House of Commons

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Thursday 13 December 2012

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

Canterbury City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Leeds City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Nottingham City Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Reading Borough Council Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Lords amendments to be considered on Thursday 20 December.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

10. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

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

19. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

[Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab)]

20. What steps he is taking to help households with their energy bills.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Helping people with energy bills is a top priority for us, so we have a range of initiatives including tariff reforms, energy-saving policies and direct help to cut the bills of those on the lowest incomes. From our consultation on proposals to help to get consumers on the cheapest tariffs to the green deal, and from the warm home discount to our promotion of collective switching, this Government will do whatever we can to help people and businesses to combat the effects of rising energy prices.

[Dr Whitehead]

Has the Secretary of State had a chance to peruse the report just produced by the Committee on Climate Change on the customer price differential between a renewable-rich strategy and a gas-rich strategy? Does he agree that that could represent a sixfold difference in long-term price increases for customers? Does he agree with the committee’s view, and will he be sharing his views with the Chancellor shortly?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman got a lot of questions in there. I have looked at the headlines but I cannot say that I have read the full report, although I certainly intend to do so. I agree that it poses some challenges to those who debate energy policy, because it suggests that with a high gas price prediction, we could see energy bills going up by, I think, £600, whereas under a renewables strategy it would be only £100. The Government are adopting a mixed-energy approach, so that we are not dependent on any single energy source and can therefore manage the risks, because we cannot know the future of gas prices or predict how the cost of renewables will go down. I believe that our approach is the best one for the British economy.

[Bill Esterson]

The cost of energy is crucial for the nearly 10,000 pensioners in my constituency, and I am worried about the Government’s policy to get people on to the lowest tariff. What would happen if the energy companies simply raised the price of the lowest tariff? How would the Secretary of State address that problem?

[Mr Davey]

We have taken a balanced approach in our tariff reform proposals, on which we are now consulting. We have tried to ensure that those people who are on so-called dead tariffs, or on unnecessarily high tariffs, will automatically be switched down to the lowest tariff, given their preferences. We have also tried to ensure that there will still be competition, in that there will be four classes of core tariff so that the energy companies will be able to compete using those tariffs. The key is to try to help people who do not engage with the energy market to get a good deal, as well as to ensure that competition can deliver for consumers and for businesses.

[Meg Hillier]

With respect, the Energy Secretary has not answered my hon. Friend’s question. How are the Government going to ensure that the energy companies do not simply raise the price of their lowest tariff so that it is no longer as low as it was in the past?

[Mr Davey]

With respect, I did answer the question. It involves something called competition. On this side of the House, we understand competition and how it supports consumers. I have to say to Opposition Members that an awful lot of people were asking the last Labour Government why they did not sort out the multitude of tariffs that were creating complexity and confusion and getting in the way of competition. Through our simplification, we are helping the most vulnerable people and those who have been on dead tariffs and paying far too much for their energy, but we are also ensuring that competition can deliver for our economy.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Jim McGovern. He is not here.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

23. The Secretary of State will be aware that Scottish and Southern Energy has indicated that pre-payment customers will now be able to enjoy the same rates as other customers. Is he going to persuade the other suppliers to do exactly the same?

[Mr Davey]

It is great news because it shows how competition can assist in this process. I refer the hon. Lady to Ofgem’s retail market review analysis, which showed that customers on prepayment meters can save an average of £65 and up to £152 by switching to the cheapest deal within that prepayment method. The proposals we are taking forward really will help people on prepayment meters.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to reduce energy bills is to reduce energy use? With that in mind, can he tell us whether he has reached an agreement with the green investment bank to help to fund the green deal?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right: when it comes to energy bills, saving energy is the best way to save money. The green investment bank is engaging with my Department and the Green Deal Finance Company over the support it will give to the green deal. I cannot make an announcement today. All I can say is that the green investment bank is being helpful on the green deal, as on many other areas, and that it is a victory for this Government that we have introduced the green investment bank.

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

Energy bills have risen by nearly £300 since this Government came to power. I agree with what hon. Members have just said—that one of the best ways for households to protect against rising prices is to improve the energy efficiency of their properties—yet the launch of the Government’s green deal scheme has been shambolic. I listened to the Secretary of State’s answer and noted that he cannot tell us even whether the green investment bank is going to capitalise the green deal, yet he expects people to sign their green deals in just over a month’s time. The number of homes expected to be insulated next year is set to fall dramatically. The Insulation Industry Forum is warning that low green deal uptake will mean that 16,000 jobs are set to be lost in the sector next year. Will the Secretary of State guarantee that he will not let that happen?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady does not seem to understand the green deal, For a start, it is being launched on 28 January, after the soft work we have seen over the last few months to prepare for it. We believe it will be a huge success. I believe the green deal should have cross-party support, and I hope that the hon. Lady will confirm from the Dispatch Box that the Opposition support it. The green investment bank’s support for the green deal will not be direct; it will come through supporting the financial arrangements of the credit. I thought the hon. Lady would understand that. As for predictions on insulation, I think we should wait. I believe the green deal will support the market and that it will be a real step forward.

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, to which I listened carefully. We have been working on the green deal for over two years now, yet in five weeks’ time the Secretary of State expects consumers to sign a deal when they do not know what the interest rate and the cost of the finance will be, which I think will be crucial to the success of the scheme, which we all want. Rising prices are hitting all consumers, but their effects are felt most by those in fuel poverty. Two years ago, the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said at the Dispatch that his Government would really attack fuel poverty, yet uSwitch estimates that the number of those in fuel poverty has risen to 6 million under this Government. Analysis by National Energy Action has shown that even after the measures introduced by this Government, such as the warm home discount, funding for fuel-poor and low-income households will be cut by half from January. Will the Secretary of State now apologise for breaking his promise to the millions of people who will be feeling the cold this winter?

[Mr Davey]

This Government are doing everything they can to tackle fuel poverty. My predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Chris Huhne), set up the review to look at how we measure fuel poverty, and that concluded that the last Government could not even measure fuel poverty correctly. We are using a whole set of new initiatives, including collective switching, using the power of people coming together. One would have thought that Labour Members would have used that in their 13 years in power. They failed to use the collective principle to try to help people; we are doing that, and we are determined to tackle fuel poverty.

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

2. What steps he has taken to exploit reserves of shale gas in the UK.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

13. What steps he has taken to exploit reserves of shale gas in the UK.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

15. What assessment he has made of the environmental effects of shale gas exploitation in the UK.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

17. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that safety and environmental concerns regarding shale gas exploration and extraction are addressed before shale gas reserves are developed.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Shale gas may prove to be a useful addition to the UK’s diverse portfolio of energy sources, and would be particularly valuable in replacing declining North sea supplies, with benefits to energy security as well as to the economy and employment—but its exploitation will be acceptable only if it is safe and the environment is properly protected.

Hydraulic fracturing operations for shale gas were suspended last year, pending consideration of seismic events in Lancashire. Based on the latest evidence and expert advice, and having considered the responses to a public consultation on that advice, I have concluded that, in principle, fracking for shale gas can be allowed to resume— subject to new controls to mitigate the risk of seismicity. I have made full details available to both Houses by means of a comprehensive written statement tabled this morning.

[Andrew Selous]

I want to see proper environmental safeguards and generous community benefits for the areas where fracking will take place, but does my right hon. Friend agree that shale gas has the potential not only to lead an industrial renaissance in this country but to play a serious part in dealing with fuel poverty?

[Mr Davey]

I agree that shale gas has an important part to play in our energy mix and in our economy, and I also agree that we must ensure that communities benefit and that there is proper environmental regulation. I have been very impressed by the way in which Members in all parts of the House have contributed to the debate and to the Department’s thinking, but I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies), who, along with the independent experts, has really influenced our thinking. It is very important for us to take the public with us as we explore the potential for shale gas in the United Kingdom.

[Paul Maynard]

Many of my constituents remain concerned about the parallels that they perceive between shale extraction in the United States and what is being planned in the United Kingdom. Will the Secretary of State say a little more about why he thinks that the regulatory environment here will be superior to that of the United States, thereby disproving many of the alarmist stories that are circulating?

[Mr Davey]

Let me also pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend has done for his constituents, who I know are concerned about shale gas. I can reassure him that the regulations that we already have in the United Kingdom are much stronger than those in many American states where fracking for gas has been taking place for many years. We have the regulations, controls and powers of the Environment Agency, the regulations, controls and powers of the Health and Safety Executive and the regulations, controls and powers of my own Department, so we already have a strong regulatory regime. However, if the exploration suggests that there is potential for commercial development and we move in that direction, we will keep that regime under review, and will tighten and strengthen it if necessary. Today’s announcement is about new controls to ensure that seismicity is not a problem.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s reassurance that environmental and safety concerns will be given a high priority, but some people fear that those whom the press have dubbed the frackheads in the Government are rushing ahead with tax incentives for shale gas exploration without taking the time to look into those concerns first. Can the right hon. Gentleman reassure me that no tax incentives will be introduced until we are 100% sure that it is safe to go ahead with fracking in this country?

[Mr Davey]

I do not think that anyone has described me as a frackhead. My job is to make certain that the environmental and safety controls are there, and I believe that the work that we have done, particularly on the seismicity aspect but also on other aspects, can reassure the public in that regard. I am determined to ensure that the environment is properly protected, and as Members will see if they read my statement, I have also commissioned a study of the potential impact of shale gas exploration on greenhouse gas emissions. I hope that that will reassure people on the environmental side as well.

[Mark Menzies]

I welcomed the announcement of the formation of the Office for Unconventional Gas last week, and I thank the Secretary of State and Ministers for all the work that they have done in that respect. However, some of my constituents have subsequently expressed concern about the possibility that the office is not fully independent. What assurances can the Secretary of State give that it will both improve regulations and be robust, transparent and able to respond to any concerns that Fylde residents may express?

[Mr Davey]

I repeat my thanks to the hon. Gentleman. The way in which he has stood up for his constituents provides a model for all Members. I can reassure him that the Office for Unconventional Gas will be a strong office, and that it will be in my Department and accountable to Ministers, so that Members can hold us to account in the House. One of its jobs will be bringing together the various regulatory bodies so that they are properly co-ordinated, and our work as we approach potential commercial development in a few years’ time will include ensuring that we have all the regulatory controls that we need.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

Is the Minister aware that you cannot be too sure what happens once you start drilling a long way through strata? In my area, after a pit had closed a whole village had to be removed and rebuilt on the other side of the road because of the escape of methane and other gases. I have heard that a company is drilling within a mile of that area now. It may not be anything to do with this fracking business, but I hope that the Minister will tell people to keep their noses out, because otherwise there might be another explosion in the area.

[Mr Davey]

The whole House listens to the hon. Gentleman closely on these issues because he is an expert on drilling and all aspects of the coal industry. I do not know the case to which he refers, but if he wishes to write to me, I am sure my officials can look into it. He makes an important contribution to this debate, because he highlights the fact that this country has had to tackle methane emissions in the coal and the oil and gas industries, so we have a lot of knowledge, experience and expertise to draw on to make sure we can control emissions from shale gas.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

I can see how excited Members on the Government Benches are about the potential for shale gas, but I wonder whether they will be equally excited if drilling starts in Wiltshire, Lincolnshire or other parts of the country. As the Secretary of State knows, we have always said fracking should go ahead only if it is safe and environmentally sound. We set out six conditions, and we will be looking to see if they are met in the Government’s written statement today.

On prices, last week the Chancellor said he did not want the British public to miss out if gas prices tumbled as a result of discoveries of shale gas, but does the Secretary of State agree with the former Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), as well as most experts, that

“betting the farm on shale brings serious risks of future price rises”?

[Mr Davey]

First, I thank the right hon. Lady for saying she will look at our statement carefully. I know that her colleague, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex), wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden when he was a Minister to set out the Opposition’s conditions. I believe that when the Opposition study the written ministerial statement—we gave a copy to the right hon. Lady before this Question Time, but she should have a chance to examine it—they will see that we have met all the conditions.

The right hon. Lady’s main question was on prices. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden that we should not bet the farm on shale gas. I am absolutely clear that the most responsible and sensible way forward for energy policy is to have a diverse set of resources and sources for our energy. Some of the press and commentariat have got very excited about the possibility of gas prices falling, but the independent analysis and the International Energy Agency findings do not necessarily support that.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This may be a suitable subject for a full-day debate, but the answers must not take that form. We are grateful to the Secretary of State for his recognition of that important point.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement that there will be some further environmental studies, because is it not the case that at present we simply do not know the environmental impact of shale gas exploration in relation to methane seepage and methane getting out into the atmosphere? Until we can be certain of the impact, we must proceed with a great deal of caution.

[Mr Davey]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we should proceed with caution, and we are doing so. The evidence so far suggests that the carbon footprint of shale gas exploration is only slightly higher than that for conventional gas, but I am determined that we in this country examine it seriously, which is why I have commissioned a study.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the role of carbon capture and storage in the development of future energy strategy.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

It is a pleasure to answer a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood, the Robin Hood of his age. Carbon capture and storage has the potential to play a crucial role in our future low-carbon energy mix, allowing us to benefit from the flexibility of fossil fuels without associated emissions. As set out in the annual energy statement, the Government are committed to working with industry to create a cost-competitive CCS industry in the UK, and to make that happen we have introduced one of the best support packages in the world.

[Mr Spencer]

What a privilege it is to receive an answer from the Minister who has won the award of Minister of the year! Does he agree that CCS gives us the opportunity to make use of coal, which offers us 200 years-worth of supply, flexibility within the market and the ability to produce our energy very cheaply? Will he come and have a look at the coal industry in Sherwood?

[Mr Hayes]

When I think of Nottinghamshire I think of my hon. Friend, and when I think of my hon. Friend I think of Nottinghamshire—how proud each must be of the other. He is right to say that carbon capture and storage can play a role in delivering clean coal, and three of the four projects we are supporting in our £1 billion competition are coal projects. I know that he visited Thoresby colliery in his constituency just a few weeks ago, and he will understand that CCS is crucial to our ambitions to deliver energy security in a way that reduces emissions.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

The Government have not met the deadline for the first stage of European Union funding for CCS, yet the gas strategy looks to the construction of about 30 new gas-fired power stations. Will the Minister tell me how many of those are likely to have CCS fitted from the outset?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman says that we did not benefit from European funding in the first stage. In anticipation of this scrutiny, I spoke to the European Commissioner for Climate Action just yesterday evening, making it very clear that we hope for—indeed, we expect—European support for the work we are doing. It was a very positive call. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we will work with Europe to ensure that both what we do and what is done across Europe supports the development of world-beating CCS.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

In his discussions with the EU Commissioner yesterday, did the Minister have the chance to raise the case of Germany? It burns about 25% more carbon per head than the UK, yet has just decided to go ahead with 23 unabated coal power stations, which will increase that differential still further.

[Mr Hayes]

I would never be so impertinent as to raise the policy of another sovereign state in such a call. However, my hon. Friend is right to say that the future of coal is clean coal. That is the way forward and it is why we are running our £1 billion competition. May I draw the House’s attention to the conclusion of the UK CCS cost reduction task force, whose members I met yesterday afternoon? It has said clearly that coal power stations equipped with CCS have

“clear potential to be cost competitive with other forms of low-carbon”

technology.

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

In his evidence to the Liaison Committee earlier this week, the Prime Minister talked about the importance of CCS in relation to gas and coal generation, saying:

“Here are some funds. Let us have demonstrator projects and all the rest of it.”

The “all the rest of it” is the European Commission saying in correspondence to me that the UK did not secure up to €600 million of match funding because the Treasury would not confirm co-funding. It is also the Cabinet Office project assessment review—it is previously unpublished but I have obtained a copy—stating that “only” £200 million is “available”. How does the Minister expect there ever to be progress in developing commercial CCS if the Government’s financial commitment falls so far short of the Prime Minister’s warm words?

[Mr Hayes]

I can tell the hon. Gentleman, although I am in a sense disappointed to do so, because he will not have been privy to the information I gave the House until I provided it a few moments ago, that that was not the reason given by the European Commissioner—[Interruption.] The Commissioner did not say that to me in our telephone conversation. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman will know that in that first round no CCS project received support—there was some thought that a French project might, but in the end it did not. The second round will begin next spring and will be completed next year. I have made it very clear that we will work as a Government, with Europe, to ensure that our projects have the very best chance of receiving that additional funding.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

4. Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

5. Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

11. Whether it is his policy to decarbonise the power sector by 2030.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

21. Whether it is his policy to include a decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The coalition Government are absolutely committed to achieving substantial cuts in carbon from our electricity sector by 2030; that is entirely consistent with the targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008. We have also announced that we will take a power to set a legally binding decarbonisation target for the electricity sector specifically as a Government amendment to the Energy Bill.

[Katy Clark]

I am grateful to hear that, and I very much hope that the target we set will be the right one to ensure that we meet our commitments to cut emissions by 2050, because it is very clear that we need a target. Will the Minister say what he believes that will be?

[Gregory Barker]

We will ensure that if we take such a power, it will be to enable us to meet our climate change commitments. The important thing is to see any power in the context of setting the overall carbon budget for the period 2028 to 2032 and beyond.

[Joan Walley]

But is the Minister just delaying the decision until after the general election? Is he now accepting the advice of the Committee on Climate Change that the Government’s dash for gas perpetuates the stop-start approach to investment in low-carbon technologies? We need certainty for investment.

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Lady, my former Environmental Audit Committee colleague, is absolutely right to say that we need certainty for investment. The CBI has said that the Energy Bill

“sends a strong signal to investors”.

Energy UK says:

“This energy bill is a big and positive step forward.”

The right time to decide on a decarbonisation target for 2030 will be when we set the fifth carbon budget, which must be set by June 2016. It is at that point, when we can take it in the context of the whole economy and the economic effort to meet our decarbonisation targets, that we will decide whether we need to set an additional target.

[Mr Bain]

It is interesting that the Conservative part of the coalition is answering this question, rather than the Liberal Democrat part. Will the Minister not admit that the chief executive of WWF UK had a very good point when he said recently that the lack of a 2030 decarbonisation strategy in the Bill will undermine the certainty of long-term investment in renewable energy supply chains and that that is a clear failure of leadership by the Prime Minister?

[Gregory Barker]

I am afraid that I could not disagree more. If we look at the people who will be putting billions of pounds into decarbonisation, and if we consider what the industry is now saying, we can see that there is genuine transparency, longevity and certainty as a result of the Energy Bill. I understand the concerns of WWF, but now we have published the Bill the need for additional legislation to give certainty falls away. As I said, we will consider the need for a decarbonisation target as part of setting the fifth carbon budget for 2028 to 2032, which will happen in 2016.

[Dr Huppert]

I agree that certainty is needed for investors, and I hear that from the Cambridge cleantech cluster and others. I very much welcome the proposed power for the Secretary of State to set a target, but would the Minister support the Secretary of State in setting such a target?

[Gregory Barker]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there is a unanimous view among DECC Ministers. We think there is significant merit in a target, but the right time to decide whether we should set one and what it should be will be when we set the fifth carbon budget, which has to be done by June 2016. I reiterate that investor certainty, which was not there before we published the Bill, is now there in spades. I think we can all move forward and look to a future full of investment in a very exciting sector.

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

My UK energy app tells me that of the electricity generated in this country and lighting us, nearly 80% comes from burning hydrocarbons, 16% from nuclear power and, despite all those windmills onshore and offshore, a derisory 1.3% from wind power. Is it credible to suggest that over the next 18 years we will have replaced all that hydrocarbon and our ageing power stations with windmills, or will we just have black-outs?

[Gregory Barker]

My right hon. Friend points out that we inherited an appalling level of renewables deployment. We are now changing that very quickly, but he is quite wrong to think that we are seeking to place the entire UK capacity with renewables alone. Nuclear will play a strong role and there will be a big role for gas in the future. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, what we need is a diverse, clean energy mix and that includes a range of technologies. Perhaps my right hon. Friend will be slightly less afraid of the future than he seems to be at the moment.

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

If nuclear is indeed to be part of the decarbonisation mix, have the Government factored in the long lead-in for planning applications for nuclear power stations?

[Gregory Barker]

We are very confident that we have the right framework in place to deliver the new nuclear build programme on time as anticipated as part of our energy road map.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

The Minister says that the reason the Government cannot set a decarbonisation target is that the fifth carbon budget, which covers 2030, will not be set until 2016, but the third and the fourth carbon budgets, which run till 2027, have already been set. If that is the only objection, why does the Minister not use the power in the Energy Bill, end the uncertainty and set an interim decarbonisation target for 2020 or 2025?

[Gregory Barker]

I know that the right hon. Lady and the Opposition love a target and would love more targets, but everyone is agreed that what we want is certainty, not targets. We want a simple architecture. Overall, there are too many targets. What we need is real clarity to be certain that we deliver against those key targets. As I said, we are open-minded about the issue of a decarbonisation target, but we want to assess it at the right time.

[Caroline Flint]

If that is the best answer that the Minister can provide, it is no wonder that the DECC team loses out time and again when faced with arguments from the Treasury. Not only have the Government failed to set a decarbonisation target, but we have seen the blocking of the appointment of David Kennedy as permanent secretary, and now they are proposing a gas strategy that would blow a hole through our climate targets. Before the last election, the right hon. Gentleman told Members that the Conservatives

“attach the highest importance to the full implementation of the Climate Change Committee’s recommendations”––[Official Report, Climate Change Public Bill Committee, 24 June 2008; c. 60]—

and that the Conservative party in government would implement the advice in full. Will he confirm today that if the Government opt for 37 GW of new gas, as their strategy proposes, for the first time ever Ministers would have to reject advice from the Committee on Climate Change and rewrite the fourth carbon budget?

[Gregory Barker]

The right hon. Lady clearly does not understand the difference between sensitivity modelling, which shows a whole range of potential outcomes, and a Government plan going forward. She should look at our central forecast. I can assure her that we take the advice of the Committee on Climate Change extremely seriously, but we are delighted that as a result of the publication of the Energy Bill, we now have the certainty that was not there a couple of weeks ago, and industry is speaking up in a chorus of approval of the steps that this coalition Government are taking. We will deliver a transformation in the UK energy sector and the market will deliver the billions and billions of pounds of investment to make it happen.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

6. If he will make it his policy to seek bilateral agreements in advance of a new international climate change agreement.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The best strategy to avoid dangerous climate change must be agreeing a new global deal in 2015. However, while pressing for this, we are also working hard with other countries to encourage low carbon growth through effective bilateral partnerships. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend and to GLOBE International for the important work that they are doing in this area too.

[Mr Stuart]

Following the outcomes at Doha, it is clear that we need to reconsider how we use our political capital to get a successful deal in 2015. Does the Minister agree with GLOBE’s analysis that much greater focus should be given to supporting action at national level to put in place climate legislation and regulation in order to create the political conditions for that agreement?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend is right. If we are to see progress that allows us to clinch that global deal in 2015, we need much more momentum and we need to build momentum at national level as well. The UK has led by example but we are also now engaged with countries such as South Korea, China and Mexico, and other countries with which GLOBE is familiar, to see how we can work together in partnership to drive real progress on the ground, as well as with the private sector.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May I press the Minister on that? How much of the UK funds delivered through the international climate fund will benefit businesses in Britain’s low carbon sector?

[Gregory Barker]

I am delighted to say that making sure that our international climate fund benefits the UK low carbon sector is a key aim of our policy. That is why I took a trade mission—the largest ever green trade mission—to east Africa in October, and I will be going in the new year to the middle east, taking more of our renewables companies, to make sure that where we are supporting developing countries, UK industry gets the benefit of that, and in the long term, probably more than the total spend.

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

7. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implications of the autumn statement for investment in new energy infrastructure.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

18. What discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on the implications of the autumn statement for investment in new energy infrastructure.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

My Department and the Treasury regularly discuss how to incentivise investment in new energy infrastructure. That is why we were able to reach agreement, paving the way for the introduction of the Energy Bill and the Chancellor’s autumn statement. These enable us to meet our legally binding carbon reduction and renewable energy obligations and ensure the investment required to bring affordable power to our nation.

[Mrs Glindon]

Given the recent announcement on consumer price rises, how will the Minister ensure that decisions over the next six months on investments in new nuclear generation capacity, before the Energy Bill is even on the statute book, will be made at the lowest possible cost to consumers?

[Mr Hayes]

The arrangements in the Energy Bill allow for precisely the eventuality that the hon. Lady describes: they allow final investment decisions to be made in concert with contracts for difference. She will know that we are in ongoing discussions about the Hinkley Point development. I cannot say too much about its commerciality, but she should know that we intend to proceed with that with alacrity and diligence. I am confident that new nuclear can play its part in an energy mix that is fit for the future.

[Nic Dakin]

Centrica recently pulled out of investment in a new energy plant at Scawby Brook, and the Siemens and Able UK renewables investment on the Humber, although hopeful, are still uncertain. How will the Government ensure that areas such as the Humber do not miss out on opportunities for investment and jobs because of ongoing uncertainty?

[Mr Hayes]

The Energy Bill brings a framework of certainty that will allow investors to be confident about the Government’s direction of travel. I am obliged to say that, frankly, those decisions could have been made five, 10 or perhaps 15 years earlier, given that we knew that our energy infrastructure was ageing and that we would have to rejuvenate it by means of legislation. The hon. Gentleman is right to make the case for the Humber. I have met one of his near neighbours to discuss that, and I will be happy to meet him and delighted to meet representatives of his community to discuss what we can do to assist his cause that we are not already doing.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

Cumbria has the fastest flowing water in England, a strong, well developed and world-class hydro-technology industry and strong public support for hydro-technology schemes, so will the Minister strongly consider energy infrastructure schemes for hydro-technology in Cumbria?

[Mr Hayes]

The hon. Gentleman is right that hydro-technology can also play a part. The critical point is that the energy infrastructure investment that has been discussed in the House this morning is central to our macro-economic plans. We are speaking not merely of tens of thousands of jobs, but of hundreds of thousands of jobs and new skills in his area and others. Given that I have offered to meet the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Nic Dakin), I think that I should meet the hon. Gentleman, too, to discuss the specifics of his area.

[Mr Speaker]

That is tremendously generous of the Minister of State. I think that there is a glow of appreciation across the Chamber.

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

What can the Minister do to ensure that adequate investment finance is available to marine energy and its attendant infrastructure? Is he aware that it is now more than eight years since a marine current turbine was trialled off the north Devon coast, which more than twice exceeded expectations for energy production but has not come to market because of a lack of finance? If he cannot make new finance available, can he rebalance existing finance away from 30-year-old wind technology and towards the new technologies that could drive forward the process of decarbonisation?

[Mr Hayes]

I do not want to take the opportunity to put the wind up anyone, so I will concentrate on the first part of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He is right that we need to look at all kinds of technologies to achieve the mix that we have described. He will be familiar with our work on green energy parks and will know that six of the eight major wave and tidal energy projects around the world are in this country. I know that the Environment Agency certainly believes that, because it told me so last night. We are investing in that significantly, but I will look at it again because it is absolutely right that we are at the cutting edge of technological change when that can contribute to the energy mix I have described.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

8. What steps he is taking to support the geothermal energy industry.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

The coalition is supporting geothermal heat through the renewable heat incentive. Our September consultation proposed a higher tariff unique to geothermal. The coalition is also supporting geothermal power through the renewables obligation. We announced in July that geothermal would be paid at a rate of two renewables obligation certificates. Deep geothermal heat and power projects have also been supported by specific grant awards under the Department’s deep geothermal challenge fund and through the Government’s regional growth fund.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am grateful to the Minister for his answer. This is an exciting opportunity for Cornwall, and the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) has convened meetings in this place to discuss it, which the Minister was gracious enough to attend. Given the potential for jobs in Cornwall, the potential to make a base-load contribution to energy, and the now-legendary willingness of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes) to meet, will the Minister agree to meet a delegation from Cornwall to discuss the potential of geothermal?

[Gregory Barker]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s diligence in pursuing this issue, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton), because their efforts have really helped to promote this industry in their region. We are very keen to see progress in Cornwall, which we estimate has the best geology for deep geothermal power generation in the UK. I will be delighted to meet them both to see how we can advance this agenda.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

12. What recent advice he has received on the effects of shale gas exploitation on (a) water resources and (b) carbon budgets.

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

We liaise closely with the Environment Agency on this issue, and it confirms that volumes of water used in shale gas exploration are not exceptional compared with other industrial activities that routinely take place across the United Kingdom. Any operator who wishes to abstract water as an alternative to using public supplies will need a licence. Additional water abstraction will be authorised only where it is sustainable and no risks are posed to the rights of existing abstraction licence holders.

Shale gas exploration is at a very early stage in the UK, and its possible scale is as yet unknown. We have legally binding carbon budgets, and that should reassure the hon. Lady. In addition, I hope that she will be reassured to know that I have announced today that I am commissioning a study of the possible impacts of shale gas development on greenhouse gas emissions.

[Caroline Lucas]

On the first part of my question, when one recognises the fact that 4 million gallons of water are needed for every single frack, the Minister’s answer about the water supply is very complacent. On the second part, on carbon emissions, why do the official scenarios published last week alongside his gas generation plan set out an option for carbon intensity that is four times higher than the maximum level compatible with meeting our carbon budgets?

[Mr Davey]

We have legally binding commitments under the Climate Change Act 2008, and our carbon budgets have been set out for people to look at. When we announce strategies it is not unusual for there to be a whole set of analyses, including sensitivity analysis. Yes, one analysis showed higher carbon intensities, but there was also an analysis that showed lower carbon intensities, and I think that people have missed that.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

Many of my constituents just to the west of the Singleton Well shale gas site draw their water from their own sink holes in the Bleasdale area and Bowland forest. Will the Minister’s Department monitor the exploration process throughout Lancashire, because if there is going to be a problem with the water supply, it will be in that part of my constituency?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. The Environment Agency will carry out the monitoring, but because we have increased the co-ordination of regulatory bodies, my Department will be aware of it. I hope that I assured him in my answer to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) that the terms of any additional licences would have to ensure that the abstraction was sustainable and would not put at risk the rights of existing licence holders.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

14. What steps he is taking to ensure that the forthcoming capacity mechanism is not unduly biased towards large, centralised, fossil fuel generation.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

The capacity market is intended to ensure that we have adequate reliable capacity on the electricity system. It will be open to all reliable providers of capacity, including large centralised generation and other forms such as demand-side response, storage, and combined heat and power. We are putting in place tailored arrangements accordingly.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the Minister not share my worry and concern that, in the context of the Energy Bill and every other measure, it does not matter that we have been told this morning that we have unanimity across the two Government parties, because there is no unanimity with the Chancellor? What he said in his autumn statement and what he said this week means that it is all about gas, gas, gas. I am in favour of shale; indeed, today’s Question Time has been destroyed by not having a proper announcement on and scrutiny of shale. The fact is that we now have a Government determined to go for gas with no balance in the energy economy at all.

[Mr Hayes]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the intermittence of renewables and the relative inflexibility of other forms of generation mean that gas is necessary to provide flexibility. However, he is absolutely right that if we are going to make an argument for a mixed economy, because that provides the best chance of sustainability, we cannot put all our eggs in one basket. The Energy Bill, together with the levy control framework —which, as he also knows, provides £7.6 billion for renewables, carbon capture and storage, and nuclear—enables us to achieve just that mix.

[Joan Walley (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Since our last Question Time, we have published Britain’s first comprehensive energy efficiency strategy and a consultation on electricity demand reduction; we have announced a landmark agreement across the coalition Government on energy policy, including a tripling of support for low-carbon generation by 2020; and I have attended the UN climate change talks in Doha, where we were able to make steady progress on the Durban platform towards a legally binding global deal on greenhouse gas emissions in 2015. We have also introduced the Energy Bill, which will have its Second Reading next week. It will reform the electricity market, provide long-term certainty to investors and ensure that British households and businesses enjoy affordable, secure and clean electricity supplies.

[Joan Walley]

Despite all those measures, in Stoke-on-Trent North alone fuel poverty is among the highest in the country at 25%—10,120 households out of a total of 40,000—and Warm Front has been cut. Given the delay to the green deal—the computer software could not be sorted out—and given that we still do not know about the loans from the green investment bank, what emergency measures will the Secretary of State take to help insulate homes and get in place energy efficiency in places such as Stoke-on-Trent North?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady is wrong to say that the green deal is delayed. It is not delayed—it is on track. She also missed out a whole range of policies that the Government are taking, such as the energy company obligation, which includes affordable warmth, which will be targeted on fuel poverty. It is a very important measure and I think that people should focus on it. We are not complacent. We know that fuel poverty is a real concern, and that is one of the reasons why we have had so many initiatives, whether they be the reform of tariffs or collective switching. We are delighted that 115 applications have been received by our “Cheaper Energy Together” competition. That shows commitment across the country to help on fuel poverty, which is central to that competition.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Stunell.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T3. rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The right hon. Gentleman looks a bit surprised. We wish to hear from him.

[Andrew Stunell]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. As a Liberal Democrat, I am pleased with the progress that the Department is making on decarbonising Britain, but, bearing in mind that 50% of carbon emissions come from buildings, will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions he is having with the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government about making sure that zero-carbon homes are on track for delivery in 2016?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. I know that he did an awful lot of work on this issue himself. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster), is working on it and, when we discuss it as a Government, we will make our views clear. Zero-carbon homes are very important.

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

T2. The Secretary of State will have seen that the big six have laid the blame for the recent price rises on the wholesale prices and Government policies. Given that there is alleged corruption in the pricing of gas and that we have got to the stage where the energy companies do not think that it is their job to worry about whether they put their prices up or not, will the Secretary of State get Ofgem to start to pay its way and look at what is happening to prices and profits in the gas industry?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s support for Ofgem’s role, which is not a view shared by his Front-Bench team. Ofgem and the Financial Services Authority are undertaking investigations to make sure that, if there has been manipulation of the gas markets, it is tackled in the strongest possible way. We will have to await the results of their investigations.

[Dr Julian Huppert (Cambridge) (LD)]

T4. Emissions from international aviation and shipping are not currently included in the UK carbon budgets. The Committee on Climate Change recommends that they should be included, and that has been accepted by the shipping industry and aviation representatives. A decision has to be made by the end of the year. Will the Secretary of State confirm that they will be included? They are emissions, so they should be counted.

[Mr Davey]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that we need to take this issue seriously. We intend to lay a parliamentary report announcing our decision before the end of the year, as is required by the Climate Change Act 2008. In making that decision, we are considering carefully the advice provided by the Committee on Climate Change. We are taking careful note of developments in the international policy framework for aviation, in particular in relation to the EU emissions trading scheme and discussions with the International Civil Aviation Organisation. It is important to clarify that the Government have set the first four carbon budgets, which take account of international aviation and emissions.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

T5. May I take the Secretary of State back to his statements today about investment? He has said before that there was plenty of confidence in industry and that investment would occur as a result of the Energy Bill. That is not the case for the 1,500 leading companies in the UK that have signed an advertisement demanding that the Government set the 2030 decarbonisation target because it is the only way to give confidence to the markets.

[Mr Davey]

The welcome that industry gave to the publication of the Energy Bill was extremely heartening. The British Chambers of Commerce, the CBI, the Engineering Employers Federation and the Federation of Small Businesses, which represent thousands of businesses, welcomed the Energy Bill. The fact that we are taking powers in the Bill to set a decarbonisation target shows real leadership and many companies have welcomed that.

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

T6. Will the Government do what they can to support the billing stakeholder group’s key recommendation, which has been adopted by Ofgem in its present consultation, that would oblige energy companies to be much more transparent in their bills? That chimes with the Prime Minister’s statement, but we know that the energy companies do not like it.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Gregory Barker)]

I thank my hon. Friend for his dogged determination in pursuit of this issue. I assure him that, although we cannot yet declare victory, we have victory within our grasp. Thanks to the leadership of the Prime Minister and our determination to legislate, we are moving towards bills that not only offer greater transparency and clarity, but instil greater competition. I think that our final model will be based on the modelling that my hon. Friend has shared with us.

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

Will the Secretary of State explain why he proposes in the Energy Bill to include contracts for difference that are raised from levies in the levy control mechanism, but to exclude capacity payments that are raised by levies from the same mechanism?

[Mr Davey]

They are intended to do two separate things: contracts for difference are intended to stimulate investment in low-carbon energy and the capacity mechanism is about security of supply.

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

T7. The views of the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), on onshore wind farms have been greeted with great acclaim in various parts of the country. What action is he taking to ensure that local communities that do not want such wind farms do not have them foisted upon them?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

My hon. Friend is generous. I do have the wind beneath my wings. He will know that we issued a call for evidence. That has been completed and we are considering the outcome. He and the whole House, including the ministerial team, recognise that community buy-in and ownership, and communities shaping the developments in their area should lie at the heart of all that we do. We must not impose what people do not want on them.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

Do the Secretary of State and the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), agree with the recent report by Greenpeace and WWF, which states that investment in wind energy could create an additional 70,000 jobs, help us to meet our carbon reduction targets, and boost the economy by £20 billion a year by 2030?

[Mr Davey]

Yes.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State has spoken about his support for geothermal energy in the United Kingdom. Will he drive forward the Department’s work with Iceland to develop that country’s vast geothermal potential? Does he agree that an interconnector is not just technically feasible but has the potential to bring vast amounts of low-carbon electricity, thereby helping our security of supply and avoiding price shocks?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend and former ministerial colleague left a huge record of achievement in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, including that of fostering greater links and a coherent strategy with Iceland. I assure him that the Government will build on his legacy to take that project forward.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Last week I met representatives from Bristol port to hear their concerns that the Severn barrage might be back on the political agenda, and the possible impact of that on their business. Will the Secretary of State tell me to what extent that issue, in particular the proposal from Wales, is being actively discussed in the Department? Is it on the political agenda again?

[Mr Davey]

As the hon. Lady will know, a study was done on that early in the coalition Government. It was decided that although the Government would not take the matter forward, if a private consortium wanted to put forward proposals, we would study them. At the moment we have not seen proposals that we could back with any financial regime, whether renewables obligation certificates, contracts for difference or anything similar. I know that people are looking at the issue, but as yet the Government have not taken a decision to support any particular project.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

In light of today’s announcement, does the Secretary of State agree that fracking is not appropriate for the Mendip hills? The water that feeds the aptly named city of Wells and the villages that surround it in my constituency takes 900 to 1,000 years to reach the spas of Bath. Will the Secretary of State ensure that communities are consulted fully about this issue?

[Mr Davey]

I can certainly reassure my hon. Friend that communities will be fully consulted. We have made it clear that the regulatory regime is strong, and it will be strengthened if need be. We have put in the co-ordination that will give her constituents the reassurances that they need.

[Mr Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)]

What are the Government doing for those who are off-grid and use liquefied petroleum gas or oil-fired heating and have much higher bills than those on-grid? Those in rural areas suffer from poor support and funding for many public services, and they need extra help from the Government recognising their plight at this time.

[Mr Hayes]

I recently met representatives of the downstream industry to discuss that issue and we are indeed looking at competition, accessibility and price for those kinds of customers. I do not want anyone to be cold because they cannot afford the oil or heat they need, and the Government will take action to ensure that people are not cold or needy this winter.

Business of the House

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

10:32

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for an action-packed next week?

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 17 December—Remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill. I also expect my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to make a statement following the European Council.

Tuesday 18 December—Second Reading of the Justice and Security Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the fund for European aid to the most deprived.

Wednesday 19 December—Second Reading of the Energy Bill.

Thursday 20 December—Launch of a report and announcement of a new inquiry by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, followed by the pre-recess Adjournment debate, the format of which has been specified by the Backbench Business Committee.

Provisional business for the week commencing 7 January 2013 will include:

Monday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Trust (Capital and Income) Bill [Lords], followed by motion to approve a European document relating to the Commission work programme 2013, followed by business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Colleagues may also wish to know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 20 March 2013.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 17 January will be:

Thursday 17 January—Debate on the fourth report of the International Development Committee on tax in developing countries.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for next week. I welcome the fact that after months of prevarication the Government have decided to bring forward legislation on equal marriage. Does he join me in hoping that in debates that take place in this House, hon. Members will not resort to outrageous and offensive remarks such as those made by one Member who equated same-sex marriages with polygamy and incest? While welcoming the legislation, we have serious concerns about the Government’s decision to make it illegal for the Church of England and the Church in Wales to hold same-sex marriages, even if they decide to do that in future. Although we would not want to force any church to conduct a same-sex wedding, the Government’s decision to make it illegal is wrong. Will the Culture Secretary look at that again and make a further statement?

I fear that the right hon. Gentleman will have some difficulty in coaxing the Culture Secretary to the House following the antics of her special adviser. The Opposition support a statutory underpinning of media regulation to protect the victims of press intrusion and guarantee freedom of the press. The Government seem to want to threaten the press with statutory underpinning to control the news agenda. Will the Leader of the House confirm that, given the seriousness of events, the Prime Minister is thinking of giving back responsibility for media regulation to the Business Secretary?

This week, the European Union was awarded the Nobel peace prize. When the prize was announced, the Prime Minister said that he thought it should be presented to schoolchildren from across the EU. This week, he sent the Deputy Prime Minister to collect the award.

We also learned this week that the Prime Minister’s much-vaunted speech on the EU has been put off once again till the new year. The Prime Minister has repeatedly delayed a speech setting out the Government’s European policy no doubt because the Government have as many positions on Europe as there are Ministers. The Education Secretary would vote to leave the EU—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That is an interesting Back-Bench response. The Policing Minister warns that Eurosceptics are fantasists. The Deputy Prime Minister thinks that repatriating powers is “a false promise”, but the Prime Minister thinks that it is a good idea.

It is obvious that the Government’s approach to the EU is mired in confusion and hesitation. The Prime Minister will be at the European summit today. Following recent precedent and given the multitude of positions within the Government, will the Leader of the House confirm that, after the summit, the House will be treated to statements by both the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, rather than just the one?

Given that we are considering remaining stages of the Growth and Infrastructure Bill next week, will the Leader of the House ask the part-time Chancellor to make a statement updating us on how the infrastructure measures announced in the Budget are going? The Government have a Growth and Infrastructure Bill, but, out in the real world, there is no growth and not enough infrastructure is being built. This PR Prime Minister’s solution is a rag-bag of measures to cover up the fact that the Government have no plan for growth. Given that, I wonder whether, in the next Queen’s Speech, we can look forward to a united coalition Bill; a big society success Bill; and a “We’re all in this together” Bill.

The Chancellor claimed in the autumn statement that his changes affected those

“living a life on benefits”—[Official Report, 5 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 877]—

who were still asleep when their neighbours go out to work. The Prime Minister refused to say so yesterday, so will the Leader of the House confirm that 60% of the people hit by the Chancellor’s real-terms cut in support payments are in work? The politics of divide and rule that the Chancellor practises is predicated on vicious, poisonous, nasty little caricatures. Can we therefore have a debate on whether the mother on maternity pay is a shirker; the father on the minimum wage getting tax credits is a shirker; the cleaner who gets up at 5 am is a shirker; and someone on sick pay recovering from an operation is a shirker? Those are the people who are hit by the Chancellor’s proposed cuts: people who are doing the right thing, and people who are trying to get on in life. At the same time, the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to their millionaire mates. So there we have it: the Government think that millionaires are the strivers while workers on the minimum wage are the shirkers.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the statement, although I was surprised that the announcement yesterday of figures that showed the largest quarterly rise in employment for a decade did not feature in her remarks. None the less, she asked several questions.

I am not aware of any prevarication on the equal marriage Bill. We had probably the largest response to consultation of its kind in the middle of last year. It was perfectly proper for Ministers to take some time to get the response to that exercise absolutely right. The Secretary of State came to the House and explained that there are very good reasons why the Church of England and the Church in Wales have special arrangements. The reasons are absolutely clear in the response to the consultation, and will be clear in the Bill when it is published. Those Churches will have the ability and responsibility, as, for example, the General Synod will have in relation to the Church of England, to determine their attitude.

I am aware of no plans for change in ministerial responsibility for the media. The Deputy Prime Minister attended the Nobel peace prize. My personal view is that the Nobel committee’s decision is welcome, but perhaps ought to have recognised that peace in Europe has been secured through not only the development of the European Union, but NATO. It is a pity both were not recognised.

The Government’s European policy is very clear. The Foreign Secretary is securing a review of competences to consider how we can enter into negotiations with our partners in Europe to ensure that where powers do not need to be exercised at a European level, they are not exercised at a European level. The previous Government talked about subsidiarity, but never delivered. They engaged in a process of constant integration—an escalator of responsibilities and competences to the European Union that never went in the opposite direction. As the Prime Minister rightly said, when we are able to undertake a new settlement of competences and powers in Europe, the British people should have the chance make a judgment.

The Prime Minister will be going to the European summit. In the same way that I wondered why the shadow Leader of the House did not talk about the latest employment figures, I wonder why she did not refer to the welcome news that jobs at Airbus have been protected. The Prime Minister will have an opportunity to reflect on that as he goes to the European summit.

The hon. Lady talked about our proposed welfare reforms. She did not say—the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) did—that the Labour party is proposing to vote against them. Labour Members voted against the housing benefit cap, and they are proposing to vote against what is a fair proposal. People the length and breadth of the land know that in the past five years average earnings rose by 10% and that these benefits rose by 20%. They will be asking why that happened and why benefits should be rising faster than incomes. Many people, including those in the public sector whose pay is being limited to a 1% increase, will think it absolutely reasonable that benefits, whether payable to people in work or out of work, should likewise be limited to a 1% increase as part of deficit reduction. I heard nothing from the hon. Lady about how the Labour party would deliver deficit reduction. If Labour Members vote against the proposals, people will not understand why they are not giving priority to people who are earning in work.

The hon. Lady talked about tax, and she might like to reflect on this simple fact. What change has there been in average tax rates for people at different levels of income under the Labour Government in 2009-10 and under the coalition Government in 2012-13? It is straightforward: under this Government, the lower one’s income the greater the reduction in the average tax rate; the greater one’s level of income—all the way up to £2 million—the bigger the increase in taxation. It is clear that under this Government more of the burden is being borne by those who have the broadest shoulders. By April 2013, as a consequence of the increase in personal tax allowances under the coalition Government, the tax bill for someone in work and earning the minimum wage will be more than halved. That is the fair way to proceed; that is the way this Government will proceed.

I have to apologise to the shadow Leader of the House, as I have not been able to announce further time for Opposition day debates. I am sorry I could not do that, because I think many Government Members appreciated yesterday’s Opposition day debate. It afforded a helpful opportunity for the right hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) to confirm that he regarded it as irresponsible for the coalition Government to have secured a real-terms increase in NHS spending. He also said that he supported a Labour Government in Wales undertaking for an 8% real-terms cut in NHS spending. Such Opposition day debates are only to the benefit of the coalition Government.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am sure that the entire House will be shocked, angry and dismayed at the continual incursions by the Spanish Government into the waters around the British sovereign territory of Gibraltar. This is an act of aggression. Will the Leader of the House ask the Defence Secretary and the Foreign Secretary to make an urgent statement on what Her Majesty’s Government will do to ensure that these illegal incursions into British sovereign waters are stopped forthwith?

[Mr Lansley]

The whole House will be aware of my hon. Friend’s stalwart support for the people of Gibraltar and their relationship with this country. There were two incursions by a Spanish naval vessel into British Gibraltar territorial waters on 10 December. Radio warnings were issued and the vessels departed from those waters, and we have protested to Spain via diplomatic channels. The Royal Navy challenges Guardia Civil and other Spanish state vessels whenever they make unlawful maritime incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters, and we will back that up by making a formal diplomatic protest to the Spanish Government making it clear that such incursions are an unacceptable violation of British sovereignty.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House might be aware of the latest statement on tax by Google’s chairman, Eric Schmidt. He said he was “very proud” of its tax avoidance scheme. “It’s called capitalism,” he said. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to remind operators such as Google which operate and make profits in this country that they should pay the appropriate taxes?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand capitalism to be about making a profit, not avoiding taxes, and doing so by satisfying customers. The chairman of Google, or any company that wants to satisfy its customers, should take account of customers’ views. The Government are setting out to ensure that people pay the taxes that are due—we are doing that more successfully than the last Labour Government—and we will make further improvements by introducing a general anti-abuse rule next April.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Yesterday, I met an employer from Tamworth who had given a 48-year-old man his first real job in more than 20 years. May we have a debate on what we can do to help businesses, particularly small businesses, play their part in getting the long-term unemployed off benefits and into work?

[Mr Lansley]

Like Members across the House, my hon. Friend will have taken great comfort from the latest figures on employment and employment opportunities, while recognising that long-term unemployment remains high. We are doing everything possible to reduce it, however, with almost 900,000 people engaged in the Work programme and one quarter of them having found jobs. In practice, it sometimes takes one, two or three jobs before people find secure long-term employment, which is the aim of the Work programme, but progress is increasingly being made to ensure that the long-term unemployed get those opportunities.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

Given the huge cost of road crashes to the NHS and the economy and that nearly 2,000 people die and 20,000 people are seriously injured each year, and on the back of the annual Christmas drink-drive campaign, in light of the overwhelming support in the House for The Times’ cycling campaign, and given yesterday’s disturbing news that the speed cameras on the M25 have not been operational for a whole year, has the Leader of the House been approached by the Department for Transport about having a debate on road safety in Government time? It is an issue that concerns every Member.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I know it concerns Members, and I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman’s own work in this respect over the years. I will talk to my colleagues in the Department for Transport and ask them to update the House. At this time of the year, it is tremendously important that we focus on this matter, not just because of the Christmas season, but because of the weather conditions. It is really important. Overall, this country has an extremely good road safety record, but we need to improve none the less.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the merits of leaving the European Union? Even the Euro-fanatic BBC decided that it was worth debating on “Newsnight” last night. Surely we should not leave such important matters to the BBC for debate; surely this is the type of thing that should be debated in this House. Opinion polls consistently show that twice as many people want to leave the EU as want to stay in it. Such a debate will allow people to see how many of their MPs agree with the majority view in their constituencies.

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that the business of the House should be led by “Newsnight”. We in this House regularly debate European issues. We will debate things such as the Commission work programme shortly and, as I told the House, the Prime Minister will make a statement and respond to questions next week on his return from the European Council. I entirely understand my hon. Friend’s point. I hope that what I said to the shadow Leader of the House gave him and others a great sense of assurance that this Government take seriously the issue of arriving at a new settlement in Europe—one that will give the people of this country an opportunity to make a judgment about the basis on which we have a long-term future in the European Union.

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

On 27 November the Electoral Commission in Northern Ireland published a report that showed a serious decline in completion and accuracy of the electoral register, with completion now at only 73% and accuracy at 78%, and 400,000 people from a population of 1.8 million not on the register at the right address. This is very serious. It is a Northern Ireland Office responsibility. May we have an urgent statement about what programme of action the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland will implement to address this serious problem?

[Mr Lansley]

The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. If I may, I will seek a response to the point he rightly makes from my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

The charity Gingerbread has launched a campaign to ensure that single parents are not disadvantaged in the job market. In my Edinburgh West constituency, three in every 10 families with dependent children are headed by a single parent, which is more than 3,000 families. May we have a debate on what action can be taken to improve access to affordable child care and encourage more employers to adopt flexible working practices?

[Mr Lansley]

From our point of view, one of the important things in this context is the overall employment situation, which is very good. We have seen from the latest data that the number of women in work is up 236,000 since the election, while unemployment among women has fallen during the quarter by 21,000. We have to ensure that women in particular are assisted back into work through the Work programme. Expanding access to child care is important. My hon. Friend will know that the Deputy Prime Minister has announced on behalf of the coalition Government that the number of two-year-olds receiving nursery care is being doubled to cover an extra 130,000 children, with an additional £200 million going into child care support under universal credit as well.

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

Is the Leader of the House aware that the likelihood of a child visiting any green space has halved in the last 10 years? As we enter the Christmas season, is it not time that we started promoting access to the countryside for young people, especially when we know that learning outside the classroom is in steep decline because of the Government’s changes to educational provision and the independence of schools to make decisions on such matters? We need action now, and I say this as chairman of the John Clare Trust, a national centre for learning outside the classroom.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that schools must make arrangements for access to sporting facilities, including sport outside and in the open air, which is important. I very much share his view: we know that there are long-term health benefits associated with giving children access to green space, not just in the countryside, but in urban areas and new developments. As Secretary of State for Health, I had conversations directly with, for example, Natural England about precisely these issues, which have also formed part of our work in the coalition on finding ways to deliver our public health objectives right across Government. Using their new public health responsibilities, local authorities will be able to combine that work with their planning responsibilities in a helpful way.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

May we have an urgent statement from the Leader of the House on how he plans to deal with the redefinition of marriage Bill? As I understand it, his plan is for it to have its Second Reading in the new year, right at the end of the Session. The Bill was not in the Queen’s Speech or in any party’s manifesto. It is unique to bring in a Bill in this way. Will he guarantee to the House that he will introduce it in the next Session, after it has been announced in the Queen’s Speech, and that its Committee stage will be held on the Floor of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I can give my hon. Friend a statement on this point. It is our intention to introduce the equal marriage Bill in the new year. The situation is not remotely unprecedented: we have recently introduced a number of pieces of legislation that were not anticipated in the Queen’s Speech. Our intention is to introduce legislation, based on the response to the consultation, and I am sure that when we do so, he and many other Members will find it helpful to enable the House to express its view on how we can ensure equal access to civil marriage in this country.

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

On Tuesday, I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he was embarrassed by the fact that, by the end of this year, a quarter of a million people in this country will have accessed emergency food aid. He ignored the question. Yesterday, I had a debate on food poverty in the run-up to Christmas, and the response from the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), was that he did not think that food poverty was a useful concept. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to visit a food bank over the Christmas period, and may we have a statement in the new year in which they can report back on what they have learned about why people in this country are struggling to feed themselves and their families?

[Mr Lansley]

I was here when the Chancellor was asked that question, and I do not think he ignored it at all. The hon. Lady must recognise that the most important thing we can achieve is to enable people to be in work. It is staggering to see the way in which the Opposition have completely ignored this week’s data showing one of the fastest quarterly increases in employment that we have seen for a decade. Despite the economic inheritance from the last Government, and despite the deficit, we are stimulating job creation. In fact, the Office for Budget Responsibility has said that something like two jobs are being created in the private sector for every one lost in the public sector, which is a consequence of deficit reduction. The latest data show a reduction of 24,000 jobs in the public sector and an increase of 65,000 in the private sector. Since the election, the figure is netting out at something like 1.1 million jobs. The answer to poverty, whether it is child poverty or food poverty, is work. Work is the best route out of poverty.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I very much welcome some of the measures that the Government have taken to tackle antisocial behaviour, but may we have a debate on chronic antisocial behaviour by neighbours? The Leigh, Sanger and Ferreira families in Black Dog walk in my constituency have been the victims of the Clarke family for over a quarter of a century. A debate on how we might further address such unacceptable situations would be much appreciated.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in relation to his constituents, that will have been recognised by Members across the House. Today, the Government have published the draft Anti-social Behaviour Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny. The reforms in the Bill will put victims first, and they include a new community trigger that will empower victims and communities to demand that local agencies deal with persistent problems where they have previously failed to do so. I think that my hon. Friend will find that particularly relevant to the circumstances he has described. The measures will also speed up the eviction of antisocial tenants by introducing a faster route to eviction for the most serious criminal or antisocial behaviour. The Home Affairs Committee is looking forward to undertaking pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and producing a final report with recommendations in February.

[Tom Blenkinsop (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)]

We know that the Office for Budget Responsibility is predicting that the UK economy will contract by 0.1% in this quarter, and that it believes that the economy will contract this year as a whole. May we have a debate on business lending? It was confirmed to me on 11 December by the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), that business lending had contracted by 2.8% this year, and high streets such as the one in Guisborough in my constituency are really suffering due to a lack of funding to business.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that this Government are literally leaving no stone unturned, as Michael Heseltine might have put it, to ensure that we support lending to businesses—especially to small and medium-sized businesses. That is why the funding for lending scheme is so important; it is clearly getting going and significant amounts are starting to be lent as a consequence. It is also why my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills have together been pushing for the business bank, which will be able to leverage additional specific lending to small and medium-sized businesses—not only through that bank, but through many of the new challenger banks that are giving support in that market.

The hon. Gentleman mentions the latest OBR report. He might recognise that the OBR has published updated figures on the scale of the recession under the last Labour Government, showing a total loss of gross domestic product of 6.3%. We are having to live with the economic consequences of Labour, and I think the Labour party should start from an understanding of the recession and the depth of debt it left this country.

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

May I pick up on the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), particularly the last part of it, which the Leader of the House did not answer? As it is an issue of conscience, all parties will be entitled to a free vote on the management and scrutiny of the redefinition of marriage Bill. May we therefore follow the precedent set by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in a previous Parliament of holding the Committee stage on the Floor of the House, allowing all Members to exercise their conscience?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry if I neglected to answer that point—perhaps I did not hear everything that my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) had to say. That is always a mistake—I should listen carefully to him, and I attempt to do so. I cannot promise what my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) asks for. We will introduce and hold Second Reading of the Bill in the new year. When he looks at the Bill, I think he will realise that the Second Reading debate may well crystallise the issues. I share the view expressed by the shadow Leader of the House: I completely respect the views of those who oppose equal civil marriage. I recall listening to the Second Church Estates Commissioner, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), who I thought expressed the Church of England’s view on the matter very well. I completely understand it, but I do not think that that view should necessarily be translated into the view of the state on what constitutes equality in civil marriage. That, I think, is the difference of view. Expressing that difference of view on Second Reading is the responsibility of this House as a whole. I welcome the fact that all parties appear to be giving Members the opportunity to vote freely on the issue.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. It is a curious phenomenon in the House that when there are fewer Members standing—and fewer are standing today than is often the case at business questions—exchanges seem to lengthen to absorb available time. May I gently exhort the House to be pithy because there is a statement to follow and other business. If we can treat these matters succinctly, that would help.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

May we please have a statement on undiagnosed cleft palates in new babies? The Royal College of Surgeons has found wide variations across the UK. In North Thames, only 42% of cleft palates are identified at birth, whereas in Oxford the figure is 94%. The Government really must do better by mums and babies on this issue.

[Mr Lansley]

I shall endeavour to be brief, Mr Speaker. Perhaps there is a law of the expansion of questions to fill the time available, yet perhaps that time available— [Hon. Members: “You are doing it now!”] I am doing it now.

This is a matter for clinical practice, and it is important that clinical guidelines apply in the NHS. It is the NHS’s responsibility to draw up the guidelines. I listened with interest to points made this morning that resulted from research, and I am sure that they will be reflected in the guidelines in due course.

[Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)]

Next week, Yorkshire is likely to win its bid to host the 2014 Tour de France. UK Sport backed Scotland for this event. May we have a debate to ensure UK Sport now offers the same multi-million pound cash deal to Yorkshire as it did to Scotland, so that there is no tartan bias in the arrangements?

[Mr Lansley]

I am very interested in that news, and I shall congratulate Yorkshire if it is successful. The matter is obviously the responsibility of UK Sport, but I will draw it to the attention of my colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and ensure that those at UK Sport are aware of my hon. Friend’s comments.

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

Is the Leader of the House comfortable with Ministers’ refusing to meet other Members of Parliament? On 17 October, I presented a ten-minute rule Bill on alcohol, relationship and drugs education that received cross-party support and the backing of 14 national charities. I wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), asking whether I could bring the Bill’s sponsors and representatives of the charities to discuss the matter with her, but I was refused a meeting.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know, as I hope the whole House does, that I consider one of my responsibilities to be ensuring that the interests of the House and its Members are understood and acted on in Departments and by my colleagues. I will therefore take the matter up.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May I support what has already been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Andrew Rosindell), and gently remind the House that an illegal incursion into British Gibraltarian sovereign waters is technically an act of war? What is happening at the moment is wrong, and we should do something about it. May we have a statement by the Secretaries of State for Defence and Foreign Affairs, as a matter of urgency, so that they can respond robustly to this aggravation?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reiterating the point about the incursion. I hope that I was clear and unequivocal earlier about the nature of the Government’s response.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

As one who is very sympathetic to the idea of equal marriage, may I ask for a debate on the way in which future legislation will apply to Wales? I ask because the Church in Wales is disestablished, and has been since 1920, and because the Archbishop of Wales, Dr Barry Morgan, has expressed reservations about the Government’s approach.

[Mr Lansley]

I am indeed aware of the disestablishment of the Church in Wales, but it does not mean that specific legal arrangements relating to that Church will not prove necessary, given its responsibility to provide opportunities for marriage for the whole population of Wales. I am not an expert on the subject, but I am sure that it will form part of the debate on the equal marriage Bill, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have a chance then not only to make his points, but to be given good answers.

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

In January this year, the House voted unanimously for a review of the Government’s much-criticised decision to retain self-regulation for the big pub companies. Last week we learned from the British Beer and Pub Association that self-regulation has no role in tenant profitability, which was the big problem identified by the Select Committee. Now that we know that self-regulation cannot work, may we have that review, and may we have a statement from a Minister?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me when I say that I do not know the answer to his question. I will ask my colleagues whether they can respond to it, as I too will be interested in the reply.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

When will the Leader of the House schedule a full debate on the impact that the Government’s plans for real-terms cuts in tax credits will have on the living standards of up to 5.8 million people from next April? Such a debate would enable us to discuss why, according to Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, 63% of the affected people in my constituency and 82% of those in the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency will be strivers in low and middle-income jobs.

[Mr Lansley]

Last Tuesday, if I recall correctly, the House had a full opportunity to debate the autumn statement and the economy generally, and full and clear answers were given. I think that when the hon. Gentleman takes into account not only the working-age benefits that are available to those who are in work, but the positive impact of tax changes on those people, he will recognise that the coalition Government are focusing on ensuring that work does indeed pay.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The Welsh Government’s proposals to pass a new law changing the organ donation rules from an opt-in system to an opt-out system are far advanced. That is, of course, a matter for the Welsh Government, but there is no evidence that the move will result in an increase in the number of donated organs. There may well be negative impacts on the donation system in England, however. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for the Secretary of State for Health to make a statement before the Welsh law is passed on its possible impacts across the UK as a whole?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health to respond to my hon. Friend on that issue. I responded to the Welsh Government on behalf of the Government, and I made some points about the relationship between the organ donor register and its administration in England and in Wales. That is important, and should be taken into account.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the merits of docking people’s pay if they do not carry out their duties? The Secretary of State for Education says he wants to do that to teachers, yet he and his Ministers have the worst record in Government on failing to answer parliamentary questions and, as we have heard today, refusing to meet Members who have genuine reasons to want to meet Ministers. Does the Leader of the House agree that the Secretary of State should take his own medicine by docking his own pay until he gets that right?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the letter my right hon. Friend sent to schools, in which he made the absolutely fair point that, on the basis of ballots in which there was a very poor turnout, there is a minority of teachers who are prejudicing the interests of children in schools. My right hon. Friend was not saying that he was going to do anything; instead he was making it very clear that the Government support schools, as the employers of teachers, in making the right decisions on behalf of their children.

[Oliver Colvile (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Con)]

Everyone knows somebody who has been affected by dementia. On Monday I attended a seminar at Stoke Damerel community college organised by Ian Sherriff, a well-known campaigner based at Plymouth university, which was also led by the well-known broadcaster Angela Rippon. May I add my support to calls for a debate in Backbench Business Committee time on dementia, as it is an important issue? Will my right hon. Friend also tell us what progress has been made with the Prime Minister’s dementia challenge?

[Mr Lansley]

The Chair of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel), is present and will have heard my hon. Friend’s request for a debate on dementia. I was with the Prime Minister when we launched the dementia challenge in the early part of the year. I will not give my hon. Friend a complete and comprehensive list of the many things that are happening, but the dementia-friendly community part of the challenge is resulting in the launch of a new dementia friends scheme, the delivery of awareness sessions on dementia to 1 million people, and some £54 million being made available to support dementia diagnosis in hospitals, because we know that there is under-diagnosis in this country, and we need to improve the situation. A substantial capital fund is also being created to support dementia-friendly health and care environments.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

Instead of sacking HMRC staff, may we have a debate on how they could collect tax from wealthy individuals? Instead of cutting taxes to millionaires, the Government should try to collect their taxes.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman neglects the simple fact that our measures to ensure that people pay the proper sums in tax to the Government are raising about £7 billion a year more than similar measures under the last Labour Government. We are doing more, and we will do still more. The hon. Gentleman does not take any account of the fact that my ministerial colleagues at the Treasury have announced that front-line staff will be working precisely on tax evasion and tax avoidance, and the implementation of additional measures and a general anti-abuse rule in April will enable us to do still more.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know of my interest in cancer and that I am generally supportive of the idea that doctors and clinicians should make decisions about local commissioning. Last night, however, I finished reading “Securing equity and excellence in commissioning specialised services”, a document produced by the NHS Commissioning Board. It is 227 pages long, and I was stunned to learn that there are 130 specialised commissioning services groups and a series of subgroups, as well as the NHS Commissioning Board, four regional directorates and 10 sub-regional directors inside 27 local area action teams. I am unclear how introducing more bureaucracy and new layers of staff—who are appointed, not elected—will lead to an increase in the provision of local services.

[Mr Speaker]

We are ever so grateful to the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), who might wish further to pursue this matter by the well-known device of an Adjournment debate.

[Mr Lansley]

The commissioning of specialised services through the NHS Commissioning Board is a direct replacement for the previous regional or national specialised commissioning. I have to tell my hon. Friend that the level of bureaucracy she describes is significantly less than there used to be under regional and national specialised commissioning. The total activity in the NHS Commissioning Board, compared with the responsibilities it has taken on, is reducing by about 30% or 40%; I am talking about the number of people employed and engaged in that kind of central commissioning activity. People with some of these specialised conditions want specialised commissioning on a national basis, because it gives them much greater assurance about the consistent application of the clinical guidelines.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

This week, a young guardsman, Guardsman Bhullar of F Company, Scots Guards, took up his post guarding our monarch at Buckingham palace. Unlike his fellow guardsmen, he was wearing a turban rather than a bearskin—it has been a long time coming. He has a bright future and is a capable young man. Will the Leader of the House consider having a debate on improving recruitment of ethnic minorities into our Army, because our armed forces are at their best when they look like the society they protect?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The House recently had an opportunity in time allocated by the Backbench Business Committee to discuss defence personnel. I do not recall whether the issue he raises came up, but I share his view, as I am sure the armed forces do. In particular, I think that they, like many across the House, will have been rather cheered by the new guardsman, recognising the tremendous and courageous contribution that Sikhs have historically made to the British Army over many years.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

I want briefly to thank the Leader of the House for being flexible in allowing the Backbench Business Committee to allocate debates at the end of the day. I also ask him to help me to encourage Members to come to the Backbench Business Committee with proposals for not only very big debates on subjects such as autism, but debates that are more flexible and can be held quickly, such as yesterday’s debate on women bishops, and debates that are flexible on time and flexible on whether there is a vote at the end.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that you, Mr Speaker, and the House will be aware of the evidence from the Backbench Business Committee of the progress it is making in being able to accommodate requests. I have seen, by sitting with the Committee at its sessions, just how an increasing number of Members from right across the House appreciate that and take advantage of it. The hon. Lady asks for flexible debates if the business of the House concludes early. We took that approach for the autism debate, which I thought was very successful and delivered precisely what the Committee was seeking.

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

The Government are about to announce a key decision on whether one-year and five-year cancer survival rates will be included in the 2013-14 commissioning outcomes framework. Given the importance of this decision to cancer patients and the cancer community at large, may we have an appropriate statement in this House?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend and I have discussed this on many occasions. He will understand that one thing we have set out to do is hold the NHS to account, through the Commissioning Board, for the outcomes it achieves in the national outcomes—the NHS outcomes framework. The way in which the board then holds clinical commissioning groups to account in greater detail—I am pleased to say that the first 34 have now been authorised by the board—is a matter for it to decide under the NHS commissioning outcomes framework. It is for the board to make these announcements, rather than for Ministers to do so.

Personal Independence Payments

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

11:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

The Government are committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. Crucial to that is the reform of disability living allowance, a lifeline for many but one that is simply not working in its current form. In the past 10 years, the number of people claiming rose by more than a third from around 2.4 million to 3.2 million and expenditure is now far in excess of initial estimated costs.

This year the Department for Work and Pensions expected to spend more than £13 billion on DLA. As a percentage of GDP, we spend a fifth more than the EU average on disability benefits and expect to spend more in real terms in 2015-16 than we did in 2009-10. Today we are publishing the Government’s consultation responses on the draft assessment criteria and on the detailed design of the personal independence payment. Alongside that, I will be laying in draft before Parliament the main PIP regulations, which will set out the PIP entitlement conditions, assessment criteria and payment rates. We will also publish in draft what the transitional arrangements might look like. The main scheme regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and I look forward to debating them in full early next year.

Personal independence payments will be easier to understand and administer, financially sustainable and more objective. Throughout the whole development, we have consulted widely with disabled people and we have used their views to inform policy design and implementation plans. As a result of hearing those views, we have made several key changes to the final assessment criteria and I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who contributed.

Starting with the rates, I am pleased to confirm the rates for PIP will be set at the same rates as DLA. The daily living enhanced rate of PIP will be the same as the higher rate care component of DLA, and the standard rate of the daily living component will be set at the middle-rate DLA care component. The mobility rates of PIP will be the same as the DLA rates. Furthermore, following the autumn statement, disability benefits will be protected within our uprating measures and PIP, like DLA and carer’s allowance, will continue to be uprated by inflation.

The most important thing I want to announce today is that we have listened to and acted on the huge amount of consultation we have had with disabled people and disability groups. We have made specific key changes as a result of our engagement. They are outlined in full in our consultation responses and include broadening our approach to aids and appliances, assessing ability to read and taking account of specialist orientation aids that help mobility; mirroring the linking rules for DLA, which will help to ensure continuity for people with fluctuating conditions; and new plans for contacting young people when they reach the age of 16, or their appointees, to help a smooth transition to PIP.

All the changes we have made address the genuine concerns of disabled people and the organisations representing them. Overall, their effect is to make PIP more transparent, objective, and fair.

We also listened carefully to concerns about the speed of reassessments. To that end, we will now undertake a significantly slower reassessment timetable to ensure we get this right. It will be phased in, starting with a controlled start area in the north-west and parts of the north-east of England from April 2013. We will then take new claims nationally from June 2013. From October 2013, we will start reassessing people whose DLA award is due to end, people who report a change in their condition and young people who reach the age of 16. But now the peak period of reassessments will not start until October 2015. That means we can learn from the early introduction of PIP, testing our process and making sure the assessment is working correctly before we embark on higher volumes. We will then consider the findings of our first independent review, planned for 2014, and act on them. Importantly, unless people report a change in their condition, those with a lifetime or indefinite DLA award will not be reassessed until October 2015 at the earliest.

We can now publish case load assumptions about the impact of PIP. Those figures clearly show that PIP will deliver its key objective of focusing support on those with the greatest needs. By October 2015, we will have reassessed 560,000 claimants. Of those, 160,000 will get a reduced award and 170,000 will get no award, but 230,000 will get the same or more support. Under the new criteria, almost a quarter of PIP recipients will get both of the highest rates, worth £134.40 each week, compared with only 16% on DLA.

By reforming the system and ensuring that it is fit for the 21st century we can use the money we spend on disabled people more efficiently and effectively to help those most in need.

11:24

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for her statement and for the advance copy of it.

Last Thursday we had the written announcement of the closure of Remploy factories, with more than 800 redundancies. This Thursday we have a statement that is intended, according to the Government’s own estimates, to remove a disability benefit from more than 500,000 disabled people. Let me make it clear that we are in favour of an assessment for DLA, but the assessment needs to be the right one.

I shall deal first with a number of myths. There has indeed been an increase in the number of people claiming DLA. A significant number of those have protected DLA as they move into retirement. As the Minister knows, about 900,000 people currently receiving DLA fall into this category. However, the other factor that I thought she might have alluded to was that the lives of disabled people have changed dramatically since 1992, when the expectation for many of them was that they would move into residential care. Thankfully, that is not the current situation when most disabled people want to live, as far as possible, independent lives in their own community, and DLA has been crucial for many disabled people as they move into that environment of independence, choice and control over their own lives.

I listened carefully to the Minister’s statement. In the short time available to us, I have not been able to scrutinise carefully the detail of the new assessment criteria, but I shall make some initial remarks. I welcome some of the changes that the Government have made, including the broadening of approach and the mirroring of the DLA linking rules. I welcome too the fact that the Government have recognised that the initial proposal on the speed of the assessment was unrealistic, and there will now be a significantly slower reassessment process. Nevertheless, we are still looking at June 2013 as the vesting date for new cases and we have not yet properly scrutinised the new criteria, so although I welcome the change in the speed of the assessment, I think there are still some issues about the new cases coming on in June 2013.

We will apply stringent tests to the new PIP assessments. Let me ask the Minister some specific questions. Given that DLA support allows many people to travel to work, will the Government give a commitment that it will not be taken away from anyone who is in work? In other words, if they are currently on DLA and are currently in employment, will the Minister give a commitment that the financial integrity of disabled people who go to work will not be undermined?

The Government are protecting under-16s and those over the age of 65, so how does the Minister’s claim that she is maintaining the overall budget square with that protection at each end of the age spectrum? If one looks at the demography, one clearly sees that there is a disproportionate impact on working-age disabled people. The Minister makes great play of the fact that the budget will remain the same, but I want to remind her of the comments made by her predecessor and other Members on the Front Bench, including the Secretary of State, that greater support would be given to those with the most severe disability. I wonder how that marries with the fact that the rates for the new PIP will be exactly the same as the current rates for DLA. That seems to be a conundrum.

The new criteria must not push people into social care or into the NHS. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department for Communities and Local Government, local government and the NHS to consider the impact as 500,000 people—over a longer period, admittedly—lose benefit?

May I also ask the Minister what the impact on carers will be? I think that there was a little confusion in her answers about carers on Monday, so I want to give her another opportunity. Carers UK estimates that 10,000 people who currently receive carers allowance could lose it as a result of the changes. Has she made any estimate?

I appreciate that this is a short statement so I will give a shortish response but I say once again to the Minister and to the Secretary of State that there is a whole raft of welfare reform changes that are impacting on the lives of disabled people. The Government have the facility and capacity, with hundreds of thousands of civil servants, so why do they not undertake a cumulative impact assessment of the effect of their changes on disabled people?

[Esther McVey]

I welcome the right hon. Lady’s words and her acknowledgment of the listening and consultation that we have done and the changes that we have made. I cannot give the assurances that she would like on PIP, as those were not the case for people of working age under DLA. What we can say is that everybody will be viewed as an individual when it comes to assessing their needs and that more people will get the higher awards—nearly 25% of those on PIP will be on the highest awards. As for carers, one thing we all agree on is that they do an incredible job. We will support them as best we can. I can also announce today that the links for carers that were in place under DLA will also be in place under PIP.

The Opposition never conducted a cumulative impact assessment when they were in government, and for good reason. I understand that it would be impossible to measure the impact of such large reforms and changes, particularly as they will not be in place until 2017 and the case load is dynamic. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be nearly impossible to do that. As I have said, I am delighted that we have listened to the disability groups, taken on board what they have said and made the changes they asked for.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

Does the Minister welcome, as I do, the fairer way that fluctuating conditions, mental health conditions and cognitive impairments are assessed under PIP, in contrast to DLA, which tended to focus solely on physical impairment?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend, who quite rightly states that PIP is intended to look at fluctuating conditions, take all the impacts into assessment and deliver for those people.

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to delay the implementation of PIP and hope that they will continue to keep the timetable under review, because I suspect that it might not be as easy as the Minister implies it will be today. I advise her that she worries disabled people very much when she talks about the increase in the costs of DLA. Any increase in DLA, unlike for out-of-work benefits, is not necessarily a bad thing, because if more people are getting more DLA, more people are living independent lives and engaging in society in a way that they were not doing previously. Of course, any money spent on DLA or PIP is often money saved in other budgets, whether in the NHS or in social care. I ask the Minister to be very careful about the language she uses, because many disabled people are very worried about the implementation of PIP and what it will mean for their lives. Any words about saving money makes them think that they will be the victims of some kind of economic drive by the Government to ensure that they are saving on the budget for the very vulnerable. That money is spent very wisely on giving them an independent life.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just before the Minister answers, I remind Members that we must have much shorter questions, because I want to get everybody in.

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her comments. I will of course be very aware of the language I use, and I hear what she says most clearly. I am glad that she is pleased about the slower delivery of PIP and about the independent review that will take place in 2014 so that we can ensure that what is happening is correct and that we are delivering what is intended. We continue to spend over £13 billion, and we will be spending more in every year up to 2015-16 than was spent in 2009-10. I am fully aware of her concerns and we have taken them on board.

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

I welcome the changes to the descriptors for blind and deaf people and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who has been working with the Department on this issue. These changes will enable blind and deaf people to access much more focused support for their conditions. Will the Minister outline that to the House?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is right. We listened and consulted, and we have made the alterations required for blind and deaf people in relation to their ability to communicate, make journeys, and so on.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the majority of the recipients of DLA/PIP and their carers are dependent on the services provided by local authorities. However, because of the Government’s savage financial cuts for local authorities, those services are being eroded or removed, or in some instances charged for. As part of the impact assessment, will she examine in no small detail whether the services that enable disabled people to live independent lives will still be available or whether the cost of buying them will become prohibitive?

[Esther McVey]

We are working with local government to ensure that we are delivering on this. It is about what is best for disabled people and focused support for the billions of pounds that we are spending.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. May I tell her to stick to her guns on this subject and ignore the siren voices from those on the Labour Benches who seem to believe in a test, but one that nobody can fail, and want to advocate unlimited levels of welfare? Given that we have limited resources, most of my constituents will support the principle that the money should be directed at the people who need it instead of at the people who do not, so may I urge her to continue along that path?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend. This is a principled reform. It is about adding integrity and rigour to the system. It is about fairness and transparency, and helping those who need this support the most.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I think that the comment by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) was a disgrace.

May I suggest to the Minister that we will not fully understand the impact of her announcement until we see the revised assessment criteria? Welcome as they are for blind and deaf people, will they have the continuing perversity of penalising blind people for having a go at undertaking journeys that they could undertake with DLA but could not undertake unless they had the support that PIP is intended to provide for them? In other words, will they avoid the perversity that was built into the previous assessment criteria and, above all, continue with the higher rate of the mobility component, which was unanimously agreed by this House just two and a half years ago and was threatened under the previous draft assessment regulations for PIP?

[Esther McVey]

I will continue to engage with the right hon. Gentleman; we met only yesterday. We inherited a confused system in which over 50% of people did not have medical support for their claims and 71% of people were left on indefinite awards. We want to engage with people and ensure that those who are most in need of support will get it. We do not want to penalise anybody who is trying their best. It is not about that; it is about offering support where it is most needed.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Government will spend about £50 billion on services and benefits for disabled people, and will she set out how that compares and contrasts with similar countries?

[Esther McVey]

I can indeed confirm that my hon. Friend is right. We continue to spend £50 billion a year on support for disabled people, which is a fifth higher than the EU average. We are a world leader in how we deal with people with disabilities.

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

I welcome the statement and the delay in the movement of customers with indefinite awards for 21 months. That is a sign of listening to people’s concerns. Will the Minister reassure me that she and the Department will continue to work closely with the Department for Social Development in Northern Ireland, given the concerns in that part of the United Kingdom about the impact of some of these reforms, particularly in deprived areas?

[Esther McVey]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman’s words. I will indeed work closely with the social development agency and I will be going to Ireland in the not-too-distant future.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I thank the hon. Lady for keeping her predecessor’s promise to maintain the mobility component in the new PIP and not to take it away from local authority care home residents. She is listening and the Government are clearly learning from the experience of the work capability assessment. Who will she be listening to in the review of the early experience of her proposed new personal independence payments, in order to ensure that, when more people are transferred to PIP in 2015, we get the process right?

[Esther McVey]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question. We have been listening for the past 18 months. We have consulted all disability groups and disabled people and have engaged with absolutely everyone. We will continue to do that. There will be an independent review in 2014 and we will adjust, listen and do what we need to do to ensure that we deliver the correct benefit.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

The House of Commons Library note on the personal independence payment has a large section on how seriously injured armed forces personnel and veterans will be affected. The Minister’s statement was silent on that. Will she outline how that group will be affected and, most importantly, will she define what is meant by “seriously injured”, because unless that is clearly defined they could simply be weasel words?

[Esther McVey]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. That was not in my statement because it will come under a separate system under the Ministry of Defence. The support will be there and it will come through a different system.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

I, like everyone in this House, have tremendous respect for the work done by carers. For the sake of clarity, will the Minister confirm that the rules linking carers allowance to PIP will be exactly the same as those for the DLA?

[Esther McVey]

I can indeed confirm that.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

Given the Minister’s announcement that, although 230,000 will get the same or more support, 330,000 people will get no or less support, I assume that there will be a large number of appeals. At the moment, people who are appealing against rulings on the employment and support allowance in my constituency—80% of them are successful—are waiting for more than a year for their appeals to be heard. Is the Minister able to give any guarantee on how long the appeals against refusal of DLA will take? Will she set a maximum length of time and tell us that there will be enough staff to open the envelopes from people who make appeals, let alone administer them, which is not what is happening at present with ESA appeals?

[Esther McVey]

I recognise the points made by the hon. Lady. We will speed up the process. We have commitments from the Justice Department that it will have enough staff in place, and we will do this as best we can.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I will follow on from the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), because she raised a real issue. Every Member in this House will have had that problem in their constituency. Although the whole House welcomes what the Government are trying to do, there is a practical problem with appeals. Will the Minister at least look into that a little further?

[Esther McVey]

My hon. Friend is correct that that is a priority for us. However, I reiterate that this is a completely different system. PIP is a brand-new system and a brand-new benefit. It has new localised systems and it will be delivered locally. Therefore, it has been created in a much better format.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

What is the Minister’s estimate of the number of people on carer’s allowance who will lose out after this statement?

[Esther McVey]

As it stands, the same number of people will be on carer’s allowance, although they might be different people. As at the moment, people will be assessed and reassessed, and some people will move from having carer’s allowance to not having it, but the overall number will stay roughly the same.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

I welcome the Minister’s statement. Clearly, the Government have listened to the concerns of disabled people and made the appropriate changes. I particularly welcome the new timetable, which I hope will ensure that PIP is delivered correctly. Of course, an extended timetable also leads to anxiety and uncertainty among the recipients of the benefit. Will she assure me that everything possible will be done to ensure that individuals, through the various agencies and support groups, know exactly what their situation is?

[Esther McVey]

I can confirm that. What we are doing is all about a smooth transition and getting the implementation correct.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

When my right hon. Friends the Members for Stirling (Mrs McGuire) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) and I met members of the disability community in Scotland recently in my constituency, they expressed concerns that tens of thousands of disabled people in Scotland might lose their access to passported benefits and their ability to get to work under the new system. With disabled unemployment at a record high, would it not be wrong to create new barriers to disabled people keeping their jobs? Will the Minister guarantee that no disabled person who is currently in work will be worse off as a result of these reforms?

[Esther McVey]

As the hon. Gentleman will know, it has always been the case under DLA that when people are reassessed, some people stay on the same benefit, some people get more and some people get less. That will be exactly the same under PIP. The difference is that there was no systematic review under DLA, but there will be under PIP.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

An answer that I received to a recent parliamentary question indicated that between October 2008 and May 2012, 59% of initial work capability assessments for employment and support allowance resulted in those being assessed being awarded no points at all. Will the Minister assure me and the many recipients of DLA in Edinburgh West that all possible efforts are being made to ensure that the design and delivery of the assessments for PIPs will ensure that more decisions are correct the first time around?

[Esther McVey]

Let me reiterate once again that this is a totally different system to ESA. It is a totally different benefit altogether. In fact, we inherited ESA from the previous Government. It was wrong in 2009 and we have put in place many steps to improve the system, including putting it through three reviews. I assure my hon. Friend that we have listened to the various disability groups and organisations, and that we will get this right.

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

We have put men on the moon, so I do not understand it when the Minister says that it is impossible to do a cumulative impact assessment. Surely that is not beyond the wit of the hundreds of civil servants sitting in her Department.

[Esther McVey]

The hon. Lady is right that we have put men on the moon. However, she will also know that her Government never did such an impact assessment, and for good reason. On such wide-ranging reforms, it is impossible to make an accurate assessment. That is particularly the case with these reforms because they will not be in place until 2017-18 and there is such a dynamic case load. Even the Institute for Fiscal Studies says that it would be near impossible.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

I am glad the Minister was able to confirm that we have put a man on the moon.

Let me return to the point about appeals, which is crucial. Surely if we get the assessment process right and it is fair, there will be no need for appeals and we will not see so many disabled people coming to my surgery—and those of Members across the House—who are worried about their financial futures.

[Esther McVey]

All sides of the House wanted reform. Everybody said that reform was right, but the difference is that this Government are making that reform to ensure we have a benefit that is fair and correct, right for the 21st century, and that has rigour put into it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Last, but certainly not least, Julie Hilling.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

I, too, am really shocked that the Minister is not going to carry out an impact assessment, and I wonder whether she will answer the question this time. Will blind people get the equivalent of the higher-rate mobility component of DLA?

[Esther McVey]

Every individual will be assessed on their individual needs. We have taken significant soundings and listened to all the various groups. Each person will get the benefit that they require.

Bill presented

Succession to the Crown Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

The Deputy Prime Minister, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary William Hague, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Vince Cable, Mr Secretary Moore, Danny Alexander and Miss Chloe Smith, presented a Bill to make succession to the Crown not depend on gender; to make provision about Royal Marriages; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Monday 17 December 2012, and to be printed (Bill 110) with explanatory notes (Bill 110-EN).

Committee on Standards (Lay Members)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Relevant document: the Report from the House of Commons Commission, HC 709]

11:51

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That, in accordance with Standing Order No. 149A, Mr Peter Jinman, Mr Walter Rader and Ms Sharon Darcy be appointed lay members of the Committee on Standards.

In December 2012, the House endorsed a recommendation from the Committee on Standards in Public Life that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should include at least two lay members who have never been parliamentarians. The proposal was supported by the Committee on Standards and Privileges, whose then Chair, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, my right hon. Friend the Member for North West Hampshire (Sir George Young), suggested it to the Committee on Standards in Public Life.

The Procedure Committee was asked to consider how that recommendation might be best implemented. It recommended that the Committee on Standards and Privileges should be divided into two, and that the lay members should sit only on the Committee responsible for standards. If the House accepts the nominations today, the two new Committees will come into existence on the first sitting day in January, following on from Kathryn Hudson taking up her appointment as the new Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards on 1 January.

The lay members will not be co-opted as full voting members of the Select Committee. There was some doubt over whether a committee partly composed of non-members with equal voting rights would in law be a parliamentary Committee and thus entitled to the normal protections of parliamentary privilege. Draft legislation to permit the House to give lay members of the Committee on Standards the power to vote is included in the Government’s Green Paper on Parliamentary Privilege, which has been referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses and is due to report in April next year.

The lay members will participate fully in evidence taking and the consideration of draft reports, although they will not be able formally to move amendments or take part in any votes. There will be two specific protections for their position. The first is that the Committee cannot conduct any business unless at least one lay member is present. The second is the requirement that any written opinion of a lay member present at the relevant meeting on a report agreed by the Committee must be published as part of that report.

The process of recruiting the lay members fell to the House of Commons Commission. The posts were advertised on the parliamentary website through the outreach service, with a search by recruitment consultants and through Twitter. There were 86 applicants for the post, reduced through sifts and interviews to a short list of 12 for interview. The interviews were undertaken in September 2012 by a board that included the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, John Horam, who is now a member of the Electoral Commission, an external assessor and senior officials.

That board put forward six candidates for final interview in October 2012 by three members of the Commission: the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran) and me. On the basis of our assessment, the Commission agreed to make the following three nominations to the House this afternoon: Sharon Darcy, who is a member of the national board of Consumer Focus and a board member of the National Employment Savings Trust; Peter Jinman OBE, who is a former president of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons; and Walter Rader OBE, who is independent chair of the Youth Council for Northern Ireland appeals panel.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making a clear statement. However, will he tell the House what sort of hours those people will be expected to work and what their remuneration will be?

[John Thurso]

My hon. Friend anticipates my next two points. Let me deal with them in order, and if he is not satisfied, he can have another go.

Brief CVs of the candidates are set out in the paper that is available in the Vote Office. The Commission believes that, together, the three candidates represent a combination of experience and qualities that should increase public confidence in the robustness and independence of the House’s disciplinary process. The appointments will initially run until the dissolution of Parliament at the next general election, but they can be extended for up to two years in the new Parliament. Once appointed, a lay member could be dismissed only following a resolution of the House.

The Committee’s work load is variable and it is not yet known what exactly it will be. The lay members will therefore be remunerated on a daily rate for each day worked. That rate is to be £300 per day plus any modest travelling expenses.

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

The hon. Gentleman mentions the work load. Surely that depends on the behaviour of the House rather than on what the Committee wishes to do?

[John Thurso]

Absolutely. That is the point that I was trying to make, albeit not very succinctly. The work load is variable, consequent on our behaviour. We therefore hope that the lay members will be very modestly rewarded. However, we will have to see.

The Commission has recognised that the role will be challenging and has asked officials to provide a comprehensive induction programme to familiarise the lay members with the culture, roles and key players across Parliament, as well as the procedures and working practices of the Committee on Standards.

I commend the nominees to the House.

11:57

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the terms in which he moved the motion. I am looking forward to the contributions to what I think will be a short and uncontroversial debate from fellow members of the House of the Commons Commission, including the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford). I look forward to what will probably be variations on a similar theme.

On behalf of the Opposition and, I believe, of all Members who intend to speak, I support the principle of the changes. Appointing lay members to the Committee on Standards was a suggestion of the Committee on Standards in Public Life in 2009 in the aftermath of the expenses issues and scandals in the previous Parliament. The recommendation was aimed at further improving public confidence in the House’s ability to regulate itself, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said.

The subsequent Third Special Report on Standards and Privileges accepted the proposals and, on 12 March, the now Patronage Secretary and I, as shadow Leader of the House, took part in the debate that effected them by creating Standing Orders Nos. 148A and 149A, and modifying Standing Order No. 149. Since that time, the process of appointment has been thorough, as is usual with such procedures, and I have no doubt that the candidates for inclusion as lay members of the Committee, which, once we have made the decision, will split into two, are more than worthy of the roles. I am sure that, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman OBE and Walter Rader OBE will bring a breadth of knowledge and experience that will be of benefit to the Committee.

The Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, of which I am a member, also contains lay members, and their contribution is of great value. I look forward to having my suspicions confirmed that the work of the newly appointed members of the Committee on Standards will also be of great value.

I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley will want to say something about how he sees the new arrangement working when the Committee splits at the beginning of next year, as he will be at the forefront of that work. I look forward to hearing the comments of other hon. Members too. The Opposition endorse the principle of the change, and look forward to the development of the Committee in its new form.

12:01

[Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley) (Con)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) has set out the rules that will apply, and a few technicalities have been added by the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) from the Opposition Front Bench.

I rise briefly to support the motion more as a member of the Standards and Privileges Committee than of the House of Commons Commission. As motions 4 and 5 on the Order Paper indicate, subject to the motion being agreed we will have a new standards Committee, a separate privileges Committee, and at least two new members starting in the new year. This is interesting timing, as the new Commissioner and the three new lay members will be commencing in their roles. There will be an interesting learning curve for the lay members and for the Commissioner.

As hon. Members are aware, the Committee will meet in private to consider reports from the Commissioner following her investigation of complaints that are felt to be appropriate to the Committee. I hope that having lay members will bring some reassurance to those outside our peculiar bubble, and that it might even calm the odd strident reporter from the odd strident newspaper. It will be interesting for the new lay members to learn what life as an MP entails and the various and considerable pressures under which MPs work.

The rules on standards have been reviewed in the light of the Committee’s recent experiences. We have had more such experiences than we should. The report has been published and will be considered by the House in due course. In some areas the rules have been tightened, but efforts have been made to clarify the rules so that hon. Members understand them more easily. Complicated rules and an ignorance of them have been a source of minor apparent transgressions. The new lay members will need to appreciate the combination of the rules and the pressures faced by hon. Members. The Commissioner receives a steady trickle of complaints. Fortunately, most relate to matters that are not relevant, and, sadly, there are sometimes personal or political attacks. Now that a spate of cases from the expenses scandal have been through the mill, I hope that the work of the Committee on Standards will become minuscule.

Compared with the scandals of most other countries, I believe that with rare exceptions, the UK and the House do not have a real problem. Having our robust system certainly helps us to keep it that way and the rules will tighten that even more. I expect and sincerely hope that this will continue, and be supplemented by our new lay members.

12:04

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

I am delighted to add my support to the motion and have no hesitation in commending the three names before the House—Sharon Darcy, Peter Jinman and Walter Rader.

The procedure to appoint lay members was modelled on that for the independent external members of the Speaker’s Committee for the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. As the Procedure Committee recommended, I took part in the appointment process to ensure access to the experience of the Speaker’s Committee, although the final decision was a matter for the House of Commons Commission. We had a strong field and were able to put forward several names for the Commission to choose from, and as Members will see from the Commission’s report, the three candidates bring a range of valuable experience. I am confident in their sound judgment.

I welcome the fact that we are at last appointing lay members. Indeed, the previous Chair of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, now the Government Chief Whip, commended the idea to the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It is one of the manifestations of his incomparable good judgement that his recent return to the Back Benches must have been one of the shortest on record; the Front Bench simply could not do without him. It is a pleasure to implement a recommendation in the House with such a history of Committee support.

I am particularly pleased that we are appointing three lay members. As we all know, parliamentary business can be unpredictable and in the past the Committee on Standards and Privileges has had to meet at short notice. The Committee on Standards will be able to meet only if a lay member is present, and appointing three lay members from the outset will reduce the danger of Committee business being disrupted. I have been a lay member myself. As colleagues will know, it was a role I played on the General Medical Council for several years. It is all too easy for any expert group to look inward and to lose a sense of perspective, which is why many professional disciplinary bodies, not just the GMC, contain lay members.

Even when professional judgements are perfect, there is a case for an independent element to ensure that all angles are considered and, most importantly, to provide as much reassurance as possible that regulation is conducted in the public interest. It will never be possible to convince everyone, but if an independent element in regulation works for doctors and solicitors, it should work for us as well. I hope that the lay members will not operate as outsiders riding shotgun to ensure the Committee behaves. I would like them to be an integral part of the Committee, and every one of those whose name is before the House has had experience of this sort of collective working. With the help of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, the Committee on Standards and Privileges has done its utmost to act rigorously, fairly and impartially. I hope that the participation of lay members will make it easier for the new Committee on Standards to demonstrate that it operates in such a way.

As I have said in previous debates, I regret that the lay members will not have a vote at this stage, although there is at least a mechanism that allows them to place their views formally on the record if they feel it necessary to do so. Although I look forward to legislation allowing lay members voting rights, we must remember that the current Committee on Standards and Privileges does not normally decide matters on division. In my time on the Committee, I can recollect only one vote, but even then the Committee went on to agree a unanimous report. If the new Committee follows that pattern, which I hope it will, any difference between lay members and others will be minimal, if not non-existent. In agreeing the motion, the House will take a step that should improve public perception of our disciplinary processes. I am confident that it will do more than that and will produce a better, fairer system. I am happy to support the motion.

12:08

[The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr Andrew Lansley)]

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for moving the motion and for how he explained the process of appointment, the merits of the candidates and their future responsibilities. It was very helpful and clear.

I also pay tribute to the work of the Procedure Committee in shaping the proposals that have brought us to this point. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) for their contributions. I say to my hon. Friend that, although some might think this will modify the behaviour of the press, I am not expecting it to achieve that. We can be confident, however, that it will assist us not only in setting and enforcing high standards of conduct in this place, but in ensuring that we are seen to do so. It is the public we want to focus on. We want them to understand and appreciate that.

What we are doing today is further to the House agreeing on 2 December 2010 to the principle of lay members on the Committee on Standards. The House invited the Procedure Committee to make proposals to implement that. Those proposals, with minor modifications, were given effect by the House on 12 March 2012, when Standing Order Nos. 148A and 149A were made and Standing Order No. 149 was amended. I am sure that Members do not need to be reminded of the detailed background; suffice it to say that having lay members on the Committee on Standards was a recommendation in the 2009 report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life. It therefore represents part of a wider package of rebuilding trust following the expenses scandal. In practice as well as in perception, robust independent scrutiny and regulation have come to the determination and administration of our expenses, pay and pensions. They will now also play an important part in our internal disciplinary processes.

With that in mind, the Government, and I am sure the whole House, support the appointment of lay members to the Committee on Standards. Their participation in our standards processes will provide a most valuable addition to the work of the Committee on Standards and, if necessary, a challenge to its work—I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Rother Valley for illustrating how that might be possible in practice. That will increase public confidence in the work of the Committee.

As someone who participated in the selection process, which my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross described, may I also say that I can recommend the candidates to the House? I was impressed by the evident time and trouble they had taken in preparing for and participating in the selection process. I believe the House will find in them the right balance of experience, judgment and integrity. The candidates were also clear about their need and wish to undertake necessary training and induction in preparation for their role. I know that the Committee and House service will want to ensure that that is available.

Members will also be aware from the Order Paper that there are two motions to be considered later today that seek to implement the previous decisions of the House—of 2 December 2011 and 12 March 2012—to split the Standards and Privileges Committee into two Committees: one on standards, the other on privileges. Should the House agree to the motion before us now and the further two motions on the Order Paper, then according to the Standing Order changes agreed on 12 March this year and with effect from 7 January 2013, as described by the shadow Leader of the House, the Standards and Privileges Committee will divide and lay members will play the role on the Committee on Standards that my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross set out earlier.

On behalf of the Government and as Leader of the House, I support the motion, and I look forward to welcoming the lay members to their new and important role in the new year.

Question put and agreed to.

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

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. This morning we had the First Reading of the Succession to the Crown Bill. It is my understanding that this is a constitutional Bill, so I was wondering whether there was any way of asking the Leader of the House to confirm whether it would be taken on the Floor of the House.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, that is not a point of order, although I am sure that the Leader of the House has picked up his question.

Backbench Business

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Animal Welfare (Exports)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

12:13

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of live animal exports and animal welfare.

It is a great pleasure to open this debate, which was requested by a cross-party group of Members. I want first to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting us a debate on this extremely important issue. It is an extraordinary thing: Britain can have extreme pride when it comes to animal welfare—we have a strong sense of tradition. This is the country that passed the first piece of legislation on animal welfare—I believe it was in 1635—when we prohibited the pulling of wool off sheep and forbade the attaching of ploughs to horses’ tails.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Can the hon. Lady advise us whether that was in any way gold-plating of EU regulations?

[Laura Sandys]

I am sure the horses and sheep would have had something to say if it had been. That legislation was not only about animal welfare, but about more effective agriculture—I am concerned about how effective a plough drawn from the end of a horse’s tail would be. Even Cromwell decreed through parish rights that

“No Man shall exercise any Tyranny or Cruelty towards any brute Creature which are usually kept for man’s use.”

We should therefore be proud of our traditions and standards.

It was for that reason that when I became a Member of Parliament, I did not feel that this issue would concern me particularly. I felt we were leading the way—setting the standard. That was most certainly the case until live animal exports started from my local port in Ramsgate. As I started to see the trade first hand, I was extremely surprised that we in this country had so little power or control over the well-being of the animals bred here by UK farmers and exported to the continent. The trade out of Ramsgate shows, for example, how many licensing regimes regulate the industry. The ship that takes the animals across from Ramsgate to France is licensed in Latvia, but was designed as a roll-on, roll-off vessel for river crossings in Russia, not for crossing the channel. The transport licence holder has a licence in Holland. The drivers of the lorries do not need licences at all, but they do need to hold certificates of competence, which can be granted in any country, including those with different animal welfare priorities. They do not have the same tradition as us or the same high standards.

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

If I could take the hon. Lady back to the vessel that carries the animals across the channel, does she know why it is used instead of the normal channel ferries on the Dover-Calais routes, which carry lots of goods, travel faster and are in better condition?

[Laura Sandys]

The trade used to be out of Dover, but there was an issue with berths and some of the animal transport boats. Indeed, there was an issue before I entered this House whereby the ferry operators banned the trade on their ferries. As a result, a specific transportation mechanism was needed, but we are talking about a ship that is not equipped to go across the channel, despite our regulators saying that it is. It is equipped for fresh-water river crossings, not channel crossings in the middle of winter. We have already had a major crisis, when animals were taken halfway across the channel but had to return because the boat could not manage the seas.

Let me return to the drivers, the third element in all this. They do not need licences; they need certificates of competence. Certificates of competence can be granted in any country, with any set of standards, and would not necessarily meet the standards of competency in this country, which must reflect not only an ability to deal with animal welfare in a positive sense, but an ability to deal with animals in a crisis. I have seen major problems on my portside when people without the relevant competency have tried to deal with crises and emergencies.

Of course we have to meet EU standards, but others do not have to meet UK standards. When I went to see the commissioner in Brussels, he told me that he was keen for the rest of Europe to raise its welfare standards to match ours, but at the moment we are witnessing a race to the bottom. As a result, lowest common denominator standards are being applied to all the different licensing regimes in the different parts of the live animal export supply chain. Our farmers in this country are not lax about animal welfare. They take huge pride in maintaining standards, but once they start trading in the licensing regime, the EU standards apply. I have been contacted by many farmers who have been appalled by what is going on in my port.

[Mr Kevan Jones (North Durham) (Lab)]

Is this not another example of the UK gold-plating regulations while the rest of Europe ignores them? Is the hon. Lady aware of moves in any other European countries to ensure that at least the minimum standards in the regulations are enforced?

[Laura Sandys]

That is an important point. The commissioner told me that one of his key priorities was to enforce the existing EU regulations across all of Europe, because there are quite a lot of inconsistencies. Despite my dislike of gold-plated EU regulations, I believe that, in this instance, it is the gold-plating that enables us proudly to maintain our tradition as a country that stands up for animal welfare across the board. However, we need to encourage the Minister of State to be much more forthright towards countries that adopt different standards.

[Mr Jones]

Is the hon. Lady aware of any countries that are not complying with the minimum standards set out in the current European regulations?

[Laura Sandys]

I do not have precise knowledge of which countries are not complying with the regulations. Animal welfare can also be a cultural issue, with different countries having different cultural responses to the regulations. I hope other Members will agree that our Minister needs to be absolutely clear with countries that are pursuing the lowest possible level of animal welfare provision or that are not meeting the UK’s standards, which should represent the gold standard.

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

On the question of port inspections, I was concerned to note that only 45 out of almost 40,000 animals were deemed unfit to continue their journey when inspected at the port. Does the hon. Lady agree that there might be a lack of decent inspections on our side of the channel as well?

[Laura Sandys]

There are issues about the EU, and there are issues about the competent authority. The competent authority in this instance is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it needs to ensure that we have a gold standard for inspections, enforcement and licensing.

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

On the point about enforcement, my hon. Friend might be aware that article 26.6 of European Council regulation No. 1/ 2005 gives member states the power temporarily to prohibit the use of transportation in the case of

“repeated or serious infringements of this Regulation…even if the transporter or the means of transport is authorised by another Member State”.

Would she therefore acknowledge that a power exists within the regulation to take unilateral action?

[Laura Sandys]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s great knowledge of EU regulations. I will come to that point in a moment. It is crucial that the existing powers are aggressively exercised in this trade, and the first challenge that I shall throw to the Minister, which I am sure he will welcome, is that he should use his good offices and his political will to ensure that we raise standards right across Europe.

The second priority for me and my local residents is that we seek to ban live animal exports. The fact that there are few benefits to the trade is illustrated by the significant drop in the number of live animals being traded out. The problem is that our farmers are not being properly paid for the food they produce. My understanding, from talking to representatives of the National Farmers Union, is that this is a marginal trade undertaken by some farmers who can get a better price for their animals on the continent. It is crucial that farmers are properly paid for their work and for their investment in animals. We need to ensure that we are building the right levels of value into the food supply chain, and that we do not undercut certain stages of our food production.

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

Some farmers in Northern Ireland say that they are at the mercy of the prices that local slaughterhouses are offering. Does the hon. Lady acknowledge the real concern that that could drive prices down even further for farmers?

[Laura Sandys]

I know that the trade in Ireland is much bigger than it is on the mainland—or certainly than it is in England. I am interested in this issue in a broader sense, right along the food supply chain, and I believe that we have undervalued food across the board. We need to ensure that farmers are getting fair prices, but this trade is not the answer to the fundamental problem of the market not delivering good value to farmers. We need to address the problem comprehensively, and I know that it is the will of my constituents—and of many people around the country—that we should be seeking to impose a ban on live animal exports. There is no reason why farmers should not be able to get good value for their animals by exporting them after slaughter, rather than on the hoof.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I, too, would support a ban on live animal exports. Would she acknowledge that the journey of animals being exported for slaughter often starts many miles and many hours from the port from which they exit this country, and that it can continue for many kilometres and many hours before they arrive at their destination on the continent, where they are to be slaughtered?

[Laura Sandys]

I totally agree. The transportations that go out of Ramsgate can come not only from the north of England but from Ireland, and we can speculate that they are ending up in southern France, Spain and sometimes Greece. I still do not understand how that business model can deliver value, given the time taken to transport the animals from one end of Europe to the other, along with the cost of transportation, licensing costs and lairage. I do not understand the fundamentals of the business of transporting animals that far.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

I am glad that my hon. Friend is focusing on the welfare of animals. Does she agree that that is more important than the question of whether they cross a border? Many animals being taken for slaughter within mainland UK experience longer journeys than those being exported from, say, Northern Ireland to somewhere not very far away in the Republic of Ireland.

[Laura Sandys]

Absolutely. Animals can be transported across Europe, and the journey need not involve crossing water, but our priority must be the standard of that transportation. As I said, the licensing regime has many layers, which creates a lot of confusion and inhibits us from imposing our own animal welfare values on operators within our borders.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I confess that I have not finished my research for the debate, so, given that we have reached it earlier than I anticipated, the hon. Lady might be able to help me out with a figure. I believe that the number of animals exported is less than 5% of the total number slaughtered in the UK, which gives us a measure of the size of this trade. Does she know what percentage of live export animals are sold abroad for breeding purposes rather than for slaughter and meat?

[Laura Sandys]

As I understand it, there are two quite distinct trades. The animals exported through my port are definitely for slaughter and not for breeding. I am happy to be corrected, but I believe that animals for breeding will be transported in quite different conditions from those transported for slaughter. That shows the difference between looking at the issue as a long-term economic asset as compared with a temporary price differential to be achieved in a different territory.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

According to Compassion in World Farming, about 4.5 million sheep were slaughtered in the UK in 2011, but only about 72,000 exported—0.5% of the total. That chimes with what the hon. Lady was saying—that it is difficult to understand why there is an economic imperative for sending those 0.5% of sheep abroad for slaughter rather than slaughtering them here.

[Laura Sandys]

I am grateful for the hon. Lady’s knowledge in this field, which is extensive.

I asked the Commission in Brussels whether it had done any form of business analysis to show why this business is economic. I still feel that fair prices for farmers that take animal welfare really seriously are absolutely crucial. I do not necessarily understand the business model behind the exporting business.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is setting out the case very clearly. She makes the point that animal welfare is central and highlights the UK’s excellent record. It is integral to the case she is making for minimising animal transportation wherever possible. If there has to be transportation in the UK or beyond, there should be the highest welfare standards. That is an issue for the Minister to address through the competence of DEFRA as much as anything else.

[Laura Sandys]

I agree with hon. Gentleman. A point about gold-plating was raised earlier. It applies to some of the legislation on abattoirs, and relates to transportation distances becoming longer within the UK. There are issues with domestic animal welfare that we have not necessarily promoted.

Let me return to some of the key themes, which I hope other Members will take further. I shall come on to the third element about which I feel strongly as I represent the interests of my constituents. The first two themes are EU competences and EU legislation, where the Minister represents and reflects our concerns, but the third is about the UK as a competent authority. I appreciate the restrictions on DEFRA’s ability to act, but I sometimes feel that it can be a touch meek and mild, not using all the entry points it might have.

I welcome the Minister’s statement yesterday on tightening some of the regulations and enforcement, but I would like to see a lot more commitment in three key areas. The first relates to a “fit and proper operator”. We must clearly understand what infringements an operator must commit to stop being fit and proper. I have no understanding of that, but I am greatly concerned about the transporter that has received six warning notices from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. We have had major crises in the port side, with 47 animals being slaughtered. A ram that broke its horn had to be shot in the truck and was then pulled out. We do not have penning arrangements, yet we still have an operator that can receive licences. I would be interested to know whether DEFRA has contacted the Dutch authorities to express concern about the method used and the experiences that we have had to endure in Ramsgate.

I reiterate the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) about the very strong powers. If we look at paragraph 6 of article 26 of the EU Council regulations, we find that there is an opportunity to

“temporarily prohibit the transporter or means of transport concerned with transporting animals on its territory”.

I hope that the Minister will be increasingly robust about that issue.

Two other smaller issues are crucial, the first of which is the cost of licensing. I was fascinated and staggered to find that there was no cost to a transportation licence. Someone applies and, if they have a certificate of competence, there are no related costs. I have run two small businesses and all I can say is that I had to pay every time health and safety turned up at my door to give me a certificate to be a fit and proper organisation. There are lots of costs in running an organisation. There is then the added cost to the taxpayer, which in this instance is for animal welfare inspections of the operations that the Minister is running through DEFRA. Why has that fully-loaded cost not been put on to the operator? Ultimately, as small businesses, we all pay for the regulatory regime to which we are subject.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend feel that if the cost were put on the operator, it might discourage some of the horrific tales we have heard about, and perhaps discourage the more cavalier and cowboy operators from involvement in this trade?

[Laura Sandys]

It is crucial that we accept and tolerate only the very best transporters in the sector. I feel strongly about this trade generally, but we must ensure that operators take their responsibilities extremely seriously and that this trade is not being subsidised by all of us as taxpayers. In my constituency, where there is much more involvement, it is my local taxpayers who are paying for a lot of this, and I would like to see them refunded for the impact it is having on their bills.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

My understanding is that there is a cost to licensing. I shall use the example of George Neville’s firm, which is in the Minister’s constituency, abutting mine. It has a fleet of 20 vehicles—this is executive transport, with water, fans and hydraulic decks that lift up and down so the stress levels on the animals are hugely reduced—but it pays £4,000 for the licences on those 20 vehicles.

[Laura Sandys]

That sounds like the Rolls-Royce of transportation, and I would be very pleased if the animals coming through Ramsgate were in that sort of condition. My understanding is, however, that people can apply for a transportation licence, although I do not know whether this is a different sort of licence from the one to which the hon. Lady has just referred, and that they can get it for free.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Is the hon. Lady aware of anyone who has been refused a licence, and how many licences have been withdrawn because of welfare concerns?

[Laura Sandys]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We are now 25 minutes into this debate, when 10 to 15 minutes was expected. The hon. Lady has taken many interventions, but I am sure that she must be coming to a conclusion as she wants to allow other Members to enter the debate.

[Laura Sandys]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am sure that the Minister will be happy to answer the questions put to me.

I believe that we need to look clearly at what is going on in Europe and to raise standards in Europe, ensuring that we address some of the licensing regimes across Europe. Ultimately, I urge the Minister to use all the powers he has—they seem explicit and give him a lot of scope—to ensure that if we must have this transportation mechanism and live animal exports, we have the best in business.

12:39

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on her efforts to arrange a debate in the Chamber on this subject, and on her speech. She is obviously doing a very good job in representing the wishes of her constituents. I am very disappointed that the High Court overturned the moratorium that Thanet district council had imposed on animal exports until it could be sure that animal welfare standards were being met and that RSPCA inspectors would be able to check the conditions of the animals, but I understand that the council intends to appeal, and I wish it every success.

My starting point is the same as that of the hon. Member for South Thanet. I think that live animal exports are cruel and unnecessary, and I should like them to be banned. I agree with Compassion in World Farming, which has said:

“Live exports have no place in modern British farming. We must end the trade once and for all.”

[Henry Smith]

Today we are discussing live animal exports, but there are live animal imports as well, and some of those animals are primates. In 2011, up to 1,500 primates were imported to this country for the purpose of experimentation, from countries as far away as Mauritius. Does the hon. Lady agree that we should also consider the welfare of animals that are imported to this country, whether for food or for experimentation?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman speaking out on animal welfare issues, as I know he has done on a number of other occasions. I agree that those imports are cause for serious concern. The trade in great apes has already been banned, and I think that we should go further and consider banning the trade in all primates.

Although this does not appear in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, I think it is well known that I have been a vegetarian for a long time. My 21st anniversary as a vegan is approaching: that was a new year’s resolution in 1992. Of course I would rather people did not eat animals at all, but given that they will be doing so for at least the foreseeable future, I think that UK animals should be slaughtered as close as possible to the farms where they were reared, and—I understand that the Government agree with this—that there should be an export market for meat rather than for live animals. At present, however, we are herding live, terrified animals into cramped conditions and transporting them overseas, often on journeys lasting several days.

According to Compassion in World Farming, more than 90,000 cattle and sheep were exported during the 18 months between January 2011 and June 2012, mostly through Ramsgate. The sheep tend to be exported for slaughter in continental abattoirs, while the calves are sent abroad to be fattened for veal. The long journeys are stressful for both. The journeys to Spain, for example, can take more than 90 hours, and the calves are often only two or three weeks old when they are exported. Dr Weeks of Bristol university has concluded that

“scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport…transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”

Dr Weeks says:

“Their immune systems are not fully developed”,

which makes them more susceptible to disease. They are also poorly adapted to cope with the temperature changes that can happen during the journeys, and with many other aspects of their transport.

Concern has also been expressed about the conditions of the animals when they arrive in the countries to which they are exported. Once they reach the continent, many calves are reared for veal in conditions so poor that they would be banned in Britain on welfare grounds. They are kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems are illegal in the UK, as our legislation requires calves to be provided with appropriate bedding. We should ask ourselves why we are sending animals abroad to be kept in conditions that we would not allow in the UK.

The same applies to sheep, many of which are exported from Britain to be slaughtered in France. A few years ago, an investigation of 25 French slaughterhouses by a French animal welfare organisation revealed many breaches of EU legislation that was designed to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. British sheep are also exported to the Netherlands. A report published earlier this year by a European Union organisation identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. Once the animals leave Britain, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. The National Farmers Union claims that they are treated well before and during transportation, but the recent deaths of sheep that were being transported through Ramsgate demonstrate that that is not always the case.

I consider it highly unsatisfactory that live exports cannot be legally prohibited. In general, I accept that as members of the European Union we sign up to collective laws and that that is part and parcel of the deal, but yesterday I took part in a protest outside Fortnum and Mason about its sales of foie gras. The situation in the United Kingdom is fairly ridiculous: along with 17 other countries, we ban the production of foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban imports from France. PETA—People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals—has carried out undercover filming which reveals terrible conditions, including the grotesque force-feeding of the geese that produce foie gras, but we are not allowed to ban it because of EU free-trade laws, and we are obviously in a similar position when it comes to live exports. I accept, at least for the moment, that we cannot prohibit the trade, but we need to consider how existing regulations can be properly enforced and the highest possible animal welfare standards adhered to.

The last Labour Government tried to strengthen EU regulations. In November 2011, the European Commission published a review of the animal transport regulation— Regulation 1/2005—which stated that severe welfare problems still existed. It called for new ways of improving the implementation of existing rules—including satellite tracking systems, more frequent inspections, and better reporting on compliance by member states—rather than proposing any changes to legislation. In June this year, however, the EU Health Commissioner, who has responsibility for this issue, said that current legislation could not adequately protect animals on long journeys, and that the EC would propose a review of EU legislation including a proposal for reduced transport times. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether, rather than merely ensuring that the existing regulations are “enforced strictly and rigorously”, as they have said is their intention, the Government would be prepared to support a review of the current legislation as well.

Many MPs and Members of the European Parliament have backed the campaign by Compassion in World Farming to set a maximum limit of eight hours for the transport of animals, and more than 1.1 million EU citizens have signed a petition requesting a time limit. The campaign calls on the EU to amend its legislation so that live animals can never be transported for more than eight hours, and yesterday the European Parliament reaffirmed its support for it.

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

We all respect the hon. Lady’s views on these matters, but I fear that an eight-hour limit would affect traditional UK farming practices. For instance, animals that are bred and reared on remote Scottish islands need to be brought to the mainland, where grazing and arable crops are better, in order to be “finished” for slaughter. The limit would cause problems for them, and for traditional agriculture practices on those islands.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I was coming to that. The motion in the European Parliament was passed by 555 votes to 56, which constitutes pretty overwhelming support for a reduction in journey times. The motion allowed some geographical and science-based exemptions in the case of certain species, which could perhaps be factored in provided animal welfare standards were met, but I think it has been accepted that the introduction of an eight-hour limit would bring most UK live exports to an end.

It is true that journey time limits in themselves cannot guarantee animal welfare. The hon. Member for South Thanet mentioned the vehicles on which animals are transported, and the need for inspections and the good handling of animals. However, Regulation 1/2005 recognises that

“Long journeys are likely to have more detrimental effects on the welfare of animals than short ones”.

Let me finally put a few questions to the Minister. The final decision rests with the Council of the European Union, which comprises the national Ministers of the 27 member states. Has the Minister any plans to discuss with his ministerial counterparts whether to review or amend Regulation 1/2005? What discussions has he had with his ministerial counterparts about an eight-hour limit, in the light of the overwhelming vote by the European Parliament and the fact that more than 1 million EU citizens signed the petition? What are the Government doing to ensure that animals are slaughtered as close as possible to the farms where they are reared, rather than encouraging the transport of live animals?

In June 2012, I wrote to the then Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice). I felt at the time that Government lacked the will to deal with the issue. However, I have great faith in the new farming Minister, who, I believe, will be far more constructive and willing to make progress, and I look forward to hearing from him.

12:49

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, as it is directly relevant to my life experience. I am one of the livestock farmers that other Members have been talking about for many years. I have been indirectly involved in the live export trade. In the early part of my career I was a cattle farmer, and nearly all the British male breeding stock has changed since then. We are now using European breeds—Charolais, Limousin and Simmental. The quality of British beef has been completely transformed, therefore, simply through the relationship between this country and other countries. That process is still going on elsewhere.

The main part of my enterprise was producing sheep, however. Exporting to France was particularly common. Most of my stock were sold at the local livestock market, where they were bought by a dealer, who would put together a lorry-load. The standards of those who transported animals were very high. The lorries at the Welshpool livestock market were of a very high standard, and many people were watching the quality of the loading, which was very good.

Some 20 or 30 years ago I would sell my small hill lambs towards the end of the season. The tradition then was to take them to the small market in Llanfair Caereinion from where they were taken to Spain. They were kept in Spain for several weeks, and the feeding regime was changed so the quality of the product was changed. I discussed the whole process with the local transporter, M. E. Edwards and Sons—one of the finest transporters in Britain, with very high standards, who is still operating today. The point was made to me that transporting those lambs served to underpin the lamb trade in rural Wales, and that they were far better treated than lambs supplied from elsewhere to the Spanish market would have been. If the lambs had not been transported from Wales, in what seemed to me to be the highest possible standards, they would have come from other parts of Europe, where standards had not been checked.

I have a lot of sympathy with many of the points made in the debate so far. I am in favour of gold-plating the standards of animal transport. It is a lot more important to ensure there are high transportation standards than to worry about distances. I am not in favour of banning live exports, and it is not entirely logical to concern ourselves with distance. We must make certain that all transport is of the very highest standard, and we should demand that when journeys cross borders, too.

Most of the store cattle at my farm in central Wales were sold to central Scotland, where they were fattened. That journey probably took longer than some of the time scales we are talking about. I cannot see the point of such time limits, and neither do I envisage that they will ever become law.

Let me turn to the question of unintended consequences. When I was in my teens, I was involved in these issues. Many people will remember the demonstrations at Dover. They were a matter of some concern, as they were hugely damaging to the farming industry. The ferry companies felt under public relations pressure, and eventually decided no longer to carry the animals. They were then transferred to Ramsgate, Ipswich or other ports where the standards were far lower. The boats were far less safe and less comfortable for the animals, and the travel time is far greater, and the facilities at the docks are not as good. The unintended consequence of having created that huge rumpus at Dover was a lowering of the standards of animal welfare.

Those who transport livestock from Britain must meet the gold-plated standards we in Britain demand. If we stop live exports, European companies will still buy lambs to satisfy demand in their markets, but they will buy them from somewhere else. The result of a ban on animal transportation will be that the sum total of animal cruelty is increased, and no one wants that. We must be aware of the possible unintended consequences of the proposals we make.

I welcome the Minister’s recent statement on these matters. We want to maximise the proportion of slaughtering that takes place in the United Kingdom, rather than abroad. That will support the British economy and mean there are more jobs in the United Kingdom. European markets need to be educated, however. The French like to have lamb that has been in France for a day or two so they can describe it to customers as “Welsh lamb.” The Spanish certainly used to want to have the animals in Spain for quite a long period so they could have different feeding regimes and the resulting meat was different and more attractive to the Spanish market. We need to change the nature of the markets in Europe, therefore.

I am also pleased about the Minister’s focus on zero tolerance. If a transporter is found guilty several times, their licence must be taken away as they are not fit for the job. This is a highly sensitive job that is important to the farming industry, and the British people have a natural instinct to care about the animals we farm. It is unacceptable for anybody who has a record of poor behaviour to have a licence to transport animals. They must be kicked out of the industry all together.

The Minister referred to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. Wherever there is the slightest doubt about standards—as there is in Ramsgate at present—the agency must check up on the situation very closely. There must immediately be a Government presence at the port in question and action must be taken if necessary.

[Lyn Brown]

rose—

[Glyn Davies]

I was going to finish there, but as the hon. Lady wants to intervene, I shall pretend I have another half-sentence to say.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I listened intently to the points he made. I did not agree with some of them, but as his speech came across as a confessional, I felt I should not intervene until now. Does he agree that what happened at Ramsgate—some 40 sheep died—is unlikely to be an isolated incident? We need a proper review into the transportation of animals, and an inspection regime must be put in place. Does he agree, and will he call for a proper review by the Government, not a narrow internal one?

[Glyn Davies]

I am terribly sorry if my speech came across as any sort of confessional. Throughout my involvement in the business, I have been extremely proud of it. Indeed, if I lived my life again, I would probably do exactly the same thing. I see absolutely no reason to apologise for anything. May I also say how much I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) about improved payment being a good thing for farmers in this country?

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman may be leading us to a more compassionate future if he decides to finish the sheep that he has in Wales; he could give them a Spanish diet for the last few months and export them as carcasses. Would that not be both profitable and more humane?

[Glyn Davies]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is being completely serious, but I rather agree with the principle of what he is saying, and this goes back to what I said about education. Whatever we can do to move to a system of slaughtering in Britain for the European market, I wholly applaud, but I do not think we can do that now; it would be like taking step 10 without taking steps one to nine first, and it would not be sensible at the moment. We should continue with the live export trade—we probably have no choice but to do so—as it is the right thing to do, but we should do it absolutely properly.

13:00

[Jim Fitzpatrick (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), who demonstrated his long experience and expertise in these matters. We are grateful for that contribution, as it helps us to get a better understanding of this subject. I am pleased to be a co-sponsor of this debate, along with the hon. Members for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas). I am looking forward to the Minister’s response to the many questions raised. I was one of his predecessors as Minister of State in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and I recall that when I was appointed I was identified in the Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph as a “townie veggie” and a “lacto-pescatarian”. I also had some fun poked at me by Horse and Hound, although being attacked by Horse and Hound is a bit of a badge of a honour for Labour Members, so it did not do me any harm whatsoever. This issue came across my desk, and I was reassured about the regulations, the monitoring and the enforcement. Some three years later, the Minister is being asked these questions again.

The National Farmers Union was much more generous in its welcome of my appointment. It said, “We don’t care where he comes from or what he eats. We will judge him on what he does for farming.” I built up a very constructive relationship with the NFU in my time as Minister of State at DEFRA, and I have high regard for the farming community. That arises, first, from the quality of product they produce and the very high animal welfare standards to which they produce it. Our standards are much higher than those of most of the rest of the European Union, as can be seen in the lead we have set on chickens, eggs, poultry and the rest. Sometimes that has been at the expense of the farmers, because they pay for it out of the profit they make at the end of the year. We also charge farmers with responsibility for looking after the countryside and our environment. The farming community is a big part of the United Kingdom, economically, industrially and environmentally, so I have nothing but regard for the NFU and its members.

The hon. Member for South Thanet raised two key issues: the general issue of live animal exports; and the secondary issue of what happened at Ramsgate in September. Those issues are distinctly different and need to be addressed differently. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) will cover the Labour party position on live exports in detail, but I can say that we have called for a full review into the trade; a look at the treaty of Rome, because measures to ban any live trade would fall foul of that; and better facilities to be available at or near the port of Ramsgate. Hon. Members have already drawn attention to European regulation 1/2005 and the minimal animal welfare provisions, so I do not need to go into that, although the Minister may wish to refer to it when he responds.

My hon. Friend has previously asked the Minister

“if he will carry out a full review into the animal welfare considerations of the live export trade”.

He was told:

“The Government has no plans to carry out such a review.”—[Official Report, 4 December 2012; Vol. 554, c. 713W.]

It is a measure of the power of Backbench Business Committee debates that the Minister made the statement yesterday that he has taken action on this issue and the export of live animals through the port of Ramsgate will face tougher welfare checks. One can only assume that that is a result of his having examined the questions, the correspondence and the fact that this debate was taking place.

The Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency has been asked to look into the three additional measures that the Minister mentioned: the AHVLA implementing its own contingency plans in the event of an emergency with the transport; improved procedures to ensure that an AHVLA vet is always within an hour of the port to assist inspectors in the event of an emergency or welfare concern; and working with the operator of the transport vessel to develop new contingency measures. Those very important measures have been raised by the Minister and they may offer some reassurance. However, for the House and for the hon. Member for South Thanet clearly they only reinforce the questions she asked in her introductory remarks, such as why it has taken so long for these things to be identified. She also asked about the pre-existing arrangements, and the monitoring and enforcement that was going on.

I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals for its briefing on the subject. Its policy position is clear. It wants: an end to the long-distance transport of live animals, with a maximum journey of eight hours; amendments to existing legislation; and full costs being paid by the hauliers rather than by the taxpayer. That brings us to the question raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire and others about the suitability of Ramsgate as opposed to Dover. We are advised by the RSPCA that the

“trade in live animals changed to Ramsgate from Dover in…2010 as the loading bay in the port of Dover had been damaged.”

The hon. Gentleman suggested that commercial reasons may have been behind this, because of the lobbying by animal welfare groups against the general trade in live animal exports.

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

I noted the hon. Gentleman’s comments about an eight-hour transporting limit, but that would preclude a number of people transporting their animals from west Wales and from mid-Wales to markets in the UK. How would he overcome that problem?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. The point was dealt with earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) and the explanation she gave about exemptions for particular species in regions and areas covers that. I was not setting out my position; I was putting on the record the RSPCA’s position, out of gratitude for the briefing and information they supplied me, so that it is in the public domain for anyone listening, watching or reading afterwards. They will be able to weigh that up in the mix and decide whether it is something that they want to support.

On Ramsgate versus Dover, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire suggested that the decision may well have been a commercial one taken by the ferry operators because they did not want to inflame or outrage public opinion and were aware of the power and influence of the animal welfare lobby against live exports. The perverse outcome is that instead of the animals being transported on vessels that are quicker and better equipped to carry cargo, and having better animal welfare facilities available much nearer the port, the animals have to go to the port of Ramsgate in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Thanet. It is clearly not as suitable and it does not have the facilities. Clearly, the vessel she described was not built for this particular trade. The perversity of the outcome leaves a bad taste; it is a success for those lobbyists who chased the trade from Dover, but the animals have to go through the additional journey time, the additional discomfort and so on. I am not sure that that counts as animal welfare. It certainly does not address animal welfare concerns as I would understand them. I look forward to hearing whether the Minister has anything to say about that.

The second issue is the incident in September. Yesterday, I had a meeting with the NFU and I have also received a briefing from it, for which I am grateful. I know that the NFU has written to the Minister, asking a number of questions. Who made the decision to unload? Who decided to kill the animals and which ones to kill? What were the reasons for the kill? Why were the animals unloaded on to an uneven surface? Why were there open drain pits and animals drowning, not just being shot? Were they shot in the right part of the head? What were the skill levels of those involved, who were clearly moved by compassion and tried to do the right thing? When we see the photographs of the blood, the animals and the discomfort, we see that this clearly was not done in a way that the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire would recognise; it was not done in the professional way that we would all expect. In that instance, there are serious questions to which I hope the Minister will be able to respond. I know that there is an inquiry going on and that he might very well be constrained in how much he can share with us, but a commitment to ensure that that is in the public domain as quickly as possible so that we can return to the subject will, I am sure, be welcome.

I hope, too, that the Minister will make comparisons between the trade from the south-west and Wales to Ireland and the trade to the continent. I do not hear the noises from Wales—I do not hear about protests at Holyhead or people complaining about the live trade there, so I assume that that trade works in the way that the Department and industry want it to work in contrast with the way it is operating at Ramsgate.

[Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying and he is setting out his case very clearly. Does he agree with many of my constituents that the important thing is to establish what happened and ensure that it never happens again?

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

That is a very good question to conclude the points I am making to the Minister. As I said in my opening remarks, there are two distinct questions. One is about live exports as a trade. Although I do not eat meat and poultry—my cards are on the table—that is a matter of choice and if the trade is legal, which it is, and if people are making a living out of it and there are jobs and economies at stake, I would go along with it. What happened at Ramsgate is a whole different ballgame, and the concerns about Ramsgate’s suitability as a port were well expressed by the hon. Member for South Thanet, in whose constituency the port is situated. In that instance, those questions are very valid.

As I have said, trade is legal and we found out from the exchange between the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East that we are talking about 0.5% of UK trade in sheep. Regulations are supposed to cover the facilities, the transportation, the haulage companies and the principle of animal welfare. The questions are therefore about the relevance of the rights, their validity, their monitoring and their enforcement. There are many questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer, although we recognise that he will not be able to answer all of them. I look forward to even better reassurances than those that I was able to give when I was sitting in his place.

13:12

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who shared with us his experience when he held the post of Minister responsible for agriculture in the previous Labour Government.

I want to declare an interest that appears in the register, as I am a livestock farmer producing both sheep and cattle. I have no doubt that in the past many of the animals might have been subject to live export, but at present almost 100% of everything that is produced on my farm, when it leaves my farm, is sent by me to a slaughterhouse in Merthyr Tydfil, about 20 miles away, which has an excellent reputation for animal welfare, hygiene, cleanliness and all we would want to see in a slaughterhouse. Many of us feel much more comfortable now we know that our animals are going to a slaughterhouse like that, which will dispatch them in the best way possible.

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on introducing this debate, which is very useful. I anticipated that it might be a little better attended, but I congratulate everyone who has taken part on doing so in a constructive and measured way. Anyone who is interested in animal welfare and wants to see it improved will find this debate a valuable asset.

I think that it has been agreed that at the moment live export is a legal operation. Indeed, it would be illegal to ban live exports of animals, as in the 1990s the European Court twice ruled that the UK could not ban live exports. When the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse was a Minister—I am glad he is in the Chamber today—he was asked what progress the Labour Government had made in reducing live animal exports, and he replied:

“The export of live animals is a lawful trade and to restrict it would be contrary to free trade rules.”—[Official Report, 20 July 2009; Vol. 496, c. 716.]

That is where we are at the moment.

The hon. Member for South Thanet has taken the right line. Rather than calling for something that we cannot do immediately or perhaps ever, let us put all our effort into making things better. Let us have zero tolerance for poor animal welfare. I agree very much with my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) on that point. I also welcome the Minister’s announcement that the AHVLA will check every consignment of live animals scheduled to pass through the port.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that zero tolerance should include stricter penalties for abuses of the welfare system?

[Roger Williams]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. People who are found to have repeatedly committed criminal offences in respect of animal welfare should be banned from carrying out such activities at all. That would not only be a very good encouragement for people to adopt better animal welfare conditions, but would mean that the worst offenders were no longer involved in the trade.

On doing research for this debate, I found various numbers for how many sheep and cattle are being exported live from this country. Out of the 15 million sheep produced in this country for sale, almost 99.5% are slaughtered in this country, and of those, 30% are exported in carcass form or as meat products not only to the continent but more widely, including to the middle east and far east. That is an important trade for the agricultural industry.

The NFU gave me some figures. They were not as helpful as they could have been, because the period covered was not given, but it seems that about 43,000 live sheep are exported from this country to the three main destinations to which sheep are exported. Those 43,000 sheep can be set against roughly 5 million that are slaughtered in this country and exported as carcasses. The vast majority of live exports in the UK go to the Republic of Ireland, most of which will simply be crossing a land border. People might like to distinguish between sheep travelling across land and sheep travelling across sea, and the point has been made about the suitability of the vessel employed in such circumstances. When we address animal welfare issues, we must address the quality not only of lorry transport but of ship transport.

I have already made the point that in setting time limits for journeys, we must take into account traditional agricultural practices. For instance, on the Scottish islands, on islands in the rest of Europe and in some remote areas, animals need to travel for winter grazing, improved grazing or better arable crops in order to be prepared for slaughter.

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

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about animal movements. Even in the case of transporting animals over the Irish sea, it is not whether they go by ferry but the length of time and conditions that are paramount. It makes sense for the producer and the consumer to have a better sheep or a better beast arriving in better order.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and his experience of representing his constituency is important in these matters.

The hon. Member for South Thanet asked what type of business plan encourages this type of live export. I cannot believe that anybody who loads 100 live sheep on to a lorry and at the end of the journey unloads 95 live sheep and five dead ones can make money out of that in the long term.

[Tessa Munt]

I have spoken already about executive transport for cattle and sheep, with which I am familiar. If a company that pays £90,000 for an Italian-made trailer and £70,000 for the tractor unit to draw it can carry cattle, sheep and other animals, can operate at such costs and can meet the Freedom Foods certificate standards, it is clearly possible to do that and still make money.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The discussion this afternoon shows that although some hon. Members may wish to ban live exports altogether, most would want it carried out in the way that is most conducive to good animal welfare. My hon. Friend makes the important point that much of the transport that is now provided for animals is of a very high standard. Water and ventilation are provided, there are rest periods and journeys are of limited duration.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech, and I would join in the many compliments to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys). The hon. Gentleman has spoken about the improving standards of transport and conditions on the vehicles—lorries and boats. My hon. Friend raised the crucial point about the ports. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that enforcement at the ports is vital if we are to improve animal welfare standards?

[Roger Williams]

Indeed—not only enforcement at the ports, but the right sort of facilities at the ports to deal, for example, with emergencies or with animals that cannot be loaded at a specific time because weather conditions preclude sailing. Good conditions at the port are almost as important as the enforcement that the hon. Gentleman highlights.

[Paul Flynn]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Roger Williams]

I will give way to my good friend from Newport.

[Paul Flynn]

Always a friend of the farmers on this subject.

We heard about the very distressing case of the lorry that was on its way to Ramsgate. It was stopped because of a suspected traffic offence. It seems extraordinary that regulations do not allow many more lorries to be stopped to ensure that the dreadful conditions in which those animals were being carried are not repeated in other vehicles.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It may be that that lorry was stopped for a suspected traffic offence, but as I understand it the animals would have to have been inspected at the time of loading. There is some lack of clarity about events at Ramsgate. It was suggested by the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), who is no longer in her place, that 40 sheep died there. In fact, 40 sheep were put down there, which is slightly different. I am clear that enforcement and inspection should be of a high order, and the Minister announced yesterday that that would be the case. Every lorry that is being prepared to board a vessel will have to be inspected.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way a second time; he is very kind. Perhaps I should have declared in my previous intervention that as a lamb producer myself, I have an interest in the matter. As a lamb producer I understand that we want to get our beasts to market—mine make a sea crossing—as clean as possible. Among crofters in the west highlands, even a couple of pounds on the price—if we do a pound or two better than our neighbours—means that we have bragging rights for the rest of the year. There are inbuilt reasons for having very good animal welfare, so that the animals are clean and have the best possible appearance and no distress when they get to the auction mart on the mainland.

[Roger Williams]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. Those of us who have been involved in animal production and would like to think that we have a high regard for animal welfare cannot believe that people in the business could be involved in damaging the animals or reducing their appearance. As he knows, the price of an animal depends not only on its health and fitness, but on its appearance. Cramming animals into very small spaces does nothing to improve their marketability.

In conclusion, I shall set out the Liberal Democrat point of view on this matter. I am sure many hon. Members would agree with this broad approach. Although we accept that live export is a legal trade and it would be difficult in the short term or even the medium term to ban it, Liberal Democrats are deeply concerned about animal welfare and the export of live animals. We would prefer animals to be slaughtered as close as possible to where they are reared. The transportation of meat and other animal by-products is always preferable to the movement of live animals. Unfortunately, the movement of live animals for trade is a perfectly lawful process. While it remains a legal trade under European laws we must allow it to continue. However, we should make sure that our animal welfare laws are followed to the letter so that no animal is made to suffer during transport.

We welcome the Minister’s announcement that every consignment of live animals scheduled to pass through the port will be inspected. We support a zero tolerance approach. If there is any evidence of slipping welfare standards, the coalition Government should not hesitate to take action. The EU has strengthened the law on live animal exports by placing strict responsibilities not just on drivers, but on others involved in the entire transport process. The authorisation and training of drivers, and the vehicles used for the transportation of live animals, should all be subject to rigorous requirements.

This debate has been very beneficial and I am sure the whole House would support improvements in animal welfare wherever the Government can find the necessary regulation to achieve them.

13:27

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

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, to have caught your eye. It has been an excellent consensual debate so far. I have the privilege of serving on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. I also serve on the Defence Committee and I hope that the Backbench Business Committee will in future consider the timings of some of these debates. I suspect that this debate may not go the whole five hours. There might have been an opportunity for a second debate later, although I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) is still to share his huge wisdom with us, which may take some time.

As a Member representing a Scottish constituency, I am cognisant of the issues facing the farming industry. It has been a measured debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) on securing it and on being present to open it and then to hear the very good exchanges that have taken place. I received a number of e-mails from constituents asking me to attend and I was happy to do so. I shall tackle a couple of issues that particularly affect Scotland. Also, I am conscious of the request from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore for a Select Committee inquiry. I shall return to that.

On the subject of transportation, the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) mentioned the importance of the export of live animals to British farmers, particularly those in the sheep industry. I understand that around 400,000 live animals a year are exported, more than 90% of which are sheep.

We all recognise the challenges facing the sheep industry across the United Kingdom, particularly in upland areas. Were we to ban live exports, not only would we fall foul of European law—article 34, I think, but I might be wrong—but there would be serious consequences for our farmers. However, that is not to say that we should not require the highest standards of animal welfare in the process, and I welcome the constructive comments made by the hon. Member for South Thanet and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse on the way forward.

It would be helpful if the Minister could set out the Government’s thoughts on some things. For example, does he agree that using regular services on large, cross-channel freight ferries from Dover might be more advantageous than the less than ideal conditions in which they are sailing from Ramsgate, as the hon. Lady said? Not only are journey times significantly shorter, but there are more frequent sailing opportunities for ferries. Also, there are probably—I hope she takes no offence—better and more appropriate port facilities for live animals at Dover than there are at Ramsgate.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Opting for an all-out ban right now would be against EU law, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the Minister did everything he could to advocate such a ban at European level, because we are often told that things are against EU law, but when member states really start to push they can get breakthroughs?

[Thomas Docherty]

No, I do not agree that we should have an outright ban. If the hon. Lady had been here since the start of the debate, she would have heard the reasons why. We have a fragile farming industry and banning the trade would be ludicrous. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is sitting beside her, will probably wish to point out to her that banning the use of ferries would effectively end sheep farming on the Western Isles, the Isle of Arran and other islands around the United Kingdom. I am sorry that she has not had the opportunity to go across the country and listen to farmers, because otherwise she would understand the fragile state of their industry and the damage an outright ban would do. If she had been here for the whole debate, rather than coming in at the last minute, she would have had an opportunity to hear the eloquent speeches made by Members on both sides of the House.

Another consideration is that there are larger, faster and more stable boats sailing each day from Dover. As the hon. Member for South Thanet set out clearly, we are dealing with a very dubious character when it comes to the gentleman running the trade out of Ramsgate. It is obvious that animal welfare is not his priority and that he is not interested in local public opinion or in what DEFRA has to say. For him, it is all about the bottom buck. It would help if the Minister set out what powers DEFRA has to ensure that a fast buck is not the most important consideration for exporters and that animal welfare is crucial.

Over the past few years we have seen that having an export market for livestock helps even those farmers who sell within the UK because it takes some of the surplus supply overseas. About six weeks ago the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and I had a very good debate in Westminster Hall on the dairy industry. We pointed out, along with another Select Committee colleague, that what farmers need is a fair price for their produce, whether it is milk, mutton, lamb or beef. Doing all we can to encourage exports will not only bring additional revenue into the UK and help the balance of payments—I do not intend to give the House a lecture on economics—but help to secure a fairer price for farmers and a vibrant farming industry. Perhaps the Minister will also set out what DEFRA intends to do to encourage exports to other parts of the European Union, because Labour Members, with perhaps one exception, recognise that a vibrant farming industry is a good thing for the British economy.

[Caroline Lucas]

I am sorry, but the condescension coming from the hon. Gentleman is hard to bear. He is implying that the UK farming industry is all of one view on this, but I know UK farmers who are absolutely against the export of live animals precisely because of the cruelty involved. To suppose that those of us who are, for strong ethical reasons, against the trade are somehow also against UK farming is a gross simplification of the issue.

[Thomas Docherty]

Obviously I speak regularly with the National Farmers Union of Scotland, and I know that colleagues speak regularly with the National Farmers Union in Wales, Northern Ireland and England. If she can point to which of those four organisations, which are the voice of farmers, shares her rather extreme views, I would be delighted to meet it.

[Mr MacNeil]

As I said, I strongly disagree with the implicit assumption that cruelty is involved. I produce lambs between March and April and sell them in August, so I know that they have to be cared for for those four months and that the last thing a farmer wants to see is them going away in any kind of cruel circumstances, not least because that affects their value, but also because they have raised them from birth. To send them away in any sort of cruel circumstances would, I think, turn the stomachs of many crofters and farmers.

[Thomas Docherty]

It is fair to say that the hon. Gentleman and I do not agree on every issue, so the fact that we are on the same side of the argument today, as are Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues and, indeed, Members on my own Front Bench—always a pleasant treat—shows clearly that the House supports a vibrant but, as the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire said, ethical and humane export policy. That is the nub of the debate. It is not about the principle of exports; it is about how we treat the animals. That is why we need more rigorous enforcement. I would be grateful if the Minister set out how he thinks DEFRA, with its existing powers, could better ensure that that happens.

The House will be aware that yesterday the European Parliament debated a motion, similar to those we often have in this place, to approve a report by its agriculture committee. It contained much to be welcomed on the issue of animal transportation. It recognised, as we have done today—those of us who have been here throughout the debate—that we should seek to have higher standards and that it is a question of how we ensure compliance across all member states.

However, there is one issue that I and the National Farmers Union of Scotland disagree with, and it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire: an obsession with the eight-hour rule. There is no credible scientific advice demonstrating that exceeding the arbitrary limit of eight hours leads to a drop in animal welfare. As the hon. Members for Na h-Eileanan an Iar and for Brecon and Radnorshire, my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and other Members from elsewhere in the great parts of the Celtic kingdoms would point out, getting to abattoirs even within the United Kingdom can take more than eight hours. I am thinking, in particular, of the pig industry and the difficult circumstances Vion is currently going through. For example, if Vion is sold and its Scottish abattoir is closed, the nearest abattoir for pig farmers from north-east Scotland will probably be in Yorkshire. If we were allowed to head down the path of the eight-hour rule, it is difficult to see how farmers in Morayshire and across north-east Scotland, never mind those in the highlands, could survive. I would like the Minister to confirm that the Government have no plans to introduce, and do not support, an eight-hour rule.

I hope that the Minister, who is no doubt busy taking notes in his head, will also tell us what discussions he has had with the devolved Administrations. It is vital that DEFRA work with Mr Lochhead in the Scottish Parliament, our Labour colleague in Wales and our Democratic Unionist party colleague in the Northern Ireland Assembly so that we are all working together on this issue, on which, overwhelmingly, all the grown-up, sensible parties are united in wanting a vibrant farming industry.

[Caroline Lucas]

Does the hon. Gentleman suppose that the entire membership of the RSPCA are not sensible people? I find his—what is the word?—patronage towards people who do not agree with him to be absolutely unacceptable.

[Thomas Docherty]

I think that the word the hon. Lady wants is “patronising” rather than “patronage”, but I accept that she was grasping for it and missed. Obviously, the RSPCA is entitled to its view, but it has not—dare I say it?—looked at the bigger picture. It is surely the job of parliamentarians to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. We have to follow the evidence, and the reality is that there is no evidence to say that an eight-hour rule would lead to a rise in animal welfare standards. In fact, it would only damage the farming industries in Scotland, parts of Wales, and Northern Ireland.

Let me move on to what more we could do. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore has written to the Select Committee about this. One issue that we have not talked about is what more supermarkets can do. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s view on whether we could encourage them to introduce labelling that says that they have introduced their own voluntary codes about humane standards and clearly states what they are. We all know of the great success that the British egg industry has had with the introduction of the red lion symbol on packets of eggs. There are also fair trade labels for overseas goods. In the debate on the dairy industry a few weeks ago, an eloquent point was made by an hon. Member who said that we rightly talk about fair trade for overseas farmers but do not talk enough about fair trade for British farmers. I want to extend that principle. We should have clearer labelling from the supermarkets and the food producers that says that all their products have been produced in a humane way that complies with the highest possible standards of animal welfare.

On the request for a Select Committee inquiry, I am not in a position to divulge the thinking of colleagues, but the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton and I have listened sympathetically to the arguments made today. We have been talking about the need for an inquiry into how EU regulations as a whole are implemented. I hope that we will have an opportunity in the near future to carry out such an inquiry, which might be a useful tool. Perhaps when my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore responds to the debate he could set out in a little more detail what he thinks the terms of reference might be.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

I will indeed do that. One of my reasons for calling for a wide-ranging review is not only to focus on the animal welfare considerations but to give the industry, which is a good industry, an opportunity to show where it is implementing good practice and to highlight the areas that might need improvement and amendment. It is very much an opportunity to salvage the reputation of the industry and to put things right where that is needed.

[Thomas Docherty]

That is a good point. I would like three major players in the industry to give evidence—the farmers themselves, those involved in transportation, and the supermarkets. Perhaps my hon. Friend can expand on that. I hope that the animal welfare charities will also come to the table and add their voice, because that is important. That will enable us to take counsel from all interested parties.

This has been an excellent debate, and I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse and the hon. Member for South Thanet on securing it. I look forward to hearing from my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore and the Minister.

13:44

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

It is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for introducing it. It is an opportune moment for us to debate live exports and, in particular, the methods used.

If we look at the number of animals that travel in and out of this country, we see that 85% of the trade is between Ireland and ourselves, so the idea that we are going to ban the live export of animals is unfeasible—it would be impossible. Furthermore, many of those animals may be intended for further fattening or breeding. It is therefore absolutely necessary for the farming community to be able to trade properly, not only with Ireland but with the rest of Europe, because, for the time being at least, we work within a single European market and expect to be able to trade as such.

Let me pinpoint what happened in Ramsgate, where 40 or 50 sheep were unloaded on to the dockside with no way of containing them. Those of us who have reared sheep know very well that, certainly without a dog or any sort of enclosure, the idea of allowing those sheep off the lorry was, to be candid, madness, because all it would do is cause a huge problem, and that is what ensued.

We need to have a system whereby proper investigations can be performed. The Minister has said that animals need to be inspected properly when they go on to the lorry, and that is fundamental. Then, if there is a problem when they get to the port, wherever it is, there needs to be some form of lairage not too far away so that if there is an emergency the animals can be unloaded and looked after properly. It is possible to take animals on journeys and look after them well. Racehorses are taken all over the world, but of course they go first class, whereas not all the animals we are discussing are going first class; I very much accept that.

Another aspect is the type of lorries that are used, which must be the proper type for the species they are transporting. When I was in the European Parliament, I did a lot of work on the transportation of horses, which requires specialist vehicles. We need the right vehicles and the right number of animals on the vehicles so that they are not overcrowded. At times of the year when it is particularly hot and the animals are reasonably crowded on the lorry, there must be proper ventilation, and sometimes refrigeration, to be able to get cold air into it. As I said, the trade is essential, but it has to observe the very best rules. We need to get the situation regarding the lorries right and get the inspections correct, and we need to be sure that, if there is an emergency, when the lorries get to the port there are the means to unload the animals carefully and to handle them properly. If we do all that, then much of what went on at Ramsgate can be put right.

Perhaps the industry needs to think about concentrating exports in particular places so that they can provide the best facilities. I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) used the word “ramshackle”. That is an interesting word, but I do not necessarily disagree with him. We cannot allow this sort of thing to happen, and I know that the Minister is very conscious of that. The public out there are supportive of agriculture and farming, but they are also very keen on animal welfare, and it is therefore in our interest to make sure that animals are treated very well. From an economic point of view, we want them to travel well and to be unloaded at the other end in good condition, or what is the purpose of transporting them in the first place?

I think we are getting carried away about distances. The driving distance from Land’s End to John O’Groat’s is, I think, a little more than 900 miles—it is nearly, but not quite, 1,000 miles. The distance between Dover and Calais is 22 miles, so as long as an export system does not take animals on long journeys, it is possible to cross either the English channel or the Irish sea without too many problems. Again, it has to be ensured that the ferries are fit for purpose and that everything works, because I think that the public demand it. The industry and farmers are conscious of that and know that it is part of the trade.

We have to put the percentage of trade in perspective. Live export, especially that for slaughter, amounts to probably only 1% or 2% of the overall market, so huge numbers of sheep and cattle are being slaughtered in this country and then exported as meat. Let us be absolutely clear that that is our preferred position. We must have the ability to take those animals to be traded as meat or to be further fattened.

[Roger Williams]

My hon. Friend and I met the English Beef and Lamb Executive this morning, and I pay tribute to it for its wonderful work in promoting English lamb, particularly Agneau St George, and to Hybu Cig Cymru for promoting Welsh lamb.

[Thomas Docherty]

What about Scottish lamb?

[Roger Williams]

There must be similar organisations in Scotland and Northern Ireland. These organisations do wonderful work in promoting the sale of meat and in getting it to be accepted and appreciated in other countries.

[Neil Parish]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s comments about EBLEX, which is doing a good job in promoting our lamb and beef abroad. On this occasion, I will be magnanimous and say that Welsh lamb, Scottish lamb, English lamb and west country lamb are all wonderful. I will not tell Members which one I think is the best, but they will probably have a fairly good idea.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

The west country is in England!

[Neil Parish]

Parts of the west country are in England, but I will not enter into that debate this afternoon.

It is essential for us to deal with the issue in a grown-up manner. I thank the Minister for the steps he has already taken and look forward to hearing his winding-up speech. As the hon. Member for Dunfermline and West Fife has said, perhaps there is now a case for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee to look at the issue, in order to see exactly how the trade is being conducted, to make sure that the rules are in place and to double-check whether the lorries, other vehicles and all those involved are operating it correctly.

If sheep or cattle that are not lame or ill, which is exactly as they should be, are loaded on to and transported in the right type of lorry, they should get to their destination in France, Ireland or wherever it be—that is a Somerset expression—in good condition, and that is what the industry wants. I reinforce the point that it is not in the interests of the farming community or those carrying out the trade to take an animal across in poor condition.

[Thomas Docherty]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be appropriate for our Committee to look at the conditions, such as handling facilities, when the animals arrive at their destination? Given the growth of super-abattoirs as the industry consolidates, we need to look carefully at that part of the journey.

[Neil Parish]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman—we could look at all of that. One of the issues that I have spent a lot of time on, although it is probably not on the agenda for this debate, is the way in which the animals are slaughtered. That is a slightly more controversial issue, but it needs to be dealt with so that they are properly stunned when it comes to slaughter.

The hon. Gentleman proposes a good idea. There are European regulations and, having experienced the work of all the other 27—now to be 28—member states, I can assure Members that, on the whole, Britain’s methods and inspections of transport are good. That is not to say that we always get everything right but, compared with many member states, our methods are good. We should not beat ourselves up on this issue, but we need to get it right. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet is concerned, and rightly so, about what happened with the Ramsgate shipment and the slaughter of animals on the quayside. There will be a proper inquiry into that and the situation needs to be put right. As I have said, I am certain, in hindsight, that the same action would not be taken again.

I welcome this debate and reinforce points that have been made by Members of all parties. I do not believe that this is a party political matter. It is a matter of trading properly through the single market and under good conditions, including for welfare, so that the public are assured that our farming community and those involved in the export trade are operating it properly and that the animals get to their destination in good condition.

13:56

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker, for not being here at the beginning of the debate. Unfortunately, as the sole representative of my political party, it is difficult to be in more than one place at once, but I am working on it.

I am genuinely glad to take part in this debate, because the issue is close to my heart. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for all her work on the issue. She has put it high up on the political agenda again, and I thank her for that.

I do not think it is useful to characterise this debate as being one between those who are grown up and those who are somehow not grown up. I seriously regret the tone of some of the debate over the past half an hour. We are all trying to work out how to reduce the harm that can be done to animals in the live animal trade, and there is a legitimate debate to be had on whether it is ever possible to put in place sufficient safeguards for live animal exports in order to ensure the welfare of the animals. Some people—including some of the hon. Members present—believe that it is possible to do that, but there is a group of people who are not un-grown up, who are not unscientific and who are not in some way defective who have genuine concerns about whether or not, even if we had an eight-hour journey limit, we can look after animals sufficiently.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Several of us who spoke earlier—I accept that the hon. Lady has greater difficulties than others in attending debates—put on record the fact that we choose not to eat meat and poultry and that we would prefer it if other people did not, either. We have been debating two distinct issues: one is the principle of live animal exports, and the other is what happened at Ramsgate. For many people, they are the same issue, but for others they are two distinct issues that need to be addressed in different ways.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, which I genuinely think is extremely helpful and very much welcome.

I come to the issue from the perspective of having spent 10 years in the European Parliament. I was vice-president of the animal welfare intergroup. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was its president and he did a great job.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady has mentioned guarantees in live export. As a crofter, I cannot give guarantees on live beasts on the croft. Something could happen to them—they could fall into a ditch or they could get snared in a fence. There are hazards all the time and there is no absolute guarantee I can give. All I can do is minimise the hazards to the best of my ability and with the knowledge built up over a number of years.

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I suppose that he makes my point. There is a parallel between this debate and some of our debates on the use of wild animals in circuses. On the one hand, we can try to reduce the harm done to those animals; on the other hand, we can say that, no matter how hard we try, ultimately it is not a good place for animals to be. I would argue that being on long-distance transportation is not a good place for animals to be, either, and others may come to a similar conclusion.

I believe that long journeys can be stressful for sheep and calves. The stress factors include deprivation of food and water, lack of rest, extremes of temperature and humidity, handling by humans, exposure to novel environments, overcrowding, insufficient headroom, noise and vibration. Animal welfare is not served by long journeys or by the poor treatment that is often experienced by animals at the journey’s end.

Yesterday’s announcement by DEFRA that it is strengthening the controls that apply to live exports is a step in the right direction, but there is no guarantee that British animals will be protected from the suffering that they currently endure when being transported abroad.

[Roger Williams]

Some of us are concerned that people do not draw a distinction between export and the movement of animals. The suspicion is that there will be a move to stop all movement of animals, because people cannot see the difference between exporting an animal and just moving an animal.

[Caroline Lucas]

That is a helpful intervention. I would much prefer to see many more small, local abattoirs around the country so that even within this country we do not have long journey times. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point. Although one can argue that more stress factors are involved in transporting animals overseas, such as animals being decanted into different vehicles, even if animals are transported within the UK for eight hours or more, it is not necessarily in their best interests.

[Thomas Docherty]

The hon. Lady seems to be missing the point that was made earlier about some of our smaller communities, such as Arran, the Western Isles and some parts of Wales and the highlands of Scotland, which simply could not have a local abattoir. Is she saying that she opposes the movement of sheep, cattle and pigs from the Western Isles or Arran by boat?

[Caroline Lucas]

What I am saying is that we could be more creative in looking for solutions. In other countries where big distances are involved, one economic response has been to have mobile abattoirs. In remote areas where it is uneconomic to have an abattoir because it would not be served by many animals, a mobile abattoir might be more practical. I would like to make some progress, if I may.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Caroline Lucas]

No, because I want to make some progress, if I may.

Calf exports have been declining amid concerns in some important countries about bovine tuberculosis. However, as Members know, countries such as Spain are still major destinations for British calves. Journeys to Spain can take more than 90 hours and young calves are poorly equipped to withstand the rigours of such a journey. Dr Claire Weeks, the senior research fellow in animal welfare at Bristol university has concluded:

“Scientific evidence indicates that young calves are not well adapted to cope with transport… Therefore transport should be avoided where possible, particularly as morbidity and mortality following transport can be high.”

On arrival in Europe, calves are typically kept on concrete or slatted floors without any straw or other bedding. Such barren systems have been outlawed in the UK. There is a real question about the ethical acceptability of calves being sent for rearing abroad in conditions that have been prohibited on welfare grounds here at home.

With calf exports declining, the industry has been considering alternatives, for example through the work of the Beyond Calf Exports Stakeholders Forum. That initiative involves beef and dairy industry bodies, Compassion in World Farming, the RSPCA, Government, retailers and academics. The forum is starting to overturn the assumption that male dairy calves produce low-quality beef and hence should be exported for veal production or shot in the head soon after birth. As a result of its work, male dairy calves are increasingly being reared in Britain to high welfare standards, with a resultant fall in the number of calves shot at birth or exported for veal production. I am confident that more dairy farmers would abandon the trade if the Government engaged with the industry more proactively and gave them more help to do so. The carcass-only trade is already widespread and I want to see an end to the remaining exports of live calves.

The export of sheep is in many ways no better. It, too, entails significant suffering and long, stressful journeys. In addition, British animals may experience poor welfare in European abattoirs. In 2007-08, a French animal welfare organisation carried out an investigation into 25 French slaughterhouses and found many breaches of EU legislation that is meant to protect the welfare of animals at slaughter. Earlier this year, a report by the EU’s food and veterinary office identified a number of serious animal welfare problems in Dutch slaughterhouses. The Netherlands is the destination for many sheep that are exported from Britain. Once animals leave our shores, we are powerless to ensure that they are treated properly. All the evidence suggests that they are not necessarily being treated with standards comparable to our own welfare expectations.

For sheep, as for calves, I believe that the trade should be meat and carcass only. Slaughtering a higher proportion of animals in the UK for domestic consumption or meat exports could create jobs and increase profits here. Indeed, the economic case for the live export of sheep seems negligible. In 2011, just 0.5% of the sheep reared in the UK were slaughtered abroad. That is 72,458 sheep, compared with the 14.5 million that were slaughtered in the UK. It is difficult to believe that transporting such a relatively small number of animals abroad for slaughter makes a significant contribution to the sheep sector’s earnings, or that that contribution justifies the suffering that the sheep undergo during the long journey from the UK. The UK economy would probably benefit much more from the added value derived from processing animals at home, rather than exporting the raw material for the benefit of processors abroad.

Much of this debate has focused on the disaster at the port of Ramsgate. Animal welfare conditions are questionable during the process of live transport, as well as on arrival. Other Members have spoken strongly about the Russian tanker, the Joline, which had to turn back en route to Calais because of adverse weather conditions. The ship’s design means that it is particularly sensitive to poor conditions. On this occasion, the sea was breaking over the vessel. Its design also means that there is little leeway between the time that it takes to cross the channel and the maximum journey time for calves of nine hours after a one hour rest at port. On another occasion, the vessel was held at Ramsgate for two hours because of adverse weather warnings and the lorries on board were in danger of exceeding the journey limit.

In a six-month period when the RSPCA was inspecting every vehicle involved in the trade through Ramsgate for infractions, it issued six warning notices. In September 2012, one lorry was stopped because of faults with the vehicle. The animals were unloaded and two sheep, one with a broken leg, were put down. Another 41 lame sheep were euthanised. Six sheep fell into the water after they were loaded into an area where a drain became exposed. Four of them were rescued by RSPCA officers, but two drowned. It appears that a proportion of the lame sheep were injured during the journey owing to a defect in the vehicle, but others were apparently lame before the start of the journey. By law, an official veterinarian must, before an export journey begins, certify that the animals are fit to travel.

That case raises serious questions. If some sheep were lame before the journey, why did the vet who inspected them certify them as being fit to travel? Are the checks and balances that are meant to be in place fit for purpose? Given those failures, can DEFRA’s ordering more inspections give us confidence? It is not even clear whether it intends to increase the number of inspections that are taking place or simply to meet its current legal obligations.

I agree with those who have said that the facilities are Ramsgate are not suitable for ensuring the welfare of animals if they need to be offloaded in an emergency. Despite the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), saying that he intends to pursue a zero-tolerance approach to animal welfare and live exports, I think that the contingency plans that DEFRA has announced are inadequate. A temporary ban on live animal exports out of Ramsgate was lifted last month, but legal action is still under way. It is vital that far more is done to safeguard the welfare of animals that are shipped through the port, especially as access for the RSPCA to inspect conditions has been denied.

In the 1990s, the European Court of Justice twice ruled that the UK cannot ban live exports. Such action has to be taken at EU level. That does not let the Government off the hook. There is much more that they could be doing to bring this trade to an end. They could go to Brussels and press for a change in EU law to allow individual member states to ban live exports.

Since the two European Court cases, article 13 of the treaty on the functioning of the European Union has recognised animals as “sentient beings”. It requires the EU and member states, in formulating and implementing EU policies on agriculture, transport and the single market, to

“pay full regard to the welfare requirements of animals”.

That article creates a new legislative landscape in which, with the right political will, the UK would be justified in pressing for the right to lawfully end this trade.

Earlier this week, MEPs voted for improvements to the conditions in which live animals are exported, but they failed to reduce the maximum journey time. How different might the result of that vote have been if the UK had actively lobbied for an eight-hour limit? The Government must take the lead in pressing the EU to place a maximum limit of eight hours on journeys to slaughter or for further fattening.

[Thomas Docherty]

I am puzzled. Does the hon. Lady not recognise that, given the current location of abattoirs, an eight-hour limit would have serious repercussions for the Scottish agriculture industry?

[Caroline Lucas]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but we need to look for solutions to that problem. The suggestion is that a trade can carry on despite a wealth of evidence. He asked earlier about my evidence for the cruelty of the trade and I could read out a whole set of scientific studies. I appreciate that difficult discussions and debates must be had about how to safeguard the livelihoods of farmers, about which I care deeply, but to say simply that we should carry on with business as usual is not an adequate response.

As colleagues will know, I am a former MEP and I have worked extensively on this issue. As I have said, ideally I want a complete ban on the trade of live exports, but imposing a maximum journey time of eight hours would at least help reduce the current suffering. That should also be backed up with sufficient resources to ensure that minimum welfare standards are met.

For example, DEFRA could carry out more rigorous checks to ensure that the mandatory rest breaks required by EU Council regulation 1/2005 are provided. At present, that seems to be verified primarily via returned journey logs, which are often open to abuse and inaccuracy. Instead, DEFRA should ask the appropriate authority of the member state in which the rest break was due to confirm that it was provided, or check the data on which the vehicle’s tachograph or satellite navigation scheme depends. That would show when animals were rested, and for how long.

The sheep and dairy sectors receive generous subsidies from the taxpayer and we should consider whether they should carry the costs of regulating the trade, particularly the cost of pre-export inspections at the place of departure and the port. The Government could also amend the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847 to enable ports to refuse to allow live export consignments to use their harbours. I understand that Ramsgate would welcome such a move, as would other UK ports.

As I said, my constituents have been lobbying me in support of a ban on live exports, and the issue has growing public support. A petition on the No. 10 website has more than 31,000 signatures. That number is growing rapidly every day and I hope that when it reaches 100,000, we can have a further debate and—crucially—MPs can vote on whether to take a stand against the trade. I regret that so few Members are in the Chamber this afternoon but I do not think that that reflects the strength of feeling on the issue. If we had a votable motion, far more colleagues would have attended and contributed strongly to the debate. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate, and I conclude with one simple request for the Government to make every effort to end what is a cruel, outdated and unnecessary trade in live animals.

14:12

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

I, too, apologise for arriving late to the debate. I do not have the same excuse as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) of being the sole representative of my party—although on some issues it feels like it—but I have been dealing with a serious matter in my constituency that may come to the surface in the next few weeks. I am sure that hon. Members will understand.

I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for securing this debate and for her consistency in raising this issue in recent months. Live exports have become a regular problem. We have had debates in the past, and bans have been introduced at individual ports, but the issue has recurred and there has been more than one incident similar to what happened with the Joline. Time and again I remember hearing reports in this House in which we felt that the appropriate regulatory system had been put in place, only to hear similar reports of problems with animal welfare within months. That is not incompetence; it is an almost blatant disregard of animal welfare by some of those involved in such transactions, and of the legality of some of the cases dealt with. None of the systems that we put in place seemed to have worked, and such cases returned time and again. I therefore came to the conclusion—after receiving briefing from the National Farmers Union as well as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—that the system was not working and that a ban would be the appropriate approach.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) said, there are two issues. One is a matter of principle—do we support the export of live animals in this way?—and the other is about pragmatic practicality and regulation. Are the Government going to continue allowing live exports? I do not believe that European legislation should hold us back because, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, representations can be made and we can use other legislation to enforce the ban if necessary. However, if a ban is not introduced and we seek a pragmatic inspection regime—this is the point raised by the hon. Member for South Thanet—the work done by Thanet district council has been superb. It has set out a number of recommendations, working with the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency and delegating some of those functions to the RSPCA, to gain maximum confidence in the implementation and rigorous nature of those inspections. Those recommendations, if taken on board by the Government, would at least provide a practical way to address effectively some of the abuses of the past.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend has been an absolute champion of agricultural workers during his time in Parliament—often, I dare say, a lone voice. Does he accept that a ban on live exports would be a huge hit to the agricultural industry and hurt the very workers he has worked so hard to champion?

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend always knows the point of vulnerability in a debate. I have never been convinced about the economic necessity of live exports, which is why the idea of an inquiry is important. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee is looking at a wide-ranging inquiry into the practical nature of how the industry operates.

As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, we need to address the location of abattoirs and how they operate. By locating, promoting and developing local abattoirs we can overcome the problem of the lengthy journeys that animals take, and particularly any necessity to export live animals.

[Bob Stewart]

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman and reading about this issue. Surely when the animals see that ramp into a truck they will start panicking. They must panic the whole time and be terrified for the whole journey and that really worries me. I feel so desperately sad for them that I am beginning to think that the way we should proceed is to slaughter at the farm. I know it is difficult, but that is what I am beginning to think.

[John McDonnell]

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) will come back and argue about the practicalities of that for certain geographical locations in the United Kingdom. However, the desire must be to have slaughter as close to the farm as possible and to obviate the need for any long-distance journeys, whether in the UK or to the continent. I am arguing that we should look again seriously at the recommendations of Thanet district council, the RSPCA and others. From experience, every regime so far put in place has not worked. We had another scandalous example with Joline this time round, and there have been others in the past. That is why I support the proposal for an inquiry.

I would prefer the Government to set up an independent inquiry, but if it must be the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, so be it. That Committee can look at animal welfare, the economics of the industry and why there is such economic necessity for live animal exports, as well as at the distribution of abattoirs, which in themselves have the potential to generate employment. It can look at how, if we are to transport animals in the future, we can reassure people that those animals will be safe and secure, and that their welfare will be maintained not only in this country but, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, when they reach other countries. In the past we seem to have lost control of what happens to our exported stock in other countries.

That is the short-term practical approach; we need to undertake an inquiry, take on board Thanet district council’s recommendations and introduce an economic debate on this issue. I am also worried about the staffing of individual organisations on which we rely to undertake these tests and checks. I give the example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. Its offices are being closed, staff are being laid off, and I doubt whether it has the capacity to maintain the vehicle inspection regime that we would expect of it. I am also concerned about staffing in DEFRA and the cutbacks there, and about the resources available to the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency. The inquiry should consider that range of staffing issues because the worst thing that could happen is that we put an inspection regime in place, but the resources and the expertise are not available. That includes the expertise of working alongside voluntary organisations such as the RSPCA. That is the problem with a pragmatic approach in the near future if we do not move towards a ban.

So often, promises have been made, and procedures and regimes have been put in place that have not worked. My view now is therefore that a ban should be introduced because the animal welfare issues are overriding.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend makes a powerful point about ensuring that adequate resources are available to do the job. On Tuesday, Committee proceedings finished on the HGV Road Levy Bill, which gives the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency additional resources to monitor and enforce the levy that will be introduced in due course for foreign hauliers using our roads. Perhaps the Minister will say whether, given the additional safeguards that appear to be required at Ramsgate, DEFRA will provide additional resources to address that matter.

[John McDonnell]

I think that the Minister heard the question; he does not need me to repeat it.

The Minister has a job to do now in negotiating with other Departments. Yesterday, I met some Public and Commercial Services Union representatives, who are involved in the Department for Transport, including VOSA and DVLA. There are genuine issues about the future, including the review of Department functions, the threat of privatisation and outsourcing, and staff numbers. I am therefore fearful for whatever regime we expect to be put in place. I believe that neither the staff nor the expertise are there, or that they will be so stretched that the regime will not meet our requirements.

After several years as a Member of Parliament, with the problem arising regularly, it is clear that every regime put in place has not worked, resulting in immense animal suffering and immense concern throughout the country. I have many letters from constituents who are concerned about the matter and constituents who have been on demonstrations in Ramsgate. Time and again, they have come back extremely concerned about what they have witnessed. It is now therefore my view that we should introduce a ban and, if necessary, lobby Europe to challenge the European interpretation of the directives, thereby reassuring many of our constituents who are anxious about the matter.

Failing that, if there is to be an inquiry, it needs to be done quickly and be fully inclusive. I am anxious that organisations such as the RSPCA, as well as producer representatives and the trade unions, are fully involved, and that the inquiry comes up with some recommendations fairly soon. That must include representations about the level of resources, as well as the regime that will be put in place.

14:22

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise to you and the House for not being present at the start of the debate. I am a member of the Backbench Business Committee, so I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and her colleagues were successful in obtaining the debate. Unfortunately, I thought that it would start at 1.30, and I have been entertaining a newly elected member of the United States Congress, Mr George Holding, who represents the 13th district in North Carolina, together with Congressman Robert Pittenger. I am sorry.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. That causes some difficulty. We have now had three Members in a row taking part in a debate that they have not heard on the basis that they were busy doing something else. As all hon. Members know, when wishing to take part in a debate, one has to make a choice between being in the Chamber and doing other things. On this occasion, I have called each Member, but I want to put it on the record that the convention of the House is that, if you wish to speak in a debate, that is your priority, and you should be here to do it. The hon. Gentleman, being the third Member in a row to give a reason for not being here, gives me the opportunity to make that point. Those Members have not had the benefit of hearing the other speakers.

[Mr Amess]

I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983 and I absolutely agree with everything you have said, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Throughout my time in Parliament, I have supported sensible animal welfare measures. Indeed, if anyone had time on their hands, they could look in Hansard and see that my views on animal welfare have been pretty consistent.

[Thomas Docherty]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s reasons for being late. Does he agree that doing television is a poorer excuse for not being here?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. We are really not going to follow that route. We are considering a serious subject, and I expect Members to continue to behave seriously. So, Mr Docherty, thank you, but we will not have that answered, and Mr Amess, you may continue with your remarks and ignore the intervention.

[Mr Amess]

The late Member of Parliament for Newham, North-West, Tony Banks, was a great champion of animal welfare measures, and I would stand shoulder to shoulder with him on the subject of the debate. It saddens me that, nearly 30 years on, we have to revisit the issue.

I was flattered last year when Dods gave me an award as charity champion for animal welfare and environment, which I accepted on behalf of the animal welfare kingdom. Indeed, I promoted the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988, and I also supported Bills on the welfare of dogs—the list is endless.

However, I want briefly to consider live export of animals. I am pleased that it is not a growing industry, and that it is shrinking. I note that, for example, the transport of live calves fell from 93,000 in 2007 to just 7,000 in 2009. That is real progress. I hope that, in time, such a debate will be unnecessary.

I associate myself with the views of the RSPCA, which is a wonderful charity, and which I hope will continue to promote sensible animal welfare issues. It wants an end to long-distance transport of live animals, with the aim of carcass-only trade. It wants a maximum eight-hour journey time for all animals travelling to slaughter. It wants a change to current law to allow ports to refuse to partake in the transport of live animals trade. It also wants the organisations involved in the trade, not the taxpayer, to bear the costs of veterinary and animal health inspections, alongside other costs.

[Mr MacNeil]

I disagree about animal exports, but would the hon. Gentleman concede that sometimes animals can be exported for breeding purposes, not just for slaughter, so stopping it altogether might have other consequences, which are not the focus of the debate?

[Mr Amess]

I recognise that hon. Members rightly represent all sorts of interests. I have said that I support responsible animal welfare measures. I would not want to use the debate that my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has introduced to bash farmers and the farming community. I therefore understand the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made.

[Thomas Docherty]

Like me, the hon. Gentleman supports banning the use of wild animals in circuses. One of the solutions is to export those wild animals to new homes. If I understand the matter correctly, an unintended consequence of a blanket ban would be that we could not find new homes for those wild animals.

[Mr Amess]

I cannot believe for a moment that that would be the result if the motion was supported. I want to stick to my script. I was not present when other issues have been discussed in the Chamber, so I would like to stick to the specific issue that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, said that we should talk about.

I want to see an end to the long-distance transport of live animals. There is a clear case for the ending of the transport of live animals altogether. It is a cruel practice that regularly leads to the distress—or worse, the death—of animals. Indeed, recently we saw terrible pictures of little puppies who were dead, and rare, exotic fish dead in their containers. For example, inspectors, when they were able to investigate, found one animal with a ripped horn that had to be euthanised. In another incident, a vehicle had to offload all its sheep and 46—yes, 46—had to be euthanised for various reasons. Any practice that regularly inflicts such pain on living creatures, and, worse, regularly leads to their deaths, should be ended as soon as possible.

This is not an impossible dream. More often than not, animals are now slaughtered in their country of origin and then transported to whichever country they are going to. That is a much more humane way to approach the transportation of animals. Another reason why it is right to pursue the end of this practice is that even if we manage to transport live animals effectively and safely, we cannot ensure that the countries the animals arrive in live up to our high standards.

Compassion in World Farming has issued a report that shows that many member states do not provide penalties that are “effective, proportionate and dissuasive”. While some countries have shown recent signs of improvement, namely the Czech Republic, Italy and Romania, the European Union Food and Veterinary Office indicates that they, and other countries, still need substantial improvements in enforcement levels. Those two reasons—the cruel nature of transportation and the worrying lack of enforcement in other EU member states—are reason enough for wanting the practice of live transportation to be stopped altogether. That said, until that aim is fulfilled, there are other curbs that could be applied to the industry to protect transported animals. For example, there should be a maximum eight-hour journey time. Journeys for calves can be up to 19 hours, and for horses and pigs up to 24 hours. For horses and pigs, 29 hours can be an incredibly long time before a 24-hour rest. That is cruel—to make any creature travel for 29 hours before having a rest is very cruel indeed. At the very least, a middle ground should be found that enforces shorter breaks after eight hours, and then a longer 24-hour rest at the current limit.

On ports, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs states on its website that when dealing with animals it is important that vehicle loading and unloading facilities are designed and constructed to avoid injury and suffering. While that may be the case for road vehicles, I have concerns about the UK ports that animals leave from and about the ships that transport them. According to the RSPCA, the Joline, an old Russian tanker, currently transports animals from Ramsgate. It is too slow, and is overly exposed to poor weather conditions. I urge the House not to accept such poor conditions for animals who deserve to be treated with dignity and respect.

It appears that the ports of Ramsgate, Ipswich and Newhaven do not all currently live up to the standards set out in section 23 of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Ports have no choice but to opt out of the transportation of live animals due to the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act 1847. I believe strongly in choice. Ports that currently do not have the right facilities to transport animals to a high standard must be able to choose whether they wish to partake in this practice.

On veterinary costs, the economy is going through tough times at the moment. There are a lot of elderly people in Southend West, the area I represent, and animals are their lives. Animals are everything to them and we should not trivialise how important they are to them. Veterinary bills can be very high. The taxpayer foots the bill for veterinary checks on animals in live transportation. If that cost was shifted to those involved in the industry—I know that hon. Members with farming interests will say that that would be yet another burden passed on to them—not only would the taxpayer save money during these hard times, but the industry would be incentivised to look after its animals well, as the cost of veterinary bills could otherwise be very high.

The last topic I wish to touch on is labelling. It has come to my attention that a sheep or cow can be born, raised and fed here in England, transported to France and, once slaughtered, labelled, “produce of France”. If, as I hope, the EU agrees to stop this practice, surely the incidence of live transportation will fall as the pressure to have and eat home-grown food in each European member state will grow. I therefore urge hon. Members to support any such law on labelling.

In my brief speech I hope that I have highlighted a number of issues I feel strongly about that have not already been covered concerning the suffering of animals. Maximum journey times must come down if at all possible. Ports must be able to opt out if they do not feel that they have the resources to adequately look after animals. Veterinary costs should not be met at the expense of the public purse. Labelling issues need to be addressed.

We must look after animals to the best of our ability. The fact that we need this debate at all sadly reminds me of the quote attributed to Frederick the Great:

“The more I see of men, the more I like my dog.”

I then think of the quote from Ghandi:

“The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated.”

I said that I entered this place 30 years ago. We are hardly pressed for time in this place. We used to sit until 3 o’clock or 4 o’clock in the morning. We used to sit for five days a week—we certainly put the hours in. Hon. Members no doubt love to pat dogs and like to see cats in their constituencies. They are concerned about their constituents, who feel that their animals are important. They should demonstrate their support for animals by supporting the motion introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet. I would hope that most hon. Members feel that transporting live animals in horrendous conditions is totally unacceptable. We live in an era where we no longer write letters to each other. MPs respond to e-mails, blogging, Facebook and so on. There is not the amount of personal contact that there used to be.

I was privileged recently to attend two carol services for animals. I feel very strongly that the quality of our nation should increasingly be judged by how we treat the animal kingdom.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am intrigued about the carol service for animals. Was it per chance, “The cattle are lowing, the baby awakes”, or something of that sort?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I think the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) has finished, so, if that was your speech, Mr MacNeil, it was quite a short contribution. Do you wish to say a little more?

[Mr MacNeil]

indicated dissent.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Okay.

14:40

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow such a commendable contribution. I understand that a few weeks ago one of my Labour colleagues made a contribution of one word, before time ran out, so the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) does not get the record, but it was quite a contribution none the less.

People watching will have seen a well balanced, diverse range of well considered contributions and interventions putting forward a variety of views on animal welfare and the live transportation of animals. It has been a good day for the House, and I hope that I and the Minister will continue in that frame of mind. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) and other Members, not only for calling the debate and enabling us to air our concerns, but for maintaining and arguing in favour of their long-standing, if sometimes differing, views. I will deal with the contributions first, because some of them pre-empt my own comments.

The hon. Lady spoke eloquently on behalf of herself, her constituents and—I suspect—her local authority, given that its views are very much aligned with hers, and said that DEFRA had been a bit too “meek and mild” and might need to go further. I will try to draw that out in my comments too. She said that DEFRA might need to focus more on this intriguing idea of fit and proper operators—a leitmotif in several contributions. We are talking not always about individual instances, but about operators that have had constant warnings—mention was made of six warnings in a short period in Ramsgate—and those patterns of behaviour draw out an interesting theme for the Minister. What does zero tolerance actually mean? When should we intervene to stop something that is a genuine animal welfare concern?

On another interesting theme, the hon. Lady talked about cost-sharing. Like other Members, including those who have farmed for many years, I sometimes wonder how the economics of this trade stack up. But they do stack up. The live export of lamb from south Wales, the moors of Ramsgate or Scotland maintains not just a premium price but a remarkably high premium price—there is huge demand for it. It would be interesting to know what would happen to the economics of the model if the additional costs of inspection, licensing and the adequate enforcement of animal welfare considerations—so that we can have real confidence in the integrity of the process, particularly of the long-distance travel—were loaded on to the transporters.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), who has been a consistent campaigner on animal welfare issues, rightly recognised the differing standards of animal welfare applied in many parts of the continent—another issue that I will return to—and its impact on the UK export trade. Even if all our domestic arrangements for animal exports are of the highest standards—what the hon. Member for South Thanet called the “gold standard” that we should be proud of aspiring to—what happens if the animals pass through or reach a part of the continent where the standards fall well below what we would expect? I ask the Minister to focus on that.

This has to be about the end-to-end journey, not simply about what we are doing. The hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies) would be appalled if any animals they were trading in—having done all the right things, such as loading the animals in good condition and ready for market, in the belief that they would be transported in good condition and get rested, fed, watered and given emergency treatment when needed—were ending up somewhere on the continent, such as Spain or even Brussels, where the same rigorous standards of animal welfare were not being applied. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East put to the Minister the valid question of what discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on this issue, particularly on the topical issue in Europe at the moment—it is being debated as we speak and has been debated all week—which is the consistency of those standards across the EU. I am sure that the Minister will address those concerns.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire spoke with great personal insight and expertise—given his farming background—and spoke proudly in favour of the gold-plating of animal welfare. He said we should be doing that and that he would want to be doing that as a farmer. He took pride in driving towards those standards. We are talking, of course, in part about a sector—sheep exporting—that is for farmers who are not prosperous or massive landowners. These people are often farming on less favoured agricultural land where the only option is sheep farming. Only a few years back, the price of those carcasses was half or a third of what they are now. They have always struggled, but they have always focused on the highest standards, and the Government need to help them to do that.

[Thomas Docherty]

My hon. Friend is making an eloquent case. He just mentioned personal experience. Will he say a bit more about his own personal experiences in this industry, and will he set out what terms of reference he thinks the Select Committee should consider, if we do indeed do a report?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I shall return later to the specific things that the inquiry should consider—it will not be an exhaustive list, but I will give some good pointers. On my own personal experience, I have not been a sheep farmer, but my friendly and well loved father-in-law was a sheep farmer for many years on the uplands of the Brecon Beacons.

[Mr MacNeil]

Crawler!

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Indeed. I am just worried about any inheritance potential, so I had better continue.

For many years my father-in-law was a sheep farmer, and I would go out and help him. I was born on the Gower and, curiously, my first ever job as a young lad of 10 or 11—I know not everybody will like this, including on my Benches—was to go to Gowerton market. At that time, we had a live market right in the centre of the village—it is long gone; now it is housing. We had just turned metric, and my job in the market, for 50p a day, was to go with the farmers on the back of their wagons, load what seemed to me to be these massive beasts—they were massive, because even a sheep to me at that age appeared to be very big—and take them off to what were then local slaughterhouses and abattoirs. One of the problems with those abattoirs is that not all of them had the high standards that we now expect. We have seen a diminution in the number of abattoirs across the country, which brings us back to the points that many Members have made. We would love to see more local abattoirs—I will raise this again with the Minister in a moment—but we also need to have high quality abattoirs, with the very highest standards for both consumers and farmers.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about the reduction in the number of abattoirs. In this important book—“Little Book of Meat Facts”, published by Hybu Cig Cymru—it says that in 1990 there were more than 60 slaughterhouses in Wales and that in 2011 there were just over 20. That gives an indication of the reduction in the number of slaughterhouses.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good intervention, which points to a long-term trend. Some of the reasons behind it were negative, in that the drive to improve standards in slaughterhouses and abattoirs meant that some of the smaller and—let us be honest—lower-standard ones were forced to close. We are fortunate, because the town I live in—Maesteg, which has a population of 17,000—still has a working, prosperous, thriving abattoir right in the centre, which is unusual nowadays. The abattoir services not only the local farmers, but the butchers in town, which are also thriving. However, that is unusual. The abattoir has had to increase its standards massively and absorb those costs or pass them on. Perhaps the Minister will return in his closing comments—I think we will have time—to what more can be done not only to protect the remaining network of abattoirs at the very highest standards, but to encourage, where possible, the resurrection of others. There are some worries—the pig sector has been mentioned, with the retreat of Vion from the market, but there are others as well. We want the resilience of the slaughtering sector to be maintained.

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

rose—

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I give way to the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

[Miss McIntosh]

As the Minister probably knows, an announcement on Vion is imminent, but does the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) agree that the reduction in the number of small abattoirs probably contributed to foot and mouth disease spreading in the way it did? Small abattoirs are also hugely popular with farm shops and help the local farming community enormously.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the popularity of small abattoirs increasing as people become much more aware of the provenance and source of their food. Her first point is also valid, because of the biosecurity risks that result from increased animal movements generally. In my constituency, farmers would summer-pasture their sheep down in the lowlands and in the winter literally drive them on to the top. Come time for market, they would drive the sheep down the old drovers’ route into Blackmill for the market—a grass-based market, not a concrete market—from where they would go straight to the local shops and so on. Those days are gone. We now routinely—because of biosecurity, as well as for other reasons—shift animals in trucks. That brings with it the massive obligation of looking after their welfare.

[Bob Stewart]

Is it not also true that a local abattoir gets better meat because there is less stress on the animals, which directly affects the quality of meat?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am not in a position to make a completely evidence-based judgment on that. I can only say that we buy directly from our local abattoir in Maesteg, and the produce is absolutely fantastic.

[Thomas Docherty]

Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend out. The answer is that it depends on the stress that the animal goes through in the build-up. The point is—it is a point he has made before—that although at first glance a local abattoir might be preferable, if standards of hygiene and humane treatment are not met, that leads to a poorer outcome. I suspect that the key thing in this debate is the standards of humane treatment that we all want to see.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My hon. Friend makes a perfectly formed point.

I shall proceed at a rate of knots now, because I want to touch on the points that have been raised. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire talked about the Spanish diet given to exported sheep. I am intrigued to know what it consists of; I suspect that it is not tapas. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) spoke with the benefit of his experience as a well loved and well respected food and farming Minister, although he was not quite so well respected by publications such as Horse & Hound. He made a considered and well balanced contribution, in which he rightly praised the higher standards generally to be found in the UK. He also echoed other Members’ call for a wider review, in the interests of animal welfare and of the industry. He made detailed points about the Ramsgate incident, as did others, and I hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them.

The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire also has huge experience in this area. I do not think that my father-in-law’s sheep ever mingled with his; there was a little obstacle in the way, known as the Brecon Beacons. He focused on animal welfare considerations and raised the issue of zero tolerance. I am looking forward to hearing the Minister define that concept. What does it mean, particularly in the context of repeat offending by individuals, companies or organisations? Are we going to step in and take action much more rapidly in those circumstances? I hope that the answer will be yes.

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

indicated assent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I am glad the Minister confirms that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, made a very good contribution. He talked about getting a fair price for meat exports, which could help to continue the downward trend in live exports. If farmers are able to get a good price for meat on the hook, rather than on the hoof, they will certainly go for that market. I am glad that he also mentioned the importance of listening to the views of the devolved nations and Administrations.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) rightly spoke about end-to-end protection for animals throughout their whole journey. He also mentioned the importance of the right provision of animal welfare being in the right place at the right time. The Ramsgate incident illustrates that need. Having lairage facilities in the right places along the route, for example, is critical. I hope that the Minister’s internal review of the Ramsgate incident will throw up some of those issues for wider discussion. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton also said that live animal exports represent only a tiny proportion of the export market. He is right to say that live exports are declining as a part of the overall meat sector, but they are nevertheless vital for certain farmers, especially those who are not big, wealthy barley barons.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) made a good contribution. We have to respect those whose ethical reasoning leads them to form different conclusions from those of other Members who are also exercising their own ethical reasoning. She went into quite some detail about the importance of maintaining animal welfare standards from end to end. She also referred to the very good initiative between Compassion in World Farming and the NFU on the treatment of young calves in the pink veal trade. That initiative has enormous potential, but we need to take consumers with us as well and to brand that. We have done that successfully in other meat areas over the years, but it has usually taken a few years to get there. It is great to see animal welfare organisations working hand in hand with farming organisations to try to create that market.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) talked about patterns of behaviour leading to regular problems. That links back to the question of zero tolerance. I welcome his support for an inquiry, whoever might carry it out. I hope that the Minister will change his mind and express an interest in such an inquiry, but if not, I look forward to hearing the response of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), to whom I have recently written on this issue. My hon. Friend also raised the vital issue of the capacity of the animal inspectors at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency to carry out inspections in the light of the cutbacks and of the rise in concern about confidence in the trade. How will such inspections be sourced, given that DEFRA has already had cutbacks, along with every Department, and is now facing more?

The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke eloquently about the RSPCA campaign, and I thank the RSPCA, the NFU and many other organisations for contributing to the debate and providing briefings for it. Interestingly, he raised the issue—nobody else did—of the labelling and provenance of meat that is transported to various destinations and rebranded as indigenous to an area different from where it was raised and produced.

I think we all agree that animal welfare considerations in the movement of live animals for trade, for slaughter, for breeding or for other reasons should be absolutely paramount. Logically, the volume and duration of the movements of live animals should therefore be kept to a minimum. That is why in opposition now, as when in government, we want a growth in the trade and export of meat or germ plasm rather than of live animals. That is why in opposition, as when in government, we believe it best that animals are slaughtered as close to the point of production as possible so that the transportation of live animals is minimised and the welfare considerations are lessened. In short, more exports on the hook, not on the hoof, is the right aim.

The trade is legal, and any attempt to ban it, which has wider European and UK-Ireland implications than the focus on any one transit route such as the one through Ramsgate might suggest, would break on the rocks of article 34 of the treaty of Rome. That was the consistent legal advice we received in government—my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse would have received it—so I invite the Minister to intervene to say whether that advice has changed in any way.

[Mr Heath]

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister shakes his head, so the advice is still the same. In that case, our focus must be on the paramount issue of animal welfare considerations for a trade that will continue, to and from the UK and across other parts of the Europe, for the foreseeable future.

[Mr MacNeil]

Is not the key point the fact that when it comes to the crossing of borders, animal welfare is the bottom line?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, the hon. Gentleman makes a point that is absolutely valid. We strongly believe in that focus, the Minister strongly believes in it and many contributors to the debate believe that the focus must be animal welfare. I did not touch on an issue that was raised consistently in this debate: that even if we take away the crossing of seas to Ireland, Northern Ireland, the highlands and islands and mainland Europe, we still have a massive internal trade of live animal shipments, and it is part of the integrity of our current livestock business. The hon. Gentleman is therefore right to say that we should focus on animal welfare.

I say that in the knowledge that, only yesterday or the day before, the European Parliament’s Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development voted strongly in plenary session to support a report on the protection of animals during transport, which had many recommendations. As I know from my meetings with European parliamentarians and Commission officials in Brussels over the last few weeks, this issue is of topical concern right across Europe, not just in the UK. It is a good and comprehensive report that makes some sensible recommendations on the effective and improved implementation of existing measures to safeguard animal welfare.

May I draw the Minister’s attention to the one part of the report that is causing great debate at the moment and that has been referred to in today’s debate—the growing momentum behind support for an eight-hour maximum for animals travelling for slaughter or for fattening across the EU? As has been mentioned, over 1 million EU citizens have now signed a petition that was organised by Compassion in World Farming and others.

[Miss McIntosh]

A local farmer recently approached me to say that for the first time he has won an order to transport a small number of cattle from Thirsk to Italy in excellent conditions. This would probably breach that petition, but would not breach animal welfare provisions. He would risk losing that trade, as would many others from Scotland and other parts of the north of England, if we strictly implemented what the shadow Minister proposes.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

That is not what I am proposing. What I am proposing is a live debate. Given the existence of a petition bearing more than 1 million signatures, I think that we need to consider the issue in considerable detail. That would include consideration of impacts such as the one cited by the hon. Lady, about which I shall say more in a moment. She has made a very valid point.

[Roger Williams]

I think that the public often assume that all animal transport takes place in the worst conditions. A good debate on the issue, and an understanding that some transport conditions are a great deal better than others, would help us to reach a conclusion.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

As we know, the big issues that hit the headlines in the press involve the worst possible examples. What they do not tell us is that, as has rightly been pointed out a number of times today, the standards that we apply in the UK—at least within UK borders, because beyond those borders a difficulty arises—are generally much higher. We have not been singled out by the European Commission for having poor standards of animal welfare. It would be churlish of me, at Christmas, to name the areas in Europe—whole areas, as well as individual nations—where there are such problems.

Although today’s debate has been very useful, I would go further if I were in the Minister’s shoes. I would be seriously thinking of commissioning a piece of work—let us call it an impact assessment, for want of a better phrase—dealing with the likely effects of an eight-hour journey limit on the transport of live animals both inside and outside the UK. Let us see, in black and white, the probable impacts on exports of live animals to the continent, on trade between Great Britain and Ireland—including Northern Ireland—and on internal movements on the UK mainland and between the highlands and islands. Let us not leap to conclusions. Let us make our policy on the basis of the evidence: the evidence on animal welfare, and the socio-economic evidence.

In making that policy, we must acknowledge that, although the focus in the United Kingdom has recently been on exports via Ramsgate involving the hugely regrettable slaughter of more than two score animals, there is a far wider trade—most of it involving short journeys, but some, by necessity, involving longer ones—within the UK, among our islands, and with our neighbours in Ireland and Northern Ireland. Although the Minister’s focused investigation of the lessons to be learned from Ramsgate is welcome—I should like to know when we are likely to see its outcome, by the way—it is essential for a wider review to be conducted so that we do not end up making policy on the basis of individual incidents, no matter how harrowing they may be. That piece of work should also pull together the best available evidence from all sources on the animal welfare considerations that would support, or otherwise, the case for any limit on the duration of a journey.

The time is right for a more wide-ranging review of the live animal trade to and from the UK. It should be independent of the trade in order to be seen to be fair and impartial. It could focus on animal welfare considerations, but also on the economic importance or otherwise of the trade. It might give the existing trade a clean bill of health, or highlight areas of concern where improvement is needed. In either event, it would benefit the trade to have, as it were, an MOT, in the light of well-publicised recent concerns that risk damaging not just the trade in live exports, but the wider reputation of the food and farming sector.

I have discussed this matter with representatives of farming unions. I have told them that I believe it would be in their interests to support the call for a review of the trade, and I hope that any of them who hear or read my words will support that reasonable call. Resisting it would suggest there was something to hide. As the Minister knows, I have already asked, in a written parliamentary question, whether he is minded to carry out a review, and he replied that he had no plans to do so. That is a pity, because I think that he could do a service to the industry and to animal welfare by changing his mind. He recently changed his mind about including the power to use financial penalties in the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill, which was a welcome precedent. He is a listening Minister.

In the absence of the Minister’s willingness to carry out a review, I wrote to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee in the knowledge that, given her expertise and that of the other Committee Members, a forensic and helpful eye could be cast on these matters. I know that the Committee’s programme of activities is chock-a-block, but if it is unable to pursue a separate review of the trade, perhaps that could be incorporated in the wider animal welfare review which I understand that it may be undertaking in the new year.

Such a wider review could address the following questions. Is the level of veterinary inspection sufficient at all stages of the journey, from the loading of animals through to ports or other stations and onward on the UK mainland, the European mainland and in Ireland and Northern Ireland? Such an investigation could also serve to provide us with an end-to-end assessment of the level of mortality and injury. What assessment has the Minister made of the levels of mortality within different sectors of the trade and on different durations of journey? Is the current level of inspection good enough for longer journeys?

We welcome the Minister’s temporary strengthening of procedures through Ramsgate, but it is only temporary. Should the current heightened level of inspection be maintained, and have any areas of concern been identified? Are animals that are unfit for travel ever loaded? I hope not, but it is one of the concerns people feel. Why is some unsuitable transport still being used? How often does that happen, and what sanctions are imposed? Should we take more robust action against the risk-takers and the rogues?

There are major issues to be addressed if Ramsgate or any other port is to be used as the long-term staging post for live exports, including the suitability of vessels and the availability of emergency facilities at or near the port for unloading, feeding and watering animals. Which exit points from the UK are most suitable in respect of minimising animals’ travel time? Is it desirable at all to offload animals at a port, except in the most exceptional circumstances, where they cannot be transported to a nearby facility? Do some transporters have a history of poor animal welfare behaviour?

On the wider issue of animal transportation across the UK, do any aspects need to be addressed to ensure we comply fully with our obligations under EU regulation 1/2005? If additional measures are identified in a wider review, the Government should take action under article 1.3 of the regulation.

What is the Minister doing to make good on his, and our, ambition to encourage the slaughter of animals close to their point of production, in order to minimise the transportation of live animals? Is the reduction in numbers, and geographical spread, of abattoirs a relevant factor? I think it is, so what more can we do to promote local slaughter?

This has been a very good debate with some expert and well-informed contributions. I hope the Minister will deal in detail with the concerns expressed, and finally may I reiterate a request I made in a letter to the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, and urge the Minister to consider whether, in addition to the Ramsgate-focused review, we should look more broadly at animal welfare issues and the socio-economic aspects of the wider trade in and out of the UK?

15:12

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

I agree with the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) that this has been an extremely good debate. The speeches have been well informed, non-sensationalist and have expressed various points of view. I have hugely enjoyed listening to all the contributions from both sides of the Chamber. Members have deeply held beliefs, but recognise the facts. I thank the hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys) for securing the debate and for her contribution to it. I also recognise that she and her constituents have been put under considerable pressure on an almost daily basis for some time, as has Thanet district council. I commend her on the way she has addressed the issue in question and tried to secure the best possible outcome.

I am particularly pleased that the hon. Lady began by talking about our country’s proud history in respect of animal welfare. We should not shy away from the fact that we have a very good record at promoting animal welfare and ensuring that rules and laws are enforced. The title of today’s debate does not confine itself to live animal exports, although inevitably that is what most hon. Members have wanted to focus on, as it also deals with wider animal welfare issues. Even in the very recent past, we have been making steady progress on improving the welfare of all kept animals. That is not surprising because that is one of the top priorities in my Department and within government. So we have ensured that no hens are kept in battery cages. We have also ensured that our farmers do not use sow stalls, and of course the European ban is coming up. The hon. Member for South Thanet asked me whether there was an instance recently when we had been pressing for European compliance, and I can tell her that that is a clear area where we have been pushing very hard to ensure that other member states comply with the regulation coming into effect on 1 January. I fear that some states will not be ready to have 100% compliance, and that is not acceptable. We have been having discussions with the European Commissioner, who I believe shares that view, to say that that is not acceptable and member states will be expected to comply.

[Miss McIntosh]

We have the opportunity to recognise and celebrate this high standard of animal welfare in this country, which we introduced as early as the 1990s, disadvantaging our own farmers, who have faced what one might call unfair competition from other EU member states.

[Mr Heath]

That is precisely the case, and now is the time to level that playing field for our producers. We have commitments—I have personally been given commitments—from the main retailers in this country that they will not import meat derived from non-compliant states. I want to hold them to that, because it is only fair to our producers that if they are expected to comply with high welfare standards, as they should be, others have to do the same.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

On that wider theme, what would the Minister say about the importation of foie gras? Would he be sympathetic to trying to take measures to prevent the cruel practice that takes place on the continent, with that product then being imported into the UK?

[Mr Heath]

My personal view is that people should not buy foie gras, because of the method of production. It is up to people to make their own decision about what they buy, but unless there is a humane way of producing foie gras, and I am far from convinced that there is, they should make that decision when they decide what to put into their shopping trolley—I suspect that foie gras is rarely put into a shopping trolley—and what they ask people to provide for them. We have taken a view in this country; foie gras is a legal import and therefore there is no constraint that we can place on its importation, but we can ask people to think carefully about what they buy. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman’s question.

Let me continue setting out our recent measures: we have set a maximum stocking density for meat chickens that is lower than that required by European regulation; we have made sure that farm inspections are better targeted on the farms more likely to have welfare problems; for the first time, we have welfare standards for game birds; we have delivered a licensing regime to safeguard the welfare of circus animals, and we are working on delivering a ban, as hon. Members know; we are working on proposals to tackle—

[Chris Williamson]

rose—

[Mr Heath]

I have just given way to the hon. Gentleman and he cannot really have two bites in the same sentence. We are working on proposals to tackle irresponsible dog ownership and to protect the welfare of animals in slaughterhouses; and we have demanded in Europe better protection for animals being transported for long distances, especially horses and unweaned calves—that comes back to a point to which we will return.

Having set out that broad framework, let me move on to the topic that most of this debate is about: live animal exports. I am going to use phrases that are uncannily similar to those used by the hon. Member for Ogmore in expressing the Government’s position and my personal position. I want to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production, and I would prefer to see a trade in meat or germ plasm to a trade based on live animals, particularly where journeys may result in livestock travelling very long distances across Europe. There are a number of reasons for that. Quite apart from animal welfare, it helps to support our domestic slaughter industry and is simply more sustainable. We should bear that in mind, too.

Local abattoirs, which are a very important issue, were mentioned, as was the fact that we have lost so many. In opposition under the last Government, I was critical of the fact that we lost so many abattoirs under them. The hon. Member for Ogmore is nodding; he probably remembers me saying that. If he does not, the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) probably does.

The lack of abattoirs is becoming a major issue in many areas. I was on the Isle of Wight the other week and the island does not have an abattoir, so any animals that go to slaughter have to cross the Solent. People on the Isle of Wight would like to have an abattoir on the island. They are right to want one and we need to find ways in which we can support a viable alternative to ensure that they have. If we are talking about never moving animals across any waterways, the Isle of Wight will have a problem. Let us bear that in mind when we talk about what constitutes the export of live animals.

Again, I do not want merely to echo the hon. Member for Ogmore—that is a very bad practice—but I must say, in similar terms to those that he used, that the trade in live animals is lawful and we must remember that. There were a number of legal challenges by local and port authorities in the early to mid-1990s, but none was successful. In fact, some of those authorities have had to pay significant damages to exporters as a direct result of their failed attempt to block the trade by direct or indirect means. That is why, although I understand the sentiment expressed, I have a little difficulty dealing with writing campaigns that use postcards, e-mails and the rest of it to tell me that I must ban the live trade when I have no power to do so. It would fundamentally change the basis of free trade within the European Union area if we were to do so. We might want to do that and consensus might form in the EU at some stage, but it is not there at the moment and it is therefore not within my power to make that change.

[Sir Peter Bottomley (Worthing West) (Con)]

I am sorry that I have not been in the Chamber for the whole debate, but I have been here for quite some time and speak as someone who was a Minister for agriculture for a time 22 years ago. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we cannot say that something is illegal when it is not, but I think the test is the degree of reasonableness or unreasonableness that should bring the law in. I think we can agree that unnecessary journeys in bad conditions are undesirable, but we need to draw a line so that we can say when they should become illegal. Clearly, we cannot make them illegal just because they cross a national boundary. Sometimes, journeys are necessary, such as in the cases we have heard about from the Isle of Wight, the western isles, and highland farmers. We need to understand that the public’s understanding and acceptance matter. When circumstances are unacceptable because we care for the welfare of food and farm animals, if the law is not good enough we need to be prepared to change the law.

[Mr Heath]

I think we need to do two things. I agree with the hon. Gentleman and I shall discuss the circumstances over recent months that were, let us be clear, totally unacceptable. We certainly need regulation and law that are fit for purpose and satisfy the requirements, but we need to enforce them rigorously. My view is that in areas of animal welfare, there should not be ifs and buts—we simply need rigorous enforcement. People need to understand that.

People need to understand that if they are looking after animals, they have a duty that is set out in law and we will hold them to it. If they fail in that duty, there will be consequences. That is the message I want to express and I think it would be supported by every good stockman, male or female, in the country who understands that the care of the animals in their protection is of paramount importance.

[Thomas Docherty]

We all seem to be on the same side of the argument. Does the Minister agree that if we went for a blanket ban on exports, it would affect not just slaughter and circuses, but the racehorse industry and its involvement with the great French races? Our colleagues in Ireland would also suffer immensely.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman is right. We must be careful what we wish for because there are sometimes unforeseen consequences. Coming from an area where we have lots of excellent stables producing first-class racehorses, I have to say that the way racehorses are transported is very different from the way the average sheep is transported. Let us understand that as a basic rule of thumb. However, it is not unreasonable to expect every animal that is transported to be transported in proper and appropriate transport. That is what I am determined to ensure.

[Chris Williamson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Heath]

I will now give way to the hon. Gentleman as he is persistent.

[Chris Williamson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me for the second time. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies), who spoke from the Dispatch Box, called for a review to be undertaken to give an MOT, so to speak, to animal exportation. May I refer the Minister to article 3 of EU Regulation 1/2005, which states:

“No person shall transport animals or cause animals to be transported in a way that is likely to cause injury or undue suffering to them.”

Until we undertake the MOT review that my hon. Friend mentioned, we cannot know whether that regulation is being complied with. I suspect that on almost every occasion undue stress or injury is likely to be caused to the animals concerned. We cannot refute that until a review has been undertaken.

[Mr Heath]

No, I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. Yes, he is right to read out that article. The legal requirements that the EU sets down for transport have to be in compliance with it. I believe—I will always look to see whether we are right in this belief—that if the legal requirements laid down in the EU welfare and transport legislation are observed, there is a satisfactory level of protection for the animals being transported. It is a highly regulated trade, subject to multiple levels of official controls. There are significant and specific, but I think justified, requirements on the farming and haulage industries. The EU Commission estimates that on average it costs nearly €12,000 to upgrade a vehicle for long journeys, and there are other significant costs.

There is already a regulatory framework. My task is to make sure that movements within this country comply with those regulations, and that we have the framework to make sure that that is the case each and every time. Where it is not the case, as it would appear may have happened recently—I have to couch what I say in careful terms—we take the appropriate actions.

Those controls include the need for all commercial transporters of animals to be authorised. For long journeys, vehicles must be inspected and approved. Drivers must pass a competency test. For long journeys of more than eight hours between member states, transporters must apply for a journey log providing details of the proposed route from point of departure to point of destination. The timings of the journey must be realistic and in line with the maximum journey times and with the compulsory rest periods laid down in the legislation. Once the journey has been completed, the journey log has to be returned and the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which has been mentioned many times in the debate, checks to make sure that there have been no infringements of the legislation during the course of the completed journey. If there have been infringements, AHVLA will take the appropriate enforcement action.

Somebody—I am afraid I do not remember who—suggested that that was a passive arrangement. It is not. I do not have the power to order my inspectors to inspect French vehicles on French roads or Spanish vehicles on Spanish roads. What I can do is make sure that the UK legislation, which is consistent with European legislation, is enforced rigorously. It must be observed.

One of the first situations I faced after taking up this post was the regrettable events of 12 September at the port of Ramsgate. There were serious consequences, as has been well reported, with 40 animals having to be humanely killed. That led me to look very closely at what could be done to ensure the most rigorous and robust enforcement of the existing legislation in this country, and I am absolutely committed to doing that.

The first thing I did was ask AHVLA to undertake a review of its existing procedures with a view to making the necessary improvements to ensure that, as far as possible—I was asked earlier to give this commitment—the events of 12 September would not be repeated. I have been given the review and accepted its conclusions, the vast majority of which, I am pleased to say, have already been implemented. As I have made plain publicly, and as other Members have said today, essentially I am asking for zero tolerance of lapses in animal welfare standards and rigorous checks on all journeys where there is a risk that we can identify.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) asked about a fit and proper person test—[Interruption.] She is looking dubious, so obviously I have misrepresented her. I apologise and will let her have the credit anyway, even though it was my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet who raised the matter. I think that it is crucial to our understanding of what is and is not within the powers. There is no test in those precise terms, but article 10 of the regulation sets out the circumstances in which the competent authority can refuse to grant authorisation. Basically, that is when the applicant has a recent record of serious infringements of laws relating to the protection of animals, and that includes proving that the applicant has appropriate facilities.

If, after authorisation, a transporter authorised in the UK commits offences, we can withdraw their authorisation. With regard to transporters authorised in other member states, we can report them to the equivalent competent authority and it should take action. Independently of that, we can prevent a transporter authorised by another competent authority operating here, but we obviously cannot stop them operating elsewhere. Those are important provisions that will come into effect, and I will use them when someone has been convicted of animal welfare infringements, but I make the point that they have to be convicted in a court of law; I cannot do it on the basis of suspicion or anecdotal evidence.

[Thomas Docherty]

I would like to take the Minister back to the report he has received. He will be aware that the NFU, the RSPCA and indeed this House are keen to see the contents of the report, so can he confirm when he will place a copy in the Library and whether he will sent one to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee?

[Mr Heath]

I was just about to come to that. The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter. Nothing would have pleased me more than to have immediately published the report, which I was keen should be made public. However, on advice from lawyers in the Department, and having received a specific request from Kent trading standards department, which is pursuing criminal investigations, I reluctantly had to agree to withhold publication until those investigations and possible prosecution actions have been completed. There is a view that release of the document might prejudice those proceedings, which I am simply not prepared to do.

Following Thanet district council’s decision on 29 November unilaterally to lift its temporary ban on the movement of live animal exports out of the port of Ramsgate, and the High Court hearing on Tuesday this week, I can explain the changes made to existing procedures by the AHVLA to help to prevent a recurrence of the events of 12 September. That is why I made a statement yesterday, at the earliest opportunity, so that the House was at least aware of the changes that we have made.

Let me focus on the most important of those changes. The AHVLA has always undertaken a proportion of its inspections at the point of loading based on an assessment of risk. On the basis of the risk that I perceive following the Ramsgate incident, I have asked it to inspect 100% of loadings at the point of loading in order to make sure that the risk at that point is properly assessed. Those inspections are much better, in some ways, than inspections undertaken at the roadside or at points of rest or transfer such as ports. They enable the AHVLA inspectors to undertake over 30 different checks—there is a list—on the welfare of the animals and the facilities on board the vehicle. I want to make it plain that I will maintain that 100% inspection regime for transporters using Ramsgate for as long as I believe that the risk is high. I hope that it is helpful for the House to understand the approach taken.

Earlier we heard reference to inspecting at the port itself. There is a good reason not to offload animals at the port if it can be avoided—doing so distresses the animals. It is better to have a visual inspection on-vehicle following the loading inspection, with veterinary controls at the point of loading. In everything we do, we are trying to make sure that we reduce the stress and improve the welfare of the animals as far as possible.

There is a particular issue at the port of Ramsgate, which, it is fair to say, is not the ideal port for this purpose. I understand exactly why Thanet district council has concerns, as there are other ports that might be better equipped. Having said that, there are problems associated with trying to undertake this very difficult work with live animals when a substantial protest is going on. The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse touched on this when he referred to perverse consequences. The protesters are people who care passionately about the welfare of animals, and I ask them to think about whether they are enhancing their welfare by exacerbating the job of the inspectors employed by the Department, who are already doing a very difficult job in very difficult circumstances; I thank them for the care that they take in protecting these animals. People will have to search their consciences in this regard, but I make that plea to them.

I will not go into the other changes to the existing procedures because all those details are in the DEFRA press release and Members can look at them for themselves.

Let me move on to the enforcement of the legislation by the AHVLA. The number of statutory notices served by the AHVLA on transporters using Ramsgate is clearly unacceptably high. Approximately 95% of transporters using Ramsgate are not authorised in Great Britain. All 30 statutory notices served by the AHVLA have been served on transporters who are authorised in other member states and whose vehicles are inspected and approved there or elsewhere. This is a significant issue. It is not about British livestock transporters using vehicles that have been licensed in this country; it is about overseas operators. When we make complaints about conduct, they go back to the authorising authority. In the case of one major operator registered in the Netherlands, we can send reports to the Dutch authorities, and I have been in touch with them. In fact, however, he does not operate in the Netherlands but is merely authorised by the Dutch Government, and that poses problems in terms of enforcement.

[Miss McIntosh]

We had similar protests at Brightlingsea when I was an MEP. At that time the port of Dover had closed for live animal transports, so everything came through Brightlingsea. Could the Minister repeat that 90% of live animal exports now go through Ramsgate? What has happened to Dover and Brightlingsea, because live trade used to go through those ports?

[Mr Heath]

As we have heard, Dover is no longer used. There may be more than one reason for that. I am not sure whether it was because of the damage to its docking facilities or because of the effect of the public protests on a port that has a high throughput of other traffic, but the perverse effect is that vehicles and shipping are being used at Ramsgate that might not be ideal for the purposes of the trade.

[Laura Sandys]

I thank the Minister for all the work he is doing, but what he outlined before the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) was the lack of clear accountability and the Department’s lack of ability, as the competent authority, to unravel the different layers of licensing and the different regimes under which licences and competencies are managed. To be frank, we as a Parliament should collectively be pushing this on Brussels, to ensure that there is absolute clarity that the Department can take action and enforce its responsibilities effectively, without having to go through a Byzantine licensing and competency regime.

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady makes a very important point. The EU Commission itself notes that the level of enforcement varies significantly between member states. Taking regulatory or enforcement action against transporters based abroad presents legal and technical challenges that do not exist in relation to British-based transporters.

I do not like picking fights with those who argue strongly for animal welfare, but it is wrong for some welfare activists to claim that my Department and the AHVLA have been reluctant to take action against transporters when necessary. Since exports of livestock commenced from the port of Ramsgate, the AHVLA has inspected 113 vehicles at the port and supervised the loading of a further 68 vehicles at its premises of departure and three vehicles at control posts—that is 60% of the total number of vehicles presented for export via the ship, Joline—carrying more than 41,000 farm animals out of a total of 120,471 animals exported from Ramsgate.

As a result of those inspections, the AHVLA has taken regulatory action on 41 occasions, serving 30 statutory notices and issuing 11 verbal warnings. Regulatory action by the AHVLA has resulted in four vehicles being prohibited from continuing their journeys. In addition, 10 vehicles approved and certified in another member state have been temporarily suspended from operating in Great Britain until the necessary modifications have been made to them. Three incidents have been referred to a local authority for investigation with a view to possible prosecution.

I repeat and make clear that I will not tolerate the use of sub-standard or faulty vehicles that, in the view of the AHVLA, are not fit for purpose. I am confident that the AHVLA will continue to take robust action against any transporter using poorly equipped or designed vehicles in the future.

I, the hon. Member for Ogmore and others have mentioned the EU Commission’s recent report on the impact of transport legislation. The EU has competence in the area of animal welfare during transport, so we cannot take any unilateral action. That would be contrary to the requirements of Council regulation 1/2005, which has been mentioned many times. This is an important legal point and it is essential that people understand it. Although article 1 of the legislation permits member states to take stricter national measures, they can only apply to transport taking place entirely in their own territory or during sea transport involving trade outside the EU. Stricter national measures do not apply to intra-Community trade, so we are not in a position take unilateral action.

A point that has not been raised much today, but that has been raised outside the Chamber, is lairage at Ramsgate port. It has been claimed that Ramsgate port requires lairage facilities at or close to the port so that the requirements of the EU welfare in transport legislation can be properly enforced. That is not correct on two counts. First, there is no legal requirement for such facilities at a port that operates a roll-on/roll-off ferry service, such as the MV Joline. Those who claim that such facilities are needed at the port appear to have confused the legal requirements for livestock vessels, which animals are physically loaded on and off, with those for roll-on/roll-off vessels that do not require the loading or unloading of animals at a port.

It must be remembered that the EU legislation places a legal responsibility on transporters to minimise the length of the journey. There is also a requirement that the competent authority must not detain animals in transport, unless it is strictly necessary for the welfare of the animals or for reasons of public safety. I have touched on the point that the routine unloading of animals is also wrong from the animal welfare perspective. The EU legislation acknowledges that the unloading of livestock during transport is stressful for the animals, can lead to injury and increases the risk of animal diseases.

As a result, the AHVLA will unload animals only when it is absolutely necessary. Should it need to do so, because other options are not practical in the circumstances or because it is in the best interests of the welfare of the consignment as a whole, two farm-based facilities are available within one hour’s drive of the port. Those facilities have been used by the AHVLA on four occasions in the recent past. We believe that their existence continues to fulfil the legal obligations on DEFRA as the competent authority under the EU welfare and transport legislation.

Some Members have pointed to the fact that the last audit inspection by the food and veterinary office, which is part of the European Commission, engendered exchanges concerning emergency unloading facilities close to the port of Dover. The facilities that we now have were not available when that report was written, so it is not directly relevant.

The issues that the Commission has identified in the enforcement of the EU welfare and transport legislation are crucial to our understanding of this subject. This is where we all share common ground, even those who feel that we should not be exporting animals beyond our shores. The welfare of animals in transit is what we all want to achieve.

Sadly, there are still cases in which severe animal welfare issues persist. The Commission has identified key areas of concern, not within the UK, but across the EU. Those are the transport of unfit animals, the overstocking of vehicles, the transport of animals in vehicles in which the internal height of the compartments is inappropriate, animals not receiving enough water during the journey, and animals being transported for longer than the maximum permitted journey time. Having identified those issues, I am disappointed that the Commission is not taking decisive action to address them. We will push hard for it to do so.

This matter has not been raised when I have attended the Agriculture Council, but it was raised at the Council in June. My predecessor, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), while supporting the Commission’s desire for better enforcement, recorded his desire to see improvements to the legislation, particularly through a review of the journey time rules in the light of more recent scientific evidence. That point has been raised by several Members in this debate. The right hon. Gentleman also said that the Government could not support the demand for a maximum limit of eight hours on all journeys involving livestock because the scientific evidence does not support such a limit for all major species of livestock.

The committee on agriculture and rural development of the European Parliament appears to support that view in its recent report on the protection of animals during transport. The report recognises, among other things, that such a demand alone has no scientific basis, and considers that animal welfare during transport in some instances depends more on proper vehicle facilities and on the proper handling of animals, as documented in the opinion of the European Food Safety Authority of December 2010, than on the overall length of the journey.

Although we will continue to press the EU Commission to update EU legislation on welfare in transport in line with available scientific evidence, it has decided to take a more strategic approach by tying the rules on transport more closely to requirements in the official food and feed controls legislation—regulation 882/2004—which is currently being re-written. Although it is possible that such a move could help to solve some of the problems with enforcement mentioned by the EU Commission in its report, it is too early to form a judgment on whether that is the most appropriate method of doing so.

[Thomas Docherty]

The Minister is doing an excellent job of setting out a complex set of arguments. He will recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) suggested that the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee look at this issue, given its complexity. I know that the Minister has covered a lot of topics, but before he concludes his remarks will he tell the House his observations on the merits of that suggestion, and say what issues could be looked at? Would he welcome an opportunity to give evidence to that Committee?

[Mr Heath]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that and this is probably an appropriate place to begin drawing my comments to a close. Some of what I have said has been a little complex and dry, but it is important to set out the legal background to some of the issues and I hope that I have answered in main the points raised by hon. Members.

I want to thank all hon. Members who took part in the debate, including the hon. Members for South Thanet, for Bristol East, for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies), for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams). Although the speech by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) was brief, it was beautifully formed in a pre-Christmas spirit that somehow seemed so appropriate. All those Members have practical experience in this area.

I also thank those Members with a genuine interest, concern and expertise in this area such as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse, for whom I have a great deal of respect, as well as the hon. Members for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty), for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for Southend West (Mr Amess).

[Thomas Docherty]

What about the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies)?

[Mr Heath]

I have mentioned the hon. Member for Ogmore many times and covered what he said almost word for word. It is unnecessary for me to say again that he and I agree on this issue to a large extent, and that is as it should be because this matter ought to transcend party labels.

I said that I do not want a formal review on this issue, and I do not see any great attraction for one in the Department at the moment. I will, however, continue to consider whether I should change my view on that. However, I want to review all our animal welfare issues, and live exports is just one among many. Whatever we do, I want to ensure that this country has the highest levels of animal welfare and protection—I hope I have given a flavour of that to the House—and that regulations and laws are enforced rigorously. I want an environment in which people understand that they must carry out that duty if they look after animals, whether a domestic pet, flock of sheep, herd of cows or killer whale. Whatever animal people look after, they must do so properly as it is their responsibility and we will enforce that.

If the Committee wants to undertake a review—it is not for me to tell it whether it should or not—I would be delighted for it to do so and happy to provide any evidence and support it needs to do its work properly. That is a matter for the Committee to decide. The Government welcome this debate and the opportunity to put on the record some of the things we have done and will do to ensure that what happened at Ramsgate on 12 September does not happen again. Wherever possible we must maintain the highest possible levels of animal protection in this country, which is what the House wants us to do.

15:54

[Laura Sandys]

I thank the hon. Members for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for co-sponsoring the debate. I also thank all other Members, from farmers to animal campaigners, who took part in it. We have had a full spectrum of views, but we have been bound together by our common purpose of considering animal welfare.

I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for his contribution and the Minister and his team. I represent the people of Ramsgate, and we want the most robust regulation that can be put in place. We welcome the statement about zero tolerance, which must be upheld. We would like to establish a definition of a fit and proper operator of the trade. One day, we will resolve the trade through the EU. In the meantime, I look to the Minister’s good offices to ensure that it is regulated effectively.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of live animal exports and animal welfare.

Business without Debate

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

privileges

Ordered,

That, with effect from 7 January 2013, Mr Kevin Barron, Sir Paul Beresford, Annette Brooke, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Tom Clarke, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Fiona O’Donnell, Heather Wheeler and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee of Privileges.—(Mr Syms.)

STANDARDS

Ordered,

That, with effect from 7 January 2013, Mr Kevin Barron, Sir Paul Beresford, Annette Brooke, Mr Robert Buckland, Mr Christopher Chope, Mr Tom Clarke, Mr Geoffrey Cox, Fiona O’Donnell, Heather Wheeler and Dr Alan Whitehead be members of the Committee on Standards.—(Mr Syms.)

delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Order, 29 November, and Standing Order No. 118(6)),

House of Commons Members’ Fund

That pursuant to section 4(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948 and section 1(4) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1957, in the year commencing 1 October 2012 there be appropriated for the purposes of section 4 of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1948:

(1) The whole of the sums deducted or set aside in that year under section 1(3) of the House of Commons Members’ Fund Act 1939 from the salaries of Members of the House of Commons; and

(2) The whole of the Treasury contribution paid to the Fund.— (Mr Syms.)

Question agreed to.

Sexual Health Data

Thursday 13th December 2012 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mr Syms.)

15:55

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Over the past 20 years, we have seen numerous high profile inquiries and serious case reviews after children have been harmed and abused. Each one has said that failures in data sharing and ineffective inter-agency working played a significant role in the child’s injury or death. Lord Laming’s progress report on child protection in 2009 following the Victoria Climbié and baby P inquiries stated:

“Despite the fact that the Government gave clear guidance on information sharing in 2006 and updated it in October 2008, there continues to be a real concern across all sectors, but particularly in the health services, about the risk of breaching confidentiality or data protection law by sharing concerns about a child’s safety. The laws governing data protection and privacy are still not well understood by frontline staff or their managers. It is clear that different agencies (and their legal advisers) often take different approaches.”

Disappointingly, that was echoed nearly three years later in the recent report by Sue Berelowitz, the deputy Children’s Commissioner, into sexual exploitation in gangs and groups. She highlighted the difficulties that she had experienced in collecting data from health agencies.

The overarching aim of year one of her inquiry was to identify the prevalence of child sexual exploitation and the warning signs that victims present, and to quantify the number of children at risk. She identified 16,500 children as being at high risk, using multiple indicators, and said that the figure would have been higher if the inquiry’s attempt to obtain health data had not been frustrated by “patchy” and “inconsistent” responses.

Of the 14 “signs” or behaviours generally seen in children who are already being sexually exploited, six relate to data collected by health organisations. Those health signs are: physical injuries; drug or alcohol misuse; repeat sexually transmitted infections, pregnancy and terminations; poor mental health, and self harm and thoughts of suicide. It was therefore important for the purposes of her inquiry that the deputy Children’s Commissioner was able to access that information.

Initially, it was her intention to collect individual level data in relation to children who have repeatedly attended clinics with sexually transmitted diseases and had had more than one abortion. The intention was to share the data with other known CSE indicators to assess the prevalence of child sexual exploitation.

However, because of current regulations it was not possible to get individual data on terminations. On sharing sexual health data, there were different legal opinions from the Department of Health, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and individual primary care trusts. The Department took the position that it would share its legal counsel and direct areas to not share that data. Aggregate national data provided by the Health Protection Agency and the Department of Health showed that 11,800 children had presented at a sexual health clinic on more than one occasion, 900 of whom had a repeat sexually transmitted infection, and 1,193 children under the age of 16 had an abortion who had also had at least one earlier termination. Those numbers indicate how important it is to have individual sexual health data to identify children at risk of child sexual exploitation.

The Department said a decision on substance misuse/mental health data could be made at a local level. Services operating in 41% of primary care trusts around mental health provided individual level data, while services operating in 30% of PCTs around substance misuse provided it. Those differences in data provided by PCTs indicate the wide variation in interpretations of existing law, regulations and guidance. A central request to the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, which collects individual data on people accessing substance misuse units nationally, was also refused due to concerns about breaching the Data Protection Act 1998 and health regulations. In the end, the National Treatment Agency provided aggregate level data that was not possible to match with the other indicator data obtained at an individual level.

In answer to my parliamentary question last week, I am aware that the Minister has commissioned Dame Fiona Caldicott to lead a review on the sharing of health data that strikes an appropriate balance between the protection of confidential and identifiable information, and the use and sharing of that information for research and a range of other purposes. Given the extent of the numbers of children attending sexual health clinics, it is crucial that, for example, the frequency of visits to a sexual health clinic, which may be an indicator of sexual exploitation, is capable of being shared alongside other health data at a local children’s safeguarding board level if we are serious about better protecting children from child sexual exploitation. The problem is not only confined to the health professional sharing information with non-health professionals, but it seems that there are problems with health professionals sharing information with each other.

Anecdotally, the other day I was told by a GP that he had contacted a health visitor to discuss an issue relating to a family he was concerned about, and was told by the health visitor that he had to get the patient’s permission to do so. The General Medical Council issued guidance to doctors in July 2012 on information sharing, but of course this was not issued to health visitors. Unless we resolve the confusion about data sharing, it is going to result in different practices in different areas. In some areas, emphasis on confidentiality may mean that a child is continuing to be exposed to risk of child sexual exploitation because data that could identify the risk are not being shared, while in another areas, because of different practices, appropriate interventions are being made.

I have come across similar barriers to data sharing as chair of the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults. It seemed to us incredible that Ofsted was not able to share the names and addresses of children’s homes with the police because of existing regulations. I am pleased that the Government are now consulting on a change to the regulations that would allow this to happen. On the face of it, it seemed like a good principle to keep a child’s address secret. However, in trying to safeguard one piece of information about a child’s life, we were exposing that child to undue risk. It is the same with sharing sexual health data, where we are often looking at complex issues of confidentiality versus safeguarding. It is a shame that having sorted out data in one area, we still see barriers in another.

This is a difficult area, and it is made all the more difficult by the fact that there is separate guidance from the Department of Health and the Department for Education. To give one example, the Department of Heath guidance about patient confidentiality issued in 2003 says that NHS professionals must take all necessary steps to secure any information capable of identifying an individual examined or treated for any sexually transmitted disease, and that it shall not be disclosed except where there is consent to do so or to prevent the spread of the disease. The updated guidance on November 2010 says that decisions about disclosures of confidentially sensitive information must be made case by case. Having read both these sets of guidance, I find it easy to see how there can be widely differing interpretations of what data to share and with whom.

We also have statutory guidance from the Department for Education entitled, “Working Together to Safeguard Children”. It was published in 2010, but is currently being revised. The 2012 consultation paper stresses that partners and agencies should proactively share information with each other and with the local safeguarding children boards. It says that from 2010 to 2011, 615,000 children in England were referred to children’s social care services by individuals who were concerned about their welfare. The guidance goes on:

“A consistent message from research, which has been reinforced in every high profile inquiry on child protection, is that children are best protected when professionals are clear about what is required of them individually, and how they need to work together... It is important that children receive the right help at the right time. For that to happen, everyone who comes in contact with them has to play a role in identifying concerns early, sharing information, and taking prompt, informed action. This will involve a range of professionals - for example midwives, health visitors, GPs, early year’s professionals, teachers, police officers, youth workers voluntary workers and social workers. It will require all professionals to be vigilant and take prompt action when they suspect that a child is suffering harm.”

The guidance also points out that, under section 11 of the Children Act 2004, public heath and NHS organisations are among those key organisations that have a statutory responsibility to make arrangements to ensure their functions are carried out with regard to safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. The Government are rightly urging local agencies to work together more effectively to safeguard children from child sexual exploitation, but the confusing and conflicting guidelines from the Department of Health and the Department for Education are creating barriers to effective data-sharing arrangements at a local level.

The confusion over current guidelines on sharing health data is giving rise to different interpretations and practices locally, which has led to a postcode lottery when it comes to safeguarding children. I have another anecdotal example. At a child sexual exploitation meeting in Greater Manchester where professionals were sharing data to try to assess the risk to a particular girl, it transpired that the girl had attended accident and emergency for treatment—a fact that had not been disclosed by the health worker present. She subsequently said that she thought that health information was confidential.

We are also facing big organisational change in the health service and in Greater Manchester. For example, several sexual health services run by different primary care trusts are due to be transferred to 10 local councils in 2013. I am pleased that Greater Manchester is trying to work towards a consistent interpretation of the different guidance from the Department of Health and the Department for Education for the whole of the Greater Manchester. It cannot be right that the safety of a child at risk of child sexual exploitation is dependent on where they live.

I hope that, in her review, Dame Caldicott will bring together existing guidance from both Departments that will allow local safeguarding children boards to share information in the best interests of the child. The importance of the proper collection of data and data sharing cannot be over-emphasised. The all-party group’s report in June emphasised the link between going missing and the risk of sexual exploitation, but no one fact will be enough and often something that does not seem significant to one agency might assume greater significance when placed with a fact picked up by another agency.

For example, a child who is reported missing for repeated periods, but not for any great length of time, might be the same child who visits a sexual health clinic with an older man. Those two factors being put together would set alarm bells ringing, whereas in themselves they would not seem significant. That is the value of sharing information. It is surely wrong that a child can walk out of a sexual health clinic back to a predator without alarm bells being rung. I am not advocating the routine sharing of every visit by every child to a sexual health clinic, but I believe that health and other professionals need better guidelines and training about when they should share information in the interests of safeguarding a particular child.

Given that identification practices of child sexual exploitation vary significantly across the country, with many areas adopting a reactive approach, accurate data are essential. That is particularly important in relation to black and minority ethnic victims. The Office of the Children’s Commissioner found it difficult to find information about that group of victims, although it established under-reporting of child sexual exploitation in BME communities. That information is significant, given that the general perception appears to be that sexual exploitation by gangs and groups is primarily a crime committed against white children. We have to be able to establish the true extent of sexual exploitation in BME communities, as well as understanding the underlying reasons for under-reporting. Those children have a right to our protection. That makes it even more critical that these sexual health indicators, which indicate risk, should be shared with other agencies.

Sharing data on health is vital in protecting children. These data will be of most value when matched with the data collected by police on missing incidents, by local authorities on absence from school and by youth offending teams, to identify and safeguard all children at risk of being sexually exploited. Lord Laming described the situation eloquently when he said:

“Whilst the law rightly seeks to preserve individuals’ privacy and confidentiality, it should not be used (and was never intended) as a barrier to appropriate information sharing between professionals. The safety and welfare of children is of paramount importance, and agencies may lawfully share confidential information about the child or the parent, without consent, if doing so is in the public interest.”

This week Sue Berelowitz summed up the problem when she told the Select Committee on Home Affairs that misunderstandings about the Data Protection Act were

“getting in the way of children being protected”.

It is surely time to ensure clearer guidance about the disclosure of health information in the interests of protecting vulnerable children, who should be the main focus of our concern. I hope the Minister will respond by sending out a strong message to that effect.

16:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) on securing this important debate. I pay tribute to the work she does. Her energy and commitment to the most vulnerable people in our society are admirable and rightly well known. She has raised some important and disturbing issues. There is nothing wrong with anecdotes, because after all, that is what evidence is—it is, of course, anecdotal. As we have heard today, and as we know from the work undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, a large number of our young people are victims of sexual exploitation and abuse. Tragically, many of them do not even see themselves as victims. This is a very difficult subject; it is all about striking the right balance.

The deputy Children’s Commissioner recently noted that in preparing her report, she asked for certain data on young people attending sexual health clinics, as the hon. Lady explained. The deputy commissioner wanted the data to enable matching with other data to give an estimate of the numbers of young people suffering from sexual exploitation. The Department of Health took legal advice on whether it would be possible to share the sexual health data requested by the deputy commissioner. Our legal advice said that, given the limits on disclosure in the legislation and the fact that the data requested might identify individual patients, they should not be shared. I understand that around 60% of primary care trusts provided some data as requested. That is clearly a good example of confusion, with one piece of legal advice seemingly at odds with another. The hon. Lady is therefore right to make the point that she did about her great concern, which I share.

I understand that the point about the advice was that it was the deputy commissioner who had made that request, which is different from the point that the deputy commissioner—as well as the hon. Lady—is most concerned about, which is: what happens with data sharing out in the real world when children come along to sex clinics? Unfortunately, we hear many stories of things going wrong—we are all aware of those—but I would say, I hope with confidence, that in the overwhelming majority of cases things go well.

I pay tribute to all those in the health and other services who do a magnificent job in protecting our children. Sometimes we forget that. My experience at the criminal Bar, for what it is worth, taught me that those professionals involved in the protection of children—the hon. Lady read out a long list of the organisations involved—use their own common sense and compassion as well as all the guidance that is available. Anyone involved in such work should always be motivated by an overriding desire and determination to protect the child. That should be at the forefront of their considerations.

We know from the deputy Children’s Commissioner that repeat attendances at a sexual health clinic are one of the key indicators of potential child sexual exploitation, which is a form of child abuse. Sexual health clinics are open access. That means that anyone can go into a sexual health clinic and receive free and confidential advice and treatment. Patients do not need to go to a clinic in the area where they live, or in the area where they are registered with a GP. They do not even have to give their correct name, age, address or other details in order to receive treatment. The purpose of that is to ensure that anyone, regardless of their age or circumstances, can get the advice and treatment that they need to protect their own sexual health and that of their sexual partners.

We know from a number of studies that confidentiality is highly valued by young people, as I know the hon. Lady will understand. They perceive that the services offered by clinics are likely to be more confidential than going to a GP. We need to reach a point at which any child sexual exploitation can be identified by the health or other professionals who come into contact with the child. Those professionals then need to build up a relationship of trust so that the child feels able to work with them and others to tackle the issues that they face and to make the necessary disclosures to enable action to be taken to protect the child and, if necessary, to bring the perpetrator to justice. Of course, that does not always happen. We know from the deputy Children’s Commissioner’s work that, all too often, the children do not see themselves as exploited or abused. That can result, in the initial stages, in the abuse not being identified by the professionals.

The starting point for everyone who receives health care is that, generally speaking, information about them is not shared without their consent. That is rightly at the heart of the working practices of all health professionals. Additional legislation limits the disclosure by the NHS of information that identifies a person who has been examined or treated for a sexually transmitted illness. That is to ensure that people do not feel reluctant to come forward for testing and treatment. There is agreement on that, too. The legislation allows the information to be disclosed in order to treat, or prevent the spread of, sexually transmitted illnesses. For example, the information might need to be disclosed to the patient’s sexual partners to prevent the spread of the illness.

For under-16s, specific concerns and issues must be addressed. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 provides that the age of consent is 16 and that sexual activity involving children under 16 is unlawful. The age of consent is there to protect children aged under 16 from exploitation and abuse. It is accepted that children under 16 are vulnerable to exploitation and abuse, and that they do not have the necessary maturity to make the decisions that young adults can make. That is why we have an age of consent. It is to protect children from exploitation and abuse.

All health professionals should be aware of the age of consent, and of child protection and safeguarding issues, and I believe that most of them are; they take the matter very seriously. When dealing with a child under 16, they should be alert to the possibility that that young person is being exploited or abused. It goes without saying that a 15-year-old cannot make a life choice to become a prostitute. Advice and guidance on child protection are available in “Working Together to Safeguard Children” and “What to do if you are worried a child is being abused”. The advice and guidance are available in sex clinics and they are also issued to workers in this field.

All sexual health clinics should have the guidelines and the referral pathways, as they are called, in place for risk assessment and management for child sexual abuse. They should use a standardised pro-forma for risk assessment for all those under 16 and also for those between 17 and 18 where there is a cause for concern or learning difficulties. They should be aware of local child protection procedures and work collaboratively under local safeguarding children arrangements to ensure victims are identified and protected. In my view, perhaps most of all, they should use their own common sense. If a child under 16 presents who has clearly been involved in sexual activity and where it is clear to the worker that there is an element of abuse or any damage caused by sexual activity, alarm bells should be ringing immediately that this is a child who needs protection, help and assistance if only to disclose what has been going on that has led them to be in that position. It is very difficult work, and it often takes a great deal of effort and intervention even to get a child to disclose what has been going on. It then requires even more work to take them through the long, difficult journey to full disclosure and, as I say, to protect them fully and, if necessary, to bring the perpetrators of the abuse to justice.

However, given the issues raised by the report from the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, we think it would be valuable to work with the NHS, Royal Colleges and other key stakeholders to develop guidance on effective information sharing within the law in order to identify and protect the victims of child sexual exploitation. As we work through those issues, we will need to strike a careful balance between sharing data in a way that achieves our goal of helping victims of sexual exploitation, without discouraging them, or other young people, from visiting a sexual health clinic.

As I said—I hope I did say this at the beginning—we have set up a health working group on child sexual exploitation, and it is working with the experts, the professional bodies and the voluntary sector on these issues. It will produce a report and recommendations in the spring next year. That report will determine the future direction of our work. We want to work closely with bodies representing health care professionals because they hold the key to making progress. We want to make sure that they can identify and support these young people to help them get the help they need at the earliest stage possible.

Finally, I thank the hon. Lady again for bringing this matter to the Floor of the House and for raising all the issues she has about identifying the need for real work to be done in the future to make sure, frankly, that we get it right.

Question put and agreed to.

16:22

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 13th December 2012 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 13 December 2012

Westminster Hall

Thursday 13th December 2012 Westminster Hall

Thursday 13 December 2012

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

Arms Exports

Thursday 13th December 2012 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: UK Strategic Export Controls Annual Report 2010, First Joint Report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, HC 419, and the Government response, Cm 8441.]

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

13:30

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I warmly congratulate my constituency neighbour and right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon) on his deserved return to the ministerial firmament, and I extend to him my best wishes for his time in his important post.

I would be the first to acknowledge that quantity and size are no indication of quality, whether that applies to speeches in the House or Select Committee reports, but the report that we are considering is of unprecedented length. It is a total of 537 pages spread over two volumes. I suggest to the House that it is compelling reading, not least at bedtime, and I hope that Members have enjoyed devouring it.

The report breaks important ground in five particular ways. First, one of the most important legacies left to our Parliament by the late Robin Cook was that he was the first Foreign Secretary to take the commendable initiative of producing a report to Parliament and the wider public on the Government’s policy on arms exports. Those annual reports have certainly been of material help to the Committees on Arms Export Controls by providing us with background information.

For the first time, the Committees’ report subjects the Government’s latest report to detailed and extensive written scrutiny, and, for the first time, it publishes our questions about the Government’s annual report and the answers that we received, which are set out in annex 11 to the report. I hope that Members will agree that that is an important new source of information for the House and the wider public.

Secondly, one of the most important sources of additional information available to the Committees is the Government’s quarterly publication on the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills website of the approvals and refusals they have made on the arms export licence applications that they have received. In addition, the Committees receive a considerable amount of information on a classified basis. After significant discussion with the Government, we reached agreement on a format in which we can make public the non-classified information that we obtained, with our questions alongside the Government’s answers. Our latest report reproduces those questions and answers for the first time, from the first quarter of this Government’s responsibility, starting 1 July 2010, until the latest quarter for which we have information. That is set out in annex 1 to the report.

Thirdly, a key focus of our inquiry has been the extent to which the Government have approved exports of arms, ammunition and components that might be used for internal repression in countries where such a risk may exist. In our report, we have illustrated such exports. In annex 6, we published illustrations of such exports to Arab spring countries in north Africa and the middle east, and in annex 7 we published similar illustrations for exports approved to authoritarian regimes worldwide that are of human rights concern. I believe that that too will be a valuable source of information to the House and the wider public.

Fourthly, over the past year, I, as the Chair of the Committees, have had extensive correspondence on the Committees’ behalf with the relevant Secretaries of State, ranging from correspondence with BIS on its priority markets lists for arms exports to correspondence on brass plate companies and arms exports to a variety of countries, including Argentina. We agreed as a Committee that the entirety of that correspondence, including our questions and the Government’s replies, would be published in our report. The correspondence covers 120 pages in the second volume of our report, and it too is an important additional resource of information for the House and the wider public.

Finally, in the report, we scrutinise to an unprecedented extent the field of Government policy on international arms control issues relating to weapons of mass destruction and conventional weapons. We have scrutinised the Government’s policy on, for example, the arms trade treaty, sub-strategic nuclear weapons, the fissile material cut-off treaty and other issues. It is another important area of scrutiny that we will be taking further throughout the rest of this Parliament.

A few months ago, I was invited to the Bundestag in Berlin to give a presentation on the British Parliament’s scrutiny of arms export and arms control policies. After the presentation, a number of Members of the Bundestag came up to me and said that they were amazed at the extent of our questioning of our Government, and even more amazed that the Government gave us the answers to our questions. Next week, I have been invited to the National Assembly in Paris to make a similar presentation, and I shall not be surprised if the response from the French Deputies who attend is similar. The fact that this House’s degree of scrutiny is now attracting international attention from parliamentarians in other countries is a welcome and important development.

Turning to the Government’s policies, the Government have accepted our recommendations in a significant number of areas, and we are on the same track. In other areas, the Government—to put it as constructively as I can—have still to accept our recommendations, and we are in a degree of disagreement. I will cover both those areas if I may.

First, we are very glad that the Government have accepted that the issue of arms exports and arms control is of sufficiently great importance to warrant the direct involvement of the four Secretaries of State. The Government accepted our recommendation that the annual report that they make—the one initiated by the late Robin Cook—should be signed off not by junior Ministers, but by the Secretaries of State. In addition, last year and, I am glad to say, this year, the two principal Secretaries of State involved—my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Business Secretary— have decided to give oral evidence themselves to our Committees. They will do so next week in the context of our current inquiry.

On bribery and corruption, I am glad to say that the Government, in their response, have given us an “unqualified” assurance that if they become aware of corruption in arms deals, they

“will take appropriate action under the provisions of the Bribery Act 2010.”

That is a very welcome assurance from the Government.

On cluster munitions, the Committees strongly endorsed the position taken by the Government in resisting attempts to water down the cluster munitions convention. As the House knows, such an attempt was made by a number of the major holders and manufacturers of cluster munitions, including the United States, China and Russia, which put forward what was called draft protocol 6. The Committees strongly endorsed the British Government’s decision to reject draft protocol 6 and to avoid any watering down of the cluster munitions convention.

When the Government are making military and security equipment available by export as part of a British overseas security and justice assistance programme, the Committees recommended that their official human rights guidance should be much stronger to draw the attention of officials and, indeed, Ministers to the need to adhere very closely to the procedures and policies on arms exports. I am glad to say that the Government have responded in favourable—positive—terms to that recommendation.

The most important single issue on which we finally managed to reach agreement with the Government was Government policy on arms exports in relation to areas and countries where arms might be used for internal repression. It took considerable correspondence and questioning, but we got there in the end, when the Foreign Secretary gave evidence to the Committees on 7 February this year. That oral evidence exchange is so important—so fundamental—that I want to read out a brief extract from it. It is the key extract. The Chair said to the Foreign Secretary:

“As far as arms exports that involve weapons that could be used for internal repression are concerned, your junior Minister, Alistair Burt, in his press release statement on 18 February last year, entirely accurately and correctly summarised the previous Government’s position carried forward by the present Government on policy in this area. He summarised that accurately in these words: ‘The longstanding British position is clear. We will not issue licences where we judge there is a clear risk the proposed export might provoke or prolong regional or internal conflicts, or which might be used to facilitate internal repression.’ Foreign Secretary, has that policy changed, or is it as correctly stated by Mr Alistair Burt?”

The Foreign Secretary replied:

“That is still the policy. The ‘or’, as you have pointed out on other occasions, is important.”

The Chair then said:

“It is profoundly important, Foreign Secretary, and I am glad that you have acknowledged that.”

Therefore, the British Government’s policy is that they will not issue export licences for arms that might be used to facilitate internal repression. That is a very strict but very necessary policy in this area.

I have set out the areas where we are in agreement with the Government. I now turn to the areas where we are not yet in agreement. The first is extraterritoriality. The Committees see no good reason why a British person—an arms broker, say—should be able to carry out an arms export deal from overseas to, say, an embargoed destination that would be a criminal offence if carried out in the UK, and enjoy complete immunity from prosecution in this country. The Labour Government conceded that extraterritoriality was appropriate in this area, but conceded only part of the way, so the situation today is that some arms deals overseas in relation to certain types of arms are within the scope of extraterritoriality, but others are not. That is, in my view, a wholly anomalous position.

For example, small arms and light weapons are within the scope of extraterritoriality; heavy weapons are not. Unmanned aerial vehicles—UAVs—are within the scope of extraterritoriality, but manned combat aircraft, whether fixed wing or rotary wing, are not. Long-range missiles are within the scope of extraterritoriality, but short-range missiles are not. The anomaly is glaring and should not be continued. Extraterritoriality should be extended to the remaining items on the military list as the Committees have recommended.

On torture end-use control and end-use control of goods used for capital punishment, the Committees recognise that the Government appear to have taken effective steps by way of temporary action to stop the export from the UK of drugs that are to be used for capital punishment executions in the US, but given the seemingly endless delay in the EU carrying out its promised review of the EU’s so-called torture regulation, we do not understand why the Government are still so reluctant to introduce national legislation in the UK in this important area. Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.

On trade fairs, the Committees were highly critical of the fact that illegal goods, such as torture equipment and cluster munitions, were found being marketed at the last defence and security equipment exhibition, held in London in September 2011. It was not the first time that had happened. In addition, that marketing material was found not by the organisers and supervisors of the event, but by visitors walking round the exhibition.

The Government’s response to our criticism was frankly extraordinary:

“The Government does not agree with the Committees’ conclusion that the two instances of promotion of undesirable materials via exhibition stands at DSEI 2011 are evidence of a lax approach to enforcement.”

If that evidence is not clearly evidential of a lax approach, I do not know what is.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Chairman of the Committees will be aware that was not the first time it happened, but it is important to place it on the record. There were similar incidents at previous defence exhibitions four or five years earlier. Promises were made that the situation would be improved. There are clearly outstanding issues that raise further questions about scrutiny and enforcement.

[Sir John Stanley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a wholly correct point. I said in my remarks that that exhibition was not the first time, and he is entirely right to reinforce the point.

We continue to be in disagreement with the Government on whether there is an inherent conflict between strongly promoting arms exports to an authoritarian regime while criticising their human rights performance and abuses. To the Committees, it is blindingly obvious that if the UK is trying to land a major arms export contract in an oppressive regime country, the chances of its doing so will be materially diminished if Britain, at Government level, gives a high profile to criticisms of human rights abuses in that country. The temptation will be to make those criticisms sotto voce in private. The conflict is inherent, although that is not to say that we should necessarily give up on pursuing particular export contracts, but the Government would do better to stand up and acknowledge the inherent conflict in their position, rather than trying to pretend that no such conflict exists.

I turn to the Committees’ response to the arms export review, which the Government carried out in the wake of the Arab spring, of exports to the middle east and north African countries. The review resulted in a wholly unprecedented number of revocations of arms export licences: a total of 158, way beyond anything that has occurred in response to a single international event hitherto, as far as I know. I do not in any way criticise the Government for making those revocations; indeed, I applaud them for doing so. It was the correct decision in the wake of the Arab spring in the countries concerned.

Where we differ from the Government is in our judgment over whether the original decisions to grant those export licences were correct. The licences included sniper rifles to Bahrain, equipment for armoured fighting vehicles to Mubarak’s Egypt and military communications equipment to Gaddafi’s Libya. The Government’s position is that none of those exports—items that have now been the subject of revocations—represented policy misjudgments. Our Committees’ position is that when the judgments were originally made, at least some were seriously flawed. Our report therefore recommends that the Government apply a more cautious judgment to weapons and equipment that can be used for internal repression when they are to be exported to oppressive and authoritarian regimes. The Committees’ position is the right one for the Government to adopt.

Our final point of disagreement with the Government is over our recommendation that the review of arms exports to the middle east and north African countries should be extended worldwide, to review extant export licences to authoritarian countries and those of human rights concern, as listed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in its latest human rights report. The Government initially responded:

“Although this review was originally commissioned in response to events in the Middle East and North Africa, any conclusions will apply to our procedures for arms exports to all countries.”

To say that the lessons learnt from the middle east/north Africa review will be applied to all other countries is not the same as the Committees’ recommendation that the review itself be applied to authoritarian countries and countries worldwide where there are significant human rights abuses. When the Foreign Secretary came to the Committees on 7 February this year, we pressed him at considerable length on that point. Although he said:

“I did not agree with the recommendation of the Committee.”,

I am glad to tell the House that the Committees, by pressure of questions, achieved the review that was the original subject of our recommendation.

In our most recent questions, we put to the Government:

“Is the Government satisfied that none of the extant UK arms export licences worldwide, in addition to those to the countries specifically referred to above”—

the middle east and north African countries—

“contravenes:

(a) The Government’s stated policy on UK arms exports and internal repression as set out in Paragraph 191 of the Committees’ 2012 Report, or

(b) either the UK’s Consolidated Criteria for arms exports or the Criteria in the EU Council Common Position on arms exports?”

The Government replied:

“The Government is satisfied that none of its extant licences contravenes its stated policy on arms exports and internal repression, the Consolidated Criteria or the Common Position.”

The Committees got there in the end, but the Government would have done better to accept our recommendation initially, rather than having to carry out a review in response to our questioning.

Lastly, I have three specific questions to put to the Minister. If he or one of his ministerial colleagues wishes to reply in writing subsequently, I will entirely understand. The first question concerns the arms trade treaty. The next attempt to reach agreement will be in March next year. Thus far, the negotiations have all been subject to the consensus principle—the principle of unanimity. I fully understand that it is often necessary to adopt the consensus principle to begin a drafting process. However, I must flag it up that continuing adherence to that principle will almost certainly be the kiss of death to the conclusion of an arms trade treaty. I have been wracking my brains to think of a single significant multilateral arms trade agreement to which everybody signed up, and I cannot think of one. If we had had the consensus principle, we would never have had the non-proliferation treaty, the land mines convention or the cluster munitions convention. Will the Government tell the Committees in what circumstances the British Government would be willing to abandon the consensus principle to get the arms trade treaty agreed by the great majority of countries in the United Nations?

My second question is about the fissile material cut-off treaty, and the issue is similar. The drafting of this much-needed treaty has, as we know, been deadlocked for years in the conference on disarmament in Geneva, again because of the consensus principle, coupled with the India and Pakistan nuclear situation. In answers to the Committees, the Government said that their policy is to keep responsibility for drafting that crucially needed treaty in Geneva, notwithstanding that there has been deadlock for years. Will the Government at least set a deadline for the start of the drafting of that treaty in Geneva? It is a matter of judgment what the deadline should be. I would offer one of, say, the end of calendar year 2013. Will they at least consider setting a deadline? If no drafting takes place, the obvious next step must be to take the responsibility for the drafting back to the United Nations. Alongside that question, will the Government tell the Committees what action they are taking within the P5, all of which basically support a fissile material cut-off treaty, to maximise pressure to secure progress on that treaty?

My final question is about unmanned aerial vehicles or drones, and it is in two parts. First, are the Government entirely satisfied that existing arms export control legislation applies fully to drones, and their technology and components? Secondly, can we be assured that the British Government will resist the attempts being made by members of the missile technology control regime to reduce the control it exercises on the proliferation of drones and drone technology? Are the British Government standing up firmly and clearly against any loosening of controls on proliferation in that area within the missile technology control regime?

In conclusion, I do not wish the House to take away any other impression from my speech but that the Committees are determined to continue to improve and strengthen their scrutiny. However, I believe that the scrutiny that the Committees have achieved and—I stress this—the transparency that the Government have shown in response to the Committees’ scrutiny are now as high, if not higher, than those of any other Parliament and Government in the major arms-exporting countries. That is a situation with which I believe we, in the British Parliament, can be satisfied, although as I said, we will try to improve our performance still further.

14:05

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you for calling me to speak, Mr Hollobone. I apologise for being slightly late for this debate. I had responsibilities to attend to at the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

I congratulate, the Chair of the Committees, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), on his comprehensive and excellent introduction. As always, he has gone into great detail and shown that our Committees are assiduous in their work. I have served on the Committees on Arms Export Controls in both their incarnations—first as the Quad and then as the CAEC—for many years. I have also been on the Defence Committee, and then on the Foreign Affairs Committee during the last Parliament and this one. It is important to place it on the record that the Committees, which are not easy to manage because of the rules under which we operate, have done and continue to do an important job. The Chair plays a particularly important role. That is now being carried out by the right hon. Gentleman, as it was by his predecessor, Roger Berry—he also did an excellent job—in the last Parliament.

It is important to recognise that the Committees do not ever split on party lines and do not normally split on Committee lines. Sometimes, there are tensions between people from the defence, the international development, the foreign affairs and the trade and industry or business sides, but we nevertheless come to an agreed position. When the Government look at our reports, they need to understand that they too should have a joined-up approach. I sometimes get the impression that some parts of the Government are pulling in one direction and other parts in other directions. That is not a party political point; those tensions have always been there. There is nothing wrong with the Prime Minister going to countries that have issues about human rights and the process towards democracy specifically to promote UK arms exports, but there needs to be a common presentation of the context. We cannot have situations in which, internationally, many people think that human rights issues are being downplayed in some countries as opposed to others. I flag that up as a general problem of politics and governance in this country.

I also want to talk about what is about to happen with the European Union arms embargo on Syria. A decision has been taken, apparently at the instigation or with the support of the UK Government, to change the review of the continuation of that arms embargo from three months to one month. It is on the record that in the Syrian conflict or civil war, the Syrian Government are using cluster munitions and, just yesterday, Scud missiles—they presumably got them from Russia, perhaps in the dim and distant past or perhaps more recently. We know that the Iranians are arming the Syrian regime, and that the Governments of Qatar and Turkey have been giving military assistance to the Syrian opposition forces, or at least to elements of them. There is a question about which elements are being well armed, but it is clear that some more extreme jihadist groups, including the one that has just been designated as a terrorist al-Qaeda affiliate by the United States Government, are well armed and involved in the conflict.

Following the decision taken by NATO to supply, authorise and support the deployment of the Patriot anti-missile system in Turkey—presumably to stop stray fire over the border from Syria—is a decision imminent to modify, change or lift the European Union arms embargo on exporting arms to Syria to allow the arming of elements within the Syrian opposition? That raises some important questions of principle, and there are international parallels. We can go back to what happened in the Bosnian civil war, but at that point, it was the state of Bosnia-Herzegovina that was requesting weaponry. Elements in the US, under the Clinton presidency, wished to lift the embargo, but the British Government at that time—Douglas Hurd was the Foreign Secretary—were vehemently against such action, and the embargo continued.

There is of course the issue of what happened in Kosovo. Other issues also come to mind that set historical precedents. Today, it appears that the Syrian regime is being armed by the Iranians and the Russians. No UN Security Council position is being applied to stop that arming. There may be UN resolutions, but they are weak and ineffective because Russia and China refuse to allow a stronger resolution. At the same time, it is reported clearly in the press that not only the Qataris and the Turks are supporting some of the Syrian opposition, but the French and perhaps the Americans.

Given that discussions have been taking place recently, what is the British Government’s position on the future of arms control and exports and supply of weaponry to elements within Syria? I will not accept just a bland phrase that says, “There is an international embargo through the EU, so we are not supplying.” There is a live debate on this matter. There was a meeting in Qatar recently of some of the key players in the process, including top military, defence and intelligence advisers. We in this Parliament should be informed, and we should be able to discuss and debate the matter. There may be a strong case to be made. I am one of those who have been advocating support for humanitarian intervention. There may well be a case for supporting those elements in Syria, but it should not be done by subterfuge or in an underhand way, or without full public debate and political accountability.

It is also clear that whatever happens in Syria will have knock-on consequences for its neighbours. This country supplies armaments to many of those neighbours, and we are in a partnership with, and allied to, some of them. We have excellent relations with Turkey, a fellow NATO member. We have excellent relations with Jordan, which, like Turkey, is harbouring many refugees who have fled the civil war in Syria. At this moment, there are 240,000 refugees who have had to flee the country and go into neighbouring states, and there are more than 2 million internally displaced people. An estimated 40,000 people in the region—no one is sure of the exact number—have lost their lives in this conflict, mainly, but not entirely, killed by the brutality of the Assad Ba’athist fascist regime.

Twenty-one years ago, when the Foreign Secretary was a member of the Cabinet, we brought in a no-fly zone to protect the Kurds fleeing into the mountains in the winter. This winter in Syria, hundreds of thousands of people will be fleeing into the mountains, which can get very cold. Many, many people will die because the international humanitarian support will either not get through or will be insufficient.

We are involved in this conflict because of our partnerships, our neighbours and our support for our allies. We also know that things could drag on for months or years, or could come to a very speedy conclusion. We need clarity from the Government about what our position is, what we are doing, and what discussions are going on with our French and American allies and partners, with Turkey and with the Arab states in the region. Furthermore, if a generalised Sunni-Shi’a conflict is going to come out of what is going on in Syria and potentially in Lebanon, which could spill over into Iraq, we need to think through very carefully the actions we might be taking over the coming weeks and months. That goes beyond the representations and the report that the Chairman introduced, but when we take a decision to supply arms, or not to supply arms, there are long-term political consequences.

A few years ago, during the civil war in Sri Lanka, an arms embargo was put in place, yet when there was a ceasefire that embargo was not maintained—this was under the previous Government—and the Sri Lankan Government bought all kinds of things, including ammunition, small arms, components and a huge amount of hardware that was used by their armed forces. That ceasefire broke down after 2002, and in 2009 we saw scenes of absolute carnage and brutality when the Sri Lankan armed forces decided to eliminate the Tamil Tigers. I am not here to speak for or defend the Tamil Tigers, but it is clear that there is strong case for the Sri Lankan Government to participate in a proper independent international inquiry on the war crimes that were carried out. Many of those crimes were carried out using weaponry that had been imported from around the world. Officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office were unable to tell us whether UK-supplied ammunition, components or weapons were used by Sri Lankan Government forces, but I suspect that they were.

There is a wider issue. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling referred to the Government’s revocation of the 158 licences as a result of the events in the Arab world—I am no longer using the term “Arab spring”. If we look at what is going on in Egypt today and in some other countries, I can no longer talk about a “spring” any more. The Prague spring was, no doubt, the parallel that people wished to draw, but it was not followed by a move to authoritarianism, undemocratic behaviour and a theocracy; it was followed by Vaclav Havel, leading to a democratic transformation of Czechoslovakia and ultimately to the Czech and Slovak states becoming part of the democratic European Union and NATO. It is unclear to me that what is happening in Egypt will have a similar outcome, and it is also unclear whether events elsewhere in the Arab world within 15 or 20 years will be as positive as the developments we have seen on our continent since 1989.

I return to the issue of the revocation of licences. It is clear that the previous Government—the Labour Government—and this coalition Government continued to export materials, weapons and components to authoritarian, undemocratic regimes, regardless of the internal situation in those countries, because there was clearly an economic agenda. There was also a political agenda. If we were trying to wean Gaddafi away from his past terrorist activities—that was the right policy to adopt, and Tony Blair was absolutely right to adopt it—and if we are trying to keep Egypt as a stable country with a “cold peace” with the Israelis, it was probably right that we had to pay some price for those aims.

Nevertheless, as the Committees point out, we did not ask enough questions and our restrictions were not tight enough. As a result, many of the weapons that are now slushing around north Africa, and many of those that are in the hands of Islamist groups and Salafist groups in Egypt, in other parts of Arab north Africa and in Mali, were exported to that region—to Gaddafi in particular—by western European arms manufacturers, with the approval of western European Governments.

We cannot duck that issue, because there are lessons here—from Sri Lanka, and from north Africa. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said that we in this country have the best parliamentary scrutiny of arms export policy, and probably the best transparency in that regard. Nevertheless, we are not perfect and never will be, and decisions that were made in the past will potentially come back to bite us.

I conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend. It is very important that the Committees—the four component Committees in this House—continue their work in all political circumstances under this Government, as they did under previous Governments. I hope that those in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, who draft the responses to the questions we ask will try to persuade the Ministry of Defence and the Department for International Development that we must have a joined-up, holistic, comprehensive and clear approach to these questions. There is a danger that, given understandable commercial and economic pressures, we might take our eye off the ball regarding the long-term implications of what we export or sell.

14:23

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair.

It is also a pleasure to congratulate the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls, the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), on making an absolutely excellent contribution to the debate, as usual, and on discussing many of the issues addressed in the very substantial report from the Committees. I am a member of the Committees on Arms Export Controls. I sit on the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee, and I echo the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee—

[Mike Gapes]

Ex-Chair.

[Katy Clark]

I was not aware that my hon. Friend was no longer in that post, and I will now use this opportunity to pay tribute to the huge amount of work that he has done on these issues during many years, and to the contribution that he has made, and indeed is making today.

As my hon. Friend said, the Committees on Arms Export Controls are very broad Committees, in terms both of the politics of their members and of the various Committees that regularly sit in their meetings. The Committees on Arms Export Controls are very difficult Committees to manage, not least because of the rules of the House, which mean that there has to be a quorum for each of the Committees in the room—all four Committees—which has at times been an extremely difficult thing to achieve. Nevertheless, the Committees have done a huge amount of excellent work over many years, and in recent years that work has been taken to new heights by the Chair of the Committees, who has repeatedly and in great detail put together the questions that need to be put to Government, to ensure that we have greater transparency on these issues in this country.

The issues have developed over many years, since the Committees were established by Robin Cook when he was Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government, but the tremendous amount of work that has been undertaken by many who have sat on the Committees over many years is the reason why we are bringing so many more pieces of information to the public’s attention. As the Committees continue, I hope that we continue to push in that direction, to ensure that we are able to bring into the public domain all information that can be reasonably brought there.

I say that because the reality is that there is still a huge amount of secrecy surrounding the issues, and quite often it is far from clear why one application for an arms export licence is granted and another refused. Most applications are, of course, granted; only a small number are refused. The concern of the Committees is often about those that are granted. Often there is a feeling that perhaps the healthy cynicism of many of the politicians who sit on the Committees, and their seasoned view about whether an organisation applying for a licence will necessarily be falling over itself to provide all truly relevant information, is shared by others involved in the process. The rounded political views of many members of the Committees bring a lot to the process.

We should be asking serious questions of those who are trying to export arms or other items to countries where there may be concerns about their end use. We should be asking what those items actually are, whether they could have a range of different uses and who are the people who will have those pieces of equipment at the end of the process. The Committees have done a huge amount of work in asking those questions.

The Chair of the Committees spoke at great length about the issues surrounding the so-called Arab spring, and the countries in north Africa and the middle east. Of course, the Committees look at many other issues too, and I am pleased to put on the record both my support for a robust arms trade treaty and my hope that it will be possible to get a treaty next year, even if it is not possible for every country to sign up to it. It is essential for all of us that we get the strongest possible treaty, with as many key players as possible signing up to it. I hope that is something the Government will be able to achieve, and I know that all members of the House wish to give those taking part in the negotiations as much support as we can.

The other issue that I want to raise today is the Government’s position in relation to exports to Israel, particularly in light of the recent events in Palestine, especially Gaza. The Minister will be aware that on 4 December I asked, in a question in the House, whether consideration had been given to suspending the export licensing process with regard to exports to Israel, in light of the recent hostilities in Palestine and Israel. The response, from the Minister in the Chamber today, was that no such formal suspension had taken place.

On 7 February this year, the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills announced that there would be a new suspension mechanism, which would allow the Government quickly to suspend the processing of pending licence applications for export to countries experiencing a sharp deterioration in security or stability, and that the suspension would not be invoked automatically or lightly, but would be triggered, for example, when a conflict or crisis conditions suddenly changed the risk or made conducting a proper risk assessment difficult. The Secretary of State said that situations would be assessed case by case, to determine whether a licensing suspension was appropriate.

Will the Minister address the approach to Israel that has been taken over the past few weeks? Surely the sudden intensification of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and, in particular, the Israeli bombing campaign in Gaza—there has been further action since—must qualify as a crisis condition. It would be helpful if the Minister outlined what the thinking was and what the Government’s actions were in relation to the matter. If the view was that in the particular circumstances such a suspension was not appropriate, will he outline what types of circumstance would trigger suspension of the licensing process?

We have spoken at great length today about the Committees’ work in bringing more transparency to the process, but over the past few weeks it has been difficult to get to the full truth about exactly what military relations are between the UK and Israel. We know that Israel is one of the lead countries in the world in relation to drone technology, and we also know that Britain is involved through the EU in joint work with Israel on the technology. We know, or we believe it is likely, that in the past UK components have been used by Israel in hostilities in the Palestinian territories. It would be helpful if the Minister outlined whether the Government’s view is that such components might have been used in recent times and whether, in the light of the latest developments in the region, the UK’s military relationships with Israel, particularly in relation to arms export controls, is being examined.

Israel is just one of the many countries the Committees looked at. The Committees play an extremely helpful role in bringing information to the public, and these annual debates provide a valuable opportunity for Members to question Ministers and get more information into the public domain, about what, at the end of the day, are life and death issues.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Front-Bench spokespeople split the remaining time between them, they will have an hour each.

14:33

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

That sounds like a target to me, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. This is a very important topic, considered by extremely important and serious Committees of the House, and the quality, if not the quantity, of the speeches this afternoon has matched the importance of the matter under consideration. I pay tribute to those who have spoken: the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), who is the Chair of the Committees on Arms Export Controls and a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee; my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), who is the former and very distinguished Chair of Foreign Affairs Committee; and my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark).

As the report somewhat immodestly, but nevertheless entirely correctly, points out, the Committees on Arms Export Controls have scrutinised, in unprecedented detail, the Government’s latest report on strategic export controls, their quarterly information on individual export licence approvals and refusals, their policies and performance on arms export controls, and arms trade policy in general.

The report is substantial and weighty, in every sense, and it is a credit to the Committees and the Members who have undertaken the work in such painstaking detail. They pack a punch when it comes to the Government listening to what they have said, for example, about ensuring that the strategic export controls annual reports are presented to the House by the four relevant Secretaries of State, rather than by junior Ministers, as was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling. It is testimony to the Committees’ strength of purpose that the Government have listened. Equally, it is through the determination of the Committees that this debate has become an annual fixture in the parliamentary calendar. That encourages greater scrutiny, transparency and accountability—themes that have been a large part of today’s debate and to which I shall return. I hope that this annual debate will be embedded as a permanent fixture in the House’s calendar.

It must not be forgotten that the defence export industry is an important contributor to the UK economy. Britain is the world’s second largest defence exporter, and our defence export industry is worth an estimated £35 billion. It makes up about a tenth of our manufacturing base, employs directly and indirectly about 300,000 people and is a leading driver of this country’s innovation ecosystem. There are more small and medium-sized enterprises operating in the UK defence manufacturing sector than in France, Italy, Germany and Spain combined. Research and development undertaken in the defence manufacturing sector not only makes our country safer, in that it ensures that we have access to state-of-the-art defence technology, but has commercial spin-offs in complementary sectors such as aerospace and automotives. The UK rightly has ambitions to continue to play a leading role in the global markets of those sectors.

The UK defence manufacturing sector also helps this country to achieve its foreign policy objectives, one of which, quite rightly, is always to ensure that civilian casualties from operations are avoided, or at the very least minimised. In the Libya operation, for example, the sophisticated Brimstone missile, developed by British-based MBDA, played a pivotal role in ensuring that specific targets, such as tanks and missiles, were destroyed, while avoiding civilian casualties, due to its technological ability.

Libya and last year’s Arab spring—on which all Members have commented—have presented all too vividly, however, the question whether the system of controls over defence exports is appropriate. All countries have the right to defend themselves, and defence exports are an important part of our manufacturing sector, but the key question that the Committees have rightly considered in the report is whether we should strengthen the system still further, to ensure that we do not sell defence equipment to countries that are volatile and to regimes that have poor human rights records or might use the equipment to repress their own people.

I have mentioned the importance of defence manufacturers, particularly with regards to exports, and that importance is only likely to increase in the next few decades. I hope that the Minister does not take my next remarks as a narrow partisan criticism—that is genuinely not my intention—but because of reductions in the domestic defence budget, UK defence manufacturers will have to look overseas at export markets if they are to maintain or grow revenues. In many ways, that is not necessarily a bad thing, and we are already seeing it in the statistics: ADS, in its review of 2012, stated that spending cuts have led to an 18% year-on-year fall in domestic orders and a 2% fall in the work force. That has been compensated, to some extent, by a sharp rise in exports, which were up 12% in 2011, so the defence exports market now constitutes 48% of all UK defence revenue—up from 43%. The areas of the world in which defence exports are particularly increasing include the middle east, which is volatile and expected to remain so in the near future.

The trends in global defence exports business will, I think, put a strain on the export controls system in different ways. In general policy terms, I hope that the Minister will reiterate the need for strong, if not stronger, controls on exports and will not dilute this long-standing British approach in the face of possible economic and industrial pressure to increase export performance.

In specific terms, there is evidence that pressure is being placed on the system. There seems to be deterioration in the percentage of standard individual export licences processed within the 20-day and 60-day limits, which is linked to a steady rise in the number of applications. That reflects the strain in the system, although no doubt the Minister will say, as the Government’s response does, that targets have been met in 2012.

Given those trends in global defence export markets and the prospect of more UK defence firms seeking greater export opportunities in volatile global areas, the figures on performance show that the system is finding it difficult to cope now, and in future it will have to do so with reduced resources. Will the Minister comment on that?

Similarly, does the Minister agree that as much simplicity and certainty as possible should be provided to firms thinking of exporting in this field? When I read the transcripts of the Committees’ evidence sessions, I was struck by the report that some manufacturing firms thought in the aftermath of the Arab spring that there was a blanket ban on selling to the middle east and so missed out on potentially lucrative commercial opportunities. Clearly, better communication is required for the benefit of industry, both to provide opportunities in the marketplace and to set out clearly what is and is not permitted to be sold and to which countries. Will the Minister outline how he is working within his Department, with UK Trade and Investment and across the Government and business to provide that greater clarity and better communication for industry?

Additionally, I hope the Minister will say something on enforcement, which has been a central theme of today’s debate. I was struck on reading the Committees’ evidence hearings that enforcement is considered to be an issue. One witness said “capacity is certainly worse” on effective enforcement than it was five years ago. The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling, in his opening remarks, told us about torture equipment being publicised at a trade fair here in the UK. In general, how will the Minister ensure that he strengthens controls, improves performance of applications, tightens up enforcement capability and achieves better clarity and communication?

Talk of enforcement brings me to the concerns raised in the report on so-called brass-plate companies. The system of export controls should in principle prohibit the operation of companies registered in the UK but operating in arms dealing from overseas with virtual impunity. However, enforcement is clearly a concern. More should be done to prevent the practice of brass-plate companies, and the report makes it clear that

“the Government has failed to provide a substantive response to its recommendation”

from last year. Additionally, it took 10 months for the Government to respond to the Committees’ conclusions and recommendations on that issue and other matters. Will the Minister outline what precise action he will take? In particular, will he use the Companies Act 2006 to dissolve companies that operate in that way against the public interest?

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling has been far more eloquent than me on extraterritorial legislation, both today and in the past. The Committees on Arms Export Controls have always been consistent in arguing that, on issues as important as arms exports, extraterritoriality should be expanded to cover all types of arms export. The current system, as the Minister knows, is based on a three-tier categorisation, and both this Government and the previous Government have worked on moving some specific goods from category C to category B to tighten enforcement. Anti-vehicle land mines, for example, were moved from category C to category B in 2010. The Committees want extraterritoriality extended to category C goods to address, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, wholly anomalous circumstances. Will the Minister update hon. Members on the Government’s thinking on that important matter?

Assessment of risk is the central element of an effective and responsible export control system. If we are to export defence equipment but are determined to do so responsibly and, as far as possible, ethically, assessment of risk is vital. In light of events in the Arab spring and subsequent developments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South said, it seems clear that that needs further consideration.

At present, emphasis is given within the process to retrospective assessment. The consolidated criteria will ensure that Ministers consider whether there is evidence of a Government having previously breached criteria. In light of changing events, the system tries to suspend licences quickly, with rapid revocation of export licences. During the witness sessions, that was described as shutting the stable doors more quickly after the horse had bolted.

The Arab spring has demonstrated that past stability is not a guarantee against future volatility or future repression of domestic populations. Does the Minister accept that greater work needs to be done to shift the balance away from retrospection towards the consideration of existing or emerging social, economic and political drivers of instability? I fully appreciate the difficulty and complexity of such an approach and accept that hindsight is a wonderful asset on such matters.

The Arab spring, however, shows that the revocation and suspension of licences occur largely after items have left UK shores. If the policy objective, which I think we all share, is the prevention of the sale of arms or defence equipment to those regimes with a likelihood of external aggression or internal repression, it is important to consider how better to assess and mitigate that risk. Does the Minister accept that such an approach might provide more effective assessment? Will he elaborate on how the assessment of risk is now being reconsidered?

The CAEC and this annual debate have, as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling said, moved a great deal towards improving parliamentary scrutiny, building on improvements over the past decade. It is now 10 years since the then Labour Government introduced the Export Control Act 2002, which provides for parliamentary scrutiny of new export control orders. A statutory instrument containing a control order must be approved by affirmative resolution in each House within 40 days of the order being laid.

Although, as we have heard, Britain has some of the tightest regulations in the world, I think we all accept that there should never be room for complacency. Parliament should be considering further ways to improve the situation, enhance transparency and accountability and allow the House greater opportunity to scrutinise decisions. I was particularly taken with what the right hon. Gentleman said about his remarks to the Bundestag and his imminent remarks to the National Assembly in Paris. I want us to remain the tightest jurisdiction in the world on strategic export controls, and Parliament has a key role to play in that.

The current system scrutinises a ministerial decision once it has been taken, but there is an opportunity to consider a system of pre-scrutiny for export decisions. We would like that to be considered as a means to ensure greater parliamentary oversight, to provide a cross-party consensus on issues that are important to our country economically and industrially and to our country’s foreign policy, security and ethical objectives and obligations, and to help to guide final ministerial decisions. We do not wish additional scrutiny to impose delays on decision making or to add additional bureaucracy, but we believe such an approach could improve transparency and add a greater dash of both robustness and consensus to that important decision-making process, as other countries do.

In the United States, for example, Congress—specifically the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, the House International Relations Committee and the House and Senate Appropriations Committee—is given prior notification of all foreign military sales and can object ahead of the Administration making a decision. That system of prior scrutiny has not harmed the competitive position of the United States; it remains by far the No. 1 defence exporter in the world and has seen sales increase by 34% in the five-year period from 2006 to 2011. Will the Minister say whether the Government will consider such an approach in the UK?

The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling mentioned the arms trade treaty, which is the final issue that I want to raise. Will the Minister update hon. Members on where we are, particularly with the negotiations and the possible conclusion of the arms trade treaty?

As the right hon. Gentleman said, this matter was discussed at the UN in the summer, but a conclusion looks no closer to materialising than it did last year, and another conference is being convened at the UN in March 2013 to discuss it further. The prospects of an international agreement seem as remote as ever. In those circumstances, it would be useful if the Minister elaborated a little more on that and provided the House with an explanation about when he thinks the treaty will be finalised, agreed and ratified and what the Government are doing in diplomatic circles to achieve that objective. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friends about trying to tease out from the Minister what he is doing about breaking with consensus in the international team, to achieve some ratification.

This has been an important debate. I reiterate my thanks to the Committees for their hard work, dedication and extraordinary attention to detail on this issue. There does not have to be a conflict between a strong, internationally competitive UK defence industrial sector and equally strong export controls; indeed, they are complementary. Reputation is everything in business and the “Made in Britain” tag is a hallmark, not only of high and innovative manufacturing quality, but of responsible and ethical practices in exports. We must maintain and enhance that reputation, as we must maintain and enhance our competitiveness in the global markets in which we compete.

It is clear from today’s debate that the House wants to engage with the Government on this agenda in a constructive and cross-party approach. We in the Opposition wish to do so, too. I look forward to hearing from the Minister about how we can go about achieving that shared objective for the good of our country.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

If the Minister does not use up all the time available to him, I should like to call Sir John Stanley again to make a few concluding remarks.

14:51

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

I repeat hon. Members’ welcome to the Chair of the Committees, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), and thank all those who contributed to our short debate. I thank my right hon. Friend in particular for all the work he does in chairing the Committees and for his kind words at the beginning of the debate.

Since becoming the Minister with responsibility for export controls, I have become acutely aware of the challenges posed and the passions aroused by the export of strategic goods. On the one hand, we want to give export licence applications the fullest scrutiny to ensure we do not license anything that would be used for internal repression or would fuel conflict or breach an embargo. We also want to be as transparent as possible about our activity in this area, in recognition of the strong parliamentary and public interest. On the other hand—the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) recognised this—successive Governments, including this one, have been committed to a strong defence and security industry, which helps to meet not only our own defence needs, but the needs of other states.

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

We are also committed to growth in exports, including of defence and security equipment, as a key element of our prosperity agenda. This requires us to operate a fast, efficient export licensing system that facilitates responsible exports while imposing the minimum regulatory burden on business. As Members who have spoken today fully understand, every case is assessed on its own merits against the consolidated criteria, taking account of all the relevant facts available to us at the time. These are often, as I have learned over the past few months, difficult decisions. Circumstances change and new information comes to light, and where it does, it is right that we should review our original decisions.

I will deal with as many of the issues raised today as I can, and if I am unable to respond to certain questions I will ensure that responses are forwarded to Members shortly afterwards. I shall deal with the issues raised about the Arab spring, some changes we are making to the Export Control Organisation, enforcement and transparency, and the arms trade treaty. If time allows, I will then deal with some of the more specific questions addressed to me. I cannot promise to answer them all.

The unforeseen events of the Arab spring—I take the point made by the hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) that we should perhaps no longer call it that—posed a stern challenge to our strategic export controls, in particular ensuring that British equipment was not used for internal repression. Our export licensing system allowed us to respond quickly to changing facts on the ground. The Government reacted swiftly to events. We reviewed extant licences to the affected countries and moved quickly to revoke licences where the changed circumstances meant they were no longer in line with the consolidated European Union and national arms licensing criteria.

In 2011, 162 export licences were revoked: 72 for Libya, 35 for Bahrain, 43 for Egypt and a few for other countries. Those revocations show how seriously we take the guiding principle of responsible export controls. Given the significant changes in the region, it is right and reasonable that risk assessments should be updated and, in some cases, lead to a change in decision where the licence is no longer consistent with the consolidated criteria. The evidence suggests that the system is working, not failing, and does not, of course, mean that the original decisions were flawed in the context of the prevailing conditions at the time they were made.

On the performance of the Export Control Organisation, its primary target—the hon. Member for Hartlepool picked up on this—is to process 70% of standard export licences in 20 working days. I am pleased that the organisation has consistently been hitting this target in 2012 and is on target to achieve some 71% this year, despite a substantial increase in case load. It is true that ECO fell slightly below the 70% target in 2010 and 2011, following a 25% and an 11% increase, respectively, in its case load in successive years. However, the 70% target being met prompts the question of the other 30%. The ECO has a supplementary target to process 95% in 60 working days, and it has also been hitting that target, the year-to-date figure being 96%. However, given that 60 working days equates roughly to three months, this implies that 5% of licence applications—roughly 800 a year—will take longer. Of course, any delay in processing a licence application is regrettable. Cases that take longer are, overwhelmingly, those that raise sensitive political questions on which Ministers need to be consulted. Such cases can also involve possible diversion concerns or the risk of the goods being used against our troops.

I am concerned that the implication that some 800 licences per year are going to take longer is becoming harder to justify. The pace of international trade is increasing and exporters need to be able to respond faster when they win an order. Furthermore, we need to bear it in mind that, as a Government, we are urging companies to raise their exporting game as part of the growth agenda. That places additional pressure on us to deliver timely decisions. The ECO is looking further to improve its performance targets.

On using open individual export licences to replace and reduce the number of standard individual export licences, as part of the Government’s improvement project within the export control services, the ECO intends to improve the process of applying for OIELs. That does not mean that the Government will relax their risk assessment of OIELs, but we wish to address the current situation because exporters are being deterred from applying for OIELs by shortcomings in the process.

In the industry evidence session on 3 December, we heard a call for a UK continental shelf OIEL, and I am pleased to announce that such an OIEL has now been designed to meet industry’s requirements and save the need for multiple SIEL applications from a number of companies. The new OIEL authorises the export of controlled items for use in offshore installations and associated vessels within the UK sector of the continental shelf, and is valid for five years.

The ECO has also introduced improvements to its advisory services. The control list classification service replaced the ratings enquiry service in 2011. We advise exporters, if they are unsure whether their goods need an export licence, that they may either self-rate or make use of the advisory CLC service. To assist in self-rating, the ECO provides three tools that are designed to help exporters to identify the rating entry number of their particular goods on a UK strategic export control list.

First, the CLC search tool is available via ECO’s SPIRE—shared primary information resource environment—export licensing database. It is designed to help exporters search previous rating assessments made by the technical assessment unit. By using the tool, exporters can get an indication of whether their items are listed on a control list and what the rating entry for their particular goods might be. The search tool is designed to work in conjunction with the goods checker database, a separate website that enables exporters to perform key-word searches on the specific wording of the UK strategic export control lists.

Secondly, if exporters are unable to self-rate, they can make a CLC service request online, via the SPIRE database. It is a non-statutory advice service that does not amount to the issuing of an actual licence but advises exporters of the rating entry of their goods on the strategic control lists. Finally, a recent enhancement to SPIRE provides that the ratings of the goods appearing on an SIEL will be provided with the SIEL when it is issued, enabling the exporters to build up a picture of their licensable and non-licensable goods.

[Sir John Stanley]

May I go back to what the Minister said earlier when listing, country by country, the number of arms export licence revocations following the Arab spring—or whatever we choose to call it? Does he not agree that the number of arms export licence revocations for Saudi Arabia stands at precisely zero, albeit at the time of the Arab spring Saudi armed forces crossed the causeway into Bahrain and took over guarding essential infrastructure facilities, thereby releasing Bahraini forces who carried out serious human rights abuses that were rightly condemned around the world? Does he not agree that it is not surprising that within the Committees and much more widely, we wonder whether, if Saudi Arabia were not such an important area for arms exports from the UK, a different revocation policy towards the country might have been followed?

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend has made his point and, indeed, his allegation. All I can say is that such issues are reviewed case by case. Factually, he is right that no licence to Saudi Arabia was revoked but, to date, there is no evidence that UK-supplied equipment has been used in breach of the criteria in either Saudi Arabia or in Bahrain where Saudi forces were deployed in 2011. I appreciate that he is making a slightly different point about the diversion of Bahraini forces, but there is no evidence to show that the UK has supplied such equipment to date.

[Katy Clark]

Does the Minister agree that this situation highlights one of the concerns? We take such decisions only once the equipment has been used. Perhaps we need a more common-sense approach to the question whether our equipment would be used by a repressive regime if its authorities took action that contravened people’s individual human rights.

[Michael Fallon]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by taking a common-sense approach. Is she suggesting that at the beginning of something such as the Arab spring, we should simply list more countries that we are not prepared to sell arms to?

[Katy Clark]

I am happy to answer the Minister. I am suggesting that in certain countries it would not be surprising if, in future, the authorities repressed their own people who were fighting for democratic rights. If we have sold a lot of equipment to such a country, it is likely to be used in such repression.

[Michael Fallon]

I understand and take the hon. Lady’s point. I repeat, however, that there is no evidence so far that equipment supplied by the United Kingdom to Saudi Arabia has been used in breach of the criteria. Obviously, if any evidence comes to light, we would certainly need to re-examine the position.

On the improvements to the Export Control Organisation, I was touching on the CLC service, which is a non-statutory advisory service, so no performance targets were published, although it had some initial teething problems while the ratings backlog was being addressed. The service is now performing better, however, with around 45% of inquiries being processed within 20 working days. As a non-statutory advisory service and with a number of self-rating tools available to the exporter, the CLC service is not able to compete for valuable technical resource, which must first serve the priority casework for HMRC snags where goods are detained on the point of export, as well as SIEL applications of course.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool made a point about training. For companies that would like to find out more about the rating process, the ECO runs a training course for exporters on control list classification and use of the checker tools—a full-day workshop held approximately every six weeks. The course is designed to give attendees confidence in identifying control list entries that specify their products.

The ECO is keen to identify further areas for improvement and, accordingly, has a service improvement project in place. It is a continuous improvement programme and includes changes to the export licensing system known as SPIRE, encouraging the use of open and general licences and the provision of better and more comprehensive advice for exporters. As part of that process, the ECO has identified the need for a change to the end-user undertaking that accompanies an application for an SIEL, splitting it into two: a normal undertaking and a stockist undertaking.

The ECO will shortly produce the new forms and their associated guidance in translation to help exporters explain the requirement to their overseas customers. Changing the end-user undertaking will help to speed up the export licence application process by reducing the number of times that a licence is held up by the need to clarify information on the end-user undertaking document. To assist in the completion of the forms, the ECO is planning to provide guidance in the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, German and Spanish.

The ECO is also working to develop a manual and online training for exporters who use the SPIRE electronic export licensing system. It is developing desk instructions for staff that it hopes will improve consistency in the processing of export licences. It has also been mapping the customer journey on export licensing, so that it can better understand the pinch points in its processes. The intention is that that will lead to the development and delivery of tailored customer service training for ECO staff.

The ECO is implementing a new telephone system, which will provide better call and queue management, with pre-recorded messages and guidance information, and management information to ensure a better service to companies. The aim is to deliver management information on issues such as waiting times and dropped calls to enable the further fine tuning and development of the system.

Open general export licences have been very successful. They are one of the main reasons why the UK export licensing system is recognised as one of the best in the world. The light-touch approach of OGELs, coupled with rigorous enforcement through pre-registration and periodic risk-based audit, is virtually unique in the international community, although the UK model is now being adopted elsewhere, including by the European Commission, Germany and the United States, among others.

Industry wanted a much less complicated OGEL system that was easier to navigate and understand and that was written in plain English and with reduced legal terminology. The ECO initiated an OGEL review at the end of 2010. That work has now progressed to include a format that has been approved by the Plain English Campaign and the Export Group for Aerospace and Defence. The first licence issued under the new format was the OGEL relating to military components, which received the Plain English Campaign’s accreditation for clarity in July. The ECO has recently received further such accreditation for work on the OGEL relating to military goods, software and technology. All those things will take time to deliver, but we are already seeing the first fruits of these initiatives.

[Mike Gapes]

May I seek some clarification? The Minister touched on the Arab spring and then moved on to the issues he has just dealt with. I am interested to know whether he will respond to my point about Syria at some stage.

[Michael Fallon]

I will try to respond shortly to some of the more specific points that have been raised, and I hope Members will bear with me. Before I do, however, I want to touch briefly on three issues: enforcement, transparency and the arms trade treaty.

On enforcement, it is of course important that our controls are enforced robustly. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is the lead department for enforcing strategic export and trade controls, as well as sanctions and embargoes. It works in collaboration with the UK Border Force and the Crown Prosecution Service. In the last financial year for which figures are available, 141 illicit shipments of goods were seized, which was the highest number of seizures for 13 years; a further 188 shipments of goods of proliferation concern were stopped at ports; eight compound penalties were issued for breaches of the controls, totalling more than £500,000; and a successful prosecution for breach of the trade controls resulted in a custodial sentence of three and half years. Only last week, it was widely reported that arms dealer Gary Hyde was sentenced to seven years’ imprisonment for involvement in the illegal shipment of 80,000 weapons and 32 million rounds of ammunition from China to Nigeria and for laundering the proceeds.

Several Members have touched on transparency. As a result of the Government’s policy on transparency and recognising its importance to strategic export controls, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills laid a written ministerial statement on strategic export controls before the House on 7 February in which he outlined three proposals to increase the transparency of the export licensing process. The first is to insert into all open export licences a provision requiring the exporter to report periodically on transactions undertaken under such licences. The Government will publish that information, and that quarterly reporting will take place in arrears from April 2013. The others are to explore ways to make additional information contained in standard applications public, while protecting any sensitive material, and to appoint an independent person to scrutinise the operation of the ECO’s licensing process. The role of that independent person would be to help to confirm that the process was indeed being followed correctly and to report on the ECO’s work.

On 13 July, following a consultation, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave an update on the transparency initiative via a second written ministerial statement. The first two proposals will result in a significant increase in the amount and quality of information that the Government make public about controlled exports. On the third proposal, regarding the appointment of an independent reviewer, there was less understanding in the consultation of how that reviewer would operate and what benefits the role would bring. We will therefore return to the issue at a later date.

Finally on the major topics, let me turn to the arms trade treaty, which several Members have asked about. I reassure them that the UK is firmly committed to securing a robust and effective legally binding arms trade treaty to regulate the international trade in conventional arms. Our aim is a treaty that covers all conventional weapons, including small arms, light weapons and ammunition. Some progress has been made, and the international community has moved some way towards agreeing a strong treaty. After the recent vote at the UN, there will be a diplomatic conference in March 2013, at which we will aim to conclude the treaty.

A robust arms trade treaty will support our commitment to British values, including human rights and international humanitarian law. We also want a treaty with a wide membership and sufficient global coverage to be truly effective. We will continue to lead international efforts towards that goal, and we will continue to work hard, including with industry and civil society, to secure both aims. Negotiating legally binding requirements for the regulation of the conventional arms trade is obviously a complex business—if it were easy, previous Governments would have done it.

In the time remaining, I want to touch on some of the specific questions that have been raised. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling for sketching out the areas of agreement between the Committees and the Government; as he said, it is important to put those on record before turning to some of the areas of disagreement. He highlighted what has been done on bribery and cluster munitions, as well as our bar in terms of arms control for the purposes of internal repression.

My right hon. Friend asked me specifically about extraterritoriality. There are some difficulties. Extraterritorial controls would apply to acts done outside our jurisdiction, so they would be, by their very nature, extremely difficult to enforce. That is why successive Governments have maintained a policy of applying extraterritoriality only to the most serious offences. We are therefore not convinced of the need to expand the extraterritorial aspects of the trade controls to include all the items on the military list. Such an expansion would impose significant burdens on legitimate businesses that need to move goods between overseas countries as part of a global supply chain, and it would not increase our ability to take action against those brokers whose activities are of the most concern. The items that are subject to extraterritorial control are those whose supply is subject to international agreements. We would, of course, be happy to consider additional controls where there was hard evidence of undesirable activity.

My right hon. Friend asked me three further very specific questions—two of which it would probably be more appropriate for a Foreign Office Minister to answer—but if he will allow me, I will reply to him in writing on all three.

The hon. Member for Ilford South did indeed raise a number of quite wide-ranging foreign policy issues, and they were certainly well in order in a debate about arms control. They reflect his knowledge and experience of past conflicts. I am not sure that I can answer some of his more wide-ranging questions, but I do want to answer his points about Syria. What hung over the points that he made and the questions that he asked was the extent to which we should get involved with assisting the opposition forces there.

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Foreign Secretary announced on 20 November that the Government have decided to recognise the National Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces as the sole legitimate representative of the Syrian people. We have provided equipment, such as water purification kits, portable power generators and communications equipment, to unarmed civilian opposition groups in Syria. Those groups have been carefully selected as influential civil society and opposition organisations engaged in vital work in some of the areas worst affected by violence in Syria. There are currently no plans for arming the Syrian opposition being made by the European Union, and any change to that policy will of course be announced to Parliament.

[Mike Gapes]

I am grateful for the traditional response that there are currently no plans, but, as the Minister knows, discussions are going on internationally at this very moment, and it is reported widely that some of our key NATO partners are already in the process of giving some equipment to those who are combatants—not just NGOs and civil society organisations. It is also reported that they receive a large amount of weaponry from some leading Arab countries, with which we are also in alliance. May I seek clarification? The Minister referred to communications equipment. For example, could that be used in conjunction with offensive and lethal equipment by participants in the conflict in Syria?

[Michael Fallon]

No; the communications equipment is being supplied only to selected unarmed civil opposition groups, which are engaged specifically in helping and working in some of the areas worst affected by the violence. I fully appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s interest in some of the discussions that are going on, and I am happy to confirm—although this does not help him—that, as he has identified from the reports, those discussions are going on with our international partners at the moment. I cannot comment on the details. The plain fact is that until any policy is changed or plan made there cannot be an announcement; that cannot be other than by a formal statement to Parliament, and, if the policy is changed, that is what will happen.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) asked me about the Arab spring and the arms trade treaty, but also about Israel. Israel, of course, faces security threats, and we do not think that an arms embargo would increase our influence or lead to progress in the peace process. Where appropriate, we can and do refuse export licences to Israel. We have refused them in the past and will continue to do so if the criteria are not met. I do not want to go into detail about individual licences.

The hon. Lady mentioned the situation in Gaza, if I recall correctly. At the time of the previous incursion into Gaza, the Foreign Secretary in the Labour Government clearly set out the details of UK components and equipment that might have been used in Operation Cast Lead. UK equipment was not exported for specific use in that operation, and the then Foreign Secretary made it clear that the consolidated criteria were properly applied at the time of issuance and there was therefore no breach of them.

At that time, Israel, I am informed, procured more than 95% of its military requirements from the United States. The European Union accounted for a proportion of the remainder. The three largest European Union exporters of military goods to Israel are Germany, France and Romania, with UK exports accounting for less than 1% of total Israeli military imports. Of course, that was the previous operation in Gaza, but if the hon. Lady has further information or evidence that she would like us to consider, I shall be happy to look at it.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool asked a series of questions, and I think that I welcome what he said about the general application of the export control process. He said that he wanted strong—I think that he then said stronger—controls over licences, but when he said that he also wanted them speeded up, he put his finger on the balance that is needed. I do not think that it was wholly unfair to suggest that the system is slowing. As he conceded, the volume of exports is increasing—both across the board and in the area in question. I want to ensure that the system is robust and improved enough to match the increase in exports that he and I would both want.

The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically about two things, one of which was brass-plate companies. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling will know that that the Government have explored avenues of enforcement against such companies, which involve non-UK persons who trade in arms and proliferation activities outside the United Kingdom through companies that are registered inside the United Kingdom. We have looked at a range of options, but it is difficult through UK law to ensure that any measure tackles that overseas trade. Pre-licensing registration is unlikely to deter that sort of illegal arms trader, as revocation of registration is unlikely to affect that trade. I do not think that it is possible for the Government to come up with a simple answer. In a previous report, the Committees recommended that we explore possible ways to take enforcement action, including consulting enforcement agencies in other countries, but as we see it there are legal difficulties.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool suggested that we should move to a system of prior scrutiny. I would like to read his speech to see how that system might improve what exists at present. It is interesting that that approach is applied in the United States, which is a major arms exporter.

I thank all the right hon. and hon. Members present for their attendance and questions. I repeat my thanks to the Committees for the report and the work that they do. Their scrutiny is an important aid to the licensing process, and I look forward to their contribution and the continuing dialogue between the Committees and the Government in the coming year.

15:28

[Sir John Stanley]

I am grateful to you, Mrs Riordan, for allowing me to speak a second time and give a brief conclusion. I am grateful also to all the right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in this significant and well-informed debate.

The hon. Member for Ilford South (Mike Gapes) made a first-rate contribution, with the wealth of experience and expertise that he brings to bear. He referred to my predecessors as Chair of the Committees. Roger Berry made a first-rate job of chairing it, but I also want to mention a former colleague, Ted Rowlands, who was the first Chair of what was then the Quadripartite Committee, now the Committees on Arms Export Control. He, too, did a first-rate job as the first Chairman of this important combination of four Select Committees.

The hon. Member for Ilford South rightly highlighted Syria, and I stress that the Committees gave specific attention to Syria in our report, which can be found at page 150. In addition, following a written question about what, if any, extant arms export licences to Syria from the UK existed, I received a reply in March revealing, much to my surprise, that at that point nine such licences were extant. Indeed, they are listed in our report. Subsequently, I asked the Government for an explanation for each and every one, and that explanation has been put in the public domain.

The hon. Gentleman also raised some important looming issues, as much for foreign policy as for arms export control, in relation to Syria, and he was right to do so. I regard him as one of the most well informed, perhaps the best informed, Member of the House on Sri Lanka, and we should take careful note of what he said on that subject today.

The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) made an excellent contribution. She has been a diligent and well informed member of our Committees. She said of the objective that we are trying to achieve on the arms trade treaty that she wants the strongest possible treaty, signed by the maximum number of countries, and that is the position of the Committees on Arms Export Controls and, I believe, the Government.

The hon. Lady referred to Israel, a country that features in our report. Following the recent violence both into Gaza by the Israelis and, equally important, out of Gaza by Hamas into Israel, I tabled a written question asking for a list of all extant arms export licences from the UK to Israel. That question has now been answered. The list is very interesting, and it has been placed in the Library where it is available to the hon. Lady, all hon. Members and the wider public.

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) referred to brass-plate companies, extraterritoriality, and important issues about the need for a heightened assessment of risk, particularly on weapons that can be used for internal repression, at the point when those export licences are being considered for a decision. I agree with all the points he made.

I take a somewhat more sanguine view than the hon. Gentleman of the prospects for the arms treaty. If it had not been for the consensus rule, we would have an arms trade treaty now. Not everyone would have signed up, but by the last day of negotiations in New York in July, 90 countries had said they would sign up to that text. The question comes back to how long we will persevere with the consensus rule, and I believe that it will be a central policy issue for the British Government and others. It is absolutely the case that the best is the enemy of the good; if we hang on grimly to the consensus rule, I fear that what would be much better than we have now, which is absolutely no arms trade treaty, might slip from our grasp. I hope the Government will closely ponder that key policy issue.

I am grateful to the Minister for his concluding remarks. He gave us a lot of useful additional information about how his Department is trying to improve processing and performance when dealing with arms export licence applications.

In response to my representations yet again to end the gap in extraterritoriality, the Minister rehearsed the Government’s all too familiar line. They suggest that it is a major step that will unleash enormous bureaucracy, and so on, but I highlight the fact that we deliberately put in our report a list of all the existing legislation where extraterritoriality already applies: annex 2 lists a total of 29 pieces of legislation. They may be ancient pieces of legislation, which include offences against the Foreign Enlistment Act 1870, and the offence of bigamy, but if those offences warrant extraterritoriality, for goodness sake, surely export sales involving arms from overseas that would be a criminal offence if carried out in the UK must be eligible to qualify for the extension of the extraterritorial legislation for which we asked.

I am grateful to all colleagues who contributed to the debate, and I hope it has served a good purpose for the House and the wider public.

Question put and agreed to.

15:37

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

Thursday 13 December 2012

Double Taxation (Brunei Darussalam)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

An agreement amending the double taxation arrangement with Brunei Darussalam was signed in London on 11 December 2012.

The text of the agreement has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and 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.

Decentralisation (Milton Keynes)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I am pleased to announce the transfer of a package of Homes and Communities Agency functions and assets to Milton Keynes council, expected to take place on 14 January 2013.

The transfer of these functions and assets is a significant step for Milton Keynes council as it gives them, at last, full control over strategic growth and development in their area. It is also important as it means the people of Milton Keynes can now hold the locally accountable body responsible for how they use the land and their functions in this respect.

This transfer includes Milton Keynes council taking full planning control of its area; the disposal at market value of the majority of the Homes and Communities Agency’s different land holdings in the area to the council; and the council taking on management of the Milton Keynes infrastructure tariff. Connected to the tariff transfer, Government have agreed to enter into a jointly shared risk-share arrangement with Milton Keynes council. Further details of this arrangement are set out in a departmental minute which has been laid today.

This transfer is a significant step for both Government and Milton Keynes council as it demonstrates Government’s commitment to devolution of functions to the most appropriate level. It also provides Milton Keynes council with assets and functions that empower them to drive economic growth and promote the area as a great place to invest and work in.

Ultimately, the people of Milton Keynes will benefit from this settlement as it will be them who gain most from increased investment and delivery. Government now look to Milton Keynes council to continue the good work previously undertaken by the Homes and Communities Agency.

Fire Service College

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

The Government’s response to Fire Futures on 12 April 2011 said that the Fire Service college can achieve its full potential only if there is greater involvement from other sectors (whether private, public or voluntary) in its ownership, operation and governance and that we would

“explore with the sector and other organisations options to secure the future of the Fire Service college”.

In his written ministerial statement of 22 March 2012, Official Report, column 67WS, my predecessor as Fire Minister, announced the Government’s decision to sell the Fire Service college as a going concern to the private sector.

I am now pleased to inform the House that following a thorough, fair and open process the Government have identified Capita as the preferred bidder for the purchase of the college. In identifying Capita as the preferred bidder the Government are satisfied that the sale will achieve value for money for the public purse and secure the future of the Fire Service college.

The Government are insisting on a number of conditions on the proposed sale, including commitments not only that the college will continue in use as a national training college for fire and rescue authorities, but also that it will continue to offer wider national resilience and emergency services exercises and that Government permission will be required if Capita wish to sell the incident ground.

The Government now look forward to holding constructive discussions with Capita to ensure that the transition from public to private sector is as smooth as possible. The Government expect to complete the sale early in the new year after the conclusion of a TUPE consultation and wider information sharing with current employees of the Fire Service college.

Minor Consequential Improvements

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

Earlier this year, the Department for Communities and Local Government published a consultation paper on reforms to building regulations in England. The proposals contained a strong deregulatory element, which seeks to deliver real and significant savings to business, while ensuring our buildings remain safe and sustainable.

My Department will shortly publish details of some of the deregulatory reforms stemming from that consultation. However, I wanted to inform hon. Members of the Government’s conclusion on one aspect that attracted significant public and media attention.

The consultation sought views on whether to require “consequential improvements” to the energy efficiency of a dwelling when other defined building work was undertaken, such as (a) extensions or increases in habitable space (i.e. loft and integral garage conversions) and (b) the replacement of a boiler or a percentage of the home’s windows. Such proposals were coined as a “conservatory tax”, although it should be noted that most conservatories would not have been affected by such proposals.

Ministers have carefully considered the responses to the consultation. We have also taken into account quantitative research work by the Energy Saving Trust of householders and qualitative analysis by AECOM of building professionals, which I have today placed in the Library of the House.

The Energy Saving Trust research found that consequential improvements, even with green deal finance in place, would put off 38% of households from going ahead with building work on their property that they were otherwise planning (“Energy Saving Trust, Exploratory Research into Building Regulations in relation to the Green Deal”, page 37).[Official Report, 7 March 2013, Vol. 126, c. 12MC.]

The AECOM focus groups found that the majority of the installers registered with Gas Safe Register or members of competent person schemes were very negative towards the idea of being responsible for informing homeowners of the consequential improvement requirements. They observed that given the current economic climate, increased costs would make it harder to win work—homeowners may be deterred from getting the work done or delay commissioning the work. There was concern that by leaving the responsibility to inform homeowners to the installer, it could increase dishonesty in the market. It would potentially present rogue traders with an opportunity either to not inform homeowners of the requirements (to keep costs down), or to inflate the requirements and “rip people off” (AECOM, “Changes to Part L of the Building Regulations: Proposals for consequential improvements in existing homes: Report of Focus Groups”, page 5). There were also concerns about non-compliance, with homeowners facing prosecution and £5,000 fines, leading to widespread problems with enforcement (page 44).

All these concerns point to the danger that introducing consequential improvements would, in fact, discourage people from undertaking home improvements.

Having considered all the representations and evidence, including the public reaction, I can inform the House that we will not be going ahead with such regulatory proposals in any way at this point in time.

Notwithstanding, there is significant scope to promote take up of the voluntary green deal, which allows householders—if they choose—to improve the energy efficiency of their home without any upfront cost. We intend to work with the industry and local authorities to help increase awareness of the green deal amongst householders.

More broadly, it is my Department’s stated policy (as outlined in my statement of 6 September 2012, Official Report, column 29WS) to make it easier for householders to undertake small-scale home improvements and conservatories.

The cancellation of the council tax revaluation (as outlined in my statement of 11 October 2010, Official Report, column 1WS) has also avoided the imposition of higher council taxes on home improvements. As explained in the answer of 30 April 2012, Official Report, column 1105W, we have also discontinued the revaluation database and ceased the intrusive collection of data on the scenic views, gardens and patios of families’ homes.

Exploration for Shale Gas

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change (Mr Edward Davey)]

Shale gas development has been of increasing importance in the US for some years, but exploration has only just begun in the UK. The potential of producing shale gas from a suitable formation can only be established by fracturing the rock, and it happens that the fracturing of the first shale gas well in the UK, at Preese Hall near Blackpool last year, resulted in noticeable seismic tremors. These were not at a level which could cause any damage, but seismic activity at this level was not an expected consequence of the fracking activity, and DECC therefore suspended all fracking operations for shale gas pending a thorough investigation of the causes of these tremors and the scope for mitigation of seismic risks in any future operations of this type. I am announcing today the outcome of that investigation and the way forward on exploration for shale gas in the UK.

Having carefully reviewed the evidence with the aid of independent experts, and with the aid of an authoritative review of the scientific and engineering evidence on shale gas extraction conducted by the Royal Academy of Engineering and the Royal Society, I have concluded that appropriate controls are available to mitigate the risks of undesirable seismic activity. Those new controls will be required by my Department for all future shale gas wells. On that basis, I am in principle prepared to consent to new fracking proposals for shale gas, where all other necessary permissions and consents are in place.

This opens the way to a resumption of work on exploration for shale gas, though I stress the importance of the other regulatory consents, and planning permission, which are also necessary for these activities, and which must be in place before my Department will consider consent to individual operations. In practice, it will be well into next year before any new exploration work has all the necessary consents to proceed. Whether any production operations may be proposed will depend on the success of the exploration work, but, in any event, this is likely to be some years away yet.

The background is that, in most oil and gas fields worldwide, the oil or gas is extracted from a relatively porous rock, usually a sandstone or calcareous rock, in which it has been accumulated or trapped. The original source of the petroleum however lies elsewhere, in deeper formations of non-porous rocks classed as shales. These shale source rocks are widely distributed around the world, and exist in many areas of the UK.

It has long been recognised that very substantial quantities of oil and gas were trapped in these shales, but the scope for its economic extraction seemed small—largely because the rock in its natural state allows the oil and gas to flow into a well only at very low rates. In the last 20 years, however, further development of oilfield technology, first in the Barnett shale in Texas, has enabled economic large-scale extraction of gas, and oil, from these source rocks.

One of the key technologies involved is hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. This is carried out by pumping water at high pressure into the shale formation, which forms blade-like fractures, a few millimetres wide and extending several hundred feet away from the well bore. Once the fractures have started to form, sand or a similar material is pumped in, to hold the fractures open once the pressure is released. The fractures can continue to grow only so long as pressure is maintained. When the fractures have sufficiently developed, the pressure is released and the frac fluid, followed by the released gas, can flow into the well. The process is not novel and is also widely used in conventional oil and gas production. It is however, more intensively used in the production of shale gas.

It has been recognised for some time that injection of large quantities of water into the subsurface can cause seismic tremors. This has happened, for example, in those areas of the US in which disposal of waste water into deep injection wells is permitted. However, the quantities of water used in fracking are substantially smaller, and up until the time of the Preese Hall tremors, no association had been recognised between injection of these smaller volumes and any seismic activity. The analysis carried out by Cuadrilla’s advisers, and confirmed by our independent panel of experts, has however concluded that the most likely cause of the tremors is the movement of the frac fluid into and along a fault which was already under stress. The additional pressure of the fluid allowed the fault to move, releasing the energy stored in the fault and resulting in the perceived tremors at the surface.

Our experts advise that there are many other faults in the Lancashire area which similarly have unrelieved stresses, and could in a similar scenario likewise result in tremors. Because of the relatively weak nature of these rocks, the amount of energy likely to be stored in these faults is not large, and the largest earthquake likely in this area from such a cause is assessed at magnitude 3. While this is not large enough to cause significant material damage, it would be perceptible and disturbing. I consider that new controls to minimise disturbance to those living and working nearby, and to prevent the risk of any damage, are now a prerequisite for further exploration.

I am therefore announcing new controls to mitigate these risks, which will be applied to all future fracking operations for shale gas. As this is a developing area of knowledge, I stress that we will be moving forward with appropriate caution. The controls are not at this stage to be regarded as definitive, but as appropriate precautionary measures for our present state of knowledge. Initial operations under these controls will be subject to careful scrutiny to ensure the effectiveness of the controls. And they will be reviewed, as experience develops, to ensure that they are proportionate to the risks. The controls will be enforced by my Department, though the data obtained will of course be shared with other regulators.

Operators will first be required to review the available information on faults in the area of the proposed well to minimise the risk of activating any fault by fracking, and required to monitor background seismicity before operations commence. Real-time seismic monitoring will also continue during operations, with these subject to a “traffic-light” regime, so that operations can be quickly paused and data reviewed if unusual levels of seismic activity is observed.

We will also be requiring operators to take a more cautious approach to the duration and volumes of fluid used in the fracking itself. A fracking plan will be required to be submitted to my Department before consent is given to any fracking. The fracking plan should be progressive, starting with the injection of small volumes of fluid and analysing the resulting data carefully before the full stage. Each stage of the frac will be carefully designed to use just enough fluid to create a fracture sufficient to enable gas to flow. A flow-back period will be required immediately after each stage to rebalance the pressures. Real-time recording of earthquakes during and for 24 hours after each stage of the frac will be analysed to look for abnormal induced events amidst the normal background seismicity.

Operators will also be required to monitor the growth in height of the frac away from the borehole. This will allow the operator to evaluate the effectiveness of the frac, but also ensure that the actual fracture is conforming to its design, and that it remains contained and far away from any aquifers.

So far as Cuadrilla’s current exploration programme in Lancashire is concerned, the remedial action level for the traffic light system (that is, the “red light”) will be set at magnitude 0.5 (far below a perceptible surface event, but larger than the expected level generated by the fracturing of the rock). I consider that this is an appropriately precautionary approach. We received representations in our consultation that this is too cautious, by comparison with the control protocols established for geothermal energy, construction and quarrying projects. I emphasise that this level is adopted only for fracking operations for shale gas, and the reasons for setting it at this level are entirely specific to the context. And it may well prove to be the case that, as our experience of applying this type of control to fracking operations develops, it can be confirmed that trigger levels can be adjusted upwards without compromising the effectiveness of the controls.

For the first few operations, DECC will have an independent expert on site to observe the operator’s conformance to the protocols we have established and to monitor the operator’s interpretation of data. We will therefore be able to learn as much as possible from these first operations and to put the lessons promptly into effect. But it would clearly not be right, in our present state of knowledge, to attempt to establish definitive standards, and I have preferred to start on an explicitly cautious basis.

At the present time, no applications for consent to fracking operations for shale gas are outstanding, and it is too soon to say exactly how the new protocols will be applied to any such proposals which may come forward in other basins. I can say that we will apply the same principles, of careful prior analysis of the risk of seismic activity, progressive design of the fracking process and feedback from the emerging data, and systematic monitoring by the operators before, during and after the operations. We will also expect operators to make monitoring data promptly available to the public.

As I have noted, fracking is not exclusively associated with shale gas extraction, and fracking operations using smaller volumes of fluid have been carried out both onshore and offshore in the UK for many years. These have not to date been associated with any seismic risk, nor is there any evidence for such risks from elsewhere. However, DECC will apply proportionate scrutiny to the possibility. Oil and gas operators proposing fracking will be required to submit an analysis of the risks of any seismic activity being caused by the proposed operations, to conduct appropriate monitoring, and to inform planning authorities and local residents. Appropriate levels of control will be imposed by DECC where the assessed risk is not negligible.

These new controls on seismic risks do not remove any of the existing regulatory controls and requirements. Consistent with previous practice, my Department will not give consent to specific fracking operations until all other consents are in place, including in particular planning permission, the obtaining of environmental permits from the Environment Agency or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) as the case may be, and scrutiny by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Separate guidance is available from local planning authorities and regulators on how to acquire the relevant permissions and permits. Both the Environment Agency and SEPA have published sector-specific guidance for the shale gas industry.

However, I am well aware, in particular from the responses to our consultation on the report of our independent experts, that many people, including residents of Lancashire and other areas where shale gas exploration may be contemplated, have many other concerns besides the seismic risks, and it is only right that I should say how these other concerns are being addressed.

The development of shale gas in the US has been accompanied by an increasing level of debate on its environmental impacts. Many of the incidents reported have, on investigation, not been shown to be connected with oil and gas activity. However, they have given rise to concerns which in themselves are entirely reasonable. Residents in those areas want to be assured that their water will not be contaminated with gas or toxic chemicals, and the air will not be contaminated with noxious gases; that there will be no threat of damage from earthquakes; and that other kinds of disturbance such as traffic, lights and noise will be kept under control. In considering these concerns, I have had the benefit of the earlier report on shale gas by the Energy and Climate Change Committee, and many authoritative reports from the US, including two from the Secretary of Energy’s Advisory Board.

I have also had the benefit of the comprehensive and authoritative review of the risks of fracking by the Royal Society and Royal Academy of Engineering which I have already mentioned. I can announce that the Government accept all the recommendations of the academies’ report addressed to it. Work is already in hand to implement these recommendations, so far as the current phase of exploration activity is concerned. One further recommendation is being considered by the research councils to whom it was addressed.

The reports from US regulators and review bodies do confirm that gas developments there have, on occasion, led to water contamination. There are relatively few confirmed instances of this—most complaints on investigation have proved to be attributable to causes other than gas production. And no case has yet come to light in which it has been confirmed that fracking has contaminated an aquifer. But the instances of contamination which have occurred confirm the need for the industry to consistently apply good practice, and the need for proper scrutiny and oversight of the industry to ensure that this is in fact done.

So far as the UK is concerned, I believe that the industry has a good record, and that there are already in place robust regulatory controls on all oil and gas activities. On water contamination, first, all such operations are subject to scrutiny by the appropriate environment agency (the Environment Agency in respect of England and for the time being of Wales; and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in respect of Scotland). It is an offence to cause or knowingly permit poisonous noxious or polluting matter to enter controlled waters, which include ground waters. The environment agencies are statutory consultees in the planning process, and have to be consulted on all proposed borehole operations. A permit from the Environment Agency is required where fluids containing pollutants are injected into rock formations that contain groundwater. A permit may also be needed if the activity poses an unacceptable risk of mobilising natural substances that could then cause pollution. The permit will specify any necessary limits on the activity, any requirements for monitoring, the chemicals which may be used, and any appropriate limits on permissible concentrations. Regulators will take a risk based approach, and if the activity poses an unacceptable risk to the environment, it will not be allowed.

The academies’ report, and that of the Select Committee, also emphasise the importance in this context of the integrity of the well. This issue is central to the regulation of the safety of well operations by the HSE. The Executive have to be notified of all drilling operations for oil or gas, and will scrutinise the well design and operational plan. Additionally, the regulations require a full review of the proposed and actual well operations by an independent competent person, the “well examiner”. The academies in their report commented that this independent review is highly valuable, and made recommendations for strengthening it, which we of course accept and are already working on.

So far as the use of chemicals is concerned, the environment agencies take a risk-based approach to the regulation of the use of chemicals in shale gas fracking activities. The hazard potential of all substances proposed to be injected into the ground will be assessed and the use of substances hazardous to groundwater will not be permitted. The identity of all substances proposed for injection, and the agency’s conclusions on their hazard potential, will be publicly available.

Concern has also been expressed about the quantities of water used in fracking, or the disposal of waste water from the process. The water used may of course be obtained from licensed suppliers, but if directly abstracted by the operators, requires a licence from the environment agency. Licences will only be given where the agency is satisfied that a sustainable supply is obtainable.

Equally, disposal of waste water is subject to scrutiny by the agencies and will require a permit. The waste water from the operations in Lancashire has been found to contain low levels of radioactivity. A case-specific radiological assessment is required in support of any application for a permit for the disposal of radioactive waste. The agency will critically review any such assessment, and will only issue a permit if satisfied.

Concern has also been raised about the possibility of fracking leading to subsidence, but this is not considered a risk because of the strength and load-bearing characteristics of these rocks. And this is borne out by practical experience, because there is no report from the US of subsidence attributable to fracking, although the number of wells which have been tracked for shale gas is now in the hundreds of thousands.

A further major area of concern was with the impacts of normal operations in terms of noise, traffic, impacts on health, etc. All proposals for oil and gas exploration require planning permission from the relevant minerals planning authority. The national planning policy framework requires planning authorities to assess applications for all minerals developments so as to ensure that permitted operations do not have unacceptable adverse impacts on the natural or historical environment or on human health, including from noise, dust, visual intrusion, or migration of contamination from the site. In doing so, they should take into account the cumulative effects of multiple impacts from individual sites and/or a number of sites in a locality. Conditions can be placed on working hours at the site, numbers of traffic movements etc., to ensure that any such impacts on local residents remain within acceptable bounds.

Other concerns which have been expressed are not to do with the current phase of exploration work but with the implications of a possible future move to production operations, if the exploration is successful. It is by no means certain that any such operations will ever be proposed, but if they were, a different set of considerations would arise, which I address further below. But as regards the concerns which have very reasonably been expressed about the current phase of exploration operations, I consider that the consistent application of good practice by the industry, supplemented by the additional action to control seismic hazards which I am announcing today, will ensure that there will be no unacceptable damage to the environment, or threat to the health of local residents, or interference with their lives.

I also consider that the existing regulatory framework already provides the means to ensure that the industry does apply good practice throughout its operations; and that it will do so consistently. But we are taking further steps to reinforce the regime. We have already set up a strategy group on shale gas at senior official level, with representation from the main Departments engaged in shale gas regulation, the Environment Agency and the HSE, to ensure that the work of the various bodies is well co-ordinated. That group can already point to some successes in improving the co-ordination of regulation, for example, planned joint inspections of fracking operations by the HSE and the EA. And in the gas generation strategy published last week, I announced that a new Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil will be set up in DEGG to support this work as well as providing a single point of contact for investors and ensuring a streamlined regulatory process.

Accordingly, I am satisfied that fracking for shale gas can now in principle resume, and I will be prepared to consent to new proposals, subject to case-by-case scrutiny by my Department, to the new requirements to mitigate seismic hazards, and to confirmation that all other necessary permissions and consents are in place.

I should also mention one further outcome of the investigation of the tremors at Preese Hall. DECC has come to the conclusion that Cuadrilla’s response to the occurrence of the tremors demonstrated some weaknesses in its management of environmental risks. This conclusion has been discussed with the company, and they have in consequence reinforced their overall management structure, including by assigning to one board member specific responsibility for health and safety measures, and by reinforcing technical skills within the operational team. The effectiveness of these changes, and the resulting revised structure, is at present being reviewed for Cuadrilla by external consultants. Further fracking operations by Cuadrilla are in any case dependent upon the obtaining of new planning permissions and Environment Agency permits: but my final consent to new fracking operations will not be given until the conclusions of the external consultants have been discussed with the company, and any remaining points of concern addressed to the Department’s satisfaction.

As regards the implications of any future move to large-scale production, the concerns are principally of two kinds: on the one hand, concerns about the local or regional impacts on questions such as traffic movements, noise, night-time lighting etc., or on the health of people living in the vicinity, or on regional water resources, or on tourism and other aspects of the local economy; on the other, concerns about wider issues including the implications of large scale shale gas production for climate change, for the UK’s climate change policies or for renewables investment.

As regards the local or regional impacts, it should be noted that the planning system requires permission to be obtained separately for exploration and production activities (and for any appraisal phase where distinguishable). There will therefore be a full opportunity to consider the local and regional impacts, including cumulative impacts, of any proposals to initiate production activities, before any such development takes place.

Planning procedures of course already provide for full consultation with communities who may be affected, and the planning authorities may require an environmental impact assessment to be carried out. However, the academies have in addition recommended that an environmental risk assessment should be mandatory for all shale gas operations, involving the participation of local communities at the earliest possible opportunity, and that this assessment should address risks across the entire lifecycle of shale gas extraction.

DECC will therefore take steps to enhance the existing frameworks for consultation and consenting to these activities, in line with these recommendations. Licensees will be required to carry out a comprehensive high-level assessment of environmental risks, including risks to human health, and covering the full cycle of the proposed operations, including well abandonment; and to consult with stakeholders including local communities, as early as practicable in the development of their proposals. The scope of these assessments would naturally be framed by the operations proposed, so that prospective future production operations would not be in scope for an assessment drawn up for exploration activities. Cuadrilla has been asked to conduct such an assessment in relation to their proposals for further exploration work in Lancashire.

This high-level assessment may inform the work entailed by risk assessments already required, for example under the environmental permitting regulations, and which are consulted on separately by the Environment Agency, as well as work entailed by any environmental impact assessment which may be required by the local planning authority. And together, these assessments will provide a full picture of the risks and impacts to inform effective engagement with local communities.

On health impacts, the Health Protection Agency is currently reviewing the evidence base on the health impacts of shale gas, with a particular focus on the health impacts of emissions to air, land and water. This review will identify any potential health risks, and inform both future regulation and any future health impact assessments that may be carried out.

As regards the wider concerns about the implications of large scale shale gas production for the UK’s climate change policies etc., it is in general too early as yet to make any meaningful estimate of what these might be in the absence of any convincing estimate of what future production might be. But as there has been particular concern about the carbon footprint of shale gas operations, and in particular the possible impacts of fugitive emissions of methane, I should note that all shale gas operations will be subject to my Department’s long-standing policy on flaring and venting of methane. Venting of methane, which has been widely unregulated in the US prior to the recent proposals from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for a new controls, is already required in the UK to be reduced to the minimum technically possible. Flaring of methane will also be required to be reduced to the economic minimum, so that where cost-effective routes for economic use of the gas are available, these must be used. These controls mean that UK oil and gas operations already meet the standards which the EPA is introducing, but the new office will ensure that these work consistently with new controls which may be introduced by the Environment Agency in applying their legislation, and that methane emissions will continue to be minimised.

At the present time, methane emissions from oil and gas operations onshore are a very small part of our GHG emissions. The current estimate is that they contribute less than 1% to the total. And the relatively small number of wells which might be drilled in the current exploration phase will not in any case substantially increase that contribution. I therefore intend to commission a study into the possible impacts of shale gas extraction on greenhouse gas emissions. This will consider the available evidence on the lifecycle greenhouse gas emissions from shale gas exploitation, and the need for further research. I have invited Professor David Mackay, my Department’s chief scientific adviser and Dr Tim Stone, the expert chair of the Office of Nuclear Development to undertake this work.

We are also taking steps to prepare the way for any future production phase, though this is likely to be some years away. We have commissioned more detailed work on the shale gas resources of Great Britain from the British Geological Survey (BGS) and this will be published early next year. I emphasise that this will provide only an estimate of the resource, the gas in the ground, and not the reserves, the amount of gas which can in practice be produced economically from that resource. Until more exploration work has been done, a significant number of wells tracked and production patterns established over time, it will not be possible to make any meaningful estimate of likely economically recoverable resources of shale gas in the United Kingdom.

Also, we will be acting on the academies’ recommendations that the regulatory bodies should assess the requirements for effective regulation of a significant future production phase, and that existing co-ordination should be maintained and strengthened. The new Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil will be taking this forward in collaboration with the other departments and agencies concerned. And the Environment Agency is already conducting a review of the implications of shale gas for its regulatory responsibilities, including the question of whether further controls and monitoring requirements are appropriate in respect of methane emissions. To facilitate future development, further consideration is being given to ensuring a streamlined and transparent regulatory process for environmental permitting.

We will also be taking steps to open the way to new onshore licensing. DEGG had already commenced a strategic environmental assessment in 2010, with a view to further onshore licensing, and conducted a public consultation in the latter part of that year. Work on the SEA has however been in abeyance following the seismic tremors in 2011. DEGG will now commission further work on the environmental implications of further licensing, taking account of all new knowledge arising since the earlier assessment was compiled, and will conduct a full public consultation on the extended assessment. The results of this consultation will be fully considered before any decisions are taken on new licensing.

Many more questions of detail have been raised over the last year or so, particularly in the course of our consultation, and in this statement I have sought only to cover the principal issues of interest to the greatest number of respondents. I have today placed in the Libraries of both Houses and placed on my Department’s website a full synopsis of the questions raised and of the Government’s responses to them as well as a response on all of the recommendations of the academies’ study group.

Generic Design Assessment

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Mr John Hayes)]

The Office for Nuclear Regulation (ONR) and the Environment Agency (EA) have today announced their decisions, as part of their generic design assessment (GDA) process, to issue final design acceptances, for the AREVA European pressurised water reactor. These will consist of an ONR design acceptance confirmation (DAC) and an EA statement of design acceptability (SoDA).

This is a key moment, and an essential step, on the path for delivering safe and secure nuclear new build in the UK. These decisions signal the completion of the Government’s facilitative actions set out in the 2008 White Paper on nuclear power and demonstrate another clear step to building confidence in the UK new nuclear build programme.

We welcome the decisions of the independent regulators and congratulate them on the important work that they have undertaken over the last five years in making GDA an internationally respected process.

GDA has provided us with an important blueprint for enhanced openness and transparency in nuclear regulation and has demonstrated the gains that can be made through close working between both of the UK’s nuclear regulators.

Environmental Council

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary for resource management, the local environment and environmental science, Lord de Mauley, will represent the UK at the EU Environment Council in Brussels on 17 December. Environment Ministers from the devolved Administrations will also attend.

At this Council, Ministers are expected to adopt non-legislative Council conclusions on “A Blueprint to Safeguard Europe’s Water Resources”. This is the European Commission’s new strategy to make water use more sustainable in the EU and to ensure good quality water for human needs, economic activities and the environment. The majority of the blueprint actions are non-regulatory measures such as producing new guidance documents, integrating EU water policy into other EU policies and improving enforcement of existing EU legislation. There is only one possible new legislative proposal, which relates to maximising water reuse.

The presidency will then lead an exchange of views on “Greening the European Semester”. The publication of the annual growth survey on 28 November 2012 signalled the start of the third European semester. The annual growth survey 2013 will be discussed at various EU Councils in preparation for the spring European Council in March 2013. At this Environment Council, discussion will focus on the bottlenecks hindering the achievement of Europe 2020 resource efficiency objectives, and on identifying the measures in the field of resource efficiency and climate action which have the biggest potential to contribute to growth and job creation.

Over lunch, Ministers will have the opportunity to exchange views on the outcome of the climate change conference which recently took place in Doha, Qatar, and the way forward to the second Kyoto commitment period.

In the afternoon, there will be a legislative orientation debate on the seventh environment action programme (seventh EAP). The proposals were first presented on 29 November, and include nine priority objectives for policy development in the period up to 2020. The orientation debate at Council will examine whether the seventh EAP meets expectations and addresses the shortcomings identified in the sixth EAP, if it covers the current and emerging environmental challenges, and whether the nine priority objectives are adequate and pragmatic. It is expected that the presidency will want to seek early agreement from member states on the headline messages of the programme.

The following topics will also be covered under “any other business”:

Information from the presidency on the progress of work regarding the proposed regulation on the new LIFE programme.

Information from the presidency on a proposal for a directive on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy (priority substances).

Information from the presidency on a proposal for a directive amending directive 2011/92/EU of the assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment.

Information from the presidency on a mechanism for monitoring and reporting greenhouse gas emissions and for reporting other information at national and Union-level relevant to climate change.

Information from the presidency on a proposal for a decision on accounting rules and action plans on greenhouse gas emissions and removals resulting from activities related to land use, land use change and forestry.

Information from the presidency and the Commission on the outcome of the 18th conference of the parties to the United Nations convention on climate change (COP18) and eighth conference of the parties serving as the meeting of the parties to the Kyoto protocol (CMP8) (Qatar, 26 November-7 December 2012).

Information from the presidency on proposals to amend the regulations defining the modalities for reaching the 2020 target to reduce CO₂ emissions from new light commercial vehicles and from new passenger cars.

The EU emissions trading scheme and aviation, including information from the Commission on the carbon market report, and information from the Polish delegation on proposed changes in the volumes of greenhouse gas emission allowance to be auctioned in 2013-20 (backloading), and the impact on budget incomes.

Information from the Irish delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.

Marine Conservation Zones

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Richard Benyon)]

Today I am pleased to announce the launch of the public consultation on marine conservation zones (MCZs). The consultation will remain open until 31 March 2013.

This is a key step to meeting the Government’s commitment under the Marine and Coastal Access Act to create a network of marine protected areas in the UK to ensure that our marine biodiversity flourishes for years to come. These MCZs will complement 8.4% of UK waters and 24% of English inshore waters already within protected areas.

The consultation document explains that, following recommendations from four regional MCZ projects, and advice from the Government’s Statutory Nature Conservation Bodies, Natural England and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, we propose to designate 31 sites in 2013. It describes the approach we have taken in selecting the proposed sites for designation in the first tranche and how we propose to treat other MCZ recommendations from the regional projects. The consultation also provides clarification on a number of issues which have been controversial during the site identification process including:

reference areas—these will not be included in the first tranche but will be subject to further review;

treatment of MCZs at different stages in the designation process in licensing decisions—to assist developers in the marine area we have clarified how developments should be treated in or near MCZs so that economic growth is not inhibited unnecessarily;

the UK Administrations’ commitment to an ecologically coherent network—we have agreed with devolved Administrations in the UK that, biologically, a more sensible approach is to assess ecological coherence at a biogeographic zone level and to consider this commitment as a UK contribution to a wider ecologically coherent network. This will also meet UK commitments in OSPAR. Further MCZs are expected to be designated to contribute to this objective.

A key challenge has been the poor state of evidence in the marine environment. Every effort has been made to ensure that the selection of sites for the first tranche provides environmental benefits but does not go beyond what the evidence will support and does not unduly compromise coastal development.

In a number of cases where sites contain features that are rare or threatened and where there is some supporting evidence, we have proposed that these are designated in the first tranche in line with the precautionary principle.

The potential implications for business and Government of the proposals in this consultation have been considered in detail in an impact assessment which accompanies this consultation.

Today I am also laying the report to Parliament pursuant to section 124 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. This summarises progress with forming a network of conservation sites to meet the requirements set out in the Act.

Irish EU Presidency Priorities

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I am keen to keep Members fully informed of developments in the European Union, their implications for the United Kingdom and our priorities. I would, therefore, like to draw Members’ attention to a paper on the priorities of the Irish presidency of the Council of the European Union, which has been placed in the Library of the House. I have also deposited a copy of the calendar of ministerial meetings for the duration of their presidency.

International Justice (Sierra Leone and Cambodia)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I can announce that in order to strengthen international justice and help secure accountability for some of the most horrific crimes against humanity in the last 50 years, the UK will make a voluntary contribution of £1 million to the Special Court for Sierra Leone and a voluntary contribution of £600,000 to the international component of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia.

The Government’s contribution will help ensure the Special Court for Sierra Leone is able to complete its work, and leave a lasting legacy for the people of Sierra Leone. On 30 May, the court sentenced Charles Taylor, a former President of Liberia, to 50 years in jail for aiding and abetting war crimes. Taylor is the first former Head of State to be convicted by an international tribunal and the court is currently hearing his appeal.

The Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia is delivering long-awaited justice for millions of Cambodians through the trials of the most senior and responsible surviving members of the Pol Pot regime. The scale of the crimes committed and the number of victims makes it one of the most significant tribunals of its kind since Nuremberg. The Government’s contribution will help to prevent the collapse of the court which has faced a significant shortfall in funding.

International justice is central to foreign policy. It is essential for securing the rights of individuals and states, and for securing peace and reconciliation. Through the International Criminal Court, and the separate international tribunals, we are working to make clear that those responsible for the worst crimes will be held to account and that political leaders will not enjoy impunity. Our support to these institutions is an important element in our strategy to reduce conflict, promote stability and strengthen the rules-based international system. In order to give Parliament a full accounting of this work we will, from this point forward, also provide an annual statement at the start of the financial year detailing our progress on this important issue.

“Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me”

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Today I am publishing “Liberating the NHS: No decision about me, without me”, Government response and the Department’s NHS choice frameworks for 2012-13 and 2013-14. The response document and the choice frameworks have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

The consultation document, “No decision about me, without me—Further consultation on proposals to secure shared decision-making”, published on 23 May 2012, set out proposals to provide patients with more opportunities to be involved in decisions about their care and to make choices. A small number of focused consultation questions were asked which sought views on whether the proposals were realistic and achievable and whether there were any issues that had not been recognised sufficiently. The consultation ran for 14 weeks from 23 May to 31 August 2012.

The majority of the 172 responses received to the consultation were broadly supportive of the proposals as a means for patients to become more involved in their care, in partnership with professionals.

Some respondents outlined concerns that greater choice did not equate to the wider adoption of shared decision-making. We agree with this principle and set out in the response document the clear importance of both proposals to increase patient involvement and patient choice.

Other themes were raised regarding the practical implementation of the proposals relating both to patient involvement and patient choice. The response document addresses the comments made by respondents and sets out how we are implementing the proposals to increase patient involvement and patient choice.

The Department’s NHS choice framework for NHS funded care and treatment in England will set out, for the first time, the choices that people can expect to be offered. This will raise awareness of these choices, including where people have legal rights to make choices, as well as setting out where they can find information to support these choices and what they can do if they are not given the choices they are entitled to.

Protection of Freedoms Act 2012

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

My hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for criminal information, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Part 1, chapter 1 of the Protection of Freedoms Act implements the commitment in the Government’s coalition agreement to reform DNA and fingerprint retention.

This Government want to protect the privacy and human rights of its citizens, while maintaining effective databases that protect the public and reduce crime.

The Protection of Freedoms Act fundamentally changes the principles behind the operation of biometric databases. From being databases that collected DNA profiles and fingerprints from every person arrested and retained them indefinitely, they will now operate proportionately, considering guilt and innocence, the seriousness of the offence and the age of the individual. In this way, they can continue to operate effectively while providing far greater protection of civil liberties.

Implementation of the Act is not a simple matter. A large amount of work is needed to prepare police forces, forensic laboratories and national databases. Complex reprogramming of databases is required to ensure that each person’s DNA and fingerprints are removed or retained correctly and at the right time. This work will be carried out thoroughly so that biometric material is not held unlawfully, and material needed to solve crime is not unnecessarily deleted.

Before the Act commences, it is necessary to destroy a significant amount of existing biometric material that the Act would not allow to be retained.

The first priority is the destruction of DNA samples. A DNA sample is an individual’s biological material, containing all of their genetic information. The Government do not want to retain the complete genetic makeup of any of its citizens. Every DNA sample taken will be destroyed as soon as a DNA profile for use on the database has been obtained from it. Destruction of existing DNA samples will begin in December 2012 and be completed by May 2013.

DNA profiles, consisting of a string of 20 numbers and two letters to indicate gender, are stored on the national DNA database (NDNAD). They allow a person to be identified if they leave their DNA at a crime scene but contain none of the person’s genetic characteristics. The NDNAD and the police national computer (PNC) must both be reprogrammed to allow DNA profiles which may not be retained under the Act to be correctly identified and deleted. Deletion from the NDNAD of existing DNA profiles which do not meet requirements for retention will begin in January 2013 and be completed by September 2013.

Fingerprints are stored electronically on the national fingerprint database, IDENTl. IDENTl and the PNC must both be reprogrammed to allow fingerprints which may not be retained under the Act to be correctly identified and deleted. Deletion from IDENTl of fingerprints which do not meet requirements for retention will begin in March 2013 and be completed by September 2013. Following deletion of each IDENTl fingerprint set, police forces will destroy any corresponding hard copies they hold.

The biometrics commissioner will be appointed in early 2013. The role of the commissioner will be to keep under review the retention and use of biometric material retained subject to the Act’s provisions, and, in particular, to adjudicate on those cases where the police apply to retain material of someone arrested for, but not charged with a serious offence for a limited period or where a national security determination is made.

Once destruction of existing biometric material is complete and the necessary processes have been set up, legislative commencement will take place, no later than October 2013.

Developing the technology for a fully automated speculative search will take a few more months. A transitional measure will be provided to allow speculative searching and quality checks to be undertaken using existing technology. This will ensure commencement is not delayed and matches to crimes are not missed while the final piece of work is completed.

The publication of this timetable demonstrates both the complexity of the work involved in implementing the Act and removing innocent people’s DNA and fingerprints from our databases, and the Government’s commitment to completing this work as soon as safely possible.

Justice and Home Affairs Council

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

The Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council was held on 6 and 7 December in Brussels. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice and I attended on behalf of the United Kingdom. Roseanna Cunningham MSP also attended the Justice day on behalf of the Administration in Scotland. The following items were discussed.

The Council began with the main committee and adopted the A points; political agreement was reached on the Dublin (III) regulation.

On the common European asylum system (CEAS) the presidency summarised the progress made on the outstanding asylum instruments. The Commission (Malmström) welcomed the progress, and urged the Council to look positively upon some of the amendments tabled by the European Parliament on the Eurodac regulation, which raised the level of safeguards for law-enforcement access. The overarching message from those Ministers who intervened was that quality should not be forfeited for speed. Some Ministers remained concerned by the direction of negotiations on the asylum procedures directive, signalling that the current Council mandate on unaccompanied minors and vulnerable persons remained a red line in order for national authorities to be able to tackle abuse of their asylum systems. The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) and Eurodac (II) proposals but has not opted in to the three other directives which make up the CEAS.

The EU counter-terrorism (CT) co-ordinator (Gilles de Kerchove) presented his update on the implementation of the EU counter-terrorism strategy and set out where he thought the EU should focus over the next year. He highlighted how the rise of the lone wolf phenomenon and the increase in EU citizens travelling to conflict areas to engage in Jihad underlined the need for an EU strategy to combat radicalisation. He also thought that member states should address the external dimension of terrorism, in particular the threat coming from the Sahel, and that they should find a way to resolve their differences on the level of EU involvement in the protection of critical infrastructure. The UK considered aviation security an area where the EU can continue to add value and welcomed the extension of the current risk-threat methodology applied to inbound cargo to other areas of EU aviation security, such as passengers and prohibited items. The UK also described how the EU could add value by facilitating the sharing of best practice on countering radicalisation; the recent discovery of a far-right plot in Poland reinforced the importance of addressing the needs of vulnerable people and halting the growth of extremism. The UK shared the concerns of the CT co-ordinator about the threat from international terrorism, in particular al-Qaeda exploiting the conflict in Syria, and highlighted that it was vital that member states work collectively to see how to mitigate threats from these regions.

The mixed committee with Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland (non-EU Schengen states) started with an update on the implementation of the second generation Schengen Information System (SIS II). The Commission informed Council that an interim solution had been found to address the delays in a member state’s preparation of its national Schengen Information System (SIS) II platform. If implemented immediately this would avoid significant costs and delays to other member states and the Commission. The UK supports the continuation of the current SIS II project.

The Commission (Malmström) presented its second biannual report on the Schengen area. The political discussion that ensued was wide-ranging and while all welcomed the factual report, Ministers were frank in highlighting their concerns. These included calls for progress to be made on the smart borders package, the need for a new legislative proposal to replace the annulled Council decision on Frontex maritime operations, calls for progress on the Schengen legislative package, continuing concern regarding the effects of visa liberalisation in the western Balkans, and the need for further action regarding the situations in Syria and at the Greece-Turkey border. The UK expressed its continued interest in the management of migration in the Schengen area, and noted the recent visit by the UK Immigration Minister to the Greece-Turkey border, which highlighted the good work being done and the importance of co-operation with Turkey on broader JHA issues. The UK said it valued its co-operation with Frontex and other member states to combat illegal immigration, thought that we also needed to keep a close eye on displacement of migratory flows, and highlighted returns and readmissions as an integral part of successfully managing migratory pressures.

The presidency briefly updated the Council on obstacles to information exchange including issues arising from the transposition of the Swedish decision on information exchange. The participation of judicial authorities as gatekeepers of law enforcement data in some member states had had an effect on those countries’ ability to transpose the decision, given its limitation to law enforcement data only. The presidency looked forward to a more in-depth debate following publication of the Commission’s proposal for an information exchange model (EIXM).

Over lunch Ministers discussed how EU visa policy focused on the balance between using visas to promote growth and tourism on the one hand and maintaining security and tackling illegal immigration on the other. Member states were divided on where the priority should be and there was a return to some of the ground covered in the October JHA Council on abuse of visa liberalisation agreements with third countries.

Under AOB the presidency reported on the legal migration directives and the Schengen package. Progress had been made on intra-corporate transferees, and on seasonal workers the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) had approved a mandate for discussion with the European Parliament the day before Council. The UK has not opted in to either of these directives. The presidency reported that it was doing its utmost to agree the Schengen package: informal agreement with the European Parliament had been reached on the reciprocity mechanism in the 539 regulation (common visa list) and the file would go to COREPER on 17 December; the first trilogue meeting on the Eurosur (border surveillance) regulation was scheduled for 17 December; progress was being made on the Home Affairs multi-financial framework package; and agreement was in sight on the technical amendments to the Schengen borders code.

Also under AOB the Commission (Malmström) said that no decision had yet been made on the possible merger of Europol and CEPOL (the EU police training college), but argued that a merger could strengthen the links between training and operations, be more efficient and save money over time. On Syria, the Commission stressed the importance of monitoring the situation in Syria and its neighbours and indicated it would take forward work on the regional protection pilot. The incoming Irish Presidency committed to having a debate during its Presidency on the issue.

In a joint session with Justice Ministers, the presidency introduced its review of progress on the Stockholm programme—the five-year programme for Justice and Home Affairs—and handed over to both Commissioners (Reding and Malmström) who summarised achievements to date. The UK noted that the Stockholm programme had been agreed under the previous Government, and that the present Government did not endorse it all. The UK welcomed the progress report, but remained concerned about the missing elements in the paper; PNR needed to be a priority in order to effectively tackle terrorism and serious crime, and it was important to continue tackling abuse of free movement, something to which the JHA Council had committed itself under the road map on migratory pressures. The UK could not entirely agree with the focus on bringing forward a proposal on the European public prosecutor (EPP), and had limited appetite for giving extra powers to Eurojust, but instead could see that the EU’s energies could be better focused on ensuring the European Asylum Support Office (EASO) was well equipped to support member states in implementing the asylum legislation and helping those under asylum pressure. In the UK’s view the Council conclusions on solidarity adopted earlier this year provided the right blueprint for priorities across the asylum and migration area for the coming year.

The presidency asked member states to support its compromise text on the directive on freezing and confiscation of proceeds of crime, in order to be able to open discussions with the European Parliament. The Commission (Malmström) could not support the presidency’s text. There were three areas where it fell short of the level needed to add value to the fight against organised crime: non-conviction based confiscation needed to cover deceased persons; extended confiscation should not be limited to serious offences as defined in national law; and the protections for individuals needed to be strengthened. The Commission was, however, positive about the prospects of a good outcome to discussions with the Parliament. Most member states could support the text as a compromise for the purposes of making progress, but acknowledged that almost all aspects of the text would be revisited in trilogue, as the Commission had suggested. The UK reiterated the conflict between the non-conviction based provision and the criminal law legal base of this instrument. The current provision would have little impact on those member states which did not have non-conviction based confiscation already, yet for the UK which had extensive civil forfeiture powers (covering a much wider range of circumstances than contemplated here) it would require those powers to be either limited or duplicated using criminal law mechanisms. That was a bad outcome for all: the provision should either be deleted or be amended so that it did not apply to those member states which already have civil forfeiture powers. The incoming Irish Presidency congratulated the current presidency on securing a general approach and looked forward to progressing what would clearly be a lively trilogue negotiation.

The presidency secured a general approach on the market abuse directive (MAD—criminal sanctions for insider dealing and market manipulation) which will enable trilogue negotiations with the European Parliament to begin. The UK has not opted in to this directive.

The presidency presented its progress report on the data protection regulation and directive. Three horizontal themes had been discussed: the number of delegated and implementing acts; the risk of disproportionate administrative burdens on data controllers; and the different issues arising for the public and private sector. These issues were linked to the choice of legal instrument (regulation or directive) which would need to be addressed later. The UK urged other member states to look hard at the potential impact of the regulation on business and jobs. The presidency concluded that the Data Protection Working Group should look at strengthening the risk-based approach, and that the question of flexibility for the public sector should be reassessed upon conclusion of the group’s first reading of the text.

A general approach was agreed for the regulation on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters, with the presidency noting that the UK parliamentary reservation was still in place. Trilogue discussions will now take place alongside further negotiations on some remaining issues and additional recitals.

The presidency updated delegations on continuing discussions on the proposal for a directive on the protection of the Union’s financial interests through criminal law. The presidency and the Commission were confident there would be a quick conclusion under the Irish Presidency. The UK, supported by a number of other member states raised the concern that the legal base of this instrument still had not been resolved.

There was an orientation debate on the proposed regulation on the European account preservation order. There was general agreement on the importance of providing sufficient safeguards to the debtor although exactly how that is to be done has yet to be agreed. Many delegations underlined that the regulation should only apply cross-border and flagged the importance of the necessity for the order to be issued by a Court. Ireland confirmed that this dossier would be a priority during their presidency. The UK did not opt in to this proposal, but is playing a full-part in the negotiations; with a view to a possible post-adoption opt in.

The presidency presented their guidelines for further work on the proposals on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. Discussion centred on whether the dossiers should be negotiated in parallel or whether there should be a focus on the matrimonial property regimes proposal. The presidency concluded that broad support for the guidelines existed and invited the working party to continue negotiations. The UK has not opted in to these proposed regulations, and has no plans to opt in post-adoption.

In updates on the main legislative files the presidency reported that the second trilogue on the European investigation order had been cancelled. Negotiations on the access to a lawyer directive had also stalled, as the European Parliament were not able to proceed at the same pace as the Council. Discussions will continue under the Irish Presidency. Lastty on the Justice Financial Instruments 2014-20, good progress was being made in discussions with the European Parliament.

The Council endorsed the report of the working party on e-law (e-justice) and the working party was encouraged to continue to make progress and report to COREPER in the first half of next year. The presidency noted in particular the communications strategy which would increase visibility of the e-justice portal.

Under non-legislative activities, the EU drugs strategy (2013-20) was discussed. The presidency thanked the experts who had drafted the strategy for having created an evidence-based, balanced strategy. The strategy would be implemented through two action plans—the Irish presidency would be responsible for the first and underlined that it would be a priority for them under their presidency. The Commission indicated it would present a legislative proposal during the course of next year to limit new psychoactive substances (legal highs).

The presidency also provided a state of play update on the accession of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights. The presidency underlined that during its term it had undertaken intensive discussions on the internal rules in Brussels in parallel with progressing negotiations in Strasbourg. The Commission underlined that it was determined to move forward; it was confident that solutions to difficult issues could be found and accepted that the internal rules were necessary to make accession operational in practice.

The presidency provided an update on the multi-annual financial framework for the agency for fundamental rights. Approval of the multi-annual framework proposal will be put to the European Parliament at the plenary on 13 December. The presidency noted that the UK had to maintain its parliamentary scrutiny reservation and accordingly proposed that the Council make a request to the FRA to undertake the projects set out in its 2013 annual work programme, which was developed with reference to the current MAF, until this reserve was lifted. To this end the presidency has developed Council conclusions. The UK will positively consider the Council conclusions and the presidency concluded that it had broad support. The Council conclusions would be considered by the relevant working group and the presidency hoped they would be agreed before end of the year.

Draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

I am today publishing a draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny by the Home Affairs Select Committee. I would like to thank the Chair for agreeing to undertake this scrutiny and look forward to receiving his report in the new year. It is important that those who are affected by these changes, from the professionals who will use the new powers to victims seeking protection from targeted abuse, continue to shape the reforms, making sure that we get this right first time.

Everyone has the right to feel safe in their own homes and neighbourhoods, but for too many people anti-social behaviour remains a fact of life. The consequences can be devastating, which is why we are putting victims first by taking forward measures in our anti-social behaviour White Paper that will support local areas to:

Focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims;

Empower communities to get involved in tackling anti-social behaviour;

Ensure professionals are able to protect the public quickly through the introduction of faster, more effective powers and proposals to speed up the eviction of the most anti-social tenants; and

Focus on long-term solutions.

The draft Bill includes these more effective powers, and also two important new measures to help focus the response to anti-social behaviour on the needs of victims:

The community trigger—will give victims and communities the right to require agencies to deal with persistent anti-social behaviour that has previously been ignored. The trigger could be activated by a member of the public, a community or a business if repeated complaints about anti-social behaviour have been ignored.

The community remedy—will give victims of low-level crime and anti-social behaviour a say in the punishment of offenders out of court. This means victims will get justice quickly, and the offender has to face immediate and meaningful consequences for their actions.

The draft Anti-Social Behaviour Bill can be viewed on the Home Office website and copies are also available in the Vote Office.

Judicial Review

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

Following my written ministerial statement to the House on 19 November 2012, Official Report, column 22WS, I have today laid and published a paper (Cm 8515) proposing a set of reforms of judicial review on which we are seeking views.

The paper sets out a range of proposals designed to tackle the burden that the growth in judicial review applications has placed on stretched public services. The Government recognise that judicial review should remain an essential means of holding authorities to account and ensuring that decisions are lawful, and is committed to ensuring that access to justice and the rule of law are protected. We are however keen to seek views on how the process might be improved, and the proposals focus on the procedural aspects of judicial review in three areas.

First, we are seeking views on reducing the time limits for bringing a judicial review relating to procurement or planning, bringing them into line with the appeal timetable which already applies to those cases. More generally, we also see merit in clarifying the point at which the time-limit begins for any case with a continuing or series of breaches that give rise to the claim.

Secondly, we are seeking views on removing the right to an oral renewal where a judge refuses permission where there has been a prior judicial process, or where the claim was judged to be totally without merit. The right to appeal to the Court of Appeal would be on the papers.

Thirdly, we are seeking views on the introduction of a new fee for an oral renewal so that fees charged in judicial review proceedings better reflect the costs of providing the service. If the oral renewal is successful, the fee for post permission stages would be waived.

Together, these provide a balanced, practicable and targeted approach to ensure that legitimate claims are brought more quickly and efficiently to a resolution without affecting the right to properly hold the Executive and other public bodies to account.

The engagement exercise will close on 24 January. We will consider the responses to the paper carefully and will consult with the judiciary before taking decisions on any action, and we will publish a Government response as soon as possible in the new year, setting out those proposals we intend to take forward.

Accessibility and Equality (Action Plans)

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Norman Baker)]

I am today pleased to be publishing the Department’s accessibility action plan “Transport for Everyone: an action plan to improve accessibility for all”, and, for comment, a draft equality action plan.

Much has already been achieved in making transport more accessible, and the accessibility action plan seeks to address the challenges that remain. In doing so, we also want to draw on the success of the Olympic and Paralympic games, which demonstrated what can be done to provide those using our public transport system with a positive experience.

The accessibility action plan focuses not only on improving physical accessibility, but also on providing better information for the traveller, and on improving attitudes and behaviour, especially towards disabled passengers.

In identifying our priorities in the action plan, we have worked with a large number of representative organisations, individuals, transport operators and local authorities. I am grateful for the support and input that they have provided. We want transport to be accessible by all and the plan moves us further towards that goal.

The equality action plan presents some of the activities we are undertaking to meet our duties under the equalities legislation, and provides an initial set of priorities for promoting equality and well-being, based on the evidence we have gathered and the engagement we have already had with transport organisations and other interested parties. We are seeking comments on this initial draft and will publish a final version following further engagement.

Motoring Services Strategy

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the publication of a consultation document on the Department for Transport’s motoring services strategy. In line with the Government’s broader vision for public services as set out in the civil service reform plan, the Open Public Services White Paper and the Government digital strategy, the Department is outlining broad reform proposals for its four motoring services Executive agencies:

Driving Standards Agency (DSA)

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)

Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA)

Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA)

The strategy sets out three principles for the future:

Putting consumers and businesses at the heart of what we do.

Rationalising the number of bodies and agencies involved in the delivery of our services.

Working more closely and collaboratively with our partners to deliver services, and boost economic growth by creating opportunities for small and medium-size businesses.

To do this we will:

Maximise the digital delivery of services to motorists and improve the customer experience. We will also ensure that those who find access to digital services difficult are supported to do so.

Reform the Vehicle Certification Agency which provides high quality and trusted service to the automotive industry and is recognised for its quality and integrity. We will look at ways to help VCA to grow and contribute more to the wider economy.

Explore ways to improve the convenience to customers of the driving test by looking at the locations from which we deliver them.

Transform HGV, bus and coach testing by expanding joint ventures and collaboration with private sector providers, and reducing the number of Government-owned test stations.

Rationalise the number of agencies and reconfigure our organisations to reduce cost and improve consistency.

We are inviting views and responses from as broad a range of organisations and users of our services as possible This will include road users, businesses, trade associations, road safety groups, transport associations and others. Improving the way we engage with and listen to them will help to design better services.

The consultation will run until 7 March 2013.

Motorists Forum Recommendations

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

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

I am today publishing the Government’s response to the Motorists’ Forum sub-group report recommendations.

The Motorists Forum has set out a raft of recommendations aimed at making sure motorists have the best possible consumer experience when having their vehicles serviced or repaired in the report released today. The Department for Transport (DFT) and the Department for Business Innovation and Skills (BIS) have worked closely together to produce the Government response.

The car service and repair sector is worth around £6.9 billion per year to the Great Britain economy with 150,000 MOT tests taking place every working day. The garage industry is important both to transport policy (especially road safety) and as part of a wider landscape of consumer affairs. It is important that consumers feel confident in the quality and the value for money of the services they are receiving from garages. The Motorists Forum’s report has offered some useful proposals for how this can be achieved more consistently.

I welcome the work carried out by the Motorists Forum and believe the recommendations we plan to adopt will help build on existing best practice in the industry and encourage garages to improve customer services, without the burden of extra legislation. The recommendations we will be adopting will promote the wider adoption of self-regulation (OFT-TSI) codes of practice by garages and encourage greater publication of information regarding the services they offer. As of November this year we have already introduced the requirement to have vehicle mileages printed on MOT certificates to help combat “clocking”.

The DFT and BIS will now use their strong relationships with the garage industry and stakeholders to promote the adopted recommendations.

The Motorists Forum sub-group report and the Government’s response can be found on the gov.uk website.

Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 6 December 2012 in Brussels.

There were public discussions on the posting of workers enforcement directive and Europe 2020. The debate on posting of workers showed a split in member states position on the key articles. The file will now be considered in parallel by the European Parliament and Council in the new year. On Europe 2020, Ministers broadly welcomed the Commission’s youth employment package. The UK stressed that the youth guarantee needed to reflect the dynamics of national markets. Ministers also held an informal exchange of views on the newly adopted proposal for women on company boards.

The Council adopted a progress report on the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGF). There was some support for the continuation of this fund in the next programming period. The UK disagreed, arguing that the fund should be discontinued.

The Council noted the presidency’s report on the state of play of the programme for social change and innovation (PSCI), Council conclusions on violence against women, the Council declaration of the European year 2012 of active ageing and a progress report on the equal treatment directive.

Under any other business, the Council noted presidency updates on supplementary pension rights and the EU fund for the most deprived. The presidency provided information on conferences held during the Cyprus Presidency. Finally, the Irish delegation outlined the work programme of their forthcoming presidency.

Workplace Pension Reform

Thursday 13th December 2012 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Later today the Government’s response to the consultation on the 2013-14 review and revision of earning thresholds for automatic enrolment will be published, and I will place a copy in the Libraries of both Houses.

These papers will also be available later today on the Department’s website at: www.dwp.gov.uk/consultations.

It is intended to lay an order before Parliament in the new year which will include the following:

£9,440 for the automatic enrolment earnings trigger;

£5,668 for the lower limit of the qualifying earnings band;

£41,450 for the upper limit of the qualifying earnings band.

Grand Committee

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Thursday, 13 December 2012

14:00

Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

Moved by

[Lord De Mauley]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Public Bodies (Water Supply and Water Quality Fees) Order 2012.

Relevant documents: 9th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the order is made under the Public Bodies Act 2011 to modify the funding arrangements for the Drinking Water Inspectorate. The order will enable the inspectorate to charge water companies for the regulatory activity from which these companies benefit.

The Drinking Water Inspectorate is the drinking water quality regulator for the water industry, providing independent assurance that water supplies in England and Wales are safe and that drinking water quality is acceptable to consumers.

The inspectorate is currently funded entirely by Defra, with the costs of its operation falling to the taxpayer. However, a significant proportion of the inspectorate’s activity relates to scrutinising the way in which water companies meet their regulatory requirements through technical audits and inspections.

The proposal to introduce a charging scheme was first raised in the consultation on the Flood and Water Management Bill in 2009. The proposals were not included in the Act. The charging scheme will enable the inspectorate to recover the cost of its regulatory activities from water companies. This is considered to be a much fairer way of recovering costs. It will make the inspectorate consistent with other related water regulators such as Ofwat, the Environment Agency and the Consumer Council for Water, all of which charge for their regulatory activities.

The scheme will not enable the inspectorate to recover all its costs from industry: it will not cover the costs of prosecutions and court-related activity associated with enforcement orders and other sanctions.

Defra will continue to fund the inspectorate for this work and the inspectorate will seek to recover these costs through the court system. Defra will also continue to fund the activity to support drinking water policy such as the advice the inspectorate provides to Defra on scientific and technical matters.

The water industry in England and Wales values the activities of the Drinking Water Inspectorate very highly and companies are supportive of this proposal. The inspectorate has consulted with water companies to seek their views on how a charging scheme could identify the cost of regulatory activities. The outcome is a charging scheme that will be based on two elements: part of the fee will be based on the number of sample results checked and the other part based on the time taken in auditing water supply arrangements, investigating incidents and investigating consumer complaints.

I consider this approach to provide a fair means to allocate the costs while keeping the charging scheme reasonably simple to administer. The rates to be applied to determine the annual fee for water companies will be fixed by the chief inspector and subject to approval by Ministers.

The order will introduce charges for water companies which supply wholly or mainly in England. A similar order has been approved under the Public Bodies Act 2011 by the Welsh Government, which will apply to water companies that supply wholly or mainly in Wales.

The benefits of this scheme are twofold. Allowing the inspectorate to charge the water industry for its regulatory work will save the public purse around £2 million per annum. The introduction of a charging scheme will also provide an incentive for water companies to review their procedures for water safety management.

In its consideration of the order, the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee cleared the draft order but requested clarification of the way the order promoted effectiveness and economy in the delivery of the inspectorate’s regulatory functions. I am happy to provide that clarification now.

The order will enable the inspectorate to assess and improve its effectiveness by providing transparency in the cost of the regulatory functions it delivers. This will enable direct comparison of the effectiveness of the inspectorate compared with other water regulators.

The order will also assist the promotion of economy by providing an incentive for water companies to consider the value of the regulatory activity provided by the inspectorate against other options for the management of quality assurance. An example of this is where water companies now attain accreditation from UKAS which undertakes technical audits of laboratories. The inspectorate has an agreement with UKAS which means that it does not routinely inspect laboratories which have UKAS accreditation. Transparency of costs will allow water companies to compare the services provided by the inspectorate with other accreditation bodies which offer audit and quality assurance services.

I hope that the Committee will agree that the introduction of a charging scheme will provide transparency of the cost of regulatory activities and will assist in the long-term effectiveness and economy of activity to safeguard drinking water. I beg to move.

[Lord Grantchester]

I thank the Minister for his introduction and explanation of the order. I will not detain the Committee for long, as it seems largely straightforward.

The issue is the switch of payments for the regulatory function of the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which will be made in future by customers rather than by the taxpayer, and how this will work. The Minister has explained that the Public Bodies Act 2011 enables him to change the funding arrangements to reflect the fact that if an industry needs regulation in undertaking an activity that could cause adverse effects in others, then the industry should face the regulatory cost. There is no more important product than safe, clean, hygienic drinking water. The change will comply with the Hampton review recommendations for better regulation and with the Defra charging handbook strategy aims. It will bring funding into line with that for other water regulators, such as Ofwat and the Environment Agency.

The new system will ensure that regulatory costs are recovered in proportion to the individual relative regulatory burden, serving as an indicator of the relative efficiency and effectiveness of each water company or supplier. Furthermore, only one of the 21 responses from the 33 key stakeholders consulted did not support this policy change. I note the proposed charging system will apply to all water companies and that none is classified as a micro-business, with the result that there are no discriminatory burdens that will weigh disproportionately.

The cost of the regulatory function of the inspectorate is in the round rather small, and the Minister may well say this is a tidy-up exercise, with the modest cost to consumers judged to be more than outweighed by the non-monetarised benefits already highlighted. Nevertheless, I would like the Minister to expand where he can on some of the potential implications and the public information for customers.

The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the total charge being transferred from taxpayers to customers amounts to £1.9 million, less than a 0.1% increase to most individual bills, or around 15p per annum. The 13th report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee updates this figure to include unmetered and metered households to produce an estimate of 9p or 10p per annum. While noble Lords will not be expecting front page exposure in the Daily Mail of “the thin end of the wedge” even if charges were to increase, can the Minister say what would trigger concern and action on any report to Ofwat? Will Ofwat’s approval be required for all and any increases? Will it be looking at cost control and cost-cutting measures if it is to address the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee’s concern that the change in the charging system does not appear to promote economy in the inspectorate’s delivery. The scrutiny committee had asked for more clarity on how the charging structure will promote this effectiveness and economy, and I thank the Minister for his further explanation in his introduction of the order.

In the Minister’s officials’ meeting with the industry has any discussion taken place on how water companies will spread the charge across their customer base? Will the charge be made per customer bill, or will it be volume related, a question especially pertinent to metered supplies and high-volume commercial operations? Will there be consistency across the regions, will intercompany performances be monitored and published, and will this include Wales?

Will the Minister indicate whether the water companies will be highlighting the admittedly small charge with a separate line on the face of customers’ bills, even if only annually, and therefore fulfilling the very reason to make the charging change? No doubt this will require public information arrangements to be made for customers.

Finally, water affordability is becoming an ever increasing concern to more and more households. While the Minister may be reluctant to go into detail today on the proposed social tariff scheme, will he at least confirm by stating the commitment that this fee will qualify to be included under the social tariff umbrella?

I have no intention not to agree with this order. But if the Minister could indicate any understanding on how this change will be implemented, it will be of great interest to consumers.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the Government are committed to everyone in England and Wales having access to clean, wholesome drinking water and keeping water bills at an affordable level. Approval of this order will enable the Drinking Water Inspectorate to recover the cost of regulatory activities from the water companies which benefit from them. This change in funding will result in a saving, as I said earlier, of about £2 million to the taxpayer each year and may increase the average annual customer bill by about 10p, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned. He asked about the way in which the charge will be passed on. Explicitly in answer to his question, Ofwat must approve any passing on of charges. Therefore, if water companies propose an inappropriate means of passing on charges, it would have the chance to object.

The noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, asked about the consistency of how charges will be passed on. For instance, will it be a separate line on the bill? On the one hand, that is up to the companies to put forward a proposal but, on the other hand, how it is dealt with is subject to Ofwat approval. It will be included in the social tariff scheme.

To the extent that I have not answered the noble Lord’s questions, perhaps I may write to him.

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, the Minister has done very well in answering all the questions but one, which was regarding Ofwat having to agree to any changes and increases in the charges from year to year.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the cost will not be subject to Ofwat control but will require approval by Ministers. I hope that that satisfies the noble Lord. On the basis of that, I thank the noble Lord for his questions and I ask the Committee to agree the order.

Motion agreed.

14:12

Sitting suspended.

Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

14:20

Moved By

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 Amendment Regulations 2012

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, 14th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, the draft regulations amend the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to transpose European directive 2010/63/EU on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes. The new directive was adopted in September 2010 and came into force on 9 November 2010. It replaces directive 86/609/EEC, which is transposed into current UK legislation by the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

National legislation transposing the new directive must be implemented from 1 January 2013. The new directive has three main objectives: first, to rectify wide variations in the implementation of the previous directive by member states; secondly, to strengthen the protection of animals used in scientific procedures; and thirdly to promote the three Rs: strategies which replace, reduce and refine the use of animals in scientific procedures. It provides a practical framework for the regulation of animal research and testing in Europe and sets a benchmark for the rest of the world.

Many of the provisions of the new directive are similar to current UK legislation and practice. For example, the directive places a strong emphasis on minimising the use of animals and includes the promotion of the three Rs. We welcome the development of the directive because it will ensure that the framework in the European Union will reflect the structures that have worked well in the UK for the past 25 years, and should bring the rest of the European Union into line with those standards.

Some of its provisions are new or go further than current UK legislation. For example, the new directive extends protection to some invertebrate species—all cephalopods, including octopuses, squid and cuttlefish—and to animals bred primarily so that their tissues and organs can be used in scientific research. The new directive also requires member states to apply mandatory minimum standards of care and accommodation. There is a requirement for formal retrospective review of some types of project.

Other provisions are potentially less stringent than current UK requirements. For example, the 1986 Act, which we are amending, provides special protection for non-human primates, cats, dogs and horses. The directive extends special protection only to non-human primates.

Article 2 of the new directive allows member states to retain national provisions in force on 9 November 2010 that give more extensive protection to animals than those set out in the new directive so long as they are not used to inhibit the free market. We are making full use of this provision, as I will explain shortly.

A public consultation on the options for transposing the new directive was launched on 13 June 2011 and closed on 5 September 2011. Responses were received from more than 13,000 individuals and 98 organisations. The majority of responses supported the retention of current United Kingdom animal welfare requirements where these are stricter than those set out in the directive. Other responses suggested that we should use transposition to streamline regulation where this would not harm animal welfare.

The Government’s response to the public consultation was published on 17 May this year. It explained that we would retain most of our current, stricter, United Kingdom standards. These include: special protection for cats, dogs and horses; protection for immature forms of birds and reptiles; larger enclosure and cage sizes for dogs and a number of other species; and methods of killing animals that are more humane. We have also placed absolute bans on the use of great apes and stray animals of domestic species in the legislation. We believe that including and retaining these other stricter standards in the regulations is necessary and justified on animal welfare grounds and in order to maintain public confidence that animals used in experiments and testing will continue to be properly protected.

At the same time, we explained in the government response that we would simplify our system of personal licences, which authorise individuals to apply procedures to animals. We believe that a system of personal licensing is essential to ensure that procedures causing pain and suffering are applied to animals only by individuals who are properly trained and competent. At the same time, we accept that the system should not be overly bureaucratic. We have therefore made some small but important changes, through the regulations, to allow us to simplify the detail required in personal licences and the way we process applications for them.

Another important change transposed in the regulations is the requirement placed on member states to collect and publish statistical information on the severity of the procedures applied to the animals. Publication of information about the actual experience of the animals will be a major step forward in terms of transparency and, combined with the mandatory requirement to publish non-technical summaries of authorised projects, will help inform the debate on the use of animals in research and testing.

On the issue of severity classification, although the directive requires procedures to be classified by their severity, there is no requirement to ensure that these classifications are subsequently adhered to. Under current UK arrangements, licence holders are required to inform the Home Office if a severity limit is breached or likely to be breached. We intend to continue this requirement by retaining the existing condition on the project licence that sets a clear obligation to adhere to the severity limit and to notify the Secretary of State if the severity limit appears to have been, or is likely to be, breached. I can, therefore, assure noble Lords that we are not weakening the current requirement for project licence holders to ensure compliance with severity limits.

I will also give noble Lords an assurance as to how we will review the operation of the new legislation and, in particular, in relation to the application of the three Rs. Article 58 of the directive requires the Commission to carry out periodic, thematic reviews of the three Rs in consultation with member states. Although the obligation to carry out reviews is on the Commission, and does not require transposition in the draft regulations, we believe that similar reviews can play an important part in ensuring the effective operation of our national legislation. We therefore propose to carry out our own thematic reviews and to consult practitioners and other interest groups in due course on suitable topics. We will also encourage the Commission to ensure that Europe-wide thematic reviews become a reality.

Regarding implementation of the amended legislation, although we have not quite achieved the target date for transposition—we were looking at a November date—we are already working with current licence and certificate holders to ensure a seamless transition to the new arrangements. We have already issued a guide identifying a number of actions that need to be completed before 1 January. We also plan to issue a “quick start” guide to the main requirements of the amended legislation and the care and accommodation standards before Christmas. A full draft guidance note and revised code of practice will be published in January 2013 for consultation.

The transposition of the new directive has provided a valuable and timely opportunity to review and strengthen our legislation. We believe that the draft regulations provide a sound basis for the regulation of animal research and testing. I commend the regulations to the Committee.

14:30

[Lord Winston]

My Lords, first, I declare an interest as animal licence-holder for more than 40 years; I think I am almost the longest holder of a licence in London. I work at Imperial College where animal research is conducted. I am a member of a research council which from time to time may need to support the use of animal research for specific validation in engineering, and I am also chairman of a spin-out biotech company, although I do not take any income from that company. Clearly all companies are aiming eventually to make a profit, although I doubt that this one will, but it is still exploring various patents that involve techniques that will be tested on animals.

I am grateful for the clarity of the Minister’s assessment of the directive, which was very helpful. I want to add a personal note of thanks to the Home Office, which has been exemplary in the way it has helped me from time to time with licence applications. In recent years, we have seen a much greater recognition of the need to collaborate and care for the way that we ensure that the law is properly enforced, and I feel very confident in the officials with whom I have dealt.

With that preamble, I express some concerns about this directive and about how we might go ahead. In particular, I am concerned about the three Rs. The three Rs have been around for a very long time. When they were first considered, nobody appreciated where the limitations of the reductions or replacements might be. For example, when the three Rs were first proposed, nobody considered that cell culture is a very limited model for many needs in medicine. Cells in culture do not always perform or behave in the same way as cells do inside an intact organ or, even more importantly, an intact total person or being. A rodent that is alive and well, in which the cells are functioning without changes altering how the genes express or how the cells are growing normally in that organ, is fundamental to medicine. To some extent replacement, reduction and refinement are a bit of problem in cell culture.

When one looks at organ culture, human organs unquestionably do not react completely normally. The classic example is the isolated liver. It was hoped that it might replace the liver of people in liver failure, but those livers do not react in the same way. They cannot because they are not subject to all the homeostatic control mechanisms that go on inside an intact organ.

When computer modelling was first envisaged, it was also thought to be a very good way of replacing animals in research. It has become apparent in the past three or four years that computer models fall way short of what is needed. They cannot predict how animals in the intact state would behave. Many of the invertebrate species, in which we can work, are not always ideal models either.

We have to accept that there is going to be a need to continue, particularly in rodents. In my view, there are some reasons for considering that not only should that work continue but it may need some degree of amplification. The reason why I say that is as follows. First, I am very concerned about the issue of the backbone of British science, which, as every research council will tell you, is the PhD student. That is the person who does the mainstream experimental work that we hope will lead to our understanding of medicine and our improvements of treatment, and of course contributes to the British economy with novel and innovative ideas. There is no question, from my experience and that of many other people, that PhD students are increasingly reluctant to go into important areas of medicine and biology where animal research is being used, not because they disapprove of that research but because they are concerned increasingly about the delay, when they have a finite time—now rigidly defined because of fees and so on—of three years to complete their PhD. For a PhD student to delay starting experimental work is a massive problem.

Many PhD students do not see this work as anything other than laudable. It is worth bearing in mind, since we sometimes forget, that most scientists are actually very altruistic people; they go into an area of work because they believe that they are going to do some good. They certainly do not want to harm animals, or indeed people. However, there is concern. I have one person in my own lab who refused an area of research because she felt that it was seen publicly as being disreputable; it was felt to be not very acceptable to the public as it involved mice. That individual ended up doing work, which was actually very good science, in a different area of biology that did not involve animals, but it took a long time. That was a typical switch that we often see in young scientists, and I am a bit concerned about that.

Further, as noble Lords will appreciate well, there is the issue of the fear among experimentalists about their risk of being attacked. Unfortunately, not enough of the community are prepared to put their head above the parapet, and we need to do more to encourage my colleagues to stand up and be accountable.

The second issue, apart from the PhD students, is the real issue that it is an important aspect of our economy. I have no doubt that we have to be stringent and careful about how we use animals, and we have to be utterly humane. That is an essential component of any work; certainly, as a doctor, I feel that that is important, just as it would be in treating a patient. As I think my noble friend on this side will say, we in Britain feel that our regulations are probably more stringent than most of Europe, and we are probably far further down the road of being sure that we are running a proper shop in our universities and other laboratories. However, 11% of our GDP comes from manufacturing. Although we are losing some of our great pharmaceutical companies, big pharma and biotech is an important area where we still lead the world, and those companies need animal work. It is fair to say that there is hardly a single drug that any of this in this Room have taken that does not depend on some animal research. The exception would be aspirin and, I think, digitalis, but I cannot think of any others; all the rest will at some stage have had animal research to prove their efficacy, their safety and that their long-term effects were not a problem.

That is one reason why this has to continue, and another is vaccinology. People may say that with modern genetics, reverse vaccinology, where you tailor a vaccine descending on the genome of what you are trying to combat, is the answer, but the modern techniques of making vaccines all use intact animals at some stage, so that also needs to be factored in.

I do not want to go on for too long because it would be wrong to do so, but I just want to draw attention to a couple of other points. First, one of the great areas of medicine which is really advancing and offers hope for better treatment is genetics. There, the greatest single model probably is the modified mouse. That has been a massive advance in the past few years—of course, since the three Rs. Increasingly, we are needing to look at mice whose genes are not working in the way that they would normally work because of cancer or other issues. They are absolutely essential to animal research. While we have to make certain that these animals do not suffer undue pain and are humanely treated, it would be unthinkable to allow more patients to die because we are not prepared to look for new drugs that might combat a condition which will kill one-third of the human population of the United Kingdom eventually.

On transplantable organs, I note the directive and its issue on transplantation but we also have to bear it in mind that every 15 minutes around the world someone is put on a transplant list. Most people on a transplant list will not get an organ. For every one person put on a list, there are probably five others who do not even get there. One of the great hopes is still xenotransplantation. The idea that we might not be able to engineer pigs for their organs when they are killed absolutely humanely, and much more humanely than, for example, in farming, is something we need to bear in mind.

We need to be clear in Europe as regards this technology, in which we lead in this country and may want to continue to produce. I have to admit that my company is involved in that technology, so I have a vested interest. I am not speaking because of that vested interest: I believe passionately that it is worth doing.

Let me conclude by arguing that one of the things that we need to do is to get a sense of reality about the three Rs. We need to recognise, for example, that every research university is doing animal research and that we need to have more people putting their heads above the parapet. It would be really helpful if the Government could encourage more public engagement. We note that they had many responses from the public but I suspect that even those came from people with a very narrow view of animal research—either very pro or very opposed to it.

From various polls, including a fairly recent MORI poll, it is clear that most people still do not really understand, first, how stringent and well conducted our regulations are and, secondly, the value of the research that is going on. We should be trying to focus more of our attention on that.

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, has told us, these draft regulations are intended to tighten the regulations on the use of animals in scientific research in the less well regulated European Union countries, particularly to improve animal welfare. I declare an interest as I serve on my university’s ethics committee, which oversees any Home Office licences required for such research, which, I might add, is undertaken for all the ethical reasons described by the noble Lord, Lord Winston.

Let me begin by welcoming the tightening of animal welfare legislation that the EU directive requires. I also welcome the instances of more stringent protection of animals in these regulations than is required by the EU directive, particularly the retention of the UK special protection for cats, dogs and horses; I find it surprising that that is not required in the directive.

Before turning to my concerns, perhaps I may pick up on a point mentioned by the Minister when he talked about three Rs—replace, reduce and refine. Perhaps when he comes to respond, he will amplify slightly on the question of replacement and to tell us what it is that he thinks that animals, such as the rodents described by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, should be replaced with. The Committee will not be surprised to know that I am particularly concerned about the use of human embryos.

However, during the proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, who spoke several times during those proceedings, made abundantly clear what became known almost in shorthand as the Hunt test. If alternatives existed to the use of human embryos, they should always be used. There is potential here for conflict: if they were to be used for replacement for animals, how does that accord with the so-called Hunt test that was used during those proceedings.

My concerns in this legislation to improve animal welfare centre on the importance of ensuring that other areas of legislation therefore do not suffer. There are a number of major concerns about this on which I will ask the Minister for reassurance. I return to some of the questions raised during the passage of the HFE Act, and in subsequent Questions I asked of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on 20 July 2011. In a Written Answer he confirmed that some 3.1 million human embryos had been created since the passage of the 1990 legislation, and that 1.4 million of those had been discarded. To put it another way, for every baby born by IVF, 30 human embryos are destroyed. In a further reply that day, the noble Earl said that 150 animal/human hybrids had been created over the three years up to July 2011; that is obviously the question that I will centre on in my remarks today. I will also partly focus on replacement, which I referred to. I hope that as he comes to reply today, the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, will be able to tell us what the numbers of animal/human hybrids created in the United Kingdom have been since that was authorised; and also the total number of human embryos that have been destroyed or experimented upon since the passage of the 1990 legislation.

14:41

When the directive which it is the purpose of the legislation before us today to transpose into UK law was passing through the European institutions, serious concerns were expressed that the effect of the directive would be to create an imperative for researchers to conduct experiments on human embryos or human embryonic stems cells rather than animals. I would be grateful if the Minister could therefore provide me with an absolute assurance that this will not be the effect of these regulations. If this were the case, it would constitute a huge departure from the current approach outlined by the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, when he said that it would be illicit to conduct experiments on human embryonic stems cells when alternatives exist. It would raise huge and deeply concerning questions about the nature of our society if it were to afford lesser protection to human embryos and human embryonic stem cells than to animals. I sometimes jest that perhaps when a fox arrives at St Stephen’s Entrance holding a placard saying, “Save the human race”, we might wake up to some of the paradoxes in a society where, after all, 800 million people are wracked by starvation or despair, living below any rational definition of human decency. However, there is a link between these questions of what we do to animals and what we do to human beings. CS Lewis writing passionately against vivisection, said:

“If you begin by being cruel to animals, you will end up being cruel to human beings as well”.

I turn to the licensing of research projects involving interspecies animal/human hybrids and chimeras which may be affected by these regulations. The regulations raise serious concerns regarding the ethical oversight and scrutiny of controversial research involving the creation of such hybrids and chimeras, since the regulations appear to unnecessarily remove some of the existing provision for ethical scrutiny in this area.

Before I detail the alternations in the various levels of ethical oversight and scrutiny that will be brought in by these regulations, in order to communicate the seriousness of any reduction in ethnical scrutiny I will briefly explain why there is such a concern. In some cases it will be clear whether a project licence application to the Home Office involving animal/human chimeras should be regulated under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act or under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act. However, there are many projects involving animal/human chimeras which may need specialist scrutiny to determine whether legally they should be regulated under human legislation or under the far more liberal animal legislation. Provision for this specialist scrutiny and existing ethical review processes has been airbrushed out of the Act by these regulations. The practical implication of this may be that some animal-human chimeric embryos—which should be classified as human admixed embryos and subject to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, and can consequently not be permitted to develop beyond 14 days or to be implanted—could be classified wrongly under the animal legislation and be permitted to develop beyond 14 days and, indeed, to be implanted.

For example, if a chimeric embryo were to be created by a procedure called tetraploid complementation and implanted, it could result in a substantially or entirely human foetus, with an animal placenta, developing in an animal womb. This may seem like science fiction but it has been carried out since the 1990s in animal research and is considered the gold standard test for embryonic stem cells. Indeed, during the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, on which I spoke on numerous occasions, it was the subject of amendments in both this House and another place. Since such an embryo would have predominantly animal cells at the early embryonic stage, it might seem to fit naturally under regulation by the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

Noble Lords may remember that during the ping-pong stage, the then shadow Health Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, tabled amendments to ensure that such embryos would be classified under the HFE Act and not under animal legislation. My noble friend Lord Walton of Detchant also expressed concern about human-animal embryos created by tetraploid complementation and requested assurance that the wording of the Bill specifically covered these chimeric embryos.

The noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham, the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, categorically stated that an embryo created by tetraploid complementation would be classified as a “human admixed embryo”, in the catch-all category that the Government added to the Bill, which is now covered in the new Section 4A(6)(e) of the HFE Act 1990. It would therefore be regulated under the HFE Act, would not be permitted to develop beyond 14 days and would not be implanted. As a result of that absolute assurance from the Minister, the amendments tabled by the then shadow Health Minister, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, were withdrawn

However, it appears that the message did not quite get through to the Home Office. In a recent document published on 14 November, in guidelines emanating from the Home Office, the example of tetraploid complementation is given as one where it is “uncertain” whether such an entity should be regulated under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act or the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. It is not the best example of joined-up government. If this serious error is made with the current level of ethical oversight then it is abundantly clear that project licence applications and decisions under the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 need more ethical scrutiny, not less, as appears to be the case in these regulations.

In order to avoid misclassification of animal-human chimeras produced by tetraploid complementation, I hope that the Minister will ensure that the guidelines published on 14 November, Regulations on the Use of Human Material in Animals—A Brief Note for Investigators, are republished with a correction regarding tetraploid complementation. Will the Minister also ensure that it is communicated to the new committee and bodies set up under these regulations that human-animal chimeric embryos made by tetraploid complementation would require a licence from the HFEA under Section 4A(6)(e) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, as stated in the final ping-pong stages of the HFE Bill by the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham? I cite Lords Hansard of 29 October 2008, col.1624.

Further examples of animal-human chimeras requiring specialist scrutiny would be those where human embryonic stem cells are inserted into an animal embryo and where the human cells may then produce any cell type in the resulting chimera, if implanted, including human brain cells or human gametes—egg and sperm. Various scientific modifications to such an embryo could result, for example, in a substantially human brain. Other concerns have been raised that chimeras might possibly have developed human gametes and might inadvertently be allowed to mate.

Up to now there have been three different levels at which ethical scrutiny of animal-human chimeric project licence applications could take place. I turn to the alterations in these different levels of ethnical scrutiny that will be brought into effect by the regulations before your Lordships today. First, there is the Animal Procedures Committee, an independent body that was set up under Sections 19 and 20 of the Animal (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, which advises the Home Office on matters relating to the Act. Any project licence application concerning ethically contentious issues such as human-animal chimeras are passed on to it for scrutiny.

Home Office guidance states that project licence applications will be referred to this committee if they are,

“applications of any kind raising novel or contentious issues, or giving rise to serious societal concerns (for example, any application involving the genetic modification of non-human primates or embryo aggregation chimaeras involving dissimilar species)”.

However, this committee will no longer exist after 31 December. The regulations will replace it with the Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes, whose statutory ethical remit is limited to animal welfare. Specifically, it says:

“The Committee must provide advice to the Secretary of State and the Animal Welfare and Ethical Review Bodies on such matters relating to the acquisition, breeding, accommodation, care and use of protected animals as the Committee may determine or as may be referred to the Committee by the Secretary of State”.

This is very disturbing, since the Animal Procedures Committee has scrutinised the most controversial project applicants. Moreover, the Home Office expressly acknowledges that this amounts to limiting the scope from the Animal Procedures Committee that went before it. Paragraph 167 of its consultation on options for the transposition of European Directive 2010/63 states:

“These functions are in some respects similar to those of the Animal Procedures Committee (APC) set up under ASPA sections 19 and 20 to advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to ASPA and its implementation. They are, however, more narrowly focused on animal welfare issues than is the case with the APC, which also considers wider ethical issues”.

I should therefore like to ask the Minister, after the regulations come into force, what processes will replace the existing ethical scrutiny of controversial project licence applications involving animal-human chimeras that to date have been provided specifically by the Animal Procedures Committee. Who, or what body, will take over this role, if any? Until now another level of ethical scrutiny has been at the level of local ethical review processes, or ERPs. These ERPs function locally, for example at universities. Their functions include scrutinising project applications before they can be submitted to the Home Office. This pre-authorisation procedure may include commenting on ethically controversial project applications. However, the regulations before us establish new animal welfare and ethical review bodies. Despite being called animal welfare and ethical review bodies, their statutory ethical remit is limited to animal welfare. They will apparently replace the existing local ethical review processes, and I would be grateful if the noble Lord will confirm that. That is despite the Home Office consultation of June 2011, in which paragraph 165 highlights concerns in some quarters that adopting the minimal requirements set out in Articles 26 and 27 of the EU Directive for Animal Welfare bodies might,

“result in less extensive ethical and other consideration of scientific procedures”.

Indeed the Government’s response of May 2012 confirmed:

“The requirements for local Animal Welfare Bodies are less stringent than those relating to the operation of local ethical review processes in the UK”.

It particularly highlighted that,

“Fewer persons are involved (in theory in some places a minimum of two might suffice)”,

and that,

“there are fewer functions (for example no involvement is required in the pre-authorisation phase of project authorisation)”.

Ethical review processes are currently required to review project applications before they are submitted to the Home Office. This is not a role of the animal welfare body under the new regulations. Thus the additional level of ethical scrutiny that has been in place until now will be abolished by these regulations. I therefore ask the Minister why the Government chose to transpose the minimum requirements into law, resulting in less extensive ethical considerations of scientific procedures than hitherto? Who, or what body, will take over the function that the local ethical review processes have had up until now in providing the additional level of ethical scrutiny of controversial research projects before submission to the Home Office? Will this additional level of ethical scrutiny, as it appears from the regulations, be removed?

The third level of ethical oversight has been the Home Office inspectorate. However, those inspectors, under Home Office guidelines, have referred any ethically controversial project applications involving animal-human chimeras that they receive to the Animal Procedures Committee for detailed scrutiny. Noble Lords will have noticed that, as I described, that committee is being abolished by the regulations and will no longer exist after 31 December this year. It will be replaced by the Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes, whose statutory remit does not extend to ethical scrutiny of such projects and which will, by the Home Office’s own admission, have a narrower animal welfare remit.

15:00

I turn to the question of official guidelines, the need for which has been rendered all the more important because the regulations restrict the ethical remit of the national committee to animal welfare matters. Will the Minister ensure that the department makes a firm commitment to incorporate into official guidelines three things? First, there is the clarification of the boundary between the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 and the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, as given on 29 October 2008 by the then Under-Secretary of State for Health, the noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham. That provides that any embryo that might, even for a short time, be predominantly human, would require a licence from the HFEA. That includes, but is not restricted to, chimeras created by tetraploid complementation; any embryo whose cells might develop, whether fully or partially, a human brain, even though the human cells were less than 50% of the entity; and, thirdly, any other embryo that might develop a predominantly human function.

Secondly, I hope that the Minister will also take into account categories 2 and 3 of the Academy of Medical Sciences recommendation of June 2011 regarding animals containing human material, calling for specialist scrutiny of certain categories of project application, for example, animal-human chimeras that might have human-like brain functions, that might develop human gametes—eggs and sperm—and for the restriction of the creation of certain animal-human chimeras. Thirdly, I hope that the Government will further consider approving additional recommendations by the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics, which I would be happy to communicate to the Minister, regarding chimeras where human cells could contribute to the germ line or to the brain.

Finally, it is a matter of great urgency that we hear from the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, today what processes will replace the existing ethical scrutiny of controversial project licence applications involving animal-human chimeras which, at this time, have been provided specifically by the Animal Procedures Committee and by the local ethical review processes, but which is not covered by the terms of reference of the new Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes and the new animal welfare and ethical review bodies, as set out in the regulations. Moreover, who will decide whether ethically contentious animal-human project applications are granted licences?

It seems odd that in 2012, when there is greater pressure for controversial animal-human projects than was ever the case in 1986, the Government should amend their 1986 legislation, rendering it less capable of robustly dealing with the ethics of this challenge. I know that it has been said that this Government like to adopt a minimalist approach to directive implementation in the interests of preserving our sovereignty, but it seems very odd that we should use the directive as an excuse needlessly to weaken provisions of our sovereignly chosen legislation—legislation that, I might add, was introduced by the Conservative Government.

I hope that the Minister can provide some robust reassurances. If he cannot, I must press him urgently to introduce further amending regulations to ensure that the remits of the Committee for the Protection of Animals Used for Scientific Purposes and animal welfare and ethical review bodies are not narrowly restricted to animal welfare and can properly engage with animal-human combinations, including project applications of any kind raising novel or contentious issues or giving rise to serious societal concerns, including animal embryo aggregation chimeras.

[Lord Wills]

My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Winston, I am grateful to the Minister for the care and trouble that he took in setting out the Government’s approach to the regulations, which I think will be generally welcomed. I shall ask him about a number of issues which will, in my view, determine how well the regulations work in practice. It is important that they work well because, as we have just heard from the noble Lord, Lord Alton, this area of public policy involving research involving experiments on animals is highly contentious. A wide range of ethical and philosophical considerations are in play. There are passionately held beliefs on all sides, and, as we have heard from my noble friend Lord Winston, it applies in fields of scientific research which are developing extremely fast.

We have had a flavour of that today in the speeches that we have just heard from my noble friend Lord Winston and the noble Lord, Lord Alton. The Government hold the ring in balancing all these competing views. That is a critical role because, if the public believe that animals have been cruelly treated or that there is no measurable benefit from the experiments being carried out on them, then their support will be withdrawn from the scientific and medical research that is currently being conducted using animals, and potentially invaluable research will be lost.

In that context, I have a number of questions for the Minister. The work done by Home Office inspectors is essential to maintaining and improving standards of animal welfare in experiments. This is not unnecessary regulation and bureaucracy; it is the vital guarantor of the highest standards of animal welfare in experiments. In that context, I would be grateful if the Minister could confirm whether in the past three years there has been a decline in the number of Home Office inspectors, the number of visits that they make and the number of contact hours. What projections is the Home Office making about any further such declines?

I turn to the question of guidance, which clearly will be crucial to the way in which these regulations are implemented. The Minister mentioned that the guidance is going to be published in January but, as he will be well aware, these regulations come into force on 1 January, so it is obviously important that there is no further slippage in the publication of the guidance. I would be grateful if he could give the Committee reassurance to that effect today.

The directive includes a requirement for a national body to co-ordinate and fulfil various functions. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has already mentioned the end of the Animal Procedures Committee, which I understand has now met for the last time. So far as I am aware, there is no new national body ready to be put in place, so I add my voice to that of the noble Lord in asking the Minister to give us a few more details about this national committee—when it is going to be in place, what the membership will be and, in particular, its remit.

I want to raise two issues with the Minister that in my view are fundamental to the successful implementation of these regulations and the successful management by the Government of this important area of public policy. Transparency is critical to good governance. As I understand it, the Government have accepted that the directive requires the reconsideration of Section 24 of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Amending the section so that it does not apply to disclosures in response to requests under the Freedom of Information Act would increase transparency. That would mean, for example, that someone leaking information for commercial gain or to assist extremists would still be committing an offence, but that if an FOI request went to the Home Office, it could release that information so long as other relevant exemptions did not apply. Those exemptions, in my view, should be sufficient to protect legitimate interests such as health and safety, the locations of animal experimentation, the privacy of names and addresses of researchers, breach of confidence and any genuinely commercially sensitive information. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House a year ago, the Minister’s predecessor said that the Government would,

“consider how we might adapt Section 24 of the 1986 Act—the statutory bar to disclosure—to enable more information to be disclosed, again ensuring that proper safeguards are included”.—[Official Report, 24/10/11; col. 632.]

I would be grateful if the Minister could set out today what the outcome of those considerations has been, recognising that the longer that such action is delayed, the more concern is likely to grow about the maintenance and enhancement of standards of inspection and care of laboratory animals, and that is something that no one wants to see.

Beyond the directive and its implementation by these regulations, there remain fundamental questions about the use of non-human primates in experiments. As the Minister will be well aware, this area gives rise to particular public concern, notwithstanding the welcome protection that the Minister has already mentioned for great apes.

The Weatherall report was published in 2006. It argued for a national strategic plan for the use of such animals in experiments. I would be grateful if the Minister will tell the Committee what progress has been made in drawing up such a plan. When I raised this issue in your Lordships’ House a year or so ago, the Minister’s predecessor suggested that there had been no such call in the Weatherall report. He and I then embarked on a long and fruitless wrangle about what the report actually said, which concluded when I drew the Minister’s attention to page 140, in the chapter headed “Conclusions and Recommendations”, that states:

“All the stakeholders involved should work together in formulating a national strategic plan for non-human primate research”.

I hope the Minister will avoid another theological wrangle about what precisely the Weatherall report recommended and just let the Committee know today what progress has been made in the formulation of such a plan and what the Government intend to do to ensure that another six years do not elapse before such a plan is formulated.

I look forward to hearing answers from the Minister to all these questions.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

My Lords, I hope that the Minister takes from this debate that there is a significant welcome for the way he introduced his comments today and the great care he took when going through a number of the issues, some of which have been raised by noble Lords.

These are hugely significant regulations. I say at the outset that the Labour Party welcomes the introduction of the EU directive, although the key to the regulations is in the detail that will come though the codes of practice due to be published in January 2013. Will the Minister give an update on when they will be available because we are very close to January, and we would not want to be in the position we have been in with other issues in the Home Office when documents have been delayed? The noble Lord is smiling and nodding his head, which indicates to me that they will be ready in January, but I hope he can confirm that because this guidance and those regulations are crucial.

I am grateful to the RSPCA, FRAME and the BUAV for the information and technical briefing they have provided. As welcome as the directive is, there are some areas of concern, some of which the Minister has already referred to, which was very helpful. The main area is ensuring that the higher standards we have in the UK do not drop as a result of the directive coming into force. Under the rules of directives, higher standards cannot be implemented after a directive comes into force unless they are already within national legislation. There are a number of situations—the use of primates has been mentioned—where we have stronger and better regulations than those in the directive as a whole. I shall come back to some of them in a moment.

The number of animals being used in experiments in Great Britain has been steadily increasing for a number of years. It reached 3,700,000 in 2011, which is higher than at any time in the past 25 years. Despite the concerns of my noble friend Lord Winston, who referred to the three Rs, we support the pledge within the coalition agreement to,

“work to reduce the use of animals in scientific research”.

This revised directive—which many feel to be an improvement on the earlier draft—was published after eight years of discussion throughout Europe. The clear intention is not just to improve standards throughout the EU but to harmonise standards across member states. However, the UK already has a good law in this area: the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. The Government and the research community have often commented on how well regulated animal research is in the UK.

15:15

Much of the directive is modelled on our own legislation, which is welcome. If implemented properly, that will result in better provision for laboratory animals in many European countries. However, I still have some concerns, although I appreciate that the Minister did his best to allay them by giving us some specific examples of where we have higher welfare standards in the UK and will maintain them. I shall mention some other examples, and if the Minister can reassure us on them, that would be very welcome.

A comment was made in government that taking advantage of the higher welfare standards in the UK could be seen as “gold-plating” in some circumstances. In some ways that is contradictory, and I hope that perhaps those government comments were a mistake. If maintaining those standards is allowed, then it is allowed and should never be viewed as gold-plating.

Another issue that I will touch on has already been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Wills: the reduction in funding for the Home Office inspectorate and the move towards the decentralisation of controls, transferring more responsibility from the Home Office to the local establishment. There is a lot of concern, particularly from the RSPCA, that the comment about gold-plating—although I hope to get reassurances on that—and the reduction in the funding for the inspectorate could mean a serious lowering of the standards of regulation of animal experiments in the UK, which no one wants to see. Will the Minister confirm—actually, I think he has—that, wherever possible, UK standards are and remain higher than those in the directive?

There are often two sides in any debate about animal experimentation, and it is encouraging that calls from both sides in this debate—animal welfare groups, including the RSPCA and the BUAV, and the UK Bioscience Sector Coalition—agree that it is essential that there are clear, robust and unambiguous guidance documents and codes of practice. If the Minister could give some indication of when we are likely to see them, when they will be available and how they will be implemented, that would be extremely helpful.

I have some specific concerns. The Home Office inspectorate has an extremely important role in advising on licence applications and best practice, as we have heard from noble Lords, and participates in expert working groups and conferences, as well as inspecting establishments for compliance, and is held in high regard for doing so. Can the Minister give us an assurance—my noble friend Lord Wills raised this point—that the directive and the budget cuts that we are seeing will not result in any cuts in the type and frequency of inspections? Inspections should remain at a high level because, as the Minister understands, all the regulations and directives in the world are only as good as the inspections that underpin them.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, referred to the ethical review process. The Minister will be aware that the ethical review process has defined aims, functions and membership, as set out by the Home Office. The ERP has been in existence for more than 10 years and in that time has been shown to raise standards of welfare, science and ethical review and to improve the local culture of care. It is frequently referred to by the Government, major research funders and individual research establishments when answering questions regarding public accountability with regard to the use of animals.

However, as we have heard the directive requires only an animal welfare body. Compared with the ERP that we already have in the UK, that has a more limited remit and a reduced membership. The Home Office has stated that establishments will be able to choose to maintain their ERPs, but it will not be mandatory because that would be considered to be gold-plating. That is at odds with the regulations, which state that we can continue with higher standards if they are already in place, so I do not understand why we have to lose the ERPs. If it is possible but not mandatory, what does the Minister think will happen? Given the widespread support that the ERPs have across the board, including from the research community, removing them would damage animal welfare and research. Not only that but, throughout this debate, we have heard from noble Lords about the importance of public confidence in the system. ERPs are an important part of establishing and maintaining that public confidence. If we are to lose them for a much smaller and reduced body, which does not have the same remit, that would be a very serious step for the Government to take and not one that any of us will welcome.

The Minister was very helpful in his opening comments about those areas where the Government will maintain the existing UK standards and not see a reduction to the directive. I am grateful to him for that. However—I hope he will correct me if I am wrong—I think he said “in most areas”, not in all areas. I am trying to get to in which areas the Government are not going to maintain the higher standards, of which the ERP seems to be one. One area pointed out to me by the RSPCA was inhumane killing methods. I understand that there is an annexe to the directive that sets out the approved methods of killing animals. The RSPCA tells me that it is badly thought through and includes techniques that concern the public—they certainly concern me—and cause avoidable suffering. For example, very young puppies and kittens could be killed by a blow to the head and an adult bird the size of a sparrow could be decapitated. I hope that is not being transposed into UK legislation, as it is something on which we would want to maintain higher standards. A UK schedule of methods of humane killing, which has been welcomed and accepted, has been in existence for a number of years. Surely that is the schedule that we should be using. Can the Minister confirm that the annexe is not being transposed but that the UK schedule of approved and humane killing methods is being retained? That would be extremely helpful and very welcome.

Another issue is primate use. I am grateful to the Minister for making it clear that we will maintain our policy on great apes, which is welcome. Can the Minister confirm that the current Home Office policy ban on the use of all non-human primates will continue after the directive? Does his department currently ban the breeding and/or keeping of great apes and, if so, does it intend to maintain such a ban?

Another issue that has been raised is lower standards of care and accommodation. This, again, is in an annexe to the directive, which sets out minimum mandatory standards for animal accommodation and care. The noble Lord did not mention this in his comments, although that may have been an oversight, as I am sure he did not mention everything in the directive. The advance in accommodation and care has been hard fought throughout Europe and has been very welcome. However, in some cases, it is lower than the current UK standards. Cage or pen sizes for dogs, for example, have been revised to reduce the space from 4.5 square metres to 4 square metres per dog, cage height for rats has been reduced, and the essential text that sets the tables in context and provides information on how to provide a good environment for animals in care has not been included. If the Minister can say something about that and assure us that the UK’s higher standards are being maintained, that would be helpful.

The issue of transparency has already been mentioned, in terms of public confidence. The revised directive before this Committee requires projects to include a non-technical lay summary for publication in the public domain, which for many of us would be very welcome. A retrospective assessment must be carried out on the actual numbers of animals used, the level of suffering and whether the objectives of the project were achieved. Both aspects are important and will improve transparency, but are subject to quite serious limitations. Member states may waive the requirement for a lay summary for some regulatory toxicology studies and the requirement for a retrospective assessment may be waived for projects that involve procedures classified as mild or non-recovery if they do not include primates. However, those experiments can still involve suffering and a large number of animals—if they did not, they would not be regulated. If the Minister is able to give some reassurance on that, that would be welcome.

My final point is on the Animal Procedures Committee. It is very disappointing to hear that that body has met for the last time. The uncertainty about what is going to replace it gives enormous cause for concern. It is held in high regard and I thought there was some discussion about the APC continuing. If those discussions have not moved forward and the APC is not able to continue—my latest information is that it will not—it would be extremely helpful if there is a body that replicates it and does a similar job, even if it is not the APC itself, which most of us would prefer to see retained. If the Minister could say something about that regulatory system, that would be truly helpful.

I hope that the Minister understands that, although the directive is welcome, there are concerns that we must retain the standards that we currently have in the UK, ensuring that there is no slippage. Perhaps he can double check and tell me today—or, if not, write to me—whether there is any area under the directive where we will not be maintaining our high UK standards, other than the one I mentioned.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, this has been a very productive debate in the sense that I have an enormous amount of paper in front of me. I hope that noble Lords will be patient, because if I can give answers, I will certainly try to do so.

I am very pleased that there has been a general welcome for the transposition. I am the Minister in the Home Office for this subject and also the Home Office Minister for transparency, and I think that there is a link between the two. We all recognise some of the difficulties that the industry and profession of animal experimentation has in communicating ideas to the public. What pleased me about a meeting I had the other day with the Society of Biology was the real willingness of scientists to recognise the need to communicate beyond their peer group, and even beyond those people who have a special interest in this area, to the public at large. I am sure that we all recognise that as being very helpful. It would help us; it would help the cause of animal experimentation; it would help drive the high standards that we have in this country.

It is a delight to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Winston, because no one is more informed than he is about some of these specialties. I am delighted that he was able to attend the debate. He asked me a number of questions, and I will do my best to answer them. I hope that noble Lords will prompt me if they feel that I might be able to communicate a bit more information, if not today, in writing afterwards.

Our position as a Government is that we understand that it is important to maintain our competitiveness in this important area of science. Science is an important industry in this country. We have centres of excellence which are of global standards and it is quite right that we do not put ourselves at a disadvantage to our competitors. The noble Lord mentioned that some animal experimentation is bound to be necessary, because non-animal models are not always good alternatives. He went into the reasoning behind that. I do not disagree. I think that it is essential to choose the right methods. We do no service if we do not examine that, and the regulations recognise that alternatives must be scientifically sound if they are to be used rather than animal experimentation. There is no point in trying to do it in an alternative way if that does not support the science that we are seeking to explore.

The noble Lord also mentioned the attractiveness of animal use for students and the importance of attracting high-quality PhD students to work in this area. We welcome the scientific community’s recent public commitment to the need for animal research. This will help improve public confidence in the way in which this work is done.

15:30

The noble Lord also asked about xenotransplantation. We agree that there is a place for live animal research to contribute to progress in solving issues for successful transplantation; it is an important area in which the noble Lord himself has considerable experience. We recognise the importance of GM mice in medical research, too, and agree with the noble Lord that the new regulations require severity to be the issue. This will help inform the public that for many of these animals there is little or no suffering and yet the research can be extremely valuable. The severity test and the reporting required on that will be one of the most dramatic changes in informing public opinion over the next few years. I hope that I have been able to reassure the noble Lord that we take his concerns seriously.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, and I spoke informally before the Committee reassembled. I say to him at the outset that some of the areas on which he is engaging and challenging where we stand are extremely complicated. The boundaries between human embryology and animal procedures blend at a certain point of science, as he rightly pointed out. I would welcome the opportunity of talking to the noble Lord in the company of officials to see where these pinch points are. We clearly have a responsibility across government, with the Department of Health being responsible for human embryology regulation, and we want to make sure that the two regimes work properly together.

The noble Lord asked whether the application of the principle of replacement could result in research on human or human admixed embryos being preferred, or required, in place of research on animal embryos, and whether that might take precedence over the conditions for granting licences under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Acts. Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, we cannot license work involving protected animals if there is a non-animal alternative. However, there is no power in the 1986 Act to require the work to be carried out under an alternative method. It would be for the HFEA to deal with anything that involved human embryos. There is therefore no risk of that drive occurring.

The noble Lord asked why we had not regulated within the animal regulations to cover this transgenic work involving humans. It would be inappropriate to include such measures in these regulations, which are made under specific powers in Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act. The ECA powers cannot be used to legislate for anything not required by EU obligations. We do not think that there are any outstanding EU obligations relating to the issues that the noble Lord raised that come within this directive. I reiterate that we can investigate this when we have our meeting.

The report by the Academy of Medical Sciences classified admixed embryos. There are three basic categories. Only category 1 experiments are currently being authorised under ASPA. The concern described by the noble Lord might occur only under other categories. If anything occurs outside the scope of HFEA, it must be considered by the Animals in Science Committee created under these draft regulations. Approval will be given only following careful consideration and in consultation with HFEA. I hope that gives the noble Lord some reassurance that there is a proper dialogue between the two ethical committees involved.

The new Animals in Science Committee is being set up. I authorised the advertisements for it only the other day. It will be comparable with the existing committee. Although there is a change, it will broadly cover a similar level of policy. Any novel or contentious project applications will be submitted to the new committee for independent advice on ethical issues.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about guidance on these issues. The guidance will make clear that the functions of the new animal welfare and ethical review bodies will be similar to those previously performed by the ethical review processes. We envisage the membership being very similar and will expect them to carry out ethical reviews of proposals from a local perspective. The decision on whether projects should be authorised will be taken by the Secretary of State, as is currently the case, with advice, including ethical advice, from inspectors and the new Animals in Science Committee.

The noble Lord, Lord Alton, asked about chimeras with brain, eggs and sperm, and we share his concern about those developments, but they fall into categories 2 and 3, which I mentioned earlier, and would not be permitted without very serious and careful consideration by the Animals in Science Committee in association with HFEA.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, was very kind in his remarks. He asked, in particular, about the work being done by the inspectorates, and I have an answer. There has been a reduction in the number of inspections, which reflects the fact that there are fewer locations in which this work is being carried out and a greater risk-based approach to managing the inspections. We do not believe that there is any reduction in the efficacy of these inspections. In fact, we think that adopting a risk-based approach has produced a better outcome in terms of the quality of inspections.

The noble Lord also asked about guidance. There is already some guidance in place. We anticipated these regulations and have given draft guidance, although it is not the full guidance, which will be available in January. I think I mentioned that in my opening remarks. As a former Minister, he will know that one always takes a risk whenever one mentions a date; but I take that risk, confident that the team that works on this in the Home Office is one of the best teams that the department possesses. I think that anyone who has dealt with it recognises that it is very committed to ensuring that we maintain standards.

The noble Lord, Lord Wills, asked about secrecy. Having said that I am in favour of transparency, I have to say that I am still in favour of maintaining some control over it in this area at this stage. Our consultation revealed no clear consensus on whether the provisions of Section 24 should be repealed and replaced, and we need to give that further thought. Opportunities may exist for some modification of the current provision.

[Lord Wills]

Would the Minister be prepared to meet me on that one point? Discussion about Section 24 has been going on for a very long time and, in my experience, there are always people opposed to transparency in every area of public life. I would very much welcome the opportunity to have a further exchange of views.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Certainly, and I hope that we will be able to arrange that in the new year. I think that that is realistic; we have few days left this year; but I am happy to do that. We might also discuss the Weatherall report and the primates strategy. We agree that it is important that the use of primates in research is appropriately monitored. We have made that clear in everything that we have said. We keep the Weatherall report under consideration at all times, but I cannot give a progress report. Perhaps by the time we meet, I might know the answer to the question about page 140. I will try to find it.

I move on to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith. They joined up with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Wills. I made it clear that the Animal Sciences Committee is being set up. It will be very similar to the previous committee, but we wanted to create a new committee and the directive requires us to have such a committee. As I said, we have recently advertised for a chair and members, including a member with expertise in ethics.

I have dealt with the question of timing. I have dealt with the guide. The noble Baroness, Lady Smith, was particularly interested in knowing in which particular areas standards have not been maintained or transposed. We are retaining all the higher UK standards in every case where it will ensure better animal welfare. If she feels that that is not the case in particular instances, I should be very grateful if she would let me know. That is certainly the objective.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

That is extremely helpful; I am grateful to the noble Lord. One of the specific instances I mentioned in my comments was about annexes to the directive on humane killing. I do not expect him to answer that today. I take the point that he has made, but if he could write to me on that, that would be helpful.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can answer it today, because I have the answer here, I hope. We are not transposing Annexe 4 as it stands. We are amending our current ASPA Schedule 1 to retain more humane methods. There is no question of clubbing kittens or chopping the heads off sparrows. I can assure the noble Baroness that we will maintain those higher standards.

There is a clear commitment to prohibit the use of great apes; I think that I made that clear at the beginning, and that continues. We also agree that the current high cage and enclosure sizes are good for welfare, which is why we have maintained all those standards in the transposed regulations.

15:45

[Lord Alton of Liverpool]

Just before the Minister completes his remarks and sits down, I thank him for the offer of a meeting to discuss issues such as tetraploid complementarity and the other complex questions that he alluded to. Before that meeting takes place, would it be possible for his officials to prepare a note answering some of the specific questions that I put to him? For example, I raised the number of animal/human hybrid embryos that have been created; there were over 150 when I last tabled a Parliamentary Question about them. That kind of information would be very helpful in advance of the meeting that we are to have.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

If I understand the noble Lord correctly, he indeed asked a question about actual numbers. I do not have them to hand but I am sure that they are available, and if we do not have them we will see if the Department of Health does. We will do our best to inform the discussion that we are going to have with a certain amount of preparatory work on the questions that he has raised.

[Baroness Warnock]

Before the Minister finally sits down, I would like to raise a question about the numbers that were just mentioned. Does the Minister think it possible to persuade the Home Office to classify the numbers that are published under headings not just of severity but of the purpose of the experiment? We are constantly told that the number of experiments is rising but the document admits that many of them cause no pain at all and are to do with breeding rather than experiments in the normal sense. In the days of the pre-1986 committee, repeated efforts were made to get the publication classified by purpose as well as severity, and I do not know whether that is still a possibility.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

That is certainly something that we are considering. One of the advantages of being able to assess severity as well as numbers is that there are new opportunities for presenting the figures as well as in overall number terms. I do not think that that was quite the question that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, was asking, but I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s question because it has given me the chance to say that the way in which we present the numbers is something that we are looking at.

I am sorry that this has taken quite a long time, but it is an important aspect of an important issue and public interest is considerable. I hope that I have covered all the points but we will review the debate and see if there are any that I have not. Meanwhile, I commend the regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

15:50

Moved by

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Grand Committee do report to the House that it has considered the Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedule 5) (No. 2) Order 2013

Relevant document: 11th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I will provide the Grand Committee with a brief summary of what this order seeks to achieve. The order is made under Section 30(2) and (4) of the Scotland Act 1998; in other words, it is a Section 30 order, like that which seems to have dominated much of the political discourse in Scotland over the past 12 months, but not the same one. Section 30(2) provides a mechanism whereby Schedule 4 or Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act can be modified by an Order in Council, subject to the agreement of both the UK and Scottish Parliaments, while Section 30(4) enables the modification of other enactments where that is considered necessary or expedient in connection with other provision made by the order.

This order will amend Section F1 in Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998, which I shall refer to as the social security reservation. It will also give certain pre-existing devolved enactments—those conferring functions on Scottish Ministers or local authorities—effect as if this new version of the social security reservation had been in place when those enactments were passed or made, rather than the version of the social security reservation that actually existed at that time.

The Welfare Reform Act 2012, which I will refer to as the 2012 Act, contains provision to abolish the discretionary Social Fund. It is the intention of the Department for Work and Pensions to commence Section 70 of the 2012 Act from 1 April 2013, subject to certain savings and transitional provisions. Thus, community care grants and crisis loans for living expenses will be abolished from that date.

Although no provision for any assistance to replace community care grants or crisis loans for living expenses is provided within the 2012 Act, it is the UK Government’s policy that the new assistance will be delivered in England using existing powers in the Local Government Act 2000 and that it will be for the Scottish and Welsh Governments to decide on what new assistance will be provided in Scotland and Wales respectively.

However, the social security reservation means that the Social Fund and all its elements are reserved to the UK Parliament. Therefore, new arrangements cannot be legislated for, or indeed provided for, by the Scottish Parliament or Scottish Government within their existing competence.

This Section 30 order will provide a new exception to the social security reservation to widen the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament so that it can provide newly created assistance to those members of the community in Scotland who might previously have applied for a community care grant or crisis loan for living expenses. Payments made out of the Social Fund will remain reserved, as will other existing social security benefits.

Although in the future the Scottish Government may decide to legislate to provide new assistance to those members of the community through primary legislation, it is the current intention of the Scottish Government that local authorities should provide newly created assistance for an interim period of two years. To provide this assistance, those authorities will use their power under Section 20 of the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which is known as their power to advance well-being. However, Section 20 of that Act, as it was enacted by the Scottish Parliament, does not presently give local authorities a power in an area for which the Scottish Parliament could not legislate when the 2003 Act was passed. There may also be other Scottish ministerial or local authority functions that are relevant to the exercise of the new area of devolved competence that similarly need to be expanded. We therefore believe it expedient to modify any relevant devolved enactments made prior to this order to enable the Scottish Ministers and local authorities to use such functions to provide this new assistance. My Lords, this order makes that modification.

I assure noble Lords that funding is being transferred from the Department for Work and Pensions to the Scottish Government to allow that this new assistance be provided. Based on figures provided by the Scottish Government, set-up funding of just over £2 million has been agreed between the two Governments. Agreement in principle has been reached and we expect the transfer of these set-up funds to be completed shortly.

Within the current spending review, the Department for Work and Pensions has been allocated £178.2 million for the discretionary Social Fund. This allocation will form the programme funding for the new provisions in England, Scotland and Wales, with £178.2 million per annum being apportioned nationally. In 2013-14, programme funding of just under £24 million and administrative funding of just over £5 million—which includes funding for processes that may be put in place locally to review individual awards of funding— will be transferred to the Scottish Government. In 2014-15, programme funding of the same amount and administrative funding of just over £4.5 million will be transferred. A settlement letter outlining the indicative allocation was issued to the Scottish Government on 6 August 2012.

This Section 30 order is necessary as a result of the 2012 Act and the UK Government’s policy that it is for the Scottish Government to decide what new assistance will be provided in Scotland following the commencement of Section 70 of the 2012 Act on 1 April 2013. This order demonstrates the Government’s continued commitment to work with the Scottish Government to make the devolution settlement work. I hope that the Committee will agree that this order is an appropriate use of the powers in the Scotland Act. This draft order was debated in the House of Commons on 11 December and was subsequently approved on 12 December. The draft order was also debated in the Scottish Parliament on 11 December, where the Welfare Reform Committee resolved to recommend the draft order to the Scottish Parliament. I commend the order to the Committee. I beg to move.

[Lord McAvoy]

My Lords, once again I thank the Minister and his staff for the admirable help and support that they have given me in looking at this legislation. My admiration for the noble Lord’s organisational abilities is somewhat dented this afternoon because he was not able to get the order higher up the Order Paper. In addition, he does not seem to have arranged heating in this Room. I will move rapidly on.

This order is a result of the Calman commission set up by the Labour Government to look at further areas where devolution could be brought in. The Minister has explained it perfectly well and I have no intention of repeating all that. However, I have a couple of questions; perhaps, as an amateur at the Dispatch Box, I will ask the wrong questions but, as ever, I will try to work it out.

The noble Lord said, if I picked it up right, that £178.2 million was a proportionate share. Is that a Barnett-formula proportionate share? What is the connection to the money that has been spent in Scotland so far? Is there any relation in the Barnett formula calculation to the calculation of how much will be paid out? If there is a difference in one, it would therefore seem to be cash-limited. Is it that every case will be looked at, or that once the money is finished the allocation is finished? Does that mean that no more cases can be looked at?

We are in a rather fluid situation in Scottish political life at the moment because of the forthcoming referendum. Maybe my mother well named me “Thomas”—I do not know—but what guarantees are there that the cash transfer to the Scottish Government will be spent on these matters? In addition, is there any way that the Scottish Government can tamper with the money that has been allocated notionally—and hopefully practically—for local authorities in Scotland and not give them their full allocation? Local authorities in Scotland have quite justified concerns about how the Scottish Government allocate money to them. We dearly need to know whether there is any way, once the money is passed over to the Scottish Government, that we in Westminster have any avenue or platform with which to raise concerns. I may be chasing a hare that is not running, but if the Scottish Government do not provide all that money straight to their local authorities for the set-up costs, is there anything that we here can do about it? Were these safeguard issues discussed for the integrity of the money being spent for the purpose that we at Westminster are allocating it? Was there any mention of these two or three questions—on the finance, the proportion and how it is to be monitored, and safeguards to ensure that local authorities get all the money that is meant for them—during these discussions?

16:00

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. Like me, he may have transport to catch to get back to Scotland. I think that I am just about all right at the moment, but I hear the point that he makes.

The noble Lord’s first question was about funding. I apologise if I did not make it clear but the position is that there has been a total of £178.2 million allocated for the discretionary Social Fund. That allocation for programme funding has been carried forward for the new provisions in England, Scotland and Wales. Therefore, the total for England, Scotland and Wales is £178.2 million and it is being apportioned nationally. The programme funding for Scotland will be £24 million. Clearly, that is higher than my rough calculation of what the Barnett formula will be. I am advised that it is based on what currently is going to Scotland in community care grants and crisis loans by the Department for Work and Pensions.

As I understand it, the fund is currently cash-limited, which will be the case. The Scottish Government and the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities have agreed that funds for the new provision will be ring-fenced for this purpose. Indeed, it is part of the ethos of devolution that, when this money is handed over to the Scottish Government, strings are not attached by the UK Government. Under the devolution settlement, the funds are passed by Westminster to the Scottish Government and are not ring-fenced for a specific purpose.

The Government believe that, even if one could be applied, a ring fence is not the best way to ensure that money reaches vulnerable people; indeed, it could constrain the Scottish Government as it prevents investing in existing services and pooling money with funding from pre-existing services. It may be that they can devise other ways of using that money also to give assistance. That is a matter for the Scottish Government but, as I have also indicated, they have already come to an agreement with CSLA on that, and they have indicated to us their intention to use the funding and to channel it through local authorities. Hence the slightly unusual provision in this order to give, as it were, retrospective effect to the change in the competence so that there is no doubt that local authorities will have the competence under Section 20 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 2003 to implement and administer the scheme.

I hope that that answers the important points made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy. I look forward to the next time we debate a Section 30 order. Perhaps I may say that the devolution settlement is not static and that the Government of which he was a member, and the Government now of which I am a member, have, over the years since the Scottish Parliament was established, responded to changing circumstances and have changed the boundaries of devolution, I believe, very much to the benefit of both the United Kingdom and Scotland. I think that it shows that devolution works. Of course, independence would be an end to devolution, so we must take every opportunity to flag up devolution’s success stories. It is very much a living thing, and that is what we are doing today. I therefore commend this order to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived: EUC Report

Thursday 13th December 2012 Grand Committee

Motion to Take Note

16:04

Moved By

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report of the European Union Committee on the Commission proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, the intention is that after today’s debate a Motion will be moved in the Chamber on Monday inviting the House to agree that a formal reasoned opinion should be issued.

Our report concerns a proposal to create a European Union fund to provide aid to deprived people, which was examined by our Sub-Committee on the Internal Market, Infrastructure and Employment, chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, whom I am delighted to see in her place today. Before I explain our thinking on this proposal, I will briefly explain the background because the committee has considered earlier versions of the policy twice before.

The European Union’s food distribution programme began as far back as 1987 as a way to make use of agricultural surpluses. As the report explains, in both 2010 and 2011 the committee considered proposals relating to the programme to distribute food products. On both occasions the committee suggested that the House should issue a reasoned opinion under the Lisbon treaty because the proposal was not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity—in other words, that this was something that was better done at member state or regional level—and that no compelling argument had been put forward that the European Union was better placed than member states to ensure a food supply to its most deprived citizens. Our view was not shared by a sufficient number of other national parliaments so no so-called “yellow cards” were triggered, which would have inhibited the scheme that the Commission had put forward in those years, and the current scheme was extended to the end of 2013.

The proposal before us today is to create a new “Fund for European Aid to the Most Deprived” to operate from 2014 to 2020 in order to address food deprivation, homelessness and the material deprivation of children. The proposed fund would support and co-finance national schemes to provide non-financial assistance to the most deprived persons. I make it clear that we share the Commission’s concerns about EU citizens suffering from deprivation, and that we recognise the very serious impact of the economic crisis. Our report, though, is about whether the European Commission’s proposal is the right way to respond to these important issues.

The Commission has provided little by way of justification that its proposal complies with the principle of subsidiarity. Our committee had to derive some indication of the Commission’s reasoning by looking at the accompanying impact assessment, which argues that European-level action is necessary because of,

“the level and nature of poverty and social exclusion in the Union, further aggravated by the economic crisis, and uncertainty about the ability of all member States to sustain social expenditure and investment at levels sufficient to ensure that social cohesion does not deteriorate further”.

After careful consideration, our committee concluded that such uncertainty could better be met by action through the existing European Union cohesion programmes, from which money would have to be diverted to fund this scheme, without burdening member states with the extra administrative obligations introduced by the proposal. The committee also concluded that the Commission had failed to put forward any convincing argument that the European Union was better placed than member states to undertake this role, and had therefore failed to justify its implied assertion that the proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity.

In summary, this is an issue of concern about process rather than one of substance. We are not seeking to deny that the substantial matter is important and of interest to all Governments—indeed, to all citizens, in our current economic difficulties—but the principle of subsidiarity is a powerful one. It should be complied with, and our view is that it has not been met on this occasion, hence our proposal to issue a reasoned opinion. I beg to move that the Grand Committee take note of the report.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I find myself, somewhat surprisingly, dealing with this for the Opposition, but I think it is because the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has lead responsibility. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for the very clear way in which he introduced the report and its recommendations.

The specific issue before us is the recommendation that support should be given to a reasoned opinion to the effect that the draft regulation does not comply with the principle of subsidiarity. As we have heard, a similar issue was considered two years ago and the same conclusion reached, although that proposed regulation was withdrawn after the European Court of Justice ruling that purchases from the market, rather than use from intervention stocks, could not be made under agricultural legislation. This generated an amended proposal a year ago on which the UK took the same position, although that did not, as we heard from the noble Lord, prevent the life of the scheme being extended until 2013.

The proposal considered by the committee was for a new fund for European aid to the most deprived with the fund to address food deprivation, homelessness and material deprivation of children. It would run from 2014 to 2020. It is different from the previous programme, which grew out a need to make use of the then agricultural surpluses. It has the three strands that have been outlined. It is understood that it did not propose any additional overall expenditure, but the cost, which would be some €2.5 billion, would be met from the proposed cohesion policy—structural funds—the budget total for which is some €339 billion, or less than 1% of the total. If adopted, it would to that small extent divert funds from the structural funds.

The Commission’s impact assessment sets out that the EU has the objective of reducing by at least 20 million the number of people at risk of poverty or social exclusion by 2020. However, it reports that poverty and social exclusion are rising in many countries. The explanatory note states that in 2010 nearly a quarter of Europeans were at risk of poverty or social exclusion, which was 2 million up on the previous year, with later figures confirming a worsening trend, and this at a time when the ability of member states to support the disadvantaged is in some cases diminishing. In our own country, we see a rise in homelessness and rough sleeping. The latter is up by 23% in the past year alone. According to the IFS, the number of materially deprived children is increasing, and we have the well publicised growth of food banks, and we are one of the richer countries in the EU.

Paragraph 11 of the committee’s report states that it considers that the uncertainty about cohesion can be met by action through existing EU cohesion programmes. I understand that point, but will the Minister—I am not sure whether I should be addressing the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, the Minister or perhaps both of them—expand a little on that belief? How does it address the comment made in the explanatory note that some of the most vulnerable citizens who suffer from extreme forms of poverty are too far removed from the labour market to benefit from the social inclusion measures of the ESF? Would it propose any changes to the ESF programme?

Will the noble Lord please explain whether there is something inherent in the nature of the expenditure proposed in the programme—food deprivation, homelessness and material deprivation of children— which makes this a social policy matter where member states must act on their own accord or does it depend on the ability in practice of member states to resource appropriate individual country programmes? If the latter, can we hear the evidence base for the assessment that each member state is in a position to do what is necessary for its own people? Indeed, is there any point or any scale of food deprivation, homelessness and materially deprived children where the committee would accept a role for such a fund and an EU dimension?

I do not ask these questions to be difficult, but to understand the routes to addressing this awful poverty. I think the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, made the point that this is not about the substance but about the mechanisms available to deal with it.

16:15

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, and indeed the EU Committee for scrutinising the proposal from the Commission and producing the report that we are debating today. Along with the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, I am grateful also to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, for his very clear introduction to this debate. Because he was very comprehensive in going through the history of how we got to the present position, I will not spend any time repeating that history, not least because we are all feeling the chill in this Room and brevity is the key. However, first, it is essential to make the point that the Government share the committee’s view that this Commission proposal is not consistent with the principle of subsidiarity and that we support the Motion put forward today.

In 2011, the Commission sought to extend the existing scheme. It is worth reminding ourselves, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, already has, that the French and German declaration at that time stated that they considered that the conditions were not met for a proposal for a new programme after 2013—even though they had supported at that time the extension of the existing programme—and that they could not agree with legal and financial proposals by the Commission for such a programme in future. In response, the Commission issued a declaration saying that it,

“takes note of the opinion of a significant group of Member States not to pursue the program beyond 2013”,

and that:

“Without prejudice to its right of initiative under the Treaty, the Commission will take account of this strong opposition to any legal and financial proposal of such a program in the future”.

The Commission has now produced a proposal but it is very difficult to see how the Commission has taken account of this strong opposition that was stated at the time. We have to ask what the main changes are in the new proposal.

First, the new scheme is presented as an instrument to promote social cohesion and to contribute to the European 2020 target on reducing poverty, whereas the current scheme has an agricultural legal base. Secondly, the fund will no longer be financed from the CAP but from the structural and cohesion fund, as has already been mentioned, for the 2014-20 budget. Thirdly, the fund will be used to purchase basic consumer goods for the personal use of homeless people or children, as well as to provide food aid. Fourthly, the new fund will be obligatory—this is a key point—whereas the current scheme is optional. Each member state will receive a financial allocation and be required to set up a single national programme to implement the fund in 2014-20. Fifthly, not only will the fund be obligatory, but member states will be required to provide matched funding of at least 15% of the costs of their national programmes—in other words, on top of the welfare programmes we already have in this country. The fund from the European budget will contribute only up to 85% of the costs of the scheme being proposed in most cases. Sixthly, the new fund will be implemented along similar lines to the structural and cohesion funds.

Despite these changes, the Government’s view has not changed. We remain unconvinced as to the merits or appropriateness of this proposal. The principle of subsidiarity, currently enshrined in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union, states that the EU should act collectively only where the objectives of the proposed action cannot be sufficiently achieved by the member states acting on their own, and that they can therefore be better achieved by action on the part of the Union.

We consider that measures to assist the neediest members of society, as set out in this proposal, can be better and more effectively delivered by individual member states through their own social programmes and not at EU level. The member states and their regional and local authorities are best placed to identify and meet the needs of deprived people in their countries and communities, and to do that in ways that are administratively simple and efficient. We will therefore oppose this proposal on the grounds that social measures of this sort are a matter for individual member states.

We are also concerned that the proposal does not represent value for money and would be burdensome to administer. Using EU structural and cohesion fund processes to deliver this instrument would lead to heavy and costly administrative burdens on member states and partner organisations, without adding value to existing arrangements in member states.

Not only is this fund inconsistent with subsidiarity, it will use resources that would be better deployed at national or local level. It is worth pointing out that if this fund were removed from the proposals, the UK could argue for an equivalent reduction of €2.5 billion from the EU budget over the seven years of the multiannual financial framework.

I underline that the Government strongly support measures to tackle poverty and social exclusion and certainly agree with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Boswell. In the UK, we have a full range of social security benefits and tax credits in place to cover financial needs for those who are both in and out of work. We are investing £400 million in the current spending review period to help local authorities prevent and tackle homelessness. We are committed to eradicating child poverty and are taking a new approach to tackling the root causes, including worklessness, educational failure and family breakdown.

On food aid, the Healthy Start scheme provides a nutritional safety net in the form of vouchers for basic healthy foods and free vitamin supplements for pregnant women and children aged under four in disadvantaged and low-income families. Initiatives such as FareShare and FoodCycle are good examples of the essential work that charities are doing to support communities to relieve food poverty.

The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, asked a couple of questions. I know that he directed them to the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, but it is perhaps worth me responding to them. He asked whether each member state provides for the three issues that the new fund would cover. Obviously, I will allow the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, to respond as he sees appropriate on behalf of the committee. From the Government’s perspective, it is clearly not for us to comment on other member states’ ability. Our approach is to tackle the root causes of poverty, as I just said. Any future proposal will have to be considered on its merits and in the circumstances at the time. If an alternative proposal were put forward by the Commission, we would want to consider it rather than set out our views now on whatever alternative might be proposed.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

Just to pick up on that point, a moment ago the Minister said that it is accepted that the EU can act where objectives cannot be sufficiently achieved by member states acting on their own. Does that imply some understanding of the resources that are available to individual member states? Is that part of the judgment about whether, acting on their own, they can deal with the issue?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The principle of subsidiarity is clear. I set that out clearly in my previous remarks and the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, has done the same. It is not for this Government to comment on whether other individual member states feel that they are in a position to be able to fulfil the objectives of the proposed fund.

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

I am sorry to interrupt, but who can therefore make that judgment and how? If the judgment is about whether it can be sufficiently achieved by member states acting on their own—that is what the Minister has just said—who makes that judgment and on what basis? If we are saying that each individual member state has to ignore what the resources are and what the position is in each other member state on this issue, how on earth does that make sense of trying to make that evaluation, which she says is important?

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

The Commission itself, in bringing forward a proposal, has no doubt made a judgment in order to inform its decision to put forward this proposal to fund the scheme. I am saying that it is not for us as a member nation to comment on the ability of other member nations as to whether they can meet the objectives that the fund is there to meet. It is our view, from the position of a member state, that we are can provide for our citizens in the way that we are. We think that the issues to be addressed are better addressed by nation states and by local communities or regional bodies within those nation states because of the nature of the issue. That is the point that I am seeking to make.

I conclude by saying that we agree with the committee that the Commission has provided no convincing argument that its proposal meets the principle of subsidiarity. I restate that I thank the committee for its report and all its members who have contributed to this debate. I repeat that the Government support the Motion on the reasoned opinion.

[Lord Boswell of Aynho]

My Lords, in responding briefly, I join the Minister in thanking all noble Lords who have participated in or attended this debate. I was not sure whether she was going to make a separate contribution but I thank the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, and the members of her sub-committee for the detailed consideration that they gave to this matter, as they always do. We are grateful to them and to the staff of our committees when they look at it.

I also thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. It is rather nice to be debating with him again, as it were, because I am very used to doing so in a social security context and he always asks very penetrating questions, but I did not anticipate finding myself in the position of necessarily having to respond to them. He has touched on one of what we might call the constitutional procedural issues, which is central to this debate, just as much as the real world issues about whether there is poverty and deprivation and how to meet it.

The position is that our committee can consider only those proposals emanating from the Commission that are actually received by the committee, and we will then form a judgment on them in relation to European Union legislation. We cannot, as the Government might be able to at certain stages, negotiate with the Commission or suggest alternatives; it is up to us to look at what it has produced. The central point about this debate on the procedural side is that it is entirely for the Commission to justify how a proposal that it is making at that time meets the principles of subsidiarity. It is the judgment of our committee that it failed to do that convincingly on this occasion—indeed, not for the first time but for the third.

If we begin to touch on some of the points of substance, it is interesting that all this had its genesis in a move to dispose of agricultural surpluses—nearly two and a half decades ago now—and yet it is now being presented as some kind of all-singing, all-dancing fund for the relief of deprivation and social hardship. I make no comment on that, other than to record it and then at least ask what is the best way of dealing with it. That, in a sense, is part of the argument about subsidiarity.

I bring two points to the attention of the Committee. First, the Commission’s proposal does not by itself help to evaluate the social problems of the most deprived in any particular member state, because those are logged, perceived and, to be honest, administered or dealt with at the levels of the national or even local government administrations within those member states. The Commission is not, as it were, adding value, because it is dependent on the member state producing the assessment.

There is an underlying issue there. I take the most extreme case, which we have seen on the television, of Greece—although it is of course not the only country in social difficulties and noble Lords have been quite right to refer to the difficulties in our own country; I am not denying those. If the implied suggestion of the Commission is that Greece has not got the money even to meet the extreme relief programmes because it has no money in its Treasury—or, possibly more sophisticatedly, it is dependent on some other member state donor or other putting it there—our argument would be that it would be more appropriate to consider a wider appraisal through the cohesion fund to see whether the money could be found rather than creating a special vehicle for this purpose. I think that somebody has the idea that a special vehicle is appropriate, but it is still our firm contention that that case has not been made. Rather, it is just moving money around and would of course cost more, as the Minister said in her remarks, to move that money around.

We all know that there is a social problem; it is hardly possible to overlook it. It is certainly a common view that we would be distressed by it. However, the Commission has to be aware, and the treaty requires us to be able to evaluate and come to our conclusions on, whether its proposals meet the obligation of subsidiarity. It remains our contention that they do not. In that spirit, I beg to move.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 4.32 pm.

House of Lords

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 13 December 2012.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Guildford.

Police and Crime Commissioners

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked By

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the proportion of successful candidates for police and crime commissioner posts who were independent of political parties.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach)]

My Lords, I am sure that the House will congratulate the 12 independent police and crime commissioners who have been elected as PCCs for their force areas. Nearly a third of PCCs are independents. Their experience and their willingness to serve the public in such a powerful office can only enhance and strengthen the ability of the police and the wider criminal justice partners to continue to reduce crime, hold the police to account and be the strong advocates of victims.

[Lord Blair of Boughton]

I thank the Minister for his Answer, but I think that there is something further to say. When I worked alongside provincial police forces in the 1990s, their members invariably agreed—and they were right—that policing should not be a subject for party politics, which should be left at the door of their meetings. Does the Minister agree that that sentiment has been clearly expressed once again in these recent elections, but this time by the public, through widespread abstention, an unprecedented proportion of spoiled ballots and a surprisingly high number of successful independent candidates? Does he therefore agree that in future elections all candidates should stand only as independents, on their record and aims alone and free of the encumbrance of party-political endorsement, which appears to be so off-putting to the public?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I hope that noble Lords will agree with me that there is nothing wrong with party politics in its right place. The key thing about the way in which the role of the police and crime commissioners is structured means that the operation of the police will not be politicised. Chief constables will decide all operational matters, such as who is arrested and how investigations are carried out—these will not become political decisions. The policing protocol helps to set out where the PCC’s role ends and that of the chief constable begins.

[Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate]

My Lords, if a police and crime commissioner who represents a party finds that the public in the area he represents take a totally different view at the local level from the policies of that party, which policy should he implement? Should it be the policy of the public who elected him or the party policy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

This is something that all elected politicians have to come to terms with and I see no conflict here. For the first time, we have direct democratic accountability through the role of the PCCs and I see the next PCC elections bearing witness as to how effective this will be, in the sense that people will be making choices, some for someone they think represents their political point of view, while others will be looking for other characteristics. Above all, however, they will be judging on how well the PCCs have performed. That is the challenge that faces those who have taken on this office.

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, surely the high level of abstention to which the noble Lord, Lord Blair, referred, arose from the fact that most of the voters had not a clue who the candidates were. Must not something be done to remedy that before the next round?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think we have discussed this before. There have been a series of Questions on the arrangements for the elections. The Electoral Commission will be producing a report on these elections and the Home Office will take note of it.

[Lord Tomlinson]

Does the noble Lord agree that it is precipitate to be talking about the success of the next elections? The answer we can draw from the previous elections is that they were disastrous in every respect. They did not inspire people to go out and vote, they did not inspire independents to campaign with the effectiveness that many people would have liked to see, and they are by every stretch of the imagination an unacceptable result to which the word “democratic” cannot be properly added.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think the noble Lord has been carried away by his oratory. What I would like to know from the noble Lord is whether he represents a party that will abolish the PCCs. For my part, I see this extension of democratic accountability as unequivocally a good thing, and I hope noble Lords will agree with that.

[Lord Bradshaw]

My Lords, building on the Question put by the noble Lord, Lord Blair, I know from my own experience that experienced, independent members were actually put off from standing for election for two reasons: they could not afford it and they had no means of publicising their candidature other than by spending a lot of their own money. The very fine chairman of one police authority, an independent elected by the elected members of that police authority, was unable to stand for those reasons. What are we going to do to see that this is not the case in the future?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I think that the outcome refutes the noble Lord’s suggestion. I am from Lincolnshire where there were two independent candidates along with the party candidates. I am sure that the very fact that people have chosen to elect independent candidates will encourage other independent candidates to put their names forward next time.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, does the Minister share any of my concern that nearly a third of the newly elected commissioners have appointed well-paid deputies or assistant commissioners without any transparency, selection criteria or adherence to Nolan-type principles?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I should make it clear that the facility for the role of the deputy police and crime commissioner is written into the arrangements, but it is not mandatory. It is indeed not politically restricted and it is designed to assist the PCC in his role. The actual administration of the PCC’s office will be in the control of a finance officer and a head of paid staff. The head of paid staff serves as the monitoring officer. I know the circumstances to which the noble Lord has alluded, but as I have said before, the decisions made by PCCs will be judged by the electorate at the next elections.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that many of the independents who were elected had held high rank as serving police officers? Will he confirm that they will abjure any temptation to outguess a chief constable insofar as operational matters are concerned?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I think that I have made it absolutely clear. There is a protocol that sets down all these matters and I have no doubt that chief constables themselves will make sure that they keep their part of the bargain, as indeed will PCCs.

Energy: Tariffs

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Lord Whitty]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps the Department of Energy and Climate Change and OFGEM have taken towards ensuring that energy companies offer their customers the lowest tariff, as announced by the Prime Minister on 17 October (HC Deb, col 316).

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma)]

My Lords, the Government published a discussion document on 20 November setting out proposals to deliver the Prime Minister’s commitment to ensure that consumers are on the cheapest tariffs. The Government’s proposals build on Ofgem’s latest retail market review proposals published on 26 October. We are consulting on proposals to legislate in the Energy Bill to ensure that energy companies place consumers on the cheapest tariffs that meet their preferences and have clear, personalised information to help them shop around more easily for the best deals across the market.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but the Question asked what steps have been taken. She refers to consultation. I have read the Statement, I have read the consultation paper and I have even tried to read the Energy Bill before another place; but the consultation document deals with simplification, it deals with collective buying, it deals with issues such as the companies offering a single tariff—but there is nothing in there to force companies by regulation to offer the lowest rate, which is what the Prime Minister promised. By the way, the Energy Bill as it stands does not really say anything about consumers until Clause 117.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I remind the noble Lord that at least this Government have taken steps to help consumers who for far too long have not had information which is simple and easy to understand on their bills. The Government are at least taking those proposals forward. Just 15% of households switched last year and that is a really unacceptable percentage. We want to ensure that through the Energy Bill and through our consultations, we are putting the consumer at the heart of what we are doing. I am sure that when the Energy Bill comes to this House the noble Lord will look at it very carefully.

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, whose tariff is employed to heat this House? Is the tariff very low? I ask because it is very cold here.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am afraid that I do not take responsibility for the tariff of this House, but I will take my noble friend’s request back to the facilities department.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, is not the best way to reduce electricity consumption prices to go for voltage optimisation? What is the Government’s attitude towards that?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, we have looked at all aspects of reducing energy bills, even voltage optimisation, but we feel that the path we are taking is one by which we will be able to give a greater mix of energy supplies to consumers and a greater choice.

[Baroness O'Cathain]

My Lords, what is the future for smart meters? All the evidence suggests that smart meters, when installed in the home, cut the cost of electricity, but not to the detriment of heating. They seem to be able to do it in such a way, through the mechanics of the thing, as to benefit the consumer completely. Is the same attitude being taken by the energy companies as was taken by the water companies over the installation of water meters—“No, no, don’t go there, because if we do not install them they will have to pay for more water”?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important part of the work that the Department of Energy and Climate Change is undertaking. Rolling out smart meters in a mass rollout from 2014 will enable consumers to see how much energy they are using and to make choices about whether they need to reduce their own energy consumption. My noble friend raises the question of industry and suppliers. This is very much led by industry and energy suppliers—they are very involved in the rollout of smart meters. We are working collectively.

[Baroness Worthington]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that until there is proper reform of the energy market to introduce genuine competition in generation consumers cannot be guaranteed fair prices, no matter how many tariffs are on offer, and that the Government’s Energy Bill represents a missed opportunity to usher in genuine market reform?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I do not quite know how the noble Baroness can predict what the Energy Bill will do until it arrives. When it arrives, I am sure that we will have long discussions over it. She misses out the point that the Energy Bill has brought certainty for investment. It will create a lot of jobs and ensure that consumers are at the heart of energy policy.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury]

My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is a sad if not tragic reflection on the state of big business today that one has to introduce legislation to prevent it engaging in premeditated deception of the most vulnerable consumers?

[Baroness Verma]

My noble friend speaks as many people feel: there is much that we need to do for the consumer. However, he will also be aware that energy bills have been rising because of wholesale prices rising, a matter over which we have very little control. Many of the increases that have taken place have occurred because of wholesale prices and not because energy companies here are raising prices.

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

My Lords, voltage optimisation is not an alternative to competing energy tariffs—it can be applied in the case of all companies providing electricity. Why do the Government not take it far more seriously, when very substantial gains are available under the introduction of voltage optimisation?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I appreciate the noble Lord’s insistence on this but I will refer to my previous response. We are looking at all options, and we have looked at voltage optimisation.

Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:22

Asked By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to review the Renewable Transport Fuel Obligation in order to support businesses that make biofuels from locally sourced waste and sell it close to where it is produced.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the Government strongly believe that the renewable transport fuel obligation delivers effective and sustainable market-based support to the biofuels industry. The RTFO provides additional support for biofuels made from waste by awarding two renewable transport fuel certificates for each litre supplied. The Department for Transport has committed to a review of the double certificate scheme and the support provided by the RTFO in 2013.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

I thank the noble Earl for his response. There is a real problem here in that small, green businesses making biodiesel from waste products collected locally and sold from their premises are just not getting a fair deal. Will he agree to raise the matter with the Secretary of State for Transport, and will he facilitate a meeting for me with the Secretary of State and relevant officials on this matter?

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, one of the concerns I have identified in private conversations with the noble Lord is the possibility of distorting the market in UCO and biodiesel by importations of ethanol. I will happily raise that with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State.

[Lord Palmer]

My Lords, as one of the instigators of the RTFO, is it not a scandal that our commitment is met by only 11% from home-produced fuel in this country? I must declare an interest as president of the transport division of the Renewable Energy Association.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, I understand the point that the noble Lord is making but we are bound by the WTO trade rules and EU state aid rules.

[Lord Bradshaw]

Does my noble friend agree that there really are two types of renewable fuel? There is that produced from food crops, which are converted, and that which is collected as waste products from places such as fish and chip shops. There is a much greater utility in the second type than in the first. I somehow feel that the Government must go to the World Trade Organisation and the EEC, or somebody else, and make a clear distinction so that they can reward properly the people who are doing a service in stopping the deposit of waste into drains and onto land.

[Earl Attlee]

My noble friend is largely right. That is why fuels derived from waste products get two renewable transport fuel certificates, whereas short rotation first generation crops get only one certificate. However, there is a difficulty and the policy needs to be designed so we do not get indirect land use change problems. My honourable friend Mr Norman Baker is working closely with the European Union to get a solution to that problem.

[Lord Whitty]

I understand this global concern about using what was previously food production land for biofuels. However, when we first proposed the obligation, about 50% of the market was expected to be met from waste using the kind of operation that my noble friend Lord Kennedy is concerned about. There is also the separate problem that British Sugar has planted new land and made a substantial investment. If we renege on or reduce the obligation, it will not bring any return to a major investor in some of our important rural areas.

[Earl Attlee]

My Lords, the noble Lord makes the point that we need to give producers certainty and clarity. Next year we will look at how this obligation-year worked. We cannot start that process until later in the year, because the trading period is to April and certificates can then be issued until August. So we are looking at quite late next year before we have a full data set that we can analyse to see how the market is working. However, I understand the points that the noble Lord makes.

Civil Service: Permanent Secretaries

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Question

11:26

Asked By

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they accept the advice of the Civil Service Commission that the final decision in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries should be made by a selection panel independent of ministers, to safeguard a non-political civil service.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, in view of some of the exaggerated comments in the press in the last few days, it is perhaps best if I quote the statement by the First Civil Service Commissioner earlier this week:

“We agree that Ministers should have significant influence on the appointment of senior civil servants with whom they work closely; and, as more senior jobs are opened up to competition, we have developed a more active role for Ministers in top appointments than is generally understood”.

In paragraph 8 of the accompanying explanatory note on Recruiting Permanent Secretaries: Ministerial Involvement, it says:

“Under the terms of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 the final decision whether or not to appoint the recommended candidate rests with the Prime Minister”.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord for reading extracts, but he has been rather selective. The fact is, his right honourable friend Mr Maude is essentially bullying the Civil Service Commission and threatening new legislation in order to give Secretaries of State the power to appoint Permanent Secretaries. Why are the Government going down that route? Do they not accept that it puts the political neutrality of the Civil Service at peril?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, we do not. I quote the right honourable Jack Straw, who said:

“I welcome his proposals for greater involvement by Secretaries of State in the appointment of their permanent secretaries”.

He went on to say,

“in each of the three permanent secretary appointments that I made”—

that is, Mr Straw—

“in the Home Office, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Justice—I insisted that there was a shortlist of at least three candidates from which I should choose. There was not the least allegation that I had acted in a partisan or cronyist way”.—[Official Report, Commons, 19/6/12; col. 749.]

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, when I was Secretary of State for Industry, I was faced with a retiring Permanent Secretary. I found the names produced for me by the authorities unacceptable but I had hugely admired a senior civil servant from another department. I arranged that he should be appointed. He was one of the most successful Permanent Secretaries in the Department of Industry. A Minister’s involvement in this is absolutely essential.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the relationship between a Minister and his or her Permanent Secretary is clearly key to the effective working of government. Some Members of this House will be old enough to remember the relationship between Dame Evelyn Sharp and Richard Crossman which was famously bitterly hostile. We do not want to go back to that sort of hostile arrangement again.

[Baroness Prashar]

My Lords, the explanatory note by the Civil Service Commission clearly states the appropriate involvement of Ministers in the appointment of Permanent Secretaries. It clearly indicates that it has not crossed the line that would in any way jeopardise the impartiality of our Civil Service. Does the Minister accept that the current Administration hold the Civil Service in trust for the next Administration and that nothing must be done to in any way jeopardise its impartiality? I was quite concerned to read the comments of Francis Maude when he said he was determined to increase the involvement of Ministers in appointments. In asking this question, I declare that I was a Civil Service Commissioner from 2000 to 2005 and had to resist similar efforts by the previous Administration.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, the Prime Minister in speaking to the Liaison Committee in July made clear that he holds very strongly to the Northcote-Trevelyan principles. But one has to modernise to some extent and going further into his speech I was interested by his talking about the gradual opening up of the question of accountability. We are talking about Civil Service accountability to Ministers but also ministerial and official accountability to Parliament. There are some interesting long-term issues here which we need to discuss further. To quote him again:

“I would like to see a gradual opening up of this accountability, with Ministers being given more discretion about permanent secretary appointments, and Select Committees being able to see more civil servants, particularly on implementation and major project issues. Those would be sensible reforms. Let’s do that and see how that works before taking another leap”.

[Lord Wright of Richmond]

My Lords, there was a brief discussion on Radio 4 this morning about whether we should follow the American precedent of fracking oil shale. Does the Minister agree that to follow the other American precedent of politicising the senior branches of the public service would seriously undermine the recommendations of the Northcote-Trevelyan report of 1853 for a permanent Civil Service which, I suggest, has done this country and Ministers a considerable benefit since then?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

My Lords, I entirely agree with that. I felt that Sue Cameron’s article in the Telegraph this morning, clearly based on some rather hostile briefing by, I suspect, retired civil servants, goes enormously over the top in suggesting that ambassadorships were about to be given to donors. We have after all in the past occasionally had political appointments to ambassadorships. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, was one and very successful. There was also Peter Jay and Christopher, Lord Soames. We have held to the principles of Northcote-Trevelyan on political impartiality and we will continue to do so.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords—

[Lord Soley]

My Lords—

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Strathclyde)]

My Lords, we have time. I think it is probably my noble friend Lord Tyler first and then the Labour Party.

[Lord Tyler]

My Lords, my noble friend has touched on the relationship of Ministers to Parliament. I wonder if he would just reinforce and reiterate the point that all Permanent Secretaries are answerable and accountable to Parliament for the whole of their departments, including of course the performance of the head and leadership of that department. Has he noted the suggestion that Secretaries of State might be subjected to confirmatory hearings by departmental Select Committees? Would he confirm that it is the Government’s view that, in this relationship, it is the Secretary of State to the department that is responsible to Parliament? So would it not be more appropriate for the Secretary of State on appointment to be subjected to a confirmatory hearing?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

I will duck answering that question. The question of Civil Service accountability to Parliament is one of those issues now in play which does raise some very large and long-term issues and will need much further debate.

[Lord Soley]

I find a lack of clarity in the Minister’s reply. What many of us are looking for, following the comments by Francis Maude, is a very clear statement that Ministers will not be able to override the normal negotiations that take place and insist on having the Permanent Secretary they want, because that politicises it. At the moment, disagreements are usually resolved by discussion between the Civil Service and the Minister. If we have a situation, which Francis Maude seems to want, of Ministers insisting on having their civil servant, then that politicises it. Certainly what I am looking for—and I think many other people are looking for—is a clear statement from a Government Minister that it is not going to happen.

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

Let me be as clear as I can. The panel is asked to interview those who have applied. It ranks those whom it considers to be above the line in terms of being appointable or not. The issue at stake is whether the Secretary of State, and behind him the Prime Minister and the head of the Civil Service, can change the order of those who are ranked above the line. I recall that, until two years ago, the Prime Minister was able to change the order of those recommended as Archbishop of Canterbury—and on occasion did so, as Margaret Thatcher once famously did. The suggestion that Secretaries of State should not be allowed to at least consider the ranking of those above the line and accepted as appointable by the panel is one that we should consider further.

[Lord Butler of Brockwell]

My Lords—

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

My Lords—

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords—

[Lord Strathclyde]

My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Conservative Party.

[Lord King of Bridgwater]

I am not aware of any complaint from our side of the House about the selection that Mr Jack Straw made on a short list of three which he insisted on having, for which he perfectly properly said that he took final responsibility for his department. Are not those Permanent Secretaries, having been appointed, also entitled to expect that the person who makes the final decision stays in office for slightly more than one year? In the case of both the previous Government and the present Government, can we see a little bit more continuity in Ministers than we have had in recent years?

[Lord Wallace of Saltaire]

The current Government have been doing their best to provide rather greater continuity, particularly in the Ministry of Defence, than the last Government. One has to recognise that this is a difficult relationship. A very good friend of mine who was a senior official under the last Government said to me that if you want to be a senior official with this sort of Government—and he was talking about the last Government—you need always to have in the back of your mind that you could move somewhere else. It is a delicate relationship. We hold to the principles of a permanent Civil Service, but there is unavoidable tension between a Permanent Secretary and a Secretary of State—just as there is in a company between the chief executive and the chairman.

BBC Trust Chairman (Election) Bill [HL]

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

First Reading

11:35

A Bill to make provision for the election of the BBC Trust chairman by licence-fee payers.

The Bill was introduced by Lord Bates, read a first time and ordered to be printed.

Banking Professional Standards

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Agree

11:36

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That notwithstanding the Resolution of this House of 17 July 2012, it be an instruction to the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards that it should report on legislative action no later than 19 December 2012.

Motion agreed.

Public Bodies (Abolition of British Shipbuilders) Order 2013

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Public Bodies (Abolition of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Arbitration Tribunal) Order 2013

Legislative Reform (Constitution of Veterinary Surgeons Preliminary Investigation and Disciplinary Committees) Order 2013

Motions to refer to Grand Committee

11:36

Moved By

[Lord Strathclyde]

That the draft orders be referred to a Grand Committee.

Motions agreed.

Credit Unions

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

11:38

Moved By

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

That this House takes note of the development of credit unions in the United Kingdom.

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I am delighted to open this debate on the development of credit unions in the United Kingdom. I have been a supporter of the credit union movement for well over 25 years. Since coming to the House two and a half years ago, I have tried to raise the profile of credit unions and to campaign for positive reform that will enable the movement to grow and to better serve its members. I firmly believe that a vibrant credit union sector is vital as part of the landscape of different financial organisations offering a range of financial products to citizens. I am a member of the Rainbow Savers credit union and have been for many years. I am also one of the vice-chairs of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Credit Unions. Credit unions are financial co-operatives. I am delighted that in addition to being a Labour Party member, I sit in this House as a member of the Co-operative Party and as one of the 18 Labour and Co-operative Peers.

It is estimated that more than 90% of the UK population are eligible to join a credit union, either because of where they live or the industry in which they work. I am delighted that there is cross-party support in this House and in the other place for the development of credit unions—as there is in the devolved institutions, town halls and council chambers across the United Kingdom. More than 1 million people in Great Britain use credit unions. In June this year, credit unions held savings for their members amounting to £776 million and had £602 million out on loan to members.

In recent years, growth has been impressive. The previous Labour Government and the present coalition Government have both been supportive of the movement. The average membership of a credit union has increased from 200 members in the 1990s to more than 2,000 members today. Many of the bigger credit unions, such as Manchester, Glasgow and London Mutual, often get 200 to 300 applications for membership per month.

However, on an international scale credit union membership and penetration into communities here is on a small scale. Much more needs to be done. Compared with the UK’s 1 million members, the Republic of Ireland, which has a much smaller population, has more than 3 million members of credit unions. Two-thirds of the population of the Republic are members of credit unions. They have well over 10 times the amount of members’ money on deposit that we have in the UK. In the United States of America, 93 million citizens—just over 30% of the population—are members of credit unions, which have $845 billion on deposit. I hope that will give noble Lords some idea of where we fit in on the scale, and of what can be done if we work together.

One positive thing that credit unions do is encourage their members to save. Getting into the habit of saving and putting money aside for a rainy day, for Christmas or for something for the home is a good thing to do. It is a good discipline and a good habit to get into, and it will serve people well throughout their life. Credit unions also provide affordable sources of credit to members at a maximum interest rate of 2% per month, or 26.8% per annum. A £300 loan repaid over 26 weeks will cost a member less than £20 in interest. A similar loan from a home credit provider would cost well in excess of £170 in interest—and that is the nub of the problem.

If you are on a low or fixed income you often get the worst possible deal for finance, and all noble Lords should be angry about that. Why is it acceptable that those with the least should have to pay the most for finance? It is an outrage. With all the changes taking place in benefits and welfare, and with the introduction of universal credit, we should all agree that a sustainable fair-price mechanism to enable people to get the finance they need is desperately needed. An expanding credit union movement fits the bill nicely.

As I have said, if the big society initiative means anything, surely it means people coming together to help themselves and their communities. I contend that credit unions are the big society in action. I was delighted last week when we agreed an amendment to the Financial Services Bill that will cap the interest rates and other charges levied by payday lenders such as Wonga. I hope that the days of 4,000% interest rates from payday lenders will soon come to an end.

London Mutual Credit Union entered the payday lending market because it saw that local people had a need for that. People in desperate situations were coming in through its front door. They were drowning in a sea of debt and paying exorbitant interest rates, to unsympathetic companies whose only solution was to offer them another payday loan and rack up interest, charges and fines. People were offered another big loan that then could not be paid, so London Mutual stepped in. Its interest rate is 26.8% per annum, so if you borrow £400 for one month, you pay £8 interest, not the £120 you would pay with some high street payday lenders.

I accept that no credit union will be able to grow and be financially stable on payday lending alone. The London Mutual added this facility to a suite of products it offers to its members because it saw that there was a desperate need for it as people were being ripped off. Credit unions need to grow and prosper. That cannot be done just through government schemes and grants. They have to grow by attracting new members and savings and building their business on solid foundations. Credit unions must also be attractive to a wide cross-section of the population. They cannot be just institutions where poor people go for finance because no one else will give them any finance. Therefore, credit unions have to have a suite of products. Many of the large ones offer ISAs to their members at very competitive interest rates. Five of the biggest credit unions in the UK now offer mortgages to their members. Credit unions should offer traditional savings and lending, where possible and, where there is a need, look to provide short-term finance in addition to other financial products such as ISAs and much longer-term loans and mortgages where their financial strength allows. The movement should work towards providing financial services that are needed and wanted but do so on a firm footing with a strong financial base and using best business practice to achieve that. The challenge is for the Government, banks, business in general and local authorities all to play their role in supporting the industry to enable credit unions to grow their financial strength and robustness and deliver for their members reasonably priced financial products and services.

What should we be doing? The Government and Parliament need to ensure that the legislative framework in which the credit union sector operates is modern, up to date, flexible and enables it to develop and meet the challenges and take up the opportunities offered by the modern world. A start was made with the passing of the legislative reform order early this year but much more needs to be done. The DWP expansion project is a good government initiative and up to £35.6 million is available to credit union consortia. The aim of the project is to increase membership of credit unions by half a million by March 2015 and a million by March 2017, and increase access to affordable credit so that members save an additional £1 billion in interest payments compared with what they would have paid to high-cost commercial lenders between the start of the project and when it ends in 2019.

The Government should also ensure that the link-up with the Post Office happens. It would be good for the Post Office, develop the back office functions and give every credit union in the country a counter service at every post office, which is a trusted brand and presence on virtually every high street. This link has the potential really to boost confidence in the sector and create expansion.

We have on many occasions in this House spoken about banks and how these financial institutions have let us down. Not all but many banks do indeed have to earn the trust of their customers and the nation at large. Their practices have not been acceptable and people have rightly been cross at their actions. Many banks do some work in the field of credit unions by sponsoring events, reports and activities and some bank staff do a few hours’ work with a local credit union. While this is commendable and welcome, the banks have to do much more. If there are people in the community to whom banks do not want to provide financial products for whatever reason, they have a responsibility to enable the credit union sector to provide those services to people.

I would like to see all the banks—Barclays, HSBC, NatWest, Lloyds TSB and the Co-operative Bank—agree to second staff to work in credit unions. This would not be people just helping out for five hours but the banks identifying bright young people—those who they believe could be running their banks in the years to come and who will have major roles to play—and seconding them to work for credit unions for a year or two as part of their training and development programme. They could help build capacity, improve the management, practices and procedures, and build the robustness of the credit unions to provide financial products to those in the local community to whom the banks do not wish to provide financial services. This is socially responsible and I believe that the banks have a duty to put much more back into the community.

Local authorities have an important role to play in promoting credit unions to their residents. There are excellent examples of partnership working that are a real benefit to the local population and the local economy. Salford University did some research on behalf of Leeds City Council. It found that for every pound invested in credit unions there was a £10 benefit in retained income for the local economy as money was not lost in interest payments. Islington Council automatically signs up every new council tenant with the local credit union. It opens an account for them and puts £2 in it. Southwark, the borough in which I grew up, also works very closely with the London Mutual and actively promotes its services. Glasgow City Council deserves particular praise for the work it does—with its active support and engagement it has the largest credit union membership of any city in the UK. Some 22% of the population of the city of Glasgow are members of credit unions. The work in Glasgow was targeted to overcome organisational barriers to growth and to help the credit unions to become self-sufficient and standing on their own two feet. This is where we have to seek to go. I would like to see the Local Government Association and CoSLA actively encouraging their members to be fully engaged with, and supportive of, credit unions, playing a leading role in ensuring that credit unions in their areas have active agreements and active plans for growth and capacity building.

The social housing sector has also seen the potential for credit unions helping people with the transition to universal credits with jam-jar and ring-fenced accounts for regular outgoings, paying the rent to the landlord before releasing the remainder to the tenant. This has to be an area for further expansion with housing providers working in partnership so it is better for the tenants, the housing provider and the credit union and the work it is seeking to do.

There is also a role for employers to work with credit unions and there are some excellent examples, but quite a lot of them appear to be in the public sector. The private sector should look to engage more as there are real benefits for companies, their staff and local communities with minimal cost on their part.

As I bring my remarks to a close, I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Collins and the noble Lord, Lord Freud, will respond for the Opposition and the Government respectively. I thank all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate who are going to speak today and look forward to their contributions.

11:52

[Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach]

My Lords, I am delighted to take part in this debate and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for initiating it. First, I must declare my interest. Last year I was appointed by my noble friend the Minister to the project steering committee of the DWP credit union expansion project, which reported earlier this year. More recently, I have also supported, but in a very small way, the initiative of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham to explore the potential for developing a credit union within his diocese and, more generally, in the north-east of England.

This involvement grew out of my interest in the subject as a result of being asked back in 2003 by the then shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, Oliver Letwin, to set up and chair a commission on the subject of debt among low-income families, why people get into debt spirals and what might be done to help them. The commission was independent of any political party and reported in March 2005. In that report we made it very clear that we welcomed the growth in alternative sources of credit, especially in relation to commercial banks and doorstep lending, and we made a number of recommendations. On the basis of that, and subsequent involvement, I would like to make three broad points that really support what the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has already said.

The first is that although credit unions are small in number and in the volume of lending, they are nevertheless an important part of the financial services industry for a number of reasons. First, they provide low-income families with access to credit at interest rates lower than those of home credit and payday loans, let alone those of loan sharks. Credit unions have also never been accused of bringing undue pressure on the doorstep in encouraging potential borrowers; nor have they been accused of a lack of transparency.

Secondly, credit unions are an important way of reintroducing the personal element back into banking. The personal element exists today, but only for high net worth individuals. Many customers complain of the lack of the personal element, a problem that has been added to by technology. Credit unions have a key role in reintroducing this personal element into banking.

Thirdly, credit unions are an attractive form of ownership that gives borrowers confidence that they are not being exploited. Those who use these services and have taken part in credit unions speak particularly of the importance of the local and regional dimensions.

Finally, credit unions, as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, said, have at their heart a culture of saving that is desperately needed in this country. If you look at what has happened in the past five, six or seven years in the financial crisis, all elements of our society have gone into debt and have been overspending. The banking sector issued far too much debt through leverage and was a major cause of the financial crisis. As was made clear in the Autumn Statement last week, the percentage of government debt to income is expected to increase over the next three years. Consumer debt still stands at a horrendously high level and is, frankly, not sustainable. Therefore, at the level of individual families, in schools and among young people, credit unions have an important part to play in helping people to manage their finances.

Credit unions have changed over the past decade very much for the better. Membership has doubled and loans to low-income families over the past five years have tripled. Credit unions have recognised the need for change. Surveys have suggested that the people who are using them are very happy with them. The working party of which I was part commissioned a study from Experian. It found that the potential market for credit unions is 7 million people.

However, there is one fundamental problem about credit unions at present. They are not financially viable and, to exist in their present form, they need a continuing subsidy. Some credit unions, the most successful, are financially viable, but they are a small minority. Credit unions have been helped in the past six years, first by the initiative of the previous Government, the Financial Inclusion Growth Fund and, more recently, by reforms that this Government have made. However, in spite of this, in recent years the DWP has ceased to fund 55 credit unions, 25 of which have been forced to close or merge. Credit unions are important but they are not financially viable.

My second broad point is to welcome the initiative of this Government, particularly the interest shown by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, as the Minister responsible, which carries on from the previous Government. The working party faced three scenarios. The first was to do nothing; the second was to figure out how one could help those credit unions which wanted to change and which were viable or could easily become viable; and the third was to look at the issue of a cap on the interest rate. On the first scenario, if we do nothing, then the credit union movement is going to go into decline. Membership will go down and large parts of the country will have no credit unions. On the second scenario, we can support a programme of modernisation and expansion, which is what the Government are doing. Through that programme, you can really see membership of the credit unions doubling with a corresponding increase in the loans they make and the deposits they take and in the value of what they are doing. On the third scenario, the question arises of whether we should have an increase in the maximum rate of interest. At present it is capped at 2% per month. Through research we found that, if you could increase that to 3%, you could make the whole sector financially viable by 2015 or 2016. The argument against that is that you are then raising the annual rate of interest from something like 26% to 44%, which is true. If you were able to increase the rate of interest for limited periods for short-term loans—not for long-term loans—that would make a real contribution to credit unions.

I welcome what the Government are doing and the initiative they are taking. At present, they are very supportive of the credit union movement. However, I have been thinking about this issue for about 10 years and I have to say that I am frustrated. Here is the credit union movement which is what society wants—what people want when they hear more about it—and yet it is always small and struggling. Should we as a society not have a larger vision of what credit unions can do? We know that they play an important role at present. I am a great believer in the free market but we know that it alone is never going to solve the problem of credit unions. The Government continue to invest, which is a good thing, but the quid pro quo is that the credit unions must change.

Following the financial crisis, we have a unique opportunity in this country to restructure our banking system. Back in the 19th century, we had a very competitive banking system with a large mutual sector. In the First World War Lloyd George insisted that the banks financed the war effort by buying gilts, which they did. However, the banks said that, in return, they did not want to compete against each other. As a result, for 60 years, all areas of the City of London had cartels. Only since the 1970s has there been some increase in competition. Banks provide a service that is a public utility. Therefore, there is a strong case for the Government thinking about lifting the rate.

The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned the big society and the banks being part of that. What can we as a society do to increase the role of the trade unions, churches and sports organisations and of the middle class in this area? We know that campaigns relating to things such as cycling, adoption, family courts and tax avoidance can be successful. Is there not something we can do to get the banks more involved? Last week we were told that two of the leading British banks were paying a $2.5 billion fine in the US. If banks can pay fines like that, surely, when the contribution of the Government is only £38 million, they can make more of a contribution to getting credit unions robustly established as part of our society. I make the following proposal, noting that two members of the banking commission are taking part in this debate. Could we not make it a condition of retail banks having a licence that they engage in some way in helping to create stronger mutual organisations, especially credit unions? I suggest that that is where the issue should rest.

12:05

[Lord Graham of Edmonton]

My Lords, it is a joy and a pleasure to take part in this debate. I cannot recall a debate during my time in this House and the other place that has got off to a better start.

I was fascinated by the previous speaker, with his knowledge and his candour about who was doing what and what else should be done. Very often when I listen to a debate, I come to the conclusion that everything that could be said has been said but not by everybody, and those of us who follow inevitably need to tap into the resources of the previous speakers and quote what has already been said. However, this debate provides a first-class opportunity not just to remind the Government about aspiration but to congratulate the many people—I call them the “small people”—who have struggled for a long time in their communities to achieve things.

As noble Lords who are here today will know, my background is in the Co-operative movement. I shudder to say it but it is 70 years since I worked in the general office of the Newcastle Co-op. People used to come in to collect their dividend, which, in a co-operative society and in society in general, was looked upon as a way to save for a rainy day. Of course, coming from Newcastle and having been born in the 1920s, the rainy days came often, and people looked to the aggregation of the value in their passbook. My memory is that people used what they had there to buy a pair of shoes or a pair of towels or whatever, and it was a means by which to save for a rainy day.

When I was studying many years ago, I came across Raiffeisen, the German who helped to create the germs of the credit union movement. Not only do I congratulate the speakers in the debate today but, looking at the speakers list, it is clear that we are going to be well served by experience.

My two pennyworth goes along these lines. The Co-operative movement relies on people helping each other. We are speaking in a year known by the United Nations as the International Year of Co-operatives. Recently, 10,000 people from all over the world from all kinds of co-operative societies and movements gathered in Manchester to celebrate what the Co-operative movement had done for them. Having worked with the movement all my life, I pay tribute to the fact that the zeal still burns in the breasts of those who call themselves co-operatives.

I am very grateful for a document called the Mutuals Yearbook which came through my door. It deals exclusively with mutuals. Not that we get confused, but what we are talking about comes under different names in different places. For instance, the yearbook shows that within the mutual sector there are 424 credit unions. However, that figure may vary and is part of a total of 17,897 mutual organisations in this country, all of which are part of the family of co-operative ideas. The sector includes clubs and societies, football trusts, employee-owned businesses, mutual insurers and building societies, all of which have impressive totals. The co-operative movement has recognised not only that it needs a number of shops, bank accounts and insurance policies but that it is part of a family.

I am heartened by the previous speaker, who encourages me to believe that there is a way of developing the credit union movement. Looking at the general nature of credit unions, we see that they are modest and ambitious. However, the previous speaker was right that we need some fundamental thinking to take us forward to the next step. I was delighted to hear that this was not a new idea. I pay tribute to the Government, their agencies and Ministers as they have certainly recognised the value of credit unions to ordinary working people. We can see the extent of the growth of the credit union movement in this country. I have met many enthusiasts who do what they can, but it is big business as well. For instance, there are credit unions in the police force and retail banking in higher education. When I queried that I was told that the Open University has a credit union. I am very pleased about that as I am a graduate of the Open University, and it warmed the cockles of my heart.

The fire service, the Post Office and local authorities are involved. Local authorities have a great opportunity. I am not saying what they should or should not do. It is incredible to think of it but 50 years ago I was the leader of the London Borough of Enfield, so I recognise the complexity and width of the responsibilities. I believe that for anyone who is serious about helping ordinary people, a credit union is a good adjunct to that.

How we go about widening and deepening the credit union movement is a very big topic. I am conscious of the financial situation of the nation and for individuals. We all know about the banking crisis and its effects, the amount of pay-offs, and so on. It is a different world from the credit union movement, which is what I am talking about. It is heartening that in the past 12 months, 100,000 people have changed their banking arrangements and transferred to the Co-operative Bank, which has a reputation as the ethical bank. Trust is the most important factor. People must feel secure and there must be modest profitability.

The greatest issue for ordinary people is security—they want to know that their money is safe. The number of credit unions going out of existence because they have put their members’ money in peril or difficulty is infinitesimal although one or two do fail. The greatest contribution this debate can make is to ask the Government—because the Government are the Government and they want to do their best—to look seriously at ways and means of providing a service for training and an understanding of the money world. Some people, perhaps naively, believe that all they have to do is make an announcement in the newsletter of the tenants’ association. Unfortunately, in this world, that is not all that is needed.

My contribution to the debate is to thank the opening and second speakers and hope that noble Lords will congratulate the third speaker in due time. However, whether or not they do, as far as I am concerned the credit union movement is part of the family of co-operatives, which have been in existence for a very long time. I hope sincerely that when the dust dies down and Ministers are talking about us all being in this together, they will see that there are people at the bottom end of the scale who are desperate and need encouragement and support. The reputation of bankers and banks has gone down and the reputation of credit unions and their ilk has gone up. That is simply because of trust. People who have great responsibilities to run a family or a community are beside themselves with perils and we need to build up the picture, even more than now, that credit unions are not only worth while but that they are safe and sound.

I congratulate the mover and second speaker on bringing their experience to the debate. The House has been very well served.

12:16

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chair of Housing 21, a national provider of retirement homes, and as former chair of First Wessex housing group, which is heavily involved in supporting credit unions on the south coast.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, on initiating the debate at a very timely period in the development of credit unions. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, for all the work and dedication he has given to social inclusion and the development of credit unions. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Graham, on his speech and on his dedication and commitment to the co-operative and mutual movement.

I warmly welcome the initiatives being taken by the Government, led by my noble friend Lord Freud and the Minister of State for Pensions, Steve Webb, in building on the work of the previous Government on credit union development. We all know—we heard some of the figures this morning—that 1.4 million adults have no bank account; that 7 million people are using high-cost credit lenders; and that social exclusion and the disadvantage of not having access to bank facilities are big problems.

This comes at a time when, frankly, the clearing banks—I certainly welcome the suggestions and initiatives proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths—have been largely removing their risks and their unprofitable businesses so that they probably no longer have the day-to-day regional and local branch network contacts that they could develop into this market within their current structures.

We also know that pressures from the recession are contributing to social problems, with more changes of jobs, more part-time work, more uncertainty in households, more debt. Together with the changes in the welfare system, where we will have to confront the move to monthly universal credit, the changes in the discretionary Social Fund and the direct payment of housing benefit to individuals rather than to their housing provider, all these issues stress the importance of the work of credit unions.

If we look at the last decade, there has been a huge growth in the use of credit unions, which suggests that the market is large. I welcome the work of the project steering committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, was a member; we must be aware in this debate of the problems it raised. The cost of the existing credit unions is too high, and as the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, told us, they are not financially viable—unless there are changes. Their processes need modernisation; they are not currently fit for purpose. Many people simply have a lack of awareness about them and how to get in touch with them. However, we know that the market potential for credit unions—the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, mentioned the figure of £7 million, which the working party concluded on—is very significant.

The Government are already pursuing a number of initiatives to follow up that report. They are raising the interest rate chargeable and allowing interest on deposits. They are welcoming a more flexible approach to extending areas of lending, recognising that these organisations will not be viable if we confine their activities to small, risky loans. The Government are also sensible in adopting a phased approach towards sustainable development.

Credit union development needs renewed impetus. It has problems of capacity and development potential; there are simply too many small credit unions. As a result, there are concerns about governance and competence. There is too little awareness in the market of what they can do, and their activities are too restrained. There is a danger that we will have very cautious regulation, when we should be encouraging them. I welcome the partnership between local authorities, the DWP and social housing providers, which is vital to the development of credit unions. These are key interested parties, and they have the most to gain from improving financial awareness, using banking facilities and helping people to better manage their debt.

There are a number of avenues, therefore, that provide a way forward. As somebody involved with housing associations, I certainly welcome a very strong link with housing associations. They could provide help with governance; they could get involved with the process of how rent is paid in the future, particularly with people who do not have bank accounts; and they could make appropriate investment in credit unions. They have an interest in doing so, to reduce their own debts. They have the resources. The best housing associations have a very strong social commitment, as well as being social entrepreneurs. Local housing associations, particularly ones that are regionally based, have a very important role to play in the development of credit unions. They should be using some of their funds to invest in and develop local credit unions in their areas. Local authorities will be central as well.

However, there has to be a greater size for credit unions; this is one of the areas we must encourage. The small, area-based credit unions need to move to a bigger scale, to the counties or the regions, to be viable and have the capacity to expand. To be sustainable, they must also expand their services; they simply will not be viable if they are concentrating on small loans, although that will be a major part of their work.

I welcome the proposed possible links with the Post Office, as one part of the banking offer. Many of these credit unions need the systems and the payment facilities to pursue their activities. The awareness of the Post Office—its strong brand—and its security will help to promote the use of those facilities. We must also encourage more volunteering from the financial sector. On the south coast we had people on secondment from banking and financial services. They are vital in understanding how to make loans, evaluate risk and manage the process. Such people need to be encouraged to come into the credit union sector.

We have to get the balance right between regulation and enterprise. We have to recognise that there will be failures in the sector. We have to protect those who could suffer through those failures, but that is inevitable when you are developing enterprise. However, we must ensure that the successes are greater.

Finally, I leave this thought with noble Lords: in many respects we are returning to an era of the previous century where a lot of people were involved in mutuals and co-operatives, developing services particularly for the poor, out of which grew major businesses and commercial enterprises. Sometimes society venerates the large entrepreneurs, the Richard Bransons and Rupert Murdochs, and gives them credit for building up million-pound businesses, but I recall the housing association I was first involved with, the Portsmouth Housing Association. That was started up by a vicar, Canon Bill Sargent, a very disciplined and determined man. He bought the first house for the housing association in 1972; in 2007 the business was capitalised at over £1 million and now it is part of a business several times that size. That is a huge achievement and these people need to be venerated as much as those who are involved in more publicity-conscious commercial enterprises. Local building societies, the Co-operative Bank and even some other banks started up through somewhat similar local initiatives in the 19th century and before, and they met a social need. Now we must find that combination of localism, meeting social need and social enterprise as we go forward.

12:26

[The Lord Bishop of Durham]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I warmly welcome the debate and have had the pleasure of entering into discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, around this subject. The powerful contributions of the noble Lords, Lord Griffiths, Lord Graham and Lord Stoneham, have taken away much of what I wanted to say, so I shall be surprisingly brief. In looking at credit unions, we need to remember that one of the most significant aspects of modern life is that accessible finance and affordable credit have become as much a basic utility as many other areas that we considered to be utilities. It is because of that, along with the move towards universal credit and particularly the changes to housing benefit, which have just been referred to, that the time for credit unions has come in a way that we have not seen since the 19th century. Many of the suggestions that have been made today speak to how credit unions can come into their own.

A few weeks ago I held a meeting in my office with leaders of the credit union movement in north-east England, especially in my own diocese. We had three credit unions, a large one based in Newcastle, a middle-sized one based in Stanley Crook and a small one from the Darlington area. There one could see the whole range of what credit unions do, from mortgages at the large end down to very small loans made on a voluntary basis out of someone’s front room at the other. In some ways, the middle-sized one was the most interesting because it was run by a woman of extraordinary entrepreneurial gifts—we have just heard that kind of thing mentioned—who moved the credit union from its office into the back of a white-goods and furniture store so that those who needed washing machines or furniture, instead of going to the payday or household lender to get the money at an exorbitant rate, could talk about their financial situation in the store with someone from the credit union. That move made good finance and access to credit available in an extremely deprived area. However, in the same meeting we saw the problems that have been mentioned so eloquently this morning.

The credit unions tend to be quite parochial. They tend to split, to divide, to have strong rivalries and not to be good enough at co-operating with each other. Their IT systems are notably lacking. Their management is often well meaning but without the profound expertise that we have seen over the years developing in more sophisticated companies. Also, of course, they face the problem we have heard alluded to, notably by the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, of the interest rate cap. All these things are holding the credit union movement back and therefore, like other noble Lords, I very much welcome the DWP report—which was extremely powerful, very carefully put together and extremely thoughtful—and the Government’s commitment to follow it through with significant investment of funds over the next few years in a way that will make a substantial difference.

The DWP report showed very clearly that there is huge potential in the credit union movement. It keeps capital and profit at a local level. Speaking as someone on the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which has been referred to already this morning, one of the clearest things coming out is the immense centralisation of our financial system, which has got stronger and stronger, particularly since 2008. In a recent, very powerful piece of evidence, Andy Haldane from the Bank of England said that all the evidence shows that even major banks, once they get more than £100 billion in total balance sheet size, cease to have any economies of scale. Yet our banks are multiples of that and it all happens down in London. I am very fond of London—I am not saying anything about London; I have enough correspondence already—but keeping capital and profit local, beginning at the bottom of the tree rather than the top, is essential and is done most effectively by the credit union movement. This is especially needed in the north-east, where we are grievously underbanked, particularly since the demise of the Rock.

The DWP report was extremely optimistic about the feasibility of changing credit unions, provided that they modernise and that there is investment in them. It commented that investment in credit unions by Government is cost-effective, good for consumers and a good investment of government money: it is an effective use of government money with very high levels of gearing to the benefit of local communities. However, Government still have a significant role to play other than in investment. The regulatory environment for credit unions is particularly important. Other the past six months in this House we have been wading through the Financial Services Bill in excruciating detail, brilliantly led by the noble Lord, Lord Sassoon, on many occasions. The Bill sets up an entirely new regulatory structure for financial services in this country. The Government agreed, very imaginatively, to certain changes and amendments to the Bill which will make the role of credit unions more central and more important, but it is essential that the Financial Conduct Authority has its feet held to the fire in order that it delivers the kind of regulatory environment and systems that enable these small organisations to develop and grow and contribute significantly in their local areas.

In addition to the regulatory environment, there is also the convening power of Government. We have heard about the importance of getting the banks involved. The noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, spoke eloquently about the need for secondment, not just for a few hours once a week, but for the brightest and the best of up-and-coming bankers, who find the excitement of working in local communities, who are motivated by seeing the difference they can make, who learn about the ethics that come when they see their clients face to face and who end up running our big banks with all that experience in their background and lodged in the way they do their job. In addition to the banks, which can second staff and help with IT systems, we have heard much about the Post Office, but in my diocese every pit village has a branch of the Co-op. We have had two members of the Co-op speaking to us today. The Co-op is used to handling money and well trusted in the local community. There is also the third sector. The Church of England, of course, and the Roman Catholic Church have branches, if I can put it that way, in every community. We are used to handling money—not as much as we like, often—and we are rather good at it. We have very low levels of fraud. We need to get involved and contribute to this in a powerful and effective way.

I want to sound a brief word of warning. We need to keep the distinct purpose and nature of credit unions. In the 1980s, we saw the growth of the building society movement. As building societies demutualised they became banks, went up with the rocket and down with the stick. We need to prevent that happening to credit unions. Their distinct purpose and nature, their geographical links and their membership links are all essential.

This has been a debate about how we bank at the local level; a very important subject at the moment. It is a cause of much interest, because we are seeing in banking around the country this centralisation of which I have spoken and much criticism of the top level of the banks. Here, we are talking about the other extreme. We need to have a great ambition for the credit union movement to be transformative in local finance and for the ultra-small SMEs, which create the most and the most frequent jobs. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke about the importance of local finance in his own experience over more than half a century. We have heard about the links to housing. This debate is warmly welcomed. The Government have started very well; I hope that they will continue to use their convening power and their ability to bring people together, to hold regulators to account and to get the major players in the financial service sector contributing to credit unions in a way that does not compete with them—because they do not want to be in that area—but that will enable a healthier society.

12:37

[Lord Cormack]

My Lords, it is a very real privilege to be able to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, who has brought a new dimension to our debates on financial matters and will, I trust, continue to do so when he is elevated to an even higher station. We are very fortunate to have him and it is good to have someone in a position of moral authority in our country who is so aware of how society works and aware, too, of the problems surrounding financial institutions.

I was provoked into taking part in this debate because over the past few months the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, has asked a number of pointed Questions on credit unions and I have chipped in. It is not a subject that I have studied in great detail in the past, although no one can represent a constituency in the other place, as I did for 40 years, and not be aware of the enormous problems faced by so many of those less fortunate in society, not be aware of the appalling activities of loan sharks, not be aware of how families are often torn apart, with distress, disintegration of family units and, sometimes even worse, with people being driven to suicide. That is really the background to the debate we are having today. We have had some fascinating and important contributions, not only from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, who introduced the debate so splendidly, but my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach, who has tremendous experience in these areas and who injected a new reality into the debate, for which we are all, I am sure, extremely grateful.

No one in public life who is concerned about the welfare of the less fortunate can fail to be full of admiration for those pioneers of Christian socialism and the Co-operative movement in the 19th century. That is part of the warp and weft of our civilisation, and I honour those people. As a young Conservative, I was just as inspired and motivated by the great speech made in 1872 by Benjamin Disraeli—of course, Mr Miliband is on to this now—when he talked about the need for the Conservative Party to have as one of its prime objectives the elevation of the condition of the people. Those two things march side by side.

One can say, here in 2012, that although credit unions have been around for quite a long time they are an idea whose time has come. We need to have an ambitious acceleration of this movement in the way that my noble friend Lord Griffiths sketched in his speech—as did my noble friend Lord Stoneham, who brought to the debate his great experience of the housing association movement. When my noble friend the Minister comes to reply, I hope that we will hear a sense of real determination to be more ambitious. We are all grateful for what the Government have done and are doing but we need to be more ambitious. The two figures that stuck in my mind from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, were that two-thirds of the population of the Republic of Ireland and something like a third of the population of the United States are involved in credit unions.

At a time when people are often bemused by the advance of technology and the impersonality of the technological society, we need people who can talk to people. How many of your Lordships have not been exasperated when ringing a bank or some other institution on being confronted with a metallic voice instructing you to press button one if you want to inquire about a debit balance and button two for something else? It is bad enough for those of us who have had reasonable educations and think that we are moderately intelligent, but for people who are struggling in the face of debt and difficulty, that sort of thing can be daunting to the point of destruction. The great thing about the credit union, when properly administered, is that people are talking to people.

I was greatly taken by the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, endorsed by others in this debate, that some of the brightest and the best from our banking system—I speak as the father of a banker—should give some time or be seconded to assist the development of these extremely important parts of society. Our bankers should believe, as I hope the best of them do, in responsible capitalism. Like my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I believe in the market economy and in capitalism, but I believe in responsible capitalism.

I have had the privilege, for the last 10 or 12 years, of being involved in the annual award run by First magazine for responsible capitalism. The first chairman of our judges was Lord Dahrendorf and our present chairman is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the former Lord Chief Justice. Each year, we try to give an award to somebody who has really demonstrated responsible capitalism. In the last two years, we have instituted a second award for the SME sector and named it after Lord Dahrendorf. If we believe in responsible capitalism, we believe that the benefits of the market should extend to all our people. It is through the intelligent development of credit unions that that can happen.

Although debates in your Lordships’ House are not always as widely and as well reported as we would like, I hope that people will read today’s speeches by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, my noble friends Lord Griffiths and Lord Stoneham, the noble Lord, Lord Graham, with whom I worked often in the House of Commons many years ago, and of course the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. Running through all their speeches is a coherent thread, saying that those who are among the least fortunate in our society must not be overwhelmed by that society. Because of the rapid advance of technology, there is a real danger that that happens, just as there is a real danger that many of our children and grandchildren will grow up with myriad virtual friends and very few real ones. We have to be aware of these things.

The intelligent development of the credit union movement can help inject a new sense of belonging and community in and throughout our land, so perhaps my noble friend the Minister should ask my noble friend Lord Griffiths to head another inquiry into how we can accelerate the development of the credit union. I would like to see that. My noble friend Lord Griffiths talked about the banks paying these enormous fines and asked whether they could not find relatively small sums of money to augment the development of the credit union. Yes, they could and they should—especially as the taxpayer has such a large stake in those banks. From this debate, a message should go out to those in charge of our great financial institutions, saying that they have an obligation and a responsibility to make it possible for people who are perplexed, and very often greatly worried, to understand the system and to be able to have those in whom they can trust.

The importance of trust is another theme of this debate. That importance runs right through our society, which at the moment is, frankly, in danger. We have had so many examples in recent years of people feeling let down. I will not go into details because your Lordships know the sort of things that I have in mind, However, there is a real chance for the development of this movement, not only in areas such as the diocese of Durham—we had a very good account of that a few minutes ago—but throughout the country. Whether it be my in own rural county of Lincolnshire or the county of Staffordshire, which I had the honour to represent for so long, all over the country there are people who can benefit.

One point that has not been taken up since the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, mentioned it is the need for people of all financial classes, if I can use that word, in society to take part in this movement. This is not merely a helping hand for the poor. It can help those who are in poverty and encourage them to save, making them cope with their debts in a realistic and proper way. We should indeed all be in this together and I would hope that when my noble friend comes to respond on behalf of the Government, a new sense of urgency will have been injected into government quarters and that he will be able to give us a rather more encouraging response than he gave to the last Question from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on the Floor of the House. Although that answer was entirely benign, it indicated progress that would be far too slow. We have a duty to speed it up.

12:49

[Baroness McDonagh]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for bringing about this debate. I also thank him for all the support and advocacy that he gives to the credit union movement. I declare an interest as a member of the Merton & Sutton Credit Union. This debate is so timely. In the last year alone we have seen the average family’s indebtedness increase by 50% in unsecured loans—credit cards, overdrafts and so on. We have seen people retiring £5,000 more in debt. Yet we are spending millions of pounds on financial capability and debt advice, which in itself does nothing if people have nowhere to go. We know that those on low incomes pay the most for everything: for fuel, food, energy bills and housing, and they have the least access to financial services. If they go to a cash withdrawal machine near where they live, they have to pay a fee—often £1.50 for getting out £10.

We also know that those living on the breadline in our country are most likely to be in employment, working very hard and are most likely to have children. Let us think of the individual who may not have access to credit or whose credit may be maxed out. Think of them needing their car for their work. What happens if that car needs fixing? If today they go to a payday company like Wonga and borrow £300, within four weeks they have to pay back that £300, plus £50 interest. We know that this is not possible and they cannot afford to pay £350 within four weeks, so what happens is that they borrow more and get further into debt, often leading to unemployment—a thing they had tried to avoid. However there are alternatives in credit unions. If that same person were a member of a credit union and went today to borrow that same £300, they would be entitled to pay it back over six months and would be charged £20 interest.

The Minister does not need a long litany of stats and facts from me. He will understand all too well these problems and know that every day people have to grapple with indebtedness and everything that it brings: the misery, stress, ill-health, unemployment, poor outcomes for children, homelessness and the overall cost to our society. Instead, I will make some practical suggestions of the sorts of things we might do. First is to encourage employers to bring credit unions into their organisations and organise check-off, so that people can make small regular payments. My second suggestion is to understand the nature of government as one of the biggest employers in this country. Credit unions and check-off should be made known and available to all civil servants. Half of civil servants work in administrative grades. Women earn on average £17,000 a year and men £17,500. They would really benefit from check-off and access to a credit union. The Civil Service also has the beauty of grades where people earn more money and are able to save.

Furthermore, will the Minister support the initiative by my noble friend Lord Kennedy in persuading the authorities at the Houses of Parliament to set up a credit union here at Westminster—which is due to happen soon—and to encourage staff here to save with this credit union by check-off? Will he also extend that facility to Members of this House and of the other place? The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, extended praise to Christian Socialists and to Disraeli for understanding these problems and issues. I would broaden this praise out to all parties, by reminding ourselves of the lesson that Beveridge taught us: that a service for the poor will always be a poor service. It is really important that we ourselves join and understand credit unions. With that experience we can take this knowledge into all the organisations that we work in. We all have an individual as well as a broader responsibility for them.

Lastly, it is fantastic that the Government have made money available for credit unions to bid for, but as a preference I ask them to support all sustainable bids, which brings about greater access to the credit unions, whether it be through the post office system or the internet. I am not for a moment suggesting that any of these recommendations are a panacea or a magic wand. If you are on a low income, raising a family and working hard, it is really tough in today’s environment, but these things will make credit easier to access at reasonable amounts of interest. I thank the Minister for thinking about these suggestions and I would like to thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy again for bringing about this debate.

12:56

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top]

My Lords, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Kennedy, not just for today’s debate, but for continually reminding us of the importance of supporting credit unions and changing the environment in which they operate. I have had long-term experience of credit unions in the north-east. I used to teach at what was Sunderland Polytechnic. I taught only mature students, who had come into higher education without the traditional qualifications, on a course where they would eventually become qualified community or youth workers. There was one incredibly strong woman who came from south Tyneside and who had had a difficult life, but was an incredibly good community organiser. We put her on a placement in an estate in Jarrow where there were real problems. These led to significant intimidation and threats because of the number of lenders and so on who operated on the estate without any controls or proper attention. We discussed this and talked about whether she should set up a credit union, which she did. It is now a strong and powerful credit union.

Subsequently, I joined my local credit union as an investor, along with the then Prime Minister. Even so, it did not succeed and I was part of winding it up. However, in the process of doing it, we encouraged other credit unions in Durham to look at merging. They did not quite get that far, but we were able to get housing providers in Derwentside and Wear Valley to support their local credit union. They made this a major issue in their tenants’ away days and in other ways when they put on events for tenants. They really got them to look at how they manage their money and brought in the credit union to help that thinking and spread good practice. Actually, in the housing association in Derwentside, some senior staff got very involved in running the credit union, so it is absolutely strong and has a very good base now. Again, I recommend that to others.

I also managed to get Barclays Bank to come and give advice, support and some publicity to the credit union. The banks could do more, and I very much support the ideas that both my noble friend Lord Kennedy and the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, had about them. Banks have a great a responsibility but also they would learn an enormous amount about customer relationships and how to work with people who may not have much money but want to be careful with it and use it effectively. As my noble friend Lady McDonagh said, this debate is very timely. At the beginning of this week, I was talking about food banks. A young MP said to me, “I can’t remember: did we have poverty at this level with this effect during the period of Mrs Thatcher?”. Actually, we did not because the safety net was stronger.

I do not know whether the Minister ever gets the opportunity to wander around towns in poor areas but when I go into Consett, in the constituency that I used to represent, I am horrified at the number of shop fronts that are now easy credit shops. They advertise to folk who I know do not just have nothing but already have massive debts to go in and get another instant loan. Too many of those folk do not have pay days for it to be anything but ridiculous that they are offered that sort of opportunity. They then go into a shop where they get white goods and furniture, and they are charged the most incredible rates of interest on a weekly basis. Of course, in the past social fund loans funded that. The experience that the right reverend Prelate talked about in Stanley—“Big Stanley” as we call it in County Durham—links to that directly. Your cooker has broken down and you need a cooker to cook the kids’ tea so what do you do? What you do now is go to one of those shops where they give you extortionate prices for goods, even sometimes for second-hand goods.

I do not think the Government will be comfortable with that or with that being the end result of stopping social fund loans. We have to rethink this. I am not saying, “Go back to the old system”, but there needs to be something that gives people an opportunity to be able to feed their children without getting into that level of debt. Credit unions are one way—not the only way—but they are simply not there on the high street, certainly not in the north-east. I know that one or two of the very big ones have shop fronts but that is not there for most. The Government have to really think through some of the excellent recommendations that there have been and act quickly. The problem out there is getting more and more serious.

I had a Christmas greeting this week from someone that the Minister may have heard of: Bob Holman. Bob works and lives in Easterhouse, and was many years ago my tutor when I trained to be a social worker in Birmingham. He has more integrity than anyone I have ever met in my life. He left university teaching because he wanted to work on a normal wage among the people who he had been training us to work with. He berates me regularly for not taking a low wage—and for not taking a low wage when I was in Parliament. He lives by his beliefs. He described to me in his Christmas note the number of people in Easterhouse now using the food bank as the only way they can feed their children. He talked about the café they had opened at the local church, where they give free tea and coffee and subsidised meals. Bob, of course, is the person who persuaded Iain Duncan Smith to take poverty seriously when he visited that estate.

I do not think any of us can be proud of what is happening today on estates like that. The Government have a responsibility in this. I could have gone on about all the other ideas that everybody has had but I do not want to take up the House’s time. I hope that the Government will take up these good ideas but will also implement them quickly so that more people have access to decent credit and savings in a way that the credit union movement enables them to do.

13:06

[Lord McFall of Alcluith]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today and in particular to congratulate my noble friend Lord Kennedy on initiating it and, as has been mentioned previously, his continuing work to emphasise this particular issue.

As a member of the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, I and my colleague in the other place, John Thurso, visited Edinburgh last week to take evidence from credit unions, Citizens Advice and money advice services. The question in our minds was: how can we have a banking system that serves the whole of society, especially low-income and unbanked people who are not presently covered, and is there a duty on society and institutions to ensure that everyone participates fully in that society? We have moved from a banking system in which only a fraction of the population had bank accounts to a situation where people need a bank account even to receive state benefits. The banking system is now central to everything that goes on in society. Consequently, the treatment of ordinary citizens by banks—not simply the corporate context—is pivotal to adapting the present system to serve the modern needs of society.

It is a fact that those financially excluded are now also socially excluded. That is where credit unions come in. Mention has been made of the feasibility study done by the DWP in May 2012, a good piece of work which found that the total market for modern banking services for low-income people could be as high as 7 million, with 1.4 million in society presently unbanked. Credit unions are ideally placed to help meet this demand and serve that additional 1.4 million people.

Of course, as has been mentioned, consumers trust credit unions to provide their financial services. That is in contrast to what is happening at the moment with the major financial institutions. The motto of the City is: “My word is my bond”. A MORI poll conducted six months or a year ago in the City found that 80% of those who worked there did not recognise that that was the motto, so something has become disengaged. An anchor has slipped somewhere on that and we need that diversity. At the moment we have five or six major financial institutions—banks—in the United Kingdom worth 450% of the country’s GDP. Not only is that uncompetitive but it does not serve the financial stability interests of the country. That diversity is important.

One problem with credit unions, which was mentioned to us last week, is that they are seen as a poor man’s—or woman’s—bank. That is not so on one level, where they have an advantage and strength in offering services to people whom mainstream banks do not presently serve. But on another level, if credit unions are to grow and become fully established as a potent force, they need to attract the full spectrum of savers—from the low-income to the high-income people. The potential for growth in that area is extensive.

Presently, there are good competitive deals existing in the credit union movement. It was pointed out to us that if a credit union can hold interest at 12.7% APR—which is a target that they all try to achieve—for loans of up to £3,000, those rates are among the best in the market. Glasgow Credit Union, the biggest credit union in Britain, at the moment has a £3,000 loan over 36 months at 12.9%. That is better than any loan from any commercial banking organisation. So there are good things going on at community level at the moment. However, the number of credit unions that can offer current accounts and mortgages total only 24 out of the more than 400 in the UK. Thirty-six thousand people have current accounts. Again, only the four biggest credit unions do mortgages. That is a drop in the ocean and gives an illustration of the opportunity.

If the target of an additional 1 million members is to be reached in the next seven years, credit unions need to be attractive to people of all incomes. Talking of that, the new Moderator of the Church of Scotland, the Right Reverend Albert Bogle, was down in Westminster a couple of weeks ago. He invited me to dinner because I had been on the Church of Scotland’s economic commission looking at the future of the economic circumstances in Scotland. We suggested that following that economic commission, and following the Moderator’s interest, it would be good to think of developing something like a Church of Scotland-wide credit union for the whole of Scotland, because in the Church of Scotland you have high-income earners and low-income earners. It is an ideal establishment for that. I have encouraged the new Moderator to talk to the Scottish Government and the DWP so that we can get that going.

Mention was made earlier of the Irish experience. If we look at the experience in Ireland going back to the 1950s, it was the church there, particularly the Catholic Church, that encouraged members on higher incomes to save so that they could embrace members who needed to borrow, and do so at more affordable and ethical rates. The coverage of credit unions in Britain is 1%, while the coverage of credit unions on the whole island of Ireland, comprising the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, is reaching 30%. So there is a good example for us to follow in that particular area.

The message for today is that credit unions are not the poor man’s or woman’s bank; they are everyone’s bank. I am proud to have been influential in my own area when I was a Member of Parliament in establishing a credit union in Dumbarton, particularly ensuring the common bond. My wife and I were founding members.

I also had the Dalmuir Credit Union in my constituency, which was started by one woman, the late Rose Dorman. It now serves more than 6,000 members and is one of the most flourishing credit unions, but it was down to her social entrepreneurship. There are many Rose Dormans up and down the land. So faithful was she to the credit union movement that when she was dying in St Margaret’s hospice, she called me in to visit her to tell me that the then Treasury consultation paper on credit unions was flawed and she wanted me to do something about it—and we did listen to her in part on that.

What has been suggested this morning came up in evidence last week in Edinburgh, that a major step forward to make credit unions more widely available would be that partnership with the Post Office network. We have been informed that that could indeed be possible if technology could be put in place and if funding was made available by the DWP from the credit union expansion project.

It is important here to emphasise points that have been made earlier. There is a complementary role between banks and credit unions, not just a competitive role—one that is in the interests of both entities: a strong mutual sector, a strong credit union sector and a strong commercial sector learning from the best of each other and thereby helping to serve the interests of consumers in society.

Already there has been some recognition from banks that credit unions have a part to play. For example, the Co-op Bank provides, on a commercial basis, back-office facilities for current accounts; the Clydesdale Bank provides back-office facilities for debit cards; Barclays, the Co-op and Santander post events and provide research for credit unions. The Co-op Bank in particular has seen a host of new business in the past 12 months, as my noble friend Lord Graham has mentioned. That is down to its ethical policy.

We cannot leave this debate without touching on those two words: culture and ethics—culture meaning behaviour and ethics meaning how we resolve the many conflicts of interest in financial services. As one former bank chief executive said to me when I was examining the financial crisis, “It is as if too often people had given up asking if something was the right thing to do and focused only on whether it was legal”.

If we are to build a market that is efficient and fair, non-market values have to underpin it. I refer to Adam Smith, professor of moral theology in 1759 at my alma mater Glasgow University, from which I was proud to receive an honorary doctorate a few years ago. In his writings, Adam Smith was convinced of the necessity of a well functioning market economy, but not of its sufficiency. In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, published in 1759, he argued that while prudence was,

“of all virtues that which is most helpful to the individual … humanity, justice, generosity, and public spirit, are the qualities most useful to others”.

He was also deeply concerned at the inequality and poverty that might remain in an otherwise successful market economy. Today we are witnessing those very issues of widening inequality and deepening poverty. Smith’s comments are as relevant today as they were when they were written more than 250 years ago.

Financial inclusion, diversity in the banking model, reinvigorating mutuality and the establishment of a new ethical framework and culture are urgent. The credit union movement is integral to these initiatives. It deserves our support not only on these market considerations but on those non-market sentiments and qualities of justice and public spirit, alluded to previously, which they execute on a modest yet ambitious daily basis up and down the land.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham said the credit union has a distinctive purpose and nature. It is that distinctive purpose and nature that will be beneficial to the financial services industry and to the wider consumer—and one which we must take seriously today, move the debate on, turn things into reality, and make it a big player in financial services in the United Kingdom.

13:18

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I am grateful to be allowed to speak very shortly in the gap. It was only late yesterday that I realised that I would be able to be in London today.

I applaud and admire the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, for his sterling efforts, not only today but over the years, in relation to this particular aspect. I accept that it is only credit unions, or some development along very similar lines, that can solve the problem that is a burden for so many of our fellow countrymen. Millions of people in desperate economic conditions suffer the tyrannies of what is euphemistically called the sub-prime credit market. They are not there because they want to be but because the harsh conditions of their life have left them no options.

However, they are not without a shield; that is my point. The Consumer Credit Act 1974 was replaced by the Consumer Credit Act 2006, which extended its provisions and made them much more prevalent. The Act allows a judge in a civil court, whenever it is believed that a borrower has been unfairly dealt with, to intervene substantially and radically in relation to the contract. The judge can do so if he is of the view that the terms of the contract were less than fair, or that the way in which the creditor has acted was less than fair in all circumstances. On the face of it, that could bring about a virtual nemesis of the tyranny exercised by so many creditors in this regard. Even the best of them profit from a situation where there is a huge imbalance of status between creditor and debtor.

Unfortunately, very little use seems to have been made of that legislation. My brief appeal today is that this shield that can protect so many of our fellow countrymen in the years in which we will develop what I trust will be a very wholesome credit union situation, comparable with that in North America, the Republic of Ireland and Australasia, is used to ensure that those people are not left without protection. Society can do a great deal to allow these people to know that they have basic, fundamental rights under the Act of 2006. I would like to see the Judicial Studies Board of every circuit in England and Wales propagate the need for judges to give the fullest possible commitment on this matter, so that justice can be done to a limited degree in the short term for those people who so need it in this context.

13:22

[Lord Collins of Highbury]

My Lords, first I declare an interest as a member and chair of Enterprise the Business Credit Union. I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Kennedy for initiating this debate, and I congratulate all speakers on making terrific contributions. I also hope that today’s debate will assist some noble Lords in better distinguishing my noble friend Lord Kennedy and myself—that would be a bonus.

Current estimates are that up to 7 million people use sources of high-cost credit, and 1.4 million people have no transactional bank account. Four million people incur regular bank charges and 850,000 incur financially crippling bank charges because they need help to manage their money better. As we heard in the debate, just 2% of people in the UK are members of a credit union, compared to 24% in Australia, 44% in the United States and up to 75% in Ireland. Credit unions are also growing fast in eastern Europe and parts of South America, Africa and the Far East.

DWP figures show that credit unions offer the most competitive interest rates in the UK market on personal loans of up to about £3,000. They can save borrowers an average of £400 a year. People with incomes in the lowest 10% bracket would be able to save between £5 and £20 per week if they had access to a trusted local credit union. Despite the low levels of participation compared with other countries, credit unions have been growing steadily here over the past 10 years. Membership, assets, savings and loans have all at least doubled recently, laying the foundation for British credit unions to emulate their international counterparts. As my noble friend Lord Graham said, there are about 400 credit unions across England, Scotland and Wales. Well over 1 million people use credit unions, including—very importantly—more than 123,000 junior savers. These young people have their first experience of the financial sector through credit unions.

Figures show that £776 million is being saved in British credit unions and £602 million is out on loan to members. As we heard, 25 credit unions across the UK now offer current accounts, with more than 34,000 people holding one. Some credit unions offer mortgages, cash ISAs and insurance products. Credit unions operating in Britain today are extremely varied in size, in membership and in the range of services they offer, but they all share a basic philosophy of mutual support and co-operation. The uniqueness of many credit unions is their connection to communities and, more importantly, their commitment to localism.

The changes to the Credit Unions Act 1979 that came into force in January 2012 through the LRO will enable credit unions to provide far more than simply a banking solution for the financially excluded. Often, local communities want to save locally in order to be able to provide lending opportunities to support local businesses and help regenerate and reinvigorate their communities. This was highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. This modernisation of credit unions has enabled and will enable a much more fundamental change in which they will shift from targeting the financially excluded to becoming fully inclusive. They are teaming up with associations and charities to find innovative ways of meeting the needs of new groups of members. We also heard in today’s debate about the social housing sector. The new unions will be available to all, accessed locally, fair, safe and simple. They will bring banking back into the heart of every community.

The investment in credit unions announced in June by the noble Lord, Lord Freud, following the decision to take forward the recommendations of the independent credit union feasibility study, is extremely welcome; it is terrific news. The objectives of the Credit Union Expansion Project are very ambitious. The project aims to increase credit union membership by at least 500,000 people on lower incomes by March 2015, and to increase this number to 1 million by 2017; to increase access to affordable credit so that members will save an additional £1 billion in interest payments compared to the charges they would otherwise have had to pay to high-cost commercial lenders; and to ensure that credit unions will deliver this expansion in a way that makes them financially sustainable. We have heard how difficult that is.

The £35.6 million of funding available through consortia of credit unions will enable support to go to credit unions of all sizes, enabling them to expand through capacity building and collaboration. The study found that even the biggest credit unions struggle to meet the operating costs of making small loans to people on lower incomes. The project will clearly help—and is helping—to secure the industry’s long-term financial sustainability. Credit unions will be able to buy in the new IT systems and infrastructure needed to increase the number of people they help to save and borrow.

As we heard from my noble friend Lord Kennedy, following the debate and amendments in this House, I welcome the Government’s acceptance of the need to cap the horrendous interest rates charged for so-called payday loans in an attempt to deal with the worst excesses of that market. As many have recognised in today’s debate, payday loans are only part of the story. Within the licensed market we have door-to-door home credit, pawnbrokers, rent-to-buy stores and agency mail order sellers.

We need to empower consumers, providing more information on the alternatives to high-cost lenders. We need to instil a culture of saving earlier on in life—something that schools need to embrace more readily. Trade unions, too, could do more to provide information, and I welcome the recent campaigns by some. Alongside employers, trade unions could also do more to support credit unions through payroll deduction schemes. Again, I welcome the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, that the Government as an employer could work with trade unions in the public sector to promote credit unions. Earlier this year, my own union, Unite, pledged to challenge Britain’s payday lenders by establishing a nationwide credit union network. This followed the launch of a Unite-backed credit union in Salford as the model for such a network. Steve Turner, the national official concerned, said:

“We are trying to get to the point where you can get emergency loans through credit unions, to stop that third week being Wonga week”.

Obviously, the interest rate cap for credit unions makes it difficult to offer sustainable arrangements that would enable them to compete in this way. Therefore, the Government’s proposal to increase the interest rate cap for credit unions from 2% to 3% is welcome. However, I am sure many credit unions will feel that this is difficult for them, as it runs counter to their ethos of low interest rates. I am sure that some may even argue for the removal of the cap altogether. I suspect that neither course is right.

What I hope we shall end up with, in light of the expansion of credit unions, is a change that maintains and safeguards members’ comfort and allows credit unions to get on in a competitive environment, ensuring that they are on equal terms with those other payday, home credit lenders and rent-to-buy stores. Credit unions will find it difficult to reach the targets without the support of the Government. Could the Minister tell us what role a nationwide marketing campaign might play in reaching the target and, if he thinks that this is appropriate, when it might be possible for this to commence? Could the Minister also tell us—and I repeat the question asked by my noble friend Lady McDonagh—what the department will do to expand and support payroll deduction schemes throughout and across government departments? There are many government employees who would seriously benefit from membership of a credit union.

13:34

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I must start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy of Southwark, for securing what has been a really important debate and for his excellent work in supporting the sector, given his position as the vice-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Credit Unions. We have had a lot of very thoughtful contributions today, which I know he will have been pleased to hear. Before I touch on some of those, I must also particularly thank the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, not only for his contribution today but also for his work on the steering committee responsible for the production of our feasibility study, alongside Deanna Oppenheimer, the chair of that team, and Paul Ruddle.

Credit unions play an important part in their local communities by helping low-income consumers, and they can support our aims to tackle problem debt and increase financial inclusion. Today has been an opportunity to reflect on the advances that credit unions have made and what needs to be done in order to provide a wider, more innovative range of financial services to many more consumers. There are 400 credit unions in Great Britain, with £776 million saved in them and more than £602 million currently out on loan. We have 25 credit unions offering current accounts, and some offering mortgages and insurance products. As a number of noble Lords have pointed out, membership of the movement has grown to just over 1 million—and that includes 123,000-odd junior savers. But as the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, pointed out, that is still only 2% of the adult GB population, compared with credit union coverage of 75% in Ireland and 44% in the USA, so there is room for expansion, to say the least.

We have an estimated 7 million people impacted by what is called the poverty premium, which means that they pay much more for credit and goods than other people. Very often their options are limited to home credit, rent-to-buy shops, payday lenders and illegal loan sharks, which leads all too easily to over-indebtedness. A typical home-collected credit loan charges 272% APR, on a £400 loan over 52 weeks. This works out as a total repayment of £728, whereas a similar loan from a credit union would cost £457, a saving of about £270.

For many years, credit unions have been working in partnership with national and local government, commercial organisations and the voluntary sector to improve the financial health of individuals and families. Many MPs and Lords, as we have heard today, have taken—and continue to take—an active role in supporting their local credit unions.

One of the most interesting common themes running through many of today’s speeches from the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, my noble friends Lord Griffiths, Lord Stoneham of Droxford and Lord Cormack, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, was the role of banks in supporting the credit union movement. I ought to make the point that banks are in fact supportive. Many see a role for themselves and, indeed, Deanna Oppenheimer supported our feasibility study out of her role on the retail side of Barclays. We should not just ignore their support, but it is clearly an interesting suggestion from noble Lords about whether one should look to the banks for further and deeper levels of support, both in terms of funding but also, and possibly even more importantly for an industry that needs to grow and mature, in the form of the expertise that can be found in the banking sector.

The DWP provided funds of £113 million to more than 150 credit unions between 2006 and 2012. This money was used to support low-income consumers to access necessary and affordable loans, offering a real alternative to the higher cost lenders. On top of that investment, we implemented the legislative reform order in January 2012, which allowed credit unions to reach out to new groups, provide services to community groups, businesses and social enterprises, and offer interest on savings. That helps the credit unions to grow, but clearly much more needs to be done. That is why, following the publication of the feasibility study findings in May, we looked at how credit unions could provide financial services for up to 1 million more consumers on lower incomes—in other words, doubling their footprint—in a way that would allow the movement to modernise, expand and, most importantly, become sustainable and financially viable. My noble friend Lord Griffiths made the important point that we need this industry to become viable. Those proposals reflected a mood for change that is evident throughout the sector and is shared by many interested stakeholders. The study told us that a new approach is required and that reducing costs, modernising, expanding and reorganising must all be part of the equation for the sector to become viable.

In June we announced that we would proceed with the project and make up to £38 million available over the next three years to credit unions that embrace change and modernisation. More than 60% of consumers contacted by the feasibility study wanted the type of local, trusted service that credit unions provide. We have asked for bids against the funding and are currently in the evaluation phase of the project. I will make a further announcement on this in February next year. I hope that that is soon enough. Some noble Lords have criticised the Government for moving too slowly on this. I hope that that date is soon enough to show that we are pushing ahead with this. However, I emphasise that the project will go ahead only if it is subject to tight project management discipline to maximise the chance of success and minimise the risk of financial failure.

Alongside those proposals, the study also proposed that the Government consider an increase to the credit union APR cap, which is currently set at 2% per calendar month, as that would allow credit unions to make small loans to more low-income people at a competitive rate. The study contained compelling evidence which indicated that the average unit price to deliver a loan was £108 and that making a £400 loan over 12 months would earn only £57 in interest—barely half the amount that it cost. While on the surface it does not seem fair to increase interest rates on loans, particularly for people on low incomes, we must move to a position where credit unions can cover their costs on these smaller loans, or get near to doing so, as these smaller loans are costly in terms of administration and staff time. The 3% charge on a £400 credit union loan would increase from £57 to £82. That is a much lower rate than that payable through the other options facing people who want this kind of loan. The increase will result in people paying about 50p per week extra for that typical average loan in return for access to a service that the feasibility study tells us they need and want. However, I remind noble Lords that this is a permissive change. Credit unions will continue to be free to charge lower rates. Clearly, they will want to do that on larger loans where you do not need to cover the administrative costs or you spread them more effectively.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury, Sajid Javid, has announced that HMT plans to start the rate cap consultation next week, leading to any regulatory change by HMT and BIS being introduced in summer next year. This would allow credit unions to prepare and implement the change from April 2014. The consultation is seeking views on increasing the cap to 3%. Removing the cap entirely would have significant consequences for the movement. The cap is important because it exempts credit unions from consumer credit regulation on the basis that they are not-for-profit, ethical, lending institutions that can be trusted to treat borrowers fairly. Removing this exemption would place a costly burden on credit unions and consumers alike. If the proposal to increase the APR cap to 3% is accepted, the Government will look to ensure that the Consumer Credit Act exemption also remains in place. We are encouraging people to submit their views to the consultation.

I earlier suggested that credit unions must provide a wider, more innovative range of financial services. We hear daily about the growth in payday lenders. Clearly, for some people payday lenders provide a solution which works and is convenient, but they must not be seen as a solution to financial difficulty or a form of credit that is suitable for long-term borrowing. The APR is a very blunt instrument because of the administrative cost involved. If, for example, I was generous enough to lend the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, £50 and wanted it back next Thursday and suggested that he pay £5 for that service and give me back £55, which seems utterly reasonable to me, the APR rate on that would be 14,300%. Actually, because it is a leap year this year, it would be 14,500%. I give that figure to illustrate that you have to be very careful when using an APR which is designed for longer-term loans, where it tries to cover the administrative costs. It becomes ludicrous when you are covering very short-term loans for small amounts of money.

Despite that comparison, the Government have recently tabled an amendment to the Financial Services Bill because clearly we need to take action to protect vulnerable consumers from the worst practices of lenders. That amendment gives the Financial Conduct Authority a specific power to cap the total cost of credit if it considers that it is consistent with its objectives to do so. These powers will come into effect once the FCA takes over regulation of consumer credit in April 2014.

To pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, the current regulator, the Office of Fair Trading, uses the provisions of the Consumer Credit Act and other legislation to regulate the activities of lenders, including payday lenders. When that responsibility moves to the FCA, it will have additional powers and a range of tools to tackle consumer detriment.

Our plans for universal credit will help low-income households to develop greater responsibility for managing their household budgets and support their transition into work. There is a role for credit unions here and, indeed, a number of them are already working with their local housing associations to develop an account that helps with budgeting and ensures that rent is paid, to pick up the point made by my noble friend Lord Stoneham.

We know that most people on low incomes manage their money well, but around 1.3 million working-age adults still do not use a mainstream bank account. The combination of monthly payments, access to a mainstream bank account and the right level of support will make it easier for households to take advantage of, for instance, cheaper tariffs for essential costs such as utility bills. Increased financial responsibility will also allow households to improve their access to affordable credit.

On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy, on jam-jar accounts, we recognise that accounts with in-built budgeting facilities could support some claimants to manage their money and we are currently working with a range of financial providers, including credit unions, to explore the feasibility of offering these accounts to UC claimants. We expect to announce our detailed approach in that area in the new year. We also recognise that people will need some additional help and support from services provided at a local level and we are working with local authorities, housing associations, credit unions, Money Advice Trust, Citizens Advice and other groups as we work out our strategy.

On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, universal credit support will still be available to claimants through budgeting advances, which will help meet unexpected expenses such as household equipment or furniture purchases.

While the support of government is important, it is essential that credit unions attract the appropriate mix of savers and borrowers and working and non-working customers from a range of income levels to become sustainable. It is in that context that I welcome the All Party Parliamentary Group initiative with London Mutual Credit Union to recruit more members from Parliament into credit unions. I support that initiative and look forward to the project launch, which I understand will be in February next year. This picks up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McDonagh, about joining such institutions.

The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Collins, about a nationwide marketing campaign is a good one. I do not have a response today, but I will go and mull on that point because next year could be appropriate timing to look at something like that.

I know that in my own department officials are working to promote the benefits of becoming a member of a credit union and encouraging staff to join or to volunteer to help. In the end, the credit union movement and credit unions themselves must step up and show they have the ambition to change and to serve many more people. It will require real leadership from the sector and a real will to modernise. I am sure that, together, we can develop a sector that is sustainable, innovative, and continues to be central to the communities it serves.

13:53

[Lord Kennedy of Southwark]

My Lords, I thank all noble Lords and the right reverend Prelate for their contributions. It is encouraging that there is so much support across the House. I very much endorse the remarks of many noble Lords about putting the personal back into banking and getting the retail banking sector to step up to the mark. Not having access to bank accounts leaves people at the hands of high-cost payday lenders. This is a huge problem that has to be addressed. Getting the balance right between regulation and enterprise is so important to create the conditions for the sector to prosper. Many noble Lords spoke about the importance of ensuring that the credit unions have the management and professional governance structures in place. I fully support what was said.

We have to be ambitious for the movement and for the sector. I hope the Government will reflect on the debate and see the credit union movement as a key component in the financial marketplace. While some banks have provided support, I was delighted that many noble Lords supported my call for them to do more.

In conclusion, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I can assure all noble Lords that the development of credit unions is a matter I will return to again and again in this House. The noble Lord, Lord Cormack, said the banks could and should do more. It is our job to make sure the banks respond to that challenge as, “Yes, we will do more.”.

Motion agreed.

Personal Independence Payment

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Statement

13:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud)]

My Lords, I will now repeat a Statement made earlier in the other place.

“The Government are committed to enabling disabled people to fulfil their potential and play a full role in society. Crucial to that is the reform of disability living allowance, a lifeline for many but which is simply not working in its current form.

In the past 10 years, the number of people claiming rose by more than a third, from around 2.4 million to 3.2 million and expenditure is now far in excess of initial estimated costs. This year the Department for Work and Pensions expects to spend more than £13 billion on DLA. As a percentage of GDP, we spend a fifth more than the EU average on disability benefits and we expect to spend more in real terms in 2015-16 than we did in 2009-10. Today we are publishing the Government’s consultation responses on the draft assessment criteria and on the detailed design of PIP. Alongside that, I will be laying in draft before Parliament the main PIP regulations, setting out the PIP entitlement conditions, assessment criteria and payment rates. We will also publish in draft what the transitional arrangements might look like. The main scheme regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure and I look forward to debating them in full early next year.

Personal independence payment will be easier to understand and administer, financially sustainable and more objective. Throughout the whole development, we have consulted widely with disabled people and we have used their views to inform policy design and implementation plans. As a result of hearing those views, we have made several key changes to the final assessment criteria. I would like to thank the individuals and organisations who contributed.

Starting with the rates, I am pleased to confirm that the rates for PIP will be set at the same rates as DLA. The daily living enhanced rate of PIP will be the same as the higher-rate care component of DLA, and the standard rate of the daily living component will be set at the middle-rate DLA care component. The mobility rates of PIP will be the same as the DLA rates. Furthermore, following the Autumn Statement, these disability benefits will be protected within our uprating measures. PIP, like DLA and carer’s allowance, will continue to be uprated by inflation.

The most important thing I want to announce today is that we have listened and acted on the huge amount of consultation we have had with disabled people and disability groups. We have made specific key changes as a result of our engagement. These are outlined in full in our consultation responses and include broadening our approach to aids and appliances, assessing ability to read and taking account of specialist orientation aids that help mobility; mirroring the linking rules for DLA, which will help to ensure continuity for people with fluctuating conditions; and new plans for contacting young people when they reach the age of 16, or their appointees, to help a smooth transition to PIP. All the changes we have made address the genuine concerns of disabled people and the organisations representing them. Overall, their effect is to make PIP more transparent, objective and fair.

We also listened carefully to concerns about the speed of reassessment. To that end, we will now undertake a significantly slower reassessment timetable to ensure we get this right. It will be phased in, starting with new claims only, in a controlled start area in the north-west and parts of the north-east of England from April 2013. We will then take new claims nationally from June 2013. From October 2013, we will start reassessing people whose DLA award is due to end, people who report a change in condition and young people who reach the age of 16. But now the peak period of reassessments will not start until October 2015. That means we can learn from the early introduction of PIP, testing our process and making sure the assessment is working correctly before we embark on higher volumes. We will then consider the findings of our first independent review, planned for 2014, and act on them. Importantly, unless people report a change in their condition, those with a lifetime or indefinite DLA award will not be reassessed until October 2015 at the earliest.

We can now publish caseload assumptions about the impact of PIP. Those figures clearly show that PIP will deliver its key objective of focusing support on those with the greatest needs. By October 2015, we estimate that we will have reassessed 560,000 claimants. Of those, 160,000 will get a reduced award and 170,000 will get no award. However, 230,000 will get the same support or more support. Under the new criteria, almost a quarter of PIP recipients will get both of the highest rates, worth £134.40 each week, compared with only 16% on DLA.

By reforming the system and ensuring that it is fit for the 21st century, we can use the money we spend on disabled people more efficiently and effectively to help those most in need”.

14:02

[Lord McKenzie of Luton]

My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Freud, for repeating the Statement made in another place. As my colleague in another place said this morning, we had the written announcement last week on the closure of Remploy factories, involving more than 900 redundancies; now we have a Statement that is intended to remove a vital benefit from thousands of disabled people.

The Statement gives us an overview of the introduction of the personal independence payment. We look forward to the detailed regulations and the transitional arrangements. As ever, the devil will be in the detail, as it is for universal credit. As the Minister said, we will be scrutinising and debating these measures in the early part of the new year. I thank the Minister for a specific briefing for Peers arranged for Monday. It will be useful.

We should be clear that we are in favour of a process of assessment for a new benefit, provided that it is the right one. In his introduction, the Minister made great play of the increasing numbers of DLA recipients, but does he not recognise that part of the increase is for a good reason, that the lives of disabled people have changed dramatically in the past 30 years? The opportunity to live independent lives in the community, rather than move into residential care, is surely something that we should all welcome.

We acknowledge that considerable expertise has been applied in devising the assessment, involving an extensive engagement and consultation, particularly with disabled people and their representatives. The same was said at the time of the WCA’s introduction. It is understood that the face-to-face assessments are to be undertaken partly by Atos and partly by Capita; there is a geographical split. We know that the work of Atos on the WCA has been heavily criticised, and perhaps the Minister can tell us what assessment was undertaken to establish the capacity of each organisation to deliver. Was the capacity of Atos assessed on the basis of an ongoing involvement with the WCA?

Currently, DLA is not taxable, is ignored when calculating tax credits, is not taken into account when calculating any of the means-tested benefits and, depending on the rate, a recipient can claim exemption on VED, provided that the car is for sole use and that the recipient qualifies for the blue badge parking concessions. Will all this passporting be available to recipients of PIP and be included in the universal credit? Can the Minister confirm—I hope that he can—that receipt of PIP will mean exemption from the benefit cap?

The Minister said that the Government estimated that 170,000 of the 560,000 claimants who will be reassessed by October 2015 will not be eligible for PIP. If this is true, what estimate have the Government made of the impact on carers? We will obviously look at impacts in more detail when considering the regulations, but can the Minister give a broad outline of the current DLA caseload that will make up that 170,000? What sort of needs that are recognised in the current DLA will not be recognised in PIP?

It is welcome that PIP is to be set at the same rates as for DLA, with the standard rate for the daily living component being set at the middle-rate DLA care component. However, of course, the issue is not only the rates but who will be accessing them. Given the Government’s disgraceful approach to uprating generally, we should welcome the fact that PIP, like DLA, will continue to be uprated by inflation.

We also welcome the Government’s recognition that the initial proposals on the speed of reassessment were unrealistic and that there will now be a significantly slower pace. Having said that, we are still looking at June 2013 as the vesting date for all new claims. Is the Minister satisfied that the systems are in place to cope with the timetable, especially given everything else that is going on at that time?

There are some further matters on which we will wish to press the Government in the detailed scrutiny. Given that DLA support allows many people to travel to work, what advice and support will the Government give when such support may be taken away from someone? The Government are protecting the under-16s and those over 65; how does this match with the Government’s ambition to get disabled people into work, when the new PIP changes disproportionately impact on working-age disabled people by reducing their financial support? The new criteria must not push people into social care or the NHS. What discussions has the Minister held with the DCLG, local government generally and the NHS on the impact on those hundreds of thousands of people who will lose benefit?

Finally, what will be the overall impact of these measures on the poverty of disabled people? There is a raft of measures in place or about to come into effect that will affect the lives of thousands of disabled people. We have the bedroom tax, the ESA restrictions, the chaos of the WCA and the management of the Atos contract, and the Work Programme, which is not delivering for disabled people. We know that some 2,000 disabled people have been made redundant through the closure of Remploy, and there is the impact of localised council schemes. That is to mention just some of the measures. We are amazed that the Government continue to refuse to develop a comprehensive impact assessment to cover all these issues, and we will continue to press for that.

Having said all that, it is important that PIP delivers for disabled people. We recognise the hard work that has gone into this by officials, Ministers, disabled people and disability groups. It is our responsibility to challenge where appropriate but to give it a fair wind where we can.

14:09

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, for his speech and his—as ever—very thoughtful questions. I will do my best to deal with as many as I can.

I should preface this by saying that we are going to embark on a major exercise and I am determined that it will not be only when we debate the regulations that we will get the information across. There will also be some sessions for noble Lords where we will be able to go through issues with officials and start to look at the detail so that there is a real level of information for all those who are interested. I have made that commitment generally in respect of all the welfare changes we are making, because I acknowledge that there are a lot of them. They require a level of understanding and focus that cannot always be dealt with purely in this Chamber so we have to expand that process.

Picking up the point about the speed of reassessment, that was an issue that I was able to talk about last January, I think it was, when we were very focused on the right speed of introduction. As we introduce a number of very significant changes, we are determined to deliver them safely and steadily, looking carefully at their impacts. That is our approach as we get into the detailed implementation, as it is our approach here and on a lot of the other changes that we are making.

On the question of capacity in relation to Atos, we conducted an open competition in which we measured the capacity of the organisations to deliver on what is the reality on the ground—that was an objective assessment. It is a different process from the WCA, in particular in the delivery, where the bids were looking at delivering a more localised service using health partners.

We are maintaining the existing arrangements for passporting in relation to DWP benefits and we want to ensure that external passports such as concessionary travel and the blue badge scheme are maintained. Those arrangements in particular will be a matter for the other departments which manage the passported services.

It is very difficult to summarise some of the detail about the types of people who are covered by DLA but are not in PIP because we are moving from a non-objective test to an objective test where we can start to measure properly, coherently and systematically the people who really need the support. This test will make sure that the money we have for people who are disabled goes to those who need it most. The figures I have show that, up to 2015-16, we shall be spending more in real terms each year than in the 2009-10 base year.

There has been appropriate consultation across government in introducing PIP. The noble Lord, Lord McKenzie, will have seen the approach to the impact assessments in the Autumn Statement, which goes through segment by segment trying to look at all the impacts on a decile basis. I suspect that he will not be entirely satisfied with that but there is a lot of information in that particular piece of analysis. As the noble Lord will know, like DLA, PIP is payable to those who are both in and out of work. One of the unfortunate myths surrounding DLA among too many communities is that it is an out-of-work benefit, which it is not. It is reflective of need, and people get it either way. We will be signposting people to other available support such as Access to Work which, as noble Lords may remember, has been called “the DWP’s greatest secret”.

I hope I have covered most of the noble Lord’s key questions. However, to the extent that I have not, I will not offer to write on this occasion because I know that we will have ample opportunity to dig into some of these issues over the next couple of months.

14:16

[Baroness Turner of Camden]

My Lords, the noble Lord will no doubt remember that I have raised the issue of Remploy on a number of occasions in the past. My current information is that most of the people who were made redundant as the result of the closure of the Remploy factories remain unemployed now. So getting rid of them has not increased opportunities for them to become independent—quite the contrary. I am sure the Minister knows that the unions involved are still protesting about it and still believe that the closure of the Remploy factories has certainly not helped the disabled people who once worked there and had the opportunity to make some sort of living. There are also, of course, the people who supervised their work—looking after disabled people is a specialist kind of supervision which requires a bit more training perhaps than ordinary supervision—and they also have been made redundant.

I am glad to note that the Government are continuing with their consultation and paying some attention to the way in which the transition from DLA to PIP will take place. That is very important because I have received a number of letters from disabled people expressing a great deal of concern about the transition. Although it is very nice to talk about independence and so on, one of the first things one loses when one becomes at all disabled is a feeling of independence. I speak from some knowledge because I am partially, although not very, disabled myself. Things that you used to do for yourself you have to rely on other people to do for you. It is all very well if you can afford to pay someone else to assist you but that is not the case for very many people. I am fortunate enough in that I can pay for others to assist me, but if I were not able to and relied on DLA, I would be very concerned about whether my independence would continue to be looked after if I had to rely on a different kind of benefit. So it is going to be very important to look at the transition because, as far as I can see, people who are disabled are very worried about moving from one benefit to another.

I ask the Minister: is there an appropriate system of appeal? If people are assessed in a way that they feel is not correct and does not maintain their independence, it is very important that there is a system of appeal. My understanding is that, in the current situation where there are appeals, roughly 40% have been successful. This indicates that the people doing the assessing have not been very skilled in their assessment. It is, therefore, necessary to have an appeal system.

[Lord Freud]

On the noble Baroness’s key question, clearly there will be an appeals system, as there is for the WCA. The reason behind the 40% success rate for those who go to appeal—and that figure is roughly right—is usually that there is new information, either oral or written, which was not originally available. On that basis, I do not think it is fair to say that the original WCA and Atos were at fault. Clearly that is not an appropriate charge if one is looking at a different set of information. The real question is whether all the relevant information can be made available at an early stage. We are looking to make sure that there is not additional information which would mean a claimant going to appeal, as that is expensive. The question is whether we can ascertain that earlier in order to truncate the process.

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester]

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord and his department for listening so extensively to arguments about the needs of disabled people. I am particularly pleased to find that there is a broadening of the definition of people who need to use aids and appliances. At one stage, it looked as though people who used aids and appliances would be thought to be okay and that they would not need any extra resources. Perhaps I may ask a question following on from the one posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, rather than continuing with the Minister’s theme. It concerns the treatment of medical reports. I am rather shocked to find that only a very small proportion of medical reports seem to be read, particularly at the first stage. Will the medical report of every claimant be sought and read by assessors; or will it still be the case that only a proportion of them are read; or will it be left to a decision-maker in the DWP to read them? I am particularly pleased that these regulations are not set in stone yet. Am I right in saying that they are still in draft?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, on my noble friend’s question about the medical reports, my understanding is that all information which is relevant is brought to the assessments, and that indeed people—supporters or family—can be brought forward to make the case and provide evidence. Again, I am not sure about the extent to which the fine detail of this issue is yet locked down. We are going through the details, and indeed on Monday we can start to discuss some of the fine points. The regulations have been laid in draft to be looked at by the various committees—the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee and so on—and I think that that is the stage of the process that we are at. The noble Baroness is looking puzzled. If I am wrong on that, I shall make sure that that is corrected.

[Lord Sutherland of Houndwood]

My Lords, I welcome the Statement. There are a number of good things in it. However, I should like to ask for reassurance on a specific point. Can the Minister reassure us, either now or certainly at the stage at which regulations are introduced, about the extent to which these changes and their impact will be monitored—for example, in relation to the employability of disabled people, in relation to whether there is a rise in demand for additional residential or homecare support, and in relation to whether there is consistency of assessment between the two different assessing bodies? There are a number of points here on which many of us would be much reassured if monitoring arrangements were in place. No Government can get all of this right. We will be bombarded with statistics from around the whole country, and it would be useful to know that central and independent monitoring was taking place.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, we are planning to have a real look at this in the autumn of 2014, once the system is up and running. I am sure that we have not yet fine-tuned the exact nature of what we will be testing for, but consistency of application will clearly be one thing. We generally watch that quite closely but that is likely to be one of the issues, and the impacts will be another area which it is likely that that 2014 process will cover.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, I go back to the question of objective testing. I speak as the father of a 33 year-old Down’s syndrome daughter, who is in supported accommodation and in receipt of DLA. She has recently had her benefits cut to the point where they barely cover her housing and food costs. Were it not for the financial support that she receives from us, her parents, she would not be able to access the integrated drama group, visit the gym or go swimming—the very things that give quality to her life. To what extent would the criteria for assessing PIP cover not just the hard needs that enable a person to survive but the soft needs that enable them to thrive? What assurance will we have that there will be real consistency across the country, rather than the huge variations between local authorities that exist at present?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, clearly what we are talking about today is a centralised national process. There are social care provisions on the ground which local authorities are responsible for. PIP will be far more consistent and, indeed, objective than the current DLA, where the criteria for deciding who is entitled to DLA have become increasingly fuzzy. That is one of the problems associated with DLA. The money is designed to deal with the extra costs of being disabled, and those costs are incurred whether someone is in work or out of work—they are extra costs that need to be borne. However, the point of it being made as a payment, as opposed to a provision, is so that people can decide where best to apply those funds. As the right reverend Prelate said, some people will decide on the softer things, which for certain people are just as important as the harder requirements, but it is up to them to decide how to spend that money.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords, I wish to make two brief comments. First, I have a question, which I am sure the noble Lord will be able to answer. Of the 170,000 people who are going to lose DLA when it moves to PIP, how many are on the current lower-level rate? Secondly, perhaps I may challenge the Minister to be wary of the assumption that DLA should be an objective test. It was never intended to be as such in 1992, when we introduced it, primarily because two people with the same objective disability may have very different competences in coping with that disability. It will depend on their resilience, their family support, their educational ability and their financial resources. Because DLA was person-centred and not a box-ticking exercise against some objective at their assessment, it was able to respond to that difference in competence, as well as to the depth of the disability. I very much hope that the Minister will not be led by a false myth into thinking that this can be reduced to an objective account of external health or mental health which is standardised across the country. It cannot be and, in my view, it should not be.

I support my noble friend very strongly in urging the department to come up with a layered assessment of how all of those benefit changes are interacting. I share briefly with the House a letter I received from a disabled middle-aged lady in an eastern region city who lives in a two-bedroom bungalow. She has rented a nearby garage so that she can charge up her mobility scooter. She is now faced with a housing benefit cut and losing one of her bedrooms of her bungalow, but as she says, there is no one-bedroom bungalow for her to go to. She has had a wet room installed under the disability facilities grant, so if she moves out within five years she would have to repay the grant. If she moves she has to repay the grant; if she stays she has a housing benefit cut. On top of that, she will almost certainly be forced to pay 20% for the first time on council tax, even though she is on benefit, and on top of that, some of her DLA support may also be questioned under PIP. What advice will the noble Lord give me to give to that lady?

[Lord Freud]

Yes, if I can deal with those in order. We do not have a breakdown of where people have moved from.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

My Lords—

[Baroness Stowell of Beeston]

Order. This is a Statement, not a debate.

[Lord Freud]

I am told that we do not have that information. Clearly, we will be able to go through the figures, to the extent that we have them, when we meet on Monday. When I said that PIP was objective, I was not trying to imply that it was using the medical model. It is objective in the sense that it is looked at through specific competences. As the noble Baroness pointed out, people can respond very differently to different levels of disability. Taking the example raised by the noble Baroness, a substantial amount had been spent on adaptations—she referred to the wet room. We have a specific exemption for people with very heavily adapted homes for that reason. It would not make sense to sell, so it would not make sense to move. Clearly, I cannot comment on a particular case but one needs to look closely before one assumes the worst.

In making the different changes to our welfare system, we have set in train a thorough level of monitoring and assessment as we gradually bring these systems in. One of the reasons for our strategy of gradualism and monitoring is to understand what is happening on the ground and make appropriate changes if we find that we have to do so.

[Baroness Uddin]

I hesitate to rise because I missed part of the noble Lord’s Statement. I apologise for that but I have been spurred on by the right reverend Prelate and my noble friend Lady Hollis.

I refer to the way in which the noble Lord has approached this whole matter and the fact that the Statement was supposed to clarify the personal independence payment. I declare an interest as a mother of a child who is 33 and has autism, and I have some experience of speaking to other people. I say with respect that ordinarily and normally the Minister provides a great deal of clarity on such matters. However, today he has been less clear. If he is not able to put forward the case with clarity, how can he reassure the House and people with disabilities and their carers who are in a great deal of confusion, disarray and distress, as clearly laid out by a number of noble Lords this afternoon?

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I made a very full Statement, which I hope was comprehensive. We have focused a lot on people with mental health and learning difficulties. Indeed, we divided communication activity in the new assessment criteria, so there is a new activity focused on reading and understanding signs, symbols and words. That reflects the importance we place on the non-physical side which is one of the areas on which PIP is far more satisfactory than DLA

[Baroness Sherlock]

I shall pick up where my noble friend Lady Hollis stopped. Will the Minister help us to understand the implication of the fact that some people will be better off and some worse off? We cannot understand whether those who will be worse off are those, for example, who are getting the severe disability premium at the moment on one benefit. It is hard to understand. We may simply be redistributing the large amounts of money currently given to people with very high needs by giving smaller amounts of money to those who have lower needs. A number of noble Lords were at a briefing this morning where a range of charities were raising questions with us. Has the Minister been able to reflect, for example, on what happens to those who currently receive severe disability premium—those on mid or high rate DLA who live alone and do not have a carer in receipt of carer’s allowance?

[Lord Freud]

We may have to pick that up and take it later as we are out of time. Within PIP there is a greater concentration towards the people with highest needs. I gave out percentages: I think it was 23% of people on both top rates, which is more than under DLA.

Israel: Arab Citizens

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:37

Moved By

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

That this House takes note of the issues of equality and discrimination affecting Israel’s Arab citizens.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, we each come to debates such as this with our own personal stories. Mine begins with my father who served with the British Mandate force, and I grew up with his memories and photographs, and a strong sense of the historical and moral responsibility that the UK still carries for where Israelis and Palestinians find themselves today. More directly, I have visited the area regularly for the past 35 years, as a one-time trustee of Christian Aid, as a patron of a range of Israeli and Palestinian human rights organisations and also of BibleLands—now Embrace the Middle East. Additionally, my diocese has a companion link with the Anglican Province of Jerusalem and the Middle East. I have met many people of all communities on the ground, and over the years have witnessed a radical change in the composition and culture of Israeli society, with one element of this being increased inequality and discrimination faced by Israel’s Arab citizens. However, I have also seen directly, and wish publicly to affirm, the work of those organisations, including those that are Israeli, working to combat such discrimination and inequality. A wish to highlight both the problem and the work of those seeking to address it are among the reasons I sought this debate, but there are further reasons for having it now.

All the signs are that we may be reaching the end of any realistic prospect of a genuine two-state solution: the past assumption that progress in the peace process would help improve Arab-Jewish relations within Israel no longer holds. Addressing Israeli-Arab discrimination needs now to be seen as a justice issue in its own right and very much framed within a discourse of civil rights. In 2011, the EU acknowledged that Israel’s treatment of its Arab citizens was a core issue that could not be postponed until the peace process is revived.

Secondly, this debate needs to be set within the context of a mood of democratic awakening across the Middle East. Last year, Israel experienced its own democratic awakening with the 14 July movement. Last year’s activism could lead to a deeper process of political awakening, exposing the oppressive power structures and inequalities at the heart of Israeli society, and ultimately opposing all forms of segregation and injustice, including that experienced by Israeli citizens who are Arabs—a term which here I take to include not only Muslim and Christian Palestinians and Bedouin Arabs, but Arabic speaking Druze and a small number of Circassians as well.

My third reason for requesting this debate now is that next year is the 10th anniversary of Justice Theodore Or’s inquiry into Israeli Arab support for the second intifada which concluded that,

“successive generations of Israel’s government have failed to address in a comprehensive and deep fashion the difficult problems created by the existence of a large Arab minority inside the Jewish state. Government handling of the Arab sector has been primarily neglectful and discriminatory”.

They have not shown,

“sufficient sensitivity to the needs of the Arab sector, nor done enough to give this sector its equal share of state resource. The state did not try hard enough to create equality for its Arab citizens or to uproot discriminatory or unjust practices”.

The nature of such discrimination is well documented. Your Lordships will have seen the excellent briefing pack produced by the Library, and I am grateful for briefings not only from various human rights groups but from the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the UK Task Force on issues facing Arab citizens of Israel, whose work I warmly commend, and the Jerusalem-based Jewish Centre for Jewish-Christian Understanding.

In many ways, this debate merely surfaces an ongoing debate in many Jewish circles, in Israel and here. That debate concerns a widening gap in Israeli society between law and practice. In law, Israeli Arabs enjoy full equality and are endowed with the full spectrum of democratic rights. It is also the case that Israeli Arab citizens have made considerable social and economic progress in recent years. Mortality rates have fallen by nearly two-thirds over the past few decades, while life expectancy has risen and infant mortality rates have been slashed.

However, in practice there are many areas of life where Israeli Arabs are systematically disadvantaged. While Israel’s declaration of independence and basic laws purport to enshrine certain rights for Israel’s non-Jewish citizens, there is no explicit constitutional right to equality. Israel is yet to reconcile the tension between its identity as a Jewish state and its claim to be a democracy with equal rights for all. This means that non-Jews are effectively, in many respects, second-class citizens, denied the full rights which their Jewish co-citizens enjoy. As the Association of Civil Rights in Israel has pointed out,

“this is reflected in discriminatory policies in the areas of citizenship rights, economic and social welfare, employment, education and (most crucially) land ownership and development”.

So, Jewish and Arab Israelis have different citizenship rights and constraints in relation to marriage and family reunification. Their economic and social circumstances differ. Despite a legal ban on employment discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or religion, Arab citizens face significant disadvantages in the labour force. The most recent official Israeli survey to look at income differentials between individual employees suggested that the gross monthly income among Arab citizens of Israel was 32% lower than the comparative figure among Jewish citizens. There is, according to Israel’s own National Insurance Institute, a 53.5% incidence of poverty among non-Jewish families compared with 15.2% among Jewish families. Also, Arab communities are among the poorest in Israel. Almost nine in 10 of the localities in the lowest three socio-economic groups are Arab. Arab Bedouin are particularly disadvantaged, with up to 90,000 Bedouin deprived of their ancestral lands and living in what the Israeli Government call “illegally constructed villages” in the Negev where there are virtually no public utilities or government services.

According to the Legal Centre for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, Adalah, the starkest area of inequality and discrimination relates to land holding and planning. It states:

“Jewish and Palestinian citizens of Israel have unequal access to land resources, land rights, and the ability to use the resource of land to develop their communities”.

A UN report in 2003 suggested that Arab citizens, despite their 20%-plus population share, privately own just 3.5% of the state’s total land, while Arab municipalities had jurisdiction over only 2.5% of the total area of the state. In Galilee, despite a 72% share of the population, just 16% of the land is owned by Arab municipalities. Since 1961, there have been 291 new Jewish localities compared with, at most, 25 new non-Jewish ones. It is estimated that Arab citizens of Israel are, in practice, blocked from purchasing or leasing land on around 80% of the land in Israel on the basis of their ethnic identity. The way in which the 2011 admissions law is being used adds to the issue of discrimination a concern about further segregation.

Yet it did not have to be like this, and some of the early aspirations of the founders of the State of Israel were clearly very different. Indeed, the principles of equality and non-discrimination were enshrined in Israel’s declaration of independence of 4 May 1948, when the new state undertook to,

“uphold absolute social and political equality of rights for all citizens, without distinction of religion, race or sex”.

Twenty years ago, there were some grounds for optimism. It is important to remember the constructive work that Yitzhak Rabin did in his second term as Prime Minister to address these issues of inequality in Israel’s life. However, he was probably the last Israeli Prime Minister to do so.

In recent years, the Knesset has passed a raft of discriminatory legislation. In 2009, Avigdo Lieberman’s Yisrael Beitenu party became the second largest coalition partner, after an election campaign during which he repeatedly attacked Israel’s Arab minority. Since then, each Knesset session has been replete with overtly racist Bills that have helped further to alienate Israel’s non-Jewish citizens. Together they seem to be forming a pattern whereby extreme back-bench proposals become watered down to form a steady drip of government initiatives that are slowly eroding minority rights.

This seems to be backed by changes in Jewish Israeli public opinion, with both the FCO and the US Department of State noting a growing and disturbing climate of intolerance, with an increasing desire among a majority of the Jewish public to see preference for Jews over Arabs in various areas of public life and a willingness to see the two communities reducing contact and moving further apart.

Some have suggested that this debate should not be taking place as it colludes with hostility towards Israel rather than offering it a hand of friendship. Nothing could be further from the truth. A peaceful and prosperous Middle East needs a strong and secure Israel. However, threats to Israel’s security come not only from without but also from within. Increased discrimination so easily leads to radicalisation of those discriminated against, whether intentionally or unintentionally. Frustration fermenting beneath the surface could yet bubble over into societal conflict. Should current trends continue unabated, localised intercommunal violence should come as no surprise.

There is the further concern, raised by the Archbishop of Canterbury in a debate in your Lordships’ House a year ago, that discrimination and inequality contribute to the emigration of indigenous Christians from Israel, a further cause of polarisation and loss of community cohesion. By contrast, addressing the discrimination and inequality experienced by Israel’s Arab citizens, and so building community cohesion, could have positive implications both for the State of Israel and for the wider peace process. It would strengthen Israel’s democratic credentials by inviting more participatory models of citizenship, so enhancing a sense of community and belonging. Rehumanising the “other” within Israel might encourage a reframing of the way that Israel negotiates with its Arab neighbours.

The anniversary of the Or report next year offers an important occasion to take stock of the steps and measures that have been taken by the Israeli Government to address the levels of discrimination and inequality faced by Israel’s Arab citizens. Looking back nine years on, there is a widespread feeling that the institutional changes put forward by the Or Commission have not been whole-heartedly adopted. When I tabled a Written Question on the Or report a few months back, the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, responded on 24 September that,

“few of Or’s recommendations on the socio-economic causes of Israeli Arab frustration have been addressed. We continue to urge the Israeli Government to implement the recommendations made by the 2003 Or Commission, specifically to address (i) economic disparities; and (ii) unequal access to land and housing. In general we condemn all instances of inequality and discrimination against individuals and groups because of their faith, ethnicity or nationality”.—[Official Report, 24/9/12; col. WA 265.]

At the heart of this Motion is an understanding of human dignity and well-being. I am sure that all would agree that inequality and discrimination impair human dignity and flourishing. So I note with pleasure the strong interest shown by Her Majesty’s ambassador to Israel in supporting Israel’s minorities. Speaking at the Israeli Equal Opportunities Commission’s 2011 conference, Ambassador Matthew Gould said:

“Israel enjoys the most extraordinary diversity in its population”,

and that the,

“diversity of Israel’s population is something that should be celebrated”.

However, if that diversity is allowed to lead to increasing division, then the fabric of Israel’s society could be fatally damaged. For that to be avoided, the UK and the EU need to continue to press Israeli Governments for the realisation of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, in which Jews and Arabs live together with full and equal human dignity and civil rights.

Ultimately this is a question about the character of the Israeli state, the answer to which must have buy-in from all the communities of which it is composed.

14:51

[Lord Warner]

My Lords, I am sure that we are all grateful to the right reverend Prelate for obtaining this debate and for his constructive, excellent and robust introduction. I should declare my interest at the outset as a trustee of the Council for European Palestinian Relations, an organisation that facilitates visits by European parliamentarians to see at first hand the circumstances in which Palestinians live, in Israel, the Occupied Territories and, indeed, in the external refugee camps. The circumstances in which thousands of Palestinian women, children and vulnerable older people live in many of these areas are, frankly, an international disgrace.

Those of us who regularly raise our concerns about the treatment of Palestinians within Israel and the Occupied Territories are regularly accused of a lack of balance, or told of Israel’s right to defend itself, or reminded of the firing of rockets by Hamas into civilian areas. The disproportionately high levels of Palestinian deaths and casualties, compared with those suffered by Israelis, are consistently and conveniently overlooked. There is always another side to the stories: the Palestinians cannot unite, Hamas is formed of terrorists—even though, somewhat inconveniently, Hamas won a fair and democratic election with international observers in 2006. It is Israel that is the real democracy—an island of democracy in a sea of Arab autocracy. We must not be too hard on Israel, if we want the virtually non-existent peace process to achieve progress and to keep alive the seriously damaged two-state solution. That is the context in which we have come to this kind of debate. Yet year after year, the Palestinians living in this shining example of democracy are seeing their already modest human and civic rights eroded further and further. They are supposed to put up with this without protest. The international community continues to accumulate more and more documents setting out the abuses of Palestinian human rights undertaken by, or at least with the collusion of, the Israeli Government. These catalogues of abuse are simply ignored by Israel, despite strenuous diplomatic efforts on the part of the UK and other Governments to bring them to the attention of Israel’s Government.

The Library’s excellent briefing for this debate identified some of the documentary evidence of Israeli abuses of civic rights and protection of its own citizens. The variety of the sources—UN, US state department, FCO, international human rights organisations, and brave Israeli internal organisations ashamed of their own Government’s behaviour—all lend testimony to the same set of messages, which were extremely well set out by the right reverend Prelate. We are spoilt for choice as to which pieces of documentary evidence we want to alight on. It is striking how little independent counterevidence the Library has been able to find in assembling its excellent briefing.

I want to pick on one document in particular from the Library’s briefing, from the FCO. It quotes from page 206 of the FCO’s April 2012 report to Parliament on human rights and democracy in different countries. In that document the Government drew attention to their continued concerns on Israel and the occupied territories. I quote:

“Our particular concerns included Israeli demolitions and evictions of Palestinians in East Jerusalem and the West Bank; the human rights effects of restrictions on Gaza; the increase in the number of attacks by extremist Israeli settlers; the treatment of Palestinian suspects within the Israel justice system; the high proportion of civilian casualties and fatalities resulting from Israeli airstrikes on Gaza”.

By comparison, they did identify abuses of human rights within Gaza and the Palestinian authorities, but these abuses were modest by comparison with this particular catalogue. I ask the Minister to look at what the FCO, her own department, is citing: the concerns are not the kind of concerns that most British Governments have had with so-called allies and friends. They are on a scale which is fundamentally different in terms of the human rights concerns. Many of the discriminatory actions set out in the various reports are of long standing; but some are more recent, as the right reverend Prelate identified.

I have another example. In March 2011, the Knesset passed laws that authorised rural Jewish and majority communities to reject Palestinian Arab citizens and other “unsuitable” applicants from residency and imposed fines on any government-funded institution, including municipalities, which provide health and education for those commemorating Nakba, the destruction of Palestinian villages and the expulsion of their residents, after Israel’s declaration of independence. That is a recent example of the kind of discriminatory behaviour that is being passed through the Israeli Parliament.

The heart of the problem of Palestinian discrimination is that the status of Palestinians under international human rights instruments, to which Israel is a state party, is that of a national, ethnic, linguistic and religious minority. But the basic laws of Israel do not recognise them as a national minority within the protections that flow from that position. The definition of Israel as a Jewish state makes inequality a continuing practical reality for Israel’s Palestinian citizens. Worse still, they are frequently—and increasingly—seen as a “fifth column”, simply because they are Palestinians.

I do not want to extend this catalogue of discrimination in the remainder of my time, because other speakers will no doubt do some of that. The question is—what should the UK, as part of the international community, do about this established and continuing pattern of behaviour and discrimination? It is a pattern of illegal, inhumane and abusive behaviour. When South Africa was engaged in this kind of behaviour, the international community was so shocked that it imposed sanctions of various kinds to try to change that behaviour. We have tried to brush this issue aside, but we cannot go on finger wagging at the Israeli Government and getting very little in the way of response. The time has come for the UK and its EU partners to start thinking about something else, which is assembling a graduated set of economic and other sanctions to try to encourage the Israeli Government to attend to their duties as a democratic state in terms of removing some of the discrimination against many of their non-Jewish citizens.

Much of the argument in this House in recent times was that we needed to wait for the American presidential elections and get the Americans to help us take this forward. If you listened carefully to the Obama presidential campaign, the speeches made in that campaign made it clear that the time had come for America to do nation-building at home, not abroad. We have to understand that we cannot necessarily rely on activity on the part of the US in terms of pressure on Israel to change some of its behaviour. We have to be a bit more grown up, work with our EU partners, and think about what we as Europeans want to do in trying to encourage Israel to reverse the trend of discrimination against its Arab citizens.

15:01

[Lord Steel of Aikwood]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Warner, and I want to pick up on his last point at the end of my speech. However, I begin by thanking the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate so comprehensively. I am often under attack by some of my Palestinian friends for being a paid-up member of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel. I want to make it clear to them and to the House that there is a clear distinction between being a friend of Israel, which I am, and a friend of the present Government of Israel, which I am certainly not. That is an important distinction which we ought to keep in mind throughout the debate.

My experience of the area goes back to when I was a very young MP. In 1967 I happened to be with a parliamentary delegation to the General Assembly of the United Nations. I remember with pleasure the spirit of optimism in the British delegation. Lord Caradon was the British representative and a key figure in the formulation of UN Resolution 242, which was supposed to be the basis for peace in that part of the world. However, it is a very sad fact that the optimistic mood of 45 years ago has disappeared.

After I became the leader of the Liberal Party, I took a delegation around the Middle East to see for myself what the situation was on the ground. We went to Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and Egypt and were received by the heads of government of all those countries. Four of us wrote a report while sitting in the garden of the embassy in Cairo. The report bears examination today because it was a prelude to the two-state solution. The only member of that group who is still with us is the noble Lord, Lord Alton of Liverpool. But on that visit there was one head of government who did not meet us, and that was the Prime Minister of Israel. Why was that? It was because we had talked to Yasser Arafat in Damascus. Our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, was the young ambassador in Syria at the time, and in those days no British Minister would talk to a member of the Palestine Liberation Organisation because it was a terrorist organisation. Officials could talk to its representatives, but I was the first party leader to talk to Yasser Arafat, whom I met over many years. I had great regard for his capacity as the leader of the PLO, but as the head of the administration, he was an absolute disaster—although that is another story. But not talking to the PLO was simply daft. Today we have come full circle because we do not talk to representatives of Hamas. Why is that? It is even worse now because, although like Arafat at that time, Hamas does not recognise Israel, it has actually been elected in Gaza. We do not like it, but Hamas is there. I do not see any point in continuing a policy of failing to speak to its representatives.

Against that background, it is not surprising that we have seen the appalling launching of rockets against the southern part of Israel, where I have also been. I feel great sympathy for what the population has had to endure. But there is no substitute for talking to people with whom you disagree. The latest threat from the Netanyahu Government to create 3,000 new settlement residences on the West Bank has sounded for the first time a long overdue note of alarm from our own Foreign Office. As described, these settlements would isolate Ramallah and Bethlehem from East Jerusalem and from each other, and would make a complete mockery of any possibility of the two-state solution. That should be deeply alarming not just to this House and the Foreign Office, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has just said, it ought to be of deep concern to the United States, a keen supporter of Israel, as well.

The right reverend Prelate gave us many statistics to illustrate the discrimination between Jewish and Arab citizens in Israel. These statistics are agonisingly familiar to those of us who have followed events in South Africa over many years. Because of my background as a boy in Africa, I was always a keen member of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. During my time as president of that movement I visited South Africa a great deal. One thing that strikes me is the comparison between what is happening to the Arab citizens of Israel today and what happened to the non-white citizens of South Africa then. For example, the resettlement of some Arab citizens from Jerusalem to the West Bank is reminiscent of the Group Areas Act of the apartheid regime. The separate roads in the West Bank used by Israelis and Palestinians to travel are a reminder of the public transport arrangements in apartheid South Africa. What I remember now but which did not strike me at the time concerns the work I did for the AAM with people in South Africa and over here. When one looks at the names of friends of mine from that time—Helen Suzman and Zach de Beer, and others who were not Liberals but perhaps members of the South African Communist Party such as Ruth First, Joe Slovo, Hilda Bernstein, Helen Josephs, Albie Sachs and Ronnie Kasrils—the extraordinary thing was that the leadership of the white resistance to apartheid came from the Jewish community. Why was that? It was because in the decades after the Holocaust there was a deep-seated revulsion against any idea of racial superiority. That is what the right reverend Prelate reminded us of in his remarks. The founding charter of Israel is quite clear on the issue and the present Government have departed very far from it.

I am not naive enough to think that if there was a settlement between Israel and Palestine, international terrorism would disappear, but there is no doubt in my mind that our failure to deal properly and independently with this dispute is breeding Islamic extremism and terrorism around the world. I would therefore argue that it is in our own interests to adopt a far more equable policy.

I want to end on an optimistic note. A couple of weeks ago some of us attended a meeting upstairs with a group of Israeli businessmen who have formed the Israeli Peace Initiative to mirror the Arab Peace Initiative. That is a hopeful sign. They are not politicians but businessmen in Israel who are fed up with the intransigence of their own politicians and who are promoting peace with the Arab world. It is in that context that the end of discrimination against Arab citizens can become a real possibility. I shall finish by making the same point as that made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. I believe that as long as Israel consistently flouts international law, it is quite wrong that we in Europe should maintain a beneficial trade association with a country that is behaving in this way. We have got leverage and it is time that we used it.

15:10

[Lord Bew]

My Lords, like other noble Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for securing this important debate. I start by conceding his critical point that precisely because, in the terms of the overall resolution of the problems of the Middle East, we are, unfortunately, in a period of conflict management rather than conflict resolution, the question of Israel’s minority becomes, in a way, even more important. I declare an interest as chairman of the Anglo-Israel Association and, as the function of that body is to promote understanding between the United Kingdom and Israel, this debate provides an excellent opportunity to do just that.

I want to step back and take a historical perspective before returning to the nub of the debate as it has been defined thus far. Going back to the early part of the last century, school textbooks in the United Kingdom said to young readers that we are a mongrel people and that this was a matter to be proud of. In the United Kingdom it is now accepted that all people, no matter what their colour, background or class, have a right to equality of treatment, and it is one of our most profound defining features as a liberal democracy that we attempt to deliver equality of treatment for all our citizens. Even so, it has to be accepted that even in the United Kingdom at this time we sometimes fail quite markedly in the achievement of that objective. In Northern Ireland, where I come from, the watchword for United Kingdom government policy for several decades was, “equality of esteem for both traditions”, but we can see, even in the past fortnight or so in Belfast, in the riots that have occurred, how difficult it can be to achieve that objective of equality of traditions where these disputes of ethnic, national and religious identity exist.

Israel, however, is a state that exists in quite a different context. Like another liberal, democratic state, the Republic of Ireland, its existence significantly reflects the trauma of one particular ethnic and religious group. In the Republic of Ireland’s case, the brutal trauma is the Great Famine. In Israel’s case it is the Holocaust, a far worse example of trauma than the Great Famine because it was a deliberate, intentional genocide characterised by repeated actions by human individuals—human agency—on a large scale. The Jewish state, like the Irish Catholic state, accepts and has always accepted, as noble Lords have conceded, a responsibility towards its minorities; but as both states have shown, given the importance of one group in the raison d'être of the state, it is a responsibility which is not always easy to discharge. Indeed, it is particularly difficult to discharge. In the first several decades of the history of the Irish Republic the Protestant population dropped markedly and radically. The Irish Republic has much liberalised in recent years, but the tragic death of a young Indian woman in hospital in Galway is a reminder of the continuing existence of the outlook of one religious tradition in the practices of that society.

When we talk about the case of Israel it is widely accepted that by certain criteria which are supposed to be important to us in the West—freedom of speech, women’s rights, gay rights, the protection of educational opportunity—Israel is a beacon in the region, far ahead of any other country. For example, and on a difficult point, in recent days there have been pro-Assad demonstrations in different parts of Israel and they have gone ahead peacefully. These are difficult questions for Israeli society but it seems to be rather better at handling them than many other countries in the region. It is said by some that that is only to be expected of Israel, though it is apparently not expected by all in the West of its neighbours.

Then one must look at the role of Israeli Arabs in the Knesset, the Parliament of Israel. To take one important and dramatic example, George Karra, a Christian Arab, was the presiding judge in the trial of a former Israeli President. It is inconceivable in any other country in the region that a member of a religious minority could play such a role. Mention has been made of Christian Arabs, but there is no doubt that by every known statistic Christian Arabs are a very successful and vital group, a spectacularly successful group, it could be said, in the society of Israel. Again, it is sometimes said with judicial appointments in Israel, in the United States and in this country, that there is an element of tokenism. Perhaps, but even so, it seems a pretty striking example.

Mention has already been made of Israel’s declaration of independence and its promise of political, economic and social equality to all citizens, as well as the fact that Israel has laws against discrimination in employment. Is this just empty rhetoric? Taking it broadly, Israeli Arabs have an employment rate of 72.2% as against 77.7% for the rest of society. There is a disadvantage there in absolute terms of numbers; it is not a particularly startling or spectacular disadvantage. It is probably the case, I would accept, that Israeli Arabs have less well paid jobs—the point has already been made—but in terms of absolute figures in employment, it is not a dramatic disadvantage.

Let me take another figure—I often think it is the most important figure, and it is the one I always ask about; it is the figure that gives, for example, the proof of the advance of Northern Irish Catholics over the past 20 years—and that is the figure for medical students in university. This tells us a lot about the educational opportunities of relative communities and a lot about the possible future life chances of the brighter children in those communities. It is a good, simple way of looking at the problem. In the case of Israeli Arabs, they are 20% of the population of Israel and 19% of the students in Israeli medical schools. This seems a very significant fact to me. Mention has been made of South Africa and apartheid: does any noble Lord recall any figure remotely like that in the case of South Africa? I cannot.

So there are important considerations. There is not absolute equality of opportunity in Israel, I am very clear in my mind about that. There is a fundamental problem and a difficult problem to resolve. Some of the successes of the Israeli state in this respect should perhaps be recorded and acknowledged more fully than they have been.

Let me take one other very significant aspect of Israeli reality which I think that everyone who knows anything about the country is aware of. At the beginning of this century the magazine Kul Al-Arab carried out a survey of Israeli Arabs in towns adjacent to the West Bank and, consistently and by a large majority, those people resisted transfer to Arab rule. What is that telling us? Is it a meaningless finding? It cannot be; it tells us something about what life is like, for all its difficulties, in being an Arab under Israeli rule. Only last year the Council on Foreign Relations—a distinguished body in New York—and Princeton University carried out a poll in Jerusalem which asked its Arabs how they would stand on this matter. They discovered that a large slice of the Arabs in Jerusalem would prefer to remain in Israel. These findings, which are not seriously disputed, tell us what it is like to be an Arab in Israel despite there being many difficulties in that and they ought to be more respected than they have been thus far in this debate.

Finally, I hope that I have said enough to indicate that the problem is complex and that the implementation of liberal ideals is not always easy. At the moment, the Israeli press is full of considerable concern about racist chanting at football matches. If you read our own press in the past few weeks, you will also see considerable concern about racist chanting at football matches in this country. Reference has been made throughout this debate to the tradition in the Jewish community of support for human rights. I hope that I have said enough to suggest that this tradition is not yet extinguished in the modern state of Israel.

15:18

[Lord Parekh]

My Lords, I congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter on securing this debate and on introducing it with great passion and erudition. I would make one small point of clarification. In the Motion, as well as in what has been said so far, Arab citizens of Israel are all being referred to as “Israel’s Arab citizens”. It is worth bearing in mind that they do not identify themselves or wish to be identified in this way. The Arab citizens of Israel prefer to call themselves Palestinian citizens of Israel and the Arab minority as a Palestinian minority in Israel. In matters of this kind, if we want to respect people I think we need to make sure that we accept their self-identification.

These citizens do that for two reasons. First, by calling themselves Palestinian citizens of Israel they want to remind themselves and the world of their history: that they are a minority but not an immigrant minority or an indigenous minority, like the original nations in Canada and Australia. They are a majority that have been reduced to a minority. Their second reason for wanting to do so is to show that they are part of a diaspora or global community, in exactly the same way as the Israeli Jewish community is. Although I might from time to time slip into the language of talking about Israeli Arabs, I wanted to make that point clear and put it on record that we need to bear this in mind.

Although my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Bew, produced statistics to show that the picture is not as bleak as some have made out, let me make it absolutely clear that there are many areas of life where Israeli Palestinians suffer from considerable discrimination. I did not want to produce those figures but he has produced some on medical students. I could explain those figures in other ways, because they have been the subject of considerable analysis and are contradicted by figures in other areas, but I shall not do that. All I need to say here is what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter said. Justice Or’s commission reported in 2003 that there had been a “neglectful and discriminatory” treatment of Israeli Palestinians. It went on to say that state resources were not allocated “in an equal manner”.

These conclusions of the Or commission have been supported by various independent research bodies. Let me mention half a dozen figures to give some picture of what I have in mind. Fifty per cent of Israeli Palestinians are classified as poor. Only 1.3% of Arabs who graduate in high-tech fields find work in their fields, although Israel is short of technical manpower. In fact, the recent report of the Bank of Israel said that not hiring Arabs costs Israel 31 billion new Israeli shekels a year in lost production. The average per student allocation in an Arab junior high school is one-fifth of that in the Jewish junior high schools. Less than 2% of academics are in tenured or tenure track positions. There is discrimination in areas relating to planning permission, housing, zoning regulation, urban development and civil rights.

Moving to the political area, to the best of my knowledge no Arab political party has ever been a part of the ruling coalition. There is constant talk in any negotiations about voluntary transfer or expulsion and territorial exchanges which treats Arab citizens of Israel as if they are dispensable—not a permanent part of Israel but one that can be got rid of in any negotiations. I would find it very difficult to live in a country if I were constantly told that I was dispensable and could be negotiated out of existence.

One might also look at the national anthem of Israel, which speaks very movingly, of course, of Zion and the yearning of the Jewish soul. That is fine, but imagine how you would feel singing the national anthem if you were an Israeli Palestinian? In October 2000 there was the Al-Aqsa intifada, in which protests took place and 13 Arabs were killed. To the best of my knowledge, no policeman has so far been indicted. It is also striking that there was no Arab Minister in the Israeli Government until Raleb Majadele was appointed Minister without portfolio in 2007, and a few months later, Minister of Culture, Sport and Science. As a result, there is a deep sense of alienation and withdrawal from the political process and electoral participation has gone down considerably—from about 75% at one time to 48% or 49% now. If one is not careful there is a danger that people might turn to other methods.

While that is one side of the picture, the other side is also striking which is that many Israelis recognise this. Having been to Israel on two or three occasions, lecturing and debating precisely these questions, I am struck by the way in which many progressive groups in Israel feel strongly about what is going on. In the 1999 elections, Ehud Barak talked about “a state for all”, implying thereby that it had not been a state for all. As a result, 95% of Arabs voted for him. When nothing happened, there was a grave sense of disappointment and when elections took place two years later, they boycotted them and 80% did not vote. The Supreme Court of Israel has constitutionally often stood up against the resolutions of the Knesset and pointed out that they are inconsistent with Israel’s commitment to democracy and equality. As a result of this internal self-correction and self-criticism, there is the remarkable figure in a recent survey that showed that 45% to 50% of Israeli Palestinians are proud to call themselves Israelis.

In other words, I suggest there is a very complex picture. On the one hand there is the systematic marginalisation of and discrimination against Israeli Palestinians. On the other, there is constant criticism of this, with institutions like the Supreme Court constantly providing correcting mechanisms. How do we explain this? I suggest there is a deep tension at the very heart of the Israeli state’s identity. On the one hand, it sees itself as a Jewish state. On the other, it is committed to democracy, to working—as the declaration of independence says—for the benefit of all its citizens and pursuing the ideas of liberty and justice. On the one hand, the Jewish state: on the other, democracy, liberty, equality and justice. How do you reconcile these two—not quite contradictory but conflicting—impulses at the very heart of Jewish identity? That is at the root of the marginalisation of its minorities.

When one talks about a Jewish state—something that I have talked and written about—what does one mean: a state of the Jews, by the Jews, for the Jews? It cannot possibly be that, because Israelis are already committed to some form of democracy. It could be “of” the Jews, but not just “by” them because there are Arabs; it cannot just be “for” the Jews, because it is committed to the benefit of all. I am not trying to preach, but I simply suggest that Israelis need to resolve this tension at the heart of their identity. In so far as it defines itself as a Jewish state, there is a constant thrust towards turning Israel into an ethno-cultural state, majoritarian, a state owned by its majority. In so far as they see themselves as committed to democracy, they recognise that it is a liberal, civic or multi-communal state. My suggestion would be that although this temptation to become ethno-cultural exists in every state, including our own where people want to see it as a white Christian state, they recognise that it is not possible. In India, they tried to see it as a Hindu state and recognised that this was not possible. Some such move needs to be made in Israel itself.

15:28

[Lord Palmer of Childs Hill]

My Lords, the previous time I spoke in the same debate as the right reverend Prelate was a year ago when your Lordships’ House debated Christianity in the Middle East. I remember his words in December 2011 when he said,

“almost every community-Muslims, Christians, Jews; Arabs, Kurds, Copts, Israelis, Palestinians and Turks-seeing themselves, with some justification, as a minority”.

He also said,

“the primary victims of religious extremism in the Muslim world are other Muslims”.—[Official Report, 9/12/11; col. 934.]

Sadly, to be a Jew in most countries of the region is not comfortable or even possible in many places. Indeed, Christians such as the Copts of Egypt are under severe pressure. Like the noble Lord, Lord Bew, I declare an interest: I am vice-president of the Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel, and I welcome the right reverend Prelate’s good intentions and masses of facts within his speech. As a Liberal Democrat, I must declare that I am against any unequal society, wherever it is.

The right reverend Prelate told mainly a story of a half-empty glass. I will try to tell a story of a half-full glass and how the Israeli Government, unlike their neighbours, are working hard to improve the situation of their minorities—in my view, not quickly enough; the sooner it happens the better. Israel’s Arab population is about 20% of the whole and numbers 1.7 million. They are citizens, as the right reverend Prelate called them. The reason we call them Israeli Arab citizens is that that is the title used by the right reverend Prelate. Personally, I call them all “Israelis”. They are all Israelis, they have rights and they should have all those rights.

As an example of a half-full glass, in 2010 Israel approved a $220 million five-year development plan for 13 Arab cities and towns, including $30 million for the expansion of public transportation. The plan is actually being implemented by the Authority for the Economic Development for Arab, Druze and Circassian Sectors, based in the Israeli Prime Minister’s Office, and is focused on 12 specific Arab and Druze localities, including Nazareth and Rahat—I will not detail them all. The Israeli Government are also allocating funds for 13 industrial parks in Arab communities.

There are some real examples of action being taken. Prime Minister Netanyahu recognised the deficiencies in the workforce and stated earlier this year—I know it is only a statement but he said it—that:

“The Arab sector is a main growth engine for the Israeli economy”—

as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, a moment ago—

“which has yet to be fully utilised, and I believe that their integration into the labour market will contribute not only to the Arab sector, but to the State of Israel as a whole”.

In July 2012, the Israeli Government launched a new affirmative action campaign to encourage companies, especially in the high-tech sector, to employ Israeli Arabs, with the Government contributing 25% of their salary. The hope is that this will encourage companies which are, as has been mentioned, reluctant to take on Arab employees to do so. Once this had been done, it will reduce discrimination in the workplace. In June 2012, the Israeli Government launched a public awareness campaign against prejudice and discrimination by Israeli companies against Arabs. That cannot be tolerated. Also in June 2012, Cisco chief executive officer John Chambers announced a four-year plan to create 12,000 new technology jobs for Israeli Arabs. He said:

“We have an opportunity to show the rest of the world what we can do together with a government that really gets it and with citizens who really get it”.

I would have hoped that the right reverend Prelate and other noble Lords, while detailing the inequalities—which do exist—would at least have mentioned some of the actions being taken to rectify those problems. As has been mentioned, there are numerous organisations inside and outside Israel trying to rectify those problems. That will take time but they should be given credit for so doing.

This is all against a background of Khaled Meshaal, the Hamas leader, on his very recent visit to Gaza, referring to the liberation of Palestine in Ramallah, Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa while the crowds yelled, “Hit, hit Tel Aviv”. This is also at a time when 40,000 have been killed in Syria without a demonstration in the UK. Nor were there Motions in this House when Hamas shot men accused of being Israeli spies without even the pretence of a trial. Their bodies were then dragged through the street behind motorcycles. I am not saying that there are not inequalities for Israeli Arabs—or Israeli Palestinians if you want—that need to be dealt with and are being dealt with, but perhaps we should also reflect on the bloody conflict between Sunni and Shia Muslims, the hounding of the Christian Coptic community in Egypt, the unrest in a number of Middle Eastern states and the toppling of regimes.

In Israel, Arabs have served as elected representatives in the Knesset, the Israeli Parliament, since Israel’s first elections in 1949. There are currently 17 Israeli Arabs and Druze in the Knesset out of a Chamber of 120, although that is short of the 24 which under strict proportional terms would reflect the numbers of the Arab-Israeli population. There are many Israeli Arab judges. The noble Lord, Lord Bew, mentioned one of them. They include Israeli Supreme Court Justice Salim Joubran and George Kara—he has been mentioned—who presided in the Tel Aviv district court that convicted former Israeli President Katsav.

Israel’s first Muslim consul general was appointed in Atlanta in 1997; Israel’s first Muslim ambassador was appointed to Finland in 1995; Israel’s first Druze ambassador was appointed to Vietnam in 1999; in 2004 Bnei Sakhnin was the first Arab Israeli football team to win the State Cup; and—still on the soccer theme—the Arab Israeli football star Walid Badir is the captain of Hapoel Tel Aviv. The Arab-Israeli Mira Awad represented Israel at the Eurovision Song Contest; and the Arab Israeli Rana Raslan was Miss Israel.

Do noble Lords remember the amazing time—amazing to me and I am sure to everyone else—when Majalli Wahabi, a Druze, was the acting President of Israel? Noble Lords may have read the Bedouin Israeli diplomat Ishmael Khaldi’s book A Shepherd's Journey. In academia there are Bedouin professors and others whom I do not have enough time to relate.

Of course, if there was no problem, no action would be required. The reasons advanced for the standard of living for Israeli Arabs being generally lower than the Jewish and Christian Israeli population are poorer participation in education and the failure of women to take up employment. I will tell your Lordships’ House the following sad statistics: twice as many Muslims leave school without qualification; three times as many are unemployed; three times as many live below the poverty line. I should add that these sad figures are not in Israel but in Britain. It is sad here and it is sad there.

The reasons for inequalities in Israel, Britain and elsewhere are generally due to education, employment and where you are in the food chain of life. The aim in Israel and the UK is to improve the conditions of all by improving opportunities for a better life.

Finally, it would be good if the right reverend Prelate could also acknowledge that 850,000 Jews have been forcibly displaced and exiled from Arab countries since 1948, and that justice for such Jewish refugees from Arab countries has been expunged from the peace and justice narrative for the past 65 years.

I trust that when my noble friend the Minister replies she will say how Her Majesty’s Government will acknowledge inequalities and discrimination worldwide—not just in Israel—and not just the accusations against Israel made in this debate.

15:37

[Lord Singh of Wimbledon]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for securing this important and timely debate.

The April 2012 report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on human rights and democracy reminds us of the some of the injustices suffered by Arabs living in Israel, with Israeli NGOs reporting a denial of basic hygiene, sleep deprivation and violence in interrogations; allegations of unequal treatment of Arabs by the Israeli judicial system and allegations of abuse of Arab detainees during arrest and in Israeli prisons.

It is to the credit of Israel that the country’s constitution guarantees freedom of religion for Christian, Muslim and other Arab minorities and in general they are allowed to get on with their own lives—although as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, reminds us, generally in lesser employment. Non-Jewish citizens are exempt from compulsory service in the Israel Defence Forces, a concession that also underlines a lack of trust over possible divided loyalties. Politically, Israeli Muslims are part of the state, but loyalties are bound to be influenced by what happens to their kith and kin in Palestinian areas.

Concerns over evidence of aggressive Israeli policies in Palestinian territories affect and add to tensions and mistrust between Jews and Arabs in Israel. These include the expansion of illegal Jewish settlements in Palestinian areas, with the demolition of Palestinian homes and the eviction of Palestinians from East Jerusalem and the West Bank; the use of military courts to try alleged breaches of the peace by Palestinians, which contrasts with the use of civil courts to deal with the same offences by Jews; concerns that cases heard by the military courts system are frequently based on secret evidence that is not available to defendants’ lawyers, on dubious confessions or on the evidence of minors who themselves face detention; and the fact that cases of wrongful killing by the Israel Defence Forces are investigated by the forces themselves rather than by independent investigators.

However, Israel is not alone in the abuse of human rights. Palestinians, too, are frequently involved in gross abuses of the rights of other faiths. These include arbitrary detention, restrictions on the freedom of non-Muslims and the use of the death penalty. Palestinian human rights NGOs point out that senior court positions in Gaza are often filled by political appointees. There are also reports of violence against detainees.

When one considers the history of the formation of Israel, with the arbitrary displacement of the Palestinian population and the subsequent history of continuing conflict, it is easy to understand allegations of divided loyalties in the Arab Israeli population, the anger and bitterness of surrounding Palestinians and the hostility of the wider Muslim world. It is also easy to understand, and have a measure of sympathy for, the siege mentality of Israeli Jews. It is only when we look to and understand the difficult environment in which they work that we begin to understand the incredible courage and commitment of both Israeli and Arab NGOs, of international human rights groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, and of humanitarian organisations such as the Red Cross and the UK-funded NGO, Defence for Children International. They deserve our appreciation and support for their near-impossible work.

It is frequently said that the only way to secure peace and the respect of human rights in this troubled part of the world is a two-state solution, with a fully independent Palestine. I may be in a minority of one in preferring to see positive initiatives for closer integration between the different communities, based on mutual interest. I am not convinced by the feasibility of artificial boundaries dividing an area of land which in part is historically and culturally entwined, with a shared history and culture. Recent history reminds us that rigid partition of a country where different groups share a common heritage inevitably leads to resentment and continuing conflict. The partition of the subcontinent of India cost millions of lives, and the stand-off over Kashmir continues. We should also remember the continuing threat to peace arising from the partition of Korea, the genocide resulting from the partition of the former Yugoslavia and, nearer home, years of conflict in Northern Ireland.

I know that religion gets a bad press, but with the constant failure of political initiatives it might be worth looking at religious teachings in a search for elusive peace. At a time of similar conflict between Hindus and Muslims—and different factions of those religions—in the subcontinent of India, Guru Gobind Singh reminded warring factions that despite their different religious and cultural practices, Hindus and Muslims, and Shias and Sunnis, were all members of the same human family, with similar concerns and praying to the same God. Leviticus, chapter 20, verses 33 to 34, stresses the same sentiment:

“The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt”.

In the Koran, sura 14, verse 6 says much the same thing.

A few years ago, I was invited by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks, the Chief Rabbi, to join him on a visit to Israel to help look for ways to peace. We talked to university professors and office and manual workers in both the Jewish and Palestinian communities, and everywhere found a common desire in people to be allowed to just get on with their lives and look to their families in safety and security. They simply wished for the opportunity to live in peace and harmony with their neighbours in the ways taught by their different faiths.

In what now seems like a previous incarnation, I studied the works of Mary Parker Follett on conflict resolution in industry and used what she called “the law of the situation” with success. It is a concept that gets away from the usual two sides of a conflict or dispute and invites those involved to look at the different facets of common problems with a view to getting the best outcome for all concerned.

The signing of peace accords that ignore basic underlying concerns is like building grandiose structures on uncertain foundations, and is unlikely to lead to lasting peace. The more I look at that sad and beautiful land, sacred to the world’s major faiths, the more convinced I become that the only way to true and lasting peace is for members of those different faiths to look beyond the trappings of religion to the common imperatives of respect and generosity to others contained in actual teachings. The NGOs working to highlight human rights abuses and provide humanitarian assistance are doing just this. It is important that we in the international community do all we can to support them. Addressing entrenched attitudes and prejudices is not easy and does not capture many headlines, but it is a challenge that can be met. A Christian hymn reminds us that, with faith, a weak arm,

“may turn the iron helm of fate”.

15:47

[Lord Janner of Braunstone]

My Lords, it would be very good if mutual faiths could bring us together and ensure that we have as much peace as possible between people of different religions in different parts of the world. One problem is that this does not always happen, as is the case in the Middle East. Sadly, inequality and discrimination happen throughout the world. Even sometimes here in Britain we, as citizens, have to deal with prejudice against race, gender, disability and other minority factors.

I know something of the Israeli situation. Its Bureau of Statistics shows that there are some 1.62 million Arabs in Israel, making up 20.5%, or about one-fifth, of its population. The Arab community is divided up between Muslim, Christian, Druze and Bedouin. Of these, the Christian and Druze Arabs are the most integrated within Israel. The Arab community has always been represented in the Knesset, or Israeli Parliament, but Arab MKs are often criticised for focusing on the Israel-Palestine conflict instead of domestic issues surrounding the Arab communities in Israel.

Although Israel is constantly working to try to merge the division between the Jewish and Arab communities, I am going to speak primarily about our British support to improve these issues. The United Kingdom Task Force is a wonderful organisation. It was established here in Britain to raise awareness of the issues relating to Israeli Arabs. It aims to deepen understanding of these matters among the United Kingdom Jewish community. That community is very centred on that concern. I declare my interest as one of the endorsers of this task force. The organisation does not work just with British Jewry but endeavours to teach communities worldwide, both religious and non-religious, about issues which surround Arab citizens. Even our own Government are involved, with a co-funded venture with the United Kingdom task force, through the British embassy in Israel.

Last year, in 2011, a total of some £340,000 was granted by the British Government to be used towards four specific projects that coincided with the British embassy manifesto. The United Kingdom task force press release states:

“It is to advance shared priorities in regard to the integration and empowerment of Arab communities in Israel … These projects are to address the needs of Arab communities in the north, centre and south of Israel, thus achieving a geographic spread reflective of the diverse Arab communities in Israel”.

The funding of £340,000 has been divided between four projects, each enhancing the role of Arab-Israeli citizens. The first project is with Tsofen High Technology Centre, an education centre working to integrate Arab engineering graduates into technology sectors. Israel is one of the most advanced countries for science and technology. The centre this year has welcomed even more Arab citizens to learn computer skills, and some 80% of the participants have been women, which is perhaps a rather better rate than we have here. The second project is to increase volunteering between the young—Jewish and Arab—after they have completed school. The final two projects relate to two mixed cities. These are places in Israel where Jews and Arabs live together. I have personally long worked tirelessly for co-existence in Israel and throughout the world. For me, these final projects with mixed cities are crucial to enforce understanding of one another.

I was truly privileged in October of this year when I received an honour from the state of Israel for my contribution to that country and dedication to building bridges between its Jewish and Arab communities. I have spent a lot of my working life on that issue. The State of Israel, with support from the ambassador here, Daniel Taub, for whom I have the very greatest respect, and the Israeli embassy in London, chose a kindergarten in a place called Ma’alot Tarshiha, which is a very unique town in the Galilees in the north of Israel, and named it—I cannot hide this from noble Lords—The Lord Greville Janner Education Centre, which is not what they call the House of Lords. That is a remarkable and incredibly proud privilege for me. Ma’alot Tarshiha is a truly magnificent place where mixed communities live. It is a town for Jews, Arabs, veterans and immigrants to live side by side together in peace. The Mayor of Ma’alot, said in his speech at my ceremony:

“Ma’alot Tarshiha is a town with communities living together in a real way, seeing children who are Jewish and Arab playing with each other. You cannot tell at this kindergarten, if a child is Jewish or Arab, this is what is so wonderful about our town”.

That is certainly correct. For us to overcome discrimination against minorities, we must emphasise the importance of co-existence. Every citizen has rights. This kindergarten in Ma’alot Tarshiha, demonstrates that dialogue and understanding should always start when people are young. These children can clap, sing, dance, play together and become friends while they are young rather than waiting until they become old or Members of the House of Lords.

I thank the right reverend Prelate for this debate. Some Members of the House who have already spoken have identified critics of Israel, and some who are yet to speak will do so, but I want the House to acknowledge that my own experience has shown me that the Arab citizens of Israel have just as great a desire for peace and prosperity as the Jewish Israelis who live around them. The benefits of building positive relations between the two communities are immeasurable and I commend the numerous organisations that are working to deepen understanding of these issues. May they succeed in doing so.

15:55

[Lord Weidenfeld]

My Lords, I have been involved in the cause of a Jewish state in the Holy Land for nearly 80 years. I was privileged to have served the first President of Israel, Chaim Weizmann, as adviser and head of his office and claim a continuous involvement with the theme of this debate. I am aware how, from the very outset, Israel’s leaders upheld the founders’ pledge to treat the Arab minority as equitably as any state in the civilised world would treat its minorities. This has been demonstrated in some eloquent contributions by the noble Lords, Lord Bew and Lord Palmer of Childs Hill, and I will not repeat their argument in detail.

Yet in my 36 years in your Lordships’ House, the disproportion between debates questioning, through stern criticism, Israel’s attitude to its Arab citizens and those concerning the most heinous persecution of minorities in the Arab world is surely rather disquieting. I see, for instance, no debate scheduled on the gruesome persecution of Christians in Arab lands, the burning of Coptic churches, the maltreatment of members of missionary orders and the serious economic erosion of Christian communities, causing forced emigration. In contrast, I claim that the treatment of Palestinian Arabs, Muslims and Christians in Israel is not only more than correct but remarkable if you reach back into the history of the state and consider that on three occasions—1947, 1967 and 1973—Arab armies launched wars against Israel, not just for minor strategic frontier rectifications but for the wholesale destruction of the state and various forms of removal of its Jewish inhabitants.

Only a few days ago a Hamas leader pledged ever deadlier rocket attacks against Israel’s most populated areas and vowed to reconquer Jerusalem, Haifa and Jaffa, which is a euphemism for Tel Aviv. Israel’s society of course is not free from intercommunal tensions. Quite apart from the questions of Jews and Arabs, it is shaded and diverse as to culture, geographic origin and degrees of religious orthodoxy, but it is united in the defence of freedom and justice. An Arab Israeli member of the Supreme Court presided at the trial of the President of the State of Israel. The Israeli Ambassador in Norway is a Druze; his deputy is a Christian Arab. A newly arrived counsellor to the London Israeli Embassy—I think the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, mentioned him—is a Bedouin of the Islamic faith. He has spoken on campuses in this country about his very interesting and moving experiences, proving that he is a loyal citizen of Israel and that Israel treated him very well. Arabs are exempt from compulsory military service in Israel but they are allowed to volunteer.

The number of Arab outpatients at the Hadassah hospital in Jerusalem often exceeds the number of Jewish citizens. In Rambam Hospital in Haifa—the biggest hospital in the north of Israel—30% of the doctors and 26% of the nurses are non-Jewish, such as Israeli Christians and Muslim Arabs. This means that non-Jewish staff in the hospital represent a higher proportion than their actual representation in Israeli society. In addition, some of the most senior heads of departments are Arab doctors—for example Dr Suheir Assady is the hospital’s important head of nephrology.

Collaboration between Jewish and Arab cultural groups, ranging from popular music through dance and chamber music is very impressive. The Jerusalem Foundation, founded by the late mayor, Teddy Kollek, has an ever-widening range of joint intercommunal programmes.

Having been for 11 years chairman of the board of governors of the Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, I have had first-hand experience of the close relationship between Arab and Israeli students and lecturers, some of them beneficiaries of state stipends. Jewish students were regularly drafted to private teaching of Arab children from poor families. My involvement in furthering educational and social contact between Jews and Arabs in Israel is a source of great pleasure and pride to me. The number of NGOs of interfaith groupings monitoring most closely movements favouring the state of ever-closer cultural and social relations with the Arab minority in Israel is very impressive. If the right reverend Prelate wishes to obtain further information, I would be delighted to provide it.

In conclusion, I agree with Dr Weizmann’s strongly held views that the Jewish-Arab conflict in Palestine is not one between right and wrong, but between two rights and two wrongs. Yet he added that,

“ours is the smaller wrong”.

16:01

[Baroness Uddin]

My Lords, I express my deep gratitude also to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for his profound narrative of the reality of the Arab-Israeli experience.

When we speak of the occupation of Palestine, we tend to encompass Gaza and rarely focus our sight on, nor are we aware of, the size and significance of the Arab Palestinian population living within Israel. According to Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics, the number of Arabs in 2010 was estimated at 1,573,000, representing 20% of the country's population. The majority of these identify themselves as Arabs or Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship, as the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, said. Many continue to have family ties to Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip.

With much of our permanent focus on events in Gaza and the West Bank, we hear little of the brutal repression and discrimination placed on them as citizens of Israel by Israelis, and it is that which I should like briefly to highlight. In September 2011, the Israeli Government approved the Prawer plan for the mass expulsion of the Arab Bedouin community in the Naqab, or Negev desert. If fully implemented, this plan will result in the forced displacement of up to 70,000 Arab Bedouin citizens of Israel and the destruction of 35 “unrecognized” villages, which are regarded by Israel as illegal. Despite the Arab Bedouin community’s complete rejection of the plan and some strong disapproval from the international community and human rights groups within Israel, the Prawer plan is going ahead with impunity. More than 1,000 homes were demolished in 2011 and, in August this year, a special police force was established to officially begin implementing the plan and demolishing even more homes. In September this year, dozens of structures were destroyed in a single day, in what was proudly described by the Israel Land Administration as a “rolling enforcement operation” against “invasions” of state land. Then, on October 11, the recognised village of Bir Hadaj was raided, and officials posted demolition orders on some homes, prompting protests from village residents. In return, there was a harsh and brutal response by the police.

Around half the Bedouin population in Israel live in 45 so-called “unrecognised villages”. The Israeli Government intend to force them out, claiming that their “squatting” is taking over the Negev desert. The truth is that while they make up 30% of the region's population, the Bedouin actually live within less than 5% of the total area.

Although the law that will serve as the implementing arm of the Prawer plan has not yet begun its legislative process in the Knesset, events on the ground indicate that the focus on demolition and displacement is already shaping policy that is targeting the Bedouin. In other words, Prawer is happening now, and we need to do something to prevent Israel from committing further atrocities on their Arab citizens.

There are many significant strategies and devices being used to discriminate against the Arabs as well as against other ethnic minorities in Israel. I should like to draw attention to two in particular. First, there is the cruel and deliberate discrimination which takes place in respect of the prevention of marriage between residents of the Arab-Israeli sector and their natural affiliates in Gaza and the West Bank, to which the right reverend Prelate has already referred.

I, too, welcome the activism within Israel. In January this year, Israeli rights groups and MPs denounced a court ruling upholding a law that prevents Palestinians married to Arab Israelis from obtaining Israeli citizenship or residency. At present, Palestinian men over 35 and women over 25 married to Israeli citizens can obtain only short-term permits to be in Israel. They have limited permission to work; this permission is regularly and humiliatingly reviewed and such families are excluded from all social benefits and entitlement.

The brutality of this law is best understood in the context of a statement made by Justice Asher Grunis, who is expected to become the next Supreme Court President. He justified the widely recognised racist law on the grounds that:

“Human rights are not a prescription for national suicide”.

While the subjugation and abuse of Palestinians living within Israel and in the Occupied Palestinian Territories are well documented, what is less well known is how ingrained racism is in Israel; this is also perpetrated against Jews who come from the ethnic minority background of Falasha, Ethiopian Jews who have been brought into Israel in several mass transfer operations, who have found themselves relegated to an underclass. They are not only racially discriminated against in housing, employment, education and the army, but they have also been unwittingly used to bolster illegal settlements. Many Ethiopians put their experiences of this brutal racism down to the fact that they are black.

To my horror, I came across one report which suggests that health officials in Israel are subjecting many female Ethiopian immigrants to a controversial long-term birth control drug in what Israeli women's groups allege is a racist policy designed to reduce the number of black babies. Figures show that 57% of those prescribed Depo-Provera in Israel are Ethiopian women, despite the fact that Falasha represents only around 2% of the entire Israeli population.

“This is about reducing the number of births in a community that is black and mostly poor”,

said Hedva Eyal, the author of the report by Woman to Woman, a feminist organisation based in Haifa, northern Israel. She said:

“The unspoken policy is that only children who are white and Ashkenazi are wanted in Israel”.

The contraceptive's reputation has also been tarnished by its association with South Africa, where the apartheid Government had used it, often coercively, to limit the fertility of black women.

“The answers we received from officials demonstrated overt racism”,

Ms Eyal added. She went on to say:

“They suggested that Ethiopian women should be treated not as individuals, but as a collective group whose reproduction needs controlling”.

This is the first time I have looked into this matter. It is not only shocking in its candour but also for the fact that it is being carried out by those who, above all others, should understand and appreciate brutality at the hands of the state.

In the search for information about this issue, I came across the impressive new and very rare publication by Ben White entitled Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy. I commend it to the House for its deep insight. I also thank Carl Arrindell, as well as the House of Lords Library briefing team, for the thoroughly comprehensive information with which they were able to provide me.

While I, too, propose that we should be implementing sanctions to demand a cessation to such brutal and deliberate treatment, at the very least I ask our Government not to turn a blind eye to these clear violations of international law when they assess issues such as joint trade agreements. I also ask that they do not simply view their engagement with Israel in terms of the West Bank and Gaza but that they take account of the plight of Israel’s Arab, Ethiopian and other minority citizens. Much has been said today about discrimination against minority rights in that country and elsewhere. Such discrimination is not acceptable anywhere.

Finally, Britain has a specific responsibility to clear up this mess. In the light of the available evidence presented today and elsewhere, will the Minister confirm that the UK Government will not be bound by unquestioning loyalty to the official discourse when Israel continues to flout all international laws and natural justice?

16:10

[Lord Hylton]

My Lords, I echo the thanks to the right reverend Prelate for introducing this debate. In the course of it, I have found myself very much on the side of my noble friend Lord Singh. I speak from only little experience, but in July 2010, with colleagues from this House, I met in northern Israel two Palestinian Members of the Knesset and others from a committee linking Palestinian mayors and MKs. They pointed out that, since 1948, much Palestinian land has been confiscated under 20 separate laws of Israel; for example, lands of Muslim waqfs and absent owners, and land taken for roads and state purposes. Zoning, they said, discriminates by not allowing land for Palestinian housing and employment. They told us that two separate school systems exist, with, in their view, insufficient teaching of Palestinian history. They could have added that spending per child is more than five times higher in the Israeli schools.

As to health, infant mortality is about twice as high for Palestinians as for Jewish Israelis. Although Palestinians pay health insurance, they receive poorer-quality services. As to poverty, 50% of Palestinians live below the poverty line, while only 20% of Palestinian women are in work. Military service, as has been mentioned, is not compulsory for Palestinian citizens, so on the whole they do not do it for fear of having to attack their own people. Unemployment is far higher among Palestinians compared with other Israelis.

In general, the feeling was that Israel sees Palestinians as temporary residents, alien and not indigenous. Palestinians sense Israeli animosity and police suspicion. There is a sense of dispossession, since Palestinians own only 3.5% of the land within the 1967 borders, although they account for slightly more than 20% of the total population.

I do not see that much has changed over the past two years. This is despite the best efforts of Palestinian mayors and MKs and the good work of NGOs such as the Mossawa Centre, Adalah, Neve Shalom/Wahat al-Salam—a shared village with a big outreach—or indeed the New Israel Fund. Recent discussion about Israel as a specifically Jewish state has increased tensions. These are aggravated by the unrecognised status of some Palestinian and Bedouin villages.

A grand plan is being drawn up for the future of the semi-desert Negev. It is felt that the Bedouin there were not sufficiently consulted. The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, has given considerable detail so I will add only that little thought seems to have been given to the wish to return to ancestral lands of the Jahaleen tribe now living east of Jerusalem.

Israel claims to be the only well established democracy in the Middle East. It deserves respect for many reasons but given its claims, it will be judged by a very high standard. This must, I suggest, include full equality and non-discrimination for all citizens. Such standards are built into the association agreement between Israel and the European Union.

I conclude by mentioning recent discussions on a possible variant of the idea of two contiguous but separate states. This would allow Israelis to remain voluntarily in the West Bank as full citizens of Palestine. In return, equality of rights would be enshrined for the Palestinian and non-Jewish citizens of Israel. I believe that this concept is worth examining. It would, of course, be difficult to implement because of separate living areas in Israel, and because separation is so embedded in law and practice. Several European states are nevertheless looking carefully at the concept. Will Her Majesty’s Government examine it also, together with all other ideas that can prepare for political agreement and help eventual implementation?

16:16

[Baroness Hussein-Ece]

My Lords, I, too, thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for securing this very important debate, and for his excellent introduction.

Like others, I wanted to take part in this debate because of my personal passion and commitment to equality and the protection of human rights for all people, whatever their background, faith, race, sexuality, disability, and so on. My family were migrants to the UK; they came here in the early 1950s, before race relations legislation. Like many migrants who had arrived here over the decades, they faced open hostility and discrimination. We as a society have evolved, and have outlawed discrimination, racism and anti-Semitism, and we have developed co-existence and how to live with one another.

We support and promote the principles of equality and non-discrimination as a cornerstone of international human rights law. So when debating the continuing practices of a nation that itself was born out of European intolerance and racism in the extreme, it is hard to understand how it can be tolerated. There cannot be a Member of your Lordships’ House who would support any form of discrimination. As a councillor in Hackney some 15 years ago, I worked closely with a large Orthodox Jewish community in Stamford Hill, ensuring that they had proper access to services for their children and young people. Often they did not have equal access and felt very discriminated against. I am pleased to say that I still maintain strong links and friendships with leading figures from that very strong community.

Sadly, it remains the case that in Israel the right to equality and freedom from discrimination is not explicitly enshrined in law as a constitutional right; nor is it protected by statute, as has already been mentioned. A recent poll in Israel revealed that a majority of Israeli Jews believe that the Jewish state practises apartheid against Palestinians, with many openly supporting discriminatory policies against the country’s Arab citizens. Perhaps what is so depressing is that a third of respondents believe that Israel’s Arab citizens should be denied the vote, while almost half—47%—would like to see them stripped of their citizenship rights and placed under Palestinian Authority control. These views appear to echo hard-line opinions that are usually associated with Israel’s ultranationalist parties and depressingly suggest that racism and discrimination is more entrenched than was generally thought. Just over 40% would like to see separate housing and classrooms for Jews and Arabs. The findings reflect the widespread notion that Israel, as a Jewish state, should be a state that favours Jews. As a leading columnist commented:

“After almost half a century of dominating another people, it’s no surprise that most Israelis don’t think Arabs deserve the same rights”.

The definition of Israel as “the Jewish state” makes inequality a practical, political and ideological reality for Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel, who are marginalised by and discriminated against by the state on the basis of their religious affiliations as non-Jews. Numerous groups of Palestinian citizens of Israel face multiple forms of discrimination on the basis of their membership of one or more distinctive sub-groups. Arab women in Israel, for example, face discrimination as members of the Arab minority and as women. As has been mentioned, Arab Bedouins face an additional layer of institutional discrimination. Individuals are subjected to multiple forms of discrimination. For example, a disabled Arab Bedouin child living in an unrecognised village in the Negev—referred to by the state as an illegally constructed village—faces intolerable discrimination.

It is therefore an irony that, in regard to certain marginalised groups, Israel has some of the world’s most progressive laws and policies, with strong anti-discrimination legislation and legal protections for women and disabled persons. However, these have not been extended to the Palestinian minority in Israel. As a result, these marginalised groups do not receive the full benefit of such protections. More than 30 main laws discriminate, directly or indirectly, against Palestinian citizens, and the current Israeli Government have proposed a flood of new discriminatory Bills which are at various stages in the legislative process.

Underinvestment in Arab schools in Israel sustains these gaps between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority and, as Arab children account for 25% of all children in Israel, the unequal investment in their education and development further contributes to the inequality. According to official state data, the state provides three times as much funding to Jewish students as it does to Arab pupils. My noble friend Lord Palmer, a valued colleague, cites inequalities here in the UK. Yes, he is quite right, there are inequalities among different groups here in the United Kingdom, but the difference is that the United Kingdom does not deliberately invest less in ethnic minority children than it does in the majority population.

In the field of health, the inequalities are just as stark. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to mortality rates. The infant mortality rate, for example, among Palestinian citizens is double that among Jewish citizens, and higher still among the Arab Bedouin population. As to income and poverty, Arab families are greatly overrepresented among Israel’s poor, with half of Arab families in Israel classified as poor compared to an average poverty rate of one-fifth. The unrecognised Arab Bedouin villages in the Negev are the poorest communities in the state. Gaps in income and poverty rates are directly related to institutional discrimination against Arab citizens.

Unemployment rates remain significantly higher among Arab than Jewish citizens. Arab women citizens make up only 20% of the workforce, among the lowest in the world. As the noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, said, the Bedouins of the Negev valley are the most disadvantaged. They are systematically excluded from Israeli society and denied the rights and standards of living enjoyed by the majority. Approximately half of them are living in what are termed as unrecognised villages. They have Israeli citizenship but those living in these villages have no address registration, which can lead to problems with accessing services. The vast majority of Arab Bedouin citizens living in Negev have been expelled from their ancestral lands, some repeatedly. With no official status, these villages are excluded from state planning and government maps, have no local councils and receive few to no basic services and facilities.

A few years ago I had the pleasure of meeting the women from this community who established the charity Sidreh. Khadra Elsanah, who is the director of the charity, told me of the valuable work they are doing at the grass roots among Bedouin women organisations in the Negev. She referred to the way in which the Israeli Government demolish their homes. She said that they come in the morning, when the husband is away, so that only the women and the youngest children are in the house. Most of them cannot speak Hebrew, and even if they could, it would not help. She said that they demolish their homes; they leave people on the street, with no other accommodation. Then they send them the “bill” for the demolition.

I want to ask my noble friend why, as a friend of Israel, we tolerate this treatment of minorities, which we would never tolerate with our own communities. Surely tolerance and equality extended to all Israeli citizens would foster and be a step towards a climate of peace in the Middle East, something that we all want.

00:00

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

My Lords, I too am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Exeter for tabling this debate and for his robust and excellent introduction. It is also a timely debate, because this is a critical time for the peace process. The Israeli Arabs are profoundly affected by both lack of progress and the escalation of tensions. The right reverend Prelate is quite right when he says that inequality and discrimination against Israeli Arabs is a justice issue which must be seen in the context of civil rights. After my Question on Palestine last week, I was accused by some people of being anti-Israeli. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Steel, I am not anti-Israeli: I am a friend of Palestine; I am a friend of Israel; but I am not a friend of the current Israeli Government.

The noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld, was right to raise wider issues about the despicable treatment of Christians and other minorities in Arab countries, and, indeed, we do debate these issues. I know that all noble Lords recognise the vulnerable situation of Israel, which in so many ways is an extraordinary country. However, as a friend of Israel it is right to be critical of Israel.

For a minority population in any country, there are issues of integration while retaining identity and culture. However, it must be extraordinarily difficult to be an Israeli Arab facing discrimination not only by the day but also, at the moment, when the Government are building settlements encroaching on areas that do not belong to them and when the Government are occupying their land.

The issue of Israeli Arabs—or perhaps, like my noble friend, I should say Israeli Palestinians—is a crucial political dimension of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process. Palestinian Arabs who are citizens of Israel should have the right to continue to live in their homeland without inequality and discrimination.

As an aside, while watching the BBC news last night about Syria and all the refugees, I thought it was right to remember that some of those coming out of Syria are in fact Palestinian refugees who are now twice refugees.

On the settlements, noble Lords will be aware of the anti-boycott law passed by the Knesset in 2011 that imposes sanctions on any individual or entity that calls for an economic boycott of Israeli settlements in the West Bank or of Israel itself. This is a controversial—indeed, shameful—law that offends against basic human rights. Human rights organisations have clearly stated, as is obvious, that it targets Israeli Arabs. At the time the law was passed the Knesset legal adviser warned that the legislation was “borderline illegal”, but of course it went through notwithstanding. The High Court has recently asked the Government to explain within four months why the controversial law should not be cancelled. We look forward to further consideration of the case, which is of great importance to Israeli Arabs.

The declaration of the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948 says that the state will,

“ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex”.

Yet there are so many instances of deep discrimination, about which we have heard today. The picture is depressing from the outside, intolerable for Israeli Arabs and demeaning for the State of Israel.

For example, with regard to employment, Arab and Jewish Israeli men suffer from unemployment at similar levels. However, on average Arab men earn 30% less than Jewish Israeli men. Among those employed, as has been said, Arabs are under-represented in various sectors of the economy, including business, public administration, banking, insurance, finance and high-tech, but as a result, while Arabs constitute approximately 20% of the population, they contribute only 8% to Israel’s GNP. If we look at this in an economic context, the Israelis are missing out.

The gap has grown since the 1990s when the Israeli economy began to move away from a reliance on agriculture and textiles and towards innovation and high-tech, but the state does not invest in the education and life chances of Israeli Arabs. In secondary education, a pupil in the Jewish system receives on average 2.01 teaching hours a day compared with 1.75 hours in Arab education. That is not right.

However, there are beacons of light, as has been said by my noble friend Lord Janner and others. I would draw the attention of noble Lords to Hand in Hand, an organisation with which I have had some association in the past and which I had the pleasure of visiting in Jerusalem. Hand in Hand operates a network of bilingual Hebrew-Arabic schools where Jewish and Arab citizens of Israel study together. There are five bilingual schools in Israel of which three are operated by Hand in Hand, and it will continue to build communities and open new schools to provide as many Israeli children as possible with the option of an integrated top-quality public education. However, increasing the number of bilingual schools in Israel is a challenge due to the geographical separation between most Jewish and Arab towns.

The British Council in Israel has backed several language projects, including Hand in Hand and English language communication and training for NGOs. Perhaps I may ask the Minister if there is anything else our Government can do to support these schools further. They are hugely beneficial to the students, who learn tolerance and strike up lifelong friendships, but they are also important in bringing parents together, who in turn foster understanding within their communities. I would say in passing that I am a great supporter of integrated education in Northern Ireland, and I know that Hand in Hand works together with integrated schools there. There is much that could be learnt by each of the two communities.

Many noble Lords have mentioned land distribution and planning, which is an area where Arab citizens suffer the most severe deprivation. There have been some initiatives to improve the situation, but land shortages have created the problem of illegal construction and resultant demolition orders. The frustrations caused by that must be mighty and are exacerbated by the proliferation of settlements. The Arabs see their houses being torn down, whereas the settlements are growing.

I can well understand that Arabs have served as elected representatives in the Knesset since Israel was founded, and they also sit in Israel’s powerful Supreme Court, but notwithstanding that, we must be honest about the lack of rights for Israeli Arabs and the intolerable discrimination that they suffer. The Israeli Government are taking action to combat inequalities, but not nearly enough. The commitment of the current Israeli Government to the needs of the Arab population was apparently affirmed after they were elected in 2009 with the establishment of the Authority for Economic Development of Minorities which aims to tackle socioeconomic gaps between the Arab and Jewish communities. But words are meaningless if they are not followed by action and radical changes in practice.

In March 2010, the Israeli Government launched an initiative that allocated £135 million to develop employment, provide housing solutions, improve access to transportation, empower human capital and increase personal security and safety, but again, that is not enough. These initiatives are welcome, but they do not counter the systemic inequality and discrimination that is suffered by Israeli Arabs. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline what action the Government might consider they could take with our European partners, as suggested by my noble friend Lord Warner and the noble Lord, Lord Steel. We cannot just sit back and talk about discrimination, we have to take some action.

I understand that Israeli civil society is working to advance equality through, for example, the Abraham Fund Initiatives, which seeks to advance coexistence and equality between Israel’s Jewish and Arab citizens. It runs the Language as a Cultural Bridge Initiative in co-operation with the ministry of education. But while this is welcome, much more action must be taken. I wonder if civil society in Israel is talking to civil society in Northern Ireland because so much was done about inequality there as a consequence of action taken by civil society.

Health inequalities are unacceptable, as has been said, but I draw attention to the wonderful Hadassah hospital where Arabs and Jews are treated together by Arab and Israeli doctors and nurses, everybody working together, putting the patient first. There were some real insights recently in a magazine when some of the staff were interviewed: they said that it is a learning process for all. These people, who live totally separate lives, when they come to work start to understand the differences between their communities. A credible peace process is the best way to ensure that Israeli Arabs can continue to live in their homeland without discrimination and inequality. However, they cannot wait for a two-state solution which grows ever more distant. A peaceful Middle East needs a strong Israel living side by side with a strong Palestinian state, but Israel can be truly strong only if it is tolerant within and without and if all its citizens have equal rights in practice as well as in theory.

16:35

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi)]

My Lords, I thank the right reverend Prelate for securing this important debate. I welcome his personal experience and interest in the issues surrounding Israel’s Arab citizens and his proposals as to how Arab citizens might enjoy more equal and active citizenship. I acknowledge the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, about language and definition of identity. He speaks with great expertise, and I hope that he will forgive me if my FCO terminology does not quite meet those standards. In recent weeks the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and I have much discussed some permutation of this debate across the Dispatch Box. She has always been serious, measured and constructive and, for that, I thank her.

The promotion and protection of human rights is at the heart of UK foreign policy. How a country treats its minorities is an important test of a country’s democracy and respect for human rights and the rule of law. This is equally true for Israel. Indeed, it will become even more important for Israel as the proportions of the Arab Israeli and ultra-orthodox communities increase over time. Israel, as a state party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, has an international obligation to ensure equal social and political rights for all citizens, irrespective of religion and race. Israel’s declaration of independence calls for the establishment of a Jewish state with equal social and political rights for all citizens irrespective of religion and race. However, successive Israeli Governments have acknowledged that Israel has not fully met its commitments with particular regard to the Israeli minority. The report by Justice Theodore Or in 2003 concluded that government handling of the Arab sector had been neglectful and discriminatory and made numerous recommendations as to how this could be addressed.

As we have heard, significant concerns remain about the situation of the Arab Israeli community. It is widely acknowledged to suffer discrimination, particularly at work and in government spending on housing and education, as well as in educational attainment. For instance, despite Israel’s impressive economic performance in recent years, current indicators suggest that the economic situation of Israeli Arabs is static or worsening. According to the OECD, 50% of Israeli Arabs live in poverty. The lack of town plans and planning permission for Israeli Arab towns is one of the main causes of inequality and of the failure of Israel’s Arab citizens to fulfil their economic potential. In many areas with a large Israeli Arab population, town plans either do not exist or are out of date and do not reflect population growth. In the absence of plans, new building cannot be approved, but faced with existing overcrowding and the expanding need for housing, Israeli Arab communities build without approval, which leaves them vulnerable to prosecution and demolition of the new structures. As such, no new Arab city has been built since the establishment of the State of Israel.

In the 10 years since the Or report was published there have been several positive changes, some of which were referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Bew. For example, there has been an increase in non-Jewish police recruitment, from 0.1% to 8.9%; better police liaison with Israeli Arab municipalities and community leaders; and an end to the use of live fire as a means of crowd control. However, as the right reverend Prelate said, disappointingly few of the institutional recommendations put forward in the Or commission’s report to address the socio-economic causes of Israeli Arab frustration have been adopted. We continue to urge the Israeli Government to implement the recommendations made by the commission; specifically, to address the economic disparities and unequal access to land and housing.

These are issues which matter to the United Kingdom. One of the strategic goals of the British Embassy in Tel Aviv is to help Israel become more cohesive and inclusive, in particular through ensuring the place of Arab Israelis and protecting Israeli civil society. The embassy is consistently monitoring events and reactions in the communities and attaches great importance to their concerns. Nothing should be done to prejudice Israel’s non-Jewish citizens or to discriminate against people on the basis of their race or religion. We are deeply disturbed by instances of anti-Arab rhetoric or violence.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken important steps to support the socio-economic integration of Israel’s Arab citizens. We allocated £250,000 in 2011-12 to the Arab community to support various projects that aim to redress some of the marginalisation. This year we funded Tsofen, a non-profit organisation, to strengthen the high-tech sector in Nazareth. Tsofen, founded in 2008 by Arab and Jewish high-tech and community leaders, aims to advance the economic and social equality of Arab citizens of Israel by accelerating their entry into the high-tech industry and helping Israel’s high-tech industry to locate successfully in Arab towns.

We have also supported a project delivered by the Arab Center for Alternative Planning to help empower Arab municipalities to deal with the reform in planning legislation. This non-governmental organisation works towards equality and the integration of Israel’s Arab citizens into public life activities, while preserving their cultural identity. The centre has now been formally recognised by Israel’s Interior Minister and has the legal right to intervene in official planning procedures as an independent legal entity. The project’s activities have significantly increased the knowledge and interests of engineers, planners and mayors of the Arab municipalities.

We are also extremely grateful for the supportive work of the UK Task Force on Issues Relating to Arab Citizens of Israel. As the noble Lord, Lord Janner, described, the UK task force was set up in 2009 under the joint leadership of the United Jewish Israel Appeal and the Pears Foundation with the aim of supporting an inclusive Israeli society. Its commitment to facilitating new partnerships to advance the integration and opportunities of Israel’s Arab minority is entirely positive; I pay tribute to the particular role played by the noble Lord in this work. I will also take back the work that the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred to—specifically, by Hand in Hand—and look at whether HMG could look to take some of that forward.

The noble Baroness, Lady Uddin, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, raised the issue of the Bedouin minority in the Negev, one of the most discriminated groups within Israeli society. Estimated at approximately 170,000 people, the Bedouin in the Negev comprise 12% of the Arab citizens of Israel. Between 1968 and 1989, half of this population was transferred into several Israeli-built townships in the north-east of the Negev. The rest remain in unrecognised villages built spontaneously by the Bedouin, without basic services such as electricity and running water. Unable to secure planning permission for such villages, whole communities have been issued with demolition orders.

In 2007, the Israeli Government voted to create the Goldberg commission to address the Bedouin issue. In 2011, the Goldberg commission issued its report and made several key recommendations which, if implemented, could go some way to addressing the long-running land dispute between the state and the Bedouin. These included: the recognition of most of the Bedouin villages; allowing the majority of the homes to go through a legalising process; and establishing a committee to hear and settle traditional land claims. We remain concerned that those recommendations have not yet been implemented and that the situation of the unrecognised Bedouin villages and houses remains largely unchanged, with demolitions still occurring.

We note that, following the Goldberg report, the Israeli Government put forward the so-called Prawer plan, which was intended to implement those recommendations and led to significant concern and controversy—the noble Baroness referred to that. There is an ongoing consultation process between the Government and Bedouin representatives; we understand that there is still some way to go before proposals are finalised. During his visit to Israel last month, the Minister for the Middle East raised our concerns on implementing the Prawer plan for the Bedouin of the Negev, again with Benny Begin, the Minister responsible for the Bedouin community. This is an issue which Mr Burt and the British ambassador have raised on a number of occasions with the Israeli Government. We continue to encourage the Israeli Government and Bedouin communities to engage in further dialogue to find a lasting and satisfactory solution to this long-standing issue of unrecognised Bedouin villages.

These issues cannot, of course, be separated from the wider context of the Middle East peace process. The UK has long been clear that we support a negotiated settlement leading to a safe Israel, living alongside a viable and sovereign Palestinian state. This should be based on 1967 borders, with agreed land swaps, Jerusalem as the shared capital of both states and a just, fair and agreed settlement for refugees. That is the only way to secure a sustainable end to the conflict and it has wide support in this House and across the world. We welcome the fact that Palestine is now a non-member observer state at the United Nations, but sadly the situation on the ground remains the same. The UK will work urgently with the US and EU to call for a new initiative to restart the peace process.

The noble Lord, Lord Warner, made specific calls for a move towards potential sanctions. He spoke of the potential lack of initiative on the part of the US. While I accept and understand the noble Lord’s frustrations, I am sure that he will accept that it will be difficult to deliver and move forward with a two-state solution without the co-operation of the United States. The noble Lord, Lord Singh, raised the issue of criminal justice and detainees. The treatment of Palestinian prisoners forms part of our ongoing dialogue with Israel, including the issue of child detainees. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office funded a visit and report by a team of respected British lawyers, which included the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland. We have passed the independent report to the Israeli authorities and urged them to take forward the recommendations, including an end to shackling, night-time arrest of children and introducing audio-visual recordings of interrogations. These issues were again raised by the Attorney-General during his last visit to Israel in November.

My noble friend Lord Steel of Aikwood spoke passionately and with great expertise and I agree that a settlement in the Middle East is in our interest. Instability there continues to have a destabilising effect on the region and the wider world. My noble friend Lord Palmer sought to bring an alternative view to the debate. He made an important contribution and I agree when he says that inequality must be tackled wherever and whenever it occurs. That point was also made by the noble Lord, Lord Weidenfeld. However, I am not sure that the reference by my noble friend Lord Palmer to the reasons for underachievement in communities in the United Kingdom bears any real comparison to the reasons for lower life chances among minorities in Israel. Indeed, my noble friend Lady Hussein-Ece outlined the equality of opportunity that she as a member of a minority was afforded by the United Kingdom. She raised the important point that inequality is not intentionally perpetuated in the United Kingdom by policy decisions. I am sure that all noble Lords will understand my discomfort with the argument that serious discrimination elsewhere should be cited as a reason for justifying discrimination anywhere. The “it’s worse elsewhere” argument does not impress the Government much, because we will tackle inequality and discrimination of minorities wherever and whenever it arises.

To conclude, I thank noble Lords again for their participation in this thought-provoking debate. The situation of Israel’s Arab population is an important one, for Israel and for the region, with implications for Israel’s democracy and its relations with its neighbours. In line with the Government’s firm commitment to human rights, we will continue to support efforts, including by the Israeli Government and civil society, to address the problems of Israel’s Arab population and to build relations between the two communities.

16:49

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

My Lords, we have had a good debate. I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part and to the Minister for her response. Every contribution raised a point to which I would be tempted to respond but I will resist that temptation. Just to return to the point made right at the beginning by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, on the important difference between the Israeli state and the Israeli Government, I regard myself as a loyal Briton but your Lordships may have noticed that I am not always the most enthusiastic flag-waver for everything that comes from the Front Bench to my right. To those noble Lords who talked about the importance of being friends to Israel, I am often reminded of that advertisement for malt whisky: “True friends give it to you straight”.

This is not just a matter of government. It is also a matter of culture—and the disturbing development of culture. We have in Israel today a vicious circle in which discrimination in law and practice leads to disengagement on the part of minorities, which then leads to fears of disloyalty on the part of the majority—and so the vicious circle goes round and round. We need to reverse that and achieve a virtuous circle, which will then flow out to touch the wider region. Otherwise, as the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, pointed out, we will see more people on the move yet again. We are not powerless. Many noble Lords have pointed to the leverage that we have through the robust and consistent application of international law.

Again, it is not just a question of law. A number of noble Lords pointed to the importance of grace. By one of those acts of serendipity, when I was having my breakfast this morning I turned on Radio 4 and heard “Thought for the Day”, given by the noble Lord, Lord Sacks. It was a remarkable reflection. He talked about yesterday’s results of the census and the rise in the number of those who say that they have no religion. He talked about the importance of religions facing the fact that they might be a minority. He said that was important because religion at its best speaks not out of power but out of powerlessness. Perhaps the healthiest society is one where all religions are a minority and so have to engage with one another. Those are wise words. They are a challenge to us here in the UK. They are also a challenge to Israel.

Motion agreed.

Care Services: Abuse of Learning Disabled

Thursday 13th December 2012 Lords Chamber

Question for Short Debate

16:51

Asked By

[Lord Rix]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the abuse suffered by people with a learning disability as illustrated by that which took place at Winterbourne View care home.

[Lord Rix]

My Lords, first, I should apologise for my limited appearances in your Lordship’s House of late but my wife has been in hospital for some time and returns for major heart surgery at the beginning of January. I am sure your Lordships will understand where my priorities lie after some 63 years of marriage.

I am equally certain that all of us present today will have read the government report about Winterbourne View Hospital, Transforming Care, and will have welcomed the sentiments expressed by the Minister of State in his introduction to the report and in his Oral Statement. The report sets out a strong commitment to prevent abuse happening again and stresses in no uncertain terms that clinical commissioning groups and local authorities must develop services so that people can remain in their communities and not be sent away, where they are at greater risk of abuse. As is the way of things, what is written on paper and what happens in practice is often very different. I urge the Government to remember that the policy on local and personalised support has been in place for years—it is the implementation that has failed. I can only hope that this short debate will underline our agreement with many of the Government’s proposals and reinforce their determination to carry them through, in partnership with others.

The serious abuse suffered by people with a learning disability at Winterbourne View Hospital has rightly shocked the nation. The images broadcast in the BBC’s “Panorama” programme in 2011 and again in October this year have left us angered and bewildered. They have also left many of us astonished that such brutal treatment of extremely vulnerable people did not bring down the full force of the law on the management and board of directors of Castlebeck Care Ltd—the owners of that so-called hospital. Unhappily in this country, under successive Governments, people at the top of organisations who fail in their duties of oversight and accountability seem to escape scot-free, while those lower down the ladder are held to account for their role in scandals. I look forward to seeing proposals in the spring on what the Government intend to do to strengthen the accountability of managers and directors in both public and private providers.

To underline this whole sorry saga, let me tell your Lordships about Simon, whose experiences were written about in Mencap and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation's Out of Sight campaign report. Simon has a learning disability and behaviour that challenges. He spent 15 long months at Winterbourne View, far from his family and the community that he grew up in. During that time he was hit, pushed, abused and tormented. Prior to Winterbourne, Simon had received support locally and lived close to his family. When Simon needed a few more hours of care and support, social services refused. Things got worse for Simon and he was sent to an assessment unit. From there he was sectioned under the Mental Health Act and then sent far away to Winterbourne View. His parents describe the torment of being helpless to prevent this, sidelined by uncaring authorities which did not listen to them or to Simon. With the Care Quality Commission failing to see the signs of poor practice, it took a whistleblower and “Panorama” to expose what was happening. Simon’s story and that of his family brings into sharp focus our failing as a society to care for and support those who are most vulnerable.

Winterbourne View Hospital was a 24-bed institution run by Castlebeck Care Ltd. It was registered as a treatment, assessment and rehabilitation centre for people with learning disabilities. What it became was a place where people remained for significant periods of time, sometimes years, well beyond the time they should have been there for the supposed purposes of assessment and treatment. In that time they were subjected to emotional, verbal and physical abuse.

There are over 1,500 people with a learning disability in assessment and treatment centres, and 3,400 in total in in-patient services. This is far too many. It should rarely be necessary to admit a person to an assessment and treatment unit. In most cases what the person needs is good assessment and support in the place where they are living. However, people are ending up in places such as Winterbourne View because either support services in their local areas are not available or the skills and expertise to support people locally is lacking.

The late and much missed Professor Jim Mansell called these places “dumping grounds” used by commissioners looking for an easy so-called solution for placing some of our most vulnerable people with high support needs. And we should not forget cost. Each person at Winterbourne attracted funding of around £3,500 a week—money that would have been better spent on local support services that are in all likelihood cheaper.

What of the scale of the problem? We might be tempted to think that Winterbourne is an isolated incident, but this is not the case. Following the “Panorama” programme, the Care Quality Commission carried out unannounced inspections of all similar units and a number of social care residential services across the country. Its report in June of this year showed that half of the services investigated were not only failing to meet essential standards around care and welfare but also failing to meet standards around protecting people from abuse. This was a deeply concerning finding, meaning that essential safeguards were seriously lacking in many institutions, placing vulnerable people at risk.

Of course, it comes as no surprise to organisations such as Mencap—of which I must declare an interest as president—and the Challenging Behaviour Foundation. We have been campaigning tirelessly on this issue and our joint report Out of Sight must remain firmly on the Minister’s desk in coming years to remind him of the task ahead.

The action plan in the government report commits to a timetable to review all current placements and, by June 2014, to move all those inappropriately placed to community-based provision. While clear timescales are to be welcomed, the future of vulnerable people in remote institutions seems now to hang on the words “inappropriately placed”. Who will determine this? Will the person with a learning disability and their family have a say? I fear very much that the tendency of professionals, commissioners and public authorities to protect the status quo will win over. We must be bolder. These units must close and no more should be permitted to open by the Care Quality Commission.

I turn now to the Care Quality Commission. The regulator, when inspecting Winterbourne View, failed to spot the abuse that was taking place. Furthermore, its inaction when contacted by a whistleblower was totally unacceptable. However, it has since reacted quickly and purposefully to the scandal, carrying out a comprehensive programme of unannounced inspections. We may not see it often, but the CQC does have teeth. For example, it can refuse to register public and private providers who wish to develop new services that go against national policy and put people at high risk of abuse. The CQC can also deregister high-risk existing services. I want to see the Care Quality Commission using its powers to stop another institution like Winterbourne View ever being established.

Your Lordships may recall that back in the 1980s all the talk, and subsequent action, was about care in the community and the closure of long-stay subnormality hospitals—yet here we are, some 30 years later, still finding that care in the community does not exist for many of those in need of care. Instead, they are transported sometimes hundreds of miles away from their homes and left to rot in what is, in effect, a small, long-stay subnormality hospital. How can central and local government allow this non-care in the community to happen—and at such cost to the taxpayer, too?

What happened to Simon? He is now back living near his family, and loving life again. He is at the residential care home he was in before he was sent away, but the service has been adapted to meet his needs. This has been done by developing a flat for him adjoining the care home, where he lives with his support team. Simon’s package of care costs half as much as it did at Winterbourne View and I know from Mencap, which is working with his mother, that he feels safe and happy. A solution has been found.

Living safely and happily should be the reality for all those with a learning disability and behaviour that challenges, and we must strive to make it a reality. Then, and only then, will the promise of care in the community be fulfilled.

17:02

[Lord Touhig]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for securing this debate and for bringing to it his very great experience and background in giving support and care to people with disabilities.

In his Statement on the final report on Winterbourne View, the Minister for Care and Support, Mr Norman Lamb, said that,

“hospitals are not where people should live”.

He was so right. He went on:

“There are far too many people with learning disabilities or autism in hospital, and they are staying there for too long—sometimes for years … We should no more tolerate people being placed in inappropriate care settings than we would people receiving the wrong cancer treatment”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/12/12; col. 49.]

However, the truth is that we have been prepared to tolerate this sort of care—and for far too long. We have simply tinkered at the edges of the issue of caring for people with learning disabilities.

As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said, more than 30 years ago the big idea was care in the community. Everyone got worked up calling for the closure of institutionalised hospitals and care homes. At the county hospital near where I then lived in Pontypool was a ward called St Hilda’s Ward. The hospital had been the local Victorian workhouse and this ward was given over to the care of around a dozen ladies with learning difficulties. It had become their home and they had become very much part of the community, shopping in local shops and attending every event from carol services to school fêtes. Care in the community was supposed to end this sort of caring arrangement, giving people an independent life in their local community, but I believe for many it has made things worse. In order to give people a degree of independence, they were put into small houses and encouraged to live in what were supposed to be family units, but for many the care was non-existent.

A dear friend of mine was persuaded that her daughter with Down’s syndrome would be better off living independently in the community. She was placed in a house with two elderly men, both of whom had dementia. The so-called care amounted to a person—often a different person—calling each morning to see that they had breakfast, coming again in the middle of the day to see that they had a midday meal, and calling late in the afternoon to see that they had tea or supper. The rest of the time they were left alone, with next to no contact with neighbours or anyone but close family. My friend’s family rightly removed this lovely young person from this so-called care in the community placement. It simply did not work and care in the community did not amount to a tin of beans.

Contrast that with three young women, all with Down’s syndrome, whom I met during the Blaenau Gwent by-election. They lived together in a small house and their carer lived with them. It was truly a family environment. They had a rich and varied social life, and the carer was part of their family. That is real care in the community, but I believe it to be the exception rather than the rule. If any noble Lords walk down Victoria Street tonight, barely a few hundred yards from this Chamber they will see people sleeping in doorways. Many clearly have mental health problems and learning difficulties, but their homes are cardboard boxes. This is the life of many who should be cared for in the community.

The Minister, Mr Lamb, said that all hospital placements will be reviewed by June 2013 and everyone who is there inappropriately will move to community-based support as quickly as possible. Could the Minister say precisely what is meant by a move to community-based support? If it is like the so-called care in the community that we have now, I wonder how many will end up like the poor souls sleeping on Victoria Street.

I would now like to spend a few minutes speaking about another matter of concern—disability hate crime. More than a third of the patients at Winterbourne View had a diagnosis of autism and the National Autistic Society, of which I, along with the noble Baroness, Lady Browning, have the honour of being a vice-president, has been campaigning to end poor care and abuse at large, institutional-style services such as Winterbourne View since “Panorama” first aired its programme. The 11 individuals who were charged following the Winterbourne View scandal were charged with disability hate crimes. Disability hate crime is a major concern, regardless of whether someone is in hospital, a care home or the community. It is clear that nobody should suffer abuse because of their disability. In race-related hate crime, the Attorney-General has the power to intervene to increase sentencing where he believes that it has been too lenient. I strongly believe that this power should be extended where there has been a disability-related hate crime.

A lack of training and support for staff can contribute to poor and, in the most extreme cases, abusive practices such as those seen at Winterbourne View. It is vital, therefore, that staff have access to training in the specific needs of patients, especially those with autism. The Department of Health made specific commitments related to training in the adult autism strategy. However, I know that the National Autistic Society is concerned that such commitments have not been fulfilled. In July, the National Audit Office published a memorandum explaining that, despite progress in many areas, key recommendations related to training had not been implemented. Its report demonstrates that the Government have failed to, for example, work with the National Health Service and local authorities to identify priority groups for training and to ensure that autism awareness training is available to everyone working in health or social care.

I urge the Government—and I am sure I am not alone in this—to ensure that the training commitments made in the adult autism strategy are fulfilled. The review of the strategy will take place next year. This is the chance for the Government to carry out their promise to ensure adequate training. I certainly hope that they will embrace that.

17:09

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, I start by echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for bringing this important issue to the attention of the House. His personal expertise and wisdom have informed the House for many years, and long may it continue.

It is vital that we make public this failure in care and act swiftly to ensure that vulnerable populations in society are treated with dignity and afforded quality, compassionate treatment. Today, I want to touch on a few distinct aspects of this issue. Systemic and, perhaps, societal issues need to be raised. As evidenced by the 11 individuals prosecuted and sentenced for providing shockingly abusive care, the actions taken by these staff at Winterbourne View were criminal. There is no excuse for this appalling abuse. I am pleased to note that the criminals have been brought to justice and that larger investigations into more than 150 other hospitals have not found similar abuse and neglect. However, where were the safeguards within this hospital to identify failures in care and correct them? Where was the management of this organisation in monitoring abuse and establishing the quality of care?

Culturally, I am concerned that this event reflects a fault in how we value our vulnerable populations—those with mental health problems, the disabled and the elderly. Our respect for these populations is apparent in whom we charge to care for them and we undervalue them when we pay little attention to how their carers are trained and managed. However, we do little to respect the ill treated if we do not change the culture of care to prevent these crimes from happening again.

We were all rightly shocked when the BBC “Panorama” programme uncovered this systematic abuse of patients at Winterbourne View Hospital. Vulnerable patients were bullied, pinned down and tormented, not once or occasionally, but systematically. This would be appalling even if this treatment was limited to one staff member. What escalates the abuse at Winterbourne View to a national scandal was the culture of neglect and ill treatment that was fostered throughout the hospital. Even with this widespread negligent culture, the existing accountability safeguards did not detect the abuse.

I see two areas of concern. First, the patients who received ill treatment in the hospital should not have been in the hospital setting to begin with. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made that point very clearly. Similar stories of misplacement into the wrong care settings have been found all across England, so greater scrutiny must be called for in the determination and monitoring of treatment plans for the vulnerable. In particular, we should explore every option for them to live close to their families and the people who care for them. The provision of less institutional and more local care can be a great safeguard against abuse.

Secondly, the abuse was found in a private, foreign investment-backed firm. As we move towards a system with greater diversity in how health and social care is provided, will the Minister tell the House what oversight is being put in place to ensure that these new forms of care delivery are fit for purpose and free from repetitions of this kind of abuse? In these settings, good management is key to setting the standard for institutional practices. Clearly, there was a failure to lead and train staff effectively and eliminate unacceptable behaviour. In these new methods of care delivery, with less direct government oversight, how can we ensure that management is effective in setting behaviour standards and being held to account?

There is a cultural issue that I would like to raise around training, appraisal and professional development of care staff. Clearly, there was neglect at many levels of the organisation, but in particular I believe that how we value front-line care workers reflects how we value vulnerable populations. The following example has been used before in your Lordships’ House. A very high-profile department store and grocery chain will not let a new employee on to the shop floor without providing basic training on the job in hand and on the corporate culture—and this takes weeks, not days. It is accepted and common practice that staff at all levels are given close monitoring until a probationary period is over and that they are part of an appraisal scheme. This is not overkill; it is to ensure that employees know what they are doing and that employers know what employees are doing and can take appropriate action if there is a problem.

This brings me to registration. I know that the Government are reluctant to regulate for the registration of care workers but, with a large population in all areas of health and social care, the failure to register looks like a failure to value their work. When we start setting a precedent of lower value for these workers, it shows in their professional behaviour. If this vital cohort of workers were part of a registered body, that would send a signal to any companies that see the health and care business as a cash cow. Care workers do a valuable job. They are a resource to be valued and their training is not a cost—something to come off the bottom line—but an investment.

Finally, I applaud the action plan set forth by my honourable friend Norman Lamb. At the same time as we embrace innovative forms of care delivery, we must complement this flexibility with accountability from all levels of care organisations: owners, boards of directors, managers and care workers. We need to stop patients being inappropriately placed in the hospital as their primary care setting and instead design personalised services enabling them to live in communities closer to their families.

Again, I reiterate: how we value care workers reflects how we value the populations they care for. Universal professional standards for care workers should be developed and implemented to create a culture where their work is professionally valued and appraised. We need to know, too, that they will be registered. By moving quickly to implement these reforms, we can make what was a horrible failure in care into an opportunity to prevent its repeat.

17:15

[Baroness Kidron]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to rise for the first time in your Lordships’ House and I would like to take this opportunity to extend my thanks to noble Lords from all sides of the House for their very warm welcome, as well as to the delightful staff whose acts of kindness and gentle instruction have kept my transgressions to a minimum.

I will detain your Lordships only a very short while to tell you my own journey to involvement with young people with learning difficulties. I declare an interest as a trustee of the Paul Hamlyn Foundation, which over many years has done excellent work in the area of learning disabilities, and as co-founder and vice-chair of the educational charity, FILMCLUB. FILMCLUB was founded six years ago as a way of engaging and educating young people with the intention that they should see a broader world. It has been a very successful endeavour, with many tens of thousands of young people each week watching, reviewing and debating subjects both in and out of the curriculum, and in doing so learning about a world much richer than the one they usually inhabit.

One of the surprising outcomes of the scheme was the number of SEN teachers in mainstream and specialist schools who adopted the FILMCLUB programme to teach young people with learning difficulties. For some it was simply a peaceful moment for a restless mind; others found a place where they could engage with subjects and emotions that they recognised but in daily life struggled to articulate. It is one small space where young people—some with very challenging behaviour—found a method to communicate on their own behalf what concerns them.

I am by profession a film-maker and it was in this capacity that I was introduced to Louise, a young woman with complex needs who—as is the Government’s ambition—lives in her community with her family. She is exemplary in her achievements against the odds—bright, humorous and ambitious to make the most of her life. She is an advocate for Young Advisors and a keen sailor. She also has cerebral palsy, is confined to a wheelchair and needs a communication aid to speak. Louise’s life has been blighted by a series of disagreements and misunderstandings about where her physical disability ends and her learning difficulty begins, putting her family at odds with those who deliver the support she needs.

Louise has been shunted between schools of every possible variety, each in turn unable to cater to her complex needs. In her last school, for young people with physical disabilities, she was accused of attention-seeking, resulting in punishments that included encircling her wheelchair with furniture, taking her from her chair and laying her on concrete paving, and removing her communication aid. These punishments, which were casually meted out by staff with little knowledge of learning difficulties, were experienced by her as acts of incomprehensible cruelty. When I asked her how the removal of her communication aid made her feel, she said, “It was as if they put tape across my mouth”.

Louise lives in her community with her very loving family, but still her treatment was out of sight of her parents. She did not have the capacity to describe what was terrifying her, but she did protest at going to school. She started self-harming and repeatedly said that she wanted to die because she was “bad”. Feeling powerless at her distress and unable to get answers from those entrusted with her care, her family withdrew her from school permanently to give her 24-hour care themselves. She was 12 years old.

Winterbourne was a shameful episode, both for those who inflicted violence and humiliation on the vulnerable and for us as a community. However, my concern is that in moving back to community-based support we do not overlook the indignities and cruelties routinely experienced in other contexts, because a culture of “not understanding” can, as in Louise’s case, prove as abusive as deliberate criminal acts.

There has been a broad welcome of the Government’s plan to transfer more than 3,000 people incarcerated in inappropriate care settings, but we must have concern that the burden of care is not subtly or cruelly transferred on to families, many of whom are already on a lifelong journey of supporting loved ones with complex needs, without them being assured of a fully resourced effective implementation, delivered with a level of competence that meets the needs of even the most challenging, for the newly released and for those already struggling with care in the community. The legacy of Winterbourne must be that the care provided in our all institutions and services is imaginative, compassionate and trustworthy.

It is the tradition of a maiden speech not to be controversial, and I will leave it to others in this Chamber more expert and able than I to judge if the Government’s response is adequate to the task of providing a level of care in institutions and public services of which we can be proud. However, it is my hope that in my time in this House I will be able to lend robust support to the voices of the young and those on the margins to whom we often do not listen closely or hear clearly when they try to speak.

I thank my noble friend Lord Rix, who has been tireless in his support for people with learning disabilities, for bringing today’s debate to this House.

17:22

[Baroness Browning]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and to have this opportunity to congratulate her on her maiden speech. She has been acclaimed both nationally and internationally as a film-maker, and we must add our congratulations on her choice of subject matter in her maiden speech. We look forward to future contributions from her as the years go by.

I begin by supporting and joining the call from my noble friend Lady Jolly on two points—first, on the registration and structure of care workers in health and social care. I must say to my noble friend on the Front Bench that there is a real body of steam behind this. I know that my noble friend Lord Howe has said that he will keep an open mind on this, but I say to my noble friend that this is not going to go away and the sooner we get on with it, the better. Also, I join my noble friend Lady Jolly on the question of accountability of those upstream owners of private homes and hospitals. Again, complex though this issue may be, I hope that the Government will address it as a matter of urgency.

As my noble friend Lord Touhig—if I may call him that—said, a third of the patients at Winterbourne View had a diagnosis of autism. I am genuinely filled with despair that, after the high profile of the Bournewood case some years ago now, we are still looking at people with a diagnosis of autism being held in a hospital, and the views of parents and carers being dismissed by so-called professionals. I thought we had moved on from there and I am going to ask my noble friend to carry forward a suggestion I made when we had the Statement earlier in the week about the Mental Capacity Act, which I will come to in a moment.

First, I will say something very briefly about autism and challenging behaviour. There is no doubt that there are people with an autistic diagnosis who have comorbidities—they may be learning-disabled or have specifically diagnosed mental illnesses—and they are complex cases. In another place over many years I raised again and again the difficulty for psychiatrists who are dealing—particularly but not exclusively—with adult patients who present with very challenging and disturbing behaviour. However, sometimes when they are seen by psychiatrists with an understanding of and expertise in autism, it is possible to unscramble what appear as perhaps rather obvious mental health symptoms, when in fact those symptoms have an autistic base.

Autism is not a mental illness and very often the challenging behaviour that is presented does not have a psychotic base to it at all. People who work with adults with autism who are challenging will know that, with the right package of support and particularly with the right expertise of the people working with them, all too often you can identify the triggers that create that autistic behaviour. Why? It is actually rather simple: it is because the autistic mind works differently from the way other people think, and rationalisation is a very complex area. I have known of many—and I do mean many—autistic adults who have been held in some form of detention; some voluntarily, some not. When they have been placed in an appropriate setting with professionals who understand what those triggers are and why their often challenging behaviour presents in a certain way, with the right package of support they have been able to live and be supported in the community rather than locked up.

I say to my noble friend, we really cannot keep going round and round in circles, coming back to these high-profile cases where we seem to have learned nothing. I was involved in the Bournewood case with patient P, who was detained in a mental institution, and it was only when his carers went through not just all the courts in this country but to the European Court and got a judgment there that he was allowed to be released—and I use that word deliberately—from his institution when all the expert advice was that he should remain there. We have to do something. This is about fundamental human rights for a group of people who are unable to make the case for themselves. We, as politicians and in this House, have a duty to ensure that the structure is out there for those who represent them—whether they be parents or carers or people professionally appointed as advocates on their behalf—and that those human rights are at the forefront of what happens to them.

As always, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Rix. His work in this field is an exemplar for us all. Today I have written to the chairman of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Dr Hywel Francis MP, because I have had grave concerns for some time that the Mental Capacity Act, on which I sat on both the pre-legislative scrutiny and the Bill committees in another place, is not in practice supporting the people whom Parliament intended it to support.

I say again to my noble friend that the Care Quality Commission needs to be more rigorous—we hope that we will have learnt lessons from this tragic case—and that the Mental Capacity Act is not doing what it should in terms of parents, carers and, in particular, patients. I also suggest that the deprivation of liberty safeguards are too narrowly defined by the courts and that the whole framework needs to be reviewed, taking account of the way in which the courts implement the framework.

I hope that my noble friend will understand the call not just for the Joint Committee on Human Rights but for the Government themselves to completely review the implementation of the Mental Capacity Act—an Act I thoroughly support. We will not get to the bottom of some of the problems that we are discussing today unless we are prepared to do that.

17:30

[Lord Addington]

My Lords, this is one of those debates where I think that the general element of agreement is going to be overwhelming: we should never have got anywhere near this situation; there were structural problems which were not addressed; and, as has clearly been pointed out, there was also criminal activity. The real question that we face is: how can we minimise the chances of anything like this happening again?

Having said that there is a considerable degree of consensus, looking at exactly what happened at Winterbourne View, we probably had a perfect storm for abuse, as I think it was described in some of the briefing that I received. There was bad management and a disinterested owner, who made no investment, which meant that care workers, who were badly recruited and badly trained, were left to deal with people with what has been called challenging behaviour. To play devil’s advocate for a second, if you meet challenging behaviour—for instance, people who self-harm, are unable to communicate and occasionally lash out through frustration—and you have been trained only in basic restraint, that is what you will use. There is an almost iron inevitability about what will happen unless there is somebody alongside you telling you that there is another way. In this case, such a person was not there. Therefore, it was almost inevitable from the word go that something like this would happen. We should remember that it took less than five years for this culture to be put in place. It was not a slip; it was a fall into very bad practice, and there is no way that we can ever allow it to happen again.

I want to take up a point which my noble friend raised earlier, on the training of staff. The care and support workers at Winterbourne View should have been given better training and—something that is incredibly easy to say but apparently incredibly difficult to do—they should have been told when to call for support. As anyone who has dealt with front-line support in public service will know, getting that message across at any level is difficult.

I have had a discussion with numerous Ministers from numerous parties over many years about many issues relating to people with disabilities. I have pointed out that the people in charge need to be told that the tick-box method does not work. They will need support, and that support will differ as circumstances change. Often, the Minister or senior official has said, “Yes, we’ll do it”, but it does not happen. I have had meetings with Ministers of all Governments and have asked when they are going to implement this. The response has been, “But we said we’ll do it in legislation or in guidance”. However, it does not happen on the ground. That is clearly the situation that we have here. Therefore, we created something that was bound to go wrong—perhaps not as wrong as it did but it was bound to go wrong.

We have to bring about worker registration and make sure that these people have a responsible job where they can develop a career so that they have some stake in it, as well as a stake in making sure that their co-workers are correctly registered. We could talk about whistleblowing here. If we make sure that people have a job where they have a future and a clear duty, the chances of this happening again will go down. We can never totally remove it. Indeed, the idea for better inspections, et cetera, by those higher up are, of course, needed. We can start to take away a part of this cocktail of disaster; we can start to remove it. We can have a group of people who have a stake and who will go back in again.

I do not envy my noble friend her job, but I hope that when she replies she can give us a clear idea of exactly what process we are talking about and where it will be implemented. We must have people who are trained well enough to recognise that they need support and who are willing to ask questions. We must start to work with the situation for those with autism. The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, has been an important part of my secondary education on autism. Once we start working in that field, we need a different approach. There is always a danger that those of us dealing with a disability will think that it is like the disability we have. Probably our problems with bureaucracy are more similar than our actual on-the-ground experience. Unless our front-line workers are better trained and told that it is okay to ask for help and support, such problems will occur again. I hope that my noble friend will say that steps are being taken. We are trying to ensure not that it does not happen again but that the next time it happens we are better able to deal with it because these problems will not go away.

17:36

[Baroness Hollins]

My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Rix for his inspiration and tenacity on behalf of people with learning disabilities, and I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, on her eloquent maiden speech, which reflects her long-standing commitment to social justice.

I know quite a lot about learning disability. I know about it as a parent, a psychiatrist, a policy maker, and I also chair a charitable organisation that creates communication resources about life and relationships for people with learning disabilities. First, I commend the Government on their report, for the programme of action signed up to by 50 organisations, and for setting out what good care should look like. I also commend the serious case review conducted in such a painstaking way by my former colleague Dr Margaret Flynn.

The BMA under my presidency recently commissioned an expert round table in your Lordships’ House at which Dr Flynn spoke. I shall draw on the notes from that meeting in what I say. There is a story to tell which begins with a question: why were these very vulnerable people at Winterbourne View at all? The existence of Winterbourne View and similar hospitals represents a commissioning failure. Hospitals such as Winterbourne View have been considered unsuitable for more than 20 years. Jim Mansell’s first report on challenging behaviour in 1993 criticised the widespread core practice of exporting people with behaviour that challenged. A drawn-out, long-stay hospital programme that originally began after institutional scandals in the 1970s and 1980s was completed only just three or four years ago.

Even before the closure programme had been completed, new mainly private hospitals were already touting for business. As a policy adviser in 2001 I drew attention to this trend, as did others, but there were no incentives in place to encourage local providers to develop adequate local support for people. With some notable exceptions the practice of exporting patients similar to those who ended up in Winterbourne View continued. The sad journey of most of these patients began long before they arrived in hospital. The serious case review showed that. There were many lost opportunities to provide better, more personal and local care, but they were missed. Why were they placed such a long way from home? Typically a crisis happens just before a weekend and risk-averse professionals seek an emergency hospital bed somewhere, anywhere.

Many of these adults have had sad lives; they may have been abused, bullied or have had a traumatic bereavement. Such dislocation to a distant hospital can further disturb and re-traumatise them. On entering hospital, vulnerable adults depend on the nurses to get to know them and to understand and meet their needs, and on the other members of the team to draw up an active treatment plan. We have heard a great deal about the lack of compassion in different types of hospitals, but Winterbourne View was the site of systematic abuse by poorly paid and untrained staff with the wrong attitudes. They were unable to understand the communicative function of their patients’ behaviour; they lacked the skills to support them in a respectful and safe manner.

I am pleased to see the roles envisaged for Health Education England, the professional senate on learning disability and Skills for Care to turn this around. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that these staff need to be better supported. Some will need therapeutic supervision to enable them to care better.

Distant placements make it difficult for families and carers to provide oversight and protection, and yet the best safeguards for people with severe learning disabilities are the people who know and love them. I am glad that the DH final report and the concordat recognise that services must be provided locally and that containment must give way to personal care and personal treatment plans. The ordinary life that campaigners such as David Towell have argued for for so many years seems to be within the reach of even those whose behaviour challenges. Does the Minister believe that the timescale proposed to get people back home is realistic? I hope so.

Choice—an OFT-heard mantra—is a key principle of the Health and Social Care Act, but what sort of care would service users choose if they were able to? This is the question that those who commission and provide services need to ask. I am encouraged that the report expects people with learning disabilities and family carers to be involved in future CQC inspections.

Too often those close to vulnerable adults—many of whom wish to help—are still excluded from decision making. Personal budgets and direct payments provide one mechanism for more personal care but for people with behavioural challenges pooled budgets are needed to avoid financial arguments about whose responsibility it is to provide effective and timely care and support. People were placed at Winterbourne View by the NHS largely, but the NHS looked to the local authority to take responsibility for funding their rehabilitation. Where was the incentive? They were out of sight and out of mind. Does the Minister think that the new plans will provide adequate incentives to get people home?

NHS-funded care, whether in hospitals or the community, should deliver high-quality assessment and treatment and it should be evidence based. Winterbourne View was a hospital; its patients had mental health needs. Most were detained under legislation but they received little in the way of specialist health care. It seems to me that people with severe learning disabilities are still seen as second class citizens and not afforded the same rights as other citizens. The 2001 White Paper, Valuing People, challenged those assumptions and raised the hopes of people with learning disabilities and their families, but access to the same health care as others is still denied to many. This is as true of mental health services as physical health services.

Underfunding, a lack of 24/7 working, the separation of specialist learning disability services from primary care and mental health services means that even those specialist services cannot support and deliver the safe and timely care that people need. For example, in the case of specialist psychological therapy services, IAPT services and highly specialist psychotherapy services have not been adapted for people with learning disabilities. This is especially important for people whose behaviour challenges. Can the Minister clarify the expectations of the Government with respect to the mental and physical healthcare of this group? Does parity of esteem apply to this patient group too? It is disappointing that there is so little in the report about the range of mental health treatments that people need.

My first boss in learning disability, Joan Bicknell, recruited me back in 1981 because I was a medical psychotherapist and a family carer. She lectured extensively about the emotional lives of people with learning disabilities. I remember how sceptical her audiences were. How could people with little spoken language have feelings? Is this the same attitude that makes it possible for so-called carers to abuse the people they are caring for? Some of my research studied the effect of abuse and bereavement on people’s behaviour and emotions. To help their carers understand their inner world, I turned that research into picture books about life experiences for them to read together. More research is needed to help us understand what happens in people’s homes and what leads to behaviour that challenges. Can the Minister tell us whether there will be substantial investment in research, similar to that being used at King’s College to develop a care home research network for people living with dementia?

Winterbourne View hospital failed to meet the needs of these adults. How can we be sure that this time we do not forget; that the lessons from this tragedy are truly learnt and safeguards are put in place?

17:45

[Lord Maginnis of Drumglass]

My Lords, I echo what has been said on the importance of closing these large impersonal assessment and treatment centres for people with a learning disability. Good-quality provision that is developed and delivered locally must be our aim and we must keep a watchful eye on local authorities, clinical commissioning groups and the Government to ensure that this happens. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for raising this matter this evening, despite his domestic pressures. Perhaps I may say to him that we hope and pray that Lady Rix is soon well again.

I want to focus on what happened to the 48 patients who were in Winterbourne View hospital over the years from the time it opened in 2007 until it closed last year. That will, I believe, highlight the extent of the challenge that the Government’s programme of action faces. The Government’s report shows that in March of this year, 26 former Winterbourne patients had moved into a range of social care supported arrangements and 22 patients were in various in-patient facilities. I am sure I will not be alone when I say that one learns with considerable anger how 19 of these people have had to be subjected to a safeguarding alert in their new location.

In September 2012 the Government again looked at former patients and found 32 in a range of social care settings and 16 patients in in-patient settings. There were initial safeguarding alerts or active safeguarding procedures for six people. One of these people, Simone Blake—then just 18—faced some of the most outrageous and inhuman abuse at Winterbourne View. This included being drenched in water and left shivering and shaking on the freezing ground outside. You may recall her story from the follow-up “Panorama” programme earlier this year.

When Winterbourne closed, Simone was moved to a National Health Service hospital, Postern House in Wiltshire. Postern House was just 40 minutes’ drive from her parents, allowing them to visit her several times a week. In June this year, her parents received a letter from Ridgeway Partnership, the health trust that runs Postern House, telling them that Simone was again the subject of a safeguarding alert and that four members of staff had been suspended. However, the fact that two-thirds of the former patients have now been moved into social care settings shows what is possible and gives further credence to the Government’s programme of action to move all those inappropriately placed in hospitals to social care settings by June 2014. None the less, the fact that a significant number of former Winterbourne patients, such as Simone, have had to be subjected to further safeguarding alerts is shocking and should not be forgotten, and nor should it be overlooked that 27 people have required support subsequent to the trauma experienced at Winterbourne View hospital.

What assurances can the Government give that, as they seek to move those inappropriately placed in hospitals into community settings, they will be kept safe and offered support by appropriately skilled professionals? This challenge applies not only to the former patients at Winterbourne View but to every one of those others that the Government, through their programme of action, intend to relocate. Forgive me if a note of cynicism creeps into my voice, but at a time when Prime Ministerial apologies are coming two a penny on time-distorted issues from the distant past, one expects a great deal more than that in respect of this existing problem. What is so wrong must be rectified on an immediate and ongoing day-to-day basis. I want the Minister’s assurance we are not merely going to pay lip service through a process that is delegated and forgotten about until we reach an accounting period in 2014. Can she reassure us that 2014 will be an effective staging post on a journey that has progressed with full government support and participation based on professionally led community care that is delivered locally? We do not want a token start date for the Government’s programme of action. The year 2014 is too far ahead if you are someone like Simone Blake.

17:52

[Baroness Emerton]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on initiating this debate, and I congratulate my noble friend Lady Kidron on her outstanding maiden speech. I want to concentrate on the management of change in the situation that we find ourselves in, and perhaps I may take noble Lords back to the beginning of Winterbourne. I was called in with Professor Jim Mansell to look at the footage before it was put out on television and asked why in the late 1970s we had been able satisfactorily to relocate 1,115 and 1,112 patients respectively from two large institutions, all suffering from learning disabilities, after 10 years; and why, in 2011, we find the same things happening now as happened in the late 1970s.

I want to raise the issues that we found. First, what were the principles and what were the things that needed to be looked at? We needed a multi-professional team, a strategy, a programme and research. We had no idea that the project would take so long, but we set about it. I was most fortunate in recruiting the then young Professor Mansell as a psychologist and researcher. It was his first post, other than working at the Kushlick centre, since leaving university, having changed his degree after the Ely inquiry. He was outstanding in the field of care for those with learning disabilities and continued his research right up to his sad death last year. The principles were that patients should return to their district of origin; that they would be individually assessed and diagnosed with their treatment set out; that they would work to a programme; that the staff would be trained to meet that programme; and that accommodation would be suitable to the need. Membership of the project team was large—we had a psychiatrist, a psychologist, a researcher, members of social services and we set up a university department. The principles were clear—that no patient would be discharged without an assessment, training programme, support programme and suitable accommodation.

The barriers were enormous. The psychiatrists at the hospital were totally against it being closed and the patients themselves were not happy about going, because it had been their home for a long time. The relatives became very edgy because they thought that it was a safe haven and that going into the community would be unsafe and the recipients in the community had a little of the “not in my backyard” attitude. Finance was an issue but at the time it was government policy and we were able to get funding. On the question of accommodation, we had to look at all the different types of accommodation that might be available—houses, housing association flats, and very small units.

The patients with less challenging behaviours were the easiest to relocate. Those with more challenging behaviours were more restricted: specialist skills were required to care for them. Fortunately, because we had Professor Mansell, we were able to relocate all of these with the right treatments and staffing levels. The training programmes were for support workers, who were trained but obviously not registered, at that stage, since they had never been registered. We also had trained nurses and social workers and we went through the programme. Resistance was overcome by influence, persuasion and personal visits to local councils, social services and parents themselves, and by going to hear what the patients had to say. We made sure that the team, which worked extremely hard, remained committed to overcoming the barriers.

Near to the closure of the 1,500 bed hospital, most of the patients had been relocated back to the sites from where they had originally come, but some—mostly those with challenging behaviours—remained. We had to persuade those within the counties and the districts: we had seven local London districts as well as Kent and Sussex. It took time to persuade them that it was possible, but Professor Mansell was instrumental in persuading people that even those with the most severe challenging behaviour could be housed in the community. We eventually succeeded in getting them out—the decisions were taken and the assessments went on—and the communities began to accept them and were happy. We found, through visiting them, going round to tea with the residents, that they had settled and that the community had accepted them. The budgets were sorted and the patients were happy. I remember a flat in Camberwell where three elderly gentlemen who had been in hospital for 30 years said what a treat it was to be able to go to a fish and chip shop; they also invited us to tea.

The programme would not have succeeded without the leadership of Jim Mansell and the rest of the team. It would not have succeeded had we not used leadership, influence and persuasion, or if we had not trained the staff. Today, the noble Baroness, Lady Jolly, and other Members have mentioned the need to register support workers. We cannot go on without having that registration of support workers, who are trained to understand the special needs that go with learning disability.

The point of making this reminiscent therapy that I have gone through is that today we face the same barriers and issues, and we have to overcome them. I am grateful that we have been able to see the report from the Government but we need to address these barriers urgently. If we do not, it will be those who suffer from learning disabilities who will be disadvantaged.

18:01

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, first, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who for so long has been a champion of people with learning disabilities. I always remember the late Lord Carter, who was the Chief Whip a few years ago, advising me that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, always gets his way in the House. That was certainly my experience as a Health Minister and my advice to the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, is to reflect very strongly on the points that he raised. I also very much welcome the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, which was excellent. We look forward to her contributing to our debates in the future.

The noble Lord, Lord Rix, made a number of very powerful points about the shocking events at Winterbourne View. He started by drawing attention to the contrast between policy and implementation. I suggest that that gap is what lies behind the unease clearly felt by many noble Lords today. We have had the welcome news from the Government that all current hospital placements are to be reviewed by next June and that everyone there who is inappropriately placed will move to community-based support as quickly as possible, and no later than June 2014. I would have thought that any assessment is likely to mean that many people will need to move to locally-based community care. Like the noble Baroness, I ask whether this is a realistic timetable in the circumstances in which health and social care finds itself at the moment.

We are going to expect a lot of commissioners, yet commissioning has led many people down. It is these commissioners who have been prepared to pay for people with learning disabilities to go miles and miles away from home and who have then forgotten about them. Does the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, really think that the commissioners are in a position to do what is required?

I would also refer to the changes in the National Health Service. I do not think that the primary care trusts can say that they dealt with this matter with any distinction but, my goodness me, what are clinical commissioning groups going to do? Can we be assured either that this is going to be done at a national level—or at least through the local offices of the national Commissioning Board—or, if it is to be done by clinical commissioning groups, that they will have the people with expertise? I am sceptical because there is no sign yet that clinical commissioning groups have people with enough seniority or expertise to do this kind of commissioning.

The noble Baroness, Lady Browning, made an important point about the owners and directors of these private institutions and their responsibilities. I have received a brief from Castlebeck, the people concerned with Winterbourne View, which details the actions it has taken and says that a new board of directors is in place. It also says that the shareholders who owned Castlebeck at the time of Winterbourne View have never drawn a return at any time and have now lost all their investment. However, there are still some serious questions about owner responsibilities. I refer noble Lords to the serious case review, which stated:

“Castlebeck Ltd appears to have made decisions about profitability, including shareholder returns, over and above decisions about the effective and humane delivery of assessment, treatment and rehabilitation”.

The review’s authors also say that,

“the corporate responsibility of Castlebeck Ltd remains to be addressed at the highest level”.

I would be grateful if the noble Baroness could say a little more about how the Government intend to do that. At the very least, will the Government require private companies to name the owners and members of the boards and details of their financial structure before they can be licensed and registered to provide publicly-funded care?

I will not labour the point on the regulation of health and social care workers. This will be the third time this week that the issue has arisen. There was also the Statement on Monday and the debate on nursing launched by the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, only two days ago. However, persuasive arguments are being put forward for the regulation of these workers. On Wednesday, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, relied on the kind of voluntary registration that he proposed during the passage of the Health and Social Care Act. He also made it clear that the Independent Safeguarding Authority can take action to bar care workers from working in regulated activity. The point is that there are many circumstances where such workers may not have been brought to the attention of the Independent Safeguarding Authority, but may have been dismissed by, perhaps, the National Health Service or an institution and can simply go on to work in another place. We have examples of where that happens. The noble Earl also said—this is in relation to the NHS but it is just as relevant to Winterbourne View—that nurses,

“who are themselves subject to professional regulation … should not be asked to undertake a task for which they are not trained”.—[Official Report, 11/12/12; col. GC 295.]

He also said that healthcare assistants come under the supervision of those nurses. That ignores the strength of the employer as opposed to those healthcare workers and nurses. I accept that regulated nurses clearly have responsibilities, but to blame them for delegating responsibilities to healthcare assistants is wrong and unfair.

My noble friend Lord Touhig made some good points about hate crime and the challenge of care in the community. I want to end on that point. Care in the community has been the policy of successive Governments for more than 30 years. We now have a situation where money is very tight, particularly in local government, but also in the health service. The National Audit Office today signalled some of the pressures in the system. I ask the Minister this question. Do Ministers really understand what is happening on the ground? I do not think they do. They are living, not in a dream world, but one which has no link with the reality, the pressures and the strains. I end, as I started, with doubts about how on earth this change can be made within 18 months when the whole system is under such acute pressure.

18:08

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on securing this debate. I am glad to see him back in his place and wish him and his wife well. He has a formidable record in this area and we are pleased to see him back here. He has been fighting for a long time for the rights of people like Simon, whom he mentioned.

There can be no more important issue for us as a society than how we treat our most vulnerable people, as my noble friend Lady Jolly and others emphasised. I, too, was impressed by the maiden speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. It was very moving and she absolutely rightly emphasised that this debate is about cases like that of Louise. If we cannot get things right for people like Louise and her family, we are not getting anything right.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her praise for the report issued this week. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, of the huge commitment of my honourable friend Norman Lamb in this area. That commitment shines through in this uncompromising report. Stimulated by this terrible case, it does not just deal with Winterbourne View but looks at the whole sector with its radical proposals—which I am glad so many noble Lords welcomed. Noble Lords have, if anything, asked if those can be done and delivered, rather than questioning whether this is the right route to take. There is a firm and detailed timetable of action. I hope that noble Lords have marked that, including the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I am sure that noble Lords will hold us to account. My honourable friend Norman Lamb will oversee this. He will leave organisations in no doubt of his commitment in this area.

The scandal that unfolded at Winterbourne View was devastating but it has spurred us into action. Straight after the abuse was exposed, the Government commissioned an in-depth review. Noble Lords have referred to the report published earlier this week. As we said then, the Winterbourne View abuse was criminal. Staff whose job was to care for people instead routinely mistreated and abused them—as my noble friend Lady Jolly, the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and others said. Management allowed a culture of abuse to flourish. Warning signs were not picked up, and the concerns of residents’ families, and of a whistleblower, went unheeded.

As I have said, this case made us look again at how we care for one of society’s most vulnerable groups of people. Winterbourne View provided care for people with either learning disabilities or autism, together with mental health problems or challenging behaviour. Around the country some 15,000 people have similar needs, of whom some 3,400 are in in-patient settings. Many people receive good care in these settings but—as my honourable friend Norman Lamb, the noble Lord, Lord Touhig, and others have said—hospitals are not where people should live. Across the country, far too many people with learning disabilities or autism are in hospital and staying there too long. As the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others emphasised, we have known for a long time that with the right support the vast majority of people with challenging behaviour who also have autism or a learning disability can live happy, fulfilled lives, close to their families and in their own communities—as Simon now is. When someone needs to be in hospital, it should be for a short period, in a small unit as close to their home as possible. I, too, pay tribute to Jim Mansell for all the work that he did on this.

We know what change is needed. It is now time to make sure it happens. First, owners, boards and senior managers must take responsibility for their services. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that we will examine how corporate bodies and their boards can be held to account for the provision of poor care and for harm experienced by people using their services. We will consider both regulatory and criminal sanctions, and will set out proposals in this area in spring 2013. I look forward to the noble Lord’s comments on those proposals. Of course, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to focus on the corporate responsibility of Castlebeck and other companies. I am sure that he will also scrutinise with great care the proposals that we bring forward. In addition, we will explore whether we can introduce a test to ensure that directors are fit and proper persons to oversee care. The CQC will consider a best practice model of care as part of its regulation of services from 2013. It will also check whether all providers are following national guidance or similar good practice. Where standards are not met, it will take enforcement action.

We will also stop people being placed in hospital—unless hospital is actually the best place to be. All current hospital placements, as noble Lords have referred to, will be reviewed by June 2013. Everyone who is there inappropriately will move to community-based support as quickly as possible—and no later than June 2014.

18:15

I assure the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and other noble Lords, of the involvement of parents and families in the review; they will have a key role. Additionally, every area will develop a plan to make sure that this group of people receives high-quality care. As a result, we expect to see a dramatic reduction in hospital placements. Noble Lords have made reference to that. The noble Lord, Lord Touhig, asked how we would ensure that we do not end up with people simply on the streets and the noble Lord, Lord Maginnis, and others hoped that moving to the community would ensure better care—putting a question mark over that.

I emphasise that the department has published good practice guidance and will be publishing further guidance and working with the CCGs and local authorities that are commissioning suitable care through joint improvement teams. As I mentioned, the involvement of families and advocates in what happens to family members is absolutely key. However, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, points out, this cannot mean—must not mean—that families themselves find that they are the ones who are picking everything up.

The noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, asked about the timescale of getting people back home. We agree that the timescale is challenging, but we believe that it is realistic. It is vital—that is something which came through in noble Lords’ contributions. They have been waiting decades for this to happen. We must not slow it down now.

In terms of incentives to return home, we agree that people need to be in appropriate settings. The department will work with the improvement team to monitor very closely and report on progress nationally, including reporting comparative information on localities. A follow-up report will be published by December 2013 and repeated in December 2014.

I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and others that this will be closely monitored. I can confirm to the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, that parity of esteem does, of course, apply to this group of people. They deserve to have their rights respected—just like anyone else—and to have access to whatever mental health treatments they need. I also note what she says about the King’s College research networks and I will make sure that that is fed in to the department.

We will support a positive and open culture, where staff provide excellent care. As part of this, it is crucial that the staff working with people with challenging behaviour are properly trained in essential skills. We expect commissioners to assure themselves that providers are meeting proper training standards. Contracts should be dependent on assurances that staff are signed up to the proposed code of conduct that the Department of Health has commissioned, and that minimum induction and training standards for health and care assistants are being met. Noble Lords have referred to the regulation and training of workers in this area. A number of noble Lords expressed concern and it is indeed crucial that they meet these standards. Contracts within any remaining learning disability and autism centres or hospitals should be dependent on assurances that staff are signed up to these codes of conduct, which the department has commissioned from Skills for Health and Skills for Care. As I say, minimum induction and training standards will be required.

My noble friend Lord Addington also asked about this. I assure him that owners, boards of directors and senior managers of organisations must take responsibility for ensuring the quality and safety of their services. This is also an area that we are looking further at. From April 2013, Health Education England will have a duty to ensure that the system of education and training is supplying a skilled and high-quality workforce.

I realise that I am running short of time. With regard to autism, I say to my noble friend Lady Browning that we are currently putting together our plans for a review, which will be a priority for the Government. We are working closely with people with autism and their families, with service commissioners and providers and with relevant voluntary organisations to assess what impact the strategy has had in improving support and outcomes for people with autism and to consider what further action is needed. We will pay close attention to what she says, given all her experience.

My noble friend also asked about the Mental Capacity Act. There was post-legislative scrutiny of the Act in 2011, when a report was laid before the House of Commons. We absolutely agree that families are best placed to understand their loved ones’ wants and needs, and we are determined that there should be a closer partnership with families. There will be a further opportunity to look at this as we consider the Care and Support Bill. I am sure that my noble friend will look at it with all her experience and expertise, and we look forward to discussions on it with her.

All noble Lords agree that this is something that has to change—and change fast. I assure noble Lords of our enormous commitment, and of that of my honourable friend Norman Lamb. We will make these changes as quickly as possible. A concordat signed by more than 50 organisations set out the specific actions that each organisation committed to deliver. The NHS Commissioning Board and the Local Government Association will lead an improvement programme to supervise changes, and Norman Lamb personally will oversee progress. We must use the tragic events at Winterbourne View as the spur to make things better. There are places that are already getting this right. They show what can and should be done for all, and that a better life for people with learning disabilities and autism is within our grasp.

House adjourned at 6.21 pm