastic examples of regeneration. Some had gone incredibly well, although admittedly one or two had not gone quite so well. Does he feel that pooling arrangements are likely to help such projects in future?

[Robert Neill]

I believe they can. Manchester is an interesting example. Indeed, my hon. Friend must be intuitive, because I was about to say that pooling can often fit sensibly with the other development that we have seen—in which Manchester has been something of a pathfinder—which is the establishment of joint authorities. It is a classic means of dealing with co-operation by local authorities from the bottom up without the need for—dare I say it in the current climate?—unitary reorganisation. The ability to form a joint authority creates the ability to procure jointly, pool business rates jointly and, therefore, invest jointly, as well as a raft of other things, which are beyond the scope of this Bill.

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

I am with the hon. Gentleman on pooling and how economies such as those in Greater Manchester work, but he should not get too carried away with the Manchester example, because my understanding is that Tory Trafford and Liberal Democrat Stockport are not very keen on the idea of pooling resources.

[Robert Neill]

All those authorities signed up to the concept of the joint authority. Any pooling will have to involve sensible negotiation between the various authorities about what is in their mutual interest. I would have thought that a degree of caution was perfectly understandable at this stage in the process. The important thing we are doing in this Bill is putting in place the legislative means to enable areas such as Manchester and other areas with pooling to take up more of the opportunities as, I hope, confidence grows. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will confirm that the ability to pool is yet another reason the Government have no intention of going down the route of imposing top-down unitary reorganisation—I am sure this is a timely moment at which to remind ourselves of that point. I hope that the opportunity to pool will also encourage other conurbations to develop a similar approach to that being taken in Greater Manchester. Pooling would provide a means of achieving many of the benefits of what were once described as city regions, without the need for the top-down imposition that went with those arrangements.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend envisage pooling working across county boundaries? My constituency lies in the east Lancashire economic area—within which co-operation would work well—but quite a lot of the economic activity spreads over into Yorkshire. For example, a lot of businesses have their headquarters in Lancashire and premises in Yorkshire.

[Robert Neill]

I must confess that my view on that has shifted somewhat. I was initially sceptical about cross-county boundary pooling, because of the potential administrative complexities involved. For example, we would have to consider how to deal with the tier split where two-tier areas were involved. It might be easier to achieve where only adjoining unitaries were involved. We should not rule it out totally, however. It is important to recognise that the proposal that we are debating fits into the broader localism agenda, in that it recognises that economic geography might not follow the purely administrative geography of an area. I am in favour of maximum flexibility, and my hon. Friend has raised a good example. In my area, Bromley would probably fall within the area of Greater London, but there are some local authorities on the edge of London, such as Thurrock, Slough and Watford, whose economic geography would make them as much a part of the London economic area as of the shire county of which they are a part. I hope that the Government will consider this as an option, provided that the technical issues can be resolved. Perhaps the Minister will deal in detail with the important point that my hon. Friend has just raised.

It is particularly useful to explore that point in the context of the pool providing an opportunity to raise funding for infrastructure investment. Earlier this week, in our debate on the Public Service Pensions Bill, we discussed raising the cap on the amount of local authority pension funds that could be put into infrastructure investment. I favour raising the cap, as the Bill proposes. The proposal before us today would provide yet another means of raising revenue streams that could be put together to enhance the amount of a local authority’s investment leverage.

It is worth bearing it in mind that that happens elsewhere in Europe. We see a degree of it in the Federal Republic of Germany, but the area that I know best is in France. The French have developed quite sophisticated models of co-operation, known as communautés urbaines. They are generally similar to a Greater Manchester-style joint authority, stretching across a conurbation. An example that I know well is that of greater Toulouse, which, thanks to the pooling of resources, has been able to procure, invest and deliver infrastructure jointly. This has led to the development of a metro system in Toulouse, a tramway going out to the suburbs and improved road links to Blagnac airport. Toulouse is an historic city with a considerable learning pool in the centre, but it is also inextricably linked to Aérospatiale and the avionics industries around Blagnac, which are outside the municipal boundary. I am reminded that such co-operation was the logic behind local enterprise partnerships.

[James Duddridge (Rochford and Southend East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend knows my constituency well. I see parallels between his examples and the expansion of Southend airport, which is owned by Southend unitary authority but located in the district of Rochford. How would the proposals impact on my constituents? It sounds as though they could present an exciting opportunity.

[Robert Neill]

I am quite well acquainted with my hon. Friend’s constituency, and I have visited Southend airport on a number of occasions. He has provided a classic example of how pooling could unlock significant opportunities. As he knows, Southend’s boundaries are tightly drawn around its urban area, but it is clearly part of a broader south Essex conurbation. Its development opportunities, of which the airport is an example, lie almost entirely outside its boundary, but people would think of them as being part of Southend because they form part of the economic area. It would cause all manner of upheaval if we were to resolve the problems through the top-down imposition of a unitary structure in south-east Essex, as we have seen happen elsewhere.

13:15

This kind of pooling, however, would give Southend and the neighbouring Rochford district an incentive to share the benefits that would come from the development of areas in Rochford that were on the periphery of Southend. The pooling of the retained rates would enhance Rochford’s council tax base. The measure would also make Southend a more attractive business destination, because it would be able to open up economic development and infrastructure opportunities that it would be unable to do entirely within its own boundary.

My hon. Friend’s constituency provides a good example of how pooling could work. I can envisage Southend, Rochford and, say, Castle Point forming a natural economic subset that would hold together very willingly. The south-east local enterprise partnership, comprising Essex, Kent and East Sussex, is the largest in the country. That would probably not be regarded as a logical area in which to pool, although it might be more appropriate in some of the smaller LEPs that fit more tightly the economic geography of their area.

Speaking as an Essex boy myself, I should point out that, in areas such as that of my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East (James Duddridge), pooling would take place across boundaries, in a sense. Although all the places concerned are all in Essex, Southend is a unitary authority and the two areas surrounding it—its hinterland—are still districts in the two-tier county of Essex. The point about the ability to pool across boundaries is important, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address the technical issues involved. In this case, how would we resolve the question of Southend unitary authority not having to do a tier split of its benefit from the pool, even though the two surrounding districts would have to take into account the tier split? I do not think that the problem is beyond being reconciled, and such pooling would provide a powerful tool to encourage inward investment into Southend.

The same would apply to another part of the Thames Gateway with which I am familiar, on the other side of the river, in the Medway towns. It would be sensible to give them the opportunity to have a pooling arrangement with their adjoining districts in the two-tier county of Kent. It would therefore make sense to sort out any technical obstacles to that type of flexibility. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) suggested, even starker cases that cross long-established country boundaries could still make sense in economic terms. There is considerable merit in the proposals.

It has rightly been observed that this proposal is by no means the only element in what is a considerable stream of technical amendments in this group. It would probably be appropriate if I now dealt with the others as best I can—unless I stray off course, Mr Speaker, although I know that you will not let me do that.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all looking forward to the development of the hon. Gentleman’s further arguments with eager anticipation.

[Robert Neill]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

[James Duddridge]

Before my hon. Friend rushes on to his next point, may I slow him down a little and draw him back to the pooling of funds? He has spoken eloquently about my constituency of Rochford and Southend East, but does he think that areas involved in such pooling arrangements need to be contiguous? For example, there are many synergies between Thurrock, a unitary, and Southend, another unitary. The two are close, but they do not actually touch. Similarly, along the Thames Gateway line, we see places such as Margate and other seaside towns that could work well together even though they are not neighbours. Would they still be able to pool?

[Robert Neill]

That is taking the argument beyond what I was considering when I left office, which gave me more time to reflect on these matters. My hon. Friend and I both had a little time to reflect over the summer. Like me, he has been putting it to constructive use. I think there is merit in providing that option: why not? If the economic geography is such that the two areas hang together, why should we rule out such a possibility? In this day and age, investment decisions will be driven precisely by factors such as economic characteristics, infrastructure opportunities and the nature of the work force and the market, rather than by geographic contiguity alone.

I mentioned earlier, for example, that Slough has a great deal in common with the economy of west London, without being actually contiguous to the London borough of Hillingdon. As I recall, a little bit of the county of Berkshire is located between the two. If such arrangements were wanted, merit could be seen in allowing Slough to enter into a pool with Hillingdon, with some other west London authorities or with Watford. Equally, going in the other direction, Slough might want to involve Reading. There is an argument for saying that there is a natural economic geography that starts almost at the Hammersmith flyover and which goes out through Brentford and then through what is generally called silicon valley. Those opportunities are also important.

[George Hollingbery]

My hon. Friend is making an interesting argument. I wonder if I might plumb his expertise a little further. It occurs to me that some of the local enterprise partnerships that have been formed are natural economic areas that plainly do not run according to local authority boundaries. I am thinking particularly of what I think is called the Gatwick partnership, which runs from Croydon all the way down to Brighton. Indeed, in my own county of Hampshire, we have the M3 partnership, which runs up that artery towards the businesses and markets of London. I want to examine my hon. Friend’s knowledge of this subject. Is it possible for local authorities to pool partially, as it seems to me that in certain cases—with the Solent partnership, for example—there would be some logic in that? It seems right and proper that some of the moneys from Portsmouth and Southampton should be invested in that partnership or be centred on its work, but perhaps those two cities could look outside that area as well. Will he explain how that might work?

[Robert Neill]

I suppose it comes back to the technical issues that I mentioned on coping with tier splits in two-tier areas. We should not rule out the ability to try to achieve that, particularly if it can be done by agreement. It would be interesting to see if partial pooling could be achieved. It might not be something that happens at the beginning, but the point to remember about the whole of this local government finance reform is that it is making a major change in providing the legal mechanisms and the tools necessary for local authorities to use in relation to retained business rates. That is very important in itself, as this is, after all, the first time in many of our political lifetimes that the Treasury has forgone an element of revenue.

At the moment, all the business rates are, in effect, nationalised, taken back to the Treasury and distributed on a formulaic basis, which does not provide the sort of incentive for economic development and investment that we all wish to see. The Bill puts that right. I hope it will be possible to make pooling more attractive over time. As the deficit is paid down and the economy grows, the local share available to go into the pool can perhaps increase from its current 50% level. That would make retention as a whole and pooling more attractive, because the pot produced from the pool will, of course, be greater, and therefore even more attractive as a potential investment vehicle. I think we should examine the case with some care.

[Jake Berry]

As my hon. Friend develops his argument, I would be interested to hear how his views might relate to east Lancashire. When we formed the LEP, the borough council of Rossendale, which I represent, did not want to go into a wider Lancashire LEP. Eventually, it did so, however, and I think the then Housing Minister made absolutely the right decision on that occasion, as the arrangement has proved to be a great success. When it comes to the pooling of two-tier authorities, I could foresee a situation in which Rossendale council, which looks south towards Manchester for economic growth, would want to team up with the Associated Greater Manchester Authorities, but Lancashire county council could wish it to remain within Lancashire county for pooling purposes. In that exact situation, in my hon. Friend’s opinion, who would have sway and which argument would win?

[Robert Neill]

If I were a lawyer, like my hon. Friend, I would be advising the parties to try to come to some negotiation rather than litigating, if I might put it that way, as it would not be in the authorities’ interest to get into a dispute. The general approach has been, of course, that in the two-tier areas the bulk of the incentive should rightly go to the planning authority, as its members have to take the decision to allow development that may sometimes be controversial. It is right for such an authority to say to its electors, or to the people who sometimes complain about what the planning authorities do, that there are benefits to come from looking at the bigger picture, some of which will be captured for the local communities. I can see why that would be a sensible development, but it does not mean that I have become an advocate of unitary restructuring. It might be simpler, but the fact remains that the two-tier option has been taken into account in respect of the structures put in place by the Bill.

[John Healey (Wentworth and Dearne) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

If I may finish the point, I will happily give way to my old sparring partner. I think we should be prepared, as we develop the scheme, to provide maximum flexibility.

[John Healey]

I apologise for not having been able to be present at the start of the hon. Gentleman’s contribution, but I have come in at a very interesting part of his speech. Does this not show up the exact problem with two-tier areas and two-tier authorities, in that fostering and supporting economic growth is so much more than simply the planning system, as it involves education, skills and transport? Many such responsibilities in two-tier areas are held at county level rather than at district level.

[Robert Neill]

I do not see it as a problem; the issue can be grappled with and dealt with. The right hon. Gentleman and I have debated unitary restructuring on more than one occasion over the years, and we end up on different sides of the fence. My point is that through co-operation it is possible to ensure that the economic development levers, which generally sit with the county council, can be sensibly allied to the development levers, which sit with the district council. A good example can be found in Essex, as Chelmsford has a successful local planning authority in Chelmsford borough council—it might now be Chelmsford city council since the town has been given city status—and has not experienced the friction that is sometimes used as an argument to justify unitary authorities. Both the county and its county town have recognised that it is in both their economic interests to grow Chelmsford as a significant hub in that part of the world. In that case, unitary reorganisation was not necessary to achieve significant economic regeneration in Chelmsford.

I have to say that some of the downsides of unitary reorganisation that we saw under the previous Government, when it was enforced against the wishes of the local authorities, were a distraction from the serious job of getting on with economic development, promotion of the area and encouraging investment by sensible planning decisions. These issues can never be seen in isolation. The incentives in the Bill, linked with the duty to co-operate in planning terms, provide a further incentive for sensible arrangements not only between adjoining local planning authorities, but with the county authority as a highway authority, as highway considerations are often important in determining where development is acceptable and therefore where the investment might come from.

[Richard Fuller (Bedford) (Con)]

rose—

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

There is a bit of queue. I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) first, as he rose first.

[Richard Fuller]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s generosity in giving way, first because I know that he is eager to deal with other matters in his speech and I do not wish to delay him unduly, and secondly because to describe myself as a novice when it comes to local government finance would be an insult to novices throughout the country. I have learned more about the subject as a result of listening to my hon. Friend, who exhibits the patience of Aristotle teaching one of his slower students.

13:30

My question relates partly to the issue of two-tier and one-tier local authorities and their decision-making processes, and partly to the interaction between the attitudes to pooling taken by local authorities and those taken by the local and broader business communities. May I briefly draw a parallel? Sometimes there is a clear understanding between teachers and people who wish to set up a free school, but the project is delayed by some intransigence or slowness of understanding on the part of the local authority. Similarly, different authorities have different ideas about how they wish to proceed. For example, my own county, which benefits from unitary structures, contains some rather small areas. Will my hon. Friend comment on that?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend has raised a couple of important points. I shall begin with the last, if I may—and I shall not forget the other Members who wish to intervene.

We should not make the error of thinking that unitary status is always a solution. Some unitary authorities that are on the small side do not follow their natural boundaries, and their critical mass is towards the lower end of the scale in terms of economic, financial and managerial capacity. It is clear to us now that the creation of a string of fairly small unitaries was not necessarily the best solution. We should not assume that unitary is always good and two-tier is always bad. Some unitaries work and some do not; some two-tier areas work, while in others there are tensions. We need to ensure that they work better in future, and I believe that the Bill and the Lords amendments will be one means of helping them to achieve that.

My hon. Friend’s point about perception is important too. I experienced some frustration when I was first elected as a councillor in the London borough of Havering in 1974—[Interruption.] I must tell the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) that it was a little after the Municipal Reform Act 1835, but it was a while ago nevertheless. In those days, not only was I one of the few members of our 60-odd-strong council who were interested in taking part in the pan-London bodies that we had to have, but I was regarded as very dangerous—dangerously outward-looking—because I had stood for the Greater London Council as well. In 1974, some members of the borough council still thought in terms of the two predecessor authorities. We did not have cabinets in those days, but there was concern about whether the committee chairmen were drawn sufficiently from the Romford end or the Hornchurch end, even if they were members of the same political party. That inward-looking tendency is one of the bigger challenges that we face in dealing with local government as a whole, but attitudes have improved massively since those days in 1974, which is to local government’s credit.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that we are discussing an amendment. I know that he has been tempted away from it by the hon. Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) and that he wishes to return to it, but I should like us to get past 1974, right up to date, and back to the amendment, on which I know that the hon. Gentleman was about to enlighten the House.

[Robert Neill]

You are, as always, the guardian of rectitude in this place, Mr Deputy Speaker, and, as you know, I am always the willing servant of rectitude in these matters. The point that I was making was that we had indeed moved on a great deal since 1974, in terms of thinking as well as chronology. The situation is better than it was. However, we still have to deal with some entrenched thinking. I believe that, by promoting pooling, the amendment can break down some of that thinking, which, as was pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedford, can spill into other areas of policy decision-making as well as those relating to local government finance. I hope that, by encouraging economic investment, pooling will make it easier and more desirable to provide the educational opportunities cited by my hon. Friend in the context of free schools. His point was well made: all the various legislative measures interact as part of a broader localism agenda.

Now I must not forget the hon. Member for Hartlepool, who tried to intervene earlier.

[Mr Iain Wright]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being characteristically generous and engaging. I want to move on from 1862, when he was first elected, and away from 1974, when you were born, Mr Deputy Speaker—I hope to catch your eye again: that is why I am trying to be as helpful as possible—to today. Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to look at Lord Heseltine’s review, which was published today, and which strikes me as very significant in relation to local economic development? In particular, has he had a chance to read recommendation 11? It states:

“All two-tier English local authorities outside London should pursue a path towards unitary status. The Government should encourage this and work with authorities to clarify the process and enable it to happen.”

Notwithstanding his earlier comments, does the hon. Gentleman agree with that?

[Robert Neill]

I must preface my remarks by saying that I cannot pretend to have read all 200-odd pages—

[Mr Wright]

There are 228.

[Robert Neill]

I note that the hon. Gentleman has both read them and counted them. Anyway, I cannot pretend to have read all of Lord Heseltine’s tour de force of a report, but the cursory reading that time allowed me while I was preparing my brief notes for the debate—[Laughter]—did give me a flavour of that helpful and valuable document. I think that it contains much that we, as a Government, would wish to take on board. As for the specific point raised by the hon. Gentleman in relation to recommendation 11, I do not agree with it, for reasons that I have already given. I believe that an imposed form of unitary restructuring is unnecessary, and that the devices and tools given to local authorities by the amendment reinforce the reasons for not following the route proposed by Lord Heseltine.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Richard Fuller) described himself as a novice. I am less modest—I thought that I understood the amendment before I came into the Chamber—but, despite the eloquence of my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), I have become somewhat confused. Perhaps you will allow me a slightly lengthy intervention, Mr Deputy Speaker, in order to avoid a lengthy speech from me later in the debate.

The “Commentary on Lords amendments” in the explanatory notes refers to “billing authorities” and “precepting authorities”. My hon. Friend has already referred to planning authorities and highways authorities. In fact, the commentary uses the phrase “major precepting authorities”, but does not explain what “major” means in this context. Perhaps I am slightly sensitive about such terms because I represent a slightly smaller precepting authority, but is a distinction being made between parish and district councils, or between major and minor precepting authorities? My hon. Friend knows a great deal more about these matters than I do, but I was equally confused by the reference to billing authorities, given that police and fire authorities are effectively billing authorities. What do those terms actually mean?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. You will be familiar, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a joke that is well known in local government finance circles. It is said that the formula grant is like the Schleswig-Holstein question. Only three people have ever understood it; one is dead, one has gone mad, and the third has forgotten. The same is true of some of the complexities of local government finance. When I arrived at the Department for Communities and Local Government, I was not wholly convinced that that was a joke, but there were some very sound officials who put me right on all occasions.

The nomenclature to which my hon. Friend refers is slightly historic, but it is important. For practical purposes, the billing authority will be the unitary authority in the case of the Southend part of my his constituency, and the district council in the Rochford part. In most cases the major precepting authority is a county council. In Greater London, in my case, the London borough of Bromley is the billing authority, but the Mayor of London and the Greater London authority is the major preceptor. I think fire and police authorities also count as major precepting authorities. That is because of how they have developed and become separated from the county councils, although they were originally intended to be part of them.

[James Duddridge]

rose—

[Robert Neill]

Let me finish the point, and if I am not making it clear, perhaps I will need to repeat it.

The major preceptors have certain statutory rights in respect of consultation, and they do more or less what its says on the tin: they deliver a significant amount of services, especially in county councils, and in two-tier areas the county council precept will often be the largest part of the bill, rather than the district council element of the council tax, although they are, of course, itemised separately.

[James Duddridge]

My hon. Friend is endeavouring to explain the situation, but I am now less convinced that I support the amendment. The explanatory notes refer to passing a proportion of the amount to the major precepting authorities. Will that be in only one direction, so Southend could pass to Essex county council, but Essex could not pass to Southend even if it was in the wider county’s interest?

[Robert Neill]

That point is slightly different from the pooling point. I was talking about the provisions that deal with the tier splits. We are returning some of the moneys—the business rate—directly to local government. That was formerly taken by the Treasury and distributed by formula grant. Some of those moneys will be needed to fund district council functions in two-tier areas, and some will be needed to fund county council functions in two-tier areas.

That highlights why there has to be a passing of money. It is collected by the billing authority; that is the case at the moment. Southend borough council and Rochford district council collect all the business rates and then have to send the money to central Government as, I think, a monthly payment. It is then returned in the local government finance settlement each year, predominantly by way of the formula grant—although there are one or two other grants, as this is a slightly complex world. We are allowing authorities to keep some of that money at the beginning, but because it has to fund two types of authority—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will want to address his comments through the Chair, rather than personally across the Bench to his colleague, as he is currently doing. I am also sure that he is not filibustering; I can see that there is no organisation.

[Richard Fuller]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I think there is about to be another intervention on you, Mr Neill.

[Robert Neill]

As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, the last thing I would ever wish to do is filibuster. I have spent a large proportion of my life dealing with local government finance, and I wish we could explain things in one simple sentence, as that would make life a lot easier for many of us.

I have outlined the essence of the issue, and the reasons why we have references to billing authorities and major precepting authorities. There are other precepts; the parish council can levy a precept, but it is not a major precepting authority. Very occasionally, there will also be certain levies put on top, but for our current purposes we need not discuss that and add further confusion.

Usually the district council in a two-tier area is the planning authority, and it is also the billing authority. Importantly, however, for investment purposes—this is where this point links in with the question of business rates retention—the highway authority will tend to be the county council, which often has significant economic development resources that district councils do not have, and the education authority will be the most significant body for the skills agenda and in attracting the required work force. That is why pooling makes sense. It links the pooling of resources with pooling and collaboration on a raft of issues, which is essential in the modern world.

[Richard Fuller]

For many of us, Mr Deputy Speaker, my hon. Friend’s speech is not a filibuster; it is a master class in explaining some of the intricacies of non-domestic rates and pooling. Having listened to his account of the complex relationship between different authorities, I think I may be slipping from my novice ranking. I ask my hon. Friend to return to his response to the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright), who referred to today’s report by Lord Heseltine. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are some valid arguments in Lord Heseltine’s suggestions on unitary authorities, as they will help to simplify the relationship between businesses and local authorities? This is an extremely important point. As this is a master class, I think all of us would like to hear a very full response from my hon. Friend.

13:45

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is very kind. He knows a great deal about this topic, as I know from having visited Bedford on a number of occasions when we were in opposition and he was the prospective parliamentary candidate.

[Mr Iain Wright]

So it’s your fault!

[Robert Neill]

I will be delighted to take responsibility for my hon. Friend’s arrival in this House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I say to the hon. Gentleman that we do not need to rehearse the CV of any Member. Furthermore, I am worried that Members may become more confused about the issues in hand after his detailed explanations. We must now address the amendment alone, and not embark on a tour of the country.

[Robert Neill]

I entirely agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the point of the amendment is—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. Let me reiterate that we will now deal with Lords amendment 1 and we will not be distracted from that.

[Robert Neill]

Lords amendment 1 is important because it enables pooling, and pooling is one reason why irrelevances such as unitary reorganisation need not trouble the Government in the future.

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

I represent a Birmingham constituency. The local government structure in the area arises from the fact that the West Midlands county council was abolished in 1985 and three functions were dealt with separately: the police and the fire service are now precepting authorities, while the integrated transport authority—it used to be the passenger transport authority—is not a precepting authority. In terms of encouraging economic development, therefore, there is a key question as to whether pooling serves to improve transport. Will the Minister comment on—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) is a former Minister; he is not still a Minister. Also, interventions need to be shorter. If Members wish to speak, they should put their name down, and I am sure we will be able to accommodate them.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When seeking clarity on these matters, we are sometimes bedevilled by history. A passenger transport authority would, I suspect, be a levying authority rather than a precepting authority for the purposes under discussion. At present, it would not necessarily fall within the scope of this pooling. It is important to raise such topics, however. There must be a means whereby the pooling of retained business rates includes incentives for transport authorities. In Greater Manchester, the solution has been the creation of a joint authority. There might be merit in considering a similar solution in Birmingham. I am sure the Minister will take that point on board, and I ask him to address it in his concluding remarks. It is also worth pointing out that if there is a large amount of money in the business rate pool, more money can, of course, be leveraged into investment, particularly for infrastructure purposes—and infrastructure investment is precisely what authorities want.

[John Hemming]

The key point is that public transport is an important driver of economic development, and it therefore needs to be encouraged through the pooling process.

[Robert Neill]

I agree, and I am sure we will be able to find ways to address that. The amendment in question and the pooling of business rates is one of the tools, and it is an important one, but it is not the only tool the Government are putting into the local authority box.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Greater Manchester provides a good example for pooling resources, and not only in terms of business rates. The 10 district councils of Greater Manchester have already decided to pool their local transport fund allocations. That is a gamble for some of them, because they are not getting the direct benefits of the new Metrolink extensions, while other parts of the county are.

[Robert Neill]

That was a helpful intervention, and I hope that it will go some way to helping my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), because one important source of funding for passenger transport authorities is the allocations that come to the constituent local councils, which they can then use. This is about ensuring that there can be a sensible linkage. If they pool the allocations, it will be logical to find a mechanism whereby they can pool the product of the retained business rate, so that the two can be aligned. The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point.

[George Hollingbery]

Understanding, always, that this is exclusively about the pooling of business rates, it occurs to me that there might be the odd occasion when councils wish to pool some element of their council tax. Will my hon. Friend confirm whether that was considered as a possibility for the Bill or whether it was rejected at an early stage?

[Robert Neill]

When I was in the Department, we did not get into the issue of pooling council tax, for the simple reason that we were dealing with the business rates element. As I saw it, the first step in the equation was to secure the return of a significant amount of business rates revenue to local authorities, rather than for it to be taken back through the nationalised system, as I might call it, whereby it goes to the Treasury and is then redistributed through the formula grant, the point being that over a period of time we would be able to make local authorities less dependent on formula grant as the principal source of their income.

Interestingly, we should perhaps explore, as a future step along the road, the means whereby local authorities might voluntarily—I stress that this must have a voluntary basis—examine ways of aligning their council tax receipts. After all, authorities can seek to pool the product of that in their investment decisions at the moment. I referred to the success of the communautés urbaines in France, which has come about because they have been able to set up joint investment funds and procure directly. In a sense, they have been putting together the product of their local taxes, and we might able to do that. We must remember that the billing authority sets the level of council tax in any given place, but there is no reason now why local authorities in an area could not deliberately align their council tax levels if they wished to do so to make sure that their area was not disadvantaged economically by having different rates within what might be almost the same built-up area. That is important. The level of the business rate is not changed by these proposals, because the multiplier continues to be set nationally, but the incentive is in retaining the product. The amendment provides us with the important tool of giving maximum flexibility in the pooling of the product to get the maximum benefit from investment for the area, particularly in economic development terms.

[Jake Berry]

On the amendment and its effect on enterprise zones, I have been an advocate of the do-it-yourself enterprise zone, which I hope could be achieved in east Lancashire, along the M65 corridor, by using the localisation of business rates. Local authorities would be able to give rate holidays to people who set up new businesses within a DIY enterprise zone. This amendment allows a deduction for rates which should have been in the enterprise zone. Would that preclude the DIY enterprise zone or encourage such a zone?

[Robert Neill]

It ought to be a means of encouraging that type of zone. That seems to be the logic of the proposal. Being able to offset and make the deduction is necessary in ensuring that there is an incentive. I am sure that the Minister will be able to confirm that position. My hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen makes an important point about the interaction of pooling and enterprise zones: it is important not to create a disincentive to having an enterprise zone. Equally, we must not create a distortion in the local economy whereby investment is purely sucked into an enterprise zone because of the benefits, and other parts of the local authority area or the conurbation, which happen not to be in an enterprise zone but have real development opportunities, are set at a disadvantage. It is important to make sure that we get that interaction right.

[Jake Berry]

We have heard today how Lord Heseltine has produced an excellent report, and we must remember that he was the first proponent of enterprise zones. Does my hon. Friend believe that if the amendment is agreed to there will be a peppering of mini enterprise zones, which could be run by local authorities or groups of local authorities by pooling business rates and enabling advantages locally? There could be, for example, a mini silicon valley in Rossendale. Does he think that is the likely outcome?

[Robert Neill]

I hope that if there is the political and economic will to do that, we will see it; I favour the maximum diversity in these measures. We should seek to give the maximum flexibility to local authorities on how they use these various tools, because that is genuinely localist. What will be appropriate in Rossendale will probably not be appropriate in Bromley, but it is sensible that those alternatives are available. I want an emphasis on outcomes, rather than on structure or process. Breaking down the barriers that can sometimes be an impediment is an important part of that. My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford talked about a mindset. Just as breaking that down is important, so, too, is breaking down the structural impediments that might stifle the initiative that I am increasingly finding local authorities want to take up through the opportunities that come from business rates retention. That is an important part of the mix that we must introduce.

[John Hemming]

One of the issues about hypothecating the pooled revenue from national non-domestic rates is that we can develop further employment. Does the hon. Gentleman feel there is merit in having a facility for localised sector tendering, funded by a transport authority, receiving money through the pooled process of the national non-domestic rates—it is now localised non-domestic rates, of course—on the basis that that would make it easier for people to get to work by bus?

[Robert Neill]

That is an interesting proposition. I had not specifically applied my mind to it and I cannot say off the top of my head whether or not the legislation would permit it. I am sure the Minister will be advised on that before he responds. We ought to be examining all these matters.

I am conscious that this is a technical measure and that we have to discuss a number of other important measures. I have probably said all I need to say on pooling. Other elements of a more technical kind are contained in the schedules, which are addressed in amendments 19 to 82. I would not dream of dealing with those individually, but it is important that we examine them carefully—yet briefly—because, as is always the way of local government on these things, the devil is in the detail of the schedules. Indeed, when, as Ministers, we looked at the Bill early on, we found that most of the work is in the schedules. Amendments 19 to 82 seem to deal with some of the important issues that the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) raised: the questions relating to how we deal with deficits or surpluses in the collection fund. The solution that the Government propose is workable and elegant, and will merit attention. The amendments clarify and strengthen the position, so I hope that they will also commend themselves to the House.

Important amendments are also proposed to the schedules in respect of the position of major precepting and billing authorities. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend East is not in his place, as those amendments will help to clarify the issues he raised. I hope that those amendments, too, will be seen as important and valuable. Although there are a lot of them, they deal with certain themes, and all of them, taken together, represent a significant strengthening of the Bill. I hope that this stream of amendments will commend itself to the House.

13:59

[Annette Brooke (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), who has identified some key issues that are important both generally and in relation to particular areas. I want to add to his comments on pooling and the arrangements for different types of authorities.

I represent a constituency that has district councils, a county council and a unitary authority. Indeed, Dorset’s local enterprise partnership has boundaries that encompass two unitaries, umpteen districts and the county council. It is important that we should be clear on how pooling can take place so that we can facilitate it, because I certainly see it as a driver for growth. The important point, however, is about choice. Some authorities might not want to play and although that might be a pity, the important point is that this is all about our localism agenda and putting more power into people’s hands at the lowest possible level.

[George Hollingbery]

Rather than yielding to recommendation 11 of Lord Heseltine’s report, which is that we should impose unitary authorities, is it not true that we are much more likely to get unitary-type authorities by accretion through election and localism than by imposing them from the top down? They will also last longer and be more robust.

[Annette Brooke]

I sincerely believe that the driver must come from local people at a local level. Anything imposed from above inhibits good local decision making and will inhibit growth.

I am talking about making decisions at the lowest possible level and I and, I assume, many other Members have been lobbied by the National Association of Local Councils. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst dealt with the question of the distribution of the business rates between the billing authority and the precepts but, as I understand it, town and parish councils do not come into the equation. I would be very pleased if the Minister could clarify the difference the amendments will make and how it will be possible for the billing authority to drive activity down to the local level and to town and parish councils. I happen to be attending the annual meeting of the Dorset Association of Town and Parish Councils on Saturday, so it would be helpful if I could be clear about what we pass today.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

Were we to consider devolving fiscal powers to town and parish councils, would we not also need to review their functions as a corollary? By comparison with international examples, our town and parish councils have very limited functions that are at the most micro level—they just have powers on street lights, fencing and allotments, for example. If we are going to take an holistic approach, we should perhaps consider in their entirety the functions that we expect parish and town councils to discharge.

[Annette Brooke]

There have been many innovations in some areas with the close working of councils at all levels. We want to generate a spirit of that happening at all levels, because we all know that in difficult economic circumstances parish and town councils have taken over some functions. It has happened rather naturally and sometimes it works well, such as when they have the “Links” man deal with all the weeds. It can be as simple as that, but there is a lot more scope for such working. I agree with my hon. Friend on that general principle.

Let me return to the thrust of this whole section of the Bill: the business rate retention scheme. It is incredibly important to add to the growth agenda and it is an important ingredient. It puts local decision making where it should be and provides opportunities and flexibility. I hope that with our good growth figures during the last quarter, we will all be incentivised to do the best we can for our local economies. Members of Parliament should take a leadership role and support those organisations. What an opportunity!

Finally, I believe that the Local Government Association is in favour of the retention of the local business rates, but there are of course doubts about the details. May I ask the Minister whether the LGA is fully behind the amendments? It is true that Members of the other place scrutinised the Bill extremely thoroughly. Some very good ideas came out of that scrutiny and although I totally support the thrust of the amendments, I merely seek the clarification that I have requested.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I apologise, Mr Deputy Speaker, for not being present at the outset of the debate. I want to make a few brief points.

Let me echo some of the points made by the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) in her commendably succinct contribution to the debate—

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

And powerful.

[Mr Jackson]

The right hon. Gentleman admonishes me. It was powerful and eloquent. The hon. Lady has great experience in local government in Dorset and she added to the debate.

It is timely to remember the basis on which business rates were centralised. I do not want to go too much into the history, but there was a significant degree of criticism of the decision of the previous Conservative Government to centralise business rates. There was an historical context, however, given what happened in too many of our large municipalities under the metropolitan district councils, particularly in the midlands and the north of England. The local councils had a mandate, and I accept that, and were elected by local ratepayers—later council tax payers—but they often used that mandate to attack the policies of central Government. One way they did that was by significantly increasing business rates, which were then localised, above the rate of inflation.

The Government had to choose what to do about that fiscal weapon, used disproportionately by Labour councils, and its impact on regeneration, growth, business development and entrepreneurship in the areas where it was used. That was the context. I am a localist—actually, I was a localist, but I am probably now a born-again centralist. However, I was then a localist.

I must not be too unkind to the right hon. Lord Heseltine, but I fear that his views on regeneration have ossified and, perhaps, stopped in about 1981. The answer to every question for Lord Heseltine involves banging the table, big figures, big organisations and big macho approaches to local government, but that does not always reflect the nuances of the different power structures and checks and balances in modern local government in a 21st-century country. I hope that I have not been too unkind to Lord Heseltine, but I am sure he has heard worse—[Interruption.] He speaks incredibly highly of me. He is a very talented man who created a fantastic business—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman wants to deal with Lords amendment 1. I am sure that Lord Heseltine will not lose any sleep over his comments, so perhaps we can get back to the amendment.

[Mr Jackson]

I was meandering among the ash trees of Lord Heseltine’s arboretum, Mr Deputy Speaker, and—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get out of the wood and on to the subject in hand.

[Mr Jackson]

We must respect the unique nature and authenticity of local government. When my right hon. Friend the Chancellor reads the report and teases out its nuances, I am sure that there will be more with which he agrees than with which he disagrees.

The context of centralising business rates was the desire to give a break to businesses, which often encountered difficulties dealing with local authorities that were not business-focused and did not make protecting the interests of individual workers in growing businesses a priority, which was especially the case in places such as Liverpool and Manchester.

[Jake Berry]

I am sure that my hon. Friend accepts that the exciting aspect of the Bill, which is reflected in these Lords amendments, is that it gives local authorities a stake in making their communities a success for the first time. The hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) talked about even parish councils having a stake in making their communities a success. As a born-again centralist, does my hon. Friend welcome those things?

[Mr Jackson]

I certainly do, but the reason I am, in some respects, a born-again centralist is that I have witnessed the huge logjams that often occur in the planning system, which my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) knows about. There was never a more excellent local government Minister than him, and it is a great loss to local and central Government that he no longer occupies that position. However, he will do a fantastic job on behalf of his constituents as a diligent and community-focused Member.

There is an intellectual coherence in the Bill, because when we examined the regional development agencies—[Laughter.] Labour Members laugh, but the RDAs were bureaucratic and wasteful, and they failed to deliver—[Interruption.] That is absolutely true.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for taking an intervention on such an important point. May I remind him that One North East, the RDA for the north-east, was independently assessed as delivering £4.50 to the regional economy for every pound of public investment?

[Mr Jackson]

When I was shadow regeneration Minister, I met One North East in a rather salubrious hotel in central Newcastle. I agree that it did some good work, but if we consider all the regional development agencies throughout the country, they failed in two respects. They did not ameliorate the internal divisions in the economies in their areas, because even in the north-east, the economies of Stockton and Middlesbrough are amazingly different from those of Morpeth and Hexham, and they are amazingly different from those of Bishop Auckland or the City of Durham. At the same time, the RDAs failed to tackle social, demographic and economic inequalities between the regions, and they did not facilitate the growth in private sector jobs and regeneration that we would have wanted in the north-west and the north-east, although that did happen in London, the south-east and the south-west.

[Robert Neill]

May I reinforce my hon. Friend’s point? I am sure that he is aware not only that the regional development agency system failed to address such regional inequalities, but that inequality between the regions actually grew rather than reduced under the Labour Government, despite the expense of such a top-heavy bureaucracy.

[Mr Jackson]

My hon. Friend makes a typically astute point. The Local Government Association did not have an axe to grind against the previous Government, but it produced several reports showing that the significant public investment in regional development agencies under that Labour Government did not deliver objective outputs. My hon. Friend and I have scrutinised regeneration legislation that has addressed those points.

There is an intellectual coherence in the Bill because if we are devolving power to the lowest level, which the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole talked about, and if we are to give local authorities a vested interest—and fiscal incentive—in driving regeneration and growth on the basis of local priorities, which my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) mentioned, local enterprise partnerships are the model to use. Those partnerships are driven by business and give local authorities of whatever political persuasion the opportunity to show leadership and vision.

I will be honest with hon. Members: there are some fantastic Labour councils, such as Lewisham and Wigan. I am positive about Wigan, which is a fantastic place to live, because my wife is from there. It is unfortunate that it has a Labour council, but to give it its due, it is doing a good job. The local enterprise partnerships have a complementary relationship with the new homes bonus, and there is therefore a fiscal incentive to drive forward a philosophy on the basis of local need. Money comes into the pot via the new homes bonus, and then local authorities may make a value judgment about whether the quality of life in their area is such that they wish to build hundreds or thousands of new homes, or to keep things as they are. Authorities know that they will not get that fiscal incentive for the delivery of core services. My local authority in Peterborough wants to build 25,000 homes between 2009 and 2026, so it will have a fiscal incentive to encourage the building of private sector and shared equity housing, as well as social and affordable housing.

14:16

The Bill rights a wrong that has existed among the political classes in local government for years. Our country does not devolve sufficient power locally, and our rate of raising money locally is probably the lowest in the western world. We have not engaged as we should have done over the years in things such as residential estate investment trusts and giving fiscal incentives for the building of private sector housing. We have not engaged with local authority bonds, unlike Canada and the United States. It is anathema to us that we should use a bond issue to fund the building of a bridge, a community centre or a new road, but that happens in every municipality in the United States. Boards of supervisors and mayors in towns, counties, cities and states throughout America think nothing of that, but for us it is like another world. It is good that we are now focusing on delivering infrastructure that is aligned with local people’s priorities.

I know that you will forgive me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for my little perambulation observing the vicissitudes in Lord Heseltine’s thoughts about regeneration. However, the Bill makes sense and gives weight to the Government’s real commitment to localism.

[Brandon Lewis]

I shall try to cover the general points raised in the excellent speeches that we have heard and then deal with the specific questions asked by the hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) and others.

The proposals on the retention of business rates represent a fundamental shift in the way in which local authorities are funded. They give councils a strong financial incentive to drive local economic growth. We will ensure that there is a stable starting point for the scheme so that no council is worse off as a result of its business rates base at its outset, and that will be achieved through a system of tariffs and top-ups that will be fixed in future years so that councils benefit from the growth of their business rates. Tariffs and top-ups will be uprated by inflation to ensure that a major part of authorities’ top-up income under the scheme is not eroded in real terms.

We have also proposed further protections to ensure that councils can meet local needs, including a safety net—I will directly deal with the specific question asked by the hon. Member for Warrington North later—that will be funded by a levy that recovers a share of any disproportionate gain from growth. The safety net will help to ensure that service provision does not suffer as a result of any volatility in a council’s business rates base. We announced that we intended to set the safety net threshold at a level between 7.5% and 10%, with the proportional levy ratio at 1:1, subject to consultation. That consultation took place over the summer; it has now ended, and we will consider the responses that we received before we take a final decision for this year’s settlement.

[Mr Iain Wright]

During yesterday’s excellent debate on business rates, I made the point that one business in my constituency—the nuclear power station—contributes 15% of all business rates collected in Hartlepool. The Minister says that the safety net will be between 7.5% and 10%, so how will the policy address my specific constituency concerns?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I will come to that specific point, as the hon. Lady raised a similar one.

Where councils want to join forces to pool their business rates, sharing the rewards and risks with their neighbours and thinking together strategically about how they should invest the money—a topic on which we have spent some time this afternoon—they will be able to do so. I will come back to that in response to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill).

The proposals for business rates retention will give all local authorities unfettered access to tax increment financing. There will be no constraints. From April 2013 local authorities will be able to get on with implementation. We are also making £150 million available to fund a limited number of new development deals—projects in the core cities.

A number of Members commented at length on issues related to pooling. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was the first to raise this in his remarks. I record my thanks to him for the fantastic work he did in bringing the Bill to the point at which I inherited it. He gave a great speech outlining some of the thoughts underlying the Bill and answering a great number of questions from Members to help everybody in the House have a fuller and better understanding of where the Bill is coming from and therefore what it aims to deliver.

Business rates retention changes the ground rules for local government and moves power back to where it should be. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), it effectively puts local money back with local people in local communities—local money for and by, to coin a phrase, local communities.

[Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)]

I note the Minister’s support for the concept of pooling. It is right that if local authorities choose to bring their capacities together, they should be allowed to do so. Does that not rather contrast, however, with the Government’s response to the Select Committee’s report on housing, in which we suggested that local authorities might be able to pool their capabilities to borrow under their housing revenue account—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Mr Betts, I do not know how long you have been in the Chamber. I presume you have not just come in. That was a very long intervention. I am sure the Minister will recognise the question that you have posed to him already. I take it that you had finished the question, as it was so long.

[Mr Betts]

Yes.

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee. I would like to thank him for his courtesy in inviting me to the Select Committee on Monday, and I enjoyed talking through some of the issues that local councils face. He tempts me to move outside the scope of the amendments, and I think the Deputy Speaker has made clear his views on their scope, but I will expand a little further on pooling without being tempted too far outside the terms of the amendments.

Pooling gives councils a new tool to support economic growth across their area and greater ability to invest in the things that will have a greater impact on economic growth. As has been noted, the more the money comes together, the bigger its multiplier effect—the leveraging—can be. My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst made a comparison between this and the debate earlier this week on pension schemes, and how, by bringing that money together and building it up into bigger pots, it can have a much more beneficial impact on local areas. That is why it is important that we allow councils to support economic priorities that have a benefit across a wider area. We are allowing councils better to weather any downturns in business rates income by sharing fluctuations in those rates. I will come back to the issue of a particular business.

It is worth local authorities looking at and thinking through the effects of pooling, which will give them greater resilience and greater buying power and allow greater economic growth. I encourage local authorities to consider it, and they have until 9 November to submit proposals. Earlier this year we had more than 20 expressions of interest from authorities. I stress that pooling is wholly voluntary but in terms of resilience, buying power and the ability to grow, I encourage councils to look carefully at it.

We heard queries about whether pools may cross county boundaries and whether they must be linked geographically or in any other way. In the true spirit of localism, it is for councils themselves to determine the make-up of a pool. They will not be restricted to pooling within a county boundary, allowing rates retention to support the priorities of local enterprise partnerships where this is what councils want.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment as a Minister, with his great experience as leader of Brentwood borough council. I agree with his point that local enterprise partnerships are based on authentic sub-regional and local economies. Does he see a time when it might be possible to try to—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I am sorry. We must have shorter interventions. I cannot say that to Members on one side of the House without saying it to those on the other. I am sure the Minister has grasped the question.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough mentioned in his speech—

[Mr Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend allow me to be more succinct?

[Brandon Lewis]

Of course.

[Mr Jackson]

Does my hon. Friend foresee the Government trying to encourage a more holistic approach, pulling together initiatives such as Growing Places, Get Britain Moving and the Portas review, using the funding he is speaking about?

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point and I am pleased that he had the chance to make that succinct intervention. An important by-product of business rates pooling is the opportunity for local authorities to look across the piece at whether they can pool to give themselves greater resilience, to look at the other funds that they can bring in, including the new homes bonus, and to look at their local enterprise partnership, their Portas money and any city deals that they might have, and how they can pull these things together, so that those authorities can work together to supercharge the opportunity to be part of local economic growth and to drive it from their local perspective.

[Mr Iain Wright]

Could pooling of business rates apply sectorally as well—for example, the automotive industry? Could Sunderland city council, with Nissan in its patch, link with Coventry council, where Jaguar Land Rover is located, in order to push forward the UK automotive industry? Does the Minister anticipate that?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting suggestion. As I said, there is no county boundary restriction on local authorities working together. One of the more imaginative things that we are seeing in local government generally is that authorities are not delineated by their geographic boundaries. We have seen, for example, the excellent shared services and other work between South Holland and Breckland district council, which do not share a geographic boundary but have found a way of working together. Such arrangements are possible and councils should looking for such interesting and exciting opportunities to work together.

We have, however, said that there should be a clear rationale for the geographic coverage of a pool if councils are to work together. It is important that councils have the flexibility to do what is right for them. That has worked well in local enterprise partnerships, on which a number of speakers have commented this afternoon. One of the reasons that LEPs are gaining such support and will be such a long-term success and powerhouse is that they have not been artificially designed and drawn on a map by people in Whitehall. They have come about as a result of communities, business organisations and local authorities coming together to decide what works for them and their community.

Some interesting structures have developed. For example, in my part of the world, Great Yarmouth, the New Anglia partnership crosses the county boundary between Norfolk and Suffolk. It focuses much of its time on the energy industry across Lowestoft and Great Yarmouth. It goes further in that it does not pick just one piece of land as its enterprise zone. It has a number of different sites because that is what the local business people, communities and local authorities coming together thought would work best for them. That is showing success already.

14:30

Councils can choose whether they join a business rates pool, with all the benefits that that brings, during each reset period. Enterprise zones are different. In interventions and speeches, Members have asked about opportunities for pooling and whether that will lead, in effect, to mini-enterprise zones. It is worth noting that there is effectively the opportunity for local authorities to create—I think the Secretary of State has used the phrase—enterprise zone-lites by putting many of the opportunities that enterprise zones offer into local areas to drive growth, but enterprise zones differ in respect of pooling. Enterprise zones, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry)—he is no longer in his place—rightly pointed out, offer a wider and longer-term series of benefits because they run over 25 years and receive additional funds from the Treasury. Councils, working with their local partners, will need to consider what is right for their local areas. If they can do that, together with pooling, as I said in my opening remarks, they will see some real benefits for supercharging their economic growth.

[Mr Stewart Jackson]

Will my hon. Friend have a word with our colleagues in the Treasury about the design of some fiscal policies that are based on regional boundaries, such as the national insurance holiday, which disadvantage those on the wrong side? For instance, Peterborough was at a disadvantage compared with, say, Corby or the south of Lincolnshire because it was in a different county and region. There was an obvious disincentive for businesses to consider Peterborough, based on that fiscal change.

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and he makes it so well that I have no doubt that the Treasury will have heard it directly, so I will leave it there.

[Robert Neill]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the admirable speech he is making and warmly congratulate him face to face on his new appointment. I am delighted he has succeeded me. I think that we share the same philosophy in these matters. He made an important point about pooling, for which I am grateful, and there are some other issues that my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) raised. As I understand it, the key element in Lords amendment 1, which deals with my hon. Friend’s point, is that the Government have undertaken to fund the discretionary rate relief in relation to enterprise zones so that there is not the disincentive to have an enterprise zone that there might otherwise be. Will he indicate that that is the way the rate relief will be delivered so that we can be sure that it is worth while for a local authority to have an enterprise zone without prejudicing the benefits of rate retention?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and hope that you, Mr Deputy Speaker, will allow me 30-seconds’ leeway to thank him for his kind words. This is the first time I have been at the Dispatch Box during a debate in which he, who he is a good friend, has spoken, so I want to put on the record how fortunate I am to be following in the footsteps of someone who laid so clear a path, and one that I support and agree with. Equally, that offers a challenge, because I have quite an act to follow. As in all the matters we are discussing this afternoon, he is absolutely right that enterprise zones are structured in that way so that there is no such disincentive. It is important to bear in mind how the incentives work. Business rates retention offers local authorities a clear incentive to help drive growth, because they will benefit from all the growth they see. That is something we very much want to see so that local authorities are absolutely at the heart of driving economic growth.

I will turn now to some of the question hon. Members asked. The hon. Member for Warrington North asked what happens when a major business goes down mid year, a point the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) also touched on. The payments to major precepting authorities would be set on the basis of estimates of income made by the billing authority. Those payments will not change, so billing authorities might need to consider how they would fund any shortfall in the short term before the safety net calculations are made.

[Helen Jones]

Will the Minister explain how a billing authority would fund a shortfall of 20% in its business rate income?

[Brandon Lewis]

I must stress that that is the approach the Local Government Association wanted and has been pushing for. It is also linked to the operation of the safety net more generally if a business has a problem mid-year. The draft regulations we published last week envisage safety net calculations and payments being made after the end of the financial year, and safety net payments on account to be made where the authority thinks, on the basis of its estimates before the start of the year, that its rates income will be less than the threshold. The draft does not currently propose that authorities be able to apply during the year for a safety net payment on account, in line with the clear views of our local government finance working group. These regulations are out to consultation in draft, and we look forward to receiving comments and will obviously feed back.

The hon. Member for Warrington North also commented on the discrepancy, as she perceives it, between some of the Bill’s clauses and the situation with regard to the Audit Commission. I was somewhat flabbergasted, because I think that she might have been trying to argue for retaining the Audit Commission, but this is a transitional phase. It seems amazing to suggest delaying parts of the Bill or not having the clause that will allow it to move forward in dealing with that side of the Audit Commission, because the Bill is about driving growth of about £10 billion. To do something because of her views on the Audit Commission seems very short-sighted for our economy, so she will excuse us if we resist that.

I will turn to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who made a powerful and clear speech in which she talked about town and parish councils working together. On the technical side of her point, I point out that parish councils raise their own cash with their precept; they are funded not through the money raised by business rates, but directly through council tax. We feel that it is right that the district billing authorities receive funds from business rates as they are the key local drivers of growth. However, I want to stress that I feel clearly—this has been reflected in the comments made by several hon. Members this afternoon—that they should work with all bodies that can support growth, including parish councils, and will be involved in some areas in the potential for growth.

We have worked with the Local Government Association, the National Association of Local Councils, with which I had a good meeting earlier this week, and other organisations and parties in the other place throughout the passage of the Bill, and I would like to thank all parties that have been involved in feeding into it. It is also important to note that there is a range of measures for driving economic growth at community level, which provides parish councils with a particular opportunity to get involved. There are community budgets, neighbourhood planning, the right to build, the right to challenge, and the community share scheme, all of which will play a huge part.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole—I know that parish councils are close to her heart—will have noted that only today we announced formally the measures to make it easier to establish new parish, town and community councils, which I think is an important step forward, working with local communities, to offer the opportunity for more people to get involved and to be part of their local community. Their local council at parish, district, county, unitary and metropolitan level will be part of driving economic growth, which is at the heart of the move forward with the business rates retention scheme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) spoke clearly about the power and ability of LEPs and touched on Lord Heseltine’s report, which highlights exactly where LEPs and local enterprise zones have a huge part to play. As I have said, the business rates retention scheme makes a fundamental shift in the way local authorities are funded. It will give councils a strong financial incentive to be part of driving local economic growth.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

In the spirit of localism, will the Minister now commit to implementing the recommendations of the Morgan report, commissioned by the Welsh Government, which calls for the full devolution of responsibility for business taxes to the Welsh Government so that they, too, can increase their taxation base?

[Brandon Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but he will excuse me if I stay within the remit of the Bill and do not delve into changes to financial and tax arrangements that the Treasury, the Welsh Assembly, the Local Government Association and many Members across the House will undoubtedly have a view on. I welcome his decision to choose this moment to start that debate.

What I think is important in business rates retention and the way it moves the goalposts and the way local councils work is that it is really starting to shift back to what local authorities always want—I know this from my time as a council leader—which is to have their hands on the purse strings and the ability to have a direct impact on the amount of money they can bring in. They want more direct control over the way they work, their decisions, the way they develop the local economy and community and the way they involve the community. Local authorities will see a financial benefit and will be able to use that income to provide even more benefits for their communities and residents, and perhaps they will also use it to keep council tax down and, in so doing, further develop the work the Government are rightly doing through the council tax freezes we have brought in over the past few years. This is a very important step forward, and we are pleased that local government seems to be enthused by it. We hope that it motivates them towards growth.

We are looking at the consultation results that we have received, and we will return to them later this year. We are setting out a whole new framework in which local government can work and where it becomes part of driving its local economy. That is not only a key part of how it shapes its community; it means that it can benefit from the advantages and growth that it sees in that community. The community will see that the local authority is benefiting in that way, and we will get a positive circle that can only be good for our communities, for our residents, and for economic growth in our country.

Lords amendment 1 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Lords amendment 2 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived.

Before Clause 9

Council tax reduction schemes: review

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendment 16, amendment (a) thereto, and Lords amendments 18 and 83 to 90.

[Helen Jones]

Amendment 3 was moved in the other place by my noble Friend Baroness Hollis of Heigham. It calls for one very simple thing: a review of how the new system for council tax support is working three years after the Bill as enacted comes into effect. We tabled amendment (a) to make clear the original intention of the amendment in applying only to England because this is a devolved matter in Wales. When my noble Friend introduced the amendment in the Lords, she made a clear and persuasive case that was supported by a good majority.

The Government opposed the measure at the time, but I understand that they may now decide to accept it; the Minister will tell us. Opposition Members may wonder why that is, but in fact, we know why. The Government know that their policy on council tax is a shambles. It is so bad that they cannot even convince their own Members to support it. Their councils in North Yorkshire, including the Foreign Secretary’s council, have campaigned against its unfairness. The departmental Secretary of State’s own county council says that it has major implications for some of the most vulnerable members of the community. West Oxfordshire, the Prime Minister’s council, has refused to implement any scheme at all and will rely on the default scheme. Westminster, the Tories’ flagship local authority, which we hear so much about, says that it will not implement it because residents are already adversely affected by changes to local housing allowance and other benefit cuts. This is what Westminster said in one of the documents that it submitted:

“The previous Community Charge (Poll Tax) experience shows that there are inherent difficulties in asking benefit claimants to pay small sums of Council Tax. This can make the debt difficult, and in some cases uneconomical, to collect.”

It also says:

“A decision to pass on the funding cut to claimants would be a reputational risk for the Council, as residents will perceive the cut as a local authority decision (rather than a central government given benefit cut).”

[Andrew Gwynne]

In their consultations, Tameside suggested that it would need to make £3.575 million of savings, while Stockport said that it would need £2.4 million of savings in relation to any new council tax support scheme. If Stockport or Tameside applied for and were eligible for the DCLG’s support mechanism, Tameside would get only £460,379 and Stockport £385,550. This is so unfair.

14:44

[Helen Jones]

Indeed; my hon. Friend is exactly right. I will want to return to those issues later.

What is happening, of course, is that councils that are better off with fewer claimants can afford to subsidise the scheme, while others cannot. I have quoted Westminster, the flagship Tory local authority, and that is before we even move on to what the Government’s noble Friends in the Lords say. Last week Lord Jenkin was asked by the BBC whether there were echoes of the poll tax in this proposal. He said, “Yes, oh yes”—and after all, he should know, as he was the architect of the poll tax. When he warns the Government of the risk of backlash, they should listen, because he knows what happened last time. The late Lord Newton of Braintree—not, by anyone’s standards, a woolly liberal—is recorded as having said in the Lords last year:

“Is it sane?...I can hardly believe my ears”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 6 October 2011; Vol. 730, c. GC377.]

These are the Government’s allies, let us remember, and if they are aware of the problems it is no wonder the Government are now thinking about a review.

The Liberal Democrats—those who are here—should listen to Lord Greaves, the architect of many of their by-election victories, who told the Lancashire Telegraph that the scheme was “disgraceful” and told the Financial Times that it was

“the poll tax all over again.”

How far have the Lib Dems fallen that the party of Lloyd George is now voting for Pickles’ poll tax?

No wonder the Government are trying to find a way out of the mess they have created. No wonder they have decided not only that a review might be a good idea but to bring in some transitional relief as well.

[Annette Brooke]

Can the hon. Lady clarify the position of Labour Front Benchers? Do they object to the principle of localising council tax benefit—the principle, and not necessarily the situation we are in—or would they prefer that the system were returned to the Department for Work and Pensions and thus centralised rather than localised?

[Helen Jones]

Labour Front Benchers believe in a fair deal for vulnerable people wherever in the country they happen to live, and we do not believe that a disabled person in Wokingham should be treated differently from a disabled person in Wigan. Our principle is that the help that someone gets should be dependent on their situation, not on where they happen to live. That is a key part of our policy. Let me say this to the hon. Lady: this is a policy designed to hit the poorest people hardest, especially the poorest people who happen to live in the poorest local authorities, which have already taken the biggest cuts in spending power, as we have seen during the passage of the Bill. Let us remember the figures. Liverpool will have lost £235 per person in spending power. In Hartlepool, the figure is £183. In Wokingham—I could not resist mentioning it just once more in the context of this Bill—it is a grand total of £1.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I put it to my hon. Friend that we may well have disagreement between individual Members, and possibly even parties, about whether it is a localist measure to devolve council tax benefit to local authorities or whether it is sensible to have a national benefit, but no one who is sensible, looking at this, can possibly agree that it is proper and right to make a 10% arbitrary cut in the amount of money available for such people at the time that the system is being decentralised. That is what is utterly objectionable and what the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke) should be apologising for.

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend is right. The reduction in the money available for council tax benefit is not the only thing that we are dealing with. The very same councils will be hit by the Government scheme for business rate localisation before being hit again by the reduction in the amount available for council tax. The Government call it a 10% cut, but in fact it is much more than that, because their calculations are based on what they think the cost of council tax benefit payments will be next year. It is no surprise to hon. Members who have followed the Bill’s passage through Parliament to learn that the Government believe that the cost will go down. In fact, the number of claims is rising as more people face reduced hours of work or unemployment. The Government have produced a wonderful document, which could have been written by Pollyanna, stating that claims will go down because the number of people on jobseeker’s allowance will go down and pensioner take-up will decline and so on. That is nonsense.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Lady is very good at rubbishing proposals for reform, but will she accept her and her party’s responsibility for getting into a situation whereby spending on council tax benefit doubled on their watch? Given that they are so good at criticising everybody else, what would they do to reform the situation and actually help councils get people back into work?

[Helen Jones]

I say to the hon. Gentleman that the one thing we would not do is target the poorest and most vulnerable for cuts at the same time as giving a tax cut to millionaires. The Government’s priorities are entirely wrong.

[Steve McCabe (Birmingham, Selly Oak) (Lab)]

Surely one thing we could do is agree with Birmingham council’s proposal to defer the plan for at least one year, so that the transitional arrangements can be properly worked out and places such as Birmingham will not end up losing about £10 million, which no fair-minded person would believe was the deliberate intention.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. During the passage of the Bill we have repeatedly tabled amendments asking for the measure to be deferred, but the Government have always turned them down. His figures are right, too: Birmingham will lose more than £10 million, Manchester almost £5 million, Liverpool £6.1 million, Haringey £3.8 million and Cherwell £747,000. The poorest authorities are losing more money overall, have more claimants and are therefore less likely to be able to make up the shortfall.

As I have said, a person’s entitlement will no longer depend on their position—it will depend on where they live. An unemployed person in Peterborough will be treated differently from an unemployed person in Portsmouth, and a disabled person in Wokingham will be treated differently from a disabled person in Wigan. That is why this is a wrong-headed policy that will need review and, when we get to that review, the policy’s ill-effects will be all too apparent.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous in giving way. I have mentioned the £3.575 million that the Tameside council scheme will lose. That comes on top of the council’s delivery of £43 million of savings in 2010-11 and 2011-12 and £22 million of savings this year, and it estimates a further £70.4 million of savings over the next three years. That is the real unfairness of this—it is hitting the same communities time and again.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes his point eloquently. The Government have always failed to acknowledge not only that this policy affects the same economies again and again, but that it has a devastating effect on local attempts to grow their economy. The very people who are losing money are those who went out and spent money in local shops and businesses, because, by the very nature of their low incomes, they have to spend everything they get. Councils are now faced with the most awful decisions and the people being hit hardest are people with disabilities, their carers and, most of all, the working poor—the people who this Government try to pretend do not exist.

We all remember the former Housing Minister, the right hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Grant Shapps), telling a Select Committee that if someone was working they would not get council tax benefit, because they would not need it. He did not believe that people who were in work received council tax benefit. He did not believe in the existence of those 743,000 people who are on non-passported council tax benefit and are in work. I admit that I sometimes find it difficult to believe in the existence of the right hon. Gentleman, because he has so many different identities—I often wonder whether he is an internet marketing guru masquerading as a member of the Government—but those working people on low incomes are certainly there and cannot be ignored.

Among the options that councils are consulting on are: paying no award less than £5 a week; restricting awards to the cost for a band D and, in some cases, even a band A property; restricting awards between 80% and 90% of value; increasing the taper; and abolishing the second adult rebate. The list goes on and it gets worse. One council—Tendring—is proposing residency criteria, so that people will only become eligible for support if they have lived in the district for five years. If someone moves there for work—after all, the Government want people to move for work—and happens to lose their job, hard luck: they will not get a penny. Those of us who know our history will recognise that proposal immediately for what it is. It is a reinstitution of the Poor Law—if someone needs relief, they should move back to their own parish, or in this case their own borough. On that basis, I wonder whether the Government live in the 21st or the 18th century.

It is no wonder that the Government have introduced a £100 million transitional relief fund. There is no better proof of the shambles that they are in than the fact that they have made that announcement after local authorities have begun consultations on their schemes.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is making a very important point. This should not come as a surprise to the Government. The Communities and Local Government Committee inquiry reported in September 2011, and in the report we drew attention to the problems at that time with the time scale, the difficulties with implementation and the unintended consequences. We asked the Government to consider a delay in order to allow more time for everything to happen. Their only response has been to complicate matters even further with a £100 million offer right at the last minute and in the middle of a consultation process. Could there be a more cack-handed way of running a policy?

[Helen Jones]

I am tempted to say to my hon. Friend, who is the distinguished Chair of the Committee, that I cannot think of a more cack-handed policy, but then again this Government constantly surprise us by coming up with something more cack-handed than we had ever thought of. He is right about the problems with the transitional relief fund. Councils have begun consultation on their schemes, but now the Government want them redesigned to qualify for a transitional grant. Their conditions include the requirement that those currently receiving 100% relief should pay no more than 8.5% of tax, that the taper does not increase above 25%, and that there is no sharp decline in support for people entering work. Having embarked on a system that they insisted should rest on local decision making, they are now dictating how the scheme should be designed.

Even so, that does not solve the problems. There is no legal clarity on whether councils will now have to consult again on these new schemes. Could the Minister give councils some advice about that? There is no indication of how, if they have to do another consultation, its cost will be met, and there is still a £400 million funding gap, even according to the Government’s own figures.

[Andrew Gwynne]

To return to Tameside council, one of the two authorities in my constituency, it tells me that the recent announcement on transitional funding will cause it added difficulties and that

“the indicative grant would be insufficient to bridge the funding gap, and the money is for one year only.”

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. It is not sufficient to bridge the funding gap. It seems from the indicative amounts that my own local authority will get back £320,000, including money for the police and fire authority precepts, but lose £1.3 million. Birmingham will get back £2.4 million out of £10 million, Manchester £1.1 million out £5 million, Liverpool nearly £1.5 million out of £6.1 million and Haringey £888,000 out of £3.8 million.

15:00

Those councils are caught in a dilemma once again. If they adopt the Secretary of State’s scheme, there will still be a huge funding gap, and how will it be met? It would be difficult under the Government’s scheme to meet it through cuts to council tax benefits for other claimants of working age, pensioners are protected and there is a limit on the council tax rises that local authorities can introduce, so the only alternative is cuts in services. Yet local authorities that are already managing to fund the shortfall will now get a windfall. Westminster will get £318,000 and West Oxfordshire £116,000. That is not transitional relief for local councils, it is emergency relief for Conservative councillors facing the electorate next May.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

May I help the shadow Minister? The way that Tameside could fund the shortfall is perhaps to dip into the £45 million increase in its reserves for the financial year 2011-12.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman, as a former leader of a local authority, should know that in the current circumstances, local authority treasurers are advising councils to build up reserves because of the uncertainty of the system that the Government are introducing.

[Brandon Lewis]

Will the hon. Lady share with the House her view on whether borough treasurers should run their local communities and councils, or whether the leaders and politicians should make those decisions?

[Helen Jones]

Of course the politicians should make the decisions, but in cases such as this they make them based on proper professional advice. If they did not, the Minister would be the first to criticise them.

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend will know that under the Government’s proposals, the entire downside risk—the risk of further expenditure as the result of an increase in the number of claimants or further demand for council tax benefit—all has to be borne by the local authority, so it is hardly surprising if treasurers are advising their councils that they need to build up reserves against eventualities imposed on them by Government decisions.

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend is entirely right. I suspect that if a council found itself in financial difficulty and did not have reserves, Ministers would be the first to stand up and accuse it of failing to plan prudently for that eventuality.

The scheme will last only one year. Will schemes have to be redesigned again after that? If so, people will have had to cope with three different council tax benefit systems in three years. Currently, they might pay nothing, but next year they might pay 8.5%. After that, who knows—15%, 20%, 30%? There is huge uncertainty for the poorest people in the community.

As my right hon. Friend says, local councils will also be left with huge financial uncertainty. The Government believe that the number of pensioners claiming council tax benefit will drop, but everyone who deals with benefits believes that it will rise, because in future the sum in question will be shown as a reduction in someone’s council tax bill rather than a separate benefit. If unemployment goes up in an area, if a major employer closes down or if there are increases in part-time working, as there have been recently, local authorities will bear all the financial risk.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Does my hon. Friend share my confusion about the Government’s thinking and the lack of joined-up decision making between Departments? Universal credit is being introduced, which was supposed to simplify the benefits system, yet here we have the Government making the council tax benefit system more complicated and setting it aside from the universal credit proposals.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is quite right. One problem with the system that the Government are introducing is that people will face two tests for benefits, possibly with two different tapers. For someone in the universal credit pilot, it will have to be decided whether the council tax benefit taper is applied before or after the universal credit taper. That clearly has not been thought through.

[Mr Betts]

That is not the only complication, of course. An individual whose income has changed and who has difficulties will now face the problem of going to the local council offices to sort out their council tax benefit, then going to the Department for Work and Pensions—either at the office if they can get there, or online or over the telephone—to sort out their housing benefit changes. Will that not confuse things enormously for people who are already struggling with financial difficulties?

[Helen Jones]

Absolutely right, and because of that there is real doubt among local authorities about whether they can collect payments from people who have never had to pay anything before and simply will not have the money to pay. Treasurers are predicting collection rates of only about 40% or 50%, and local authorities predict huge deficits because of the likelihood that they will not collect most of the money. What, then, are local authorities to do? Will they take people to court when they know that they do not have the money to pay? That would carry a huge cost to recover a small sum of money.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is helpfully shedding a lot of light on an extraordinary mess. It has been widely reported that it is the product of a spat, a huge row in Cabinet between the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who wanted to promote localism and show that something of a localist character was happening, and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who wanted sensible reform of the welfare system. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government won. Is that my hon. Friend’s understanding of how we have got into this completely indefensible mess?

[Helen Jones]

My right hon. Friend may well be right. The Government seem to be able to get into a mess quite easily. The problem is that the people on the receiving end of their decisions are the poorest and most vulnerable in our community.

[George Hollingbery]

There is no doubt that the hon. Lady makes a powerful argument, and as a former deputy leader of a council I appreciate the difficulty that councils will have. It is also an unfortunate truth that those who need benefits will suffer most when they are withdrawn. However, I do not quite follow her argument about what she would like done about that. Does she wish the whole scheme to be repealed, so that we end up with the status quo ante, does she wish to have further delays in the scheme, or does she wish to implement it in part? I understand her arguments against it, but I do not understand what she thinks would replace it.

[Helen Jones]

We made it clear that we did not want the scheme in the first place, and we voted against it. We made it clear that if the Government were introducing universal credit, they should make it universal. The clue is in the name—if there is to be universal credit, it has to include everything.

[George Hollingbery]

There is a question that clearly follows, which I know is asked many times of the Opposition. Given that half a billion pounds of annual savings are attached to the change, can the hon. Lady please tell me where the extra half a billion pounds of savings would come from?

[Helen Jones]

First, we would not give millionaires a tax cut. We would introduce the measures that the shadow Chancellor has set out, which would raise money to invest in infrastructure. The hon. Gentleman also has to bear in mind the contradiction in the Government’s policy. They want councils to grow their local economies, but at the same time they are taking a massive amount of money out of the most deprived local economies—money that would otherwise be spent in shops and businesses.

[Robert Neill]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Helen Jones]

May I make a little progress? I have given way quite a lot.

We need to think clearly about who the people affected are and what the Government think of them.

I have been reading the Minister’s blog; it is very entertaining and I recommend it to my hon. Friends as it is a treasure trove of Tory doublethink. The Minister begins by repeating the usual mantra that if someone is not in work, it is their own fault. He states that too many people

“expect to be able to rely on benefits and those who are hard at work are starting to get the hump.”

Let me say to him that 1,540 people in Great Yarmouth might start to get the hump with him because they are employed and in receipt of council tax benefit.

There are others. Will the Minister tell his disabled constituents, the vast majority of whom would like nothing better than to have a job, why they face an increase in their council tax? The Government trumpet their council tax freeze while imposing council tax rises on the poorest people in the country. When the Minister next visits a group of carers in his constituency—people who do daily the things that most of us could not imagine doing, and who save the country millions of pounds every year—will he say why their reward is an increase in council tax?

Elsewhere on his blog, the Minister writes that

“the sign of a compassionate country and a modern democracy is how it caters for those who are most vulnerable.”

That is what I mean by doublethink, which I think Orwell defined as the ability to hold two contradictory ideas at the same time, while believing in both of them.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend believe that the only localism in which the Government are interested is localising responsibility for cuts? The Government like to talk the talk on protecting the vulnerable while making it necessary for councils to cut the assistance that such people desperately need.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. We have said throughout discussions on this Bill that it is about centralising power and devolving the blame—after all, Tory-run Westminster council recognises that. That is the test the Minister set for his Government—the sign of a compassionate society in a modern democracy—but I am afraid the Government have failed that, and failed some of the poorest, most vulnerable people in our society. Benefits for people who are disabled will no longer depend on their disability, but on where they happen to live. We are talking about people who are sacrificing their careers to look after members of their family who are ill or disabled, and those who go out to work every week for poverty wages, because they believe that working—when they can work—is the right thing to do.

The Government seek to stigmatise those people as scroungers and they should hang their head in shame. Those people are doing the right thing, contributing to society and doing their best on a low income. The amounts they are being asked to pay may not seem much to people on the Government Benches, but to an individual or family living on the edge, they are unobtainable. Every penny they have is accounted for and there is nothing left for emergencies. To try and find even a couple of pounds at the end of the week is out of the question; it is just not there. That is why council treasurers are expecting to collect only 40p in every £1, and why we risk a repeat of the poll tax fiasco, when thousands of people left the electoral register to try and avoid the tax, and 5,000 people went to prison.

[Andrew Gwynne]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about how the council tax benefit scheme is likely to hit some of the poorest and most vulnerable people in society, in particular the working poor. They are likely to be the same people who are also caught up with changes to housing benefit, and potentially with under-occupancy rules, and who have seen their tax credits reduced.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend makes the point I was about to come to. We are talking about many of the same people who have lost tax credits because they cannot get extra hours at work, and many will also be losing housing benefit, as well as having to find money for extra council tax payments. I know the Government do not want to hear this, but we are going to say it again and again because it is true: the Government are introducing these measures on the same day as they fund a tax cut for millionaires. Nothing could demonstrate better how out of touch this Government are with the lives of most people. I wonder whether the Minister is proud of the system he is introducing.

15:15

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

Many hon. Members are already facing in their constituency surgeries people who are on the edge. Those people have fallen behind with small amounts each week, and are then faced with arrears and liability orders. Then the bailiffs arrive, and there is an additional charge of £120 to the local authority, or up to £200 for the bailiffs’ costs. There is physical intimidation by bailiffs. This supposed reform will increase that on a scale we have not seen before.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. Many of us will have seen in our surgeries what is beginning to happen to some of the poorest people in our communities. I have seen people crying in mine, either because of what they face now, or because they know what is coming in April but do not know how they will cope. Many of those people are working—they are going out to work.

[Richard Burden (Birmingham, Northfield) (Lab)]

All Labour Members—and, I imagine, a few Government Members if they think about it—recognise the picture painted by my hon. Friend. Does it not mean that a number of the vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of these measures will need extra support from the local authority, or from the voluntary and third sectors, to get the advice they need? That advice will not be there, however, partly because the council is having to pay the administrative costs of the system that has caused the problems in the first place.

[Helen Jones]

My hon. Friend is entirely right. I already find in my constituency that the organisations to which I used to refer people for help—as, I am sure, did many of my hon. Friends—are so overburdened, or in some cases have closed down, that help is simply not there. This is a very short-term policy that is causing financial instability for local councils and is an attack on the living standards of the most vulnerable people. The least the Government can do is hold a review in three years’ time.

It may be that the Government still believe that the system will work—although that is increasingly looking unlikely—but I think they are beginning to get cold feet. They know what these reforms will do in their constituencies and local authorities, and that they will be unworkable. By the time we get to the review, it is likely that the Ministers who introduced these measures will have moved on. The poorest and most vulnerable people, however, will still be paying the price. I hope that the Minister will at least accept a review, because by the time it takes place, it will be obvious what a miserable, vindictive and failed scheme this is.

[Robert Neill]

That was a vintage performance from the hon. Lady, full of high-blown rhetoric, plenty of sneering, sarcasm and knocking copy, and devoid of a single element of constructive analysis. It was devoid of any sense of constructive alternative, and recognition of the reality of the economic mess for which her party was responsible. It was devoid of any sense of shame. The greatest shame in the House lies on the Labour party. The greatest threat to the living standards of the most vulnerable—

[Helen Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will give way to the hon. Lady as often as she gave way to me—once.

[Helen Jones]

The hon. Gentleman is getting very worked up again, but may I remind him that, when his Government took office, the economy was growing and unemployment was falling? If he calls that a failure, what does he call the longest double-dip recession since the war?

[Robert Neill]

I call the greatest deficit in our peacetime history a failure. The benefits system that Labour created was so confusing and complex—it has some 32 different benefits in it—that it is virtually impossible for anyone to navigate it. I call that a failure. I call the fact that spending on council tax benefit doubled over the 13 years of the Labour Government a failure, because they did not achieve what should have been the objective of aiding people back into work. Some of my constituents have not known the opportunity of work for three generations. I call that a failure. The suggestion that the Labour party did anything other than fail is a bogus one. No amount of rhetoric and high-flown words can hide that reality.

We have not heard from Labour Members what they would do about the problem. They have made not a single constructive suggestion.

[Mr Raynsford]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

If the right hon. Gentleman will be patient, I will give way to him in due course.

What would Labour Members do to make the saving, which is a necessary contribution to the reduction of the deficit they created? We have not heard anything about that. What would they do to reform the system to increase the incentives to get people who are unemployed into work? What would they do to ensure that, when people move into work, the loss of benefit is not too great a disincentive? Our transitional scheme seeks to deal with that, but what would they do? We have heard not a word on that.

[Mr Raynsford]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I listened to him for almost an hour earlier in the debate, so I hope he will not ask me again to be patient—I have been very patient already.

I put it to the hon. Gentleman that he is complaining not about rhetoric—we have heard quite a lot of his rhetoric—but about the experience of Members of Parliament who know from their constituencies that very large numbers of people will be badly hit by the measures, and will suffer hardship, deprivation and poverty as a result of them. He should be ashamed of the remarks he has made.

[Robert Neill]

The right hon. Gentleman is always touchy when his Government’s record is called into question, but he must learn to live with that, because his record is questionable. The simple truth is that the Labour Government’s doubling of spending on council tax benefit is not a success; it is a mark of failure. I have heard not one word on what Labour Members would do to redress the situation.

I am relaxed about whether there is a review. The provisions of the Bill require local authorities, at local level, to keep their schemes under review. I am confident that a national review would demonstrate that the measure is necessary. Not a word has been said by Labour Members about how they would make good the funding gap that would be left if nothing were done. There is nothing from them about that. It is like the old prayer that is adopted—“Lord make me virtuous, but not yet.” They say they want to reduce the deficit, but they will not tell us when or how they will do so. Failing to reduce the deficit damages the underlying economy, real and sustainable growth, and the prospect of real and sustainable jobs for the very people about whom they claim to be concerned. Locking people into a massively complicated benefits system, which they created, is not helping—[Laughter.] Labour Members’ laughter demonstrates the air of unreality that hovers over them. They will not accept their responsibility. They behave like ostriches. To paraphrase the late George Carman QC, they prefer to put their heads in the sand, thereby revealing their thinking parts.

[George Hollingbery]

As I have said, it is inevitable that those who are on benefits suffer when benefits are withdrawn, but there is nothing compassionate about the long-term failure of the previous Government to address the number of people on benefits and the enormous increase in the bill for those benefits. The inevitable consequence was that one day, when spending had to contract, as it now most definitely does, that group of people would suffer. What is compassionate about that?

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is nothing compassionate about that. The attitude of Labour Members is blinkered—to put it as charitably as I can. They think the only way to deal with people compassionately is by continuing with a rigid and failed system.

[Andrew Gwynne]

For a split millisecond, the hon. Gentleman had me sold on the idea that he was convinced about a simplified benefits system. If he is convinced, why does he believe council tax benefit should not be part of the universal credit system? The proposals will result in a different council tax benefit system for every local authority area in the country.

[Robert Neill]

The hon. Gentleman, whom I respect in these matters, makes an interesting point. I have two points to make in response. First, we consulted prior to the design of the system, and one question that came up is whether we should include council tax benefit in the universal credit. The cross-party local authority associations did not want that, which we reflected in the Bill. That was their view at the time and I still believe they were right. We adopted a localist stance, and we need take no lessons on that.

Secondly, the hon. Gentleman says there will be different approaches in different areas, but I should gently tell him that he betrays the error of the Labour party’s thinking. Labour Members take a monolithic approach, but local economic circumstances, the demands on people who are not in work, and the demand that they place on council budgets, vary from place to place. The whole point of localising the scheme is to recognise that local authorities are generally better placed than a monolithic and centrally administered scheme to recognise the particular influences on the jobs market and routes back into work in different places.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work he put into the Bill, which is a worthwhile contribution to localism. Does he agree that one great virtue of localism is that it gives elected local authorities the opportunity to inculcate their values in the local community? Tendring council might have values it wants to promote in the context of the legislation, but socialist local authorities might want to implement more socialism locally.

[Robert Neill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Labour Members’ approach is bizarre. They claim to be localist but object when anything is localised. They claim to recognise the need to reduce the deficit—I am never quite sure about that—but never actually say how or when they would do it. Instead, they just give a blanket criticism of anything that seeks to move things forward.

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) talked about West Oxfordshire and Westminster councils not having schemes as if that was a bad thing. Does my hon. Friend agree that, actually, the decision to protect local residents by not changing the schemes is an example of the very point we are making—it is about local choice?

[Hon. Members]

When you’ve got the money!

[Robert Neill]

The words of Little Sir Echo from the Opposition Benches!

My hon. Friend the Minister is absolutely right. The decision to use the default scheme is a local choice. The ability to design schemes in different ways is, and should be, a local choice. It is strange that there should be any objection to that. The Government have provided help, of course, and not only through the transitional scheme, which I regard not as a mark of weakness but as a mature and sensible reflection on how to proceed in a constructive way. [Interruption.] Again, that sense of unreality wafts across from the Opposition Benches. They prefer to exist in this land of denial where nothing is wrong with the current system, when it is manifestly failing.

[Mr Betts]

Given that the hon. Gentleman was previously the Minister in charge of the Bill, will he explain why, if it was a mature and sensible reflection, he did not have it a year ago? How can it possibly strike him as mature and sensible halfway through the period when local authorities are consulting on the policies they are trying to develop?

15:30

[Robert Neill]

We did some very sensible and mature things a year ago: we paid out £30 million upfront to assist with the design of the scheme; we gave early notice of our statement of intent; we enabled local authorities to run their consultations early while the secondary legislation was going through; and we listened to suggestions for further refinements, such as ensuring that the taper works smoothly so that it eases people back into work as their income rises. The Government should be congratulated on taking all that on board, not criticised, but that is not going to happen, of course, such is the Opposition’s unreal mindset. They seem to have locked themselves into a closed way of thinking.

What is the best way of getting people back into the labour market? How do we deal with the fraud that, I regret to say, is an issue with some benefits? The vast majority of benefit claimants act honestly and properly, but significant sums are, I am sorry to say, lost to fraud. That is far better dealt with locally, because local council officials and members have better local knowledge and are better linked to the various enforcement agencies. Significant savings for the honest and genuine claimant can be made through the better running of the scheme and by dealing with issues such as fraud, but those things are better dealt with locally.

[George Hollingbery]

In considering the proposal from the other place for a review over the next two or three years, does my hon. Friend agree that there is scope for the administration of grouped or pooled schemes across a local area? Under such a scheme, specialist advice, such as fraud advice, might be more economically obtained.

[Robert Neill]

That is a sensible and useful point. As in our earlier discussion about pooling business rates, there is sense in pooling some of the critical mass and resource available between local authorities. Again, if we are trying to get people back into the job markets, which might span more than one local authority area, it is sensible for there to be a means for local authorities to work together. That is a constructive suggestion. Would that we had heard any such constructive suggestion from the Opposition.

[John McDonnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Robert Neill]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is an old sparring partner from London days.

[John McDonnell]

The hon. Gentleman might remember from those days that I was involved, as an officer, in setting up the local fraud units, which were successful. We learned then that chasing small amounts of money, which these will be, was not cost-effective. What happens is that others decide, “If I’m not going to be chased, I won’t pay.” The problem with this proposal is that it will increase fraud, not reduce it.

[Robert Neill]

The point I take from the hon. Gentleman, whose experience I respect, is that, yes, it is not sensible to chase very small sums of money, but that is why the transitional scheme, for example, works to incentivise councils not to do precisely that. We have sensibly reflected on that.

It is important that we get to grips with this intractable issue. Amendment (a) sounds innocuous, and if my hon. Friend the Minister advises the House to accept it, I would have no difficulty in doing so, but the Labour party has not tabled it out of an interest in carrying out a significant and worthwhile review. It is simply a device for the Labour party to get off the hook for not having any constructive alternative to put forward.

[Mr Raynsford]

I have heard a number of speeches by the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), but that was probably the worst. There was a total failure to acknowledge any problem with the proposals we are debating this afternoon and an attempt to deflect blame, rather than recognising that he has created something that will haunt him, his colleagues and all Members of Parliament, who from next April are likely to see large numbers of aggrieved constituents coming to ask why they suddenly have to pay sums of money that they do not have the means to pay. Then—this is an interesting point about the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion about fraud—when those constituents see that some councils will not pursue relatively small arrears, just because it is uneconomical to do so, they will probably think, “Well, there’s probably no need for me to pay.” If ever something were likely to undermine the culture of payment and responsibility, it is this kind of scheme, in just the same way that the poll tax undermined the culture of paying because it was seen as unfair, because it was arbitrary and because the arrears that built up took an enormous amount of time to recover.

All this is unnecessary. We can have a debate about whether council tax benefit should be localised. I have been happy to participate in that debate, and there are arguments both ways. There is an argument that council tax benefit should be part of a universal credit and benefit system. There are also arguments about localisation. We can have those debates. I would have been happy to participate in an argument about that and to try to develop either a local or national scheme that worked and that met the objectives that had been articulated. However, that is not what we are debating this afternoon. This is a ham-fisted set of proposals, cooked up by the Government in a way that shows a complete lack of joined-up thinking between Departments—the Department for Communities and Local Government is going in a completely different way from the Department for Work and Pensions—and then imposed to a chaotic timetable.

The way this House has handled the process is a cause for concern in itself. Our first debates about the Bill were in January, when the Committee stage was taken on the Floor of the House and had to be rushed through without adequate time to consider all the issues. Then the Bill was parked for three or four months. We heard nothing more about it. We wondered what was going on, until the penny dropped and one of the Clerks was wise enough to point out what was happening. The Government had suddenly realised that if they went through the parliamentary procedures, the Bill would fall with the end of the Session. They had to park it because they had not realised that the only way to get it through the current Session was not to take it through the House of Lords in the previous Session, so that they could then reintroduce it in this one.

Here we are, less than six months before the implementation of a hugely complex scheme that will affect the benefit entitlement of around 4 million people nationally, without the details agreed and with an extraordinary series of last-minute adjustments, including the transitional relief. We could not devise such a chaotic implementation programme if we tried. I am really disappointed that Ministers have not acknowledged that this is a mess. The right way forward now is to say, “We need time to get it right.” Let us give them credit: let us give them the opportunity to say that localisation is the right thing to do, but then please let us recognise that this is not the right way to do it. We have to give local authorities sufficient time to prepare, consult and carry their communities with them. We have to give them the means to do that without these arbitrary cuts, which affect individuals so harshly and unfairly, because there will be marked differences between categories of people.

Let us take the position of two households, one just over pension age and the other just under. Under the arrangements that are being introduced, if they both receive an equivalent amount of benefits, one group will be protected from any cuts because they are over pensionable age and the other will not. How will that be explained? How is there any sense of fairness whatever if those households’ circumstances are broadly the same? There will be anomalies, problems and a sense of injustice on the part of the public, and then there will be all the administrative issues in trying to collect small sums of money. It cannot make sense to proceed in this rushed way towards what is likely to be serious administrative chaos in early spring next year. The sensible measure would have been to say, “We must take stock. We must now pause and try to get this right.” Even if the Government will not accept that, they should at least confirm that there will be a review. It cannot be right to proceed with such a chaotic scheme that has gone through such a bad gestation period and that is now going to produce the kinds of problems that Members have articulated so well today, without a commitment to a thorough review.

The other place did us a service by passing the amendment that would make a commitment to such a review, and the Government should, at the very least, accept that the measure must be reviewed independently and fairly; otherwise, we shall be condemning large numbers of our citizens to an unfair and harsh series of measures that will impact on their livelihoods and that they will find impossible to understand. The Government are committing local authorities to implementing harsh and unfair measures for which they will get quite a lot of the blame. The whole thing is a terrible mistake, and I just hope that the Government will now recognise that they have a serious responsibility to the public and to local authorities to try to make the best of the very unfortunate position that they have got themselves into.

[Brandon Lewis]

I will deal first with the points raised by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford). I am still relatively new to the House, having joined in 2010, and I am certainly new to the Dispatch Box. I have to say that the opening remarks of his speech were the most undignified I have heard in this Chamber in my short time here. I therefore do not intend to comment further on what he had to say.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made a point about the scheme in general, and I shall respond to it directly. She seemed to suggest that her party would like to see a centrally controlled policy scheme, rather than trusting local councils. I must point out that the Local Government Association does not want this provision to be part of universal credit; it wants it to be localised, if it needs to change. I was disappointed that Labour Members seemed to lack trust and faith in local councils and local councillors to do what is right for their communities. We have far more trust and faith in them than Labour does.

I was astounded to hear at least one Member complain that the Government’s pledge of a further £100 million to help local authorities with the transition was unhelpful. That provision is of course voluntary; local councils do not need to take part and do not need to take up any of the money. It is simply a transitional grant that will be available if councils wish voluntarily to take up the offer of it. Some councils will come up with different schemes. It is part of localism that they will do what they think is right for their local communities. Some might have large reserves. If, for example, a council had about £45 million in reserve, it might use some of that to prepare for the changes. The Government’s position is that that should be a local decision. This is about local councils having the political will to do the right thing, to look at what is right for their communities, and to work to develop economic growth to get more people off benefits and into work. That goes hand in hand with the business rate retention that we discussed earlier.

[Andrew Gwynne]

It is important to record the fact that no Labour Member is saying that localism is a bad thing. The Minister cannot have it both ways, however. Either the Government take a localist approach, in which the arrangements for council tax benefit will be different from one local authority to another, or they do what the Minister says he wants to do, which is to simplify the system. That would involve one nationwide system.

[Brandon Lewis]

I am not quite sure what point the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. This is a localised scheme in which local councils will do what they want to do. Different councils are consulting on different schemes, and in response to some of the consultations the Government have made provision to allow local authorities some transitional money to help them to move to what might be a better scheme for their area. But—this is the key point—that money is part of a voluntary scheme. It is up to local authorities whether they take part in it, or whether they go ahead with what they believe is the right scheme for them.

[Andrew Gwynne]

By the Minister’s own admission, then, this is not a simplified scheme. It is a localised scheme, but it is not simplified. Every local authority will have a different system in place, which will add to complexity.

[Brandon Lewis]

I think the hon. Gentleman is starting to understand that localism means that local councils can do what they think is right for their local communities, understanding that what might work in one local community would not necessarily be right in another local community in respect of the schemes they devise to secure economic growth, to create more jobs or to get more people off benefits in the first place.

[George Hollingbery]

It is not an absolute certainty that localising council tax will indeed lead to fiendish complexities. It is entirely within the gift of local councils to negotiate among themselves to have council tax schemes grouped, which could then be agreed across, say, Hampshire. Given the commonality of economic prosperity in the area I represent, that would seem to make sense. Does the Minister agree?

00:00

[Brandon Lewis]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. I would add that there is a range of things for local councils to look at. Some local authorities will be looking to bear down on some of the fraud and error, which we believe is worth £200 million a year. They will be looking to come up with schemes to drive economic growth, to put more people into work, to be more efficient. They might be looking at saving money through shared services in the management teams and various other schemes. The flexibilities we are putting in place give them a huge opportunity.

The hon. Member for Warrington North (Helen Jones) made a comment, implying that the Government have somehow depressed the council tax benefit forecast. She will be aware that the forecasts for council tax benefit expenditure are considered and ratified by the independent Office for Budget Responsibility. I entirely reject her suggestion, if that is what it was, that we have in any way been able to influence these forecasts.

[Stephen Timms]

On the point of simplicity, many of us, including Government Members, sat through the Welfare Reform Bill debates, in which the simplicity of universal credit was presented to us as a great advantage. This change undermines that simplicity—fatally, it seems to me. As the director of the Social Market Foundation said in an article this morning, under this proposal

“not only will you need a computer to work out your benefit entitlements, you’ll need a map”.

[Brandon Lewis]

Coming from a party that had 32 different benefits to work through, I find that quite an amazing comment.

[Mr Betts]

rose—

[Brandon Lewis]

I give way, of course, to the Select Committee Chairman.

[Mr Betts]

It is all down to local councils to decide, but one of the complications is that the Government are localising council tax benefit, but centralising housing benefit. Local councils can get no sensible decisions from the Department for Work and Pensions on whether an arrangement will be allowed whereby applicants can go to one point for information and advice about both benefits. Are the Government to sort out this problem between the two Departments?

[Brandon Lewis]

I am sure we can take that back to the DWP, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that this goes some way outside the remit of the amendments. I will reflect on his comment and come back to him on it. As I have said, councils will have choices about how to meet the cost of support, and local authorities that have consulted on their proposals will need to consider whether they want to apply for the grant or whether they need to make changes to the proposed schemes in order to do that. I shall return to that issue in a few moments, if Members wish it.

Let me deal with the specific amendments. I shall ask the House to agree to Lords amendment 3 and to the other Lords amendments, but to resist the Opposition amendments to the amendments, which I shall ask the hon. Member for Warrington North to withdraw.

Lords amendment 3 requires the Secretary of State to provide for a review of council tax reduction schemes within three years of the Act coming into effect and sets out certain considerations for that review. As Baroness Hanham made clear in the House of Lords, Government routinely review policy and respond to ensure our objectives are met. The transitional grant scheme announced on 16 October was a direct response to those authorities that are proposing schemes that place what the Government consider to be an unacceptable burden on the very poorest. That is why we will accept that amendment, but we will not seek to overturn it.

In accepting the principle that Government should keep policy under review, I would make a couple of points. The terms of the review, as set out in the amendment, do not bind the Government to any course of action as a result of the review’s recommendations. I know that the Local Government Association is keen for us to make that clear. We will need carefully to consider the findings of the review before considering how we will respond. We remain clear that localisation is our preferred policy. It strengthens incentives to support local growth and jobs, drive down fraud and error and hold down council tax. It gives local authorities control over how to design support schemes, taking into account the impact on local populations and council tax collection rates. It also ensures that funding for council tax support is paid directly to the authorities that provide vital services. All those are important considerations that the Government would want to take into account in any future review.

The Opposition’s amendments seek to ensure that such a review would apply only to England, but I believe that if the Secretary of State is required to review the operation of local schemes in England that are provided for under powers in this Bill, such a review should also take place in relation to schemes that are similarly provided for in Wales. Let me explain that further.

Such schemes will be provided for under regulations to be introduced by Welsh Ministers, so it is right for Welsh Ministers to lead on any review. In complying with the requirement of the Lords amendment, the Secretary of State will therefore seek to agree with Welsh Ministers the scope and format of the review in relation to Wales. It will also be for Welsh Ministers to consider the implications of the review’s recommendations for the framework for schemes provided for through their regulations, and the powers provided, at their request, in the current Bill.

In the light of these assurances, I do not think that the Opposition’s amendments are necessary.

Lords amendments 83, 84 and 86 would enable regulations made by the Secretary of State or Welsh Ministers about council tax reduction schemes of billing authorities in England or Wales to make provision equivalent to the provisions of, or the provisions that could be made under, sections 32 to 34 of the Welfare Reform Act 2007. The amendments would also give billing authorities in England power to make additional provision in their local scheme which replicates, or could be made under, those sections. The amendments would allow local authority schemes to provide for extended payments, which are an important way of supporting work incentives.

Lords amendment 85 is a technical amendment. It is intended to ensure that the power in new paragraph 6 of schedule 1A to the Local Government Finance Act 1992, which allows major precepting and billing authorities to reach an agreement to vary payments or instalments that are required to be made under regulations about funds, applies—as was intended—only to regulations in relation to council tax.

Lords amendments 87 to 90 would ensure that the expertise of members of the First-tier Tribunal could be used in the deciding of appeals against decisions made in relation to council tax reduction schemes. The amendment would enable First-tier Tribunal members to sit as members of the Valuation Tribunal for England at the request of the president of the tribunal, with the approval of the Senior President of Tribunals, and only in relation to appeals that relate in whole or in part to council tax reduction schemes.

I urge Members to agree to the Lords amendments and resist the Commons amendments, and invite the hon. Member for Warrington North to consider withdrawing amendment (a).

[Helen Jones]

I wish to press the amendment.

Question put, That amendment (a) to Lords amendment 3 be made.

15:52

Division 90

Ayes: 245

---

Labour: 236
Democratic Unionist Party: 4
Plaid Cymru: 2
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Independent: 1
Alliance: 1

Noes: 312

---

Conservative: 264
Liberal Democrat: 47

Lords amendment 3 agreed to.

16:07

More than three hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on consideration of Lords amendments, the proceedings were interrupted (Programme Order, this day).

The Speaker then put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Standing Order No. 83F).

Lords amendments 4 to 91 agreed to, with Commons financial privileges waived in respect of Lords amendments 4, 5, 10 and 19 to 85.

[Mr Speaker]

We come now to motion 4 on the Order Paper.

[Brandon Lewis]

I beg to move the motion formally.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the Minister and I did wonder whether he had had a rather urgent job swap, but he has not. We are grateful to him for his conscientiousness, but he is not needed at this stage.

Multiannual Financial Framework

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), from whom we will therefore hear in due course.

16:09

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Greg Clark)]

I beg to move,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16844/11, No. 16845/11, No. 16846/11, No. 16847/11, No. 16848/11, No. 6708/12 and Addenda 1–3, No. 9007/12, No. 12356/12, and No. 13620/12, relating to the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014–2020; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control and stimulate economic growth; notes that UK contributions to the European Union budget have also risen in recent years due to the 2005 decision to give away parts of the UK rebate; agrees that the next MFF must see significant improvements in the financial management of EU resources by the Commission and by Member States and significant improvements in the value for money of spend; further agrees that the proposed changes to the UK abatement and proposals for new taxes to fund the EU budget are completely unacceptable and an unwelcome distraction from the pressing issues that the EU needs to address; and calls on the Government to seek significant savings to the Commission’s seven year framework, as set out in the Prime Minister’s joint letter with France, Germany, the Netherlands and Finland of 18 December 2010, which stated that ‘payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives’.

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), is making a rapid getaway, but if he wants to deal with the motion, I shall not stand in his way.

It is a pleasure to have been sprung from the sometimes stormy world of planning policy into the calm and genteel discussions that characterise such European issues. The debate is, if nothing else, timely, given the forthcoming negotiations on the EU’s annual budget for 2013 and on the multiannual financial framework, which sets out budget ceilings for the seven years between 2014 and 2020.

When I became Financial Secretary last month, hon. Members can imagine the delight I felt to find that the EU negotiations were at the top of my in-tray. However, now that I have had a few weeks to immerse myself in the budgetary demands that have been made by not only the institutions of the EU but several member states, I have to report that my normally cheerful mood has soured. Frankly, the sheer lack of shame displayed by those demanding more of our money is extraordinary. They want more at a time when the International Monetary Fund predicts that Government spending across the EU will fall by more than 8% between 2010 and 2017. They want more at a time when Mr Barroso, the European Commission’s President, has said:

“public finances must be consolidated”

and

“sound public finances are needed to restore confidence that is so essential for growth”.

They are asking for more at a time when the Commission itself is forcing deep public spending cuts on member states that have the misfortune to be locked into a debt crisis. At just such a time, the European Commission has thought it reasonable to propose an increase in what the EU spends of more than €100 billion, which is 10% more than it spends already.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

In light of what my right hon. Friend is saying, he might have noticed that I tried to give Her Majesty’s Government a nudge in the direction of a veto on anything that would be more than a freeze or a reduction, as well as a refusal to accept the financial transactions tax. Does it follow from his comments that the Government agree with my proposal?

[Greg Clark]

I normally agree with my hon. Friend, who is one of the House’s sages, and I can say that I agree in every respect with the amendment that he tabled.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Government are therefore making a most generous concession, so will my right hon. Friend make things absolutely clear to the House? My hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) spoke about a freeze, which would not allow for a cash increase. Is that the Government’s position?

[Greg Clark]

Our position is that we want the EU budget to be cut, but part of the negotiating mandate that the Prime Minister has agreed is that the very most that we would accept would be a real-terms freeze. However, we want a cut, as I shall explain.

The Commission—this time with the European Parliament—has proposed an increase of 6.8% for the 2013 annual budget. That is for a year in which the IMF forecasts that growth throughout Europe will average 0.5%. My view, and that of the Government, is that such a demand constitutes a grotesque imposition.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

I welcome the Financial Secretary to his new job. Will he confirm the House of Commons Library figures showing that Her Majesty’s Government’s spending between 2010 and 2015 will increase by £100 billion?

[Greg Clark]

I cannot confirm that, but I noted from the right hon. Gentleman’s article in the New Statesman that he is calling for increases in the budget, especially for the structural funds.

The Commission’s proposal is totally unacceptable, so let me say very clearly to hon. Members, as well as those around Europe who might be watching, that it is not happening. On the MFF, we will accept no real-terms increase in the EU budget for the next seven years. We will veto any proposal that either does not cut the budget or does not at the very least freeze it for the whole of the period. There will be no more budgets that pursue ever closer union through ever higher spending.

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I am sure that the Financial Secretary heard the Prime Minister’s excellent words today calling for a cut in the budget, so will he resist the blandishments of a very polite gentleman who appears to be impersonating the Conservative Chief Whip, and join those patriotic Conservative Members who will be voting for a cut in the budget?

[Greg Clark]

I have great respect for my hon. Friend, with whom I served on the Public Accounts Committee, and I shall explain why the Prime Minister will indeed be arguing for a cut, and why we have our mandate.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

Let me make a bit of progress and then I shall, of course, give way to hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Our opposition to the demands of the Commission is more than a matter of headline figures alone. When we dig down into the detail, there is always something repellent to find. For example, let us consider the EU administration costs. Members may not be aware that the pay of employees within the EU bureaucracy increases automatically each year. There is, however, a sensible provision to set this aside at times of economic crisis yet, unbelievably, the EU Commission is taking the EU Council to court to insist that the EU is not experiencing a time of economic crisis and that pay should rise. This is the same Commission that has attended four ordinary and three emergency European Councils during the past 12 months to agree unprecedented measures to bail out member states which have been unable to fund themselves without help. So while some member states face a crisis of solvency, the institutions of the EU face a crisis of credibility.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman to his post. I have known him for a long time and he has always been a very good pro-European. One of the elements that determines how much Britain pays towards the EU is VAT. If we increase VAT in this country, it means that we pay more money to the EU. Can he tell us precisely how much more we are paying by virtue of the increase of VAT to 20%?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman may have known me for a long time but he has a faulty memory. It was his Government—he served, I think, as Europe Minister in that Government—who gave away half of our rebate, which caused the increase that we have seen.

Though they are ready to lecture others on fiscal discipline, it is fiscal incontinence that characterises the approach of the European institutions. Administrative costs need to be hammered down to bring them into line with the modern world, yet the response of the Commission’s spokesman has been little short of insolent. The British Government asked the Commission to model cuts of €5 billion, €10 billion and €15 billion to its staffing budget, and the Commission refused. Its spokesman said:

“We declined as it’s a lot of work and a waste of time for our staff who are busy with more urgent matters…we are better educated than national civil servants. We’re high fliers, not burger flippers”.

As the Prime Minister has pointed out, one in every six of the Commission’s employees earns over €100,000 a year. The ordinary working people of this country have run out of patience with the attitude displayed by the Commission. The British public are ready to make sacrifices to put Britain back on its feet, but not to featherbed a self-styled elite and its agenda. We are not rolling back wasteful public spending in this country only to see it re-imposed from Brussels.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend is far too generous to the Labour party on the matter of the rebate. The House will recall that for every one of the 13 years of Labour government, there were above-inflation increases in the European Union.

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is totally right. The last time the country had the misfortune to be in the hands of a Labour Government, including the shadow Foreign Secretary, who was Europe Minister at the time, far from agreeing even a real-terms freeze or a cut, they increased the budget over seven years by 8%. That is the record of the Opposition.

It is not just the overall total. Once more we see the usual suspects circling round Britain’s budget rebate. That rebate was secured for future generations by Margaret Thatcher at Fontainebleau—the rebate which Tony Blair and his Europe Minister, now the shadow Foreign Secretary, put on the table in 2005, in the negotiation of the current multiannual financial framework. Of course, when I say negotiation, what I mean is unconditional surrender, giving away in perpetuity a large part of the rebate in return for nothing. If seven days is a long time in politics, seven years is even longer. The amendment to the motion would delete all mention of this betrayal. The act would be forgotten, but the consequences have not gone away.

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

The position of the Opposition is truly incredible, given their record in government. However, the problem that the good people of Brigg and Goole have with the multiannual financial framework is that all we can do is hope for a freeze as potentially the best outcome. Does that not show just how much the European Union has managed to take away the sovereignty of this country?

[Greg Clark]

Every budget negotiation under the seven-year framework has resulted in an increase. That must now stop. The next seven years must see an end to the perpetual ratcheting up of EU spending. The Prime Minister will be looking to achieve precisely that. As far as the Government are concerned, what remains of the rebate, after the predations of the Labour party, is absolutely non-negotiable. That means that even talking about it is a waste of time. Without it, our net contribution would be by far the largest in the EU, twice as big as that of France and more than one and a half times that of Italy or Germany as a percentage of gross national income.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

Earlier in his speech the Minister said that the Government are opposing a real-terms increase. The figure involved would be significantly different from a money-terms increase. Would the Government not do better by asking for a freeze in money terms, not real terms?

[Greg Clark]

Our position is very clear: we want to see a cut in the EU budget. That is what all of us on the Government side of the House want. I will come on to explain the negotiating mandate that the Prime Minister has agreed with European leaders.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

I welcome strongly the Government’s wish to have a new relationship with the EU, which is so appropriate now that it is going to integrate for the euro, so why is this not the time to negotiate different arrangements on how much we contribute and how many spending programmes we are part of, as the framework covers such a long period of time?

[Greg Clark]

That is exactly what we are doing in this multiannual financial framework, and the opportunity we have to veto a settlement that we are not in favour of gives us leverage in that.

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

The amendment to the motion

“calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms.”

Does the Financial Secretary disagree with the amendment?

[Greg Clark]

The hon. Gentleman, characteristically, is playing games with the issue. Of course we want to see a reduction. His position is wholly incredible, because this week he has been calling for a cut in the EU budget, which we all want to see, but when asked whether he is prepared to veto the budget, as we have said clearly we are prepared to do, he refuses. How can he take that position if he does not will the means to enforce it?

[Chris Leslie]

rose—

[Greg Clark]

I will not give way, because I want to make progress.

We have touched on a number of themes in the debate already—shamelessness, wastefulness, hypocrisy and betrayal—which leads us neatly to the position of the Labour party. Those sitting on the Opposition Front Bench are the same men who gave away so much of our rebate and who would surely surrender the rest on demand to curry favour with Europe. It is the party that, the last time it was in power and had the opportunity to negotiate an MFF, agreed not to a cut or a freeze, but to an 8% real-terms increase. It is a party whose socialist comrades in the European Parliament declared that the Commission’s proposed 10% increase was

“not sufficient to finance all the EU’s objectives”.

It is a party that nearly bankrupted our country but now claims conversion to the rigours of fiscal rectitude. It is a party whose last act in office was to sign Britain up to the EU stabilisation mechanism when it did not ever have a mandate to govern. It is a party that is so caught up in its cynical political games that it calls for a cut in the budget but at the same time says we should not deploy our veto to secure Britain’s interests. It is not a party that deserves to be taken seriously, as its opportunistic posturing this week shows.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The previous Labour Government argued for the repatriation of regional policy to save money. Do this Government stand by that?

[Greg Clark]

One of the issues that I hope unites Members of this House is a reflection that the structural funds need to be cut. They are one aspect of the budget that is recycling money from one set of taxpayers to another, often the same taxpayers. If there is no reason for it, it should be cut, and that is part of our negotiations.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Although it might be popular on the Government Benches, I think that the country is getting sick and tired of Eurosceptic words from Ministers but very little action on the ground. Is it not the case that, irrespective of whether or not the Government are successful in negotiating a freeze, in cash terms more money will be given to the European Union? If I am incorrect, will the Financial Secretary please correct me on the record?

[Greg Clark]

The shape of the budget needs to be negotiated—it has not been settled yet—but it is true to say that as a result of the giveaway of the rebate that the previous Government introduced we lose out from spending that goes to the new member states that previously would have been abated.

Let me address the three main differences between the motion and the amendment. First, the amendment would remove the condemnation of the previous Government for giving away part of our rebate. Despite the talk of fiscal responsibility, the aim is to conceal the loss to this country of £10 billion. That amount, coincidentally, is nearly equal to the whole of Britain’s share in the budget increase proposed by the Commission—an increase to which we are opposed. It is simply not credible to vote for restraint and then to remove from criticism the most wasteful surrender of the British taxpayer’s interest that any Prime Minister has made in Brussels.

The second effect of the amendment would be to delete references to new EU taxes. Yet the tax sovereignty of this country is, or should be, non-negotiable. In particular, this removal would send a signal that this House supports the introduction of a new financial transaction tax which could badly undermine Britain’s economy. By the Commission’s own analysis, the tax would lead to a fall in European GDP of up to 3.5% and nearly half a million job losses.

Thirdly and finally, there is the call simply to cut the EU budget and not, as the Government’s motion has it, to cut or, at the very least, to have a real-terms freeze. Let me address this aspect precisely, as it comes to the crux of the matter. I should like to say this not only to Labour Front Benchers but to all those Members present who are genuinely outraged by the budget proposal. Like them, I believe, very simply, that the EU should cut now, and keep on cutting. The Opposition call on the Government to persuade others and to build alliances with those who share our concerns. On the issue of budgetary restraint, that has been exactly our approach. In 2010, the Prime Minister achieved a historic breakthrough when he agreed with the leaders of Germany, France, Finland and the Netherlands that

“payment appropriations should increase at most, by no more that inflation over the next financial perspective.”

If this position were to be agreed to, then it would be the first time in the history of the EU that the seven-year budget has done anything other than accelerate. No one is pretending that this would represent all the long-term reform required—not a bit of it—but it would be a turning point. Having reached such an agreement, which has been scrutinised in this House in the two years since it was published, it is surely right for the Prime Minister to keep to his commitment rather than have to give backword at the last moment.

This Prime Minister has been clear, as neither of his two predecessors were, that the remorseless rise in spending in the EU has to stop, and it will stop. If there is no cut, or no real freeze, there is no deal: the framework will be vetoed. The Prime Minister has a formidable task in persuading other countries of this—many of them were looking forward to a seven-year pay-out—but he has made a strong start, and he deserves the support of this House as he goes in to bat for Britain.

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Opposition spokesman, I remind the House that there will be an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions.

16:24

[Chris Leslie (Nottingham East) (Lab/Co-op)]

That was a rather partisan speech from the Minister—[Interruption.] Well, it is the truth—it was rather partisan. May I first place on the record my appreciation to the Leader of the House, who is not in his place, and to the new Chief Whip, for scheduling this debate? Without the Government helpfully timetabling the motion on the report from the European Scrutiny Committee, we would not have had the opportunity to express the view of the House of Commons today.

Our economy has struggled in the past two years. We have stood still while our international competitors have accelerated away, and the flatlining economy has been bad for public finances, with borrowing higher so far this year than in the same six-month period last year. It is therefore clear that all demands on the public purse need to be considered with care, and our contribution to the EU budget can be no exception.

[Mr MacShane]

My hon. Friend might be a bit young to recall that in 1984 Britain’s contribution to the then European Community was £654 million. Six years later it had risen fourfold to £2.54 billion. Does he remember which Prime Minister sprayed British taxpayers’ money all over Europe, or are we all now post-Thatcherite, because the Conservative party certainly is?

[Chris Leslie]

The two Government parties have a lot of history to confront, but I do not want to be as partisan as the Financial Secretary, except to say that in a week when 1 million letters are being sent clawing back child benefit, when police budgets are being cut by 20%, when pensioners are having their tax allowances frozen, and when some of the poorest in society are being asked to pay more in tax—[Interruption.] It is a fact. Given all that, would it not be perverse if the European Union were exempt from those cuts?

When times are tough, not only in Britain, but in countries throughout Europe, it is all the more important that the negotiations on the next seven-year EU spending review—the multiannual financial framework—spurn the inflationary tendencies which simply repeat previous settlements plus a nominal price adjustment. Heads of Government need to champion reform, get a grip on the fundamentals of the EU budget and reverse that upward trend. There is a very simple test for the summit on 22 November: will member states just keep rolling forward the EU budget, plus inflation, or can they achieve a real-terms reduction?

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

I accept the difficulties with public finances and the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes his comments, but does he regret the actions of the previous Labour Government, who gave up the rebate?

[Chris Leslie]

The rebate has not been given up; it is still there to be defended. This is a task for the Prime Minister and the Chancellor to achieve, and we will see how they do. The last time we discussed these issues was seven years ago and we are now discussing them at a critical moment ahead of the next seven-year period, so this is when they matter most of all.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I want to address the motion and the amendment, if I may. The Government’s motion, for all its rhetoric, has such meagre ambitions. [Interruption.] It is true. The motion implies that the House should be content with business as usual, but that just will not do. A real-terms reduction is possible, but it requires persuasive diplomacy, careful alliance building and, above all, leadership.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman mentions careful alliance building. As we have heard, two years ago the Prime Minister did exactly that, with Germany, France and the Netherlands backing him to deliver a no real-terms increase. If the Prime Minister has to exercise the veto at the November meeting, will the hon. Gentleman support it? On 29 October, the hon. Gentleman said the opposite by saying that he thought we could avoid a veto, so will he now back it?

[Chris Leslie]

I hope that we can do better for Britain.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Yes or no?

[Chris Leslie]

If the hon. Gentleman calms down, I will explain. No one should be fooled into thinking that a veto is cost-free. The hon. Gentleman and all other hon. Members should know that the way in which European Union rules work means that last year’s budget will be cut and pasted and become the new budget for 2014, plus the inflationary increase. In other words, if the Prime Minister flounces off again, an extra £310 million will go from the Exchequer to the 2014 budget. That is a fact and we need a negotiation strategy that is going to work.

[Greg Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a simple question? Would he back the use of the veto—yes or no?

[Chris Leslie]

We have three weeks of negotiations. There is a summit on 22 November. [Interruption.] If the Minister has decided today to use the veto, why even bother going to the summit on 22 November? What is the point of the Prime Minister even travelling there? Will he still attend the summit? Surely the path to be pursued is the one that is the best for the taxpayer. I have explained what will happen if the Prime Minister walks away from the talks—it will cost the taxpayer more. Members can look at the Library research paper, which makes it clear for all to see that it will cost £310 million in 2014.

[Chris Bryant]

Is not the truth of the matter that literally the only way in which we can ensure that we end up with a less than inflationary increase is by not announcing that we will use the veto and by ensuring that we negotiate all the way through to the end? It is a child who announces on the first day of negotiations that they are going to use the veto, because then the Commission gets its way.

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely right, and that is why the Government do not get it. They need a negotiating strategy to get the best deal for the taxpayer. [Interruption.] The Minister laughs, and the Chancellor is next to him puppeting him along in his hilarity, but I say to the Chancellor that this is an incredibly serious issue. It is about taxpayers’ money, and incredibly large sums of it at that. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Mr Zahawi, I am sure that in your own way you mean well, but you are far too excitable. It is no good looking up and around, and at places outside the Chamber, and waving your hands in a bizarre manner. What you need to do is calm down. It will be good for you, good for the House and good for Stratford-on-Avon.

[Chris Leslie]

I am sure there is some Shakespearian reference about being calm in negotiations, and calm, persuasive diplomacy is the strategy that we need today.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I am sure that Members want to intervene to talk about that strategy.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I do not think any Government Members are saying that we should go into the negotiations saying that we will use the veto. [Interruption.] No, what the Minister said was that he was not ruling it out, and that he was prepared to use it. That is a very different thing. Would the shadow Minister be prepared to use it if necessary?

[Chris Leslie]

Of course it is a fact that a veto is part of the suite of what is available at the negotiations, but we should try to negotiate a better settlement first. My point is simple: if we go along with the proposals—[Interruption.] Will hon. Members bear with me for a moment? If we go along with the proposals of the Commission and the European Parliament, the Chancellor will be providing significant extra money. Hon. Members need to be aware of what the implications for the taxpayer will be if we walk away, which I am sure the Chancellor will confirm. I am happy to give way to him on the subject. If we walk away and there is no agreement, the budget will roll forward along with an inflationary element, costing the Exchequer an extra £300 million.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend realise that this discussion is almost a replay of John Smith finding a way to oppose the Maastricht treaty? The result was rebellions lasting several years and a majority of about 190 for Labour. My hon. Friend’s measured response of joining those of us who have voted against most of the treaties is a wonderful idea, and the prospect could be him sitting on the Treasury Bench.

[Chris Leslie]

I respect my hon. Friend’s view, but our goal today is to stand up for the taxpayer. That is not just the preserve of Opposition Members, because I know that some Government Members also want to rise above the partisan discussions and ensure that a decision is made that will mean the best thing for the taxpayer.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

What an array of Members to choose from. I give way to the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames).

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

I am grateful. Would not the hon. Gentleman agree that the proposal that the Government have put forward in the face of extraordinary, irrational provocation from the Commission is extremely sensible and deserves the support of the whole House?

[Chris Leslie]

I respect the right hon. Gentleman’s position, but with the greatest respect, I do not think the Government’s proposal goes far enough. They need to set in train a negotiating stance for the UK that will lead to a real-terms reduction. For all the fine words that we heard from the Minister, if he believes that as well, he should quite simply accept the amendment.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I would like to make progress as we have a limited amount of time.

The next seven years of the EU budget should prioritise jobs, growth, infrastructure and practical programmes that rejuvenate fragile economies. Building up those elements, however, means reducing EU spending elsewhere. Savings can be made on the common agricultural policy, which currently costs European nations £45 billion with the UK contributing about £1 billion a year. The common agricultural policy is a distorting barrier to trade liberalisation, a wasteful programme that is in need of further reform, and it is astonishing that the Government motion does not refer to it.

Savings can be made on aspects of EU structural funds that represent 35% of the budget and are too often committed in a haphazard manner and depend on outdated commitments rather than future priorities. Unless structural funds contribute to positive economic development, they cannot be justified. Savings can also be made on subsidies for tobacco growers, which will be discontinued, on outdated practices such as relocating the European Parliament to Strasbourg for a week each month—that costs €200 million each year—on non-essential projects such as the House of European History museum, which cost a reported £137 million, and on export refunds, which cost millions and disfigure fair trade.

Savings can and must be made, and delivering a real-terms reduction in the EU budget requires a relentless focus on the justification behind detailed expenditure. That is why we need a more effective and independent EU auditor who is able to examine the impact of programmes on the EU economy. The auditor must also improve the accountability of spending on pro-growth activities, which will require the bringing together of disparate Commission priorities under the auspices of a single commissioner for growth, persistently and single-handedly concentrating on that overarching concern.

How capable is our Prime Minister of delivering real reform in the EU budget? Can he come back with a deal that sees the contribution from the UK Exchequer reduced in real terms? Those are the tests he must now face. We know that his phantom veto last December placed the UK in the margins of influence, just when it mattered most, but today’s debate must be about more than the frailties of the Prime Minister. It boils down to how much we care about taxpayers’ money—money that is hard-earned and needs to be safeguarded.

For every 1% that the Government concede in additional spending on the multiannual financial framework, nearly £1 billion will transfer from UK taxpayers to the EU budget over the seven years of the spending review period. If negotiations fail because a member state walks away from the talks, we will simply see last year’s settlement rolled forward and supplemented by an automatic 2% inflation upgrade which, as I said, will cost our taxpayers at home an extra £310 million in 2014.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has not realised that trying to negotiate in a calm way on a deal that was agreed two years ago by our Prime Minister is the most sensible way to proceed. If he looks into it, he will find that new member states also have a lot of skin in the game, and they will not want us to use our veto because they will also lose out. This is not just about Britain and Britain’s veto, but about dynamics across the whole EU membership. Using our stated policy over two years in a consistent and calm fashion gives us the best chance of achieving real reductions in cost for the British taxpayer.

[Chris Leslie]

I have a lot of respect for the hon. Lady and she made a calm and persuasive point. The difficulty is that the Prime Minister has not been calm in these negotiations; indeed, he has deployed the veto almost three weeks before negotiations have even started. It is important to have a consistent and calm strategy, and the window of opportunity must surely be to persuade nations across the EU that their taxpayers also want a spending reduction in real terms. If the Prime Minister ends up at the November summit writing a cheque for hundreds of millions of pounds more, he will surely send an unpalatable message to millions of hard-pressed taxpayers across the country.

[Gavin Shuker (Luton South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Despite his youthful appearance, my hon. Friend has been in this House for many years longer I have. Perhaps he will explain to me why, although the Minister said that the stated ambition of his Government is to reduce the EU budget, Government Members who vote for that lose their positions.

[Chris Leslie]

The new Chief Whip will have his own strategy for twisting arms and using his powers of persuasion. The amendment is straightforward and similar to the position the Opposition took in July—[Interruption.] I hear what the junior Whip, the hon. Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Greg Hands), says about our position. It would be perverse for Government Members to walk through the Lobby to vote against the position the Minister proclaims he holds—but strange things happen in the House.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Will the shadow Minister confirm that, if the aims of the amendment are implemented, there will be a reduction in payments for Welsh farmers, and a reduction in convergence funding for some of the poorest communities in the EU, such as the one I represent?

[Chris Leslie]

No, that is not necessarily the case. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman has heard from Government Members or whether they have been trying to persuade him not to vote for the amendment, but my point, which other hon. Members will no doubt make during the debate, is that there is plenty of scope for savings within the EU budget. We need to prioritise jobs, growth and support for economies, but there are plenty of other ways in which we could make savings.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I want to make progress, if I may, because a lot of hon. Members want to speak.

I saw in The Guardian today that the Deputy Prime Minister has made a comment on Labour’s position. Liberal Democrats—there are none on the Treasury Bench, but some are in the Chamber—believe that Labour Members are dishonest and hypocritical simply because we want a real-terms reduction in the EU budget. Let us put to one side the fact that the Deputy Prime Minister, of all people, ought to avoid throwing those epithets. We have been clear on our position for a long period: because of the stagnating economy and the pressures on public finances, a real-terms rise in the EU budget is wrong. We have been saying that for months. The Deputy Prime Minister should figure out his own position before criticising those of us who want to stand up for the taxpayer.

I urge hon. Members to look at the amendment we tabled in the debate on 12 January, which states that the

“UK’s ability to negotiate a satisfactory European Union budget deal has been weakened by the Prime Minister’s failure to secure allies for a more prudent settlement in this qualified majority decision; and so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the 2013 Budget and the forthcoming Multi-Annual Financial Framework are reduced in real terms”.

If the Government had paid attention back then, they might not be in such a weak position today.

[George Eustice (Camborne and Redruth) (Con)]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point on the importance of building alliances. Will he update the House on how many leaders of Labour’s EU sister parties he has spoken to in the three days since Labour announced this new policy? Do any of those socialist leaders support his position?

[Chris Leslie]

If the Minister wants to resign his seat in the negotiations, we would be more than happy to take over—we would be a great deal more successful. We are the Opposition and are not in a position to negotiate, but we are quite ready to take that role to get a better deal for the taxpayer. I only hope Ministers do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Chris Leslie]

I will not give way for a moment.

Some people seem to think that querying the size of the EU budget is anti-European, but it is not. For those of us who believe strongly in the benefits of coming together as a community of nations and working jointly in the EU, it is our duty to prove that pooled budgets can be spent wisely and effectively, and retain the confidence of taxpayers everywhere. Good relationships with other EU states require a level of diplomatic acumen to persuade our partners that there is an alternative way forward.

The Conservative party in opposition believed in a real-terms cut. We have heard what the Minister has said and the Prime Minister was quoted at Question Time. However, we now hear that sources in No. 10 are backtracking and implying that the proposals are impossible to deliver. It is all very difficult, but what has changed? Frankly, the Prime Minister needs to have his hand strengthened in the negotiations, and it is our duty as a Parliament to fortify him at this critical stage and help him on his way.

The amendment makes it crystal clear that a real-terms reduction should be the goal. It is a position identical to that laid out in our amendment when we last debated this question in the middle of July, and it is a position that we still support today. It is time for the House of Commons to speak with one voice on behalf of the whole nation and say to the Prime Minister, “This is what we expect of you. This is your task. Let’s do the right thing for the taxpayer and have a real-terms reduction in the EU budget.” We support the amendment.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Just before I call the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), it might help the House if I explain that, in accordance with normal practice in these situations, he will have an opportunity formally to move his amendment at the conclusion of the debate. His opportunity now is simply to speak in it.

16:50

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

We simply cannot afford to agree an inflationary increase to the EU. This country has 13% less income than it had just five years ago, and we are seeing 20% reductions to domestic spending. According to the House of Commons Library, if an inflationary increase is agreed, next year it will amount to £290 million, every penny of which we will have to borrow. Hon. Members will have spoken to constituents on different issues, and police officers have been to my surgery. They understand that their pay is frozen, although they are less happy about changes to their pay and conditions and about not getting their increments, but they do not understand why other elements of the budget, particularly the EU, should be guaranteed inflationary increases, let alone inflationary increases all the way through to 2020.

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

I have the utmost respect for my hon. Friend. Does he have the utmost respect for Opposition Members who voted time and time again to give away our powers and our money to the EU but now propose to wrap themselves in the Eurosceptic flag and walk through the Lobby with him this afternoon?

[Mark Reckless]

No, I do not. Sometimes people do the right thing for the wrong reasons, but if even the Labour party is now arguing for a real-terms cut in the EU budget, I hope that Conservatives will do likewise.

As well as my police officers, my local council, Medway council, of which I was a member, passed a motion asking Members of Parliament representing that area to vote for a cut in the EU budget. It wrote:

“The Council notes, with indignation, that whilst Medway is facing a massive…reduction in its financial settlement…the UK’s contribution to the European Union is”

getting a massive rise. It continued:

“This Council believes the EU should be treated the same as the other tiers of government and in these austere times should share responsibility…for public spending reductions.”

It argues that that would allow it to protect local services. I could not agree more.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I am proud to represent a part of Torbay. How will I turn to residents in Brixham in my constituency, who suffered an 11% cut in formula grant last year and are suffering a 6.7% cut this year, and justify our taking the savings that they are making and handing them over to Europe?

[Mark Reckless]

Many hon. Members will be asking themselves the same question.

We heard from the Financial Secretary what these EU officials are paid. The Prime Minister went to Brussels a week or two ago and said that one in six EU officials earned more than €100,000. He might have understated his case, because we need to compare like with like. Not only do they earn more than €100,000 but they pay a special, incredibly low tax rate that applies only to people who work for the EU. They get an enormous expatriate allowance that shoves on another €15,000 to €20,000. They get a huge housing allowance. And, while a group of people in this country are about to lose child benefit of about £85 a month, EU officials get paid, tax free, another €300 per month per child. They contribute virtually nothing to their pension contributions. Under the arrangement we have in this country, any time a public official earns more than the Prime Minister—£142,500—that has to be signed off by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. If we had to sign off every time an EU official was, in effect, getting the same take-home pay there as the Prime Minister’s salary here, that would apply to more than 5,000 European Union officials, or more than one in six. The Chief Secretary would be doing nothing but signing off those requests.

Today we have an opportunity to debate and vote on the multiannual financial framework—the long-term budget. This comes round once every seven years. It requires unanimity among member states and primary legislation in this House to implement it.

[Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, despite the agitation among Government Members, the real issue is not the objective—there is a general consensus on the need for cuts to the budget—but the weakness of the Prime Minister in being unable to negotiate and having to threaten a veto?

[Mark Reckless]

No, and that is not a sensible point at all, because we have a one-off opportunity. It is this House that ultimately votes, so if any Government Members feel uncomfortable—not because of who I will be following through the Lobby, but because of who may be following me, in support of my Conservative amendment—I say to them: if we send the Prime Minister to Brussels telling him that it is acceptable to agree an inflationary increase, he may come back to this House having agreed that inflationary increase. We will then have to vote on primary legislation, in Committee and on Report, for that inflationary increase for the EU budget, all the way to 2020. If Members do not want that, they should vote today for my amendment.

The other strong argument for the amendment is this. Some people say, “We’re not going to get a real-terms cut,” but we will certainly not get one if we do not even try. If we use the veto, that is not a bad place to be; in many ways, it is better than where we would be with an agreed inflationary increase. There are two strong reasons for that. First, either we operate within a multiannual financial framework under the old, frozen ceilings carried forward, or we agree new ceilings going up by inflation, allowing higher budgets in future. Each of those budgets is always negotiated under qualified majority voting annually; the question is, where we have unanimity and where we need legislation, do we allow inflationary higher limits to 2020 or not?

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Reckless]

If my hon. Friend does not mind, I shall continue, as others may like to come in

The second point is that if there is no agreement on a new MFF, the process of money being transferred from the budget towards the new member states will not continue. What happened, in that disgraceful decision in 2005 when Labour gave away the rebate, is that a process was put in place whereby the new member states do not pay towards our rebate in the way that the old member states do. If the Prime Minister vetoes an MFF package, that process of money shifting to new member states will be suspended; therefore, the process by which the rebate is given away will, at least for that period, be stopped, which is a significant gain for Britain. If there is an inflationary increase, as the Government propose, we will be looking at a net contribution going from £9.2 billion last year to £13.6 billion at the end of the process. We simply cannot afford that.

The European Commission put out its own press release, which asked the question: “What will happen if a new MFF is not agreed?” The press release states that failure to agree a new MFF

“would considerably complicate the adoption of new programmes. And in the absence of new legal bases, including their indicative financial envelopes, no commitments could be made…those multiannual spending programmes…the 2014 budget would probably only cover the agricultural payments and the payments on outstanding commitments,”

and that organisations

“benefiting from EU-funds…would face severe drawbacks.”

If hon. Members are prepared to vote through primary legislation—later, when we get that chance—and if they are happy with an inflationary increase in the EU budget, plus everything else that will happen because of the continued loss of the rebate if that is agreed, they should vote for the Government motion. If hon. Members think that the European Union has too much money and that its budget is too large and needs to be cut, they should support my amendment.

17:00

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

This debate comes at a very particular time in the economic situation in Europe. The debate on this multiannual round did not start a week or a year ago; it started three or four years ago, and it is vital that we give a clear message to the European Union, the Commission and the other member states that, however ludicrously pro-European we might be—as is the case with me—we do not believe that the European Union and the Commission should spend more money at a time when every member state is having to make cuts.

[Jonathan Edwards]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will not. A lot of people want to take part in the debate. Perhaps he will catch Mr Speaker’s eye later.

Mr Barroso, in his introduction to the original version of the Commission’s suggestions, said:

“The European budget is the instrument for investment in Europe and growth in Europe.”

That is arrogance of the highest degree. It might be one instrument—a tiny part of the equation that is trying to refocus Europe towards a more competitive economy that is able to fight for jobs and added value against countries such as Russia, China and Mexico—but the biggest instruments must surely be the member states, or even the nations and regions within them. For instance, the factor that will make a difference to the resolution of Spain’s problems will almost certainly be the economic future of Catalunya and whether it invests in IT and future industries. It will not be the EU budget.

I am also convinced that, whatever happens to the EU budget, it will not make a dramatic difference to solving the problems in Greece or in Spain. The issues in those two countries are completely different. In Spain, for instance, the sub-prime mortgage market and the way in which houses were constructed along the coast, often for the British ex-pat market, is the single biggest problem that is dragging down the Spanish economy. So I say to Mr Barroso that, although I am ardently pro-European and I believe that the European Union has been one of the great political success stories of the past 100 years, I do not believe that the EU budget is the way to resolve the problems of those countries.

Government Members have been talking today about the small-ticket items in the EU’s expenditure. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury held rather different views from those he holds today when he was a member of the Social Democratic party. When I was a member of the Conservative party, I held exactly the same views on Europe as those I hold today. The sadness is that the Conservative party has abandoned its past.

[Greg Clark]

May I again correct the faulty recollection of the hon. Gentleman? The reason that I was a member of the David Owen branch of the SDP, rather than the one that went off in a different direction, was precisely because of its position on Europe, and I held the same views then as I do now.

[Chris Bryant]

As you know, Mr Speaker, I love apologising to Government Members, and I apologise to the Minister. The point I am making is a serious one, however. He referred to some of the small-ticket items in the EU budget, but the big-ticket item is the common agricultural policy. If we do not address that issue in this next round, we will manifestly have failed to deal with the gaping moral and ethical hole at the centre of the European Union.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

rose—

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I do not want to give way to lots of people, as that would steal away time from others, but I can never resist the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Harriett Baldwin).

[Harriett Baldwin]

On the subject of big-ticket items, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that, when he was Minister for Europe, the previous Government signed up to the euro bail-out mechanism? It was the present Government who had to negotiate us out of that mechanism.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Lady praises me far too much. I was Minister for Europe for about 2.5 seconds. In those 2.5 seconds, however, the one thing that I argued aggressively with my socialist friends and with my European People’s party friends—with whom her party used to be friends—was that the next multiannual round had to be lower than before and should not have an inflationary increase. I am afraid that the hon. Lady is pitching at the wrong person in this particular round.

I believe that there is a role for the EU budget and it should relate to growth, research and development. There are some things where we can do more together as a continent and add value. Unfortunately, however, those are not the issues that grab the attention of the French, the Germans, the Italians and the Spaniards. That is why we have to, and have always had to, build alliances with other countries, particularly the smaller countries.

[Andrea Leadsom]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I saw the hon. Lady attempting to intervene earlier. I will give way to her, but then no more.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful. Does the hon. Gentleman agree, then, that in order to be able to negotiate successfully on the big-ticket items as he says, we need a sound basis on which to go forward? Supporting an amendment that would simply trash all negotiations with other EU members, such as calling for a cut that is nigh on impossible, would not be the way to progress any decent negotiation on structural reform in the future.

[Chris Bryant]

To be honest, I do not agree with the hon. Lady. If I take her back to the last debate I had with her on this issue, I do not think that that is the position she was advocating then. In her heart of hearts, she would prefer Parliament to give a strong single voice today, so that the Government have a negotiating position whereby they can go to Brussels, Strasbourg or wherever and say, “Look, we have the whole of Parliament behind us saying, ‘We’ve got to cut’.” That is why I hope she will vote for the amendment today.

I know that some hon. Members do not like structural funds at all—perhaps this was the issue that the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who has already left the Chamber, wanted to raise—but I believe structural funds have a role to play in trying to make the whole European Union far more competitive in the world economy. That is certainly true for places like the valleys in south Wales. Sometimes the money is not particularly well spent, but if we did not have structural funds and cohesion funds, the danger is that each individual country would end up abusing state aid to protect specific businesses in their own country, thereby undermining countries like our own that choose not to go down that route.

I ask Government Members this: how could we possibly go back to our constituents and say to teachers, fire officers, police officers and all the rest, “We want to give more money to the European Union, but you’ve got to live with a pay freeze, and you’ve got to live with less money, with 19% cuts year on year to local authority funding for the building of hospitals, homes and so forth.”? I just do not see how I could possibly argue that.

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

I am not giving way, as I know that many other Members want to speak.

I resent the Minister’s answer to my earlier question, as I think he simply misunderstood it. When the Government increased VAT in this country to 20%, it increased the amount of money we would have to pay to—[Interruption.] The Minister has probably been inspired by officials at this point, so he may know the answer.

[Greg Clark]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman, as a former Minister for Europe, did not know the answer—that the tax base is notional, so the levies of VAT make no difference whatever. It is irrelevant.

[Chris Bryant]

I will explain it all to the Minister later; he is wrong.

There are some specific savings that the EU could and should make. One relates to the ludicrous caravanserai between Brussels and Strasbourg. I merely point out to Conservative Members that it was John Major who negotiated that final agreement in the treaty of Amsterdam; I wish we were able to dismantle it. It costs us £180 million a year, and it is a complete and utter waste of time and money. Similarly, we have to tackle the common agricultural policy.

My final point for Conservative Members is this. If they choose to start their negotiating position first by saying that the veto is going to be used, and secondly by saying that there is a long shopping list of things that they want the EU to deliver—the new Margaret Thatcher, the hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), has often referred to a shopping list—the danger is that when they get to the till, they will have to say how they are going to pay. If they have already said that they want to get out of justice and home affairs policy and all sorts of other European Union policies, they will not have a negotiating leg to stand on. If they have already declared that they are going to use the veto, they will end up with a worse, rather than a better position for the United Kingdom and will be paying more money. That is why I, as a good pro-European, will be supporting the amendment.

17:10

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The Labour party—the Opposition—will of course vote with us this evening, not the other way round. As the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) correctly pointed out, exactly the same happened with the Maastricht treaty.

The amendment spoken to so ably by my hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is absolutely right. It deals not just with the mechanics or the technicalities, but with what is really going on under the surface. The real questions are, “Where is the money coming from?” and “What is the object of this multiannual financial framework?”

I have been to many conferences in the past year in my capacity as Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee—in Cyprus and Denmark, and, before that, elsewhere—and I have attended similar conferences with my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington). They are living on another planet: that is the real problem. The main feature of that big landscape is where we are today. This is part of a picture that must be dealt with.

I know that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is conscious of that. He knows that Mr Barroso’s speech calling for a federal Europe, which was made only a short time ago, has put us at a crossroads. We cannot continue to assume that what was being considered before that date still applies. We are now on a different journey. They are on one planet, and we are on another. We have to make a stand, and that is what this is all about.

A letter dated 18 December 2011 from the Prime Minister and from the Prime Ministers of several other member states, included the following passage:

“European public spending cannot be exempt from the considerable efforts made by the Member States to bring their public spending under control.”

We are cutting here; we need growth. They are not cutting, but increasing. That is the point.

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

I know that my hon. Friend has a great deal of empathy with the private sector. The private sector is the engine of growth in our economy and it becomes more efficient every year, but does my hon. Friend agree that in Brussels the only thing that increases is the appetite for our money?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely. It is impossible to make any public expenditure—including our contributions to the whole of the public sector: health, education, local government, the lot—unless the money comes from reasonably taxed small and medium-sized enterprises. Yet the whole of the Commission’s paper—which is at the heart of the 2020 strategy and at the heart of why the Commission is asking for this increased amount of money, which it calls an investment for growth—contains only one reference to small and medium-sized businesses, in one line. That is the problem we are up against. We cannot give money to the public sector unless we get it from private enterprise on a reasonably taxed basis.

The Prime Minister’s letter continues:

“The action taken in 2011 to curb”—

“curb”: that is the word he uses—

“annual growth in European payment appropriations should therefore be stepped up progressively over the remaining years of this financial perspective and payment appropriations should increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

The situation was wrong then, and it has got worse since. That was in December 2011. We are now in October 2012, and we know what the picture is, and it is getting progressively worse. That is why we had to call for a reduction rather than merely what the Prime Minister describes as an

“increase, at most, by no more than inflation over the next financial perspectives.”

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend take some support from the fact that on 20 June our right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary told this House he thought reductions in the EU budget of 20% were “highly desirable”?

[Mr Cash]

Absolutely; that is a very good point indeed.

I would like to dig a little deeper into what this money is supposed to be used for. It is all set out in the papers laid before the House for the purposes of this debate. They talk about turning the EU into a “smart”—whatever that means—“sustainable and inclusive economy” delivering

“high levels of employment productivity and social cohesion.”

How on earth are they going to achieve that given the measures they think will produce growth? Almost every single aspect of what they want to deliver is based on increasing grants and subsidies, but not on asking where the money is coming from.

The money comes from our constituents. It comes from the taxpayer. It does not grow on trees. That is what they do not understand. Therefore, the entire strategy on which this multiannual financial framework is based is nonsense. It is an Alice in Wonderland fantasy, as I have repeatedly said when I have had the opportunity to meet the other 27 Chairmen of the national scrutiny committees. I have noticed that there is increasing awareness, too. The hon. Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) was with me only a few weeks ago, and he noticed the degree of response I was getting from the other member states’ national chairmen. They understood that they were in deep trouble.

The money does not grow on trees in Spain; that is why there are demands for independence from Catalonia. The money does not grow on trees in France or Germany either. The fact is that it has to be found.

[Wayne David]

The hon. Gentleman and I have significant differences about what this country’s approach to the EU should be, but does he agree that the important thing at this moment in time, with every EU member state having to make public expenditure cuts, is that the EU itself should make cuts? That message should go out from both sides of this House.

[Mr Cash]

The hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think this is just a cynical move, even though there is an element of that. As I find when I go to meetings with those in the presidency, there is a recognition: they know they cannot go on spending money that is not there. That is the truth. That is all this argument is really about. It is about the big landscape of whether, like Mr Micawber, we can just hope something will turn up. It will not; it has to be built through real growth policies.

Unfortunately, the report the European Commission produced only a few months ago shows it has not got a clue how to generate that growth. I was also deeply disturbed to see that the amazing report by the European Parliament calling for all these increases was welcomed by the vice-president of the European Commission, Maroš Šefcovic. He said the MFF was “an investment budget” for delivering growth in “the entire EU.” He condemns himself outright simply by endorsing the 150 pages of unadulterated rubbish that came out of the European Parliament in its interim report.

[Mark Reckless]

Even for those in the House who are genuine Keynesians, if our goal is to stimulate the economy is it possible to think of a worse way to spend money than the way the MFF sets out for the EU?

[Mr Cash]

I absolutely agree. The real problem is that their answer is to give more money to the public sector and to ventures and projects that, as the Court of Auditors report shows, increasingly fail. The trouble is that the European project is a failing project.

They will not recognise that, so what are they doing? They are saying, “We are going to go off and have a federal Europe.” Well, let them have it. They can have their federal Europe if they want, but we, in this country, cannot possibly be part of it—that is unthinkable. The Prime Minister knows it is unthinkable, and my genuine belief is that he will come to discover that it would be better to veto this and to ensure it does not go through, because he has already been presented with the crossroads. The crossroads was presented by Mr Barroso, and the crossroads is being presented by the other member states. There is no turning back. We therefore have to say no. We say no to this, we say no to the illegal banking regulations that we have just been looking at and we will be saying no to the proposals for any new treaty. If we are prepared to put our money where our mouth is and actually say that we will not accept this, we will be serving the national interest.

17:20

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I support the amendment standing in the name of the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless); as a signatory to it, I am delighted to do so. I am also delighted that members of my Front-Bench team are, for a change, on the same side as me and my hon. Friends the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) and Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), among others. It is nice to see so many people in the Chamber.

We sometimes say, “This shows Parliament at its best.” If this amendment is not passed tonight, we will be showing Parliament at its worst, because a lot people here will not be doing what they really want to do. A lot of people here, on both sides of the House, will be doing what their party has asked them to do. I believe, fundamentally, that the issue of Europe has reached the point where party is not as important as the issue. I genuinely believe that we, in this Parliament, are way behind the public on the question of Europe. I am pleased that things seem to be moving in the direction of the Labour Members and the Government Members who see things as I do. Many of us have worked together on this for many years, going back as far as the time of the Maastricht treaty, when the same pressure was applied by the Labour Whips to vote on it as is probably being applied to Government Members now.

I do not believe that the public would understand the nuances being used here. I refer to the weeny words of the Minister, who was not prepared to give way to me for some reason—I do not know what I have done to upset him—on the issue of why the Government could not support the amendment. He said that it was because the amendment did not contain any criticism of my party when it was in government. We have made criticisms of my party when it was in government—I have done so, as have my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North and various others. Many Labour Members and many others within the Labour party did not support the rebate being removed.

[Kelvin Hopkins]

Many of us have been critical of the giving away of the rebate, both publicly before the last election and since. The Government make much of that event, but I have said to them in this Chamber, “If you feel so seriously about it, why haven’t you demanded it back?” They have had two and a half years to do that.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Tonight, we have an opportunity to make it public that there is a united Parliament, for whatever reason and motive. The reality is that we are a united Parliament and we are saying, “We do not want one penny extra spent. We want to see a cut in what the European Union is spending.” I want to see more than that. I want a referendum on our relationship with Europe. I want an end to this nonsense, which we keep putting up with. We could make a decision tonight that says, “We do not want to see an increase—we want to see a cut.” However, come the end of the process, by majority voting, we could be outvoted, no matter how many diplomatic skills we use. I am sure that many hon. Members think that they could do better if they were negotiating, but no matter how good our negotiating skills we may not get what we have asked for. My view is that we should veto at that point and then, when we are sent our bill, we should say no and tell them that we will send what we agreed. We should tell them that we will not send them an increase.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

Given that the Minister and the shadow Minister both said that it is the policy of the Government and Her Majesty’s Opposition that they would wish to see a reduction in the European Union budget and given that there is a motion before the House asking for such a reduction, will not the public find it bizarre if that does not go through tonight?

[Kate Hoey]

In my simple way, that is what I am trying to say. We are beginning to look really out of touch. It is beginning to look as though we are not interested in the people we were elected to represent. I believe that tonight is the night when we can make that difference and really change things.

I must make an apology. I am very lucky that my constituency is literally five minutes away and I agreed some time ago that at 6 o’clock I would light the bonfire on Hallowe’en night. I shall leave to light the bonfire and I shall come back to vote. I hope that on that bonfire there might be something to signify something about the European Union; it would be rather nice if there were. It is not likely, however.

Finally, I ask Members to realise that they should not worry about who is with them in the Lobby tonight. They should not worry about whether they are in the Lobby with people with whom they would rather not be in the Lobby. They should recognise that they are going into that Lobby to represent the people who elected them and should think about what they would want them to do.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady has a hectic social schedule, to which we have all become privy, and I understand that she will have to leave at some point, but I know that she will want to hear the next speech.

[Kate Hoey]

indicated assent.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to her. I call Mr Peter Bone.

17:27

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). When the House can hear speeches from the hon. Lady, the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stone (Mr Cash) and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and we all agree, that is when the House is at its best.

I am delighted if Opposition Members want to vote for a Conservative amendment. That shows great credit to them. I hope that all Members on this side will vote for a Conservative amendment. The problem is that the motion is not a Conservative motion but a coalition motion. I am quite convinced that if we were not in coalition with the Liberal Democrats, the Prime Minister would be voting for the amendment.

[Chris Huhne (Eastleigh) (LD)]

It has nothing to do with whether this is a coalition motion or a Conservative amendment. It is about realism versus unreality. As the hon. Gentleman knows, if someone goes into a negotiation telling people exactly what they are going to do, with no room for movement whatsoever, why on earth should they bother talking to them? We heard the reality from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and that is that he, like the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), wants a crisis for the European Union. This has nothing whatsoever to do with these negotiations.

[Mr Bone]

I must apologise to the Liberal Democrats, because they obviously agree with everything we have said tonight and think that we must strengthen the Prime Minister’s hand in the negotiations. I apologise for giving the false impression that they were going to vote with the Government tonight.

One problem is that this is a Westminster village affair, and I want to know what is happening on the streets in my patch. There is a lady who has been walking the streets of the Corby constituency for eight weeks or so; her name is Christine Emmett and she just happens to be the Conservative candidate there. I wondered what the feedback was on the ground in Corby, and she says:

“I voted ‘no’ to the EEC in 1975, as I did not trust the Common Market (as it then was) would not grow into a political alliance which would diminish our control over our own affairs. The British people voted ‘yes’ and we have lost control of some essential legislation”.

She goes on to say:

“The present terms of membership are unacceptable and unaffordable”—

she speaks for the people in my constituency, too.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Bone]

I shall press on because other Members wish to speak and I want to be as brief as possible.

I think that every Member, whether they vote for the Government’s motion or not, wants a reduced budget. We all think that there should be a real reduction in the EU budget, because how can we tell our constituents that they are suffering cuts so that we can give the European Union money to waste? We have a superb Minister at the Dispatch Box listening to the debate. At its conclusion, I genuinely hope that the Government will be able to accept this modest amendment. Would not that be great? The British people, instead of seeing artificial division, would then know that the whole House was in favour of a reduced budget in real terms, albeit perhaps with the exception of Plaid Cymru Members, who might have done a dirty deal somewhere along the line.

The real issue that I want to talk about is the rebate. I shall give Prime Minister Blair the benefit of the doubt, because when he gave up the rebate, he thought that there would also be a massive cut in common agricultural policy payments, meaning that our net contribution would not go up. According to figures from the House of Commons Library, during the following five years of the Labour Government, our net contribution to the EU was £16 billion. That is a lot to pay for membership of the EU, but unfortunately, since Tony Blair left, our rebate has gone down and there has been no reform of the CAP, so over the period of the coalition Government, as things stand—even without a budget reduction—we will be paying £36.4 billion to be a member of this club. How can we say that we will pay £36.4 billion, and then that we will pay some more to allow for inflation?

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that the “more” figure that we will pay under the Government’s inflationary proposals is £1.3 billion over just the next two and a half years? How many nurses, doctors and teachers would that buy?

[Mr Bone]

I agree entirely.

The issue tonight is not whether I am happy to vote with the hon. Member for Rhondda—

[Chris Bryant]

You always are.

[Mr Bone]

There are no two people in the House who disagree more on the European Union than the hon. Gentleman and I. Today, however, we are voting for what the British people want. When I talk to people in Rushden or Wellingborough, they cannot understand why their council services are being cut at the same time as we plan to spend billions more on the European Union.

Cutting away the rest of the rhetoric, hon. Members must decide whether they will vote for a Conservative amendment calling for a real reduction in the budget, or a coalition motion that effectively calls for an increase, because it allows for inflation. I am sure that, secretly, the Prime Minister would like the whole House to vote for the Conservative amendment, because it would strengthen his hand in the negotiations enormously if he could say, “There is a united House of Commons demanding a reduction in the budget.”

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. To accommodate more Members in the debate, the time limit is being reduced to five minutes, with the usual injury time for interventions.

17:34

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone). I agree with him entirely that the Prime Minister has a wonderful opportunity, if he wishes to grasp it, to use the united stance of the Commons on EU budget cuts to increase his bargaining power in Brussels, but I fear that the Prime Minister’s negotiating position is more about damage limitation than about getting the EU budget reduced. A unique opportunity exists for EU budgetary reform and all due diligence should be directed towards advocating an overall reduction in the EU budget.

The House of Commons Library has set out clearly what the reductions are for each of the Departments over the current comprehensive spending review period. There are reductions of 23% for the Home Office, 27% for the Ministry of Justice, 19% for the Ministry of Defence and 19% for the Department for Work and Pensions. Across the board there is an 11% real reduction in Government spending. In the Northern Ireland Office the reduction is 12%, in the Wales Office 12% and in the Scotland Office 11%. These are real cuts. There is nothing in these figures which allows for a freeze still less an increase to cover inflation.

It is difficult for people in the community, as has been said by previous speakers, to understand why the Prime Minister tells people that in order to get the economy on the right footing, drastic real-terms cuts in the budgets of Government Departments are necessary, affecting front-line services. That message has been sent out by national Governments in the EU, right across the board, yet when it comes to EU expenditure, we are told that the most that we can aspire to is some kind of inflation increase. To the people in the street, to whom the hon. Member for Wellingborough referred, this is not only bizarre, but incomprehensible. They expect the Members whom they send to the House of Commons to stand up for the United Kingdom and for them, and to say that the same rules should apply to spending on the EU as to everybody else.

[Mr Cash]

Does the right hon. Gentleman know that the European Parliament describes the Commission’s proposal as representing a freeze of the multiannual financial framework between 2014 and 2020, and says that it would not be sufficient to finance the existing policies which come out of the treaty of Lisbon? Is there not something ironic in that, in relation to the Government’s motion?

[Mr Dodds]

Absolutely. When it comes to the European Parliament, nothing surprises me. I must speak up in defence of Members of the European Parliament, including the Member from my party, who consistently vote against these federalist ideas and against increases to the budget, and stand up for the people who contact us daily, saying enough is enough.

With reference to what the EU is doing, let us look at some of the areas of expenditure to which this year alone the UK will contribute £15.8 billion and by 2014-15 £19.2 billion, and that is before the increases going forward. A Member referred earlier to the European Parliament and the fact that it does not have a single seat. Ending that wanton inefficiency would equate to £1.26 billion over the seven years of the 2014-20 period, but there seems to be no appetite in the EU to change that.

With respect to quangos and agencies, there are 56 EU quangos, twice the number in operation in 2004. The cost to European taxpayers has increased by 33% in the past two years alone, with an estimated expenditure of €2.48 billion in 2012 alone. We were told that when it came into being, the External Action Service would not cost the British Exchequer any more money, whereas it has done precisely that. If we got rid of that unnecessary body, we would save EU taxpayers more than €480 million every year.

I think the Minister referred to the House of European History, of all things, which, I am told, is aimed at promoting an awareness of European identity since 1946. It will cost £136.5 million by 2015, with British taxpayers contributing £18.6 million. Those are simply a few examples of the absolutely scandalous waste of money towards which our taxpayers are having to contribute year on year through our contributions to the EU budget.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is this not simply about fairness? It is fair for the European Union to make the same sorts of cuts that we are having to make at home. That is fair and that is what we should pass tonight.

[Mr Dodds]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that this is about fairness. It is also about being seen to connect with the electorate, the people who send us here, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said. One of the problems with Parliament and politicians generally is that people do not feel that we have any connection with them or relate to their day-to-day problems. The choice before the House tonight is clear: either we vote to send a clear message that enough is enough, we expect what applies to UK Government expenditure and the national budgets of other member states to apply to the European Union, and our choice is to be on the side of the taxpayer and our people, who are out there suffering daily as a result of the cuts—

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

rose—

[Mr Dodds]

I am sorry, but I have no more time to give way and other Members wish to speak.

The choice is whether or not to vote in favour of the Government’s motion, which has been couched in tough terms by the Minister, and I welcome the progression in Government thinking, because when I listened to the Opposition spokesman I was reminded that it was not long ago that we heard representatives of the same party arguing a very different case when it came to European expenditure. I accept that entirely, but the fact of the matter is that there is no reason why this House should not send out a united message saying that what is good enough for Britain and our constituents, for the people we represent, should also be good enough for the European Union and that there should be no special exemption or special rule for it. We must be on the side of taxpayers tonight and vote for the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless).

17:41

[Stephen Williams (Bristol West) (LD)]

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who I assume has gone to light her bonfire—I am not sure whether Mr Barroso or anyone else will be on top of it, but I hope that she enjoys the heat south of the river—said that the House was at its best when it is united. I entirely agree that the House is at its best when united on an important point of principle in which we all genuinely believe, and some Members are genuinely standing up for what they believe in—the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for example, who are genuinely Eurosceptic—but when the public see nakedly opportunistic Opposition motions, that is when the House is at its worst in their eyes, and that is what undermines public confidence in the work of Parliament.

[Chris Leslie]

Will the hon. Gentleman remind the House what he said about tuition fees before the general election?

[Stephen Williams]

This is about a debate we are having now on a budget from 2014 to 2020, not about a position we took in 2009 before any of us knew we were going to be in a coalition Government. This is a position we can decide for ourselves, knowing the circumstances we are currently in. They are entirely different situations.

We are essentially discussing a comprehensive spending review of the European Union from 2014 to 2020, for which the European Commission has asked for a budget of €972 billion. That is roughly €100 billion above what would be a real-terms freeze. That is completely unrealistic at a time when EU member states are under real budgetary pressure, and some more so than others. It would be unacceptable for the United Kingdom to agree an increase of that magnitude, because it would represent roughly £10 billion in extra contributions. Therefore, it is absolutely right that the UK Government are going into the negotiations, in concert with many other member states, asking for a real-terms freeze. That is what is important: the position our Government are taking is in agreement with that of many other member states. It is a position that has a realistic prospect of achieving the success that most of us actually want. Undermining the United Kingdom’s position today will blow a hole in that negotiating position and make it much less likely that we will get the outcome many of us wish to achieve.

[Andrea Leadsom]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it blows a hole in our credibility with our European colleagues regarding not only the budget but other reforms where we have a significant, perhaps once in a lifetime, opportunity to create real structural reform of the EU?

[Stephen Williams]

I absolutely agree, and I will come to that shortly.

The negotiating position of arguing for a real-terms freeze is agreed right across the coalition Government. There is no one more Europhile than the Deputy Prime Minister, who tomorrow is going to make a speech in which he highlights several of the reasonable differences that exist between the coalition parties on our relations with the European Union and makes it absolutely clear that he fully agrees that a real-terms freeze is the right way forward.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) mentioned the case for reform. The European Union spends 33.8% of its existing budget, as negotiated in 2005, on the common agricultural policy and 5.7% on a very bloated central administration system, with the caravan moving between Strasbourg and Brussels, and it could make cuts in those areas. Yet it spends only 9.2% of its budget on the competitiveness agenda—on supporting research and development and small and medium-sized enterprises. That is where we want the European Union to spend whatever its agreed budget is in future.

The Government are right to argue against what the European Union calls its “own resources”—in other words, tax revenues directly hypothecated for the EU—and to say that we do not want that to happen with VAT. They are also right to argue against a Europe-wide financial transactions tax. My colleagues and I think that there is a good case to be made for a financial transactions tax across all the global financial centres, but many of those are outside the European Union, most obviously in Switzerland. It is not for the European Union to make the case for an FTT, and it certainly should not be the recipient of any revenues from an FTT should one be imposed in future, because it would then be taking on the personality of a state and a Government, and that is not the vision of the European Union that the Liberal Democrats wish to see. It is also right that the Government should argue for the retention of the British rebate.

Labour’s position is quite extraordinary. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who is no longer in his seat, gave the game away by alluding to the Maastricht votes of 20 years ago. Its position is a marriage of genuine Euroscepticism—I accept that—and naked opportunism. We in the coalition Government have waited two and a half years for Labour Front Benchers to tell us which of the cuts that the coalition Government are implementing they agree with, and, if they disagree with all of them, which has been the position thus far, at least to suggest alternatives. There has been total silence. The only cut that they are brave enough to suggest is one that has to be imposed by 26 other member states—they show no bravery at all in suggesting cuts in our own budgets. That is incredible, and for those Labour Members who are Europhiles, it is an embarrassing position in which to find themselves. I can only assume that they have been put there by their more senior Front-Bench colleagues who are not with us at the moment.

Labour Members should know that it is not possible to achieve a real-terms reduction in the MFF. They did not manage it in 2005, when they negotiated an increase. The current leader of the Labour party, the current shadow Chancellor and the current shadow Foreign Secretary were leading members of that Government. Liberal Democrat MPs and Conservative MPs voted against an increase in November 2007. In recent years, our Members of the European Parliament, Liberal Democrat and Conservative, have consistently voted against a real-terms increase in the European budget. Labour Members of the European Parliament have voted against a freeze in the EU budget; all they voted for was extra money for the trade unions. We want the EU to spend more on measures that grow the European economy, deepen the single market and make the EU globally competitive.

17:49

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I welcome the junior Minister of State and hope he will tell us where the senior Minister of State is this evening.

This has been an excellent debate and we have heard principled contributions from Members of all parties, who hold deep, long-held convictions about Europe and the direction of travel. Anyone who is aware of my view will know that I am the co-chairman of the all-party group on European reform and that I believe that Britain is better off in Europe but that the current organisation is not satisfactory.

To give an example, 1 January saw the introduction of a European-wide ban of battery eggs, for which the UK, under the previous Government, and many other countries had campaigned successfully. However, it became clear that a number of eastern and southern European nations would fail to meet the 1 January deadline. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee took evidence on the issue last year and, when we asked the European Commission what it would do if the UK chose not to allow these illegal eggs into the country, it said that it would prosecute the United Kingdom, which is an obscene and perverse position to adopt. Saying that it would prosecute a country for upholding Europe’s own laws shows that the Commission has got its priorities wrong.

The Minister discussed cutting structural funds, but I disagree. The solution, as explored by the all-party group, is that if we repatriated the structural fund powers and spent the same amount of money as we hand to Brussels, we would have hundreds of millions of pounds more to spend in Wales, Scotland, the south-west and the south-east.

[Conor Burns]

Given that the hon. Gentleman is going to vote in favour of an amendment calling for spending restraint, does he regret that his party’s Front Benchers did not follow that policy in their 13 years in government?

[Thomas Docherty]

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman has not made it on to the Government’s Front Bench yet with that kind of devastating critique.

My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that we will be voting alongside people whom we do not get on with or whom we do not particularly like, but I have been informed by one or two Conservative colleagues that that occasionally happens in the Government Lobbies anyway. I look forward to seeing which Lobby the hon. Gentleman enters later.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not a debate about whether we should be in or out of Europe? It is about the fact that, on the one hand, the British people have been told to tighten their belts and the Government’s borrowing has gone up, while on the other hand, the Government are leading us into a situation where there will be an increase, one way or another, in the EU budget. That is the real issue and it is not acceptable to the British people.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is correct. Whether people live in Coventry, Bournemouth, Tunbridge Wells, Ribble Valley, Dunfermline or Cardiff, education budgets, child care, housing budgets and defence of the realm are being cut, yet we are expected to hand more and more money to Brussels bureaucrats to spend on vanity projects that will then attack British industry and British farmers. The British public will not understand if Members of this House, who claim that they want the best for the British taxpayer and that they want to support British industry, do not vote according to their principles and their long-held consciences and allow themselves to be corralled by their Whips into voting for this coalition motion.

It is interesting that this is only the second time that we have seen a large Liberal Democrat turnout in the Chamber since the start of this parliamentary Session. The first time was when we debated House of Lords reform. That says it all about the quality of the motion. I urge hon. Members from all parties to listen to their taxpayers, British industry and their consciences and to vote for the amendment.

17:54

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty). I feel rather uncomfortable with what I am about to say, because I agree with pretty much everything that has been said, particularly by Government Members. Of course we all want a real cut—I am sure the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Financial Secretary do. The nub of the debate, however, is what my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom) said. It is about how the Prime Minister negotiates, and negotiation is about achieving realistic objectives.

I think that the multiannual financial framework, or EU budget to use a simpler term, is insane. For the European Union to ask for a 10% real-terms increase above inflation is insulting to our constituents and to the people of Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland, who are being told to pull in their belts. My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said—I think I am getting this right—that people are being asked to make painful cuts in their household budgets. Each and every one of us has constituents who are being told to pull in their belts, and we all agree with that.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am flattered that my hon. Friend has quoted me. One way in which the Prime Minister’s hand can be strengthened is by having a united Parliament rather than a disunited Parliament when he goes to Brussels to negotiate on my birthday, 22 November.

[Mr Newmark]

I hasten to add that it is my wife’s birthday as well.

Let us discuss and decide today what message the Prime Minister should be given. Clearly he will read Hansard, and he will know the message that the Whips give him and so on, but do we want to bind his hands when he goes into the negotiations? He has already discussed a real-terms freeze with the Germans, French and Dutch, who are buying into the fact that this is a reasonable prospect. Do we want to push him over the edge and ask for something that we know he can never realistically achieve?

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

The real-terms freeze that the hon. Gentleman says is realistic is of course an inflationary rise. Does he really believe that it is unrealistic that the European Union can find modest efficiencies to deliver even a modest cut? When I am to his right on a subject, he is definitely wrong.

[Mr Newmark]

If it was the hon. Gentleman and I negotiating, I am sure we could find some realistic efficiencies. The fact is, however, that for the time being—I say this for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash)—we are in something called the European Union. We therefore have to negotiate with more than 25 other countries.

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Newmark]

No, I think I will proceed.

On the Labour party’s chutzpah and hypocrisy, the hon. Members for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) and for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) argued for more financial restraint and for looking after taxpayers’ interests, but there was a 47% real-terms increase in the EU budget while Labour was in government. What has suddenly changed their minds? We need not take any lectures from them. Their policies are incoherent, opportunistic and completely lacking in credibility.

That brings me to the nub of the argument: which way will we go? Will we ask the Prime Minister for something that he can achieve, which is a real-terms freeze? That does not mean that he will not do better than that, because I believe he will fight our corner for real-terms cuts. I am sure he is listening to everybody who is fighting for real-terms cuts, or at least to Government Members, but what is his bottom line? What is the red line beyond which we should pull out the veto, which the hon. Member for Nottingham East has not admitted he is willing to use? That red line has to be at least a real-terms freeze. That is what today’s debate is really about.

I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to consider what message we want to give the Prime Minister. It should be that he should negotiate in the best interests of UK plc. That means fighting for a real-terms cut—I want that, and so do all my right hon. and hon. Friends—but the bottom line should be a real-terms freeze, which I believe is achievable in the negotiations.

17:59

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

You and I, Mr Deputy Speaker, were both Members of this House in 1992-93, when I was one of those pro-Europeans who followed my pro-European party leader, John Smith, and the spokesman for foreign affairs, Lord Robertson, into the Lobby with people whom I would never have described as having the same view as me on Europe and its future. The same thing will happen this evening, but I wish to make it clear that I do so not because I agree with the tenor and tone of the many Europhobic speeches we have heard from Government Members—and some, unfortunately, from this side of the House—but because I believe it is wrong for the European Union to increase its spending at a time when national budgets, not just in this country but in Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere, are being reduced.

This is not the most important debate about the future of Europe that we will face, and we must put it into perspective. Although there is talk of billions of pounds and euros, the EU budget is only 1% of the GDP of all member states. In this country, public spending accounts for more than 40% of our GDP each year, and we must put into perspective the fact that the EU’s total spend is very small.

In his introductory remarks, the Minister referred to the size of the Commission. I was unable to intervene at that point, but let me place it on the record that the European Commission has, in total, between 30,000 and 33,000 employees who serve 27 member states. The Minister’s Department in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs alone has about 80,000 employees, and we must get such things into perspective. We do not have a gargantuan European Union bureaucracy hoovering up resources; in fact, the UK Government spend five times as much servicing the interest on the national debt each year than they do in European Union contributions.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about the administration of the European Commission, which at 30,000 employees I think is still too large. The bulk of the EU budget goes on redistributing money, typically from net contributors such as the United Kingdom to other parts of Europe. Does he feel that we need a little more restraint in that respect as well?

[Mike Gapes]

I agree with that, but I also point out that the UK contribution to the European Union is less than that of Germany. Our net contribution—with the rebate that was retained by the previous Labour Government—is comparable to that made by France, a similar country in terms of size, population and GDP. We are among the net contributors, but the European Union is also about solidarity. One thing that led to the growth of the European Union, and the increased trade and prosperity from which British workers and British companies benefit, is the fact that countries such as Spain and Portugal—and, increasingly, countries such as Slovenia—are growing and benefiting by their membership of the EU.

The EU also makes a contribution to democracy and stability in Europe, for which the Nobel prize committee has rightly—[Interruption.] Oh I see. Here they are; here is the real agenda. The Nobel prize committee has rightly recognised the European Union’s contribution to peace in Europe over the decades. If somebody like Henry Kissinger can get the Nobel peace prize, the European Union certainly deserves it.

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend share my hope that the EU—some time, and perhaps this century—will get the Nobel prize for economics?

[Mike Gapes]

I would hope that my right hon. Friend and I—we are of a similar age—will live long enough to see that, but I do not think it will happen immediately. It will require the eurozone to become much more tightly organised than it is today.

Last week, I visited Germany and Norway with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. We are considering the future of Europe and the implications for this country of different options that might arise. Two or three years ago, the political debate in Germany was about trying to keep Britain on board and to move with Britain. However, the reality, right across the political spectrum, is that Germany has given up on the UK under the coalition Government. The Germans see their future as being with France and Poland, and their priority will be to save the eurozone at all costs.

That means that the UK will be in an uncomfortable position. The Prime Minister might have signed a joint letter with European leaders in 2010, but the reality in 2012-13 is that Germany is not with us. Anybody who thinks that only Germany is not with us should read the remarks of Radek Sikorski, the Polish Foreign Minister, who gave a radical speech in Oxford just a few weeks ago, in which he used phrases such as:

“Poland wants to be with Germany and France as partners”.

He also said:

“You could, if only you wished, lead Europe’s defence policy…Britain’s leaders need to decide once again how best to use their influence in Europe…The EU is an English-speaking power. The Single Market was a British idea. A British commissioner runs our diplomatic service…But if you refuse, please don’t expect us to help you wreck or paralyze the EU.”

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Gapes]

I cannot—I have very little time.

The Polish and German Governments and many others want the UK to stay in the EU as partners, but they will not wreck the EU to keep us. We need to realise that our options are narrowing. The Government are in danger of taking us into an isolationist position.

18:07

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

All Government Members will recognise how deeply shabby Opposition Front Benchers’ behaviour has been. I was a Member of the House when Blair negotiated away a large part of the rebate on the understanding that the common agricultural policy would be reformed. A large part of the rebate disappeared, but the CAP was not reformed, and Labour Members now have the audacity to complain that the CAP needs reform. It is a deeply shabby performance this afternoon by the Labour party and the official Opposition.

I want to address my comments in the short time I have to my hon. Friends. On the specific motion, hon. Members will agree that, if the Prime Minister manages to negotiate a real-terms freeze in the EU budget, it will be the toughest financial negotiated settlement the EU has seen. If he achieves that, he will have achieved something that no one has achieved before. That is a matter of fact.

As the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who used to chair the Foreign Affairs Committee, said, we are talking about part of an overall picture of negotiations that the Prime Minister will have to undertake over the next few years when renegotiating our position on Europe. As many countries become closer in the eurozone, where will that put us? We must renegotiate.

Colleagues on the Government side of the House have a choice: we either support the Prime Minister or we do not. If colleagues are not prepared to support him, every time they go into a different Lobby from him, they weaken his negotiating hand in Europe. Please let us not accept the blandishments from some that the Prime Minister has a negotiating strategy that he is not willing to show us. I can assure the House that the Prime Minister is perfectly capable at the Dispatch Box of telling the House what he wants to do, what he wants to achieve and where he wants to be supported.

I was a Minister throughout every day of John Major’s Government, and I know just how much that Government were weakened by colleagues persistently going into the Division Lobby voting against the 1992-97 Conservative Government.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

My hon. Friend and the Front-Bench team have articulated the challenge of achieving even a settlement that allows for no increase other than one in line with inflation, and part of that challenge involves building a coalition. It would be completely counter-productive, having got the agreement of Germany, France and the Netherlands, to go back to those countries and say, “Actually, our Parliament’s changed its mind. We want a bit more”, and force their hand even further.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It is time we started to be grown up. I am sorry if I sound like an old stager but, having lived through the Major years, I must say to my Conservative colleagues that we simply cannot carry on with the sort of self-indulgence that we see on the Order Paper today. [Hon. Members: “Oh!”] No, no. We cannot continue with this self-indulgence.

The reason Blair was able to give away the rebate was largely because we lost the general election in 1997, and one reason we lost the general election was because the nation was not prepared to vote for a party and a Government that they saw as being deeply divided. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) might think that amusing, but I do not think that the country thought it amusing that the Labour party was in a position to give away a large part of this nation’s rebate.

The Conservative party has a responsibility to do the best it can for the country, and I have every confidence that the Prime Minister is seeking to do that. He has to renegotiate the whole of the UK’s position within the EU. That will take considerable tact and diplomacy, and he is entitled to consider that he has the support of Conservative Members when he does so.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does my hon. Friend accept that, although in the past the Conservative party was divided on Europe, it is now united? We are all opposed to the budget increase and want to strengthen the hand of the Prime Minister, whom I support absolutely?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

In all honesty, if the hon. Lady goes into a different Division Lobby from the Prime Minister this evening, she will not be helping the Prime Minister or our party. It is as simple as that. The Prime Minister has made it clear what he wants to achieve. If he achieves a freeze in the EU budget, he will have done something that no other Prime Minister has ever managed.

[Mr Burley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

No, I am not going to give way.

All that happens on these Benches, whenever the Prime Minister says he is going to achieve something, is that those who are somewhat self-indulgent seek to set him an even higher hurdle—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Sir Tony Baldry]

No, no. They seek to set him an even higher hurdle to jump over. It is unreasonable and unfair. If this party hopes to be in government after the next general election, it has got to get a grip and start supporting the Prime Minister.

18:13

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

I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), although I took exception to some of his comments about the Opposition’s view.

I have served in Parliament for 12 years, and I supported increases to the EU budget, but this time, with the depth of the recession and a double-dip that was predicted before the general election, clearly the economic conditions are very different. Although the case is being made for a cut on the grounds that the economy is doing badly, I wonder how many Government Members would make the case for an increase when there is growth in the economy and Europe is doing well, as it has in the past.

In times of austerity, it is clear that there is no popular mandate for an above-inflation increase in the multiannual financial framework. The Opposition have outlined the need for a real-terms cut in the budget for 2014 to 2020. I will not revisit the arguments—they have already been articulated by my colleagues—but on the question of the veto, the Prime Minister has no friends in Europe. I was on the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs visit to Berlin; I have spoken to the Germans and others from elsewhere in Europe in recent months. The Prime Minister was bragging today that he has a veto and is not afraid to use it. That is like the madman with a gun—“I’ve got a gun and I’m not afraid to use it”—but the trouble is that the gun is pointing at the Prime Minister’s feet, and he will isolate himself even more as he goes into those important negotiations in November.

I would like to address the need to look at budget reform, particularly the pressing need to retain and strengthen the aid budget delivered through the general EU budget, which is about 70% of the EU’s total spending on aid. The EU institutions are the world’s second largest aid donor behind the US, disbursing $12.6 billion of development assistance in 2011. Combined with the aid provided by each member state, the EU is responsible for some 60% of the world’s official development assistance. That is something to be commended. I am sure I do not need to remind the Financial Secretary, but the coalition agreement states:

“The Government believes that even in these difficult economic times, the UK has a moral responsibility to help the poorest people in the world. We will honour our aid commitments, but at the same time will ensure much greater transparency and scrutiny of aid spending to deliver value for money for British taxpayers and to maximise the impact of our aid budget.”

The European Commission’s “Proposals on external action instruments”, published in June last year, provided the basis for negotiations on development assistance in the multiannual financial framework. The European Commission proposes a 19% real-terms increase in the EU budget-financed development co-operation instrument. I am all for us cutting the contribution for this country; at the same time, I do not think that we as a developed nation should neglect the poorest people in the world. I hope that the Financial Secretary and the Prime Minister, when he goes into those negotiations, will support the Commission in securing a well above-inflation increase in the development co-operation instrument. That would mean an increase from €17.2 billion in 2007 to 2013 to €20.6 billion. I would also like to see budgetisation of the European development fund, which for a number of reasons is outside the European Union budget, in addition to major reform of the common agricultural policy. The CAP amounts to about £45 billion, with the UK contributing around £1 billion. In relation to aid policy, the CAP undermines international trade liberalisation and distorts trade, running counter to the objectives of the aid budget.

It is easy to lose sight of the human tragedy of poverty—the inability to pay for medicines to help a sick child; not knowing where one’s next meal will come from; war-torn countries without the basic infrastructure to support communities. Britain has moral authority in this area, but we can retain it only if we remain committed to a real-terms increase in the EU aid budget and a real-terms decrease in Britain’s contribution to the EU budget.

18:14

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

The speech by the hon. Member for Preston (Mark Hendrick) sounded more like a speech in favour of an increase in the European budget, albeit disguised as a speech in favour of a cut, because that happens to be what he is being asked to vote for today.

I note that passions are high in this debate, not least among my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes). Let me assure them both—because I think they come from the same European stable—that the last thing those of us who support the amendment want to do is wreck Europe or to wreck our relationship with our European partners.

But something very big is happening in British politics—much bigger than this debate. We are debating the European multiannual financial framework, but there is something rather familiar about the positions being adopted by those on the two Front Benches. One could almost imagine that, if they were to change places, each would be making the other’s speech. Indeed, in the last Parliament, one felt that that was exactly what was happening. There is something deeply disconnected about the debates that we have been having in the House about our future relationship with the European Union, and about the aspirations of the British people and what they want that relationship to be.

I would caution my right hon. and hon. Friends against taunting Labour Members over their volte face on this issue. I have no doubt that they have made a volte face on the question of European spending, but for us to accuse them of doing so will cut absolutely no ice with the voters. I would note, however, that the Labour party’s volte face represents a big shift in the politics of this country and in the politics of our relationship with the European Union. Labour is an opposition party that is hungry for power. Even Labour Members can now sense the tide of opinion that is flowing against the European Union among our voters. They are picking up the vibrations from their constituents and from the voters they need in order to get elected, and they have discovered a new principle in order to reflect that: they now want to cut the European budget.

[Mr MacShane]

rose—

[Mr Jenkin]

I give way to my newly Eurosceptic colleague.

[Mr MacShane]

I am deeply grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Whether this is a volte face or a volte farce I am not quite sure, but he is quite right to say that the tide is flowing; it is flowing to Labour and away from the Conservatives.

[Mr Jenkin]

I believe that the Labour party is picking up the anger of the British people about the idea of spending more money on European policies when we are having to cut back on policies of our own.

There is something rather chilling about the exchanges between those on the Front Benches, which tacitly suggest that a veto is a defeat and that it could lead to a worse budgetary outcome for the United Kingdom than could a negotiated settlement. That seemed to be the burden of the argument put by the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie). I should just like to point out to him what that says about the relationship that we now have with the European institutions. Those institutions are so overpowering and so powerful that even the veto of the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom cannot stop the European train on its way to its destination. The British people feel that something has gone wrong with that relationship. This was not the basis on which we were sold membership of the institution, and it was not the basis on which all the assurances were given by successive Governments that each treaty represented no substantial change and was just a “tidying-up exercise”.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that the veto does not really work. Ought we not therefore to be looking to amend the European Communities Act 1972, while recognising that this motion is dealing with the system as it is?

[Mr Jenkin]

I would just point out that we should not try to make ourselves too important in this debate. This is a take-note motion. I have spoken in many debates on such motions. The amendment expresses an opinion on whether the Prime Minister should adopt this little bit of body language or that little bit of body language. It will not make a blind bit of difference to what he does when he goes to the Council of Ministers. The amendment is simply a cry of despair from the British people who want their elected representatives to say something to the Front Benchers of both parties, who have betrayed the British people on the question of our relationship with our European partners throughout the 20 years I have been in Parliament.

The problem in this country is that the governing class is now so out of line with our people’s aspirations for the relationship with our European partners that they are putting the United Kingdom in the worst of all possible worlds. It cannot deliver the engagement of the British state with our European partners on the terms set down in the treaties, and it is not trying to deliver the different terms of agreement with our European partners that the British people would prefer, that our country needs, and that are in the national interest. So wide is this gulf that even the Labour party is picking up the vibrations and is beginning to respond.

[Mike Gapes]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jenkin]

I will, because I mentioned the hon. Gentleman in my remarks.

[Mike Gapes]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that if he got his wish and the UK left the European Union, as did Norway, in order to get access to the single market and to sign up to the acquis, we would pay billions into the EU yet not have any say at all?

[Mr Jenkin]

I do not want to leave the European Union; I want us to engage in a renegotiation of our terms of membership. Now is perhaps not the occasion for such a debate, but it is quite clear that the European Union is becoming a very different kind of European Union—even from the European Union agreed in the Lisbon treaty, let alone from the Common Market, which the British people voted to join all those years ago. It seems to me that if the EU is changing fundamentally and we do not want to be part of a political union, an economic union or part of a currency union or a banking union, we are going to have to change the arrangements by which the EU can legislate to make the laws in our own land.

That seems to me to be absolutely plain and axiomatic, absolutely simple, yet what we have at the moment is a coalition that is paralysed by that coalition—paralysed by an institutionalised disagreement by the two parties in coalition. The renegotiation opportunities at the moment are passing us by. The British people are aware of that paralysis and I do not think that they will put up with it. We are going to finish up having more debates like this, more crises, more difficulties, more dysfunctionality in how Ministers are forced to conduct themselves in the Councils of Europe—and that will put this country in the worst of all possible worlds. To that extent, I agree with the hon. Member for Ilford South.

What this country needs to do is rapidly reassess what relationship we want with the European Union so that our resources can no longer be appropriated in a manner over which even this House, which founded its powers on the control of supply, has no control. As for “own resources”, it is about the European Union having the right to sequester taxation, money and supply from our country, without the consent of this House. I do not think that is what the British people want; it is certainly not good value for money, and they can see that. This relationship is in crisis. The message that a vote for this amendment tonight will convey to the Government is that they are not addressing this crisis with sufficient urgency.

18:27

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). In this debate, I believe the people of Northern Ireland would expect me to lay down the marker that if we as citizens of the United Kingdom have to share in the necessary austerity measures required to get us out of our current financial problems, we should expect the same rigours to be placed on the European Union.

I have the honour of serving as Finance Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive. Over the last couple of years, I have had to defend and explain and implement a 40% cut in the capital budget of the Northern Ireland Executive. I have had to resist Ministers who stood out in the streets protesting against cuts to the education budget, the health budget and other budgets, and explain that we were at an end of making money available for all the things we had to do. I think the people would find it difficult if, when it came to the over-fed bureaucracy of Europe, we did not take the same stance. As for the arrogance of the bureaucrats in the European Union—sometimes described as the Bisto bureaucrats who think that the gravy train is still running—we need to put down a marker and say that the years of simply asking for money and getting it are at an end.

Many Members have said today that this is only a cynical exercise, that it will hurt the Prime Minister, that Labour Members are jumping on the bandwagon and that they are a bunch of hypocrites. I must say that I share some of the cynicism about what happened in the past, but this is not about what happened in the past; it is about what we are going to do now. I am sure that if the former leader of my party were here, he would tell the House that there is great joy in heaven over one sinner that cometh to repentance, and that there should be unbounded delight on the other side when a whole party-load of sinners may have come to repentance and renounced their fiscal sins of the past.

Regardless of the motives behind it, the amendment does not weaken but strengthens the Prime Minister’s position. It enables him to go to Europe and say, “The entire House of Commons supports my position, and I have to go back to the House and explain. Either you make changes in the budget, or I cannot carry it in the House of Commons, because I am facing united support for the stance I am taking.”

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making his case in typically passionate terms and I am reluctant to interrupt him, but, as a realist, is he aware that the 8% increase in the last multiannual budget was the smallest increase ever agreed in the EU? The chance that Brussels will now accept a real-terms freeze, let alone a cut, is virtually zero, and therefore we are almost inevitably heading for a veto. Is not the only real question whether the Leader of the Opposition joins the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister in supporting that veto?

[Sammy Wilson]

I have no difficulty with the veto. I do not have to be ambivalent about the veto. Whatever is required in these vital negotiations—whatever leverage is required—must be used. The point I am making is that the best leverage that the Prime Minister can exert in the negotiations is his ability to say, “Regardless of their positions on the party-political spectrum in the House of Commons, all its Members support me in saying that we will not give an extra penny to the European Union, and, furthermore, we want to see a reduction in the amount of money that we give to the European Union.”

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

I agree that we should constrain the amount of money we send to Europe, but in financial terms the difference between the amendment and the original motion could be less than £1 a year. Why divide the House when we all wish to constrain that amount?

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman is wrong. As so much of our rebate is not covered in the new arrangements owing to increases for new member states, our contributions would go up by 5.3% over the seven years even if we opted for and secured a real-terms freeze in the budget. We are talking not about pennies, but about billions of pounds.

The bottom line that is suggested in the motion would actually prove very costly for the British taxpayer, which is why a motion proposing not a real-terms freeze but a real reduction in our contributions to the EU could, and in my view should, gain unanimous support in the House. That is the only way of ensuring that the austerity that people in the United Kingdom have had to experience is also experienced in the European Union. It is not that there are no ways in which money can be saved. For 17 years, the European Union’s accounts could not even be signed off because billions could not be accounted for. The amount of waste that takes place in the EU shows that it is not impossible to make reductions.

I do not know whether I shall be on the right or the wrong side of the vote tonight, in terms of who wins, but I do know that the Lobby that I go through will be the Lobby entered by Members who are standing up for people who have experienced austerity, and experienced it stoically because they believe that it is the right way to ensure the financial soundness of the United Kingdom. I will go through that Lobby because I am on the side of those who want to give the Prime Minister the best hand in the negotiations. I will go through that Lobby for the sake of the people who want to see an end to European and bureaucratic waste. For those reasons, I shall support the amendment.

18:34

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

I support the amendment. Teachers, police officers and nurses in my constituency have told me, “Not a penny more.” Today we paid tribute to our armed forces—those fallen heroes and heroines—but this Government have set in place a pay freeze for our armed forces. In April next year, armed forces salaries will be capped at 1% for the next two years. Is it right, and can we justify it to our constituents, that our brave armed forces, spilling their blood in Afghanistan as we speak this evening, are not going to receive the same treatment as the European Union—a wasteful, profligate and inefficient European Union?

Is it so difficult to conceive that a multiannual budget over the next six or seven years of almost €1 trillion might be able to find some efficiency savings? Our local councils are having to find them, member states are having to find them and, most importantly, our constituents are having to find them. There are increasing numbers of food banks, and people are struggling to pay their utility bills and to put shoes on their children’s feet for the new school year. It is our job to represent our constituents.

I say to Front Benchers that we do not risk doing ourselves a disservice. We are not being self-indulgent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said. I think it is the ultimate act of self-indulgence to continue to ignore the will of the British people. The British people want us, as their representatives, to stand up to an over-bureaucratic Brussels—an obese Brussels that needs to go on a diet like everyone else, including all our constituents, this Government and member states throughout the European Union. The Prime Minister’s hand can be strengthened by a united Parliament. A disunited Parliament will weaken his negotiating hand.

The Government speak about a real-terms freeze. Let us be truthful: a freeze is not a cut. What is this real-terms freeze? It is not really a freeze as there will be increased cash—an extra £300 million a year, year on year, will be required by the European Union even if the Prime Minister is successful with the so-called real-terms freeze. That sum is the equivalent of two medium-sized district general hospitals in each of our constituencies and of a medium-sized borough council—the same councils we all represent, who are looking for 20% cuts or more. Let us stop dancing on the head of a pin, as the Conservative party so often does. Let us stop playing semantics and being disingenuous with the British people. We are talking about £300 million next year, and hundreds of millions, and billions, of pounds beyond that.

This is the decision we have to make today: are we going to continue to ask families throughout this country to stop putting new shoes on their children’s feet in order to pay for the very large Mercedes fleet in Brussels? That is the choice. This is a moment of truth, and it is no good Eurosceptics on the Government Benches speaking about things in Eurosceptic terms—it is no good our going around parading as Eurosceptics—if our actions defy what we say we believe. At the European elections in 2014, it will be no good our wrapping ourselves in the Union flag if tonight we take it off and wrap ourselves in the stars of the European Union flag.

This is a moment of truth. This is a moment of decision. We can send a united message, as a Parliament and as a nation, to Brussels. Let us make a difference. If we are not making a difference, we might as well all go home.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The time limit on Back-Bench speeches is reduced to four minutes with immediate effect.

18:39

[Mr Denis MacShane (Rotherham) (Lab)]

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven. Without indulging in some of stronger language and rhetoric of different colleagues, I say that this may be an important parliamentary moment, because the British people decided in May 2010 not to give any of us a majority. I think they wanted a different kind of Parliament to emerge, one that was a bit freer, a bit more liberal and a bit less whipped; I am a party animal myself and the Whips are necessary, but perhaps tonight some signal can be sent that we are listening.

There are technical points that can and cannot be made. I would dearly love to see, in South Yorkshire or perhaps in Northern Ireland, every public servant’s salary reduced to €100,000—about £80,000. If that salary level was applied, there would be a revolt in Whitehall, and among Cabinet Ministers and senior Ministers of State, if not perhaps among junior Ministers of State.

We have heard the language of “betrayal” used, and I think that is silly, because the country is going through a serious discussion about what its future relationship with Europe will be. The people have never elected Mr Nigel Farage or the UK Independence party to a seat in this House, although they have elected him to the European Parliament. However, his spirit has been present in much of tonight’s debate.

We are facing a fundamental divide, as there are two approaches to European politics. We heard one earlier today, when the ten-minute rule Bill was introduced. It was supported by a large number of Conservative Members and it called for the end to the free movement of people in Europe. It was a well-argued case, but of course it utterly destroys the purpose of the European Union if we are to have passport checks at every border and not allow people to live where they wish.

We are now finding that there is a big debate about the money we spend. I take all the points that have been made about cuts, but we could have the same argument about the Department for International Development’s spending, and I might argue about whether the £13 billion we spent in Afghanistan is money wisely spent. Underneath it all is this dichotomy over Europe. There is a debate about being in or out—an honest debate that we are beginning to have—and another debate among those of us who believe we should stay in the European Union about what kind of European Union there should be.

The voting of money is, of course, what determines what kind of policy we have. This budget is the wrong budget, drawn up by conservatives and cautious, complacent centre-right bureaucrats and politicians. It is inappropriate and it keeps the European budget in the same old tramlines of protectionist common agricultural spending and ineffective regional spending.

[Mr Jenkin]

rose—

[Mr MacShane]

I will not give way. I am very happy with the Speaker’s reduction of the time limit.

Last week, Labour MEPs voted against that budget and for a different priority that would focus on growth, on jobs and on what is needed. That is what I believe should be done, which is why I am happy to vote for the amendment tonight. I am not sure what will happen thereafter. This country will have to face a big question. Tonight it is right that Parliament asserts its authority. That does not mean the end of the debate; it is just the beginning of the debate about whether we stay in the European Union or not.

18:43

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The figures we are talking about are truly enormous. In the three options—the EU proposal, a real-terms freeze and a cash freeze—we are talking about commitments of £990 billion, £885 billion and £771 billion, so these are very important matters, affecting every man and woman in this country. I have to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), with whom I have spent 29 years in this House, that his speech was quite inflammatory. His main line of attack appears to be that those of us who are going to support the amendment are somehow putting our Government at risk by joining with the Labour party. I have heard the argument before; it was actually the argument put by Neville Chamberlain in the Norway debate, when he said that he could rely on his friends. Over the years we have been here, many Members of Parliament have taken the view that principle is sometimes more important than partisanship. We have consistently argued about these matters through difficult times and it is quite wrong to blame us—those who have taken an entirely consistent position— for putting the Government’s political position at risk.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Given his experience in this House, does the hon. Gentleman not think that nailing one’s colours to a wholly unrealistic negotiating position will weaken the position of the British Government going into this financial negotiation and result in a worse outcome for this country, for his constituents and for Europe? He needs not to lecture us about principle but to consider the genuine reality of the situation.

[Mr Leigh]

Let me first make one more comment to my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, who made a very important point. He represents the Anglican tendency in this House and I represent the Catholic tendency. If someone goes to confession and repents, we should accept them into our fold. We should not turn them away. If the Labour party has changed its mind, it has repented.

[Sir Tony Baldry]

Sadly, I do not anticipate my hon. Friend ever repenting.

[Mr Leigh]

Well, there we are. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) said, I do not think that this manoeuvre is entirely cynical. We have come a long way—[Interruption.] People can scoff, but the Labour party is sensing a change of mood in the country. It is entitled as an Opposition party to sense that mood and to feel that the patience of the British people is at its limit as regards giving more money to the European Union. It might be cynical—surely Labour is entitled as an Opposition party to use parliamentary tactics if it wishes—but there might also have been a sea change in attitude in the country and in the House. That sea change is also reflected elsewhere in Europe.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) said that our proposal was totally unrealistic, but he should consider what is happening in our country. Every single Member of Parliament has police officers coming to all our surgeries every week whose pensions have been changed halfway through their time. They are serving shifts at all hours of the day and night, and they are coming to our surgeries because we are having to make real cuts to our police force. As has been said, we are having to make real cuts to our armed forces. Our own people are coming to us and saying that this is surely the time to make a stand. Given what is happening to the budgets in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Ireland, and given that great legions of young people in those countries are unemployed, is it so unreasonable just to ask the leaders of Europe to insist in the Council of Ministers on a real cash freeze? Is that unreasonable? I do not think so—I think it is entirely reasonable.

Our friends in Europe take the House of Commons very seriously. As is known, I am happy to be a Francophile and I watch what happens in the Assemblée Nationale. This debate could not be replicated there. It is being watched, however. This is the House of Commons. We were created to guard the nation’s finances and look after the interests of our own taxpayers. Why cannot the House of Commons, on this great occasion, make a stand on behalf of the UK taxpayers? Why can we not say to our taxpayers that we stand with them? We are having to make appallingly difficult decisions about the police, the armed forces, education and health. All we are saying is that there should be a real freeze in the EU. This is not just about EU civil servants, 40% of whom earn more than £70,000 a year.

[Chris Huhne]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Leigh]

There is no time, I am afraid.

This is about real people in real places. For instance, I represent a farming constituency. The UK spends £7.1 billion a year on subsidising foreign farmers, giving some £33 billion and receiving £26 billion. On average, the UK receives £188 per hectare, compared with France, Germany and Holland, which receive £236, £251 and £346 respectively. Some 42% of the EU budget is spent on subsidising farming and fishing, despite their accounting for only 2% of European gross annual value. These are real issues that affect real people. The House of Commons now has a chance to take a stand and we should put principle before partisan politics.

18:49

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

We should remind ourselves that just as there is a majority in the House, of which I am a part, in favour of a reduction in the EU budget, there is a much larger majority, of which I am also a part, that believes that our future lies at the heart of Europe and with our membership of the European Union.

We should therefore take care—more care than some Members have—with how we frame any debate on the EU budget. We should not frame it, as the Daily Express does, as if all EU spending is bad and that the only purpose of Brussels is to take money from us. I come from a region that has benefited enormously from European structural funds, and we should have spent more time in the debate considering how we can engage positively to shape negotiations on the priorities for the EU budget. I shall make several specific points about research and innovation, to which I hope that the Minister will respond.

EU research and innovation funding contributes 10% of our national science budget, and the budget negotiations give us an important opportunity to shape investment priorities for the benefit of the UK economy. The more the EU invests in research and innovation, the more the UK benefits, because the quality, breadth and depth of UK research puts us in a position whereby we gain disproportionately from European research programmes. Nearly 15% of the EU’s funding from the FP7 framework programme for research has gone to UK researchers, and the total FP7 contribution to UK research is expected to reach €7 billion over the life of the programme. The UK is involved in more successful FP7 projects than either France or Germany, accounting for 40% of all grants to date. We also benefit extensively from the collaboration and research networks that the EU facilitates. Of the 5,105 research projects that have been funded under FP7, 43% include UK partners.

Only about 8% of the proposed budget is allocated to Horizon 2020, which is the replacement for the FP7 programme. That has been presented as an increase, because there are several new projects within Horizon 2020. I think that the Government would support those projects, but on the basis of past negotiations, there is concern among businesses and universities that the research budget is especially vulnerable to cuts. We know that innovation plays an important role in producing growth in the UK, and 54% of the jobs grown between 2000 and 2005 were in innovative companies. However, such companies account for only 6% of UK businesses, and are particularly involved in pharmaceuticals and biotechnical research.

We know that future growth will rely on knowledge-based industries, so I look to the Government to make two commitments: first, that the additional projects in Horizon 2020, which I am sure they would support, will be considered outside the framework; and, secondly, that they will argue the case for protecting the research and innovation budget in the overall negotiations.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister will be called at 6.55 pm, but until then we will hear from Conor Burns.

18:53

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker.

At the beginning of the debate, there was an outbreak of consensus between those on the two Front Benches, when the Minister and the hon. Member for Nottingham East (Chris Leslie) agreed that the Government and the Opposition shared the objective of achieving a real reduction in the EU budget. Such a reduction would not be possible if the EU had gone through the process that all our councils are going through by squeezing out all the fat and getting rid of all unnecessary expenditure, but both Front-Bench spokesmen could cite examples—not least the two Parliaments—of where the EU could still make plenty of savings.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) mentioned the experiences of Maastricht, but this is not Maastricht. The Conservative party is united on Europe. We are united in believing that it is doing too much and spending too much. We had the slogan, “We’re all in this together.” How will we be able to go back to our constituencies and look in the eye our electors who are paying hugely more for petrol, food and rail fares?

This House matters again. As a united House of Commons, we have the opportunity to back the Prime Minister by sending him emboldened to the European Council with the clear message from the British people that enough is enough. If we are taking cuts, the European Union must take them, too.

18:54

[Greg Clark]

This has been a debate of passionate contributions, as befits such an important consideration—the next seven years’ budget of the EU. It is right, and many Members have referred to this, that the House should give consideration not just to the aspirations and the good intentions surrounding the European Union, but to the nitty-gritty—the decisions that need to be taken and which affect all our constituents. I am proud to be a Member of a House that will undertake this level of scrutiny.

It comes down to this: we want to see a real-terms cut in the budget. We all want to negotiate for that. That is the position that unites most Members of the House, but in seeking to advance that agenda the Prime Minister has done something historic, something that no Prime Minister during the history of our engagement with the European Union has managed to do, which is to secure from the most powerful allies that we have in the European Union a position that we should negotiate for the first time a cut over seven years in the EU budget, or a maximum of a real-terms freeze. That was agreed two years ago and has been scrutinised by the House in detail. Having put that to the House, it is reasonable for the Prime Minister to go into the negotiating chamber able to deliver on the commitments that he has had from his colleagues there.

It has been made clear that we on the Government Benches regard this as a red line. We will deploy a veto if our conditions are not met. That is widely understood. This debate will be watched outside the Chamber and everyone can be clear about that. We have seen total confusion on the part of the Opposition as to what is a red line. The Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the shadow Chancellor would not confirm that they would even deploy a veto. [Interruption.] The shadow Justice Secretary asks what our position is. Our position is that we would deploy a veto if our conditions and our red lines are not met.

[Mr Burley]

Can the Minister confirm the amount of extra money which, under the Government’s proposals, we will send to the EU over the next two and a half years? According to my calculations and the House of Commons Library, it is an extra £1.3 billion between now and the next general election. Can he confirm that figure or tell the House what the figure is?

[Greg Clark]

It is true that the increase that we are talking about would involve further contributions from the House, but the negotiation that we are entering is to avoid that, to minimise the contribution that we make and to secure the best deal for the taxpayer.

The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner), who is not in his seat, referred to the Maastricht debates and the attitude of the official Opposition at the time. If we could have drawn from the behaviour of the Opposition their intention in government, we would have reached a wholly misleading conclusion. During their time in government, from 1998 to 2010, they presided over a 47% increase in the contributions that we made to the EU budget. They surrendered our rebate in return for no reform. The reform that we were expecting was in the common agricultural policy. Our contribution to that increased over the time that they were in power from £48 billion to £56 billion.

We have secured the agreement of member states. We have led the way by managing our national finances. If our negotiating position does not succeed, we are ready, willing and able to veto. We urge the House to stand with us as the Prime Minister goes to negotiate for us.

18:59

The Speaker put the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time (Order, 29 October).

Amendment proposed: (a), leave out from ‘stimulate economic growth’ to end and add

‘; so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms.’.—(Mark Reckless.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

19:00

Division 91

Ayes: 307

---

Labour: 242
Conservative: 51
Scottish National Party: 6
Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Independent: 1
Green Party: 1

Noes: 294

---

Conservative: 235
Liberal Democrat: 55
Plaid Cymru: 2
Alliance: 1

Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of European Union Documents No. 16844/11, No. 16845/11, No. 16846/11, No. 16847/11, No. 16848/11, No. 6708/12 and Addenda 1–3, No. 9007/12, No. 12356/12, and No. 13620/12, relating to the Commission’s proposal on the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF), 2014–2020; agrees with the Government that at a time of ongoing economic fragility in Europe and tight constraints on domestic public spending, the Commission’s proposal for substantial spending increases compared with current spend is unacceptable, unrealistic, too large and incompatible with the tough decisions being taken in the UK and in countries across Europe to bring deficits under control; and so calls on the Government to strengthen its stance so that the next MFF is reduced in real terms.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I should be most grateful if Members who are leaving the Chamber would do so quickly and quietly, so that we can proceed with the remaining business.

Royal Assent

[Mr Speaker]

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

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act 2012

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act 2012

Local Government Finance Act 2012

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act 2012.

Business without Debate

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

Electoral Commission (Re-appointment of Chairman)

[Relevant document: Fourth Report 2012 from the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, Re-appointment of the Chairman of the Electoral Commission, HC 611.]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 16 October, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),

That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will re-appoint Jennifer Watson to the office of chairman of the Electoral Commission with effect from 1 January 2013 for the period ending on 31 December 2016.—(Greg Hands.)

Question agreed to.

[Mr Speaker]

Just before I call the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris), may I gently reiterate my exhortation to right hon. and hon. Members who, for whatever reason and quite unaccountably, are leaving the Chamber and do not wish to hear his oration, to do so quickly and quietly, affording him the same courtesy that they would wish to be extended to them in similar circumstances?

Firearms Controls

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the House do now adjourn.—(Greg Hands.)

11:30

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue; I know that a number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are interested in this subject.

In the early hours of the new year, I was greeted in my constituency by the shocking news that four people had lost their lives in a shooting in the close-knit former mining community of Horden. They were Susan McGoldrick, 47, her sister Alison Turnbull, 44, and niece Tanya Turnbull, 24, as well as the gunman, Michael Atherton, 42, who turned the gun on himself.

Following the shooting, I called for a calm and measured response, but the high emotions at the time were not conducive to constructive debate. In the months that followed, I had the opportunity to meet family members on a number of occasions. They have acted in a considered and dignified manner throughout, and looked for practical improvements that will hopefully avoid such tragic circumstances, and such a tragedy, befalling another family.

A public debate on firearms licensing is still needed, and the time is right for the public and Parliament to consider whether the current level of protection is adequate. It is said that Britain has some of the toughest gun control laws in the world, but we should not be complacent. Current firearms laws consist of 34 separate pieces of legislation, which is complex and difficult to navigate for the police and the public. The Home Office’s official police guidance is more than 200 pages long. The rules are difficult to interpret, and their application can vary greatly across the 43 police forces responsible for issuing firearms licence certificates.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend, the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee.

[Keith Vaz]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. He will know that it is two years since the Home Affairs Committee published its report on firearms control and suggested that the 34 pieces of legislation be codified. Does he agree that it is now time to bring those pieces of legislation together, and make it clearer for people who have applied for and received licences, and for those who seek to get one?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful for that intervention; it was delivered with some authority and I completely agree. The Home Affairs Committee investigation and report into firearms control urged the Government to codify and simplify the law, introduce one licensing system to cover all firearms, and strengthen the current safeguards.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for kindly giving me leave to intervene in his Adjournment debate. I wish to raise the issue of the Olympics, and the inability of our pistol team to train in the UK. Does he agree that although we must consolidate the legislation and perhaps ensure that it works more effectively, we should go back to Lord Cullen’s original suggestion, which would allow gun clubs to keep disabled pistols, so that we can train Olympic athletes of the future in this country?

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point and I will come to some suggestions about how we might address that issue.

The Association of Chief Police Officers firearms and explosives licensing working group has called for a single form of certificate that

“remains desirable for safety and economic reasons”.

In terms of public safety, and in contrast to a section 1 firearm, shotgun applicants are not required to demonstrate a good reason for wanting a shotgun. I believe it important that people demonstrate that they have a need or use for a firearm, before they are granted a licence.

In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Mrs Gill Marshall-Andrews of the Gun Control Network said:

“The starting point should be that guns are lethal weapons and the onus should be on the applicant, somebody who wants to own a gun, to prove that they are”

a fit person to have one.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The House should be concerned about firearms licences and licensees. Just after the summer, it was reported that no fewer than 3,000 legitimately owned and licensed firearms were reported lost, missing or stolen in the previous 12 months.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That alarming statistic is one of a number that should exercise the minds of hon. Members, and it adds weight to the need for a full public debate.

It should no longer be acceptable to have a shotgun without a good reason. A good reason would have to be demonstrated by the same criteria that current firearms certificate holders must meet. Good reasons for holding shotgun licences include dealing with vermin or game, target shooting at an approved venue or club, or for professional use in employment, but evidence is needed to justify those reasons. It is difficult for many, including me, to comprehend why someone would need access to firearms in a domestic setting when there is little need for immediate access to a weapon.

One of the greatest weaknesses identified by the shooting fraternity is the variation in standards across police forces. For that reason, a national licensing authority has been proposed to provide central oversight, and to ensure the consistent application of licensing procedures. Such an authority would also have the advantage of removing the police from the administrative aspect of firearms licensing, and will allow them instead to focus on the enforcement of gun controls. The financial burden of the licensing regime could also be removed from the police while ensuring that public safety remains paramount. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee, Bedfordshire police presented a cost analysis that showed that the firearms application fees in place since 2000 never represented the true cost to the forces processing applications. Rather than the current firearms certificate fee of £50, a fee of £150 has been proposed. I am not advocating that—an appropriate fee could be determined by any new central licensing authority.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

I perhaps should know, so my hon. Friend might have to excuse my ignorance, but does the proposed legislation cover air guns, which can be just as dangerous?

[Grahame M. Morris]

There are concerns across the piece. Whether air guns are covered depends on the definition of air gun, but I hope to come to that in a few moments if my hon. Friend bears with me.

Public safety must be the primary aim of gun control legislation, but it is clear that the police, in view of significant budget cuts, can no longer afford to subsidise the licensing system. We heard in the debate a few moments ago of hon. Members’ concerns about 20% cuts in police budgets in their areas.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is on an emotive point for him. Does he agree that all aspects of firearms control should be a major concern and top of the agenda for prospective police and crime commissioners?

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are only a few weeks away from the elections for police and crime commissioners. I have discussed the issue with Ron Hogg, who is a PCC candidate in County Durham, and who has some expertise in the matter. It is important that this is a local priority, but I also suggest that we should have a national framework laying down guidelines—something stricter than guidelines, in fact—to be applied evenly. Part of the problem is that we have a patchwork of arrangements.

We cannot do firearms licensing on the cheap at the risk of compromising public safety. There is also a strong case for strengthening the link between the licensing authority and medical professionals when considering an application for or a renewal of a firearms certificate. We need early and proactive intervention when a firearms holder’s mental and physical health deteriorates.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he agree that public safety would be improved if a prohibition was placed on the private storage of firearms in people’s homes, if people with a firearms certificate were subject to an annual medical test to assess continually whether they were a fit and proper person to hold one, and if a public register was available so that the general public knew who had access to a firearm? The atrocities that we see are often committed by people who have been deemed a fit and proper person when originally given a firearms certificate.

[Grahame M. Morris]

That is a good point well made.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I will respond to the last intervention, and then I will take another one. I do not intend to declare war on the armed wing of the Tory party. I am not opposed to shooting per se. I am saying that people should be able to demonstrate a clear legitimate need before a firearms certificate or shotgun licence is issued.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for some of the points he has raised, but I find the naivety of the previous intervention worrying, because producing a public register of those who own any sort of firearm might be a thief’s charter. I would like to know what experience of shooting or holding a firearm or shotgun licence he has.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I have no experience. I have never held or shot a gun, but I have experience of a terrible tragedy in my constituency on new year’s day. I am attempting to share my experience with Members and to advocate having a review in the interests of public safety.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the balanced way he is approaching this subject. I am concerned that the focus seems to be on legitimate firearms holders, the majority of whom are law-abiding. Will he reassure sporting Members and others throughout our local communities who enjoy the sport that this debate is not going down the road to remove firearms from those who have a legitimate right to hold them?

[Grahame M. Morris]

I hope I have made that point. I am not proposing that people with a legitimate need to hold firearms, such as farmers and so on—there is a whole list of such people—not be allowed to hold them. That need should be declared as a reason for holding a certificate, and the police or the licensing authority would take it into account.

In a case in my constituency in 2008, Michael Atherton had his weapons revoked following threats to self-harm, and issues relating to mental health and gun ownership were also a factor in the case of Christopher Foster, who shot his wife, his daughter and himself after confessing suicidal thoughts to his GP.

I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers and the British Medical Association have an agreement whereby the police alert GPs to any new applications for and renewals of firearms licences. However, concerns remain where an applicant fails to disclose full and accurate medical information at the time of application or renewal. Applicants are required to provide a number of medical details, including whether they suffer from any

“medical condition or disability including alcohol and drug…conditions”.

They also have to declare whether they have ever suffered from epilepsy or been treated for

“depression or any other kind of mental or nervous disorder”.

However, that information is not routinely checked. Licensing officers approach medical professionals only when there are doubts about an applicant’s medical history, although Dr John Canning—again, giving evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on behalf of the BMA—stated that GPs are “not very often” asked to provide medical evidence, although it happens “from time to time”.

Following the case of Christopher Foster, the Independent Police Complaints Commission proposed in 2008 that the licensing force should be required to approach the applicant’s doctor in each case, in order to obtain confirmation that the medical information provided in the application was correct. The omission of information from a firearms application was also an issue in the case of Mark Saunders in 2006, which ended in his being killed by the Metropolitan police. Mr Saunders failed to declare during the application process that he had been treated by a consultant for depression and for his tendency occasionally to drink more than was sensible—indeed, he had been referred by his GP. Unfortunately, on his application for a firearms licence he stated that he had no such health problems.

In my view, the solution is to ensure that each applicant knows that licensing officers will approach their GP as a matter of course to verify statements made on their application about their health, to ensure they are correct and accurate. My proposal would address failures by an applicant to disclose any medical problem that raises questions about their suitability to own and have free access to a firearm. Finally, I call for greater consultation between the licensing authority and those who are or have been a domestic partner of a potential applicant. A similar system is already in place in Canada, where all citizens applying for a firearms licence are required to have their present and past partners in the previous two years sign their application. Refusal to sign for any reason does not automatically mean that the police and licensing authorities will veto an application, but it will trigger further investigation by law enforcement officers. The Canadian requirements merit further exploration, and I would appreciate it if the Minister informed the House of any progress made on this matter.

There has been no knee-jerk reaction. These proposals are considered, practical measures that, if implemented, could allow the consistent application of firearms legislation, strengthen existing safeguards and ensure public safety while maintaining the rights of the shooting fraternity to have access to firearms where there is a good and legitimate purpose for their use.

19:34

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) both on securing the debate and on the tone in which he has addressed this issue, following the tragic events in his constituency. The shootings he talked about shocked the whole country. Obviously our thoughts remain with the family and friends of the victims. I agree with him: it is right that Government and Parliament should reflect on what lessons might be learned from these fortunately rare, but nevertheless tragic events, and how best we can protect public safety. I and the whole House—indeed, it is good to see so many people at an Adjournment debate—share his view that we need to approach the issues in a calm and measured way.

As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, Durham constabulary has asked the Independent Police Complaints Commission to investigate the events leading to the shootings. There has not yet been a coroner’s inquest into the deaths. Because of the investigation and a future inquest, the House will appreciate the need for me to avoid saying anything that might be prejudicial in relation to the circumstances of this case.

I understand that there have been complexities with the IPCC investigation, although it is working through those matters as fast as possible and the investigation is now close to completion. The final report is now being finalised and it will be shared with the families shortly. Publication of the report will, however, depend on the time scales for the inquest and the wishes of the coroner. The Government will consider carefully the results of the inquest and of the IPCC investigation, paying careful attention to any specific recommendations that they might make and any implications for wider firearms policy, to which I will now turn as I try to address the specific points that the hon. Gentleman has raised.

The Government have always made it clear that controls on firearms should be targeted fairly and proportionately, and that they should strike the right balance by securing public safety without bearing down unnecessarily on legitimate users. With this in mind, I have arranged meetings with a range of stakeholders since assuming responsibility for this work. I met Deputy Chief Constable Andy Marsh, the Association of Chief Police Officers’ lead on firearms, this week, and we discussed a number of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised today.

Following the tragic shootings in Cumbria in 2010, the Government undertook to take a fresh look at firearms law and subsequently considered the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee, which looked comprehensively at the whole range of issues. The Government published our response to the Committee’s report in September 2011. Our response sets out a number of commitments in response to the Committee’s recommendations. The Government will update the Committee, and the House, shortly on progress on those recommendations.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, it is generally recognised that the UK has comparatively low levels of gun crime, and some of the strictest gun laws in the world. It is true that these laws are complex, and I would therefore like to give a brief overview of the main controls that are in place. There are two main categories of firearms licensed by the police. First, there are those that are controlled under section 1 of the Firearms Act 1968. They are typically target shooting rifles and rifles used for hunting or vermin control. The second category is shotguns, typically used by farmers and for clay pigeon shooting. Both are possessed by means of separate certificates that are valid for five years. There is a third category of firearm, generally referred to as prohibited weapons, and these can be possessed only with the written authority of the Secretary of State.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (David Tredinnick) raised the issue of training for Olympic pistol shooters. In advance of the London games, the Home Secretary provided an exemption for this third category of firearms to allow the Team GB shooting team to train here. She is currently in the process of issuing new authorities to British pistol squad members to train for the 2014 Commonwealth games. This is of course subject to the usual checks on applicants and to ensuring that training is confined to suitably secure ranges. The Government will look at arrangements for the 2016 Olympic games in due course.

The hon. Member for Easington raised concerns about how the licensing process operates. I would like to say something about the processes involved—again, without making reference to the specific circumstances of this case. The procedures are similar for the issue of a shotgun certificate but there are some material differences. First and foremost, the police must be satisfied that the applicant can be trusted to possess shotguns without danger to public safety. Unlike with section 1 firearms, the applicant does not have to show good reason to have a shotgun, but the police may refuse to grant a certificate if they are satisfied that he has no good reason to have one. This is a different control, but it still allows the police to refuse applicants who have dubious reasons for wanting shotguns.

[Ian Mearns]

I raised a point with my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) about the number of firearms that have been lost or stolen in the past year. I understand that the figure was about 3,000. In the light of that, would the people who have lost their firearms or had them stolen have their licences reviewed?

[Damian Green]

That would be a matter for the individual force concerned. It is clearly a matter that the police forces that do the licensing, who are responsible and sensitive about these things, would take serious note of.

The hon. Member for Easington mentioned national control of firearms and the proposal for a national licensing authority. There is a danger that a central authority might lose touch with the sort of local information that the police need. In his report on the Dunblane tragedy, Lord Cullen recommended that licensing functions should remain with the police. Previous suggestions to replace the current police licensing system with a central civilianised licensing authority have been rejected as more costly and less efficient than the present system.

Although the Government are not in favour of a national firearms control board, the Home Office guidance to the police on firearms legislation—the hon. Gentleman mentioned it, and it is indeed long and complex—is being revised and updated to help ensure that licensing procedures are applied consistently across forces. This is an important piece of work, responding directly to the Home Affairs Select Committee’s wish for more consistency. In particular, we will highlight the need to take full account of any incidences of domestic violence when considering applications for the grant or renewal of certificates. The comments that I have heard this evening will be particularly pertinent to that.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Does the Minister agree that cost is not an issue here? Where people use firearms for recreation, there is no excuse whatever for the process to be subsidised. It is not a matter of cost; it is purely a matter of process—and the costs should be covered by those who require a licence.

[Damian Green]

The ultimate driver, frankly, is safety; that is what underlies the system. On the issue of cost, the Home Office has received a detailed report from ACPO proposing new firearms fees to allow forces to recover the cost of firearms licensing. In considering the proposal, the Government will look both at the quality of service licence holders receive, which is relevant, and will discuss with ACPO the scope for making some of the current processes more efficient and effective. That will take into account the need to manage risk and ensure public protection.

As we indicated in our response to the Select Committee, we do not consider that separate licensing for shotguns and firearms is causing difficulties. Applying a good reason test in the same way for both categories could be problematic. For example, unlike target shooters, shotgun owners do not always belong to clubs that could vouch that they had shot regularly. However, I assure the House that we will keep this issue under review. As I indicated earlier, the local police must satisfy themselves that an applicant for a certificate is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, and will not present a danger to public safety. This is a particularly heavy responsibility and sits right at the heart of the licensing process. Such is the basis of my discussions with ACPO.

One of the most important points raised by the hon. Gentleman was about the need for medical checks on those who have access to firearms. I completely agree that it is important that the police are made aware of medical conditions that affect a person’s suitability to possess firearms. Both the hon. Gentleman and I will therefore—

19:48

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 31 October 2012

[Mr David Crausby in the Chair]

Induced Abortion

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

As a result of the number of Members who wish to speak in this debate, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means I am imposing a five-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches after the first speaker has finished. The rules are exactly as in the House. Each of the first two interventions accepted will stop the clock and give the Member who gives way an extra minute. Unlike in the Chamber, the mechanisms here do not yet enable a speaking Member to see a countdown clock on the displays around the room, so to assist Members I will cause a bell to be rung when a Member has one minute left. If an intervention is made during the last minute that entitles a Member to added time, the bell will be rung again when there is one minute left.

09:31

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

This is the first time I have spoken under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. As I am a Chair now, I realise the job is not always as easy as it sometimes looks. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I have quite a long speech, which will come as no surprise to many here, and I will try, with so many people putting in to speak, to speed up my speech and shorten it as I go along.

The last time I introduced a debate on the 20-week limit was during the parliamentary stages of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, but my amendment was defeated. At that time, it had been 18 years since the upper limit had been debated and voted on.

Abortion law is made in Parliament, and there should be no taboo on discussing it in Parliament. Abortion law should be debated and reformed here, yet each and every time I have raised an abortion issue in the House, one MP after another has risen to comment that this is not really the place to discuss abortion and that the Bill I seek to amend should not be hijacked by discussing abortion. There are many MPs, and I think I may include the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), who would quite like the Abortion Act 1967 to be put into a dark cupboard and left there, never again to be brought out and discussed. If we are not to discuss abortion in this House, I am not sure who is supposed to make up the laws as they go along.

As it stands, the 1967 Act is a joke. Everyone knows that in this country abortion is obtained on demand by whoever wants it, whenever they want it. I am pro-choice, and I believe that, up until 12 weeks, that should be the case. I am delighted that more than 90% of abortions in this country take place before 12 weeks. But Parliament’s reluctance and nervousness about reforming abortion law, or even discussing it, creates an atmosphere of disrespect for Parliament among abortion providers.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I admire what my hon. Friend has done and the determination and courage that she has shown against enormous opposition.

[Nadine Dorries]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I am very flattered.

Due to the fact that the 1967 Act is so little discussed and its format is so archaic, over the past year we have seen a number of abortion providers flout the law. One of the reasons for that is that Parliament itself shows no respect for the law. In the past year, abortion clinics have been exposed using the law creatively to offer abortion illegally and criminally based on the gender of the pregnancy. In fact, the Care Quality Commission and the General Medical Council are now investigating, I believe, 14 cases of malpractice, and arrests have been made at other clinics. The Calthorpe clinic in Birmingham has been closed down and handed over to another provider.

Those cases point to an erosion of respect for the law by abortion providers. The culture of fear in Parliament, which is held by many MPs, on discussing abortion law has contributed, or may have contributed, to the situation. That has to stop.

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

I admire the hon. Lady’s courage and perseverance in bringing these issues to the House.

A Marie Stopes clinic has recently opened in Northern Ireland, a province where the law is very strict on abortion and where there is no support for the extension of the 1967 Act. Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the opening of the clinic may be an attempt to stretch the law, or even to get behind it?

[Nadine Dorries]

I am afraid that I have to disappoint the right hon. Gentleman—I discussed this with one of his colleagues yesterday—because I believe the law on abortion should be equal in all parts of the Union. Abortion law needs to be reformed in the UK, and there needs to be parity across the board. If any abortion provider is to come to Northern Ireland, Marie Stopes is probably the best bet. Marie Stopes is one of the most professional and non-advocacy-driven abortion providers. It has no political ideology and is concerned only for the health of the woman, and it operates in a professional manner. So I think that, if Northern Ireland is to have an abortion provider, Marie Stopes are the people to have. The law here needs to be reformed, and there needs to be parity on both sides of the water.

This year alone, three abortion clinics have been closed down. This is my last point: we must bring abortion law before the House because it needs to be reformed.

Following today’s debate, I have already applied to the Backbench Business Committee for a longer, dividable debate to be held next May. I am using today’s debate to give notice of that future debate. I want to give pro-choice and pro-life supporters ample time to prepare, to gather their research and to set their stall ready for a debate next May.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

I join other Members in praising my hon. Friend for bringing forward this issue.

Is not one of the problems that—my hon. Friend alluded to this when she talked about pro-life and pro-choice Members of Parliament—this whole debate has become so unbelievably polarised? Many Members of Parliament see both sides of the argument and feel that our voice is often squeezed from the debate. It is particularly important that the voices of the vast number of legislators who, as she rightly says, should have a say on this matter are allowed to be heard, rather than the entire debate being polarised in the way that she describes.

[Nadine Dorries]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is the almost ghettoisation of pro-life and pro-choice that has over the years prevented rational and reasonable discussion of abortion.

I am attacked by both pro-life and pro-choice, because I support abortion up to a certain point but I want independent counselling to be provided to women who seek abortion and I would like the upper limit to be reduced. So I fall foul of both camps. It is important that MPs such as my hon. Friend come forward—he has views that encompass both sides of the argument—as they can be more rational in their presentation.

I have applied to the Backbench Business Committee for a debate on a votable motion next May. Of course, a Back-Bench vote does not amend legislation. If the result of the vote endorses a reduction to 20 weeks, however, it will inform the Government that perhaps it is time to bring the 1967 Act back to the House on Government time.

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

I too congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Does she agree that, since the 1967 Act, medical science has advanced so much that there is now a real need to reduce to 20 weeks the limit for the termination of pregnancies? I would prefer to see the limit much lower.

[Nadine Dorries]

Later in my speech, I will address the evidence for that.

After the forthcoming debate allocated by the Backbench Business Committee, if there is a positive vote, if the debate is strongly attended and if Parliament expresses a strong feeling, that will send a strong message to the Government to bring the 1967 Act back to the House.

In 1990, the 1967 Act was amended to reduce the upper limit from 28 weeks to 24 weeks. I hope there will be a fuller debate in May, but in the meantime, following today’s debate, I will write to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guideline committee, enclosing a copy of the Hansard of our speeches today, and ask it to look again. 1990 was a long time ago. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) said, things have progressed and science has moved on.

If the RCOG guidelines committee advised, based on the evidence available at the time, that the upper limit should be 24 weeks—

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nadine Dorries]

I will give way only once more, as lots of people want to speak.

[Kate Green]

The hon. Lady implies—perhaps I misinterpret her—that the RCOG has not considered the guidelines since 1990. In fact, its most recent report was published in 2010, and it still says that foetal viability is very low up to 24 weeks. In fact, at 20 weeks it is 0%.

[Nadine Dorries]

I will address that point in a moment. I will not give way any more, as I know that lots of people want to speak.

I want to make it clear that my proposal to reduce the upper limit does not include babies with foetal abnormalities or, sadly, disabilities. That is a discussion to be held, as I have said, between parents and doctors. Abortion is available up until birth for foetal abnormalities. My proposal applies to abortions for social reasons.

A study by the Centre for Sexual Health Research at the university of Southampton and the School of Social Policy, Sociology and Social Research at the university of Kent found that 41% of women who have second-trimester abortions do so because they were not sure about having an abortion and took a while to make up their mind to ask for one. I believe that one positive effect of reducing the limit to 20 weeks might be to focus the mind slightly sooner than 23 weeks. Because abortion is available until 24 weeks, there is a laxity, as people have a prolonged period to make up their mind. The research says that women took a long time to make up their mind. Maybe reducing the upper limit will help.

It is clear to me that we cannot allow the present situation in our hospitals to continue. In one room in a hospital, there might be a premature poorly baby born at 22 or 23 weeks at whom the NHS will throw everything it has to help it survive. In another room in the same hospital, a healthy baby will be aborted at 24 weeks. Dr Max Pemberton recently wrote in The Daily Telegraph that

“many doctors are uncomfortable with the current cut-off point. It is not something we openly discuss, because we know it is a highly emotive area. But privately, many doctors will express discomfort that the current legislation is inherently illogical and inconsistent. Any doctor who has found themselves in the neonatal intensive care unit of a hospital will be acutely aware of it. In the same hospital where doctors are trying to save a premature baby born at, say, 23 weeks, a woman down the corridor is legally allowed to undergo a late-stage abortion on a foetus of the same gestation. So on the one hand we throw considerable money and resources to try to save a baby’s life, while on the other we sanction its destruction.”

I have consistently made that argument for the past seven years. The medical profession cannot make two arguments. Doctors cannot say that a poorly baby’s life is worth trying to save from 20 or 21 weeks onwards while stating at the same time that there is no chance of life up to 24 weeks, so it is okay to abort up until that point. There is an inconsistency in retaining 24 weeks. Should there be a case to say that doctors should not try to save the life of a poorly baby born before 24 weeks’ gestation? Can hon. Members imagine the uproar if we said, “Okay, the RCOG has said that viability is 24 weeks, so we really shouldn’t be saving premature babies before 24 weeks”? We should say, “No, the point of viability is 24 weeks, so we should stop. Wipe out the neonatal units, wipe out the premature units. Viability is not consistent before 24 weeks.”

Doctors cannot have it both ways. They cannot say in the NHS, “We try to save babies from 20 weeks because they are viable,” and then say, “We abort at 24 weeks because they are not.” The two arguments cannot stand. That is an anomaly, and it must end.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Nadine Dorries]

No. I have said that I will not give way any more. I must crack on, because lots of people want to speak.

Some people ask whether medical science in the area has moved on. Is there a difference between the science in 2008, when we had the vote, and the science today? The answer is that viability can never be proven. Until healthy women agree to allow healthy babies to be aborted at 20 weeks and we then try to save them, we can never actually know what viability is.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Nadine Dorries]

I will give way, but this is the last time.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. On that point, we are not trying to save babies at 20 weeks. No babies survive at 20 weeks’ gestation. If she refers back to the British Medical Journal paper considering two periods of survival, the increase in survival of pre-term babies after the 2000 period was due entirely to babies born at 24 and 25 weeks. The absolute limit of survival is about 22 weeks; that is when we try to save them. Will she please stop suggesting that the NHS is capable of saving babies at 20 weeks? It is simply not true.

[Nadine Dorries]

Maybe the NHS should stop trying to save babies from 20 weeks. My neighbour 10 years ago was a 22-week survivor. Although she had slight problems, they did not prevent her from going to school and living a full and wonderful life. Babies do survive from 22 weeks, which is my argument for viability. If the RCOG wants to say that viability is at 24 weeks, it must look at the living babies born at 22 weeks and say, “That’s wrong.”

The only measure of viability that we have is the premature poorly baby—the baby who arrives early for a reason. Doctors must fight to deal with two complicated situations: whatever made the baby arrive prematurely, and the fact that it has arrived prematurely, which involves lung function and other things. I am afraid that a healthy aborted baby and a premature poorly baby cannot be compared, particularly not at 23 weeks.

I have been asked in numerous interviews, and only this week by Victoria Derbyshire during the filming of a “Panorama” programme, “How do you know that aborted babies are healthy babies?” For the record, between 96 and 97 out of every 100 babies are born healthy. The viability argument needs to be discussed in the context of what we do in our neonatal and premature baby units, and what we do in terms of abortion. The two must be compared.

I want to discuss sentience, because it is an argument for life. We know that a baby can feel pain in the womb before 20 weeks. If a woman’s stomach is poked post-20 weeks or earlier, it can wake up the baby. Thanks to Professor Stuart Campbell’s amazing and pioneering work with 3D imaging, we can see how a baby in the womb responds to stimuli, and thanks to the work of Professor Sunny Anand, we know exactly how a foetus responds, due to how it reacts to anaesthetic during in-utero operations.

While a research fellow at Oxford, Dr Anand became aware that many premature and early gestation babies died during in-utero operations due to shock induced by pain during the procedure. General thinking at the time, in the 1980s, was that no baby could experience pain before birth—that until birth, a baby was not sentient. In his pioneering work, Dr Anand developed anaesthesia to be delivered to foetuses. Thanks to that work, introduced at the John Radcliffe hospital, anaesthetising babies during in-utero operations is now standard procedure, and babies now live.

Dr Anand went on to continue his work and research in America. When I sat on the Science and Technology Committee, we considered abortion, and one of the members of that Committee—Evan Harris, the former Member for Oxford West and Abingdon, who lost his seat at the last election—described Professor Anand as a little doctor from Little Rock. Dr Anand did much of his further research in America, first at the university of Arkansas and now as the St Jude chair for critical care medicine and professor of paediatrics, anaesthesiology and neurobiology at the university of Tennessee health centre in Memphis.

My only point in relation to Evan Harris’s comments about Professor Anand is that Dr Anand is a gentle, polite academic who is well renowned and respected and has a successful career. To describe such a man as a little man from Little Rock, and to have binned and not considered the evidence on abortion that he presented to the Science and Technology Committee, was a travesty. I complained about it to the Clerks at the time, and I will continue to complain about it, as it tainted the report. If a foetus can feel pain stimuli, it is a sentient being. Anyone who feels, is. They exist. If one feels, one is a human being.

I move to the feminist argument. As the mother of three young adult daughters, I am a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose. Never, ever would I want to see a return to the bad old days of backstreet abortionists, or restricted access to early abortion. Do I champion this issue from the perspective of religion? No, I do not. I do not come to this from a religious perspective. I champion this from the perspective of compassion, humanity and civility. I believe in the right to choose, but, provocatively, I would like to throw this in: what about the female baby, post-20 weeks? I often hear the argument, “It is a woman’s right to choose.” What about healthy female babies who are aborted at 24 weeks?

I champion this issue because I believe passionately in the reduction of the upper limit. When I visit pregnancy crisis centres, I hear women who are undergoing counselling. Some actually say, “I would have preferred an option other than ending my baby’s life.” Well, there are other options. That is one of the reasons why I tabled the counselling amendment—there are always other options.

I would like to talk about the truth about abortion. It is not just articulate, clever women who abort; vulnerable women are coerced. They are the women who are seen by pregnancy crisis centres. Not every woman who has a late-term abortion for social reasons actually wants one. I was staggered to hear what one MP who came up to me the other day said. Her actual words were, “Every woman who wants an abortion knows exactly what she is doing.” Well, in her rather slick, well-educated Oxbridge world and her leafy shires I am sure they do, but what about the young Asian girl who was recently marched into a clinic in floods of tears by two family members? No one knew her age, but she was marched in by two family members for an abortion. Is that a one-off story? No. Speaking to abortion providers, that happens on a regular basis.

What about the young women who have waited to have their abortion because they did not want to have it, and who then found themselves being coerced by partners or others? One woman at a pregnancy crisis centre that I went to aborted at 24 weeks because she had been told by her partner and other family members that it would be beaten out of her if she did not. Not every women makes the decision because she went to university and marched up and down streets in Oxford and chanted about women’s rights. Lots of women are actually incredibly vulnerable. It seems to me as though many of the women who make the feminist “women’s right to choose” argument have no regard whatever for those women. In pushing one particular mantra and ideology, no consideration is taken of those women at all.

It is assumed, and I am told, that it is a woman’s right to choose, and that by wanting to limit from 24 weeks and by wanting to introduce counselling, what I am trying to do is limit a woman’s right to choose. Well, let me inform everybody that a woman’s right to choose is limited because the upper limit is at 24 weeks. To say that a woman’s right to choose is being limited is nonsense—it is already limited. It is limited because at 24 weeks it is felt that a baby is viable. I argue this: a baby’s life is viable before 24 weeks, so it is time to reduce the limit, because this is 2012, not 1990. I hope we live in a society that is civilised and compassionate, and which cares for vulnerable women who do not want to have abortions and are forced to do so. I hope that we would give as much consideration to those women as we do to the Oxbridge-educated, articulate women who change their job and want to have an abortion.

Some of the women who end up at pregnancy crisis centres do so because they are scarred and need counselling, which is not available to them, because they aborted at a very late stage. Those women are more likely to suffer mental health consequences than those who abort at an early stage. If we do not go for the viability argument; if we do not look at sentience and all the other arguments I have made; if we just decide to disregard the fact that in one hospital, there might be two babies, one being aborted at 23 weeks and another having her life saved at 20 and if we choose to ignore all that, let us just decide that we should be a little more considerate to the women who find themselves forced into a situation in which they have a late-term abortion.

I hope that the Backbench Business Committee grants the next debate on this issue next May. I hope that there will be a vote. I hope that, by then, enough information will have been put before hon. Members for them to decide that what they want to do is what the public want to do. I finish on this note: I am overwhelmed by the amount of support that I have received from members of the public in wanting to reduce the limit. The more this is debated, as it should be, the more public opinion will become informed, and the more MPs will realise that what they need to do in this place is carry out the will of their constituents, not follow their own political ideology.

09:55

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. I am pleased to speak in this debate, and my position will become very clear. I believe in human rights. I believe in the most basic of human rights, the right to life, so I am against abortion. I believe that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable. It is that protection that I seek to uphold, and that is why I am here to speak on this matter.

I begin by stating clearly that I am against abortion, except in the extreme case in which it is done to save the life of the mother. Statistics show that Northern Ireland, which has a restrictive abortion law, has the lowest maternal death rate in the whole of the United Kingdom. That is backed up by the fact that the Republic of Ireland has almost the lowest maternal death rate in Europe, and has no legislation that allows abortion. The UK mainland, with its more liberal abortion law, has a higher rate of maternal deaths. That speaks volumes, and it is clear that restricted abortion to save the mother’s life, which we have in Northern Ireland, works well to save both mother and child.

If there was the option of bringing in Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, I would be pleading with everyone in this House to do just that. I have been contacted by the Christian Medical Fellowship, which states things clearly. Today’s debate is calling for a small reduction in the upper time limit for legal abortions. That will affect approximately 2,000 abortions that are carried out for social reasons—I use the phrase “social reasons”, because that is why they are happening—out of a total of nearly 200,000 abortions per year. It will not prevent the abortion of babies with foetal abnormality up to term.

This issue is emotive. A large number of people have contacted me and asked me to watch the scans of a 20-week-old baby to remind me of the humanity behind our decisions. When I look at a baby at 20 weeks’ gestation sucking its thumb, having the hiccups, crying and blinking, it is beyond me how anyone in good conscience, in this House or outside, could say that it is fine to rip away life at this stage. It is not fine. It is never going to be fine. A 2008 study by University college London found that survival rates were more than 70% for babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care was available.

[Kate Green]

It is really important that we are accurate about these figures. At 24 and 25 weeks, survival rates improve a lot, but at 20 to 24 weeks, survival rates are very low: zero at 20 weeks; 1% at 22 weeks; and 11% at 23 weeks. It is wrong to imply that at under 24 weeks, we have survival rates of 75%.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but life is life as far as I am concerned; that is where I am coming from.

The survival of more than 70% of babies born between 22 and 25 weeks when high-quality care is available blows away the argument that a baby can be aborted until it is viable at 24 weeks. Recently, in America, a baby of 21 weeks responded to stimulus, crying and smiling, so there is evidence that shows clearly that it can happen. All the things that we associate with life are in evidence before the time of so-called viability.

I will give the example of a young girl from my constituency. A friend of mine had a grandchild who, they were warned, would not survive as she was so premature. The family prayed hard, and asked for all possible treatment to sustain the baby’s life. Today, Zoe-Lee is 13 years of age and is the light of her parents’ life. It is scary to think that if an abortion had been allowed at that time, that young girl would not be here today.

The question that has been posed to me by members of the medical fraternity is: how much longer can we justify doctors desperately—the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred to this as well—trying to save premature babies born at 23 weeks, while down the corridor in the same hospital, another doctor is aborting a 23-week baby, which is perfectly healthy, for social reasons?

A 24-week upper limit in the UK is outdated and out of line with other EU countries. In 2008, our 24-week upper limit was double the 12-week limit for most EU countries. Some 16 out of 27 other European countries had a gestational limit of 12 weeks or less, so if we want to be in line with other countries that have high standards, then let us do that.

Ask any woman who has miscarried a baby in early term—at, say, at 12 weeks—and she will tell you that she saw its perfectly formed fingers and toes, its spine and head, and that wee face. For me, it is almost unimaginable to take it from the womb at this stage, never mind any later, and to ask any general practitioner to do this is grossly unfair. I am no man’s judge, and I feel for those women who have felt that they had no other option than to take this step.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

Does my hon. Friend agree—he seems to be coming to this point—that we need to try to develop a caring, compassionate approach to women who find themselves in the circumstances that he is outlining, but feel that there is no alternative to an abortion? We need to offer them another viable alternative.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, because that is exactly the point I was coming to. For the reason I mentioned, I supported the calls by my colleague, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, to have better counselling in place for women considering abortion. Will the Minister update hon. Members on when new counselling will come into play, and on what has been done thus far?

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

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. Would he not agree that, given all the arguments he has given, perhaps 20 weeks is still too high, and that it should be 12 weeks or lower?

[Jim Shannon]

Yes, I agree. Ask the women who have had abortions and live with the guilt and despair every day of their lives, and who try for children and are faced with more difficulties than those who have not had abortions. Abortion should not be the choice for social reasons; it should be a last resort for medical reasons. Although I cannot today change the law in England and Wales, I speak for those babies who feel the pain of being ripped from their mother’s womb. This must stop today. This House should deal with this matter and make it clear that late-term abortions are unacceptable, apart from in limited and specialised cases. We must make it clear that we will not allow hon. Members in this House, and people outside it, to weave a web of inaccuracies that would make wrong seem right, make lies seem to be truth and seek to justify that which is unjustifiable.

10:01

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Such debates in this place—I have attended a few—are deeply polarised, and often quite unpleasant, between those who assert the right to life and those who equally emphatically assert the right to choose, which is strange because both rights are then usually qualified by those who uphold them. I think all hon. Members would agree that there are circumstances where either right can be overridden and I know no one who does not believe this. The dividing issue between hon. Members in this Chamber is the limits of abortion, and such a debate is necessarily about how much or how little abortion is permissible. To be honest, those who argue for limits often favour much less abortion, or rare abortion, and constrained choice for the woman. That by itself is not an argument against discussing the limits rationally.

We are not helped much by the fact that two sorts of argument are given for abortion in law: one is about the preferences or the good of the woman, where her mental health, usually, and sometimes her physical health is the issue; the other is about the hypothetical preferences of the foetus, in cases of severe abnormality, where gross deformity or suffering is in prospect. There are, therefore, two different sorts of abortion, and it is not obvious to me that the same limits should apply to both types. A problem in discussing the current limits is that the cases that would immediately be affected by a small reduction would disproportionately fall into the latter category—deformity and so on. Such cases are rare and untypical, and that slightly skews our debate. It is a mistake, in this debate, to confound the two types of abortion.

Much, perhaps most, current debate has been centred on the viability of the foetus at certain stages—its ability to survive with or without medical assistance outside the womb. Of course, that varies depending upon the quality of that medical assistance, which we would all agree has improved enormously. On my way here, I read a story in Metro of a baby who survived being born below the abortion limit and was looking happily out of the pages of the paper. This kind of evidence is often cited as new scientific evidence about what we can achieve. We may achieve still more in future.

Some argue that we should not think simply of the survival of the foetus, but of its ability to thrive, lead a quality life, have full use of mental faculties and so on. It is legitimate to say that mortality and impairment is high among babies born prematurely.

[Nadine Dorries]

On the important matter of viability, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, post-20 weeks, the method of aborting a baby is to administer a lethal injection into the baby’s heart via the mother’s abdomen, to ensure that the baby is delivered dead, not alive. That is why that procedure was invented, created and introduced. That in itself is an argument for viability below 24 weeks, because if there was no chance of viability below 24 weeks, there would be no need to introduce a lethal injection procedure.

[John Pugh]

I accept that point, but we must be aware that there is an argument that the abortion limit should be set at a point where a statistically significant number of foetuses can be shown not just to have survived, but to have thrived. That position is somewhat arbitrary. I see no obvious reason why obstetrics should not continue to improve and the issue continue to haunt us.

I find all this talk about survivability somewhat confusing, because at no stage is the human infant capable of independent survival. Some societies, and indeed some philosophers, have argued that a severely deformed infant born at full term, incapable naturally of living without abnormal intervention and presenting all those features that would have justified abortion should be allowed to perish or may be killed. I do not accept that view, but I recognise that it has been put.

What scientific evidence shows about survival prospects strikes me as relevant but not crucially so. Survivability is only relevant because it stands proxy for something else. No one argues that a baby that can survive and show all the signs of conscious, individual life was not conscious from the moment of its birth and capable of wilful behaviour, having feelings, sentience and so on. Equally, it is hard to argue that were they in the womb that would not also be exactly the case. To kill such a baby, or a baby of such an age, while it is in the womb is thus, logically, to kill a sentient, conscious, wilful and, indeed, innocent human being, and one needs a good reason to justify that type of behaviour. The paramount wishes of the mother simply do not seem to be a good enough reason.

Where consciousness can be presumed, or to put it more strongly, where complete unconsciousness cannot be assumed, the rights of the child in my view would ordinarily trump the rights of the mother. A precautionary principle should kick in, but it clearly does not do so within the existing framework. That is why it is important that we have this debate.

I accept that there is a different argument to be had about the destruction in the womb of human life that we would all agree not to be conscious, and that falls back upon religious views about respect for individual human life, including the potentially, but not actually, conscious. The mediaeval Church made that distinction. But the argument that we must take sentience seriously rests upon our ordinary moral intuitions about the value of individual existence. The debate simply will not go away until we align the law with our basic moral intuitions. I applaud those, including the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who simply alerted us to this fact and indicated that we really must have this debate.

10:08

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

I have listened with great interest to the debate and the points made by hon. Members from all parties. I recognise, as I am sure all hon. Members do, the difficulty and sensitivity of this debate. I am sure we would all prefer a world in which there are fewer abortions; in which men and women have access to sex education, support and advice to make the right decisions for themselves; in which, should partners choose to engage in sexual relations, there is safe and confidential access to contraceptives; in which there is no rape or incest; and in which, if a woman becomes pregnant, she is not so afraid of family and community that she is unable to seek early advice and support. But we do not live in such a world. In making judgments as politicians and as a society, we must use the best available evidence and the right balance of arguments and interests. At the heart of our debate, there must be evidence and facts.

Recent debates in the House have ruled out lowering the time limit, and for good reasons. First, there has been no new medical evidence to suggest any scientific or medical reason for a reduction in the abortion time limit since the subject was last debated in the House of Commons in 2008, during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Amendments to lower the time limit to 22, 20, 16 or 12 weeks were voted on, and all were rejected by MPs. The major professional medical bodies in the UK support the 24-week abortion time limit, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives and the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

There has been no significant change in survival rates. Many of those who currently advocate a reduction in the time limit argue that there have been major clinical developments in the care of pre-term infants which have led to a reduction in the gestational age at which a foetus can survive and that, therefore, the 24-week limit should be reduced. That is not the view of the main medical bodies, and there are no calls from them to reduce abortion time limits. For example, the BMA debated the issue at its annual representatives meeting—the ARM—in 2005 and in 2001. On both occasions it rejected a call for any reduction in the 24-week time limit.

It is important to keep a focus on the facts. No statistics make the case for reducing the limit. The majority of abortions in the UK take place at an early stage of pregnancy: 91% are carried out before 12 weeks of gestation; and only 1% of abortions take place after 20 weeks—that number has continued to fall year on year. We have heard some survival rates of zero at 20 weeks, 1% at 22 weeks and about 10% at 23 weeks, but the viability in terms of quality of life remains a great concern.

There is no support for reducing the limit among health groups. Indeed, following the call by the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, in early October, for the abortion limit to be reduced to 20 weeks, the BMA said:

“The BMA does not believe there is any scientific justification to reduce the abortion limit from 24 to 20 weeks. We will not be lobbying for any reduction.”

When the Secretary of State for Health later offered his support for a reduction to 12 weeks, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists called the suggestion “insulting to women”, stating that his comments

“politicise the debate around the abortion time limit and do not put women at the centre of their care.”

Different arguments are made, on the right of life of the baby and on the question of the woman’s well-being and her right to choose. Furthermore, the right to choose is related to a woman’s well-being, given that she has to carry a baby to term and does so knowing that she will have the responsibility afterwards—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Lady’s speaking time is up.

10:13

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

It is a privilege to speak in this debate. I am the vice-chair of the all-party pro-life group. My colleague, the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin), would have been present but was detained on constituency business.

I hope that my contribution will be received with the respect and compassion with which I give it, for pregnant women and the unborn child. There is growing support for a reduction in the upper limit for abortion for a number of reasons, including improved survival of very premature babies since the Abortion Act 1967, as well as advances in ultrasound imaging, foetal sentience and practice in much of Europe. In 2011 2,729 abortions took place after 20 weeks, with the majority taking place for what are called social reasons.

The fact is that medical advances have been made and survival rates have improved. Indeed, I understand that in America the world’s most premature baby has survived: Amillia Taylor, who was born at 21 weeks. Is not the fact that science has moved on a sufficient argument for looking again at the number of weeks? Such scientific capabilities were never envisaged in 1967, and stories of babies born alive after failed abortions are also not uncommon.

It is interesting to note that many people criticised the Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), for suggesting that a 12-week abortion time limit should be considered. Yet his views are not controversial. In the European Union, 12 weeks is the average time limit.

What about the effect on the medical profession? It is becoming increasingly difficult and discomfiting for doctors in one part of a hospital to fight to save premature babies, but in another part to abort them at the same stage, as highlighted by Max Pemberton recently in The Daily Telegraph. The discomfort felt by doctors and nurses can be further understood when the reality of abortion in private clinics is made clear. I want to pay tribute to the gracious and principled stand against abortion made by Lord Alton in both Houses over many years. Indeed, a quarter of a century ago he described what happened when a child is aborted at a late stage:

“Because this is a long-drawn-out business”—

and there is a chance that the child will be born alive—

“the method of late abortion used in private clinics is primarily dilatation and evacuation. By this method, the cervix is dilated and the baby’s body removed piece by piece. To facilitate its extraction from the womb, the skull is crushed, the spine snapped and the body removed piece by piece. An attendant nurse then has the job of reassembling the body to ensure that nothing has been left behind”.—[Official Report, 22 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 1232-33.]

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is describing the removal of a baby. Today in the debate we have heard Members referring to babies as foetuses, but they are human beings and the smokescreen needs to come down. Does she agree? The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries), who introduced the debate, said that at 24 weeks a needle is put into the heart of the baby and it is killed. If that happened to any individual in the Chamber, it would be murder.

[Fiona Bruce]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution. I want to ask the Minister to clarify whether the procedure as described 24 years ago by David Alton is the same today. If so, may we have an inquiry into the foetal pain suffered during such a process, which cannot be imagined? Can some research be carried out? The procedure for late-term abortion is traumatic not only for the child but for the woman, physically and psychologically, so could such research also consider the effect on the woman? Moreover, will the Minister consider the impact on women of repeat abortions? Can something not be done in the “caring, compassionate” way mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) to help women who are facing repeat abortions, so that we can help them to avoid that in future?

The 24-week limit is in fact not a limit at all for certain unborn children. As mentioned, abortion is legal in this country up to and even including birth on the ground of disability. I am delighted that here in Britain we are doing more than ever to help those with disabilities, but we have a paradox. A child diagnosed with a disability can be aborted up to and even during birth, but the minute that the child is born a whole panoply of rights and medical and social support comes into play for that child, and quite rightly so. The child is born with rights protected by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The law is therefore at odds. The Disability Rights Commission states that a law that permits abortions at any time up to birth for disability alone

“reinforces negative stereotypes of disability; and there is substantial support for the view that to permit terminations”

for such a reason is something that needs to be reviewed. I ask the Minister to look into that law, given equality and diversity legislation. My son has a club foot, which is a disability that under the present law of the land permits abortion up to birth, but it is an entirely correctable defect.

Will the Minister clarify what action has been taken following the revelations earlier this year of abortions being carried out on gender grounds? Finally, what action was taken following the police inquiry and the breach of abortion laws whereby HSA1 forms were pre-signed by one doctor at up to 14 NHS trusts? The life of both mother and child are equally valuable and deserve equal respect accordingly. I hope that I have expressed that today.

10:20

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) for introducing the debate, although I wonder why now. I listened to hon. Members’ contributions, and I agree with some of the arguments from both sides. I agree that abortion should available on demand until 12 weeks, and that there are serious issues about termination on gender grounds that need looking at, but the crux of the matter is about reducing the termination limit from 24 to 20 weeks, and I keep asking why now. There is no new medical evidence. The majority of professional bodies support a 24-week limit, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Association of Perinatal Medicine, and the general public.

[Kate Green]

This is the first time that public opinion has been mentioned in the debate. Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent YouGov survey report about a week ago which showed that 47% of the public support a 24-week limit, 4% believe it should be even later than 24 weeks, and 33% want it reduced?

[Julie Elliott]

I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I am aware of the report, but it was worth telling hon. Members.

Is the answer to “Why have the debate now?” that there are more late abortions? No. The contrary is true, and 91% of abortions take place at less than 12 weeks, which is when most of us want them to occur. Only 1% take place after 20 weeks, and the figure is falling every year. There has been mention of whether a foetus feels pain, and I refer to a report from the Select Committee on Science and Technology in 2010. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists was commissioned by the Department of Health to update the report on foetal awareness. It concluded:

“The fetus cannot experience pain before 24 weeks gestation due to lack of development of essential parts of the brain required for pain perception.”

I turn to improving survival rates. They are improving at more than 24 weeks, and during the 20 years since the limit was changed, they have improved significantly. When I had my twins in 1991, the 28-week survival rate was quite low, and that has improved, but that is not the case below 24 weeks.

Have the people presenting for late abortion changed? No, they have not. In the main, they are still the most vulnerable people in our society—the very young, older women who may not have realised that they were pregnant until a very late stage, pregnancy deniers, and people suffering domestic abuse. The list goes on. I suspect that many of those people do not realise how many weeks pregnant they are when they present to the medical profession.

The issue is so sensitive that we should consider the impact of our debate on the general population. As medical evidence has not changed since 2008, I wonder why we are discussing the matter now. Our discussions today will have an impact on vulnerable people in our society, because the subject is upsetting, distressing and worrying for them. They may just read the headlines of the debate, which I suspect will be on the scaremongering side, because that is what has happened in the past, and that can make people feel even more vulnerable.

[John Pugh]

Why are we discussing now matters that we could have discussed in 2008? The hon. Lady is relatively new to the House. She will be aware that whenever the issue has been raised formally in the House, the lid has been put on it pretty quickly, so there has not been a thorough and exhaustive debate that might help matters.

[Julie Elliott]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

MPs must act with responsibility, and always consider the impact on our constituents and the wider population of issues that we bring to the House. We must not scaremonger, or involve issues of guilt, which has happened in some contributions today. I am wholly opposed to that.

I return to what I said at the beginning—why have this debate now? I cannot see any medical or logical reason for it now because no new evidence has come forward since it was last discussed in 2008. If there was new evidence, I would be happy to have the debate. My mind is not closed to changing the limit ever, and if medical evidence suggests strongly that survival rates may be lower than at 24 weeks, that would be the time to consider the issue, not now.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Julie Elliott]

No.

Members of Parliament must always be aware of the impact of our discussions. I conclude by saying, not just as a Member of Parliament, but as the mother of four adult children, and grandmother of two gorgeous little granddaughters, that for their future—this does not impact on me because I am far too old—we should keep medical evidence under review. We should debate such issues sensitively when they change, not on a whim or for emotional reasons. When medical evidence clearly changes, that is the point at which to discuss the matter. I am sad that this debate is taking place today.

10:26

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) has left the Chamber, but for a moment I felt like a thorn between two roses, because the three of us have 90 years’ service in the House, and we have been active on this issue since we became MPs. One reaches a point of having heard all the arguments, and having to agree to disagree with colleagues. Some debates have been pleasant, and some have been very unpleasant.

There is something different about this debate. I cannot recall a Secretary of State for Health commenting on this issue as the present one has. I happen to agree with him, and I congratulate him on speaking out. I also congratulate my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on what they said, and the Prime Minister. I am advised that 14 members of the Cabinet now take a similar view to mine, which has never before happened during my time. Things have changed considerably since 1990, so I welcome the opportunity that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has given us to discuss these matters.

I want to speak about counselling for women who seek a termination. About £60 million is spent on funding that operation, and there is an element of self-interest. In south-east Essex, 695 consultations produced 624 abortions, and 71 women—10.2% of the total—opted to continue with their pregnancy.

I am worried about the pre-signing of consent forms for abortion. The Daily Telegraph carried out an undercover operation, and in January the Care Quality Commission identified evidence during inspection of a private clinic of HSA1 forms being pre-signed by one doctor. What action are the Government taking on those two matters?

Many years ago I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on sex selection. There was some merriment in the House at the time, but I stood my ground. It is disappointing that I have been proved right, because in February an undercover investigation by The Daily Telegraph revealed that in some places in the UK it was possible to obtain an abortion on gender grounds. I also understand the point being made by hon. Members that if we reduce the limit from 24 weeks to 20, we are talking about very small numbers. However, hon. Members could then say, “If the numbers are very small, what is the problem with reducing it to 20 weeks?”

I was once Edwina Currie’s Parliamentary Private Secretary. At that time, which was a long time ago, I was a little concerned about the influence of officials—in fact, I was shocked, as I had expected them to be rather even-handed on this matter. Of course, as it was so long ago, I am sure that they have all retired. However, I would like to know what action the Government have taken against doctors who were found to have broken the Abortion Act 1967 by pre-signing forms. What action has been taken in the 14 national health service trusts identified to ensure that the pre-signing of forms does not happen again?

10:30

[Mr Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Crausby. People often say that such debates are very emotional, but it is nice that our debate this morning has been calm. I hope I will be very calm too; my wife always says to me that I must be less emotional when I speak, so I shall give a boring little speech that tries to deal with some facts and surveys. I hope that there will not be a lot of controversy about what I say.

According to the most recent figures for this country, one in five pregnancies ends in abortion. Whatever one’s views about pro-life or right-to-choose issues, I am sure that most people would regret that. In 2011, there were almost 290,000 abortions; that is 572 abortions every day. As we all know, United Kingdom law allows abortion up to 24 weeks, or until full term if the baby is disabled with a “serious handicap” or the mother’s life is threatened. In 2011, only 0.02% of abortions carried out in England and Wales were because of a risk to the mother’s life. Meanwhile, abortions carried out on the grounds of foetal handicap constituted a mere 1.2% of the total number of abortions. Even so, abortions on those grounds are often undertaken even when the handicap in question is undoubtedly curable. Many will recall the noble work of the Church of England vicar, Joanna Jepson, who highlighted that abortions were being carried out on babies with cleft palates on the grounds of foetal handicap.

Since 1929, British law on abortion has, for better or worse, linked the legality of abortion with the viability of the child to survive outside the womb. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 reduced the upper time limit on abortions set by the 1967 Act from 28 weeks to 24. The arguments employed in the parliamentary debates of the time recognised that and highlighted the issue of viability. Since the passing of the 1990 Act, significant improvements have undoubtedly been made to neonatal care, increasing the ability of prematurely born children to survive. Figures from 2005 show that 52 babies born earlier than 24 weeks have survived. In the specialist neonatal unit at London’s University College hospital, five of the seven infants born at 22 weeks between 1996 and 2000 survived, as did nearly half those born at 23 weeks.

Our French and continental neighbours have been mentioned today, and in France, abortion on demand is legal up to only 12 weeks. As we have heard from the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), 91% of abortions take place before 12 weeks. I do not think that it is a massive attack on women’s right to choose if we therefore try and focus the debate on late abortions. We are talking about a relatively small number, but we are also discussing human life, and even one human life is important.

In France, abortions are only allowed after 12 weeks if two physicians certify that it is being done to prevent grave, permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman, or because there is a risk to the pregnant woman’s life, or if the child in question will suffer from a particularly severe illness recognised as incurable. That law was reinforced in 1994, when French law-makers required that multidisciplinary diagnostic centres decide which birth defects are severe enough to allow for abortion after the 12-week limit.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of a study of late abortions in Britain? A number of those abortions seem to be as a result of difficulties that women have had getting abortions earlier. If we had abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, as France does but we do not, perhaps the result would be a greater number of earlier abortions in this country.

[Mr Leigh]

We can certainly debate that point. I should have thought that the law is that we have abortion on demand, but if the hon. Lady believes that some women feel they are under pressure not to have abortions before 12 weeks, we can discuss that matter. I thought, however, that we were focusing on late abortions today, which I should have thought we regret all around the Chamber.

A lot of European countries that are viewed as much more liberal than we are have time limits on abortions that are many weeks less than in Great Britain. The UK’s 24-week upper limit is double that of most European countries. Sixteen of 27 EU countries have a gestational limit of 12 weeks or lower; thus attempts to stir a reduction of the upper time limit as controversial have very little ground to stand on when we compare our laws with those of our European neighbours, as we often do in many other areas. A 2005 survey revealed that more than three quarters of women in the United Kingdom are in favour of reducing the time limit on abortions. A 2007 survey, commissioned by Marie Stopes International, found that 65% of GPs would welcome a reduction.

The number of abortions performed in Britain is now four times higher than in 1969, the first full year that abortion was available under the 1967 Act. G.K. Chesterton wrote:

“Men do not differ much about what things they will call evils; they differ enormously about what evils they will call excusable”.

For those of us who are abortion opponents, like my hon. Friends, our views are known, and they can be dismissed. I hope, however, that even the most fervent supporters of legal abortion recognise that abortion is not desirable, even if they find it excusable. Anything that we can do to prevent late abortions is surely desirable for our country.

Regardless of the obvious moral debate, there is a compelling medical case for wanting to reduce the number of abortions. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recognised that abortion can damage a woman’s mental health. Studies have discovered that women who have had abortions are almost twice as likely to suffer from mental health problems, three times as likely to have major depression, and six times as likely to commit suicide as mothers who do not have an abortion—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order.

10:37

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on raising the issue again, and I encourage her to continue doing so.

My motivation for speaking—although I am basically against abortion in principle—is that I want to touch on one or two aspects of the issue, one of which is late abortions. I remember doing a fundraising project for a special care baby unit in 1992 in Derbyshire. Even as long ago as that, babies were starting to survive after 24 weeks’ gestation. I saw those babies, their fight for life, and the care and attention that they were given. The entire unit was there to help preserve life, and it struck me as very wrong, especially as time has gone on and as medical science has advanced, that we should be aborting babies who are capable of life.

We have heard it said today that babies cannot survive at 20 or 21 weeks. I shall not argue with that position, but it is fairly well established that they can survive from anything above 22 weeks, and certainly at 23 or 24 weeks. It is not fit for a civilised society to take, live from the womb, babies who are capable of life, leave them to struggle for life, and let them die. In any other circumstances, allowing a baby to die like that, through omission, would certainly be manslaughter, at least. That cannot be right. I can understand why some people might be in favour of abortion up to 12 weeks or so, but I simply cannot understand how anybody in this House would want this practice to continue.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

What does the hon. Gentleman think the balance should be between scientific and anecdotal evidence in the development of policy? He suggests that we should use anecdotal rather than scientific evidence to produce policy.

[Mr Robertson]

I find that intervention rather confusing, because if the babies are surviving, surely that is proof of the science. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I cannot understand the point of the intervention.

The hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott) asked why we were having the debate now, when we considered the issue four years ago. I have to say that Parliament does not always get things right. On very many issues, public opinion and the evidence are way ahead of where Parliament is. Examples include welfare reform, immigration and the European Union. Parliament has not caught up with what everyone else in the country is saying on those issues. This is one such issue that certainly needs to be revisited. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire is right: we should not shy away from this subject or any other, because if we—

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order. May I ask the hon. Gentleman to wind up his remarks soon, please? I know that he has not had his full time, but I want to bring in the Front Benchers.

[Mr Robertson]

Certainly. I shall make one final point, then. We sometimes hear that it is only vulnerable teenagers who get pregnant and need an abortion. That simply is not true: 29% of abortions are carried out on women over the age of 30, entirely for social reasons. The number of repeat abortions is in the thousands. In the past year, 76 women had had seven abortions before the one that they were then having; there are very many issues there. I shall certainly respect your request for me to wind up my remarks, Mr Crausby, but this is a very serious issue, and I hope that Parliament revisits it very soon.

10:41

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing the debate. She made a point of saying at the beginning of her speech that she felt that there was a climate of fear around discussing abortion, and that some people did not feel that it was appropriate for it to be discussed in the House. I hope that she is not including me in that. I believe in the primacy of the Chamber. It seems to me vital that the Chamber is the place where we discuss issues of life and death, and war and peace. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra), and for Sunderland Central (Julie Elliott), on their excellent and thoughtful speeches.

I open my remarks in a way that is unusual for me—by quoting a Conservative Front Bencher in another place. Earl Howe, the Health Minister in the House of Lords, said this month, in response to the Secretary of State’s remarks, that

“my right honourable friend is entitled to express his long-held personal view, which he did the other day...however, successive Governments have taken the view that they should rest on the evidence. There is currently no call from the main medical bodies for a review of the Act in relation to time limits, and the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists support that view…This is a highly sensitive issue on which the Government have, as I indicated, traditionally been led by the science and the medical profession, and I think that we should bear that principle very closely in mind.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 11 October 2012; Vol. 739, c. 1130.]

For me, at the heart of this debate is the scientific and medical evidence. I do not understand why proponents of the anti-abortion case insist on saying that the science and medicine have changed when we know that in 2007 the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology held an inquiry on scientific developments and found that

“while survival rates at 24 weeks and over have improved they have not done so below that gestational point…we have seen no good evidence to suggest that foetal viability has improved significantly since the abortion time limit was last set, and seen some good evidence to suggest that it has not.”

The BMA supports that position.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Abbott]

I have to make progress. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare support that position. There is no medical and scientific case for the position that some Government Members are trying to prosecute.

Everyone is entitled to their ethical and religious views on this issue. For Labour Members, abortion has traditionally been a conscience matter, and I respect other people’s consciences on this issue. However, it is not right to denigrate doctors, scientists, nurses and other medical practitioners. It is not right to say, as some hon. Members have said, that the royal colleges are saying these things because they make their money out of abortions. It is not right to denigrate medical practitioners. It is not right to talk about women being coerced into having abortions. It ought to be possible to have a serious argument about the ethical issues without denigrating nurses, doctors and other medical practitioners who have devoted their lives to the reproductive welfare of women.

The question of Northern Ireland has come up. The issues in relation to Northern Ireland are entirely a matter for the people of Northern Ireland, but let me just say this. I congratulate Marie Stopes on opening the clinic in Belfast. I want to give my personal support to brave women, such as Dawn Purvis, who have campaigned on this issue. I give my personal support to those women in Northern Ireland who continue to believe that it cannot be right that women in one part of the British isles do not have the human rights that other women in the Union have.

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

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Ms Abbott]

I have to make progress.

[Hon. Members]

Give way!

[Mr David Crausby (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Ms Abbott]

We have heard the concerns about high levels of abortions and repeat abortions. Let me say from the Opposition side of the Chamber that we all share those concerns. Every abortion is a tragedy. I think that we would all in this Chamber want levels of abortions to come down, but we do not fairly bring down levels of abortions by restricting women’s right to choose. As the royal colleges have pointed out, the way to bring down levels of abortions is to recognise that abortions are largely about unintended pregnancy. What is needed is better work on access to contraception and better sexual health education in schools, and, if I may say so—this is a personal view—more needs to be done to fight the objectification and sexualisation of women in society. Of course we want to bring down abortion levels and levels of unintended pregnancy, but that is done through working in schools and working with young women, through sexual health care, and by fighting, as I said, the sexualisation of women, of which we see far too much.

As I said, of course we respect people’s consciences on this issue, but we do not want, and there is no evidence that British women want, the importing of the American politicisation of abortion to this country. We have only to look across the Atlantic to see politicians trying to outbid one another in the ferocity of their opposition to women’s right to choose, to see the attacks on doctors who work in these clinics, and to see candidates for office claiming that abortion as a consequence of women being raped is not an issue because there are things about a woman’s body that kick in and prevent her from getting pregnant as a result of rape—American politicians revealing their complete ignorance of women’s reproductive health.

Sadly, that is inching into this country. There are prayer vigils outside abortion clinics. There are leaflets claiming that abortion leads to breast cancer and infertility. There is work on college campuses. British women do not want to go down the route of politicians seeking to gain a political edge by sensationalising and politicising the issue of abortion. Let us rest on the medical evidence.

The hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said that the 1967 Act was a joke. I say to her that the 1967 Act was not a joke; it was a huge advance for the lives of women in this country. She talked about women marching in leafy suburbs. I have opportunities in my lifetime that my grandmother could never have dreamt of, and she was not brought up in a leafy suburb. As a result of political, social and educational advances, there are opportunities for women in my generation that our grandmothers could never have dreamt of, and the bedrock of those advances is women’s control of their own bodies and their reproductive health.

I am happy to debate this as often as Members want to bring it forward, but the debate must rest on the evidence, and we should debate the subject without denigrating our medical profession, and with respect for often very vulnerable women who have to make a difficult decision and do not welcome politicians sensationalising and politicising.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Crausby. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this debate on a subject in which she has a long-standing interest. I have listened to the views expressed by Members, and I acknowledge that many of them are deeply and strongly held. The nub of both sides of the debate is best encapsulated by the speeches of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Seema Malhotra) and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). They gave speeches based on their beliefs, knowledge and sound arguments.

[Nadine Dorries]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

Forgive me, but I want to make progress, because the clock is against me. I will give way when I have made some points. In the short time available, it is important that I make some of the main points in my speech.

It is right that abortion is a matter of conscience. It is important to respect the views of all individuals and accept that we have different views, whichever side of the political fence we sit on. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) reminded us that certain Cabinet members have expressed their own views on the upper limit for legal abortions. They all made it clear that those are their own personally expressed views. I want to make it quite clear that, notwithstanding the fact that some Cabinet members may want a reduction in the upper limit, the Government have no plans to bring about a change to the time at which an abortion can be carried out. I want to stress that point again, so I repeat: we have no plans to review the Abortion Act 1967.

We are by no means complacent. When I was fortunate enough to be made a Minister, I made it clear that in the time I am in office I want a reduction in the number of abortions. We all want that, but there is a debate about how we best achieve it. I take the view that we best achieve it through better contraception and by empowering our young men and women to make the choices that they want to make, if they have a sexual relationship.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Anna Soubry]

I will, but I want to make these points because they are important. I want better counselling services—

[Nadine Dorries]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Anna Soubry]

I will. I also want more work done on why so many women have more than one abortion, which is of great concern to people on both sides of the argument. There is a lot of work to be done.

I want to say something on counselling that may interest my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire in particular. As the new Minister with responsibility for this matter, I have carefully considered how we move forward on abortion counselling. I believe that the best way forward is about contraception, how we reduce the repeat abortion rate, how we empower young men and women and how we improve abortion counselling services for women generally. A committee was formed as a result of the measures that my hon. Friend tried to introduce. There is also a cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancy, led by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd). I commend that. They will do important work and hear important evidence, but the simple reality is that we therefore no longer plan to undertake a separate consultation on abortion counselling. I am sorry if that disappoints members of the committee.

For the purposes of transparency, I will today place in the Library a short document on abortion counselling, representing the great work done by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Anne Milton). I pay tribute to the work she did when she was Minister for Public Health, and to the cross-party committee, which looked at counselling arrangements for women requesting an abortion. I am extremely grateful for the work it did, and I thank its members for their efforts. I am sorry if there is disappointment, but we do not intend to change the law, so a separate consultation would be an otiose exercise.

[Nadine Dorries]

It is not a case of changing the law, but changing the Government’s commitment. The Government made an absolute commitment to consult. In fact, the British Medical Association moved a motion in agreement. Why have the Government changed their mind about the consultation on non-compulsory independent counselling?

[Anna Soubry]

The committee has done some good work. I do not think that it would be right to take the matter any further. I am sorry if that disappoints people, but that is my view. I can see no purpose in a consultation, because we do not intend to change either the law or the guidelines.

As the committee identified, counselling services throughout the NHS are patchy. That is not acceptable. It also decided that it is of primary importance that there are no delays when a woman seeks a termination of her pregnancy. That is why it is important that if a woman is going to have a termination, she does it as quickly as possible. The group was in unanimous agreement on that, which I welcome. There is other work to be done on counselling, but I take the view that that is not the primary issue that we should address, which is why I made the decision I did.

[Naomi Long]

Everyone, whether pro-life, like me, or pro-choice, agrees that we would like a reduction in the number of abortions. Does the Minister have any concerns that the policy of limiting child-related benefits to two children could increase the financial pressure and stress on people who find themselves pregnant, thus driving up the number of abortions, rather than reducing it?

[Anna Soubry]

No is the simple answer, but I am happy to discuss it further with the hon. Lady.

In the short time I am allowed, I want to talk about viability, bearing in mind the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire and the helpful interventions of the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston. The current clinical evidence shows that although there have been medical advances in caring for premature babies, only a small number of babies born at under 24 weeks’ gestation can survive, and there may well be questions about their quality of life. Most have severe problems. The situation markedly improves at 24 to 25 weeks, which reaffirms why the limit of 24 weeks was chosen.

Results from the EPICure study, which looked at the chances of survival and later health status of children born at less than 26 weeks, show that survival to discharge was 0% at 21 weeks, 1% at 22 weeks, and 11% at 23 weeks. Of the two children in the study born at 22 weeks’ gestation who survived to discharge, one had severe disability and one had mild disability at 6 years of age.

The British Association of Perinatal Medicine stated, in evidence to the 2007 Select Committee on Science and Technology inquiry on abortion, that it was concerned that lowering the legal definition of viability would imply that quality of survival has improved for infants below the present limit of 24 weeks. The evidence for the UK population to date does not support that.

Even though some babies have survived at a very early stage, the threshold of viability cannot be continually pushed back, because there is a limit beyond which the lungs will simply be insufficiently developed to sustain life. Although embryonic lungs start to form as early as four weeks into a pregnancy, their maturation continues until the end of a normal pregnancy. Recent data published by the Office for National Statistics show that 0.1% of live births occurred at less than 24 weeks, and the mortality rate for those babies was 877.3 deaths per 1,000 live births.

We are right to ask why women have late abortions. Women who have such abortions do so in the most extreme situations. They work with their doctors, nurses and loved ones to make what must be the most difficult choice that any woman, or her partner, will ever face. We have heard why so many hon. Members feel that the current 24-week limit should be retained, and why others feel strongly that the limit should be reduced. I personally support the retention of the 24-week limit, but my priority is to reduce the number of women who turn up at a clinic or doctor’s surgery seeking a termination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) spoke about the pain and suffering of women who undergo termination of a pregnancy, but perhaps he forgets the pain, suffering and mental distress of women who found that the law did not allow them that choice. My priority is ensuring that women have informed choice, and that we have fewer abortions.

Housing (Poplar and Limehouse)

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you presiding in the Chair this morning, Mr Crausby, especially as you are wearing the beloved claret and blue. I hope that we will see Bolton back in the premiership soon, because then you can come back to Upton Park and see some decent football. It is also a pleasure to see the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster) in his place as the Minister. He played a prominent role in the arrangements for the 2012 Olympics over many years and is very highly regarded. Although this matter is not exactly in his brief, it is a pleasure to see him and I know that he will take my request back to his colleague, the Minister for Housing.

After making a few brief comments about housing in general in Poplar and Limehouse and Tower Hamlets, I want to raise two issues: the governance of One Housing Group estates on the Isle of Dogs; and the question of leaseholder reform and the operation of housing management companies.

In Tower Hamlets, more than 20,000 families are on the waiting list. Thirty years ago, 95% of our housing stock was council owned, and that figure is now nearer 60%. Two specific matters impact directly on the communities that I represent. First, the 80% market rent is, I understand, an attempt to fulfil an ambition to make tenants pay a fairer amount for their property, but as property prices in London are much higher than elsewhere, there is a degree of distortion. Property rents around Canary Wharf, in the heart of my constituency, are even higher, which means that there is a disproportionate impact on affordability levels. Of course, the reduction in housing benefit will have a further impact.

Secondly, there is the problem of density. Tower Hamlets already has one of the densest population levels in the country. When I was elected in 1997, there were 11,000 voters on the Isle of Dogs, and in 2010, when I was re-elected, there were 23,000 voters. The figure has doubled in less than a generation, and massive developments are still planned for the Isle of Dogs, upon which Canary Wharf sits. There is a lot of local concern about the pressure on infrastructure, transport, health services, schools and so on. I hope that the Government are keeping an eye on that, even though it is the council’s job to approve, with the Mayor of London, the planning applications and the overall strategy.

One issue on which I want to focus is the governance of One Housing Group, the history of which relates to the stock transfer of council estates to registered social landlords. In my constituency, there were, I think, 17 successful stock transfers—out of 23 ballots—in 10 years. There was a massive shift in ownership from council to housing associations. One successful bid was for the four council estates on the Isle of Dogs. Residents voted by transfer to join Toynbee Housing, which failed miserably and was basically disestablished and subsumed into Community Housing, which became One Housing Group.

Some of the people who were on the original board were alleged to have broken rules and breached financial regulations. Tower Hamlets council did not monitor the situation as effectively as it should have done. The matter was pursued by two colleagues from Tower Hamlets council, Councillors Marc Francis and David Edgar. Promises were made in the offer document to tenants that had explicitly said that Island Homes would have a resident majority on the board of 15 members and that the four estates that had transferred were to determine the methods by which each of their two representatives would be chosen. Frustratingly, Tower Hamlets council lawyers failed to include that promise in the governing arrangements and the legal agreement. As a result, the whole thing went pear shaped. It was only after Tower Hamlets voiced its concern that One Housing Group agreed to restore the resident majority on the board of Island Homes, but it continued to refuse to allow tenants and leaseholders to determine that representation.

Earlier this year, One Housing Group notified me and the local authority that it intended to wind up Island Homes and replace it with area resident boards, which will have no decision-making powers. Disappointingly, the executive mayor of Tower Hamlets, Councillor Rahman, decided against challenging the legal basis for that decision. Questions have been asked about the votes that determined the course of events, with One Housing Group quoting numbers to validate its action. There have also been questions about the honesty of the ballot. In a report sent to Tower Hamlets council, 796 residents are said to have voted on the proposal, with 640 in favour and 132 against. On closer inspection, however, 255 of those voting are residents not of Island Homes, but of other One Housing properties on the Isle of Dogs.

Former council tenants on the four estates have found their homes being owned by a very different landlord from the one whom they had been promised in the transfer ballot some years ago, and they still feel quite aggrieved. The matter has not been helped by the fact that One Housing did not initially perform well in terms of repairs, refurbishments and improvements. That performance has improved, but still a bad taste has been left.

In a response from the previous Housing Minister, I was told that from April 2013, local councillors will have a formal role in the resolution of social housing complaints at a local level. That provides some reassurance, but it will not happen until 2013. At the moment the complaints that residents have made to the Homes and Communities Agency and now to the Financial Services Authority are basically in a cul-de-sac and do not appear to be going anywhere. I do not think there is anything that the Minister can helpfully add to resolve that matter. I am flagging up the anomalies in the procedure and the system and, despite the promises made, a lack of protection for residents. I will obviously be looking closely at the 2013 regulations, as will my councillor colleagues.

Leaseholding is a growing home ownership style in Poplar and Limehouse, which is coupled with the introduction of estate management companies. I am talking about not just right-to-buy properties, where tenants exercise the right to buy their previous council property, but new, fashionable blocks around the Canary Wharf estate, which have freeholders offering leasehold contracts of between 99 and 999 years. That creates a whole new cadre of house owner in the country.

Yesterday, the hon. Member for Worthing West (Sir Peter Bottomley) convened a meeting at which the agenda title was, “Leasehold exploitation.” I recommend that the Minister read, “A new lease of life”, which is compiled by CentreForum, with which he will be familiar because it is, I believe, a Liberal Democrat think-tank. That should not detract from the fact that it is a good and useful piece of research. It clearly lays out the nature of some of the problems.

Those at the meeting included a former Tory Cabinet Member, former Ministers and MPs from all parts of the House as well as their staff. The speakers represented the sector, different parts of the industry and people who have been through the land valuation tribunal procedure. There was also a representative from the Greater London Authority, a Conservative member from Sutton in south-west London.

The GLA Planning and Housing Committee has just produced a report that estimates that there are some 500,000 leaseholders in the Greater London area alone paying service charges worth some £5 billion. The report, which has unanimous support from the four political groups on the GLA, basically says that the regulation is not fit for purpose. It also says that there is massive opportunity for bad practice in the sector, which must be addressed. Which? magazine has calculated that leaseholders were overcharged to the tune of £700 million in a recent year, which is a very significant amount of money. Also, a management agent was recently sent to prison for 30 months for the theft of £122,000 of leaseholders’ money. Apparently, the Prime Minister himself has been involved in trying to disentangle a leasehold and freehold dispute in his constituency at a residential retirement home. Many people think this issue is just about elderly people and pensioners, but it actually covers people of all ages and backgrounds.

The House of Lords has already had debates on the issue, raised by Baroness Gardner of Parkes. The hon. Member for Worthing West has raised the issue in a debate in the House of Commons. In addition, there have been two Channel 4 “Dispatches” programmes on the subject. All of that indicates that this is an issue of some importance, about which, I respectfully suggest, the Government are in denial.

The previous Labour Government introduced some leasehold reforms in 2002, but they are patently inadequate for the growing sector that exists 10 years later. The issue affects hundreds of thousands of home owners across the country, including thousands in my constituency of Poplar and Limehouse.

Several recommendations were suggested at yesterday’s meeting. I will quickly run through four of them, before I finish. The first is

“For the Government to enable sections 152 and 156 of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002.”

Those sections have not been enacted adequately, which is an issue that we want to see addressed.

The second recommendation is:

“To address the unfairness in Leasehold Valuation Tribunals where leaseholders legal fees are capped at £500, whereas those of the freeholder are unlimited (and can be reclaimed in the residents’ service charges after a win).”

At yesterday’s meeting, a case was referred to in which a resident won a victory at the leasehold valuation tribunal and had the £31,000 that was being sought by the freeholder struck off, only to find that that £31,000 reappeared as an administration charge on his service bill for the following year. Clearly, in some instances freeholders are flouting the regulations.

The third recommendation is:

“Parliament intend for ‘right to manage’ to be a right: unless there is a compelling reason to oppose it, leaseholders should be granted RTM. But Leasehold Valuation Tribunals are often being used to thwart RTM on trifling grounds. The Government is urged to review and remove the anomalies in the RTM legislation.”

Service charge payers ought to have the ability to sack a poor performer by a majority vote that is patently demonstrated, but that ability is being frustrated time and again.

The fourth recommendation is:

“Leasehold managing agents need statutory licensing and regulation. This regulation needs to be entirely separate from the existing compromised trade bodies.”

Estate management companies perform very important work, arbitrating between freeholders and leaseholders, and one would think that such work required legal expertise or some kind of legal qualification. However, there is no requirement for members of estate management companies to demonstrate such expertise or such qualifications to anybody’s satisfaction. Members of estate management companies manage hundreds of millions of pounds of other people’s money, but once again there is no requirement for them to have legal or statutory qualifications in accountancy, and—as I understand it—they are not regulated by the FSA. Such estate management companies can just set up and be there.

Estate management companies can also appoint contractors and award business, and their responsibility is to maintain the fabric of our communities. I live on an estate managed by Consort, which used to be Peverel OM; Peverel OM used to be Peverel. The company gets a bit of a reputation and, to avoid its image being tarnished, it keeps changing its name. It is the biggest estate management company in the country, handling hundreds of millions of pounds. I am a freeholder on my estate, but there are also hundreds of leaseholders on the estate. The company’s team on my estate is managed by Mr Stefano Leonardi and it is very good, but we are not talking about day-to-day management. Instead, we are talking about the national structure, the regulation and the transparency of this sector, which vary at best and are lacking at worst.

A great flowchart was produced at yesterday’s meeting, demonstrating that a developer’s parent company can build an estate. The developer then has the ability to sell the properties to the landlord, as freeholder; it appoints the managing agent; it appoints the insurance provider; it appoints the other service providers; and the leaseholders are at the bottom of the pile. Clearly, that is not a healthy situation in any way, shape or form.

To conclude, I am grateful to the Minister for being here today and for listening. I will make a request of him, which comes from the meeting yesterday; I hope that he will take it back to his colleague, the Minister for Housing. The meeting resolved yesterday to ask the Minister for Housing and his counterpart at the Ministry of Justice—the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice—to meet with interested colleagues and experts on this subject to examine how to improve the arrangements that exist, to strengthen protections for leaseholders and to raise the standards in what is a very important sector. This is not a “quick fix” situation; these are very complex issues. Everyone knows how completely opposed the Government are to any new regulation, but this is a growing sector that is much more significant than it ever has been. Clearly, there are loopholes that allow for exploitation and there are horror stories in pretty much every constituency in the country.

At some point, the Government have to grasp the nettle, sit down with people and see how we move the issue forward. As I have outlined, there are some very simple recommendations for improvement and there are some very good estate management companies in this sector that want to see regulation and licensing being introduced, for their professional reputation as well as to protect the people from whom they are taking money.

As I have said, I am grateful to the Minister for listening. The One Housing Group issue is not going away. I have written to the HCA and the FSA; councillors in my area will continue to press on this issue; and local residents will continue to be frustrated and will express concern. However, that is all happening in a different arena from this one. This issue is very much in the Government’s hands and I would be very grateful if the Minister could take the message that I have given him today back to his colleagues at the DCLG.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Don Foster)]

It is a great honour to serve under you, Mr Crausby, and it is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who I congratulate on securing this debate. I also thank him for his generous comments about my contribution to the Olympics and Paralympics recently, and about my elevation to my current ministerial role.

The hon. Gentleman has raised a number of issues today, but I will not have time to mention them all. In response to his early comments about the importance of getting the right infrastructure for various housing developments that are taking place, not only in his own constituency but throughout the country, I must say that I entirely agree with him. In the case of his own constituency, of course, he is right that the responsibility lies with the local authority and with the mayors. However, through a number of measures that the Government have put in place, we are providing support for those infrastructure developments and quite clearly we will be keeping a close eye on those issues right across the country, as he has asked us to.

I am also well aware that the hon. Gentleman has already raised many of the points that he raised today in previous debates, and some of his colleagues have also raised them earlier, particularly those in relation to correspondence from the mayor of Tower Hamlets and from others. So, as I say, I am aware of the background to all of this, but I do not want to underestimate the impact that has been felt by individuals whose lives have been affected by the merger of members of the One Housing Group, or what those individuals may see as very real grievances. However, to be honest it would not be appropriate for the Government to intervene in that particular situation.

There are, in fact, two issues that must be addressed. First, was the merger of Island Homes with the other members of the One Housing Group legal, and were all the correct procedures followed? The merger was considered by the relevant regulator—the Homes and Communities Agency—in its role as the social housing regulator. On the evidence that was available to the agency, it gave approval for the merger to go ahead at the end of August.

The HCA’s powers are covered by specific legislation set out in the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 and it discharges its regulatory responsibilities independently of Government. I must stress that point—the HCA is independent of Government. Therefore, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that it would not be appropriate for Ministers to seek to override a decision on the merger that was made by the HCA in the exercise of its statutory duties.

The HCA’s role is to consider proposed constitutional changes by registered housing associations and whether the requirements of legislation and of the regulatory framework have been met. The HCA concluded that, in this instance, they had been met. If the hon. Gentleman has any further evidence to draw to our attention relating to the decision of the HCA on the merger, we would be happy to pass it on to the agency.

The second issue is whether the tenants are receiving and will continue to receive good quality services under the new organisation. If not, there are procedures in place to address that, not least through the Localism Act 2011, which placed the power to scrutinise landlords’ performance and hold them to account back in the hands of tenants and their elected representatives. As the hon. Gentleman said, that comes into effect from April 2013, when Members of Parliament, councillors and formally recognised tenant panels will have a role in the resolution of complaints at a local level including referring complaints, when necessary, to the housing ombudsman. Where the ombudsman finds in favour of a complainant, he may for example order the landlord to pay compensation or take other steps to provide redress. I should make it clear that the role of the ombudsman is focused on the provision of housing services by landlords and does not extend to constitutional changes of the type that the hon. Gentleman raised, within housing associations. As my ministerial colleagues have done previously, I encourage the hon. Gentleman to draw any other points to our attention, but I hope that he will work with the relevant bodies to find a solution, so that tenants get the standard of service that represents value for money for them.

I want briefly to touch on some of the other points that the hon. Gentleman raised, including his concern about affordable rents. He knows that at the time of the formation of the Government in 2010 their prime purpose and focus had to be to get the economy back on an even keel. That inevitably meant reductions in public spending across all sectors. Not surprisingly, it also affected the availability and provision of affordable housing. However, the affordable housing programme that began in 2011 will invest £4.5 billion of capital grant in the building of new affordable homes between now and 2015. I acknowledge that that is less than under the previous Government, but the process of allowing landlords to charge up to 80% of market rent in the properties that are built or converted under the programme will enable them to lever in an additional £15 billion over the period of the programme. The combination of those two means we will be able to provide 170,000 additional affordable homes by 2015. Indeed, some recent announcements mean that that figure will probably be even higher. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that they are badly needed.

In Tower Hamlets, 1,798 affordable homes were delivered in 2011-12. Of those 1,400 were for social rent, which the hon. Gentleman is particularly concerned about. In addition there were 200 starts on site for affordable homes, of which 76 were for affordable rent and 79 for social rent. However, he should also bear in mind that in London the figure is up to 80%; it is not 80%. From the figures he will see that across London we anticipate the levels to be in the order of 65%—not significantly different from the social rent level. His concerns are therefore probably not entirely founded on the situation at the moment. Rent levels in a range of up to 80% are therefore a key feature of the affordable homes programme, so that there is a fit with local circumstances.

The hon. Gentleman raised some extremely interesting points about leaseholder rights and management issues. I thank him for his generous remarks about the excellent work on the matter in question—and, I would argue, in many other areas—being done by a Liberal Democrat-related, but distinctly separate, organisation, CentreForum. There was one group of management organisations that the hon. Gentleman did not mention, but I want to praise the work of many of the arm’s length management organisations working predominantly with council housing. They cover about 50% of all council housing—more than 800,000 homes. The vast majority do an extremely good job and could provide exemplars of good practice to some of the organisations that he mentioned. We are, of course, aware of the poor performance of some managers operating in the leasehold sector. We are not convinced at the moment of the case for increased regulation. Improvements should in the first instance be driven forward by the professionals in the sector to improve standards and move to greater self-regulation. The Government welcome the steps that some organisations have taken towards that.

The law already provides leaseholders with a number of rights, in relation, for example, to service charges and the management of their property. Those include the right to obtain service charge information where that is not provided by the landlord or managing agent, and to seek a determination from the leasehold valuation tribunal on the reasonableness of the service charges being demanded. However, the Government will continue to welcome suggestions for improvements, and will of course consider them.

I am extremely grateful for the suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has made, especially following the meeting yesterday that he mentioned. My officials have noted all his suggestions, and will ensure that they are fed back into discussions of the issue. He has asked me to do my best to persuade Ministers in my Department—particularly the Housing Minister—and in the Ministry of Justice to meet him and colleagues who are interested in the issues. I cannot guarantee that they will accede to my intervention on his behalf, but I assure him that I shall do my very best to persuade them to have that meeting. If, as I hope, meetings take place, I would also like to hear in due course directly from him with his feelings about the outcome.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on raising these important issues, and on his concern that people living in his constituency should get the best possible deal. I am grateful to him for securing the debate.

11:27

Sitting suspended.

Internet-based Media Companies

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

[Albert Owen in the Chair]

14:30

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to appear in this Chamber in front of you, Mr Owen. I feel as though I have spent most of the day here. I am pleased to have been able to secure this debate, for which I have been pressing for some weeks.

Politicians and companies alike have failed to address the new challenges that the internet brings. I am not at this point arguing that the state needs to do more right now, although it might need to in future. Companies that use the internet need to have robust policies to protect vulnerable users. They need to take responsibility for the impact of what they do from the start of their operations.

Children and young people are a substantial and persistent body of internet users. A report published in September 2012 by McAfee suggested that 82% of five-year-olds

“have access to a computer, smartphone, tablet or other way of getting online.”

Nine out of 10 of those aged between 12 and 15 live in homes with internet access. In schools, use of the internet is now more or less universal. Increasingly, it is being integrated into lesson plans to make use of richer content, and it is often a regular part of how schools communicate with parents.

The internet is used at home to enable children to do their homework. It is a major linchpin or communications hub in huge numbers of children’s social lives. Indeed, not having access to the internet can mark someone out as odd, or as coming from a disadvantaged family.

With the rise of smartphones and other internet-enabled portable devices such as games consoles, and the emergence of large-scale public wi-fi, internet access is also pretty ubiquitous, or soon will be in all our major cities. Thus the notion that parents could in any meaningful sense provide constant support or supervision of their children’s use of the internet is becoming impossible to sustain. I make these points in part to underline a core element of my argument about industry’s responsibility, which I will come to later.

First, I will say a word about the industry. In fact, there is no such thing as the internet industry. At one point there was: back in the 1980s and early ’90s. Computers and networking had been well-established for years, so the then new internet industry essentially consisted solely of internet service providers and geeks who wrote software. It was all very neat and tidy, and easy to identify and deal with.

Today almost every business of any size has some sort of stake in the internet. All of them have a responsibility of some sort to people who go online, especially to children. Many of them make great efforts to discharge that responsibility with great care and attention, but I am afraid that it is also quite plain that many do not. It is the many that we need to focus on.

The internet is not a sort of social service, or an extension of the classroom with knobs on, like social networking sites. Just as money is said to make the world go round, it most certainly makes the internet go round, and children are right in the middle of it. In 2006, children and young people in the UK up to the age of 19 spent £12 billion from their pocket money, or from earnings derived from part-time jobs. Of that, £1.53 billion went on clothes, and £1 billion on food and drink; music and computer-related projects took another £1 billion. In the same year, when account is taken of the amounts spent by parents on their children or in the home—spending over which children and young people often have influence—the total value of the market increased to almost £100 billion.

One of the largest of the virtual worlds aimed expressly at young children is Club Penguin. When Disney acquired the business in 2007, it was reported to have paid $700 million. According to the Financial Times, in June 2011, the UK-based children’s site, Moshi Monsters, was reported to be valued at £125 million. Children and young people are therefore major economic actors, both in their own right and through the influence that they exert on patterns of consumption within the wider family.

The size of the market helps to explain why so many different companies are interested in children and young people. It is not just about cash tomorrow; it is very much about cash today. Moreover, the sums indicated suggest that this market matters not only to the individual firms that may be competing for parts of it, but for the national economy.

Children’s and young people’s online spending is also growing. A report published in December 2010 suggested that British kids between the ages of 7 and 16 spent £448 million, with eight out of 10 using their parents’ cards, online accounts, or PayPal. Apparently, £64 million was spent without parents’ knowledge.

The emergence of the internet as a major force in commerce, particularly in retailing, has created a number of anomalies in policy, as well as market distortions that discriminate against companies that trade solely or principally on the high street, but some of those anomalies are connected to wider risks to children and young people. Many of the rules established to protect children and young people from unfair or age-inappropriate commercial practices in the real world do not yet seem to have been fully translated into the virtual space, or to have found an online equivalent or proxy. There is a tendency for firms to say that what children do when they go online is entirely the responsibility of the parents or carers. While no one would dispute that parents and carers have a role to play, what we need to clarify is the extent of the obligations placed on companies and on every part of the internet value chain.

Can manufacturers of internet-enabled devices, perhaps especially portable devices, simply wash their hands of any and all liability for anything and everything that happens to children and young people when they use them? What about the companies engaged in providing access to the internet, whether via a fixed-line connection or via wi-fi? Then there are the online service providers, such as Google and Facebook, and online vendors such as Amazon and Tesco. What parameters are applicable to them? Where are the boundaries? This whole area has been largely neglected by scholars and the legal profession, and, I am ashamed to say, politicians.

No doubt companies have considered their position, but if they have, they have been slow to publicise their legal advisers’ views. Even if they did, it is likely that such views would take a very particular perspective.

[Rushanara Ali (Bethnal Green and Bow) (Lab)]

One of my constituents came to see me after being sexually harassed for years on Facebook. Her identity was stolen and her Facebook pages were photoshopped to damage her reputation. It took her a great deal of time to get any attention from the police or the organisation concerned—in this case, Facebook. Does my hon. Friend think that there should be greater clarity and transparency about what the process and principles should be, and what citizens and consumers can expect from the suppliers such as Facebook, and from the police? Only when a death threat was made against my constituent did the police feel that they could take action. Until that point, they had to advise her to complain to Facebook.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The case that my hon. Friend cites is an example of exactly why I called for this debate. In that case, Facebook was not taking proper responsibility. It did not have a transparent complaints process that my hon. Friend’s constituent was able to use. It did not have a mechanism for remedying the harm that she had experienced and, frankly, the police are not up to date enough with the online world. That is not true of the whole of the police service—for example, when it comes to child abuse images, the police have quite well-developed policing strategies—but in the case of online bullying, I think they are behind the game.

The fundamental responsibility, in that case, belongs to Facebook, but the police must take more seriously the fact that things happen in the virtual world that they would not tolerate in the real world, and they must ensure that their policies and procedures function appropriately in both. We have not grown up, as it were, and ensured that we have modernised our systems, including those of the police. My big argument is with companies such as Facebook. If they were to take their responsibilities more seriously, my hon. Friend’s constituent would have been much safer, and the problem would perhaps not have got as far as requiring police action.

Some new media companies seem persistently to fail to establish clear values and procedures for handling matters, such as the one that my hon. Friend raised, that can profoundly affect individuals and wider society. In the early days of the internet, that was perhaps understandable to a degree. They were learning; we were all learning. We are, however, no longer in the early days, and now such failure looks more like negligence or lack of concern. Too often, companies seem to struggle to recover a position, by which time a great deal of damage might have been done. I want to establish a new norm, whereby we expect companies, from very early on in their lives, to have an enforceable social responsibility code, which contains a publicly declared process for dealing with objectionable or illegal content.

[Mr Tom Harris (Glasgow South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend not accept that putting “objectionable” in with “illegal” poses a danger to freedom of expression? The two terms mean completely different things. As a party that has generally supported freedom of speech, surely we should protect the right of someone to be offended if they so wish, or to say something offensive, as long as it is not illegal. We should be careful about merging the two definitions.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My view is that because the internet so substantially broadens the audience for material, those who are responsible for doing that must take some responsibility for the content, in a way that they are not currently prepared to do. They obviously need to do that when the content is illegal, but I will go on to argue that they should also do it when it is objectionable. They should not necessarily delete everything in the first instance, but they must have a process by which someone who wants to object can properly make a case and argue for something to be taken down. The process should be transparent and contain a right of appeal, so that the matter can be dealt with.

Our publishers in the real world take responsibility for what they publish, choosing not to publish material that they deem profoundly offensive, and YouTube is effectively a publisher. It is dodging its responsibility as an institution that broadens the audience so significantly for the material that it carries. It is pretending not to be a publisher, and that is a bit of a fraud. I will go on to deal further with the issue that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) raised.

A policy should guide companies when they decide whether to take down material, and there should be a right of appeal where appropriate. I would want companies to work with groups such as the Internet Watch Foundation and the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to ensure the promotion of public safety.

I initially intended to raise this issue because of the evidence that paedophiles have been using Twitter to groom young children; Members might have seen reports on that in The Sunday Mirror. I praise the newspaper for its campaign, because it has forced Twitter to take action to protect children. However, Twitter has still not joined the Internet Watch Foundation to show its support for the wider industry’s measures to keep child abuse images off the internet as a whole. That is a shameful example of a profound disregard for the interests of British children and young people. What is worse is that when the storm broke, Twitter simply retreated into a Californian bunker. It seems to me that it cynically decided to sit out the storm, in the hope that it would blow over and people would forget about it. Well, here is the bad news: it did not.

Habbo Hotel took a similar line when Channel 4 exposed how its site was being grossly misused and was putting children in danger. This case was, in a sense, much worse, because Habbo had at least signed up to various voluntary codes of practice. The only problem was that it was not honouring them, which speaks volumes about the weakness of our so-called self-regulatory regime for the internet in the UK. Even BlackBerry, a company in my constituency that is ethical in many important ways, was found wanting when it emerged that child pornography was not being blocked by users of its handsets on any network except T-Mobile, and the same was true for adult content. Given how popular BlackBerry handsets are with kids, that was truly appalling, but I am happy to say that both matters have now been put right.

Failure to act can lead to tragedy. It is only two weeks since Tallulah Wilson killed herself after visiting suicide websites. At the time, a spokesman for the Samaritans put the need for more responsible behaviour well:

“It is important that organisations which run sites that are highly popular with young people develop responsible practices around suicide-related content, including promoting sources of support and by removing content which actively encourages or glorifies self-harm or suicide”.

Glorifying self-harm or suicide is not illegal, but it is profoundly dangerous. The new Health Minister, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), last month warned that telecommunications companies faced being regulated by the Government if they failed to block websites offering advice on suicide. It is time for the companies to act.

Then there was the unrest caused by the publication on YouTube of the provocative American-made video insulting Mohammed. It caused deaths and injuries around the world when so many people saw or heard of it.

[Mr Tom Harris]

I feared that the debate was heading in that direction. Can we just be absolutely clear that the deaths and injuries throughout the world were not caused by the YouTube video, obnoxious and appalling though it was? They were caused by fanatics who chose to resort to violence against innocent people. No one forced them to do that.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is right, but what happened was completely predictable. Responsible publishers choose not to publish things that are designed to provoke. I have not seen the video, but I persuaded someone in my office to, and the clear intention of the material is absolutely to provoke. It was irresponsible for YouTube to carry the video.

In its response, Google, rather like my hon. Friend, uttered pious words about free speech and the first amendment, but I would like to make some observations about that. Google is an exceptionally profitable business. It is not a charity, or an agency that can lay claim to moral or political leadership in any credible way. I say that not just because of the mounting number of times Google is being hauled, in relation to other parts of the internet, before the courts and regulators and losing. The company seems to be highly selective about the parts of the law that it wishes to observe.

Many Muslims in the UK and throughout the world—some of whom reacted in the way my hon. Friend described, and some of whom simply demonstrated peacefully outside Google’s UK headquarters—were deeply offended by the video and by YouTube’s failure to remove it, except in the two countries where the company acknowledged that there might be violent protests. I understand that YouTube has now also disabled links to the clip in at least two other countries, including India. It became clear, therefore, as the tragedy of the video unfolded, that the company did not have an absolute fixed position that it would defend to the nth degree. It was a movable feast, but it moved too slowly, and only after too many people had died, been injured or had their property destroyed. That highlights the inadequacy, or at any rate the inconsistency, of YouTube’s processes. I have looked at those processes so that I can try to advise people who have been hurt by the video, and the processes are almost deliberately opaque and make it hard for people to find any mechanism to address their hurt.

I shall not address the issues that the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) has led on in Parliament, because she wants to speak later, and I want other Members to have a chance to contribute to this debate, but I am concerned that decisions—the Muslim video is one example—appear to be taken on an ad hoc basis. A codified, publicly available system would help to show that Google—this applies to other companies, too—is serious about its responsibilities. The companies need to grow up. They are not young cowboys battling on the wilder edges of a new territory about which we know little; we now know a lot, and it is time that that was reflected in the behaviour of internet businesses.

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

The hon. Lady is outlining the thrust of her powerful argument against the likes of Google, Facebook and Twitter, but she has not said what sanctions, if she were successful and her campaign moved to a logical conclusion, a Parliament in an individual nation state might apply that could protect the people whom she and I seek to defend.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The hon. Gentleman is right that I have not stated the sanctions that Parliament could apply, because in this debate I am arguing, in the first place, for the industry to grow up, take responsibility and properly self-regulate, and not to say, “Oh, whoops, we are being embarrassed, so we are going to do something,” or, “Oh, whoops, it is dangerous in that country, so we will sort it there.” I am saying, “Come on; you are in the last chance saloon, and you need to take responsibility. If you do it well and right, the Minister will not need to intervene, but if you do not, I will be the first person, not just in this Chamber but in the House, arguing for much more powerful regulation.” That is not where I want to go first. I expect companies not to be surprised when they get it wrong, and to ensure that they put in place proper mechanisms to protect not just vulnerable internet users, but all of us.

My final point is about child abuse images. The Internet Watch Foundation is a model and example to the rest of the world, but it addresses only a narrow, albeit important, part of the internet—the web and newsgroups. Figures recently released by five police forces in England and Wales—Cambridgeshire, Dyfed-Powys, Humberside, Lincolnshire and Nottinghamshire—show that between 2010 and mid-2012, they seized 26 million pornographic images of children, which is an incredibly troubling number, but think about this: someone calculated that that might mean that more than 300 million images were seized across the country in the same period. Not only does that beggar belief, but it tells us that something is definitely not working as it should. Somehow or other, the industry and all of us need to up our game and confront such harm.

14:53

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I compliment the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this extremely valuable debate. I know she has campaigned tirelessly on the issue and will continue to do so.

I would like to narrow the focus of the debate specifically to the internet service providers. In the UK the top six companies control and sell about 95% of access into the home, which is the place where most of the children to whom the hon. Lady refers are accessing such troubling images. Those companies generate some £3.5 billion a year through access fees, and they are, by and large, well known household names, typically with a well developed sense of corporate social responsibility.

Historically, we have had an ideological situation in which the internet has been treated differently from any other form of media. As the hon. Lady says, back when the internet was a few pony-tailed developers and was a specialist thing that we had dialling up slowly in the corner of our sitting room, that was just fine. Indeed, the light-touch regulation, or lack of regulation, and the global nature of the internet is what has made it such an extremely valuable and innovative forum. Of course, that has changed. The internet is now, arguably, one of the most mass-market forms of communication. With technological convergence, particularly with the rise of internet-enabled televisions, 3G and 4G networks and view-on-demand systems, the internet is rapidly overtaking all other forms of media as the place where many people, particularly the young, socialise and access information and news.

As the hon. Lady alludes to, although children use the internet for all those incredibly productive and wonderful things, with their extraordinary curiosity they also seek out and stumble across material that is very troubling to many. We asked a group of adults whether they are concerned about the ease of access, particularly to adult material, on the internet, and 82% said that they are extremely concerned about how easy it is to access not just pornography but websites on self-harm, suicide and bullying, which are the things we would all like to protect our children against but struggle to do so.

Why do we struggle to do so? I, of course, am a great believer in personal and family responsibility. It is my job as a mother to keep my children safe in the online and offline worlds, but I submit that the technology we have been using to do that is almost obsolete. We have been asked since the earliest days of the internet to download device-protection filters ourselves. People who live in a household like mine will have multiple internet-enabled devices, which we are supposed to protect individually. The download process can be slow, and I submit that in many households the teenage child is the web tsar and computer guru, not the parent. If the parent says, “Have we downloaded the safe search and protection filters?” big Johnny or Janie will say, “Of course, mum and dad, don’t you worry. Off you go. Don’t trouble your little heads about it.” As a result, the proportion of parents who say they have downloaded internet controls or filtering software in households with a child aged between five and 15—remember that 95% of children live in internet-enabled households—has fallen 10 percentage points over the past three years to 39%. That means that six out of 10 children potentially live in households where there is no filtering of content. Troublingly, that proportion drops even further to 33% for teenage children, so two thirds of children aged 13 to 15 live in unprotected households. We can debate for ever the rights and wrongs of that, and how it is all the responsibility of parents, but we know that 82% of parents care about this, so it is not a non-issue. The technology and the compact of responsibility have broken down.

What to do? This debate has been started many times. Indeed, the previous Government worked very hard and commissioned a number of reports, including the Byron review. They took the issue very seriously. We have moved on, but little has been done.

We tend to debate ideology. Free speech comes up frequently, and, of course, when defining pornography, one woman’s pornography is another man’s enjoyable Sunday afternoon.

[Mr Tom Harris]

Don’t look at me!

[Claire Perry]

Sorry, I was not looking at the hon. Gentleman with an accusatory glance.

My point is that the debate has often been sterile, ending up with discussions of censorship. I would never like to see that, because I do not believe in censoring material; I believe in responsibility and companies signing up to an agenda.

The hon. Member for Slough and I, as many Members did on a cross-party basis, suggested a parliamentary inquiry. We took a lot of evidence and came up with the idea that an opt-in system is the best way to deliver protection. Each home would have a clean feed, using the same filtering technology as is used in device-level filters and in schools—the technology is simple and cheap—and people opt in to receive adult content. There would be choice, there would be no censorship and the material would still be available. That proposal was very popular, and almost two thirds of adults say they like the idea of opt-in technology.

I am proud to be part of a Government who have continued to take the issue seriously. The Prime Minister commissioned the Bailey review, which examined child sexualisation and child safety and resulted in the first little step forward in the internet safety debate: active choice, in which people are forced to say whether they want filters installed. To return to the big Johnny or Janie problem, how many households truly involve the adults in making that decision?

[Mr Harris]

An aspect of that has been raised with me. One potential problem with the opt-in system—the hon. Lady will probably be able to answer this—is that there are numerous teenagers who cannot rely on being able to speak to their parents about sensitive sexual health issues. With an opt-in filter when signing up to a new internet service provider, I am told that there would be a danger of blocking sites that give reproductive health advice. Many children cannot ask their parents about such issues—I expect about 99% cannot, now that I think of it. That could be a dangerous consequence. Has she considered that particular aspect?

[Claire Perry]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that thoughtful intervention. Those are some of the questions that get raised: blocking sites that help children with their homework, or that concern sexual health, sexuality and other things that we know children are more comfortable talking about to friends and others on the internet than to their family.

We asked the Family Planning Association, a laudable organisation that publishes a lot of material about sexual health and guidance, and it was supportive. The FPA says that the problem right now is that children are accessing porn as a way of receiving sex education. That is not good sex education. It teaches children nothing about relationships. The FPA felt that using an age verification system—

[Rushanara Ali]

I support the hon. Lady’s proposal. It will protect young people not only from being groomed but from being radicalised on the internet; we have seen examples. It happens particularly to Muslim parents but also to others—those whose children are converts, for instance. The individual responsible for the attack on my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) was radicalised on the internet. We need action not just to protect children against harassment but on those kinds of issue. Anything that can address the problem would be welcome from both perspectives.

[Claire Perry]

I thank the hon. Lady for pointing out that it is not just what we might think of as pure pornography that is a problem, but many other things too. I say to both hon. Members that in the debate on this issue, we have always been in danger of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. Filtering systems are well established. A lot of human intelligence goes into the filtering systems used by companies such as TalkTalk, which has gone furthest. It is completely possible to amend the system while ensuring that appropriate levels of material are available, just as they might be in a school environment. However, it is a worthy point.

I will continue, as I know that others are keen to speak. I was extremely proud that with the help of Members from across the House, we were able to persuade the Government to lead a formal inquiry into the opt-in proposal, led by UKCCIS. I will raise the question of Government complexity in a moment, but the inquiry had more than 3,500 responses, and I was proud to help deliver a petition with more than 115,000 signatures to No. 10 calling for an opt-in system and calling on the Government to take the issue seriously.

I think the Government do take the issue seriously, but there are many complications that must be addressed. First, as the hon. Member for Slough said, we do not have a regulator; we have a mish-mash of organisations involved in regulating the internet. In such a system, it is easy for companies to behave in an irresponsible manner or, as she mentioned in referring to a large search company, to basically make it up as they go along, with every test case being a different case. There is no clear regulation setting out a course of direction or what responsible behaviour looks like. That was one of our recommendations: give the issue to one regulator.

Secondly, there is the ideological question. It behoves us all not to have the debate about free speech versus censorship here. Of course, we must have that debate, but it is a false debate here. We are talking about children in unprotected households accessing damaging, dangerous and violent material, and we know that people are concerned about it. It is important to have a pragmatic solution rather than an ideological response.

I say not to the Minister, to whom I know it does not apply, but to others that we run in fear of the internet companies in many cases. I have asked repeatedly for evidence suggesting that an opt-in solution would be disproportionately costly or technologically impossible, or would somehow damage Britain’s internet economy, which is extremely valuable—it contributes about 8% of GDP—and is growing rapidly. Evidence there is none. It is a pence-per-1,000-users solution. It already exists, the technology is there and it is well developed. We can deal with the question of false positives and false negatives. If I ask start-up companies located at the Shoreditch roundabout, “Do you care if we have opt-in filtering on home broadband or internet provision?”—that is the most developed part of the market; only six companies offer 95% of services—they look at me as though I am mad. It has nothing to do with their business model.

I urge the Government to review the evidence. We have not yet had the evidence review session that we were promised on the inquiry. I understand that faces have changed. I would like to get it right rather than do it quickly, but also to focus as best we can, given the number of Departments involved, on the right solution to protect our children.

15:05

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing it.

I start from where the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) stopped. Asking for self-imposed regulation of the industry does not mean that the economy of our country, the booming internet trade or what happens on the internet will suddenly come to a stop and that we as a country will somehow become less economically effective. This debate is about the fact that, as has been said, the internet reaches out to billions and billions of people around the world. Unlike what is in newspapers or on television, which may be limited to particular countries—although somebody travelling to a country might be able to see it—something posted on the internet can be seen by everyone in the world who has access to a computer.

What the internet says is therefore powerful. It is amazing that such a powerful institution or body has no regulation and no sense of responsibility for what is put on it or taken off. As has been said, a lot of internet companies act differently in different countries, so they seem to be sensitive in relation to different countries, although that sensitivity is probably based on economic rationales rather than anything else. Although economics is important, so is the internet’s effect on people.

This debate always ends up with arguments about freedom of expression and the idea that saying that there should be an element of regulation of what appears on the internet, or even in the print media or on TV, somehow curtails people’s freedom of expression. Freedom of expression has never been completely unfettered. As has been said, there have always been things that are illegal to say. Some people might say that if we want to take freedom of expression to its extreme, people should even be allowed to say things that are illegal, and that there should be no restrictions at all. However, we do have restrictions, and rightly so. There is nothing wrong with talking about objectionable material.

I will not discuss sexualisation or the effect of pornography, as the hon. Member for Devizes spoke about it in detail and it is pointless to repeat the same thing. However, I entirely agree with her about the dangers to young people, adults and others who are vulnerable, and I agree with everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said.

May I say on record that I agree with self-regulation rather than a statutory framework? An awful lot is said on the internet that can harm people’s reputation, for instance. I do not see why everybody always says that people’s sensitivities should be ignored completely and that everything objectionable should be on the internet. I am sorry, but while there is freedom of expression—I know that there is no such thing as the freedom not to be offended—we must draw sensible parameters.

If I, or anyone, was to say on the internet that everyone with pink eyes should be put to death at birth, some might say, “Well, what is wrong with that? That is not too objectionable. Pink is not my favourite colour, so why not?” That is a bizarre example, but people might want to say it—in the past, people have used expressions regarding specific groups of people in the world. That would be objectionable and it might be illegal, but I do not think people should be putting things like that on the internet. If they do, there should be a mechanism for regulation. Even if material is not as extreme as saying that people with pink eyes should be put to death at birth, it is still objectionable. I do not see why there should not be a system in place to enable people to raise the issue with the companies concerned and explain why it is a problem.

We touched on the issue of the American film on YouTube. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) said that this debate would end up going in that direction, but I want to address the point because a lot of people wrote to me to complain about the content of that film and said that it was objectionable. If people want to discuss a concept in any religion or culture, they should be able to write about it. Nobody is saying that there should not be a discussion or dissemination of ideas. However, when the whole intent is to provoke people, abuse people and vilify people, that cannot be right. Surely somewhere along the line common sense must come into play.

[Rushanara Ali]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be helpful, particularly for those who do not have power and money and are not clear about their rights, for people to be able to receive advice that is free, high-quality and accessible on some of these questions? I am not aware that such a provision exists, but perhaps the Minister could consider that as a first step, particularly to help vulnerable people—parents who worry about what their rights are and how they can be enforced—or to help put pressure, as I found in a case with my constituent, on the police to take action so that these issues do not get passed around before they become more serious. Related to that point is libel—where people’s reputations are damaged, something that I experienced myself during my election campaign. It takes a long time and many threats of legal action before libellous material posted on the walls of host sites, or sites that are libellous and wrong, is taken down. Surely the Minister could help with that.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Such an example would be the famous case of Max Mosley. Even though what was written in newspapers was found to be defamatory, it continues to be published on the internet.

I was a member of the Joint Committee on Privacy and Injunctions. The managing directors of Google, Facebook and Twitter gave evidence, and the Committee explored the issue of why content that a nation state has clearly declared illegal is not removed. There were not many issues on which the members of the Committee were unanimous, but we all agreed that all three companies were just twisting and turning and not giving us direct answers. They had to be pressed hard. Initially, they said that it was technically not possible, or difficult, or expensive, or impossible to monitor. When the Committee asked more detailed questions, such as, “Do you have the technology? Is there no software available?” basically, it boiled down to the fact that they did not want to do it—it was as simple as that. It was not in their financial interests to do it. It was not in their profit-making interests to do it. It was not that they could not do it because it was so difficult; they just did not want to. We got that answer—not even then was there complete acceptance—after God knows how many questions. Eventually, there was an admission that, technically, there was no reason why they could not do it. We at least got to the bottom of that.

The Committee looked at the whole issue of regulating the internet. Everybody accepts that there are challenges—they may be technical challenges, but they certainly can be overcome if the desire and intention is there. The issue is all about saying, “We know you can do these things. Why don’t you self-regulate?” If there is content on the internet, whether via YouTube, Facebook or Twitter, that is offensive, rude or defamatory, people should not have to go through the long process of dealing with the law. Max Mosley is a rich man and is able to do so. I think he has challenged Google many times. Every time he makes a challenge, content is deleted before it eventually reappears. Most ordinary people cannot do that—they do not have the money, time or resources. There should be an internal mechanism to deal with such cases. When there is freedom of expression and people can say what they like, it is important for there to be responsibility.

I will return to the recent YouTube case. I accept that YouTube did not cause the deaths, but it is right to say that it knew it would happen. It was done deliberately to provoke, annoy, vilify and abuse. It was not done to discuss and disseminate issues and ideas. It was not done as an academic discussion about a particular aspect of a particular religion, or any particular character in any religious history. It was done purely as a form of abuse. At that point, we have to think about the level of abuse that is aimed at people, whether they are dead or alive.

[Mr Tom Harris]

My hon. Friend provokes me into one more intervention. She said earlier that where something on the internet is offensive, rude or defamatory there should be processes to resolve that. Offensive and rude are not remotely, and never will be, illegal. Defamatory is illegal. I ask her once again to draw that distinction. Something being offensive does not necessarily mean that anyone has to withdraw it. There were many people in our party, before the age of the internet, who were actually apologists for those who wanted to ban Salman Rushdie’s “The Satanic Verses.” That was unacceptable then and it would be unacceptable now. We have to be very careful that we do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

[Yasmin Qureshi]

I am not an apologist for the Salman Rushdie issue. That was a book that was trying to discuss ideas. As my hon. Friend says, the internal rules of this country can decide whether something is illegal or defamatory. It is one thing to have a discussion about particular issues or concepts, but it is another to take that to an extreme. For example, there is an old film called “The Life of Brian”, and other films have been made about Jesus Christ. Within the Churches, there may be a number of issues—for example, homosexuality—that people would like to discuss. I do not think that anybody says that those ideas should not be discussed.

However, I have sympathy for the billions of Christians across the world. We can debate issues, but that is not the same as showing someone they revere so much in an intimate situation, when one of the aspects of the religion, or of the person’s life, was the fact that he was a gentleman who refrained from intimate relationships. Talking about it is one thing, but to depict it and show it: is that freedom of expression or a deliberate attempt to generate publicity and create loads of money? Obviously, the minute a film becomes controversial it often becomes a bestseller; but at the same time billions of people have been badly offended. Perhaps we should think about the concept of complete freedom of expression—although it has never been complete. We should think about people’s sensitivities. That does not mean talking about censorship, or saying that people cannot discuss ideas, or that there cannot be freedom of expression or discussion; but we should think about it.

More importantly, as most hon. Members who have spoken in the debate have said, there is no system to deal with the issues. If there is something on the internet that is defamatory, wrong, objectionable or offensive, people should be able to contact the companies concerned and express their views. Then the companies would at least have the chance to consider things and say, “Maybe we should take this away, and we should not have this photo online.” There is no such mechanism at the moment. It is difficult. As for YouTube, it was asked to remove material in the US, and it did. Internet companies are selective about what they choose to take off and put on, and mostly the motive, I am sorry to say, is profit. That is the ultimate goal for all of them. They are not talking about freedom of expression. Perhaps mine is a personal and old-fashioned view, but I do not think insulting and abusing people is freedom of expression. It is just downright abuse and bad manners. However, I digress.

I want to end by saying that we should have a system that is simple to follow for people who are unhappy with what is on the internet, and that the response of the internet companies should be swift as well. When something happens it should not go on for months, with the item being taken off perhaps a year down the road. By then the damage has been done. It is important to have a system that is swift, simple and cheap.

15:22

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate and this opportunity to discuss the issues. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) for the campaign she has brought to Parliament.

I want to comment—briefly, you will be relieved to hear, Mr Owen—on one aspect of the subject: search returns. The debate opened with the hon. Member for Slough raising the issue of definitions, and making the point that the term “internet company” is no longer appropriate. The term “search engine” is not really any longer totally appropriate either. The companies in question are advertising companies. There is nothing wrong with advertising companies and agencies; we have had them for years. The challenge for public policy in this place is that that is not how people think of them. They tend to think of the giants of the web—essentially Google, Facebook and Twitter—more as utilities than advertisers or advertising media companies.

People who work in the industry like to say, “You just don’t get it. The thing is, on the internet, people are, like, looking for stuff, and we, like, help them, like, find it.” Of course, that is true, but it is tempered by commercial considerations. It is also true that in some cases they “help you, like, find stuff” that you did not actually “like, know you were, like, looking for,” through contextual and behavioural targeting. Again, there is not necessarily anything wrong with that as an advertising media technique, but it creates another challenge, which is that most people, including most public policy makers, do not understand how it works.

It might be worth reiterating briefly how search engines make money. Essentially they do it through paid placements, according to the formula PPC x CTR, which is the pay-per-click bid times the click-through rate. Of course, that applies only to a relatively limited number of search returns—usually a couple at the top of the page and some down the side. However, the number varies over time. A comparison between Google.com in the United States and Google.co.uk in this country shows that variation. Commercially, search engines have the potential to make the market work better, and therefore contribute to economic growth; but they can also add cost. That is relevant to the debate. They add it in two ways: first, through the competitive bidding, because that PPC x CTR formula contains natural in-built inflation. Secondly, in certain sectors, for a mathematical reason with which I will not detain or bore Westminster Hall today, second-tier intermediaries can be created. That is to do with—well, I had better stop there, but believe me, it happened. It happened, for example, in the travel industry in a big way.

The point for corporate social responsibility is that those same pressures also apply in areas that go far beyond the purely commercial sphere. In a good way, search engines and other players on the internet can help people in their quest to get help, but the counter-pressure also applies, which is that where money and a commercial motivation are involved, the effect can be the opposite. It can become harder for people to find the help they need.

The area that I am concerned about is debt. When it comes to chronic personal debt, the normal rules of supply and demand tend not to apply. People regularly take out loans that are not the cheapest to which they could have access, and which they cannot afford to pay back. Similarly, for people seeking help—which could be through debt consolidation, a debt management plan or just straightforward advice—the routes they end up on are often, unfortunately, not the ones that are best for them, but the first that they encounter at the point when they think they need to do something different. These days, of course, a key place to go—the first place to go, for many people—would be an online search.

The internet has improved somewhat in this regard in recent years. When people enter search terms to look for help with debt, it seems more likely now than it was even a year or two ago that the top half of the screen will show appropriate, sensible, responsible providers who can help. I do not know what is driving that. I hope that it is a commitment on the part of search engines to improve, and to make sure that people can get access to that information. The issue has been brought up in the past in this place, and I hope that some of the message has got through. However, we must be conscious that however good or bad things may be today—and they are not perfect; the first two results that come up will still be for debt management companies—there is no guarantee of their staying that way. The arena is constantly changing. Technology is constantly changing. The algorithms that drive the ads that get driven to different people are constantly becoming more sophisticated.

I would like a clear, public and ongoing commitment from the providers of search on the internet that, in relation to debt, they will both elevate and clearly mark out providers such as Citizens Advice and the Consumer Credit Counselling Service, which offer a responsible service. That approach could be extended easily to other areas where people find they are in difficulty. I do not think that we need legislation to do that, but the Government can have a role in exhorting providers to do it.

15:29

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate, and other hon. Members who have spoken. I have a lot of sympathy with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) and hope that she is successful in persuading the Government to take action. I also agree with many of the points about advertising made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), and with those made by my hon. Friends. My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris), who made several interventions, has a point, with regard to our being clear about free speech, and being clear that we should always, whatever our view of something posted on the internet, condemn violence, which is never justified and certainly was not justified in the cases that we have heard about.

When I was a Minister in the Department for Children, Schools and Families in the previous Government, we took forward the Tanya Byron review on internet safety for children, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Devizes. That was an interesting experience. I commend that report to hon. Members, because it is still relevant, even though it is a few years old. At the time, my daughter, who has just started university, was a teenager, and I thought that, as the Minister responsible, I had better look a bit closer at what she was doing online. She had been making videos and putting them on YouTube. I asked her, “Why do you do that?” She said, “I’ve got to think of my followers.” I asked what she meant and she said, “I need to be sure that my fans are getting some good videos.” I had a look, and one of the videos that she made had more than 100,000 views on YouTube. One comment underneath a video—these were Harry Potter fan videos—said, “How old are you?” She replied, “It’s not my policy to reveal my age.” That made me think, during the Tanya Byron review, that having built a swimming pool, the most important thing is not to put up a sign saying, “Danger! Deep end”, but to teach people to swim, and to have the resources to understand the medium they are dealing with, including who is at the other end of an online comment. By and large, although they can be vulnerable, children are quite savvy and intelligent. That proper level of education about the dangers on the internet is the first and strongest protection we can give, before starting to talk about what the Government can do in relation to regulation.

As several hon. Members have said in relation to responsibility, this is relatively new. The internet has emerged as the hugest, most important technological change in the past 20 years, and has changed our lives in a transformational way. It started as a wild west area, but the observations made by the hon. Member for East Hampshire are important and pertinent here, because this is essentially, overwhelmingly, a tool for carrying advertising. In relation to some of the irresponsible things that we see online, including on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter, what drives those platforms’ existence, ultimately, is advertising. People advertising on websites are, by and large, companies—often large companies—with corporate social responsibility statements that would not tolerate their brand being associated with some of the things on the internet that we have heard about today, including the activity of trolls, child pornography, and so on.

Turning to public policy, we should hold the advertisers to account, as well as the people who provide the platform, to ensure that we are naming and shaming, and showing companies that purport to be socially responsible corporations where their advertising is appearing, and what it is appearing next to, from time to time. Ultimately, that commercial pressure will force, and is forcing, greater responsibility on to some of the newer companies, such as Facebook, which have only existed for a small number of years. That is important.

In Westminster Hall not so long ago, we debated the way that search engines, because of the algorithms that the hon. Member for East Hampshire mentioned, often throw up results at the top of the page that, say, encourage people to download a music track illegally before they are even offered the opportunity to purchase it legally online.

[Damian Hinds]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points about the responsibility of advertisers. Will he acknowledge that a development on the internet that a lot of people do not understand is that an advertiser may not know where their advert will appear, because they give agency, effectively, to the search company to put it in context according to its algorithms, providing them with the greatest number of hits?

[Kevin Brennan]

Yes. My answer is that that is not good enough. A company that purports to be corporately socially responsible should insist on knowing where its advertising will end up, and should not just be presented with the result of an impersonal algorithm devised by an advertising company. That is not good enough and not acceptable if a company purports to be corporately socially responsible. That is my point. Companies need to be held to account for ensuring that they care about where their advertising ends up, because if they do not take any interest in that, ultimately that will do reputational damage to their brand.

I want to say a few words about internet trolls and so on. A terrible incident, which hon. Members will have heard about, happened in my constituency a week last Friday. A person drove a van deliberately at people—mainly women and children—killing one of my constituents, Karina Menzies, leaving her three children motherless, and maiming, injuring and traumatising countless others along the way. That was an awful incident. I thank all hon. Members who have expressed their sympathy for my constituents.

Of course, as we know, inevitably there are people out there online who seek to upset, provoke and offend in these cases. Some things that people say in these instances will not be illegal, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South said, but some may be actionable and illegal. Nevertheless, they are offensive and have the capacity to cause public disorder and, in some instances, as we have seen in other tragedies, to lead people to take their own lives, so upsetting is the abuse that they have suffered online. There is, in particular, a strong case to be made for social media organisations to take these matters seriously.

I want to give some small words of praise to Facebook, because after I mentioned some pages of that kind that had appeared in the wake of that incident, it took them down quickly. That is new. Its policies are in the process of being developed. As such companies reach maturity, they will understand that it is unacceptable to hide behind the defence that they simply provide a platform and what appears on it is nothing to do with them. If we were happy for people to paint defamatory or deeply offensive comments about our neighbours, or someone else, on a wall outside our house, we would have to say that we had some responsibility for that wall and what appeared on it, and a responsibility to do something about it, particularly if we were making money out of that process. There is some change, but I sense that it may have been easier for me as a Member of Parliament to contact Facebook and get that action taken than it might have been for some of my constituents.

On every Facebook profile, there is a “Like” button that people can click. Why is there not a button as prominent and clear saying not so much “Dislike”, but “Report abuse”, or whatever? That is the minimum that should be required. When I was a Minister, a social media company called Bebo was quite prominent with young people, although it is less so now—hon. Members probably remember it. It refused time and again to put a prominent button on pages for children to enable them to report abuse, creepy questions or whatever they were encountering on Bebo. That is the minimum that we should expect from these companies.

15:39

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who made an excellent speech. This is an important, timely debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) not just on her speech, but on the excellent work she did in setting up the all-party group and undertaking the inquiry, which raised the profile of the importance of taking clear steps forward to protect children on the net.

Social media companies claim that they have policies to protect users, prevent crime and avoid bullying, but from what we have heard this afternoon, such policies are clearly failing. I, too, have examples from my constituency. A schoolgirl who recently came to see me had been bullied on Tumblr. When she complained and asked the company to deal with it, she was told that it was up to her to identify the perpetrator. Last week, the Internet Watch Foundation published research that shows that 88% of self-generated, sexually explicit online images and videos of young people are taken from their original location and uploaded on to other websites. While some young people might be getting skills, a lot of others clearly are not. Another family in my constituency came to see me. The father had been murdered and they were being bullied and abused on Facebook by the family of the offender, who is in prison. When they complained to the police, the police took no action.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander), who is not present, tried to introduce a ten-minute rule Bill after some gangs were involved in a murder in her constituency. The perpetrating gang posted an abusive rap on YouTube and it took months to get Google to remove it. When we met its executives, they said that they had people in the UK monitoring things all the time, but they could not even tell us how many people did that work. They also seemed to be confused about whether they were operating within a British or an American legal framework. As a final example, a young constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) was groomed on Facebook and, unfortunately, murdered by the person who had groomed her. All such episodes, including the ones described by other hon. Members, demonstrate that the current situation must change. Ministers need to be far more energetic in tackling the problems.

What do I think we need to do? First, on free speech, of which there has been some discussion and which is a fundamental human right, it is important to remember that in this country, unlike the United States, free speech is a right with conditions and is to be exercised responsibly. Having the right to free speech is not like holding the ace of spades and being able to trump every other right, such as the right to a fair trial.

Secondly, it is worth thinking about what drives so much of the abusive behaviour on the net. We had a little kerfuffle about that last week. I believe that the cloak of anonymity allows or enables some people to behave in ways that they would not in ordinary life. I do not mean that we should all post our bank account numbers online for everyone to see, or that nicknames should be banned on Twitter, but the idea of moral responsibility requires that a person is identifiable in order to take responsibility. To assert rights, there must be a rights holder. It is therefore a worry that the private regulator of the list of websites in the United States, ICANN—the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers—does not know the provenance of a third of its websites, and Nominet’s current consultation on how to verify registrants is helpful and something that we might be able to build on.

The Government as a whole should take the issue seriously. At the moment, we seem to be dealing first with one Minister and then with another—there does not seem to be a proper strategy. For example, in the context of the Defamation Bill, we have raised anonymity with the Minister’s colleagues in the Ministry of Justice; I hope that in the light of what he has heard this afternoon, the Minister will go to those colleagues and seek to strengthen clause 5 of the Bill. As currently drafted, it is not mandatory to include and publicise an e-mail address for complaints on open websites, and a complainant may need a court order even to pursue a case against someone who wishes to remain anonymous, which is a slow and costly process.

Thirdly, the idea of an enforceable code, suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, is extremely interesting. Abuse on the net, whether of children or adults, whether criminal or simply unpleasant, is a growing problem and the Government are failing in their duty to get to grips with it and to protect our citizens. In an Adjournment debate on 17 September on internet trolling, a Home Office Minister responded and listed some of the legislation that can be used to deal with abuse on the net. At this point, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South (Mr Harris) that there is a difference between being offended by someone’s views and being subject to harassment on the net, and that distinction is made in the law.

I asked the Library for a list of the pieces of legislation that can be used to tackle the problem and was told that there were seven: the Malicious Communications Act 1988, the Communications Act 2003, the Protection of Children Act 1999, the Telecommunications Act 1984, the Public Order Act 1986, the Computer Misuse Act 1990 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. When I looked at the relevant provisions, many seemed to overlap, so I am not clear whether they are an adequate basis for the sort of code that my hon. Friend the Member for Slough is suggesting, and they certainly present a confusing picture. I want Ministers to initiate a cross-departmental review. Currently, we have shambolic confusion and no coherent strategy from the Government.

In the absence of action by the Government, the Crown Prosecution Service is consulting on the use of the existing criminal law. The Director of Public Prosecutions said:

“Social media is a new and emerging phenomenon raising difficult issues of principle, which have to be confronted not only by prosecutors but also by others including the police, the courts and service providers. The fact that offensive remarks may not warrant a full criminal prosecution does not necessarily mean that no action should be taken. In my view, the time has come for an informed debate about the boundaries of free speech in an age of social media.”

That is an extremely helpful contribution.

The DPP’s remarks highlight another issue. New problems require new solutions, new practices and new skills, not only for the courts but for the police, social workers, teachers and medical staff. Such professions will need to adapt and modify their work and learn new techniques to ensure, for example, that e-crime is taken seriously, that court orders to offenders cover cyber-bullying or that teachers can give good advice to young people. All that is a new burden on the public purse, with special training and awareness-raising needed, for instance.

Many colleagues this afternoon have mentioned that money is an important driver, which brings us to the next area in which the social media companies need to improve their social responsibility: the paying of taxes. It is simply not acceptable that through artificial devices such as extortionate payments for licences they continue to depress profits, so Facebook, with an estimated income from advertising of £175 million in this country, paid no tax in 2011. Google, which in the US estimates its UK income to be more than £2 billion, paid only £3 million in taxes. According to the House of Commons Library, Twitter UK has not even submitted any accounts. Such firms are putting a new and costly burden on the public purse, but they are not acting as responsible corporate citizens. The Government cannot stand back and ignore that. Ministers need to ensure that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs uses all the weapons at its disposal and, if necessary, they need to legislate further in order to crack down on avoidance devices. I suggest to the Minister that that is as important as dealing with the regulations and the code described by my hon. Friend the Member for Slough.

15:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Olympics, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I congratulate the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing this important debate. We have had some useful contributions from hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is well known for her campaigning to protect children from online pornography. I had the welcome experience, for the first time, of hearing the hon. Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi), whose speech on this important subject was wide-ranging and comprehensive. The hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) brought his significant ministerial experience to bear, and the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali) made a useful contribution. My hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) brought his significant experience of marketing to the debate.

Time is short, so I will make some points briefly. First, it tends to be a cliché uttered by Ministers and politicians alike that the internet is all-pervasive. It is worth reminding ourselves how quickly it has become all-consuming. The rise of the tablet and the smartphone means that the internet is with us almost 24 hours a day. It brings enormous economic and social value, and broadly speaking the vast majority of people who use it do so responsibly and it enhances their lives. We also know that it enables individuals to reach a wide audience with bile, bullying and bigotry.

This afternoon, I want to distinguish between what is criminal and unlawful on the internet, and what is objectionable but may not be illegal. It is important to emphasise some of the good things that are happening in the self-regulatory approach to the internet. It is worth remembering that it is not completely the wild west. It is absolutely right that hon. Members come to a debate such as this and highlight where things are going wrong and action is needed. It is also important to note that we have made progress.

The Internet Watch Foundation has been mentioned, and is a model of its kind. It was pioneered in this country, and provides unique data to law-enforcement partners in the UK and abroad to investigate distributors of child pornography, with the result that almost all images of children are now hosted abroad and not in this country. The second phase is that the IWF now works hard to ensure that exposure to such content is blocked by the provision of a dynamic list of child sex abuse web pages. It is important to remember that the IWF has made significant progress.

15:53

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:03

On resuming—

[Mr Vaizey]

Before we were interrupted, I was talking about the important work of the IWF, which, as I said, stands as a model for self-regulation around the world for the job it does in blocking access to websites hosting absolutely pernicious material. There is unanimous praise for the work of the IWF.

The other issue that our debate has covered is defamatory material. People often say that the internet is not regulated, but it is; it is regulated by the rule of law, which applies online just as it does offline, and that would apply to defamatory material. We need to ensure that the law works effectively. The Defamation Bill, which the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) mentioned, recently had its Second Reading in the House of Lords, and that is one such area where we are ensuring that the law applies as it should.

The Bill sets out new procedures that will facilitate the resolution of complaints directly by complainants with the author of the allegedly defamatory material, rather than with the website intermediary. We believe that that will encourage website operators to act responsibly without unfairly exposing them to liability in defamation proceedings. It will help freedom of expression by ensuring that material is not taken down without the author being given an opportunity to express their views, and importantly, it will help to enable action to be taken against authors who are responsible for making defamatory statements online. That is one example of how the law applies online, and there are others.

Moving on to what I would characterise as “grossly offensive” material, hon. Members have rightly provided truly awful examples of internet trolling. However, I am not sure that we need to create new offences and put more on to our already crowded statute book, to which the hon. Lady referred. A plethora of existing legislation is being used to prosecute offenders. For example, in September 2011, Sean Duffy was jailed for 18 weeks under the Malicious Communications Act 1998, after posting offensive messages and videos on tribute pages about young people who had died. In 2010, Colm Coss was also imprisoned for posting obscene messages on Facebook tribute sites, including that of Jade Goody and several other people. Section 127 of the existing Communications Act 2003 creates an offence of sending, or causing to be sent,

“by means of a public electronic communications network a message or other matter that is grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character”.

It has been established that abuse posted on social media sites, such as Facebook and Twitter, can be prosecuted under that Act and, as case law develops in that area, we will see swift action when such cases arise.

As the hon. Lady pointed out, we have not only that Act, but the Malicious Communications Act, the Computer Misuse Act 1990, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Sexual Offences Act 2003, as well as the common law offence of breach of the peace. Other recent high-profile cases have involved the Olympic diver, Tom Daley, and the footballer, Fabrice Muamba. Quite rightly, the Director of Public Prosecutions is proposing to publish new guidelines in this area, which will be very helpful. We are not in the business of criminalising bad manners, unkind comments, or idiotic views, however offensive we might find them. Cases involving social media involve a difficult balancing exercise, and that is what the new guidance from the DPP will address. Those guidelines will be published for consultation at the end of November, and I hope that they will ensure that decision making in difficult cases such as those is clear and consistent.

The hon. Member for Slough mentioned the “Innocence of Muslims” film, of which there has been worldwide condemnation. President Obama said that the United States Government had nothing to do with that video and called for its message to be rejected. The Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, also called the film “disgusting and reprehensible”. The right to freedom of opinion and expression is, as I think we would all agree, a vital component of a free, democratic society. However, with that freedom come responsibilities; particularly, the respect for the beliefs and religious convictions of others.

The right to freedom of opinion and expression is enshrined in our laws. Carefully defined and intensely debated limitations on that right exist under legislation such as the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 and the Public Order Act 1986. Although there are frequent calls to ban websites and online material that carry extremist or offensive content, such content typically tends to fall short of the criminal threshold. Additionally, websites that host the film may be with internet service providers based outside the UK, and removing a website from one host may not result in it being removed from the internet permanently.

The hon. Lady rightly called for more to be done in the area of self-regulation, but again, to balance the debate, I will say that I would not characterise internet companies as flagrantly flouting their responsibilities. The power of public perception is essential to the success of these businesses. If people did not trust them and believe that they act responsibly, they would move on to new services and sites.

This Government are committed to tackling trolling, cyber-bullying and other forms of abuse and misuse of social networking sites, and we will work—

[Albert Owen (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Joyce has withdrawn his debate on UK-listed mining companies. I suspend the sitting until 4.30 pm, when the final debate of the day will start.

16:10

Sitting suspended.

Stillbirth Certification

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Westminster Hall

16:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Owen. I hope that you will be as gentle with me as are the other Chairmen whom I have served under in Westminster Hall. I thank the House for giving me the opportunity to talk about stillbirth certification.

On 18 May 2011, I led a Westminster Hall debate on the sensitive and emotive subject of stillbirth. I explained back then that I had wanted to raise the subject ever since a couple of my best friends had a stillborn child. The way in which they and other parents of stillborn children are treated is simply not good enough for a modern developed country.

Seventeen babies are stillborn or die shortly after birth every single day in the United Kingdom, and the stillbirth rate has not changed in a decade. That number is way too high. I have been told that approximately 30% of stillbirths remain completely unexplained and that lots of different factors play into the deaths of the remaining 70%. I know that the Minister who will reply to the debate is concerned that the UK is slipping down the league table of developed nations in this regard. According to a study published last year in The Lancet, the UK has one of the worst records for stillbirths, ranking 33rd out of 35 high-income nations. Although it is important to acknowledge that all women are vulnerable, we need to work out why women in our nation may be at a higher risk of stillbirth and what we can do to change that fact.

There are some troubling regional differences in the percentage rates of stillbirth across the United Kingdom. How can we explain the 33% difference between the incidence of stillbirth in the south-west, which has the lowest rates, and the east midlands, of which my constituency is a part, which has the highest?

I have had discussions with people who point out that in recent years, Britain has become one of the unhealthiest nations in Europe. We are the most obese nation in Europe and we have the heaviest drinkers. As life expectancy has increased, more British women are also waiting until later in life to become first-time mothers. All those could be contributing factors to the horrid statistic that I read out earlier.

I could not let this occasion go by without asking the Minister what research is being done into the reasons behind our high stillbirth rate. Why is there so much regional variation? More than anything, I want the Minister to assure me and those in the Chamber that the Government have an ongoing commitment to reduce the number of stillborn children throughout the United Kingdom, to talk about this subject more and to spread best practice. What will the Minister do to ensure the spread of best practice? There are many hospitals across the United Kingdom that have fantastic practice in this area, but, equally, there are those where best practice is desperately needed. Eventually, I hope that fewer parents will suffer this terrible fate. I was personally delighted by the announcement by the Department of Health, on 16 May, of the Government’s maternity pledges, which include the pledge to provide more NHS support to women who have suffered a stillbirth.

I do not intend to go over much of the territory that we covered in the debate last year, but wish instead to concentrate on one particular area—the certification of stillborn children. Without a doubt the passing of the Still-Birth (Definition) Act 1992 was a breakthrough and had huge significance for parents. From the passing of that Act, a baby who was born dead at or after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy was recognised in law as an individual. It required that the baby’s death be registered in person by one or both parents at a register office within six weeks of the baby’s birth and it stated that a stillbirth certificate be issued.

Since I raised this subject in May 2011, I have been contacted by hundreds of families who have suffered the terrible anguish of stillbirth. Many of them have shared their stories with me, and I am in awe of how some of those parents have dealt with the worst of all possible situations.

A number of themes have started to fall together around the whole subject of stillbirth. Indeed, many parents had issues that were individual in their nature. If they had complaints about their treatment, they tended to sort them out for themselves. However, there was one very distinguishable theme that came out of my many conversations and e-mails—how to help parents grieve and eventually to move on. I believe that something simple can and should be done in that regard.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall. It is something that affects many people across all the constituencies in the United Kingdom. Does he agree that as things stand, the parents are not able to get the closure that they so desperately need? Although nothing can ease the pain, even to acknowledge that there was life in the first place would give a sense of closure to the family. It is a small thing but it could be of great comfort to a grieving family.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

Yes, I do agree, and I shall come on to that point in the next couple of minutes. Certainly, that applies to a number of the parents to whom I have been speaking. Although no one will ever be able to give them back their baby, they almost feel as though the state is cheating them. It is as if their baby was never in existence. Having a birth and death certificate might help them get over that point in their grief so that they can move on.

[Jim Shannon]

The issue for parents is coming to terms with the emotional trauma that they have been through. Having a certificate will mean a terrible lot to those people, and that is what we are trying to achieve.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

That is my intention in raising this debate today. However, this is about not just the certification element, which I hope the Minister will answer, but the need for more awareness of all the issues around stillbirth and neo-natal care.

Having the flexibility for parents to be able to choose to have a birth and death certificate for babies born after 24 completed weeks of pregnancy but showing no signs of life, would massively help a large number of parents in their grief and show that the state recognises that they had a wonderful child. As some parents would be distressed at the possibility of having to go down that route, I wonder whether we could have a more flexible system whereby parents have the choice of a formal birth certificate, a stillbirth certificate issued by the hospital or—if they so choose—nothing. In modern society, we have the ability and sensibility to deal with the matter of certification, which is important to most of the parents to whom I have spoken because it is a simple process of formally naming their deceased baby.

Over the course of my time in this place, I have raised the matter of stillbirth certification a number of times. However, on each occasion I have received a similar reply from the Department of Health. One reply said:

“The registration of stillbirths and live births serve different purposes.”

It helps Departments collect statistical data and

“enables us to monitor the causes of stillbirth.”

Another reply said:

“Different state benefits are available to parents depending on whether a child was live-born or stillborn, so it is important to be able to distinguish one certificate from another.”

I completely understand the need for the state and the Department to be able to collect these important data for use in research. In fact, I am keen to encourage the Department to do more. However, I simply cannot understand why in 2012, with all the modern technology that we have at our disposal, we cannot, in a sophisticated way, collect all the data that are required and issue birth and death certificates when they are requested by parents.

[Jonathan Lord (Woking) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I commend him for pursuing this issue in Westminster Hall when I know that there is another debate very close to his heart going on in the main Chamber. Does he have any information that he could share with us about how other countries do things, which might help to nudge the Department of Health in the right direction on this matter?

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

There is actually quite a lot of information out there. There is a very good charity called Sands, which has brought me lots of examples of best practice from across Europe, and indeed from different states in the USA. I am not saying that those methods would all work if they were brought into the NHS. However, by looking at the research that has been going on in Denmark and in Australia, and at the best practice in France and in some states in the US, we might be able to form much better practice in the UK to spread throughout the NHS. There are examples of good practice out there, and although I cannot cite them “fact for fact” off the top of my head right now, the charity Sands has all that information on its website. Sands is a very good resource for information.

I want to go back to the issue of what the state can do when it comes to stillbirth certification. I am quite sure that a sensible and easy solution can be found that allows these certificates to be issued and at the same time enables the state to have all the right information that it might require about any situation around each stillbirth.

Knowing that this debate was coming up, I asked some parents to try to help me to express why this new flexibility—if we are able to have it—would help them. A mum in my local area called Michelle told me this:

“My son was 9 days past his due date when he died at the end of my labour in May 2011; he weighed 7 pounds and 7 ounces, had wavy fair hair and was perfect. I can still feel the weight of him in my arms and how soft his skin felt. To be told your child has died is the worst pain a parent can feel but to be told they will not be recognised as a person in their own right but a statistic is heart-breaking. My son looked like any other baby, I went through a labour like any other mother but I didn’t have the happy ending. Going to the registry office to register his death was made harder knowing that the parents waiting with us would be registering their baby’s birth yet we would only be allowed to register our son’s death, not given the dignity of having a birth certificate. I feel I am being punished for not having a child that was lucky enough to take a first breath or to hear his first cry. A birth certificate is incredibly important to me and unless you have lost a child who has had the misfortune of being labelled as stillborn it is difficult to understand the need for this recognition. I have been lucky enough to go on to have a daughter, I love both my son and daughter equally yet they are not treated equally in the eyes of the law.”

She went on to say:

“This cruel law needs to be changed, what sense does it make to only register the death when the baby has to be born first regardless if he will take a first breath.”

I know from previous conversations that I have had with the Minister that he completely understands all the issues that I have raised here today, and I very much look forward to hearing his comments. All I ask is that he returns to his Department, reflects on today’s debate and considers whether it is actually not too difficult to build into the system the flexibility that I and a large number of parents from across the country would like to see. It would mean a great deal to a lot of people, Michelle included.

16:43

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

Thank you, Mr Owen, for calling me to speak. It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship; like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris), it is the first time that I have done so.

I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this matter in Westminster Hall today. He and I have worked together in the past to raise awareness of the need to do more to support those families who have had the terrible experience of stillbirth. We have also worked together in the past to discuss the need for greater research in this area. He is absolutely right to highlight a number of the issues that he has raised today, and I will deal with the issues that he has raised in turn.

In my own medical career as a doctor, I have never seen anything more tragic than either a very badly injured or ill child, or a dead baby. The death of a baby is probably the worst situation that I came across, and losing a child is the worst experience for family and friends; it lives with people for ever. For some families, there is no coming to terms with the death of a child. It is a very difficult thing to live with and we must continue to do all we can to support those families, working with Sands and the other organisations that do a very good job in supporting those families; we must continue to do more.

My hon. Friend quite rightly highlighted the unacceptable regional variation in stillbirths. From the figures for 2011, we know that the strategic health authority for the north-east of England reported 5.8 stillbirths per 1,000 live births, whereas the SHAs for the east of England and the south-west of England reported 4.7 stillbirths per 1,000 live births. As I say, that is an unacceptable variation. There is an acknowledgment by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, by the Royal College of Midwives and by Sands and many organisations that we need to do more to reduce the rate of stillbirths in this country. We must continue to do more to research the factors that cause stillbirth. As my hon. Friend said, in many cases the cause of a stillbirth is still unclear. We also need to continue to crack down on this unacceptable regional variation, and learn where there is good practice in combating and reducing stillbirth rates and where the NHS is doing things better, so that that good practice can be rolled out across the country.

As I said, the death of a baby, whether during pregnancy or following birth, is probably the worst tragedy that anybody can face, and that is true both from the point of view of a health care professional and from a family’s perspective. Stillbirth is not only the loss of a child, but the loss of all the hopes and dreams that the family would have had about what that baby would have become and what it would have meant to them in the years ahead. That is why it is particularly important that this is an area that we continue to focus on, to reduce stillbirth rates and so that both the Department of Health and medical professionals take this issue increasingly seriously. As my hon. Friend rightly highlighted, our stillbirth rates are 33rd out of 35 high-income nations and as a country we need to do better than that and improve on those rates.

[Jonathan Lord]

I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Chris Heaton-Harris) talk about the work of Sands. I myself have had constituents come to me with the help of Sands, and my hon. Friend the Minister speaks very well about that organisation and about the real hurt of those families who have suffered a stillbirth.

However, could my hon. Friend the Minister just give us a little bit more information as to why he thinks the stillbirth rates in this country are higher than they should be, and why they are higher than the rates in many other western countries? What are the reasons behind that? That is the crucial thing—to stop this terrible tragedy happening to other families.

[Dr Poulter]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and he makes a very good point. As we have said today, we have high stillbirth rates in this country. One factor that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has picked up on is the fact that there are sometimes variations in clinical practice, including in picking up on early warning signs that we know are associated with stillbirth, for example reduced foetal movements during pregnancy. That sort of thing always concerned me as a front-line professional and it concerns many midwives.

However, we need to have in place across the NHS better systems so that professionals can work with women to identify those early warning signs that something may be wrong in a pregnancy and to ensure that women come in quickly and seek help, or hopefully, rather than seeking help because something is going wrong, in many cases they can seek reassurance. However, where things are not right for a baby, we must ensure that the medical help is on hand to intervene quickly and to support the pregnant woman and hopefully mum-to-be.

There are parallels that can be drawn between where we are now with stillbirths and the situation with cot deaths a number of years ago. Back in the 1980s, the cot death rate was very high, peaking at 2.3 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1988. Following the launch of the “Back to Sleep” campaign in the early 1990s, the rate declined dramatically, falling to 0.6 deaths per 1,000 live births in 1995. This reduction has continued as awareness of the key messages on reducing the risk of cot death has increased. By 2010, the rate was 0.22 per 1,000 live births. To put that in real life rather than statistical terms, we are actually talking about a reduction from some 3,000 cot deaths a year to 300 or 400, which is not perfect, because we still have babies dying of cot death, but raising awareness and targeting cot death has proved to be an effective way of reducing rates. That is something we can learn from in the discussion we are having today about stillbirth.

The point that all hon. Members have made today is that the decline in stillbirths in the United Kingdom has not kept pace with that of comparable countries. According to The Lancet, we rank 33rd in the world for stillbirths. We need to ensure that we do better and take this issue seriously.

Both my hon. Friends have spoken about Sands. It is worth highlighting what that organisation has done. It provides tremendous support for families who find themselves in very difficult situations. It has highlighted the vital importance of the Government and the medical profession—midwives are taking this issue on board and are taking it more seriously—supporting families to make sure that in future pregnant women and families do not have to suffer the problems associated with stillbirth.

Sands has raised a number of issues, including research, which we have talked about and which I will come on to in a moment, and the fact that action is required to raise awareness, as we saw with cot death in the past, of the known risk factors for stillbirth so that prospective parents can make better choices and understand what could go wrong in pregnancy and what the warning signs may be—for example, reduced foetal movements. We need to ensure that parents are informed and that health care professionals know how to support parents and pregnant mums to help them to recognise the warning signs. They need to provide reassurance and care where appropriate and need to intervene when very serious concerns are raised.

We have said that it is not acceptable that the UK has one of the worst stillbirth rates in the developed world. We have developed a stillbirth prevention work programme, which my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry alluded to earlier. The Government are taking this piece of work very seriously, in conjunction with the Royal College of Midwives, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and the NHS to help to iron out the unacceptable variations in practice and the unacceptable regional variations that we have talked about.

The development of this work programme has been informed by a workshop jointly hosted by Sands and the Department of Health, which took place on 1 March this year. Discussions focused on key areas such as raising awareness and improving identification of babies at risk and improving perinatal reviews. We are continuing with this work to ensure that we can put that into practice throughout the NHS so that we provide pregnant mums with the support that they deserve.

My hon. Friend rightly raised the issue of research. It is important that we fully understand stillbirths. We do not always know what the cause of a stillbirth was. It is important that we do research and look into what the unknown causes and reasons might be. What are the factors that cause stillbirths? We know some of the causes; we do not know all of them. Continuing to research and focus on that is important.

The Government have funded a number of research programmes. Most recently, the Department has funded research through the National Institute for Health Research and the policy research programme. An estimated spend relating to maternal and foetal health has increased from £4.4 million in 2006-07 to £12.7 million in 2010-11. The issue of improving foetal health, babies’ health and maternal health is something that we take very seriously.

Working with Sands, the Department’s policy research programme has funded a policy research unit in maternal health and care at the national perinatal epidemiology unit at Oxford university. Research themes focus particularly on pregnancy loss, perinatal morbidity, maternal morbidity and maternal mortality.

The National Institute for Health Research in Cambridge has an ongoing programme of research on women’s health. A major focus of that research is understanding the determinants of stillbirth risk and using that understanding to improve clinical care of pregnant women. Indeed, last week I visited Manchester where there is a very high quality of care for pregnant women and for newborn babies. The university of Manchester’s maternal and foetal health research centre is currently leading projects in understanding the reasons for stillbirth. I know it will be looking to feed that in nationally so that we can continue to reduce stillbirth rates.

Research on its own is not enough. When we have the research, we have to ensure that we get it out there to the professionals, sharing it and the information from that with parents, to help them to make informed choices about their care and to be aware of the risks and the possible warning signs of stillbirth. Raising awareness is so important. It is an issue highlighted in particular by the Royal College of Midwives and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. They have said that there is unacceptable variation, as we have accepted in this Chamber, in the rate of stillbirth and in how some health care professionals interact with families and pregnant women during pregnancy. Working up national guidelines that focus on professionals supporting families, as well as being aware of the other factors, is an important part of reducing stillbirth.

Another point made by my hon. Friend is that families who have suffered a stillbirth have not always received good bereavement support. We know that a lot of care and attention has been paid to ensure that more support and care is given to families—the royal colleges have taken that on board—and we are looking seriously at how we can provide more support. Many hospitals and trusts have invested in bereavement rooms and quiet areas for families when they have had early pregnancy loss or a stillbirth. That is right, because although maternity things generally go well and we have a good outcome, when things go badly we need to ensure that we are prepared and have a supportive environment to look after families in such circumstances.

Finally, it is important to focus on certification, an issue raised by my hon. Friend. I will look into the matter in more detail and get back to him in writing as well, rather than try to put together an answer in the two or three minutes available to me. He made the point that some mums who give birth have to go through the whole birthing process—they actually give birth to a dead baby—and that is an incredibly traumatic and difficult thing to do, because they know that their baby is not alive. Some mums, however, have to do that. In such situations, although the law, with such things as birth and death certificates, is there for good reason, the human reality is sometimes not recognised in the law as effectively as we might like. There will, though, sometimes be difficulties with law, however we have it. As best we can, we have tried to mitigate such situations by beginning to provide more supportive environments for parents after a stillbirth and by providing certificates recognising that there has been a stillbirth after 24 weeks. That goes some way towards recognising the difficult and tragic event—we recognise that a baby has been born, although the baby was not born alive. I will write to my hon. Friend in more detail in the next few weeks, because the issue deserves more than a few sentences at the end of the debate.

I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to his work on raising awareness of such an important issue. The Government are very much committed to taking forward our work with Sands and ensuring that we reduce stillbirth rates in this country, as well as providing more research to investigate the causes of stillbirth and better support for bereaved parents in what is perhaps the most difficult thing I have ever seen in my medical career.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

Wednesday 31 October 2012

Reconsidering a Prosecution Decision (CPS Guidance)

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Attorney-General (Mr Dominic Grieve)]

The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has today published revised guidance to prosecutors on the circumstances in which a decision not to prosecute or to terminate proceedings might be reconsidered and the procedure to be followed.

In a written answer of 31 March 1993 the then Attorney-General stated that in certain circumstances it may be appropriate for decisions not to prosecute or to terminate proceedings previously taken to be reconsidered. Two specific examples were given of where such reconsideration might be appropriate:

Rare cases where reconsideration of the original decision shows that it was not justified and the maintenance of confidence in the criminal justice system requires that a prosecution be brought notwithstanding the earlier decision; and

Those cases where termination has been effected specifically with a view to the collection and preparation of the necessary evidence which is thought likely to become available in the fairly near future. In such circumstances the CPS will advise the defendant of the possibility that proceedings will be re-instituted.

In those circumstances it was stated that the decision would be taken at chief Crown prosecutor level.

The revised guidance gives two new instances after which the decision to reinstate proceedings need not be taken by a chief Crown prosecutor:

Where the decision is taken to reinstitute a case where the police failed to send a file (digital or otherwise) in time for the first hearing at the magistrates’ court and the court refuses to allow an adjournment resulting in the proceedings being withdrawn.

Where the decision is taken by the CPS to prosecute after the police have previously decided to take no further action on a file but later refer the file to the CPS for a charging decision.

These are in addition to the two instances mentioned in the previous version of the guidance: where the original proceedings were discharged by a magistrate or district judge; and where the original proceedings were terminated after the decision was taken to withdraw transfer proceedings because the court had refused an adjournment.

A copy of the revised guidance has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Double Taxation Convention

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A protocol amending the double taxation convention with India was signed on 30 October 2012. The text of the protocol has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text will be scheduled to a draft Order in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Heseltine Review

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr George Osborne)]

Today the right hon. the Lord Heseltine of Thenford CH presented his report to the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills and me, and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Secretary of State and I would like to take this early opportunity to thank Lord Heseltine for producing a comprehensive, wide-ranging and thought-provoking report on how to bring Government and industry together. The Government will consider all of his recommendations carefully and will respond around the time of the autumn statement.

UK Government National Action Plan (Women, Peace and Security)

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

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

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 second annual review of the UK Government National Action Plan on UNSCR 1325 Women, Peace and Security. The national action plan (NAP) is intended to strengthen our ability to reduce the impact of conflict on women and girls, and to promote their inclusion in conflict resolution. It provides a plan for incorporating the provisions of UN resolutions on women, peace and security into the Government’s work on conflict in our defence, diplomatic and development activity.

I have chosen to publish the review today to coincide with the anniversary of the UN Security Council resolution 1325 which was adopted 12 years ago, 31 October, in 2000. The review that I am announcing today focuses on our new actions this year.

UN Security Council resolution 1325 called for the effective protection of women from sexual and gender-based violence in conflict. But despite numerous efforts since its adoption shocking levels of violence continue with very few perpetrators being held to account. This culture of impunity exacerbates the cycle of sexual violence, fuelling increased ethnic, sectarian and other divisions, further entrenching conflict and instability.

The Foreign Secretary is determined that Governments must do more to address this issue and that the UK, with its global reach, resources and diplomatic network, champions this cause. On 29 May the Foreign Secretary launched his preventing sexual violence initiative. The initiative aims to replace the culture of impunity with one of deterrence, by increasing the number of perpetrators brought to justice both internationally and nationally, by strengthening international efforts and co-ordination to prevent and respond to sexual violence and by supporting states-build national capacity. During the UK’s Presidency of the G8 we will run a sustained campaign to build a stronger global partnership to prevent sexual violence in conflict. Our objective will be to secure a range of new commitments from G8 nations, and to broaden these beyond the G8 over time. We are also assessing the need for a new international protocol on the investigation and documentation of sexual violence in conflict. In addition, we have recruited and will deploy a specialist team of UK experts to conflict areas to support the UN and civil society to investigate allegations of sexual violence, gather evidence and help countries build their own capacity to do so. We intend to work in close co-ordination with the United Nations and civil society in taking forward this initiative. Finally, we have increased our funding to the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict by £1 million to support their efforts to strengthen national capacity to investigate, prosecute perpetrators of sexual violence and to protect survivors and witnesses.

This major new initiative is fully integrated with our work to implement the national, bilateral, regional and multilateral commitments in the NAP. This includes our country plans in Afghanistan, Nepal and Democratic Republic of Congo and our new middle east and north Africa regional plan. We continue to encourage more states to develop NAPs.

We are grateful to the associate parliamentary group on women, peace and security (APG-WPS) for their active engagement on this important issue. We would also like to thank the civil society umbrella organisation Gender Action for Peace and Security (GAPS) for the regular and ongoing consultations that take place about the NAP. Officials will attend a meeting with the associate parliamentary group and GAPS on 5 November to discuss this review.

We will continue to consult with Parliament and civil society, including in 2013 when a full evaluation of the national action plan will take place.

We look forward to continuing to work with Parliament, civil society, and with our international partners to lead effective action to tackle the disproportionate impact of conflict on women.

I have deposited a copy of the annual review in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on the FCO website at: www.fco.gov.uk.

Rakhine State, Burma (Humanitarian Response)

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

In Rakhine state, in south-west Burma, there has been a recent increase in communal violence, between the de facto stateless Muslim Rohingya and the majority Buddhist Rakhine communities, which has led to over 100,000 people being displaced since the violence began in June.

In addition to the UK’s contributions to the UN central emergency response fund, I have just approved Department for International Development (DFID) humanitarian funding of £2 million to provide urgent support to internal refugees and vulnerable people affected by the unrest in Rakhine state, Burma which includes ensuring improved safe hygiene for over 58,000 people, more than 32,000 of which are children, and improving access to treatment for acute malnutrition for 5,000 children.

The UK will make a positive difference to the pressing humanitarian needs in Rakhine state with this intervention. We are also working hard to ensure that others in the international community play their part to assist those in need.

I am deeply concerned about the situation in Rakhine state, and in particular that in recent days there have been further outbreaks of inter-communal violence. The UK Government are calling on all parties for an immediate end to the violence. We further urge the Government, and local security forces to take all necessary action to protect civilians, and to grant full humanitarian access to the areas affected as soon as possible.

The latest violence reinforces the need for a long-term solution to the situation in Rakhine state, involving an inclusive political settlement that protects the rights of all members of the local population.

The UK and international community will continue to monitor the situation very closely. We have welcomed the significant reform programme underway in Burma, led by President Thein Sein and Aung San Suu Kyi, and hope that they as a matter of urgency can work with the local authorities and communities to resolve the situation in Rakhine state in a peaceful and constructive manner.

Patrick Finucane Review

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

In anticipation of the publication of the report of the Patrick Finucane Review, I have today asked a team of officials to commence the checking of the review’s report in relation to human rights and national security matters, as outlined below. I intend to adopt the same approach as was used for the checking of the reports of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Billy Wright Inquiry and the Rosemary Nelson Inquiry.

I am responsible for publication of the review’s report, once it is delivered to me. I am advised that I have a duty, as a public authority under the Human Rights Act, to act in a way that is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. To fulfil this duty, I need to take steps to satisfy myself that publication of the report will not breach article 2 of the convention by putting the lives or safety of individuals at risk. I am advised that these obligations must be met by me, in my capacity as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. I am not entitled to rely on the review to satisfy my article 2 obligations. I also have a duty to satisfy myself that publication will not put national security at risk, for example by disclosing details of sources of confidential information.

During the course of the review, the Government submitted to the review team some material that was relevant to its work but which was too sensitive to be disclosed publicly, usually because it contained information which had been provided to the security forces by individuals. If those individuals or others could be identified from information contained in the report it would endanger their lives. I understand that the review does not intend to refer to any material which would constitute a breach of article 2, or compromise national security, but I have a duty to satisfy myself before publication that none of this material has inadvertently been revealed in the report. The review also agreed that the identities of a small number of individuals who were engaged on highly sensitive duties should not be disclosed and I need to be assured that these individuals and others whose lives could be endangered have not been identified.

I have established a small team of officials and legal advisers to assist me in carrying out this necessary exercise. The team will be led by the Northern Ireland Office’s principal legal adviser, but will also include members drawn from the Ministry of Defence, Security Service, and Police Service of Northern Ireland who are familiar with the sensitive material provided to the review. The team will be granted access to the report under strict terms of confidentiality and for the sole purpose of carrying out the necessary checks, and will report directly to me alone. Sir Desmond de Silva has agreed that this team can carry out the necessary checks on the review’s premises while the report remains in his custody, before it is submitted to me. I have confirmed to Sir Desmond de Silva that I am content with this proposal. I understand that the report will be made available for checking today.

I believe that these checks are necessary in order to meet the legal obligations on me. Following the approach used for the checking of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Billy Wright Inquiry and Rosemary Nelson Inquiry reports, Sir Desmond de Silva has given permission for members of the review’s legal team to be present during the checking process. At all times, members of the review’s legal team will be acting as representatives of the review and not as advisers to me or the checking team.

I want to publish the report in its entirety. Should any concerns about the safety of any individual arise, my first course of action would be to consider whether these can be addressed through alternative means. Were I to reach the conclusion, on advice, that a redaction to the text might be necessary, I would consult Sir Desmond de Silva. In the unlikely event that any redaction was deemed necessary, my intention would be to make this clear on the face of the report.

Once the checking process has been completed I will make another statement to this House regarding its outcome and announcing the date of publication. The report must be published first for this House, and I intend to publish the report as soon as possible once the checking process has been completed. However, I acknowledge the importance of this review’s findings in the lives of a number of individuals. As with the publication of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry, Billy Wright and Rosemary Nelson Inquiry reports, I intend to grant advance sight to those who the review has recommended as being interested parties.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today correcting the answer to a question that I provided during the ways and means resolution debate on the HGV Road User Levy Bill, on Tuesday 23 October 2012.

In response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) on whether vehicles leaving a port of entry will have a physical sign on their windows indicating that they have paid (Official Report, column 881), I should have clearly stated that there will be no physical sign of payment, through the display of a paper disc, sticker or similar item.

Payment of the levy will be recorded in a database using the vehicle registration as the unique identifier. We expect that enforcement of non-payment will be carried out using automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) technology equipped cameras linked to this payment database, which will allow the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency to target and stop non-compliant vehicles. We expect that checks on vehicles will be made shortly after the HGVs have left the port at which they have arrived, and are on the UK road network. Further checks will be carried out in other locations. Non-compliant vehicles will need to pay a penalty of £200 before they are allowed to proceed. Cases that are taken to court will be liable to a fine of up to £5,000.

The use of a physical indication of payment is impractical, as drivers could have to physically change stickers or discs daily, and it would create an enormous and costly burden, in terms of administration of the charge. It could also create problems if relied on for enforcement, as stickers or discs could be forged.

The Department for Transport’s consultation on this subject was also based on a database linked enforcement method.

House of Lords

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Wednesday, 31 October 2012.

15:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Wakefield.

Ingram National Park Visitor Centre

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:06

Asked By

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government why the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has decided to close Ingram National Park Visitor Centre in the Breamish Valley in Northumberland.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, the Defra grant for the Northumberland National Park Authority this year is £2.9 million. It is for individual parks to decide on their spending priorities. The Northumberland National Park Authority has decided to close this centre as part of a wider review of all its visitor services.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that disappointing reply. Is she aware that this well appointed centre, situated in an area of outstanding natural beauty, provides not only excellent car parking but the only public toilets for miles, a delightful woodland walk and a series of superb displays highlighting the history, geology, flora and fauna of the Cheviot area, displays of great educational value? Will she try to persuade Defra to think again and to try just a little harder to save this invaluable centre?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that it was not Defra that made this decision but the Northumberland National Park. It is of course of great regret to us when such closures take place. The park is working very closely with the Ingram village hall and the displays that the noble Lord mentions will in fact be moved there, as I understand it, so that they are still available to people. The park is also offering additional information points in local businesses such as shops, pubs and community centres. There will also be additional services offered by the park rangers. I would point out that on Hadrian’s Wall the park will have the great advantage of a new centre, The Sill, which is getting Heritage Lottery Fund money. It will become a major centre there and the noble Lord may wish to visit it.

[Baroness Maddock]

My Lords, although there has been a consultation going on about this, and indeed about the centre in Rothbury, for nearly two years, is my noble friend aware that the final decision came as a great shock to many local people? Is she further aware that the Liberal Democrat-run county council has been extremely successful in reinvigorating the tourist information centres? I hope that, like me, she is rather surprised that the national park has not been able to reach a partnership working arrangement with the county council. Can she further tell me whether other national parks have closed visitor centres?

[Baroness Northover]

I have no evidence that any other centre in a national park has been closed. I have had a look at the tourist centres across the county. The noble Baroness is quite right that there are a number of other such centres, which are obviously very welcome. One would hope that they would work closely with the national park in this regard. The chair of the authority has not closed the door. He said:

“We are looking very hard at alternative ways of providing an effective visitor information service and have not closed the door to any new suggestions people may … put … to us”.

Therefore, I suggest that the noble Baroness gets in touch with him.

[Lord Naseby]

My Lords, I have not been to the visitor centre in question, but is this decision not very strange at a time when we are promoting tourism in this country, when local and public money has been put into the centre over quite a long time and when there are also facilities available from the Heritage Lottery Fund and other similar bodies? I went to a celebration—and indeed gave a speech, as your Lordships will understand—at the Cromwell Museum in Huntingdon. That is kept going by the joint activities of local people and Cambridgeshire County Council. Perhaps a second reflection might be appropriate. I hope that the Minister will be in a position to push this forward herself.

[Baroness Northover]

I am sure that the authority will be looking very closely at what noble Lords are saying today and seeing what can be done to take this forward. This was a small centre, as I understand it, with two members of staff. The much bigger one is on Hadrian’s Wall. As I say, that is going to be added to and will become a centre of national significance. I am extremely pleased that that has been possible at this time.

[Lord Judd]

Amid the plethora of new planning regulations and the rest, will the Minister assure the House that right across Government in all departments there is a commitment to the national parks because of their vital contribution to the spiritual and physical well-being of our nation, particularly our young people?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is quite right and I invite him to have a look at the website for this park and see exactly what it offers. With regard to the commitment, I point out that the park was given just over £3 million last year and this year it has been given £2.9 million, so that is not a huge reduction in what is going to the park. We are fully committed to supporting the national parks. We know how important they are.

[The Lord Bishop of Wakefield]

My Lords, having been last week in both the Ingram valley centre and indeed the Rothbury centre, as I often am, I was appalled to think that there will effectively be no human face anywhere in the northern part of the Northumberland National Park. The place at Once Brewed on Hadrian’s Wall is something like 75 miles away and will do nothing to ensure that there will be anyone there to welcome people. Although the amount of money reduced seems small, it disproportionately affects the operations of the park, which is the smallest national park. Will the Government please think of ways of trying to assist the national park in rethinking this decision in order to have a human face somewhere in the northern part of the park to welcome people?

[Baroness Northover]

I remind the right reverend Prelate that how the national park decides to spend its resources is not a decision for Defra. I am sure that the national park will be listening. As I say, it is working closely with the Ingram village hall committee to try to ensure that information is available and it is doing a number of other things. I was also incredibly impressed by the number of volunteers who were involved in this park, as with others, and it may well be that some work needs to be done to try to see how that can be brought forward to make sure that there is the kind of coverage that the right reverend Prelate refers to.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, I thought that the Minister told the House that the funding for this park was being reduced from £3 million to just short of £2.3 million.

[Noble Lords]

The figure was £2.9 million.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

In which case, I withdraw my question.

[Baroness Northover]

I would like to clarify that last year the figure was over £3.1 million, this year it is £2.9 million and next year it will be £2.7 million. I realise that that is a reduction, but it is for the national park to work out how it is going to prioritise things.

Centre for Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:14

Asked By

[Lord Clement-Jones]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to assess the objectives and work of the Centre for Creativity, Regulation, Enterprise and Technology (CREATe).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (Lord Marland)]

My Lords, the centre is funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council and two other research councils. It is run by a consortium led by the University of Glasgow. It will be subject to the AHRC’s performance management framework for large investments, including regular reporting. The work and objectives of the centre will be overseen by a governance board chaired by the vice-principal for research and enterprise at the University of Glasgow.

[Lord Clement-Jones]

My Lords, is my noble friend confident that the research programme being undertaken by CREATe will support the creation and protection of intellectual property rather than undermine it? Many participants seem rather hostile to it. Is the research, which I believe will cost £5 million of public money, a valid way of supporting the creating industries?

[Lord Marland]

My noble friend must understand that this has not been initiated by the Government; it was initiated by the research councils. They have budgeted accordingly and think that it is the right thing to do. It would be totally wrong of the Government not to support any initiative to do with the creative industries, particularly at this time.

[Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury]

My Lords, is my noble friend confident that the academics engaged in CREATe have the support and confidence of the creative industries which we all support so much?

[Lord Marland]

I must thank the noble Baroness for her work in the Creative Industries Council, of which she is a member. Of course, she has first-hand knowledge of these things. However, I will not legislate on behalf of the Government as to whether this proposal should work. It will be up to the AHRC, which has been invested with it. That is the right thing to do.

Allotments

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:17

Asked By

[Baroness Sharples]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to increase the number of allotments.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My Lords, local authorities have a duty to provide allotments. Nevertheless, the Government commend the work of those operating in the sector, such as the Federation of City Farms and Community Gardens, the Allotments Regeneration Initiative and the sterling work done by the National Allotment Society, in promoting the importance of allotments and the encouragement of local authorities to make more allotment land available to residents.

[Baroness Sharples]

I thank my noble friend for that Answer but is he aware that Wokingham, for example, has 80 people waiting for allotments. How many years will they have to wait? Why can encouragement not be given to people with overlarge gardens to allow them to let off areas for those who wish to growth their own produce?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes a very valid point. The waiting time for allotments is of concern across the country. However, she pointed to the example of Wokingham and I am delighted to say that creative schemes are under way, such as Transition Wokingham Garden Share Scheme whereby residents use spare garden space. Anyone who is a bit green fingered is welcome to use that space to grow vegetables. This Government will encourage such schemes, and it is for local authorities to share good practice across the country.

[Lord Tanlaw]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that allotment owners cannot cultivate their gardens in the dark when the clocks have changed to winter time? Therefore, will he list the benefits to allotment owners from maintaining winter time and the dark winter evenings as opposed to summer time? By the same token, can he produce a single, recognised statistic to prove that winter time can reduce electricity consumption, carbon footprint, street crime or road deaths?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend makes an interesting point. I would add that gardening time is very much the same even with the change in hours. As I already mentioned, there are creative schemes. Sustainable Merton, in my local borough, encourages the people and communities to come together. Those who can provide expertise and assistance—perhaps in creative lighting and green lighting, which is another initiative being undertaken—should be encouraged in providing for allotments around the country.

[Baroness Parminter]

A number of local councils, including Bristol and Brighton, have introduced food strategies to increase food resilience and get more people growing their own food. What plans do the Government have to encourage all councils to produce food plans?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

My noble friend is correct. A number of councils, including Bristol, Brighton and Kent County Council, have developed some very innovative schemes. As I have already said in my previous answer, we are here to encourage local councils. After all, the Localism Act encourages local councils and communities to take action and take charge. I quote my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in the other place, who said that people should “spot a plot”, grab it and then go to their local authority and cultivate it.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

That last reply leads on to my question. If you happen to have a few acres that you are doing nothing with, what permissions do you have to get to set up private enterprise allotments? Do you have to have planning permission? Do you have to be willing to supply water or electricity? We have just heard about the problems of light. What exactly would you have to do, or how would your land have to be zoned, to offer it as allotments?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for her question. I point your Lordships’ House to the Localism Act and the provisions provided within, such as the new neighbourhood planning provisions that provide communities with the powers not just to protect but to identify new plots for allotments. The Community Right to Challenge, which commenced earlier this year in June, meant that voluntary and community bodies which had good ideas and felt they could run the services or allotments better could get more involved. Finally, there are the community right-to-bid provisions in the Act, which commenced in England on 21 September and which allows community groups to get a fairer chance to buy up assets, and facilities are important to them. Allotments are an important element of the Government’s thinking within local government but, as I said, local authorities provide the provisions and this Government take their job very seriously. The Localism Act activates local councils, but most importantly—dare I say it?—it activates the big society to act locally.

[Baroness Sharp of Guildford]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware of an innovative scheme run by the University of Bath and the city of Bath, whereby the gardens for student housing are used as allotments, allocated by the city?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

Again, my noble friend points to an innovative scheme. There are similar schemes, with window boxes being used to grow vegetables. I came across a particular scheme in Bermondsey, where council estates are identifying land that is currently uncultivated and encouraging local residents to use that land for the benefit of the local community. The scheme that my noble friend has pointed to is a similar one.

[Lord Dobbs]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that as a child my father’s allotment provided a plentiful supply of potatoes and other weaponry to use against my other older brothers? Will he rejoice with me in the fact that there are 330,000 allotments in this country, even though there is still a shortage of supply? One problem with increasing the supply is the inconsistency of local authorities in allowing the development of new allotments, particularly with the provisions not just of land but of sheds and things of that sort. Would he encourage local authorities, when in doubt, to dig and allow others to dig, and pray that a generation of young boys are out there who are rather better behaved than we were?

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

I thank my noble friend for his question, and for sharing with your Lordships’ House his recollections of childhood. I must admit that I did not get into any serious fights, with potatoes or otherwise, with my siblings. Nevertheless, on his central point, I refer to the Localism Act, which provides the community right to reclaim, whereby citizens can go online, identify plots in their local area and go and cultivate them. They should work with local authorities, which should not discard their overarching responsibility to facilitate and provide the infrastructure to support allotments. As I said, this Government are empowering through the Localism Act local communities to take charge of allotments.

Railways: London Midland Rail Franchise

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

15:24

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what action they will take regarding the London Midland rail franchise, following recent disruption of its services.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, London Midland has not yet breached its contractual cancellations benchmark, which is calculated as a rolling annual average. However, if the situation continues and cancellations increase, the department has a range of actions available, which will certainly require robust plans to improve performance and, potentially, further punitive measures. My honourable friend the Transport Minister Norman Baker discussed the matter with London Midland’s managing director last week to apprise him of the department’s concerns.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, I am not sure that that will be much compensation to the thousands of travellers, particularly in the West Midlands, who have suffered from the cancellation of hundreds of trains in the past few weeks. Can I take the noble Earl to the general obligation contained in the franchise agreement, which is that the operator should undertake its job with a,

“degree of skill, diligence, prudence and foresight”?

The problem with the London Midland service is a shortage of drivers. I would have thought that that is ample evidence for an intervention into the franchise agreement. This company is not fit to run the franchise.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I share the noble Lord’s concerns regarding passenger experience. He is right that the problem relates to a shortage of drivers and the ability of London Midland to retain the drivers it has and attract new drivers. It is a competitive market. There is also a considerable lead time for taking on and training new drivers. This is a matter for London Midland. However, there are strong incentives for it to put the situation right.

[Lord Snape]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that since being granted a franchise London Midland has never recruited enough drivers or train crew generally, including conductors? Through the period of the franchise it has relied on its staff working rest days, Sundays and voluntary overtime in order to maintain the service. Without knowing the actual benchmarks to which the Minister referred, can he explain why on one day this year it cancelled no fewer than 100 services because of a lack of train crew? Is it not about time we did something to change this franchisee before all of us in the West Midlands take to our motor cars permanently?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, it would be premature to terminate the franchise at this point. There are severe penalties for breach of franchise. The noble Lord’s analysis of the problem may be right. However, it is important to understand that all train operating companies rely on rest-day working but only to the extent of about 3% or thereabouts, whereas this operator is now in the region of 6%. A shortage of drivers causes a serious problem for that operator but it is the train operating company’s problem.

[Lord Hughes of Woodside]

Can the Minister tell us what the benchmark is?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the short answer is no; the longer answer is that it is a moving annual average. The train operating company has the benefit of earlier good performance. However, if it carries on with the current trajectory, it will be in serious difficulties.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, it takes at least a year to train a driver. If we try to cut it down, we face the horrors we saw at Ladbroke Grove some years ago when an undertrained driver caused 30 deaths. London Midland has a full number of drivers in training and will bring forward a new timetable in December covering most of its services. Instead of talking about punishments and retribution, could we prevail upon the train company to put all its efforts into using all available media methods to apprise customers of any cancellations as far in advance as it can?

[Earl Attlee]

I entirely agree with everything my noble friend says, particularly his point about customers making sure they check with National Rail Enquiries shortly before their journey to give themselves the highest chance of not arriving at the station to find the trains are not running.

[Lord Morris of Handsworth]

My Lords, is it not a fact that this Government and trains do not go together? First of all we had the fiasco over the west coast main line and Virgin. Ministers keep their jobs and some get promoted but, of course, civil servants get suspended. Some 3 million people are unemployed but London Midland still cannot get any drivers. To top it all we have the Chancellor—the Chancellor!—buying a second-class ticket and trying to travel first class. Is it not about time that we sent for Thomas the Tank Engine?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first of all, there is no shortage of potential recruits to be train drivers, although a potential train driver needs to have certain attributes. The problem with the west coast line is one of franchising and procurement, but here the problem for the train operating company is in retaining and recruiting sufficient drivers to meet its obligations.

[Baroness Sharples]

Does not the present problem arise because the drivers were required to work during the Olympics, and now they need leave?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, my noble friend is more or less right. The problem is that the chickens are coming home to roost because leave was restricted during the Olympics period, so the drivers want to have their leave now. In addition, we are experiencing the problems of the half term, when drivers naturally want to be at home with their families.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Will the noble Earl explain to the rail company involved that recruiting drivers for training is one thing, and getting them through the training is another, yet if the company does not retain them we have the fiasco that we have today? Will he emphasise to the company that part of the process of retaining their drivers is to pay them a comparative salary to those of rail drivers in other organisations?

[Earl Attlee]

The noble Lord is basically right. Full driver terms and conditions, including salaries, are confidential to the drivers concerned; however, a glance at the London Midland website states that the company is advertising for qualified drivers at a salary of £42,620, while Chiltern Railways, by comparison, is advertising for qualified drivers and offering £46,344.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I have considerable sympathy for the Chancellor. Last weekend, I found myself totally confused by first class, second class, the price of tickets, which line to be on and everything else. When I showed my rail card with an old photograph of me, the ticket inspector said, “Gosh, you look like George Osborne”, which was a bit of a shock. Does not the noble Earl feel that we should try to simplify this plethora of ticket types and rules? It is totally confusing.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that the ticket system is very complicated and no one has fully grasped the nettle, as yet, to put in place a better system.

[Lord Harris of Haringey]

My Lords, the noble Earl has repeatedly talked about the moving annual average. Does this mean that the rail company concerned is able to claim that it is always an average year in terms of its performance, in that it is worse than last year and better than next year?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, first, it is important to understand that the TOC has a target of continuously improving performance. Secondly, we need to understand that the penalties for breaching the contractual obligations are actually quite serious; so under the system of measuring performance it is possible for the TOC to have a few bad weeks and not be in breach of contract, but if it continues in that way, it will, under the terms of the franchise, eventually end up in breach of contract and be vulnerable to serious consequences.

[The Countess of Mar]

My Lords, does the noble Earl agree that it is not just the salary that matters with a job; job satisfaction involves all sorts of other factors such as being respected by your employer, being given decent working hours, being able to expect to work on certain days and not others, and always having something to anticipate that is good? This, I am afraid, is where London Midland has fallen down, and is why it is not retaining its drivers. Can anything be done to encourage it to be good to its workforce?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Countess is absolutely right. What actually encourages London Midland to sort this problem out are the provisions of the franchise that contain the necessary penalties.

[Lord Grocott]

My Lords, does the noble Earl share the pleasure and delight that I certainly do in the knowledge that his grandfather presided over a wonderful Labour Government, who in 1948 nationalised the railways? Does he agree that in terms of managing the railways, that Labour Government were a huge improvement on this Conservative Government?

[Earl Attlee]

I am sure that the whole House will not be surprised to hear that I am very pleased at my grandfather’s achievements. However, there is a difficulty in having one nationalised industry: it is very difficult to determine the appropriate salary for a train driver when you have only one employer. We have several employers of train drivers and our experience is that train drivers are finding out who is the best employer, either in terms of salary or, as pointed out by the noble Countess, in relation to other terms and conditions.

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, do the Government have enough staff in the Department for Transport to micromanage all these franchises, to ensure that each driver is paid the right amount and that there are enough drivers, and then to impose the penalties if they fail? After the west coast main line franchise, possibly it should be recruiting another 50% of its civil servants.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I assure the House that my department does not have enough staff to micromanage the franchise. We have no intention of doing that. We receive reports on the cancellations but we do not need to micromanage.

[Lord Hamilton of Epsom]

Is my noble friend not concerned that the noble Lord, Lord Grocott, may be suffering from a failing memory if he thinks that the days of nationalised British Rail were better than what we have today?

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is quite right. As all noble Lords know, since the railways were privatised, we have seen a huge increase in passenger use and freight use.

Arrangement of Business

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Announcement

15:36

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, before we continue with the rest of the day’s business, I should like to make a short business statement.

The House will notice from the Order Paper that the main business today is no longer the second day in Committee on the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill, as we were expecting. Instead, we shall have a short day to consider the fast-tracked Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill.

The reason for not proceeding today with the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill is that late yesterday the noble Lord, Lord Hart of Chilton, tabled an amendment, printed as Amendment 28A on a supplementary sheet as it was too late to be included in the Marshalled List. Its intention is to change the date for the report from the Boundary Commission on parliamentary constituencies from before 1 October 2013 to not before 1 October 2018.

It became apparent to me in the course of yesterday evening that the advice of the Public Bill Office to the noble Lord, Lord Hart, was that his amendment was inadmissible and should not be tabled because it was not relevant to the Bill. It is worth pointing out that if a similar situation arose in the Commons and the clerks there came to a similar view, the clerks would advise the Speaker that the amendment was out of scope and inadmissible, and the amendment would simply not be moved. In our self-regulating House, we rely on Members taking the advice of the Public Bill Office. The Companion makes this clear:

“The Public Bill Office advises on whether an amendment is admissible and it is expected that this advice will be taken”.

The noble Lord, Lord Hart, has however, insisted that the amendment be tabled against the advice not only of the Public Bill Office but of the Clerk of the Parliaments. The Companion provides that in the rare circumstances that a Member of this House tables an amendment against the advice of the clerks, it is for me, as Leader of the House, to ask the House to endorse the opinion of the Public Bill Office. If the amendment comes before the House when the Bill is next considered, I will readily invite the House to endorse that advice, as any Leader would be bound to do. However, that is not a decision for today.

Yesterday evening, I decided that, in view of the highly contentious nature of the amendment and the clear advice of the clerks, the House needed the opportunity to reflect on that advice before taking a decision on this matter. The Chief Whip withdrew the Bill from the Order Paper and informed the Opposition and the usual channels, and I have placed a copy of the advice from the Public Bill Office in the Library of the House. I would prefer an informed debate next week to an ill-informed, disorderly row today.

By the late tabling of an inadmissible amendment the noble Lord proposed to ask the House to act precipitately without notice and against the advice of the clerks. This is not how we should go about our work. These are the reasons why I have changed the business before us today, to enable the House to reflect carefully before it takes a decision either on the admissibility of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, or on its merits. I believe that it is a decision made in the best interests of the House.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I thank the Leader of the House for his statement seeking to explain why the House is not dealing today with the business it was expecting to consider—indeed, the business that the House should be considering today. Until this morning the Order Paper for today contained as first business after Questions the second day of the Committee stage of the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill. Yesterday lunchtime—not late, and well within the rules as set out in the Companion—noble Lords, Lord Hart of Chilton, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, Lord Rennard, and Lord Wigley, tabled an amendment to the Bill, the effect of which would be to delay for five years the proposed changes to parliamentary constituency boundaries for the election of Members to the House of Commons.

There was an issue on whether the amendment was within the scope of the Bill. The parliamentary clerks, serving your Lordships’ House argued that boundary changes were not relevant to registration. Supporters of the amendment considered that since boundaries are determined by the number of registered voters in an area, registration was highly relevant to boundary changes. The amendment’s supporters obtained written advice from Queen’s Counsel to this effect. That advice was provided to the clerks; they still disagreed.

We are not in the House of Commons, as the Leader of the House is oft wont to point out, and the House of Lords Companion stipulates that it is for your Lordships’ House itself, and no one else, to reach a decision on such contested issues about relevance. The supporters of the amendment have been scrupulous in ensuring that the clerks have had time to consider the issue. Some time during yesterday afternoon the Government became aware of the amendment. According to media reports, some time during the afternoon or early evening, there was communication between the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister about the amendment. At 8.18 pm last night my noble friend the Opposition Chief Whip received an e-mail from the Government Whips’ Office saying:

“Lord Bassam, the Leader has asked me to let you know that the order paper for tomorrow has changed and no longer contains the Electoral Administration Bill. The Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill will thus be first (and only) business”.

That was the first intimation from the Government business managers of any change. There had been no consultation, as required by the Companion. An Order Paper was then published today without the Electoral Registration and Administration Bill on it. Those are the facts. They show not this self-regulating House determining its order of business, through the operational proxy for a self-regulating House of the usual channels, but the order of business in your Lordships’ House being determined by the Leader of the House. That is not right. That is not how this House conducts its business.

Of course, the Leader can have an influence on the order of business in the Lords—that is proper. After all he leads the government party whose business your Lordships’ House must consider. The Government are entitled to have their business considered, but in this case their business is not in jeopardy. The principle of the House of Lords determining its own business goes to the heart of its independence from the Government. That principle is reflected in the Companion. The Companion allows the Peer in whose name a notice is on the Order Paper to withdraw that notice, but that is intended to deal with cases when the Peer for some reason cannot carry out the business. It is not intended to override paragraph 3.30 of the Companion.

We understand that the Government are resting their case of their ability to pull business in this way on Standing Order No 42 (1)—a standing order passed as recently as 26 March 1852. The Government really need to do better than this. If they want to rearrange business, they should do so through the usual channels, as made clear in the Companion. The correct course for the Government last night was to seek agreement through the usual channels. If agreement was not forthcoming, the correct course would be for your Lordships’ House to be asked to agree the change of business today—in other words, for a statement to be made to the House which could then be debated, and if necessary challenged. I know that the noble Lord is making a statement today but it is after the publication of the new Order Paper.

15:45

In terms of the merits of the amendment tabled, the argument being put is not a political, and certainly not a party political, one. It is an argument about supporting a proper system of democracy and about certainty in the democratic system when candidates for election to the House of Commons are already being selected under a system which is now wholly lacking in clarity. That is the argument that we on these Benches and on many sides of the House want to engage in when the amendment in question comes before your Lordships’ House. It will then be for your Lordships’ House and no one else—not the Leader of the House, not the clerks, not the Opposition—to decide on that amendment on its merits. But, at the heart of this issue today are not the merits of the amendment: it is who determines the House’s business—the Leader or this House: this self-regulating House.

I would be content with the following course. First, that the Government accept that the procedural position as to who determines the business is as I have described it, as set out in the Companion. Secondly, that the Government advise the House of their proposed plans for the Committee stage of the Bill. I understand from what the noble Lord has said that the Government wish to have a short pause—which is acceptable—until Monday of next week to consider their position. We would not find that unreasonable. However, I would like an assurance from the Leader of the House that the House will indeed have the Committee stage of the Bill on Monday. The House needs that assurance—and it needs it today.

It needs it beyond it currently being on the Order Paper because, as we have seen in this instance, the attitude of the Government towards your Lordships’ House is that the Order Paper setting out the business of this House is not worth the paper on which it is printed. I invite the Leader of the House to give those assurances now.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, it is interesting how two people can look at the same set of events and come to two completely different conclusions. However, it was ever thus.

It is worth pointing out for the record that I received the clerks’ formal advice at about ten-past eight last night. Less than 10 minutes later, my office informed the Opposition that the business for today had changed. I do not have to remind the House that my noble friend the Chief Whip is responsible for the arrangement of business. It is a commonplace but it is also set out in paragraph 3.30 of the Companion. Of course, we always try to work through the usual channels. The clerks this morning confirmed that the Chief Whip has authority to schedule government business, and only the Government can schedule government business. The Chief Whip can withdraw an item from the Order Paper at any time without first consulting the usual channels—and frequently does with secondary legislation and Back-Bench business.

Noble Lords must ask themselves what would have happened if the Government had tabled an amendment to their own Bill—which they do many times—with minimum notice, had received advice from the clerks that it was inadmissible and had demanded that the House should vote to overturn its own rules. The first people who would be rightly outraged by such an action would be noble Lords opposite. That is why I acted in the way that I did.

I cannot agree with the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition on her interpretation of how business is arranged, although, as she and I and the House know, the usual channels work on the overwhelming majority of occasions extremely well.

I expect the business to be taken next Monday—it is in the Forthcoming Business—but the most important thing at the moment is that there is scope for reflection by all sides before then. It is good to hear the noble Baroness say that we should bring forward government legislation. I can assure her that in the weeks and months ahead we shall have plenty more legislation.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

Perhaps I may respond briefly on three points. I hear what the noble Lord says, that he did not have the opinion from the clerks until eight o’clock last night, but as I say, we tabled—not we, but my noble friend and three other—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hart of Chilton is a Member of the Labour Benches. Would it not be surprising if we were not aware of what was happening? As I understand it, the four noble Lords in question tabled their amendment shortly after midday yesterday, at 12.30 pm. I cast no aspersions, but I am therefore surprised that the noble Lord was not informed of the views of the clerks until 8.30 last night.

Paragraph 3.30 of the Companion refers to the “usual channels”, but it always talks about consultation. I know that with secondary legislation from time to time, the noble Baroness the Chief Whip will do things without consultation, but it is absolutely usual for the usual channels to do things in consultation, and that is what has not happened on this occasion.

In response to the noble Lord’s point about amendments being tabled on the eve of the debate on them, perhaps I may gently remind the noble Lord the Leader of the House that the Government frequently table amendments, admissible or inadmissible, on the eve of their being debated.

[Lord Dholakia]

My Lords, I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, as I have listened carefully to what the Leader of the Opposition has said on this matter. We can argue about what methods should have been used to reach a decision, as the noble Baroness said, but we are where we are at the present time. I accept the reason given by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that the matter requires careful consideration and reflection, and for that reason we would certainly support his point of view in terms of pulling this amendment out.

The Clerk of the Parliaments has offered advice. By its very nature it is advisory to the House, and it is for your Lordships’ House to determine whether to accept it or not. The intervening time will give an opportunity to all Members of the House to listen to and read the advice and the reasons for it. They will then be able to reach their own opinion. The intervening period gives us not only time to reflect but, having done so, we can come back to the House to debate the advice with a view to reaching a resolution on this matter.

There is a further matter. If the advice from the Clerk of the Parliaments is that the amendment is out of the scope of the Bill, we would certainly want to seek his advice as to how to bring it within scope so that it can be debated by noble Lords. Having said that, the substantive matter will still need a resolution. Let me make the position of my party absolutely clear. It is the position which has been made clear by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. This was not part of the coalition agreement and it does breach any agreement we have reached with the Conservative Party. For that reason, we on this side of the House will support the amendment when it is debated.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for his support for the action that I have taken today. I agree with his invitation to noble Lords to reflect and read the advice and thus become informed about the issues. I am also equally keen that we should resolve the issues before us.

It is perhaps worth reminding the House that I have placed a copy of the clerks’ advice in the Library. As to why the amendment is inadmissible, in short, amendments have to be relevant to the subject matter of the Bill. The Bill is about two things: individual electoral voter registration and the administration and conduct of elections. The clerks’ advice, which I endorse, is that the question of boundaries, just like the question of the franchise, is relevant to neither of the purposes of the Bill before us. As to whether the clerks could make it admissible—I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hart, asked that question when he originally tabled his amendment.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords—

[Lord Wakeham]

My Lords, in my experience there is very little that is new in this House and I have no doubt that inadmissible amendments have been tabled in the past. However, can my noble friend the Leader of the House tell me what the experience in the past in this House has been? Has the House ever voted on an inadmissible amendment and, if so, how often?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, the records reveal that the Public Bill Office has had to correspond in these circumstances on only five occasions in the past 20 years. On every occasion, the Member concerned respected the advice of the Public Bill Office and the amendment was not moved.

[Lord Morris of Aberavon]

Will the Leader of the House make it quite clear beyond peradventure that the ultimate decision is for the House and that the concept of scope and relevance is not without difficulty?

[Lord Strathclyde]

Yes, my Lords, I confirm to the noble and learned Lord that that is what is laid out in our Companion. However, perhaps I can repeat the words in the Companion:

“The Public Bill Office advises on whether an amendment is admissible and it is expected that this advice will be taken”.

In House of Lords language that is a very strict view that the advice should be taken. As I pointed out in responding to my noble friend Lord Wakeham, it usually is.

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, is it not just passing strange that someone who until very recently regarded this House with little short of disdain should now be seeking to use this House for entirely divisive political purposes, in a Bill where the Minister in charge is of the Liberal Democrat persuasion and would have to stand on his head rather than vote?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I do not really know all the ins and outs of the genesis of this amendment. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hart, was acting in good faith and encouraged others to support him. As regards my noble friend, I have complete faith in his abilities to take this Bill through.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall]

My Lords, can the Leader of the House assist the House by explaining how the business will proceed on Monday—and, indeed, how it would have proceeded had we taken it today—in respect of the relationship between the question of admissibility and the substantive issue to which the amendment relates? It is my impression, and he will no doubt correct me if I am wrong, that it would be very difficult to discuss the admissibility of the amendment without discussing its substance. I do not see how that can be done. Can the Leader of the House explain the likely nature of the debate on Monday when we come to it?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, there would be two questions before the House. The first would be a question on admissibility. I suspect that the noble Baroness is entirely correct that, during the course of that debate, there would be discussions on the substance of the amendment. It would be difficult to see how one could progress without that taking place. When that is settled, if the House agrees to support the view of the clerks, then the amendment would not be taken; if the House decided to continue with the amendment, there would be a second, alternative debate in the normal manner on the amendment and the House would need to take a decision on how to dispose of that.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

My Lords, we are getting into very treacherous waters. When I was Secretary of State for Scotland, I had to sign a Boundary Commission report that effectively wrecked my constituency. It never occurred to me for a moment not to do so, because the convention was that the Boundary Commission reports were sacred and people did not play party political games with them. Although it is for this House to decide its business, it is surely also absolutely central to its operation that we respect the views of the clerks. If we do not, we will be lost.

15:59

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, with all his experience and good judgment, my noble friend makes an extremely good point, which is on the substantive issue of the amendment. I agree with him that we are getting on to very treacherous ground, not least because—look around this House—none of us is elected to anything. Surely it would be better to let the House of Commons, which is elected and is impacted by this, to look at this first of all.

Perhaps I might correct something I said a moment ago to the noble Baroness on what will happen when we debate this issue. I will do my duty as Leader of the House and draw the attention of the House to the advice of the Public Bill Office and ask the House to endorse that advice. The previous occasion this happened was during the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill on 4 July 2011, when the mood of the House was to support the advice of the clerks, and good order, and the noble Lord concerned chose not to move his amendment. There is, however, no mechanism to prevent the noble Lord, Lord Hart—if it is he—from moving his amendment and, if he insists, the amendment will still be put before the House.

[Lord Martin of Springburn]

My Lords, the Leader of the House has given all of us an opportunity to look at this matter in a reasoned way, because of the delay. As someone who has spoken on this legislation, and who intended to speak on it today, I would have been very concerned to see a brand new amendment talking about delaying the boundary changes for several years. More senior Members than I can remember that there was a great dispute around 1980 because there was a delay in the boundary changes and it was felt that that was undemocratic. A knock-on effect of that delay was that when a Member of Parliament in Glasgow died—my good friend the late Tom McMillan—his constituency consisted of an electorate of 20,000, which was just slightly bigger than a regional ward in the Strathclyde region, because of those delays.

The time factor given to us by the Leader of the House has given us all a chance to reflect on this amendment, which I have not had the opportunity to examine. I would be very concerned about any amendment where the advice of the Clerk of the Parliaments has been rejected. I understand that it is advice that the officials give and it does not necessarily need to be taken, but it is sound advice that the Clerk gives. I am not taking sides with the Labour Party or the Conservative Party or indeed the Liberal party, but at least with this delay people like me, who have taken an interest in this legislation, can go to the Clerk and make him an even busier man than he is at the moment and get advice, and ask him why he feels that this matter is out of the scope of the business before us. I do not see any harm in a delay. In fact, often it is better to have a delay so that we can come to a reasoned decision.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, following on from the point that has just been made, as I understand the position in the House of Commons, if this were to happen there, the clerks would advise the Speaker. The Speaker would then consider the advice and would decide whether or not he wanted to accept it. If he decided that he wanted to accept it, he would rule the amendment inadmissible and therefore it would not be taken. If, on the other hand, he decided to overrule the clerks’ advice, which he is perfectly entitled to do, he could decide that the amendment was admissible and it would then be taken.

This House is self-governing; we do not have a Speaker. Who plays the role of the Speaker to decide that issue in this House? The answer is: the House as a whole. Therefore, we are in the same position as the Speaker of the House of Commons. We have been presented with advice from the Clerk, which I have not yet seen, as to a certain course that should be pursued. Just as the Speaker in the House of Commons can accept or reject that advice, so this House can accept or reject this advice.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, in order that we might use the time for reflection to best effect, would it not be highly desirable if the opinion which I understand has been taken by the noble Lord, Lord Hart, or others of the group pressing the amendment, was made available to us? We could then take that into account along with the advice given by the Clerk. Is my noble friend the Leader of the House aware whether that might be enabled?

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, might I answer that point? I shall ask my noble friend whether he will agree to place the opinion of counsel in the Library of the House alongside that of the Clerk of the House.

[Lord Reid of Cardowan]

My Lords, I may be the only one, but, further to the clarification which the Leader gave, I am now more confused than ever. He appeared to say that it would be open to this House to agree to proceed with a debate, but that it would not be open to it to deny a debate if the mover of the amendment insisted on proceeding with it. Did I understand him correctly and, if that is the case, does that apply to other Members of this House who have their name to the amendment? In other words, if any of them insisted on going ahead, must a debate take place? That is now my understanding of what the Leader said in his clarification. If he could confirm that, I would be obliged.

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, let me quickly confirm that. The answer to that is yes.

[Lord Pannick]

Did the Leader of the House consider inviting the House today to suspend consideration of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, but allowing the Committee to proceed with the other business under this important Bill, which many of us were prepared today to come along to attend to?

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I am grateful for the support of the noble Lord, Lord Martin of Springburn. I think that it was support not just for me as Leader of the House but for the correct procedures and processes in this House of Lords. What he said was extremely important and I hope that noble Lords will think very carefully about how they proceed having heard what he said and perhaps having read it in Hansard.

The noble Lord, Lord Richard, made a perfectly good point about who decides these matters. The fact is that we do not have a Speaker. We ultimately can decide these things for ourselves, but we have probably the best set of clerks in the world, who give us authoritative advice about these matters. My view is, and it was my view when I was Leader of the Opposition, that if the clerks take a view on something like this, we would accept it.

On what the noble Baroness the Leader of the Opposition said, I was not aware that a counsel had been taken on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Hart, and an opinion sought and received which will be made available. I am sure that that will be very useful to noble Lords who like to read that sort of thing, but I do wonder whether we really want to go in the direction of reaching for our lawyers every time there is an issue of disagreement. It is not so long ago when this House was the last court of appeal in this country; I think that we are a lesser House for having removed that function from it. So it is not something that I would greatly encourage.

I gave an answer to the noble Lord, Lord Reid. He was right to raise his question in a tone of incredulity. There is incredulity here that any noble Lord would wish to continue once the House had taken a view. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that I did not consider the option that he described. I dare say that it could have been open to us, but I felt that very few people in this House had any knowledge of what had happened yesterday afternoon and that I should bring it to the attention of the House as early as possible, which is what I have done, and allow for a period of reflection over the course of the next few days to see whether this can be sorted out and how to proceed.

Financial Services Bill

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

16:10

Moved By

[Lord Sassoon]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 4, Schedule 1, Clause 5, Schedule 2, Clause 6, Schedule 3, Clauses 7 to 11, Schedule 4, Clauses 12 to 14, Schedule 5, Clauses 15 to 21, Schedule 6, Clauses 22 to 28, Schedule 7, Clauses 29 to 34, Schedule 8, Clauses 35 and 36, Schedule 9, Clause 37, Schedule 10, Clause 38, Schedule 11, Clauses 39 and 40, Schedule 12, Clause 41, Schedule 13, Clauses 42 and 43, Schedule 14, Clause 44, Schedule 15, Clause 45, Schedule 16, Clauses 46 to 97, Schedule 17, Clauses 98 to 103, Schedules 18 and 19, Clauses 104 to 108, Schedules 20 and 21, Clauses 109 to 112.

Motion agreed.

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Bill

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Second Reading and Remaining Stages

16:10

Moved By

[Earl Howe]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, the purpose of this Bill is simple but urgent and vital. On Monday, I described to noble Lords how the need for it arose and came to light. I am glad to have this opportunity to continue that discussion today.

[Lord Skelmersdale]

My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt my noble friend on the Front Bench but it would be helpful to those noble Lords who want to listen to what he has to say about this important Bill if other noble Lords were to leave the Chamber silently.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I am grateful for that. I am glad to have this opportunity today to continue the discussion and explain further why we believe we must take this action. I begin by repeating my deep gratitude to noble Lords on all sides of the House for the highly constructive, sensitive and helpful approach that they are taking to this issue. Were it not for that, we would not be able to respond with the speed needed to resolve matters in the best way available to us and the best interests of patients.

As noble Lords appreciate, detaining a mentally ill person in hospital and treating them against their will is clearly a matter of the utmost seriousness, and must be treated as such both by the law and by health and social care practitioners. The statutory framework is contained in the Mental Health Act 1983, which sets out that for assessments and decisions under certain sections of the Act—including detention decisions under Sections 2 and 3—three professionals are required to be involved: two doctors and an approved mental health professional, usually a social worker. One of the two doctors must be approved under Section 12 of the Act.

To recap, when strategic health authorities were established in 2002, the Secretary of State at the time quite properly and lawfully delegated to them his function under the 1983 Act of approving the doctors able to be involved in making these decisions. Early last week, the Department of Health learned that in four of the 10 SHAs—North East, Yorkshire and Humber, West Midlands and East Midlands—the function of approving clinicians had been further delegated by the SHAs to NHS mental health trusts over a period extending, in some cases, from 2002 to the present day. The issue was identified as a result of a single doctor querying an approval panel’s processes. Ministers were informed later in the week as soon as the extent of the issue became clear and since then have been kept informed of and involved in the action being taken. Our current assessment is that about 2,000 clinicians were not approved properly in line with the provisions of the 1983 Act and that those clinicians have participated in the detention of between 4,000 and 5,000 of the patients currently detained in NHS or independent sector hospitals.

There are two important points to make clear now: first, the decision to detain a patient under the Mental Health Act is primarily a clinical one. There is no suggestion and no reason to believe that the irregularity of the approval process for these clinicians has resulted in any clinically inappropriate decision being made, whether the decision was to detain or not. Nor is there any suggestion that the clinicians approved by mental health trusts are anything other than entirely properly qualified to make these recommendations. All the proper clinical processes were gone through when these patients were detained. There is no reason why the irregular approval process should have led to anyone being in hospital who should not be—or vice versa—and no patients have suffered because of this. The clinicians had no reason to think that they had not been properly approved. They acted in total good faith and in the interest of their patients throughout this period.

As of Friday last week, the SHAs concerned had corrected their procedures and all the clinicians involved had been properly approved. In the light of our legal advice, we do not believe that any decisions that have been made about patients’ care and detention require review because of this irregularity. Doctors should continue treating patients who are currently detained under the Mental Health Act in the usual way.

The second point I want to make is that we have been advised by First Treasury Counsel that there are good arguments that the detentions involving these particular approval processes were, and are, lawful. Given the seriousness of the issues, counsel also argues the need for absolute legal clarity and advises that this is most safely resolved through emergency retrospective legislation. We are heeding that advice. As soon as the irregularity was identified, the department moved swiftly to identify the best course of action and to put the necessary preparatory work in place. Officials immediately sought initial legal and clinical advice and swiftly analysed the options, including the reassessment of all the potentially affected patients, working with the health leads in the regions involved and clinical experts from the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

When the Secretary of State was briefed on the situation, he asked for detailed information on the time it would take and the clinical risks involved in reassessing all potentially affected patients. Last Friday, he asked for an emergency Bill to be drafted over the weekend, as a matter of contingency. He briefed the Prime Minister personally the following day. Following further discussions and analysis over the weekend, the decision to introduce emergency legislation was taken on Sunday.

At all times, our priority has been to resolve this in a way that follows clinical advice about the most sensitive way to deal with a highly vulnerable group of individuals. It would not have been feasible quickly to reassess all the patients and could well have caused great distress to them and their families.

We have also worked to remedy the problem as it relates to current and future detentions. The accountable officers for the four SHAs in question have written to Sir David Nicholson, chief executive of the NHS, to confirm they have made the necessary changes to their governance arrangements. Furthermore, the accountable officers in the other six SHAs have written to Sir David to confirm that they have, in the light of this issue, reviewed their own arrangements and that they are in full compliance with the Mental Health Act.

Our best medical advice is that all the detained patients who have been affected and, where appropriate, family members, should be informed, but first we need to consider carefully how best to give people all the information and advice that they are entitled to in ways that do not cause unnecessary confusion or distress, so we need to take a little more time to make sure we get that right. Sir Bruce Keogh, the NHS medical director, will write shortly to SHA medical directors with further advice, which will be informed by the view of clinical experts and organisations representing detained patients and their families. It is vital that doctors, other mental health professionals and, most importantly, patients and their families have absolute confidence in the decisions made.

I am also aware that Mind and Rethink Mental Illness are providing very helpful advice to patients and their families and carers through their information lines and on the websites. This is just one aspect of the valuable assistance they have provided in dealing with this matter, and I am very grateful to them for it.

I will turn now to the scope of the Bill. Although we are aware of the problem only in the four areas going back to 2002, the Bill applies in principle to the approval of all clinicians under the Mental Health Act since its introduction in 1983. It retrospectively validates the approval of clinicians by those organisations to which responsibility was delegated up to the point when all the relevant clinicians were fully reapproved and their status put beyond doubt.

I would like to clarify who this Bill is targeted at. The “persons” referred to in Clause 1(1) are those who have exercised the approvals function only—no one else, and no other function—under the Mental Health Act 1983. Although it addresses a very particular issue, the Bill deliberately avoids going into further detail about which persons it applies to. Attempting to include a totally comprehensive list of which bodies or people believed in good faith that they were exercising the approvals function in the past would have created what we believe would have been an unacceptably high risk of omitting agencies or individuals that should have been included.

Although the Bill may appear to bestow a wide-ranging retrospective validation on “any person”, in fact, it is very narrowly targeted. It validates only any approvals given in the past and relates only to the function of giving approvals to clinicians as having particular skills—for example, as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. Once approved, the clinicians are then allowed to carry out certain functions under the Mental Health Act, such as giving medical recommendations in relation to a patient whose possible detention is being considered. The Bill helps to ensure that we regularise the situation completely and finally.

Crucially, the Bill will not deprive anyone of any of their normal rights to seek redress if they have been detained for any other reason apart from the narrow issue of the delegation of authority to approve by the SHAs. Nor will it affect any future detentions or legitimise any similar failures in future.

Necessary as we believe that it is to address the issue in this way, it is also important that we get to the bottom of how this happened. Therefore, the Secretary of State has asked Dr Geoffrey Harris, chair of NHS South of England and former chair of Buckinghamshire Mental Health Trust, to undertake an independent review looking at how this responsibility was delegated by these four SHAs and, more broadly, the governance and assurance processes that all SHAs use for delegating any responsibilities. We will also ask Dr Harris to look at this in the context of the new NHS structures that come into force from next April to see whether any lessons need to be learnt.

It is imperative that this review is swift, and we have asked Dr Harris to report by the end of the year with recommendations to ensure that every part of the system employs the highest standards of assurance and oversight in the delegation of any functions.

In conclusion, I stress to the House that we have reviewed thoroughly with lawyers, clinicians and NHS managers all possible alternatives to introducing this retrospective legislation. We have been advised that all alternatives would be highly disruptive to the welfare of many of the most vulnerable patients within the mental health system, and would also deprive many other patients of the care they need while any action is undertaken. That is why, in such exceptional circumstances, we are proposing this retrospective legislation.

16:23

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I will keep my remarks short given the need to progress the Bill through its remaining stages in this sitting. I was briefed over the weekend and I am happy to give it my support. The most important thing is that the patients affected by the legislation are the most vulnerable, posing a danger to themselves or to others. They need, as do the public, a solution to this dilemma, and it needs to be found as quickly as possible. Doctors need that resolving too. For the past 10 years, they have been practising competently in blissful ignorance of their situation, assuming that they are approved.

The Bill is retrospective and, like others, I regret that, but I am totally convinced of the need for it and confident that appropriate advice has been taken. However, some questions still arise. Can the Minister confirm that the intention of Clause 1 is to give power not only retrospectively but with effect from today? Can we be confident that people who think that they are approved today actually are and do not need to undergo any validation or approvals? Further, can we be confident that until 1 April 2013 there is a process in place for people wishing to be approved? If that is the case, and given the demise of SHAs, can the Minister please tell the House what the process will be for registering doctors with effect from April next year and how the preparations for this transfer of responsibility are being progressed?

I am pleased that there will be an independent review of what went wrong in these SHAs leading to this state of affairs. I understand that this will extend only to this narrow issue but it begs another question. Where is the definitive list of SHA roles and responsibilities and who is the guardian of that list? Can we be confident that there are no other areas where action has not been taken by some or all of the SHAs? Can we be equally confident that they will not be lost in the process of transition away from the world of SHAs and PCTs towards that of the national Commissioning Board and CCGs?

Finally, I return to the patients. When the Statement was debated earlier this week the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, who is not in her place today, brought up communication with patients. The noble Earl has just outlined what is going to happen. However, can he update the House on the timescale? I repeat that I am happy to support this Bill. However, it raises many questions about associated issues and I would be grateful if my noble friend the Minister were able to help clarify these matters.

16:27

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, there is undoubtedly a problem which needs to be addressed by emergency and retrospective legislation. I am very grateful to the Minister for explaining the background circumstances. It is very regrettable, indeed astonishing, that this problem has arisen but it has and we need to deal with it.

Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee, of which I am a member, considered the Bill this morning. Your Lordships do not have a formal report from the Constitution Committee because of the urgency but perhaps I may mention two points that we discussed. First, the committee noted with satisfaction that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill address all the issues which the committee advised in its report on fast-track legislation should be addressed by the Government when bringing emergency legislation before the House. We are very grateful for that.

The second point is more substantial. The terms of Clause 1(1) are very broadly defined indeed. They are not confined to the particular mischief which has caused the problem—that is, the actions of strategic health authorities in purporting to delegate the exercise of approval functions to the NHS mental health trusts and the consequent acts of those trusts in granting the approvals. Clause 1(1) is not confined to addressing that mischief which, as I understand it, is the mischief that has prompted this emergency and retrospective legislation. Instead, subsection (1) says that “Any person”—the noble Earl explained that that is deliberately wide and undefined—who has purported to exercise an approval function,

“is to be treated for all purposes as having had the power to do so”.

Clause 1(1) would appear to validate any action in the purported exercise of the approval function, provided it was done before Royal Assent, even though there was a lack of legal power—however that lack of legal power may have been caused and whatever the extent of the legal impediment. Clause 1(1) is not confined to the mischief of the possibly unlawful delegation of powers that causes this legislation to be brought forward.

I appreciate that Clause 1(1) has limits; it is confined to the approval function and it is not prospective, as the Minister emphasised. However, it is very broad in retrospectively validating any lack of powers in the purported performance by anyone of the approval function, whether or not it has anything to do with the delegation function that has been identified in the circumstances. This point was raised in the other place yesterday by Mr Andy Burnham for the Opposition, at col. 205 of Hansard. I have to say that the Minister’s reply was not convincing; he did not address the point. Your Lordships’ Constitution Committee expressed concern at our meeting this morning at the breadth of Clause 11, recognising as we did, I repeat, the need for retrospective emergency legislation in this area.

Why does Clause 1(1) not limit the remedy to the mischief—for example, by including at the end of Clause 1(1) the words “whether or not strategic health authorities had legal power to delegate the exercise of an approval function to an NHS mental health trust”, or something like them? I suggest that such legislation or something like it would implement the object of this emergency legislation but without purporting retrospectively to validate any and all other abuses of the approval function, if any, whatever the consequences may be for people who may have been unlawfully detained for any other reasons relating to the exercise, or the purported exercise, of the approval function.

I respectfully suggest to the Minister and to the House that emergency and retrospective legislation, particularly in a context such as this, concerned as it is with a very vulnerable section of our society, should be carefully drafted and limited in order to confine the remedy to fit the mischief. It would be most regrettable if the emergency legislation, by curing the delegation irregularity, were incidentally—and, I am sure, unintentionally—to prevent legal action by people who may have been unlawfully detained by reason of an unreasonable or improper use of an approval function, which has nothing to do with delegation.

16:34

[Baroness Murphy]

My Lords, I give my general wholehearted support to this. I am very sympathetic to the difficulties in which the Government find themselves and I wholly understand the need for the emergency legislation. It seems to me quite astonishing that these four health authorities should have made this decision. I say that because at that time in 2002, I also became chairman of a strategic health authority. I want to reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, that we had a very long list of our legal obligations, of which one was clearly the approval of Section 12 approved doctors. It was discussed. It is very difficult and time consuming to set up the training programmes to ensure that the right wisdom is in place and to supervise those being approved by the authority itself. I quite understand that people might have thought that it would be easier to delegate it but the 1983 Act is so clear that I cannot understand how these four authorities could have thought that they could delegate that.

Speaking as a former vice-chair of the Mental Health Act Commission in the 1990s, I would like to ask why that commission did not pick up that these Section 12 approved doctors were being approved by the wrong authorities. I find that quite astonishing. While I can see the need for this legislation and the reason for the emergency, I hope that we will look carefully at how they got this so wrong.

I have a suspicion that the difficulty may arise because of an attitude in some authorities to treating with less gravity the detention of mental health patients than perhaps it is in others. As you travel around the country, regrettably it is true that this appears to be a lesser function for some authorities than they want to undertake, which is seriously worrying.

I share the anxieties that the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, has outlined that there could still be quacks or quite unsuitable doctors who have discharged the functions of an approved doctor; yet in this catch-all Bill their decisions would not allow patients to challenge them. After all, we are talking about right up to the present day. Therefore, we are talking about patients who perhaps are coming out of hospital in the next month or two and still want to challenge the legality of the detention because of the approval of the Section 12 approval. We are going to be ruling that out. I wonder how that sits well with our assurances that we will take this process more seriously, and as seriously as Parliament intended when it passed the 1983 Act.

16:37

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, detaining people under the Mental Health Act raises fundamental questions of individual liberty and public safety requiring the most careful consideration. When that is combined with emergency legislation of a retrospective nature, it is clear that the circumstances in which we find ourselves today are far from ideal. Your Lordships will want to satisfy themselves that the retrospective measures that the Government are asking us to approve are justified. We have to be sure that this is the only real course of action available and that we are not setting a precedent where emergency legislation can be used as a convenient means of correcting administrative failings.

In doing so, we must have at the forefront of our minds the simple fact that the uncertainty that has arisen in the past week affects thousands of highly vulnerable people and their families, as well as holding serious implications for patient and public safety. If we leave that uncertainty hanging, it has the potential to cause real harm to those individuals and damage public trust in our system of individual and public protection. That is why Her Majesty’s Opposition have concluded that the public interest is best served by the Government taking the swift action that they propose today.

In reaching that judgment, we can take comfort from the fact that the main mental health charities, as well as the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the devolved Administrations, are also supporting the Government’s course of action. We are further helped by the fact that the Minister has today set out a cogent case for this exceptional retrospective measure that is before your Lordships.

However, a number of matters of detail and of principle arise from what the Minister said, which I would like to cover today. It would be helpful for the House to know more about the extent of the checks that have been carried out on the 4,000 to 5,000 cases that the Minister mentioned. The fact that we have a very vague figure suggests that there has not yet been a thorough case-by-case review. Would the Minister agree that that has to be done and that we need to know the precise number on the extent of the problem?

I press the Minister again on the question of the people and families affected, who will no doubt be unsettled by the news of what has happened. I noted from yesterday’s proceedings in the other place that strategic health authorities have been charged with putting a proper communication process in place. With all respect, those very SHAs that did not do this properly have been charged with communicating with the patients. I would like to press the Minister on the point that my right honourable friend Mr Andy Burnham made yesterday about the need for his department to be involved in personal communication to the individuals concerned.

Alongside the question of the details, I ask the Minister about the details of individual SHAs and timing in terms of notification of the department. If it had happened in just one SHA, the explanation might be easier to ascertain and understand. But given that it has happened in four SHAs, it seems to point to a more widespread issue of concern. I share the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, on that point. Is it symptomatic of problems arising from historical practice among NHS bodies in those regions, or does it indicate that in those regions there may well have been a general problem with schemes of delegation? If the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, was able to do the job properly, it is very difficult to know why other SHAs were not so able to do the job, given the extensive legal advice available to strategic health authorities.

I would also like to ask the Minister about timing. On Monday, he said that knowledge arose because earlier in the year,

“a doctor challenged a refusal by the Yorkshire and Humber approvals panel to approve him under Section 12. This challenge highlighted the possibility that the Secretary of State's approval function, which had been properly delegated to SHAs, may, in some areas, have been unlawfully further delegated to NHS trusts. Yorkshire and Humber and then the northern SHA cluster took their own legal advice, which confirmed that the trust had been acting ultra vires in issuing the approvals. The northern SHA cluster identified that this applied to the arrangement in North East SHA and alerted the Midlands cluster, where it was possible that the same issue might apply in East Midlands and West Midlands”.

But it was not until 22 October that,

“the northern SHA cluster alerted the Department of Health to the issue surrounding the approval of doctors and the possible knock-on effects that that would have”.—[Official Report, 29/10/12; col. 449.]

If I have read that right, it seems to have taken a matter of six months or even more between the Yorkshire and Humber SHA, which I think has been subsumed into the northern SHA cluster, first knowing and its then not alerting the Department of Health. I am interested to know why it took so long for the department and Ministers to be alerted.

I come to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and whether the concept of “Any person” in Clause 1(1) of the Bill is too broad. On normal reading, it appears to legalise approvals by anybody. I know that the Minister said something about that in his introductory remarks. However, the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, regarding the outcome of the Constitution Committee’s deliberation this morning was helpful. He said that its reading of the draft is that it is not confined to the mischief of the improper use of delegated powers and, on the face of it, appears to give very broad and retrospective approval to actions that have been carried out in relation to the approval functions. This matter was raised in the other place by my right honourable friend Mr Andy Burnham yesterday when he asked for clarification. In response, Mr Norman Lamb said:

“I am grateful to the shadow Secretary of State for that intervention. We have gone through a very careful process and have followed legal advice on what is necessary to regularise the position. This relates specifically to the approval function, which is defined in clause 1(2). As I have said, the legal advice is that this is the best way to regularise the issue that has been uncovered”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/10/12; col. 205.]

I recognise that kind of response. It is the sort of response that one tries to get away with. Will the noble Earl give us a little more help on this matter? The clause, on the face of it, seems to go much wider than what would be deemed to be required.

We welcome the review. It will need to look at all the technical issues surrounding mental health so that this House and the public can be absolutely certain that there have been no other technical failures or breaches of regulation. We hope that Dr Harris will be able to undertake this review as swiftly as possible because it is important that it informs the current changes taking place in the National Health Service. We also hope that Dr Harris will be helped by independent professional involvement. Informing the new arrangements which will come in from April next year seems to me a very important part of the work of Dr Harris and his review.

As the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, said, we are not at all sure about how in practice the new arrangements will relate to the authorisation of doctors under the Mental Health Act. On Monday, the noble Earl said that in future those functions will come back to the Department of Health, but how will that be done in practice? I assume that we will continue to have local panels that will interview the doctors concerned and make recommendations on whether they should be authorised or not. But what happens then? Will the matter then go to the Secretary of State? Will he delegate to the NHS Commissioning Board or local NHS trusts? It is important that we know that there is clarity in the system. I certainly hope that Dr Harris’s review will inform that.

Finally, I echo a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, concerning whether this whole sorry episode is symptomatic of a wider cultural problem with regard to mental health in our National Health Service. Was the issue omitted from the lists of the four SHAs we are discussing because mental health is simply not given the priority that it ought to be given?

We are very glad that the Health and Social Care Bill, following its passage through your Lordships’ House, now includes parity of esteem for mental health services. I do not expect the noble Earl to go into the details of how the department is planning to turn that into a reality. However, in taking forward the work that needs to be done in Dr Harris’s review, it would be helpful to ensure that in future the health service as a whole accepts that legislation relating to people with mental health issues needs to be given as much priority and importance as legislation relating to other parts of the National Health Service.

16:55

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I again express my sincere gratitude to noble Lords who have spoken in this debate for recognising both the seriousness of the issue and the need for rapid action to resolve it. The expertise and wisdom that noble Lords bring to bear on these difficult questions has been extremely valuable. Regardless of the urgency, this is a matter that demands proper scrutiny, and that is exactly what the House is providing today, albeit within abnormal time constraints.

It is also important to record, once again, our appreciation of the invaluable help and advice that we have received from partners such as Mind, Rethink and the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Their primary concern is naturally those whom they represent so ably, but we are genuinely grateful for the mature and calm way that they have responded. We shared the same ultimate objective—to do what is best for the patients affected by a technical error.

I shall now do my best to address the questions put to me. Perhaps I may begin with the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, who relayed the concerns of the Constitution Committee. One of those concerns was why the Bill is drafted as it is, bearing in mind that the source of the mischief was the inappropriate delegation by strategic health authorities, resulting in the technical irregularity to which I have alluded. The answer to that question is that because we do not know the exact administrative arrangements that were in place before 2002 when SHAs came into being, it was impossible to limit in the way that the noble Lord suggested the framing of Clause 1. He suggested an addition at the end of Clause 1(1) specifying whether or not the SHAs had legal power to delegate. I can understand why the noble Lord made that suggestion, but we wanted to make sure that we captured any events of which we are currently unaware that may have occurred prior to 2002, before strategic health authorities were set up.

[Lord Pannick]

My Lords, because we are not going to have a full Committee stage, I hope that the Minister will indulge me in relation to this matter. Is there reason to think that there is any problem whatever other than delegation? I appreciate that it may relate to events prior to 2002, but surely it is only improper or possibly improper delegation of functions that is the mischief here.

[Earl Howe]

The main mischief, I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, is that the panels which approved the clinicians involved did not, strictly speaking, have the direct power to do that. That is the issue that the Bill tries to capture. The Bill deliberately does not include a comprehensive list of which bodies or persons believed in good faith that they were exercising the approvals function in the past. If we limited the Bill in the way that the noble Lord suggests, we would run the risk of failing to cover some of the approvals given by bodies that we may otherwise have failed to list. I ask the noble Lord to accept that the way in which the Bill is drafted is in the form of a blanket, which gives us certainty that we may not inadvertently have left out any bodies prior to 2002 that may have been guilty of a similar lack of authority.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I hope that the noble Earl will forgive my intervention because this is an important point. As the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, said, we are not having a Committee stage, and this is the only time when we can raise this matter.

The problem relates to the approval function. The way that I read it, as the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, put it so eloquently, is that there might be a quack who somehow got through the system because there has not been the sign-off by the strategic health authority, which could check that the panel had done the right thing by actually exercising an approval function in agreeing—as part of a panel—to someone losing their liberty and being sectioned under the Mental Health Act. The issue is whether this rather open-ended, retrospective clause would give the okay to that as well. The noble Earl has essentially suggested that the problem is the vagueness about the organisational arrangements that were in place prior to 2002. I understand that but it seems to read in such an open-ended way that it could give almost a green light to poor practice or practice that should not have taken place within the panel so constituted under the Mental Health Act.

[Earl Howe]

I understand the question but I believe that that concern is misplaced. The panels operating in this area apply agreed national criteria for approval. Those criteria are clear and extremely rigorous, and that is why we are confident that doctors must meet the same high standards across the country irrespective of whether this technical irregularity applies. The technical irregularity was simply that the panel did not refer back to the strategic health authority for ratification the recommendations that it had made. It is my understanding that strategic health authorities, as a matter of course, accept the advice of the specialist panels. Therefore, I do not share the worry that, somehow or other, quacks or inappropriate clinicians have been appointed to these very onerous and responsible roles.

I now turn to the other main concern raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, and the reason why the Bill has been drafted to refer to, “any person”. I see why he believes that the Bill appears to bestow a wide-ranging retrospective validation on any person, but in fact, the Bill is very narrowly targeted. It only validates any approvals given in the past and it relates only to the function of giving approvals to clinicians as having particular skills, for example, as having experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder. Once approved, the clinicians are then allowed to carry out certain functions under the Mental Health Act, as I said earlier. It is not the case that the Bill validates anyone other than persons who purported to approve clinicians. It is that role, and that role alone, that is referred to in the Bill.

The persons referred to in Clause 1(1) are as I have described. The Bill deliberately avoids going into further detail about which persons it applies to because, as I have said, attempting to include a totally comprehensive list of which bodies or people who believed in good faith that they were carrying out the approvals function would have created an unacceptably high risk of omitting agencies or individuals that should have been included. I hope that that is helpful.

I am advised in a further answer to the noble Lord, Lord Pannick, that if the power had been wrongly exercised by a panel and an inappropriate clinician had been authorised, that could still be challenged. That is to say: the challenge would be on the basis that the power was wrongly exercised but it would not be a challenge to the power to exercise the approval. I hope that that is helpful further clarification.

On the concerns raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, she asked how on earth strategic health authorities could have believed that they had this power to delegate. I share noble Lords’ dismay that we could have arrived at this situation but, having been advised by my officials, I am now more understanding of how this could have arisen. Strategic health authorities are able to delegate this function to certain bodies and in certain circumstances. However, they are not able to delegate it in the way that has come to light here. That is why we are legislating.

The options open to strategic health authorities for delegating their functions in relation to all issues are set out in regulations issued in 2002. In relation to the approval of clinicians under the Mental Health Act—which may include clinicians such as psychologists—there were also directions issued in 2008. Such approvals may be delegated to PCTs and therefore there is scope for legitimate confusion as to the exact way in which strategic health authorities had the power to delegate in this area.

I do not think there is any evidence for the fear expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Hunt and Lord Pannick, and the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, that mental health was somehow not being given the priority it should be in those four strategic health authorities. What happened was that rather than carry out the approval process in-house, the four strategic health authorities decided to deliver the function through a contract with a mental health trust, believing that the focus brought about through a specific contract and the expertise and connections of a mental health trust would deliver a more rigorous and effective approvals process. However, the effect of these arrangements was that the approval functions were to be carried out by the trust, and the regulations and directions specifically set out, as I have said, with which bodies the SHAs may make arrangements to exercise the functions. They cannot completely delegate their responsibility in the way that they did, but it can be exercised on their behalf by a committee, a sub-committee or an officer of the authority. In essence, the panels in the trusts should have been regarded as advisory to the SHA, not having the approval functions themselves.

The noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, asked why this was not picked up sooner. The incorrect delegation was within the process between the strategic health authority and the mental health trust. To all appearances, the process of approving doctors and the quality of the doctors in these four SHAs was the same as in the rest of the country. However, this is a matter with which Dr Harris will no doubt wish to concern himself.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me whether we could more precisely define the extent of the problem in terms of the number of patients affected. As of today, my advice is that the north and midlands SHA clusters have reported that they have currently identified 4,117 affected patients—1,265 in the north SHA cluster and 2,852 in the midlands.

I turn now to the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Jolly. She asked me whether the intention of Clause 1 is to give power not only retrospectively but also with effect from today. I hope I have made it clear that that is not the case. It takes effect from today retrospectively as soon as it receives Royal Assent, but it has no effect in relation to future approvals because all people involved in this process have now been properly approved. She asked me to confirm that the people who think they are approved actually are and do not need to undergo any validation or further approvals. The answer to that is yes, if she is referring to approved clinicians or Section 12-approved doctors, which I believe she is.

She asked about the lessons to be learnt from 1 April next year once strategic health authorities cease to exist and how the preparations for the transfer of responsibilities are being progressed. From next April, the Department of Health will be responsible for this specific approval process for approved clinicians. The Secretary of State said yesterday that while this will be a departmental process, we do not want the process to be remote from local areas. He also pointed out that we intend to have a structure that draws on local and regional expertise to help us make the right decisions on the suitability of doctors for the role, and we hope that Dr Harris will advise the department on this when he conducts his review.

The noble Baroness asked where the definitive list of SHA roles and responsibilities is and who is its guardian. The guardian is the Department of Health, while the actual list of strategic health authority roles is set out in the 2002 regulations, the National Health Service (Functions of Strategic Health Authorities and Primary Care Trusts and Administration Arrangements) (England) Regulations 2002, and the precise details on approved clinicians are set out in the Mental Health Act 1983 Approved Clinician (General) Directions 2008. That usefully lists the 28 competencies required of an approved clinician. She asked whether we can be confident that there are no other areas where action has not been taken by some or all of the SHAs. We know of no other areas or functions affected, but again Dr Harris’s review will look at the issues of governance and assurance of delegating responsibilities.

I thank the noble Baroness for making a valid point as regards the transition, but as I have alluded, the Harris review will look at issues of the governance and assurance of delegating responsibilities. Moreover, the review will report by the end of the year, so that will be before the completion of the transition process that my noble friend has so rightly brought to the attention of the House. The one remaining question my noble friend asked me concerned communicating with patients and the timescale of that. I shall repeat what I said before: we think that we need to take time to get things absolutely right, which I know she will understand. However, we hope to be able to issue advice within the next few days. I would reiterate that both the advice and the approach to delivering it will be agreed by both clinical experts and representatives of patients and families. I thought that I had covered every point, although I now see that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked me a question about approvals post April 2013. The one thing I should have added was that we do not intend to delegate the function to the NHS Commissioning Board.

I hope that I have now answered satisfactorily the questions that were raised and that I have provided additional reassurances where necessary. Again, I thank noble Lords and others outside the House for their understanding and for the very significant contribution they have made to the debate.

Bill read a second time. Committee negatived. Standing Order 46 having been dispensed with, the Bill was read a third time and passed.

Local Government Finance Bill

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

Returned from the Commons

The Bill was returned from the Commons with the amendments agreed to.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure to enable an exchange of messages with the other place and Her Majesty the Queen. I hope that we will resume in 30 minutes for the signification of Royal Assent.

17:05

Sitting suspended.

Royal Assent

Wednesday 31st October 2012 Lords Chamber

17:39

The following Acts were given Royal Assent:

European Union (Approval of Treaty Amendment Decision) Act,

Infrastructure (Financial Assistance) Act,

Local Government Finance Act,

Mental Health (Approval Functions) Act.

House adjourned at 5.39 pm.