House of Commons

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 14 February 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

[Mr Speaker]

After four and a half years of dedicated and outstanding professional service to the House, the Deputy Serjeant at Arms, Mike Naworynsky, is sadly leaving us shortly to take up a new role in Oxford. I am sure that the whole House will want very warmly to thank him for all he has done on our behalf.

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What steps her Department is taking to secure a legacy from the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

I am sure that you will not find it inappropriate for me to wish you, Mr Speaker, a happy Valentine’s day, although I am sure that I am not the first person to have done so this morning.

The Government are clear about our vision to deliver legacy over the next 10 years, and we have already made substantial progress across the five core areas: sport and healthy living, economic, community, regeneration of east London and the Paralympics.

[Mr Speaker]

I wish the same to the Secretary of State.

[Chris White]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Mr Speaker.

For sport in our country, 2012 was a fantastic year, but it is vital that we follow it up over the next few years, especially with the young people we have the greatest potential to influence. In my constituency, a charity called Kids Run Free organises events to get young people passionate about exercise and sets up races that are available to school and pre-school age groups. The races have spread across the west midlands and the charity is eager to do more. What support are the Government giving to innovative charities such as Kids Run Free, and how can we ensure that they get the resources they need so that we can build a long-lasting Olympic legacy?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to pay tribute to organisations such as the one he mentions in his community, which can inspire young people to get involved in sport and stay involved. The Government are supporting those organisations through our youth and community sport strategy, in which £1 billion is being invested over the next five years. Along with the work of Sport England, that makes us well placed to capitalise on the momentum from the Olympic and Paralympic games.

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

The Government initially tried to scrap school sports partnerships completely but then changed their mind and put some funding back in. How many of their targets for school sports participation are being met these days?

[Maria Miller]

I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have read in the press that Ofsted has produced an important report, in which it found that there has been an improvement in the provision of school sport since 2008. Everyone in the House would applaud that, but clearly we want to do more to build on the momentum from the Olympics and Paralympics. That is why we are continuing to put forward investment for the school games, which we think is an important legacy project, but we will continue to look at how we can ensure that teachers are able to provide the physical literacy that we know young people need.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

I commend my right hon. Friend for the Government’s work to achieve a lasting legacy, but I ask her to focus on the financial legacy, particularly the money that was left within the budget and not spent. She will be aware of the big lottery refund campaign, now supported by more than 3,300 charities, which is pressing for that money to be returned. I know that it is the Government’s intention to do so, but can she indicate when that will occur?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to bring that up. The lottery’s financial role in many organisations’ lives is pivotal. We cannot yet finalise the accounts, so it would be a little premature of me to give any indication about it or when it might happen, but I certainly understand the point he makes. Organisations want to know how that will work as we move forward.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Minister for her comments so far. Northern Ireland played a very significant role in participating and medal-winning for Team GB at the Olympics. What discussions has she had with the equivalent Minister in Northern Ireland to ensure that the legacy from the Olympics will also be in place for the young people in Northern Ireland who want a chance to be an Olympian?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that every corner of this great nation pulled together and supported the Olympics in a fantastic way. The Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), has a committee that looks particularly at sport participation, and the Olympic and Paralympic Legacy Cabinet Committee, which I chair, is looking at how we can make sure that that participation continues to grow over time in every part of the country. There are also local organisations dealing with this in the hon. Gentleman’s part of the United Kingdom.

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

2. What support her Department is giving to women’s sport.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

The London 2012 games put women’s sport on the map, and we are committed to maintaining that very important momentum.

[Rehman Chishti]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the news that Gillingham Anchorians rugby club, which is keen on increasing women’s membership, recently received £50,000 of national lottery funding?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is a very keen sportsman, and I am not surprised that he raises the important role that women play in rugby. I applaud the work in his constituency to make sure that that is happening. He may be aware that as a result of the Olympics and the Paralympics over 600,000 more women have participated regularly in sport. We can see no finer example of the contribution of women in sport than the women’s six nations tournament, which is going on at the moment. I am sure that every Member in this House will be supporting their home team.

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

The Secretary of State is right about the achievements of women during the Olympics. The figures show that 36% of medals won at the Olympics were won by women, yet women get less than 1% of the sponsorship. Will she do something to try to redress that significant imbalance?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: sponsorship can be crucial in not only increasing the prominence of women’s sport but in enabling more women to go to an even higher level within their sport. I have been looking at this with people who are setting up support systems. Importantly, I recently held a round table with the press and with governing bodies, because we need to create the demand for such sponsorship, and that is all about creating an increased profile for women in their sporting areas.

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

The prominence of role models is very important in relation to girls’ participation in sport. Will the Secretary of State update the House on the timetable for improving the broadcasting and reporting of women’s sport?

[Maria Miller]

Improvements in the coverage of women’s sport in the broadcasting or the press sector are up to the editorial control of those organisations. However, I absolutely believe that the Government can have an important role in voicing the nation’s belief that great women’s sport is going on out there that needs support. I have been working with press and broadcast organisations to highlight the great work that they are already doing, but also building on that further.

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

11. Last night a packed meeting here in Westminster heard from the inspirational Claire Lomas and Martine Wright, both of whom have overcome severe disabilities to take part in their sports. They found their own motivation, but there are many barriers to participation of women and girls in sport. What will the Secretary of State do to encourage the 87% of women in Salford who are not participating to get interested in sport and fitness activities?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that it is important that we reach out to women to help to increase participation even further. I have already cited the dramatic impact that hosting the Olympics and Paralympics has had in raising participation among women. Some sports have had a particularly successful track record in this area. Netball is one of the fastest growing women’s sports in the country, with participation having increased from 110,000 in 2005 to 158,000 last year. There are also examples in cycling and hockey. There is some good success, but we need to make sure that it is echoed in other areas too.

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

3. What steps her Department is taking to improve broadband availability across the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We are investing some £680 million in urban and rural broadband. Taking into account local authority funding and private sector investment, more than £1 billion is going towards rolling out broadband.

[Alun Cairns]

I pay tribute to the Minister and the Government for prioritising the roll-out of broadband and for the significant sums of public money they have committed to it. Openreach has been successful in many of the contracts for extending broadband provision, but its modelling can be inaccurate. Some of my constituents have switched to fibre-to-the-cabinet, but they do not get speeds anywhere near the original commitments. Given those inaccurate models, is the Minister confident that some of the providers will not come back for further public money?

[Mr Vaizey]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the assiduous work he does for his constituents. The average speed in Wales has gone up from some 7.5 megabits to 12 megabits. We are investing almost £57 million in rolling out broadband. I note what he says about speed. It is important that customers understand the speeds they will be getting.

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

12. Several organisations, including those involved in the delivery of the project, have said that the Government will not meet the target of 90% of households having access to superfast broadband by 2015. What does the Minister have to say to the 2.6 million households that will have to wait between three and five years extra to access basic broadband?

[Mr Vaizey]

I say to the country as a whole that BT is undertaking the most ambitious roll-out of broadband almost anywhere in the world. We have the most ambitious rural broadband programme of any country in Europe and we are set on delivering superfast broadband to the vast majority of people in this country, which is a world-beating internet nation.

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

I pay tribute to the Government’s determination to roll out broadband, particularly in rural areas, including national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty. However, some of the provisions in the Growth and Infrastructure Bill would remove protections that such areas have enjoyed for 60 years. Is it necessary to put in jeopardy those areas in order to achieve rural broadband roll-out?

[Mr Vaizey]

It is absolutely essential that we strike a balance between protecting our rural environment and removing some of the obstacles that have slowed the roll-out of broadband, so that it can be laid more quickly, more cheaply and more efficiently. It is important to strike a balance and I note what the hon. Gentleman has said.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

The House knows by now that it was Labour’s policy to roll out broadband across the nation by 2012. The Government put the target back to 2015 and BT now says that it will not be achieved until 2017. What will be the impact of the Prime Minister’s decision to agree the 90% cut in the European broadband budget last week?

[Mr Vaizey]

We would not expect that to have any impact on our own proposals. We are well ahead of the game in rolling out superfast broadband. Most of Europe—in fact, all of Europe—sees us as a leader in that respect. I am delighted that we did not introduce Labour’s telephone tax on hard-working people. Instead, we are delivering superfast broadband to the vast majority of people in this country.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

18. Rural villages in my constituency, including White Notley and Birch, are desperate to have the same standard of broadband as the urban centres in my constituency. Will the Minister guarantee that every possible effort will be undertaken to secure private and public investment to get the right levels of connections across my constituency?

[Mr Vaizey]

I can absolutely guarantee that I will make every effort to do that, particularly because my hon. Friend’s constituents are so ably represented. I know that she will continue to hold me to account.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

4. What assessment she has made of the number of library closures in England in 2013.

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

10. What assessment she has made of the number of library closures in England in 2013.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Local authorities have a statutory duty to provide a comprehensive and efficient public library service and to fund the service. My Department monitors the local authority proposals for library service changes in England and the annual Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy statistics, compiled from detail provided by the local authorities and published towards the end of this year.

[Alex Cunningham]

Somehow I did not expect the Minister to admit the grave situation his Government have created in the library sector. He should know that many councillors across the country are facing the prospect of closing the bulk of library buildings in their communities as Government cuts hit hard. How does that help the Minister fulfil the statutory duty to oversee the library service, and what message does he think he is sending young people and communities about the importance of reading and learning?

[Mr Vaizey]

What message is the hon. Gentleman sending when he talks down our library service? Local authorities have always paid for libraries and have always provided them, and they fund them with more than £800 million a year. Thousands of libraries are open up and down the country and new libraries are opening. Our library service is in very good health.

[Mr Sheerman]

The Minister does not have to shout when he is put in a corner. I wish him a very happy Valentine’s day. Opposition Members do not believe that there should be no change to the library service. We have to move with the times. However, libraries are the centre of a civilised community. They should be updated, but they are havens where people can go and where kids from poorer homes can do their homework. We should look at them as a setting in the community. It is the Government’s job to lead on this important issue.

[Mr Vaizey]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. I wish him a happy Valentine’s day and note his Valentine’s tie. I agree with everything that he said. That is why we have appointed a specialist libraries adviser and why we have set up a fund of £6 million at the Arts Council to support libraries. I could go on, but I do not want to take up too much time.

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

Is my hon. Friend aware that Devon county council has chosen to keep all its libraries open? Despite facing the same financial pressures as every other council, it has made a political choice to support the library service. Is that not the way forward?

[Mr Vaizey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are countless examples of Conservative councils up and down the country making tough decisions to ensure that they continue to provide front-line services for their residents at the right cost.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

I welcome the Government’s decision to fund six libraries to become business incubators, but it comes at a time when unfair local government funding solutions mean that, since 2010, 640 libraries have closed, are under threat or have been left to volunteers. Why are the Government not developing a survival strategy to support local authorities? Why are the Government not recommending alternatives for the delivery of services? Where is the vision? Where is the leadership?

[Mr Vaizey]

I sometimes wonder whether the Labour spokesman looks at a single thing that I am doing. We have given responsibility for libraries to the Arts Council, we have set aside a £6 million fund, we have published the CIPFA statistics and we are piloting automatic membership for school children. He simply rolls over when Newcastle proposes to cut its culture and its libraries, and says, “I back Newcastle.”

[Charlotte Leslie (Bristol North West) (Con)]

5. What steps she is taking with her ministerial colleagues in other Government Departments to advance the role of sport.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

The Prime Minister has established the Cabinet Committee on Olympic and Paralympic Legacy, through which all Departments are working together to deliver a tangible and lasting legacy from London 2012. Sport is at the heart of that process.

[Charlotte Leslie]

It is evident that sport has a vital role in improving behaviour in schools and health outcomes, and in preventing youth offenders from reoffending, as I have seen at Ashfield young offenders institution near my constituency. Will the Minister pledge to work with colleagues from across Departments to ensure that such interventions are available to young people so that they can turn their lives around?

[Hugh Robertson]

Absolutely. That process is already happening, as is evident from the work that the Department of Health does through Change4Life clubs, the work of the National Centre for Sport and Exercise Medicine, and the cross-departmental funding for the school games.

[Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab)]

13. The Minister will be aware that betting on sport has always been central to the business model of betting shops, but a new development is the use of fixed odds betting terminals. Their high stakes and speed of play have led them to be described as the “crack cocaine of gambling”. In my constituency, there are more than 50 such terminals. What does the Minister intend to do about this problem?

[Hugh Robertson]

I am not entirely sure what that question had to do with advancing the role of sport. The answer on FOBTs, which emerged in the middle of the question, is that they are subject to the triennial review of stakes and prizes, which has just been launched. The Responsible Gambling Trust is just launching the largest ever consultation into the effect of FOBTs. If, as I suspect, it shows that there is a problem that needs to be addressed, it will be addressed.

[Mr Speaker]

The Minister rightly implies that there was an elastic interpretation of what constitutes sport. We will leave it at that for the time being.

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

Today’s report by Ofsted on sport in schools calls on the Government to devise

“a new national strategy for PE and school sport that builds on the successes of school sport partnerships”.

Those partnerships have been totally undermined by this Government. It is unacceptable that six months after the Olympics, we are still waiting for the Government to deliver a coherent sports strategy. If they continue to delay, they will fail the generation that we should be inspiring. How many more damning reports need to be published before the Minister gets it and the Government deliver the sporting legacy that our children deserve?

[Hugh Robertson]

First, the Opposition spokesman should not conflate sport legacy with a school sport policy. He is well aware that the sport legacy is going extraordinarily well. He tends never to mention that 1.75 million people are now playing sport who were not playing sport at the time of the bid. There is also a range of international events, and around the globe 14 million extra children have been touched by sport.

If the hon. Gentleman is going to criticise sport provision on the back of the Ofsted report, he should wake up to the fact that it covers 2008 to 2012—throughout the period in which the school sport partnerships were operating. If he wishes to see them reintroduced, he has to explain to the House and others how they would be funded, about which we have heard not a jot from the Opposition since the election.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Mr Graham Allen. Not here.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

7. What steps her Department is taking to encourage the development of non-league football clubs.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

We have been clear, along with the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport, that we expect the Football Association to reform the governance of the game as a top priority. As part of that, we expect the FA to show representative, accountable and strategic leadership and help develop football across all levels including the grass-roots, non-league and professional parts of the game.

[David Mowat]

I declare an interest as a director of Warrington Town football club, which would not exist were it not for dozens of donors and unpaid volunteers. Other non-league clubs are going bust, yet 50% of the money from our national team continues to be diverted to the professional game, which is really very wealthy. The Select Committee has mentioned that problem. Will the Minister update us on the progress towards fixing that allocation?

[Hugh Robertson]

There is a fine dividing line here, because it is not for the Government to tell the sport how to allocate money that it raises itself any more than it would be for us to allocate the England and Wales Cricket Board’s broadcast income or the Rugby Football Union’s income from Twickenham. However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the issue. If we can get the reforms at the FA that we and the Select Committee are pushing for, they will empower the board to take precisely the decisions that he advocates instead of relying on an arbitrary 50% split.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

Non-league football is the bedrock of our beautiful game, and as the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) said, many community clubs face extinction. Bedlington Terriers, a community club in my area, faces a very uncertain future. How will the Government engage with the Premier League to ensure that the vast riches trickle down to assist the survival of non-league community clubs?

[Hugh Robertson]

The Government are doing a number of things, and I entirely take the hon. Gentleman’s point. This is one of the key things that we discuss regularly with the Premier League, the Football League and the FA. The FA, of course, receives one of the largest whole sport plan funding awards of more than £30 million, which is there precisely for the development of the game and to encourage more people to play football. He makes a good point, and we will address it in the reform process.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

8. What her Department’s administrative expenditure was in 2010; and how much that expenditure will be in 2015.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

My Department will have cut its original administration expenditure by 50% in real terms between 2010 and 2015, from £50 million to £27 million, while continuing to deliver across its full range of activities, including a successful Olympic and Paralympics games. Its actual administration budget will have risen from £50 million in 2010 to £55 million in 2015 as a result of the transfer of functions from other Departments.

[Mr Hollobone]

In these tough times, private sector firms and public sector and voluntary organisations in the Kettering constituency are having to do more with less. Will my right hon. Friend insist that her Department is unrelenting in driving down its unnecessary administrative expenditure all the way through to 2015, to give the British taxpayer the best deal?

[Maria Miller]

I can give my hon. Friend that absolute assurance. Across the board, all areas are expected to make the savings that I know he and his constituents would expect us to, whether within the original DCMS functions or in the new responsibilities that the Department has taken on—those from the Government Equalities Office and telecoms responsibilities from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. That includes reducing accommodation costs from £4.9 million in 2010 to £3.6 million this year.

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

9. Whether her Department and arm’s-length bodies pay at least the minimum wage to all staff, including interns; and what steps she is taking to encourage the payment of at least the minimum wage to such interns.

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

It is departmental policy to pay at least the national minimum wage to all employees, including interns.

[Stella Creasy]

The British Film Institute is due to review its policy on internships at the beginning of March. Will the Secretary of State commit to writing to it to encourage it to pay its interns so that the opportunities this publicly funded body provides are available to all without financial support?

[Maria Miller]

The important thing for the hon. Lady to recognise is that work experience and internships are an incredibly helpful way for young people to get into employment, and evidence from the Department for Work and Pensions backs that up. The hon. Lady will know that the BFI wants to ensure that work experience is available to people from a cross-section of society, and it has advertised its internships in such as way as to ensure that happens.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

14. What steps her Department is taking to improve mobile telephone coverage across the UK.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Only 0.3% of the UK population is not served by any mobile network operators. The mobile infrastructure project is addressing up to 60,000 premises in total, including not spots and the 10 roads announced in the 2012 Budget. When 4G services come on stream they should go to at least 98% of homes.

[John Glen]

I thank the Minister for that response. Mobile 4G will be increasingly important in rural communities such as those around Salisbury. Will the Minister clarify the Government’s latest thinking on securing better access to BT networks by mobile operators, as that will be vital to the cost and speed of 4G mobile internet connection experienced across the UK, particularly in rural communities?

[Mr Vaizey]

We look across the piece at ensuring that we remove any regulatory obstacles to the roll-out of mobile phone infrastructure. As my hon. Friend points out, getting backhaul for mobile phone masts is incredibly important, and I would be happy to hear his concerns. We do, of course, work constructively with Ofcom and BT to ensure that that is effective.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I am pleased with the progress that the Government are making and the Minister’s commitment. In a vastly spread out rural area such as Argyll and Bute, many communities do not have access to mobile phone coverage. Will the Minister tell the House when he hopes to appoint a supplier for the mobile infrastructure project?

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand that we have gone out to tender for the procurement of the mobile infrastructure project, so we should hear some good news in the spring.

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

15. What steps she is taking to tackle silent calls; and if she will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

Under the Communications Act 2003, the Office of Communications —Ofcom—has responsibility for tackling silent and abandoned calls through its persistent misuse powers. It has an ongoing enforcement programme targeted at companies that breach those rules and can issue a penalty of up to £2 million. In the previous year, Ofcom issued fines of £810,000.

[Cathy Jamieson]

I thank the Minister for that answer, but many of my constituents, and those of other hon. Members, say that despite registering with the Telephone Preference Service, they still receive silent and other nuisance calls. Will the Minister meet concerned MPs so that we can discuss some of those issues and look at what more can be done to help stop constituents suffering that nuisance?

[Mr Vaizey]

I have already met a number of MPs to discuss the issue and I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady and any hon. Members she wishes to bring with her. I share her concerns. This is important and there are two regulators—Ofcom and the Information Commissioner’s Office—and I meet them regularly to discuss this issue. I would happily bring them to the meeting.

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

16. When she expects a decision to be made on which city will be named 2017 UK city of culture.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We expect to announce the result of the competition for UK city of culture 2017 in November.

[Mr Amess]

Although I fully appreciate that my hon. Friend must go through the formalities of the bidding process as to which city should be city of culture in 2017, he could save his time and the work of his officials by announcing now that Southend should be the city of culture.

[Mr Vaizey]

The cultural delights of Southend are well known: the Pier Cultural Centre, Priory Park bandstand and, of course, the Cliffs Pavilion where tonight Billy Fury’s Tornados will be playing. No doubt they will perform “Last night was made for love”.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will the Minister accept, however, that Colchester is clearly the cultural capital of Essex, and therefore that Colchester should have the title of city of culture?

[Mr Vaizey]

I acknowledge Colchester’s important cultural value, which has been acknowledged since the Romans arrived.

[Tristram Hunt (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab)]

17. What recent assessment she has made of the process by which public appointments to her Department’s arm’s length bodies are made.

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

Ministerial public appointments to my Department’s arm’s length bodies are made on merit, under fair, open and transparent processes, regulated by the Commissioner for Public Appointments under the commissioner’s code of practice.

[Tristram Hunt]

I thank the Minister for his answer, but there is a crisis in the museum and arts sector as a result of political interference and incompetence in Downing street—a number of heritage bodies and museums have waited months for decisions on trustee appointments only to have them vetoed by a busy-body Prime Minister on political grounds. Will he tell the Prime Minister to butt out of matters of which he has no knowledge and stop gerrymandering our cultural institutions?

[Hugh Robertson]

As the hon. Gentleman well knows, all such appointments are made under very strict Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments guidelines and can be challenged. In the appointments for which I have been responsible, we have worked extensively across boundaries. We appointed the former Minister with responsibility for the Olympics to the Olympics board and I kept the former Minister with responsibility for sports as a trustee of the football foundation. That arrangement was not extended to the Conservative party when it was in opposition.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Maria Miller)]

Mr Speaker, I am sure it has not escaped your notice that today is local digital radio switchover day in Buckinghamshire, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire, meaning better local radio services for local residents, including those in your constituency. I also welcome the One Billion Rising campaign, which is today highlighting the importance of eliminating violence against women and girls around the country.

Just to take the Valentine’s theme a little further, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport ministerial team are very much in love with the musical artists who achieved success in the recent Grammys—Adele, and Mumford and Sons—and with Daniel Day-Lewis, who triumphed at the British Academy of Film and Television Arts awards.

[Karl Turner]

Will the Minister explain why my excellent local radio station BBC Radio Humberside has to axe jobs at the bottom, while nationally the BBC continues to employ hundreds of executives, many of whom are paid more than the Prime Minister?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the importance of local radio in our constituents’ lives, but the BBC makes the decisions on how it uses its money. I am sure it has heard loudly his comments. He will welcome the appointment of his former right hon. Friend James Purnell to a prominent position in the BBC—perhaps he will have heard the hon. Gentleman’s comments.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

T3. News in January that Seedhill athletics track and fitness centre in Nelson has been awarded a £50,000 grant by Sport England to resurface the running track followed similarly great news for Colne and Nelson rugby club, Belvedere and Calder Vale sports club, and Pendle Forest sports club. Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating all the volunteers involved in those excellent Pendle sports clubs on securing their part of the Olympic legacy?

[The Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Hugh Robertson)]

I join my hon. Friend with pleasure in congratulating those volunteers. I should add to his excellent question by saying that more than 1,000 local community sports clubs have benefited from funding under Places People Play. The funding was made available by the reforms to the lottery introduced by this Government and opposed by the Labour party.

[Ms Harriet Harman (Camberwell and Peckham) (Lab)]

With the Arts Council cut by 30%; with regional development agencies, which did so much to support the arts in the regions, abolished; with arts donors smeared as tax dodgers; with the Education Secretary trying to squeeze arts out of the curriculum; and with local government, especially in hard-pressed areas, which does so much to support arts in local communities, facing the biggest cuts in a generation, does the Secretary of State not realise that it is her job to fight for the arts for everyone? Will she therefore withdraw her shameful assertion that the arts community is disingenuous and that its fears are pure fiction?

[Maria Miller]

The right hon. and learned Lady will know that the arts and culture in this country are at the heart not just of making this a great place to live, but of the growth strategy. That is the work that our Department is doing. It is important to show that arts and culture are not just on the periphery, but at the heart of making this a great country. I am glad she has decided to show an interest in this area—I welcome that. I hope she will underline the importance of sending messages to local authorities such as those in Newcastle that the arts are important.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

T4. Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating Devon and Somerset county councils on recently signing a new contract for superfast broadband? I urge him to bring forward any announcements about future and remaining available funding so that momentum is maintained.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

We were delighted with the procurement for Devon and Somerset, which is one of the largest programmes under the rural broadband scheme. We hear what my hon. Friend says, and we will do anything we can to help him in any way he wishes.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T2. A middle-aged constituent of mine, with no previous history of gambling, lost her family’s life savings after being seduced by clever marketing by a television gambling programme. There is a new pestilence of high-speed, high-stakes gambling that has cost my constituents in Newport West at least £2 million. What are the Government doing to stop it?

[Hugh Robertson]

The hon. Gentleman raises concerns that are felt by a number of hon. Members across the House. The Responsible Gambling Trust has primacy in this area and is in the process of conducting the largest piece of academic research ever undertaken. If further action needs to be taken as a consequence—he and many other hon. Members have made this point powerfully—then the Government will take that action.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

T5. I hear from many constituents who are subjected to a barrage of unsolicited telephone calls on a daily basis, despite the fact that they are registered with the telephone preference service. Will my hon. Friend undertake to look carefully into this situation, because it is causing a great deal of stress and anxiety, particularly to my elderly constituents?

[Mr Vaizey]

I completely understand my hon. Friend’s concerns. If he wants to come to the meeting I arranged earlier, I would be delighted to have him. We need to crack down on this and we are working closely with the two regulators involved.

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

As an Essex girl born and bred, I urge the Minister not to be swayed by the hon. Members for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and for Southend West (Mr Amess). May I instead invite him to taste the delights, and to look at the art and culture, of Plymouth?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would be absolutely delighted, and I have indeed visited the theatre in Plymouth in the past.

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

T6. Will my right hon. Friend visit the Jubilee Room on 4 March, where she will see at first hand just how wonderful Southend is? She will learn that the only way is Essex in terms of culture, media and sport.

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend is a very persuasive Member of Parliament, and I am sure that as many MPs as possible will be there.

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

Tomorrow marks the start of London fashion week. Are the Government willing to work with the British Fashion Council, which is announcing a mapping exercise of manufacturing in the industry to help to support jobs and growth for all of our constituents?

[Mr Vaizey]

I understand that the hon. Lady secured an important debate on fashion this week. We support the British Fashion Council’s plans to carry out the mapping exercise, and I am working as hard as I can to see what Government support I can draw out.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

T7. The Minister will be aware of the work of the Magna Carta cities of Salisbury and Lincoln to celebrate the 800th anniversary of the sealing of the Magna Carta. Will he meet Salisbury’s Magna Carta project team, including my distinguished predecessor Robert Key, to discuss the role of the British Library and UNESCO in planning for these important events?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend. The anniversary of Magna Carta is extremely important. May I also use this opportunity to recall with great fondness my visit to one of the libraries in my hon. Friend’s constituency? I am so pleased that Wiltshire’s libraries are thriving.

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

T9. Many remote rural communities in Scotland do not have access to any form of broadband, far less superfast broadband. What discussions has the Minister had recently with the Scottish Government to ensure that this issue is tackled effectively?

[Mr Vaizey]

We have made a large allocation of funding to the Scottish Government and they are in the lead on procuring broadband. Should there be any issues arising, however, we would be delighted to have any discussion they need.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

T8. What discussions has the Minister’s Department had with the Department for Transport about rail links to seaside resorts in order to fulfil the coalition’s pledge in its tourism strategy?

[Hugh Robertson]

Access to resorts, particularly seaside resorts, is one of the key issues that will drive domestic tourism. The numbers are increasing considerably, but one of the great challenges facing domestic tourism is getting more tourists out of London and into coastal resorts. That is one of the issues we are seeking to address.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I am sure the Minister will share my disappointment that libraries have become a political football between national and local government. Does he agree that perhaps the best way of safeguarding our libraries is to define more clearly what constitutes a statutory comprehensive library service?

[Mr Vaizey]

We have issued clear guidelines to local authorities based on the Charteris review, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that libraries should not be a political football. It is important that local authorities be free to make decisions about the future of their library services. The decisions taken by the Labour council in Brent were based on proposals that were six or seven years old and not related to cuts.

[John Penrose (Weston-super-Mare) (Con)]

Does the tourism Minister have a view on recent proposals by the BAA to raise the per-passenger charges at Heathrow and does he have plans to make representations to other Whitehall Departments to address the potential effect on the tourism industry?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes; as my hon. Friend is well aware, if money is raised in one area and there is a cut, it generally has to be found from somewhere else, and of course raising these duties has the perverse effect of encouraging people to take their holidays in this country. There is a balance to be struck, however, and that is what we are trying to do.

[Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP)]

Next week, it is the Brit awards, when we will once again celebrate the massive success of our music industry. I am sure the Minister will be in his usual place. He will know of the usual challenges facing the music industry, particularly from illegal downloading and piracy. When can we expect to see the provisions agreed in the Digital Economy Act 2010?

[Mr Vaizey]

The Digital Economy Act was a good example of a piece of rushed legislation that was not properly scrutinised, but we are doing our best to get it back on track. There have been bumps in the road, but we continue to work with the music industry and the internet provider industries to crack down on advertising, payments and illegal piracy sites.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I do not believe I have an interest to declare, but if anybody wishes to crawl over my register of interests and come to a different conclusion, I am happy for them to do so.

Is it the Government’s plan to regulate and tax the gambling industry on a point-of-consumption basis? If so, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the Gambling Commission is prevented from empire building and using that as an excuse to hike up its fees?

[Hugh Robertson]

As my hon. Friend will be well aware, the point of the proposed legislation is consumer protection and there are no plans at the moment for the Gambling Commission to increase its fees.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to colleagues, but as usual demand has exceeded supply.

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

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

1. What steps she is taking to support working mothers. [R]

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

We now have more women in work than ever before, using their skills to gain economic independence. To see sustainable economic growth, we need to ensure that working mothers can take advantage of the full range of opportunities available in the workplace. We continue to tackle the barriers that might prevent them from reaching their potential.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Secretary of State speaks warm words, but in Newcastle alone 1,768 women will be affected by the Government’s mummy tax. Low-paid new mums stand to lose £180 in maternity pay and more than £1,300 in total from the Government’s cuts to benefits and tax credits. We know that life is hard enough for working mums. In too many sectors, too many women do not return to work, and we lose their skills and contribution, so why are the Government making life even harder for them?

[Maria Miller]

I have to challenge the hon. Lady’s assertions. It is clear that the Government are giving women the tools and support to become economically independent. The facts speak loudly. This year, we will have taken more than 1 million out of tax altogether. That is the sort of action we want to see—women coming out of tax, being lifted out of poverty and being given the tools to be economically independent.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What working mothers need from employers most of all is flexibility, but employers find it difficult to be flexible when lots of working mothers are thrown into chaos, through no fault of their own, when schools are closed during snowy weather. As a nation, we are not tackling this problem nearly enough. Will my right hon. Friend hold discussions with the Department for Education to see whether we can nail this problem once and for all?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend makes the important point that, as working parents, we rely on certainty in regard to child care and to schools. The decision on whether a school is open is one for head teachers—they can assess things better on the ground—but his point is well made and I will certainly ensure that it is brought to the attention of my hon. Friends in the Department for Education.

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

Yesterday, six mothers wrote to The Guardian to object to the Government’s real-terms cuts to maternity pay and other pregnancy and child-related benefits. Having babies costs money, and low-paid mums are set to lose £1,300 during pregnancy and their baby’s first year as a result of the real-terms cut to statutory maternity pay, cuts to other pregnancy support and cuts to tax credits. The real-terms cut to SMP alone equates to the price of 24 nappies a week to a low-paid mum. The Prime Minister said that his Government would be the family-friendliest ever, but does not that promise sound hollow now that they are helping millionaires more than mums?

[Maria Miller]

The hon. Lady has to realise that, in a time of difficult economic circumstances, which is certainly what the coalition Government inherited, we have had to make some tough decisions. The tough decisions that we have made are about helping women into work, and helping them to get the skills they need to ensure that their families are financially independent. She will of course be aware that, in April 2011, the child element of the working tax credit was uprated by £180 above inflation, and that the reforms to the tax system have already set us on the path to taking 1 million women out of tax. Surely she should be supporting those changes.

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

2. What recent discussions she has had with her ministerial colleagues on the effects on disabled people of the Government’s recent consultation on judicial review.

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

I routinely meet my colleagues in Government to discuss the impact of policies on disabled people. Before Christmas, I met the Lord Chancellor to discuss areas of common interest.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I thank the Minister for her reply, but may I draw her attention to the chronic lack of funding that has led to a crisis in social care that is particularly affecting working-age disabled people? May I also draw her attention to the report “The Other Care Crisis”, produced by five leading disability charities? There has been a colossal 45% increase in applications for judicial reviews of local authority social care policies. Does she think it is acceptable to undermine the judicial review process for disabled people who are simply trying to get the social care that they need?

[Esther McVey]

There is no undermining of the judicial review process. In 1974, 160 applications were made, but last year alone, there were 11,000. Only about one in six of those applications was granted; fewer still were successful. We are ensuring that the right appeals proceed and that the unmeritous ones do not. This is about ensuring the integrity of the judicial review system and the smooth running of the legal process.

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

A phenomenon that I see in my constituency is that private landlords are saying, “No housing benefit.” The Minister knows that it is illegal to say, “No blacks, no Irish” and so on, but disabled people are more likely to be dependent on housing benefit than other people. Does she believe that what those private landlords are doing is legal or illegal? If it is illegal, will she enable disabled people’s organisations to take cases through judicial review to stop the landlords doing it?

[Esther McVey]

Good local authorities work with good local landlords. As I have said, we will ensure that the correct cases go through. We want to ensure the integrity of the system, and those people who need to take cases to review will be able to do so. We are on the side of disabled people and we will ensure that their views are heard.

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

4. What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Education on measures to end violence against women and girls.

[The Minister of State, Home Department (Mr Jeremy Browne)]

There have been a number of recent discussions involving ministerial colleagues in the Department for Education on issues relating to ending violence against women and girls. These include a round-table with police and crime commissioners and the Local Government Association on local commissioning, and a round-table last month on ending female genital mutilation.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister for Women and Equalities has already welcomed the fact that 1 billion women are rising today, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the campaign wants the Government to do a lot more? Will he ensure that he works with the Education Secretary to make the prevention of violence against women and girls an integral part of education policy that is delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum, and will Ministers vote yes in today’s important debate?

[Mr Browne]

We welcome the campaign and the opportunity for the House to debate these issues at greater length later today. Schools are, of course, free to teach about issues such as sexual consent within personal, social and health education or in other lessons, and children can benefit enormously from high-quality education that helps them to make safe and informed decisions and choices. The DFE has conducted a review of PSHE and will publish its outcomes later this year.

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

Will the Minister clarify whether there is a cross-departmental, multi-agency strategy for tackling the horrific practice of honour violence? How effective is this strategy?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to this abhorrent crime. He uses the commonly received expression, but I urge everybody to stop using it, as there is nothing honourable at all about this form of criminal activity. It is part of the overall approach that the Government are taking to try to combat violence against women and girls. He will know that the Government have ring-fenced nearly £40 million of stable funding up to 2015 for a range of tasks of this type, including for the area he has raised.

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

It is “One Billion Rising” today, and the Minister’s response to the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) was simply not good enough. We have had too many warm words and too much waffle from Ministers on this subject. It is no good saying that schools are free to teach about sexual consent. All schools should be teaching our children and young people not to harm each other and to have respect for themselves. They should be teaching them that sexual violence is not normal. The Department for Education has blocked for three years any movement on legislation to introduce compulsory sex and relationship education with zero tolerance of violence in schools. It has been looking at it for three years and has done nothing. It must act. Will the Minister now support that action and our debate today on introducing compulsory sex and relationship education in schools to protect our children?

[Mr Browne]

I hear my Back Benchers saying, “What did you do?” The idea that this social problem began in May 2010 injects an unnecessarily partisan tone into an area that should be beyond party politics. Of course these matters are taught in schools right across the country. I am pleased that the campaign to reduce teenage relationship abuse, which has been effective and welcomed by people of all political persuasions, is being relaunched today. It will focus on what constitutes controlling and coercive behaviour. I hope it will have a compelling impact on boys in particular, but on teenagers of both sexes when they see that campaign.

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

I am sure the Minister recognises the importance of cross-border co-operation in tackling organised crime such as the trafficking of women and girls. Will he do everything in his power to ensure that Britain continues to co-operate with our European partners on this important issue?

[Mr Browne]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the need for international co-operation to combat all forms of crime, including the particular form of crime he brings to our attention. The Government are, of course, committed to working with other Governments all around the world to reduce serious and organised crime and its impact on the United Kingdom. That very much applies to other European countries as well.

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

5. What steps she is taking to improve the position of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in the workplace.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

Tackling unemployment is a priority for this Government, and our approach is to support people according to individual needs. There are 3 million ethnic minority people employed in this country—far more than ever before—and we are determined that this progress will continue.

[Mr Sharma]

The all-party parliamentary group on race and community report on ethnic minority female employment found that Pakistani and Bangladeshi women are particularly affected by unemployment, with unemployment rates of 20.5% compared with 6.8% for white women. Is it not high time that the Government revisited their colour blind approach to unemployment and started to take specific steps to support BME communities to access the labour market?

[Mrs Grant]

The Government have provided a wide range of targeted support through Jobcentre Plus, the Work programme, the Youth Contract and our “get Britain working” measures. As a result of the increased flexibility that we have given to providers, interventions can be tailored to specific needs.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

6. What progress she has made on the reform of the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Helen Grant)]

We have completed many key aspects of our reform programme. We have appointed a dynamic new chair and a strong and diverse board, and have reached agreement on a budget. We want the Equality and Human Rights Commission to go from strength to strength, and to be one of our most valued and respected national institutions.

[Henry Smith]

What effect might the reform have on the commission’s status as an A-rated national human rights institution?

[Mrs Grant]

We all want a strong and effective A-rated human rights institution, and that is what our reforms are intended to achieve. We engage in positive, ongoing dialogue with the international co-ordinating committee, and we will ensure that it continues.

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

7. What steps she is taking to increase female representation on company boards. [R]

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Jo Swinson)]

In 2010 we asked Lord Davies to review the obstacles preventing women from making it on to corporate boards. Following his report, a range of steps have been taken. They include a voluntary code of conduct for executive search firms, amendments to the UK corporate governance code, changes to narrative reporting, and the establishment of the Women’s Business Council. Over the past year, 38% of those appointed to the boards of FTSE 100 companies have been women.

May I congratulate my hon. Friend on the arrival of his new baby daughter, who, for all we know, may be a board director of the future herself?

[Julian Smith]

I thank the Minister for her answer, and I congratulate the Government on the excellent work that they have done to increase the number of women on boards. May I urge them, however, to focus particularly on the pipeline in companies this year, and to encourage our UK corporate boards to engage in a robust discussion about child care, “keep in touch” days, and the big cliff that appears when women reach childbearing age?

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend is right. That is the point at which, for many women, it becomes very difficult to participate in the workplace at the same level as before. However, there is a great deal that employers can do to help both mums and dads to play a stronger role in the workplace. The Government’s “think, act, report” initiative is encouraging companies to think about what they can do not only to recruit the best women, but to retain and promote those women and ensure that their talent is nurtured all the way to the boardroom.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that since the publication of the Davies report the number of female executive directors has risen by only 1%? What do the Government intend to do about that?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Lady has rightly highlighted the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith). It is now easier for women to make faster progress towards becoming non-executive directors, but the executive route is also important. The Women’s Business Council is looking at all the different stages in women’s careers in considering what action can be taken, and we look forward to the publication of its report later this year. We are seeing progress in the right direction, but we must stay on top of the situation to ensure that it continues to improve.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are short of time, but I want to accommodate the question on religious belief.

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

8. What her plans are for equalities on the grounds of religious belief.

[The Minister for Women and Equalities (Maria Miller)]

We will continue to support religious freedoms strongly. For example, the Government believe that people should be able to wear crosses openly at work, and we are pleased about the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the Eweida case. The right of people to manifest their religion or belief at work is a vital freedom.

[Miss McIntosh]

What weight is accorded to religious beliefs in draft legislation such as the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill? Should it not be equal, in the context of discrimination, to the weight accorded to gender?

[Maria Miller]

My hon. Friend, who takes a keen interest in this issue, will know that religious freedom is guaranteed under article 9 of the European convention on human rights. However, just as it is right for people to be able to express their religious beliefs, people in this country have a right not to be discriminated against. The recent rulings in the European Court show that, in law, we have the balance about right.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We must move on.

Horsemeat

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if he will make a statement on horsemeat in the UK food chain and joint police and Food Standards Agency action.

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

The Secretary of State and I are providing the House with very regular reports on the adulteration of processed beef products with horsemeat. As the House will appreciate, it is not possible to give a running commentary on active investigations. Therefore, for operational reasons, we were unable to inform the House of the Food Standards Agency’s plan to enter the two meat premises in west Wales and west Yorkshire earlier this week. As part of its audit of all horse abattoirs in the UK and the ongoing investigation into the adulteration of meat products, the FSA gathered intelligence that led to it and the police entering the two meat premises and seizing horsemeat. The FSA also seized all paperwork from the two companies and is investigating customer lists. The FSA suspended activities at both plants immediately. The FSA will continue to work closely with the police, and if there is evidence of criminal activity, I will expect the full force of the law to be brought down on anyone involved.

I met retailers and suppliers again yesterday, and they confirmed that they are on course to provide meaningful results from product testing by tomorrow. The Secretary of State has made a written ministerial statement today on the outcome of his successful discussions in Europe yesterday. The co-ordinated control plan proposed by the Commission is a welcome step to help address a pan-European problem.

The FSA’s most recent tests for the presence of bute in horses slaughtered in the UK checked 206 horse carcases, and eight came back positive. Three may have entered the food chain in France, and the remaining five have not gone into the food chain. The FSA is working with the French authorities in an attempt to recall the meat from the food chain. I understand—I am sure that the House will be glad to hear this—that the results of bute testing in the withdrawn Findus products have come back negative. The chief medical officer and the chief executive officer of the FSA will be making a statement on both these matters later this morning.

[Mary Creagh]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that statement. I am sure the whole House will welcome Tuesday’s raids by the FSA and the police. May I ask him whether all customers of the meat-processing plant have been contacted about the raid and alerted to a potential risk?

I am glad that the FSA is investigating the concerns about horsemeat entering the food chain that I first raised with Ministers last month. Action must be taken to deal with any criminals whose activities have so badly damaged consumer confidence in the UK food industry. I raised the problem of bute-contaminated horsemeat being released into the human food chain with the Minister at Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions last month. What action did he take with the FSA to reassure himself after I raised those concerns? Was he aware of bute contamination before that day? Will he explain why, up until four days ago, all horses were being tested for bute in this country but were still being released for human consumption? I am astonished to hear that a further three could have entered the food chain in France, given that I raised this issue with him last month. That is astonishing. We were in the middle of a horsemeat adulteration scandal; this is just catastrophic complacency from him.

It is totally unacceptable that all UK horses were being tested for bute at slaughter but still being released into the human food chain until four days ago. We know that, with more than 9,000 horses slaughtered in the UK for human consumption abroad last year, we must make sure that horsemeat intended for humans is not contaminated with bute—it really is as simple as that. So why did the Minister not act immediately when I raised this issue three weeks ago in this House? Why did he not order full testing, and order that horses should be released only when clear from bute, the moment I raised this with him? We need to know whether the horsemeat entering the UK in these adulterated products contained bute.

Will the Minister tell the House whether the FSA has conducted its own tests on the Findus products to ensure that action can be taken through the criminal courts? Which other countries are testing their horsemeat lasagnes? Which other countries have received those horsemeat lasagnes? We hear from the media that they went to 16 countries, so why have they been withdrawn in only six countries—Britain, Ireland, France, Sweden, Switzerland and Norway? What has happened to the products in the other countries? Has the Minister sought or received reassurances from his EU counterparts that the products have been withdrawn in all EU countries?

Yesterday, the Secretary of State travelled to Brussels for a meeting with his EU counterparts. That arch-Eurosceptic had a damascene conversion to EU labelling regulations on the way. He wants more of them, he wants them quickly and he wants the Commission to hurry up with them—so much speed when his Government have spent the past two years blocking Labour MEPs’ attempts to get better country of origin labelling for processed meats and ready meals. [Interruption.] They do not like hearing it, but they are all keen on it now, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

We are all very happy to hear that, but unfortunately the hon. Lady has already exceeded her time. I think a last sentence will suffice.

[Mary Creagh]

Is there not a danger with the EU testing that the most high-risk products will be withdrawn over the next three weeks and quietly disposed of? Yesterday, the Secretary of State said:

“Nobody had a clue that there was adulteration of beef products”,

yet the Government were told by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland that it was testing last November. It seems that he and his colleagues are just totally clueless.

[Mr Heath]

Listening to the hon. Lady, one would fail to understand that probably the biggest investigation into criminal behaviour that has ever been conducted across Europe is going on at the instigation of this Government and as a result of the actions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He instigated the meeting of Farming Ministers of the affected countries and the Commission, established Europol in a co-ordinating role, brought forward the labelling of ingredients for products as an emergency item within the EU, exchanged data at a speed that was never done under the Government whom the hon. Lady supported, brought forward an emergency meeting of the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health to consider probable thresholds, and got the matter on the agenda for Council on 25 February. That is a quite remarkable achievement in a very short time. The Government are committed to proper investigations based on evidence.

Let me finish with one point raised by the hon. Lady—[Interruption.] If she would stop shouting at me, I will give her the answer. She raised the criminal investigations following her assertions in this House about phenylbutazone. She was repeatedly asked by the Food Standards Agency to share the information she purported to have and she refused to do so. I think that every citizen in this country has a duty to provide evidence to the relevant investigating authorities when there is evidence of potential criminal behaviour.

[Mary Creagh]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We cannot have a point of order in the middle of the exchange. The hon. Lady can make a point of order later and I will of course hear it at the appropriate time.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

Is not the hon. Lady’s difficulty the fact that in 2006, under the previous Labour Government, changes were made that led to there being no daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises? As the House and the country listen to the hon. Lady, will they not become increasingly convinced that all this sound and fury is about drumming up shock-horror headlines rather than responsibly contributing to solving the problem?

[Mr Heath]

There is a lot in what the hon. Gentleman says. When I hear those on the Opposition Front Bench giving a critical analysis of the very arrangements they put in place as though they had been invented over the past few months, I find it difficult to take some of their criticisms seriously.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

My concern is that this scandal is the tip of the iceberg and there is much more to be uncovered about what goes into our food and what is in the meat supply chain. Will the Minister assure me that the Government will learn the lessons from this episode and mount a wider investigation into those issues?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. We need to get to the bottom of some of the supply chain issues across Europe. First, we need to deal effectively with the immediate problem, but then we need to stand back and take a long, hard look at some of the other practices. The retailers and processors in this country and across Europe also need to consider how they operate, because I am not convinced that they are as convinced as they ought to be of the provenance of some of their goods.

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

Will my hon. Friend consider the July 2012 veterinary residues committee declaration that the horse passport of any horse treated with phenylbutazone should declare—and should be appropriately signed—that that horse should not enter the food chain? Is it the case, as at that time, that some vets are still prescribing bute without checking the passport or ensuring that the horse is subsequently signed out of the food chain?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady raises a very important point. It is absolutely clear that the horse passport should show that a horse has been treated, and that horse is then not put into the food chain if it is inappropriate to do so. As I have looked at the situation, I have become more and more convinced that the horse passport system, which was introduced by the EU and implemented in this country by the previous Government, is not as effective as it should be, by a long way. Once we have dealt with the initial problem, we ought to look at the system again. I want to see an effective record of provenance for horsemeat, just as for any other animal. We have a very good system for cattle and sheep, but for horses the system is inadequate.

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

The whole House should take seriously the risk of phenylbutazone getting into the food chain. We should therefore be pleased to hear that the test results on one batch have come back negative, but of course there is an awful lot more horsemeat in circulation, some sourced in the UK and some sourced elsewhere. My concern, which I put directly to the Minister, stems from the very good report published by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee today. Where is the testing facility going to be? Is it adequate? Will the Minister give the House an assurance that there will be adequate investment in testing in this country?

[Mr Heath]

In this country, I think we now have the situation under control, but I am concerned that there are third-country imports of horsemeat into the European Union. That is one of the reasons why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has secured an agreement across Europe that there will be bute testing in other countries for horsemeat coming in. It is important to note the chief medical officer’s advice—and the hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Science and Technology Committee, will be aware of the importance of this. It is clear that at low levels—and we are talking about low levels in horsemeat—there is a very low risk indeed that bute would cause any harm to health. Nevertheless, we need to eliminate it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is much interest but very little time, and so far exchanges have been too long. What we require is a model of brevity, to be exemplified by Mr Nicholas Soames.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has put together one of the biggest operations of its type ever in the European Union to secure a result across the whole of the European Union? Will he acknowledge that the use of bute is grossly exaggerated? It is used, but nothing like as much as is claimed.

[Mr Heath]

I do not resile from the fact that phenylbutazone should not be present in horsemeat that is presented for human consumption; let us be absolutely clear. However, my right hon. Friend is right to say that the actions that have now been put in place—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at this moment at Europol and Eurojust in The Hague, securing police and justice co-ordination on this matter—are unprecedented. It is extremely welcome that European authorities are now getting to grips with the problem.

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

It is interesting that the Minister’s attitude has changed since the statement on Monday, when he was at pains to say that there was no risk to public health and that this was an issue of mislabelling and fraud. Clearly, when bute enters the food chain, it is a public health issue, and given that a very small percentage—1%—of carcases were tested, should not the Minister make an apology to the House?

[Mr Heath]

What I said, and have repeatedly said, is that there is no evidence of material that is harmful to human health having been put on sale in this country. That is still the case, and I am very glad that that is the case. We are testing for bute. That is the prime responsibility of the Food Standards Agency. It worries me sometimes that people seem to think that food safety is a secondary issue. It is not. It is the prime responsibility.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Can my hon. Friend confirm whether the FSA has been able to contact all the businesses and retailers on the customer lists of the two raided properties, one of which is in my constituency?

[Mr Heath]

The FSA is examining the paperwork from those companies at the moment. I understand that some of it is a little difficult to interpret. I cannot give my hon. Friend a categorical assurance, because some of the meat present appears to have been unlabelled and therefore its destination is unknown. The FSA and the police are certainly taking every action they can, but at the moment they are examining the paperwork.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Does the Minister share my astonishment that Tim Smith, who was chief executive of the FSA until only last year and who is now the technical director in charge of food standards at Tesco, is not only still in his job, but still on the FSA board? Some would say that is not just switching horses, but trying to ride both at the same time.

[Mr Heath]

I have to say that I am impressed by the degree of co-operation we are now seeing from the industry and all food businesses in the testing regime we have put in place, from which we hope to have meaningful results tomorrow. Who works for which company is not a matter for the Government or Ministers at the Dispatch Box, but whether we get results that reassure the public is a matter for us.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

Given the importance of this issue to all our constituents, will the Minister join me in calling on Her Majesty’s Opposition to work with the Government in the national interest to sort it out, rather than making cheap party political points?

[Mr Heath]

That would be a result devoutly to be wished.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

The beef, lamb and pork sourced in the United Kingdom follows a strict traceability system. Farmers in the United Kingdom have experienced a marked decrease in their incomes over the past 12 months. Can the Minister confirm that costs accrued as a result of the horsemeat scandal will not be passed on to farmers or farming organisations?

[Mr Heath]

I hope that no costs will be directly apportioned to farmers, but the hon. Gentleman makes a serious point about the assurance schemes we have in this country, and not only those relating to the traceability of our meat, but the various assurances placed on top of that through schemes. I think that we have every reason to be proud of the quality of meat in this country, particularly cut meat, some of which is the best in the world. Of course, farmers in his part of the country play a leading role in providing that quality meat.

[Mr David Nuttall (Bury North) (Con)]

In 2006 the Food Fraud Task Force identified the potential problem of food fraud and made 32 recommendations for dealing with it. Can the Minister explain to the House what action the previous Government took to implement any of those recommendations?

[Mr Heath]

I think that I am forbidden to give an opinion on the previous Government’s performance in response, but my hon. Friend will draw his own conclusions from the actions, or lack thereof, that took place at the time.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

In answering the question from the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Minister said that there was a problem with horse passports and sought to blame the previous Labour Government for it. Does he remember what he told the House on 17 January? He said:

“The hon. Lady seems to think that there is some difficulty with horse passports. I simply do not think that that is the case. I would happily set out the difference between the route for horses going to slaughter and the routes for others.”—[Official Report, 17 January 2013; Vol. 556, c. 1027.]

Is not that symptomatic of his rather high-handed attitude, which has really irritated people, and does not it explain the Government’s flat-footedness at the beginning of the crisis?

[Mr Heath]

I humbly apologise if the hon. Gentleman is irritated, but I must say that we are continuing to do the work that is required—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The Minister must be heard.

[Mr Heath]

There has been an attempt to bring the national equine database into this matter as though it were a panacea. That is not the case, and I have been consistent in saying so. Those who feel that a national equine database would have improved the situation are sadly mistaken. We need to look at the issue of horse passports, but we do not need to return to an issue that is frankly irrelevant to the situation in hand.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Phenylbutazone, known as bute, can be bought off the internet in tablet form, in injectable form, and as an apple and citrus-flavoured powder. Most horse owners believe that it is the only effective anti-inflammatory drug in controlling joint pain. It is so easy for owners to get hold of it that I wonder what the Minister might have in the way of proposals to ensure that there is some integrity to the system. Does he agree that testing is the only way of identifying the use of this drug?

[Mr Heath]

I do not want to move away from the position that it is crucial to understand: it is the responsibility of those who are selling products and those who are processing products to obey the law, which is very clear that a horse that has had phenylbutazone administered to it should not be entering the food chain. We have a regulatory issue as to whether the horse passport system across Europe is sufficient to meet that task, and that is what we are addressing. It would not be helpful to people who own horses across Europe to say that they cannot use a very useful anti-inflammatory drug; rather, we need to say, “If you do that, don’t put it on people’s plates.”

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Following the comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh), will the Minister now confirm what action he had taken to deal with bute before she raised concerns with him on the Floor of the House on 24 January?

[Mr Heath]

I have already explained that phenylbutazone is a well-known issue and that it is one of the things that is looked for at the point of slaughter, particularly through the horse passport system. I have also said that there may be deficiencies in the horse passport system that we need to address—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) is shouting at me from a sedentary position. I do not think that is helpful to a serious discussion of the subject. [Interruption.]

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Neil Carmichael. The hon. Gentleman should not look so surprised; he was standing up, and we wish to hear him.

[Neil Carmichael]

With all the cheering, Mr Speaker, I could not quite hear you.

Does the Minister agree that this is really all about the exposure of a very significant deception whereby the rule of law has been broken? Does he also agree that it is important that he has discussions with his European colleagues about bringing in mechanisms to stop it happening again, especially through making sure that the supply chain is properly transparent?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman summates the whole position very well. The most important thing is to have effective investigation, to find the evidence, and on the basis of that evidence, to take action, and that is what we are doing.

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister for a simple answer to a simple question: when did he order that horse carcases should be released from abattoirs after they had been found to be clean of bute? [Interruption.]

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) says helpfully, “It’s in the folder.” [Interruption.] We have had rather a lot of dates in our heads in this unfolding situation, and I make no apologies for not being able to give—[Interruption.] I cannot find the date in here. I am not going to give the hon. Lady a wrong answer; I will find it and tell her later.

[Laura Sandys (South Thanet) (Con)]

Looking to the future, we really have to put the consumer at the heart of food safety and food health. When we bring forward the review of EU labelling, can we ensure that my constituents are able to understand what is in their food and do not need a degree in food science to know what they are eating?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Lady raises a really important point—that food labelling is supposed to help, not confuse the consumer. That is why we are trying to make sure that the food labelling system is not only accurate—that goes without saying—but that it gives people information that is useful, not confusing. There will be talk about excluding information that, frankly, simply confuses the consumer. We have a consultation at the moment about the labelling of mince. I do not think it is helpful to call mince sold in this country as it always has been anything other than mince. I think that that is helpful to the consumer, not unhelpful.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Although the whole House will welcome the Minister’s belated recognition of the importance of horse passports, may I suggest that he talks to the Labour-led Welsh Assembly Government, who have been looking at this issue for some time and who recognise the importance of accurate passporting to control the movement of horses across Wales?

[Mr Heath]

We regularly speak to our colleagues in the devolved Administrations. Indeed, I spoke only yesterday to my ministerial counterpart in Wales. We regularly exchange information on these matters and come to common views wherever possible.

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

Food safety and quality is an international matter and we need collaboration across borders. When criminal activity is involved, Europol has a particularly important role to play. Will the Minister ensure that we identify where this horsemeat came from in order to verify, for instance, that it was not slaughtered on unlicensed premises?

[Mr Heath]

That is why we need a European-wide criminal investigation and why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is at The Hague today talking to Europol. Europol can act only if requested to do so by member states, and the UK has made such a request, in company with Mr Le Foll, the French Minister. That is why it is proceeding and I think that that will add a lot of co-ordination to what otherwise might be a fragmented police investigation.

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

It is reported in today’s press that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland told the FSA about its concerns in November 2012. I ask the Minister again: when were Ministers first told about this problem? Perhaps the answer is in his folder, if he would care to look at it.

[Mr Heath]

We have said all along that there is co-ordination between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the FSA. We have also said—the hon. Lady can look back at the record of it—that the Irish were not acting on the basis of an intelligence-led operation, so there was no prior information. They did spot checks and told us that they were going to do so. As soon as they had confirmed results, they told the FSA and the FSA told Ministers. That is all a matter of record.

[Mr Sam Gyimah (East Surrey) (Con)]

Confidence in the food supply chain is key and it is retailers who bear the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of the food they sell. What assurances has my hon. Friend sought from retailers about the integrity of the supply chain networks?

[Mr Heath]

That is very much the basis of our discussions with them over the past couple of weeks. Indeed, such discussions took place yesterday and earlier in the week. We are absolutely clear that retailers bear the legal responsibility. When I say retailers, that should be extended to all food businesses, such as caterers. They must be confident in the integrity of their supply chains. We will do everything we can to provide regulatory support for that, so that cases in which they are defrauded are brought to light. The crux is that they must have both assured provenance and a testing regime in their own companies so that they can, with confidence, tell consumers that the meat on their shelves is both what they say it is and safe.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

The Minister mentioned the work that is being done at a European level, especially through Europol. Does he agree, therefore, that it is deeply ironic—in fact, it is profoundly worrying—that at this very time the Government are considering a mass opt-out from European justice and home affairs provisions, including the work of Europol?

[Mr Heath]

I can only say that at the moment we have the services of Europol. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is using those services very effectively. He is leading that request today and we will make sure that on a pan-European basis we deal with what is a pan-European issue.

May I reply to the question asked by the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith)? She asked for a date, but I did not want to give her the wrong one, because my memory may be fallible. It was Monday 11 February.

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

What my constituents want to know is simply whether it is safe to eat processed beef products that are currently on sale. The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) has spread huge fear by saying that she would not eat products that are currently on sale. What is the advice of the chief medical officer and the independent Food Standards Agency on this matter?

[Mr Heath]

The advice is very clear. All the testing that has taken place has failed to find evidence of food that is a danger to human health. Therefore, the clear advice is that there is no reason to change shopping habits on the basis of concerns about health. I prefer people to take their own decisions on these matters on the basis of evidence and information. That is an individual decision and it is not helpful for people to pretend that there is a massive food health scare if there is not, and nor is it helpful for people to give reassurances that are not supported by evidence.

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

I am amazed that the Minister could not remember what happened on Monday, given that it was only three days ago. In the last year, a large number of horses have been slaughtered in UK abattoirs for meat. What estimate has his Department made of the occurrence of bute in those horses?

[Mr Heath]

That is precisely what the FSA is testing and producing results on. As I have said, the chief medical officer will be giving a statement about that later this morning.

The hon. Gentleman says that he is amazed that I cannot remember what happened on Monday. I can remember what happened on Monday, but I am not going to stand at the Dispatch Box and give a date if I might find that I have mistakenly misled the House. I would prefer to give correct information to the House than wrong information. I am sorry if that offends Members.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am keen to accommodate the remaining colleagues because there are not many of them, but I trust that they will be brief. The master class is to be provided by Mr Philip Hollobone.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents in Kettering will be surprised at the extent to which meat products are cut, processed and reprocessed back and forth across so many international borders. Might one of the benefits of this episode be that consumers value local farmers markets that provide high-quality meats sourced from local farmers?

[Mr Heath]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely good point. I hope that people value locally sourced produce, and there is evidence that they do so. People value local butchers shops that know the provenance of the produce. They also value the quality assurance schemes that we have in this country, which indicate a high quality of produce.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Families in Basildon and Thurrock have been defrauded in the food that they have bought. Does the Minister share my anger that the retailers have allowed that to happen?

[Mr Heath]

We should all be outraged that people have been given meat that is not as described on the packet. The Government stand four-square with the consumer who goes into the shop and buys the product, and say, “This will not do.” It is unacceptable and those who have allowed it to happen, whether through insufficient checking or criminal activity, must be brought to book.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

People across west Yorkshire will be outraged that horsemeat has entered the food chain labelled as beef. Will the Minister reassure consumers that the individuals who are carrying out this criminal activity will be prosecuted?

[Mr Heath]

Ministers cannot give assurances on what the police and investigatory authorities will do. It is certainly my wish that wherever there is evidence of criminal activity, it is put before the courts and the people responsible are prosecuted and face the full force of the law.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that for the Labour party to criticise the testing regime that we inherited from it is pure, naked opportunism?

[Mr Heath]

There is an awful lot of opportunism around at the moment.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Many British farmers are concerned by those who are touring the TV studios at the moment saying that they would not eat any beef products in this country. What does the Minister think retailers, who have ultimate responsibility for ensuring food safety, should be doing to reassure their consumers?

[Mr Heath]

In the first instance, what they should be doing is exactly what they are doing at our request: testing every processed beef product that they have on their shelves and sharing with us the results so that we can provide advice independently, through the FSA, on the level of substitution that has occurred. However, they have to go further than that and examine their supply chains. They have to be able to reassure their customers of the value of the systems that they have in place, and I hope that having taken the initial action, they will soon be in a position to do exactly that and to tell every person who walks through the doors of their stores where a product comes from and that it has been tested and is what it says it is.

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

The fact is that we have the most fantastic food and agriculture industry in this country, and confidence is key to it. Does the Minister agree that the headline-grabbing hysteria of Opposition Front Benchers does nothing to help the confidence that this great British industry requires?

[Mr Heath]

I am not going to criticise anyone for expressing proper concerns on behalf of their constituents, but I will criticise those who peddle part-truths or untruths, which is profoundly unhelpful. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) expresses surprise, but the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) had to come back and apologise only this week for saying something grossly wrong about the number of horses unaccounted for in Ulster.

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

Will the Minister clarify that it was the changes put in place in 2006 that took away the daily inspection presence in meat-cutting premises?

[Mr Heath]

This is one of the problems—apparently the world only started in 2010 and all the things that were done before then did not count, and apparently the system that was in place in 2010 was so perfect that it has only been downhill since. That is not a credible position, and those who purport to speak for the people of this country should come up with a credible position.

Point of Order

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

11:12

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I will take the point of order, and any response if the Minister wishes to respond, but I must emphasise that that will be that. We are not having a whole debate on the issue that arose at the start of the urgent question.

[Mary Creagh]

I would like to set the record straight—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I say to Members who are shrieking that they should cease doing so. Mr Burley, you are now eagerly consulting your BlackBerry or iPhone, and that may be a more profitable activity for you than shouting from a sedentary position. Let me make it clear that the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mary Creagh) will be heard, and the Minister will be heard, without unnecessary distractions.

[Mary Creagh]

I would like to give the Minister the opportunity to set the record straight. He is right that I received last Friday the names of three UK companies suspected as passing off horse as beef. I immediately e-mailed and wrote to the Secretary of State, on that day, offering to share the information with him. I received a response from him on Monday asking me to hand it over. He was obviously unaware that I had already handed it over to the FSA on Saturday, and that it had reassured me that it was already in possession of those names. Will he now withdraw the disgraceful slur and apologise to me?

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

Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have here the e-mail exchange between the FSA’s director of operations and the hon. Lady. He repeatedly requests further information and evidence on the comments that she made in the House, and her reply is:

“I am very anxious to protect my source from any repercussions.”

She then seeks to bargain with the FSA for further information before releasing her information. I am happy to put that into the public domain if it would help, but I think my comments were entirely justified.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I said that was that, and Members can pursue the matter in other forums if they wish. I am grateful to Members for their co-operation.

Business of the House

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

11:14

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next week?

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

The business for next week is as follows:

Monday 25 February—Second Reading of the Children and Families Bill.

Tuesday 26 February—Remaining stages of the Groceries Code Adjudicator Bill [Lords], followed by consideration of opposed private business nominated by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Wednesday 27 February—Opposition Day (18th allotted day). There will be a debate on a motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and the Scottish Nationalist party, subject to be announced, followed by motion to approve a statutory instrument relating to the draft Bank of England Act 1998 (Macro-prudential Measures) Order 2013.

Thursday 28 February—Debate on a motion relating to the Kesri Lehar campaign for the abolition of the death penalty in India, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the 25th anniversary of the Kurdish genocide. The subjects for those debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 1 March—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 4 March will include:

Monday 4 March—Second Reading of the Financial Services (Banking Reform Bill).

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 28 February will be:

Thursday 28 February—Debate on the Communities and Local Government Select Committee report on the European Regional Development Fund, followed by a debate on nuisance phone calls.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. The Opposition welcome the decision of the Backbench Business Committee to schedule a debate this afternoon on violence against women and girls. The campaign states that three quarters of a million children witness acts of domestic abuse every year, and that one third of girls in relationships aged between 13 and 17 have experienced physical or sexual violence. Shockingly, one in three women will be beaten or raped in her lifetime. Today’s debate coincides with a series of actions across the UK as part of the One Billion Rising global campaign. Will the Leader of the House join me in fully supporting that campaign?

One of the first actions of the Work and Pensions Secretary after the election was to abolish Labour’s future jobs fund. The Prime Minister then went around claiming that it was

“one of the most ineffective jobs schemes there’s been.”

However, an assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the future jobs fund, published by this Government, said that it was one of the most successful and cost-effective schemes ever.

Yesterday the Government had to rush emergency regulations through the House after the courts ruled the Government’s Work programme illegal. For most people looking for work, however, what matters most is the assessment by the Department for Work and Pensions of the Work programme, which concluded that the current scheme is “worse than doing nothing”. The Government blundered in scrapping the future jobs fund and setting up the Work programme. The Work and Pensions Secretary was happy to attack the courts in yesterday’s newspapers, but he has not come to the House. May we have a statement from the Work and Pensions Secretary on the future of the Work programme?

Last week at Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister claimed that the bedroom tax “is not a tax.” This week the Government Chief Whip apparently e-mailed Conservative backbenchers:

“Please could all colleagues refer to underoccupancy and not the bedroom tax?”

You can change the name but you cannot change the facts. This April the bedroom tax will hit those at the bottom, while at the same time the Government are handing out a huge tax cut to those at the top. That is what the Chancellor decided to do in his previous Budget. After the omnishambles of the previous Budget it was reported this week that the Chancellor has retreated to his country house to pore over Budget plans with Conservative party staff to try to do a better job next time.

May I make a constructive suggestion? Before the Government get themselves into another fine mess, the Leader of the House could arrange for the Chancellor to make a statement next week so that he can U-turn on the bedroom tax and U-turn on the tax cut for millionaires. It is hardly as though the Government do not know how to U-turn: new figures show that since the election they have announced a U-turn every 29 days. Given that the Education Secretary U-turned on GCSEs this time last week, I calculate that the next Government U-turn is due on 8 March. As 8 March is a Friday and not a sitting day, will the Leader of the House arrange for his colleagues to bring forward the next U-turn to a day when the House is sitting?

Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Harold Wilson, who 50 years ago today was elected leader of the Labour party? He was a Member of the House for almost 40 years and led the Labour party for 13 years. He was Prime Minister for more than seven years. Government Members might reflect on the fact that, after the February 1974 election, Harold Wilson chose to lead a minority Government rather than go into coalition with the Liberals. He went on to win the subsequent election later that year.

Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Deputy Prime Minister, who managed a brief appearance on his weekly London phone-in this morning from Mozambique? I can only conclude that he has gone to Mozambique to help the Liberal Democrats in the Eastleigh by-election. Yesterday, the Chancellor went to Eastleigh, which will also help the Liberal Democrats. As Liberal Democrat and Conservative MPs fight it out in Eastleigh, there is only one thing to say: things can only get better.

The coalition has been going through a rough time. Relationships are strained. As all good marriage guidance says, when a relationship hits tough times, you need to get the romance back—put a bit of spice back into it and have a bit of fun. It is Valentine’s day, so in that spirit may I suggest to the Leader of the House that Conservative MPs should be encouraged to take out a Liberal Democrat colleague—for a suitably expensive Valentine’s day meal?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I join her in expressing support for the One Billion Rising campaign. She will have heard what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Women and Equalities said earlier in Question Time. She will have a further opportunity in the debate this afternoon to express support. I welcome the debate and the focus it rightly puts on that important issue.

I was quite surprised that Harold Wilson was the subject of a programme on Channel 4 on the eve of Valentine’s day. It was not an obvious choice. I remember Harold Wilson because he addressed the first political meeting I attended—in 1966, at Abbs Cross school in Hornchurch. That was in the good old days, when I was politically neutral and 10 years old.

We must be careful with Valentine’s day references. I read an interview with the Leader of the Opposition in The Guardian this morning. In telling us about the nature of his Valentine’s day evening—a Chinese takeaway, followed by what he describes as “a surprise”—I fear he provided us with altogether too much information.

I tried to detect questions about business from the hon. Lady, but I am not sure there were any. A written ministerial statement on the Work programme and the Wilson and Reilly court case was made on Tuesday. It is clear that the courts did not quash the principle of the scheme—the problem was the structure of the technical regulations and how they worked. We put down regulations to put that right for the future, and we will continue to contest the Court of Appeal’s decision. That is a matter for the courts and not, for the moment, for this House.

The hon. Lady asked about the under-occupancy charge, but the Government rest on the facts. The simple facts, which we have discussed in business questions and at Prime Minister’s questions, are that, under the previous Government, Labour Members were perfectly content for an under-occupancy deduction to be applied to housing benefit in the private sector, but somehow find it impossible to read that across into the social housing sector. They fail to recognise—the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr Foster) made this point well in yesterday’s debate—that hundreds of thousands of homes are under-occupied, and we have a million and a half people on the social housing waiting list and need to ensure that there are incentives to use social housing stock to the best effect. Those are simple facts.

An additional simple fact is that we have to recognise that housing benefit, at £23 billion, pretty much doubled under the previous Government and we have to control that. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne) sat in the debate yesterday and failed to recognise what he said when he left government, which was that there was no money left. It is curious that outside the House Labour Members seem willing to accept that. The head of their party’s policy review, the hon. Member for Dagenham and Rainham (Jon Cruddas) said just last night:

“The money is not there and everyone knows that.”

They have to recognise that they left us in an economic mess, and the head of their policy review says that they have to start by saying sorry for that. If their leader does not start saying sorry, they will not be able to participate in debates—as was clear yesterday—with any credible response. Their leader has gone off to Bedford and their policy review is described as a work in progress. Of course, when one is in Bedford one thinks of “The Pilgrim’s Progress”. I have to say that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to reach his slough of despond.

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

In the village of Barton Stacey there is serious concern about the speed at which the Ministry of Defence is disposing of property and land, which is preventing local residents from having enough time to establish a community initiative to buy some of it for public open space. May I ask the Leader of the House for time to debate MOD property disposal, so that other communities might have the opportunity that has been denied to Barton Stacey?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point in relation to her constituency. Members across the House recognise that in the midst of the necessity to make proper disposal of surplus land right across the public estate, we want to do so in a way that recognises community interests and the views of local communities, and responds to them. I will raise this issue with my colleagues at the Ministry of Defence. She may wish to note that Ministers will be here for Defence questions on Monday 25 February, and she might like to raise the issue then.

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

I think the Leader of the House could have been a little bit more generous about Harold Wilson in his remarks. Is it time that we had debates in which we can reflect on the successes and failures of previous Administrations? [Hon. Members: “Margaret Thatcher.”] Certainly we could have a debate on that too. The Wilson years provide an example of a Prime Minister who resolutely kept us out of the Vietnam war, telling LBJ he was not even going to send a band of bagpipes; who expanded higher education tremendously, establishing the Open university; and who gave people a choice on Europe, so there are lessons to be learned. There is no decent statue in the Members’ Lobby to a very fine Prime Minister. It is about time that we rectified that and put up a proper statue.

[Mr Lansley]

I recall that there is a bust of Harold Wilson in the Members’ Lobby. I hesitate to intrude on the Labour party’s grief, but as the hon. Gentleman described Harold Wilson’s attributes in office it was almost as if he was attempting a critique of Tony Blair at the same time.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In liaison with my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) may I ask my right hon. Friend—who will personally recall my parliamentary campaign for a public inquiry, under the Inquiries Act 2005, into Stafford hospital, which was granted by the Prime Minister but persistently refused by the previous Government—to ensure that we have an early debate on the Floor of the House, in Government time, on the Francis report? When will it be?

[Mr Lansley]

When I was shadow Health Secretary, my hon. Friend and I discussed this matter fully. It has now been proved that we were absolutely right then, and I was right as Secretary of State to institute the Francis inquiry. We have the report and we will respond. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have been to the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for debate on this matter. I will, of course, gladly discuss with the Chair of that Committee when time might be available for that debate.

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

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) will shortly launch her Select Committee’s report, but she will be taking questions from Members in the form of interventions. The Leader of the House’s Office has produced a set of Standing Order changes to enable Select Committee Chairs to launch a report and then take questions in a more normal format. Will the Leader of the House please bring forward those Standing Order changes?

[Mr Lansley]

I will gladly discuss that with the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith), the Chair of the Liaison Committee, to ensure that we have, if possible, a format for these reports that works for Select Committee Chairs and which also suits the Backbench Business Committee in the allocation of its time.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend see whether he can find a day for the House to debate the impact of the important news that the United States of America and the European Union are to start formal talks over a new free trade agreement, which would greatly increase trade between us? Will he also confirm that even though this is a pretty dismal time for free trade, with the collapse of the Doha round, our Government believe that free trade is a great and powerful tool for growth?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. Like me and others across the House, I am sure that he was heartened by the conclusions of the European Council and the EU’s determination to seek free trade agreements. Today’s agreement to commence EU-US free trade discussions is only one part of the EU’s ambitious agenda. That is absolutely right. I cannot identify now when time would be available for such a debate, but it would of course be entirely relevant not least to the Budget debate on maintaining the pace of economic recovery.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

By the time the House returns on 25 February, it will have been a month since British troops were first committed to assist France’s activities in Mali. We have heard that there is to be a considerable deployment of troops all across north Africa. I cannot understand why, despite repeated requests, neither the Prime Minister, nor the Defence Secretary or the Foreign Secretary has made a statement since then, and there has been no vote in the House on our significant involvement in another foreign policy adventure. Will the Leader of the House please tell us when a Minister will make a statement and give us a proper opportunity to debate this matter fully?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Gentleman knows from previous business questions, including last week’s, I made it clear that a full written ministerial statement would be made before the House rose. That, of course, was made yesterday. Included in that was not only the support we are giving at the request of the French Government, but the question of when the extent of the European training mission and our support for it would be determined. Ministers will keep the House fully updated, but I reiterate the point I have made previously to the hon. Gentleman: we will continually look at and ensure that we fully comply with the convention of securing a debate in the House if our troops are committed other than on an emergency basis to any continuing conflict. Our intention is for our support to be logistical and training support, rather than in the form of combat operations.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The House will know that the Government of Israel now refuse to co-operate with the United Nations Human Rights Council. Despite that, the European football authorities are going to stage the under-21 finals in Israel later this year, and the English FA, despite its “Let’s Kick Racism out of Football” campaign in this country, will be sending a team. May we therefore have a general debate on Israel and its dependence on economic, cultural and sporting associations with the EU, and particularly the UK, when it manifestly is not geographically in Europe?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend invites me to enter tricky territory. What is Europe is often interpreted differently in different contexts, as he will remember from the Eurovision song contest, no less. I encourage him to raise this, particularly the human rights issues, with colleagues at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when they answer questions here on 5 March. I will also check with colleagues at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to see whether they have anything further to add on the footballing issues.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the adequacy of the discretionary payment, which exists to support the most vulnerable people who will suffer as a result of the bedroom tax? East Ayrshire council has sent letters to people saying that they might be entitled to a discretionary payment for a short period of time, after which they will have to find the money themselves. This is a matter of serious concern to some of my most vulnerable constituents, and I would welcome the Government looking at the matter again.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware that this Government allocated an additional £30 million to the discretionary housing payment budget, taking it to £195 million. This is specifically aimed at helping disabled people who live in significantly adapted accommodation, and foster carers.

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

Given that an in/out referendum and cutting the EU budget are both now mainstream Conservative policies, may we have a debate in Government time on redefining the term “rebels” as people who are usually only a couple of weeks ahead of their time?

[Mr Lansley]

In the spirit of remembering Harold Wilson —oh, the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) has left the Chamber—who said that a week was a long time in politics, I suggest that in rebellions, a fortnight is an eternity.

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

There are currently only six working mothers in the Government, and only one at the Cabinet table. That might go some way towards explaining the confusion and chaos in the Government’s child care policy. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time—as it involves Government business—to discuss this matter, so that the Government can take on board the expertise of other Members from their own constituencies and their own experience?

[Mr Lansley]

I am surprised that the hon. Lady does not recognise the considerable benefits associated with the recent announcements made by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss) on child care policy. We are reducing the costs and burdens of child care, and creating greater flexibility. The number of women, and of women with families, in the Government has increased and will no doubt continue to do so, but I would put it gently to the hon. Lady that we men who have families understand the need for good quality child care as well.

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

The Leader of the House is well aware that a lot of unitary authority and county council areas throughout the country have suffered substantial infrastructure damage as a result of flooding. Money is being made available for bolstering flood defences, but none is being made directly available for the restoration of roads, drains and hedges and for the repair of all the other damage that has been caused. Is it possible to have a debate on this matter—in Government time, as it affects the whole of the United Kingdom—to discuss whether money could be made available to repair that damage?

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making. This is similar to what happens after severe winter weather, when potholes and other problems need to be dealt with. Last winter and the winter before that, some additional resources were found for local authorities to do that. He makes a good point, and I will raise the matter with the Department for Communities and Local Government, not least in order to see when it will be able to say something about those impacts. I hope that that will be helpful to my hon. Friend.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

I am getting an increasing number of letters from disabled constituents who are terrified of the impact of the bedroom tax. There is a storm coming the Government’s way on the issue of benefit cuts. May I repeat my request to the Leader of the House for an urgent debate, with the Prime Minister present, so that we can hear about the horrendous impact of the bedroom tax on my constituents and on tens of thousands of other people around the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry to have to say to the hon. Gentleman that the simple fact that he and his colleagues keep repeating this does not make it so. Under the Labour Government, under-occupancy deductions were made in exactly the same way in relation to those in receipt of housing benefit in the private sector. Opposition Members have to understand two simple propositions. First, we have to save money. Secondly, there is under-occupancy in the social housing sector, as there was in the private rented sector. In order to gain the maximum benefit from the available social housing, we have to have incentives for the space to be best used.

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

The findings of the Francis report were especially disturbing for my constituents, many of whom received terrible care at Stafford hospital, but the jobs merry-go-round is equally disturbing. For example, Helen Moss, the former director of nursing, who was in charge when care reached appalling standards, now works for Ernst and Young as a consultant. Her company has since won a contract to look at the financial viability of the Mid Staffs trust. May we have a debate on ending this shameful roundabout, where people get on, fail and then are moved somewhere else?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment directly on individuals, other than to say that—I think this is a matter of public record—although Helen Moss is working in a consultancy role, she is not working directly in relation to the Mid Staffs trust. I completely understand the general point, however. The Francis inquiry is continuing, and the Government will respond in due course, but while its report has clearly set out many of the central issues for the system as a whole, it was not asked to draw conclusions about the behaviour of individuals, and it did not do so. That is principally a matter for the professional regulatory bodies, of course, but this issue does raise the question of the place of managers in particular in a professional regulatory structure of that kind.

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

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to early-day motion 773? It has attracted the signatures of over 95 Members from seven political parties, including the coalition parties.

[That this House notes that the most significant development that has followed from the Government's healthcare reforms has been the 7 billion worth of new contracts being made available to the private health sector; further notes that at least five former advisers to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer are now working for lobbying firms with private healthcare clients; recalls the Prime Minister's own reported remarks prior to the general election when he described lobbying as ‘the next big scandal waiting to happen'; recognises the growing scandal of the procurement model that favours the private health sector over the NHS, by allowing private companies to hide behind commercial confidentiality and which compromises the best practice aspirations of the public sector; condemns the practice of revolving doors, whereby Government health advisers move to lucrative contracts in the private healthcare sector, especially at a time when the privatisation of the NHS is proceeding by stealth; is deeply concerned at the unfair advantages being handed to private healthcare companies; and demands that in future all private healthcare companies be subject to freedom of information requests under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in the same way as existing NHS public sector organisations.]

Given that £7 billion of NHS contracts is currently being tendered for, or has been awarded to, private sector health companies, may we have a debate on whether freedom of information requests should apply to private health companies bidding for NHS contracts that currently hide behind a cloak of commercial confidentiality?

[Mr Lansley]

Health questions will take place on the next sitting Tuesday. On public procurement and the need to audit public money, the Freedom of Information Act cannot at present reach wherever public money goes, but the transparency requirements set out in contracts enable there to be absolute clarity about the propriety and purposes of public funds used in procurement.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on food labelling for processed food? The horse scandal has shown that the labels on processed food throw mystery on where that food comes from, rather than provide enlightenment. We have an opportunity to get something positive from this scandal, by making sure that people recognise where their food comes from.

[Mr Lansley]

I understand the point my hon. Friend makes, and he will have heard the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath), who has responsibility for food and farming, say precisely that. The Minister agrees that we must make sure food labelling delivers to consumers the information they need. As I know from my experience, we are making good progress in respect of the nutritional content of food and helping people to construct a good diet, but the provenance, origin and composition of foods must also be made very clear. My ministerial colleagues have reported to the House on that, and I know they will find further opportunities to do so.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As the House will know, I almost invariably call everyone at business questions, and I would like to do so again today, but it is a day of Backbench Business Committee debates, which are well subscribed, so we are under heavy time pressure. I therefore appeal to colleagues to ask single short questions, and to Leader of the House to give pithy replies.

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

Unpaid carers provide vital care to frail, ill and disabled people, but thousands of them are being hit by the benefits cap and the Welfare Benefits Up-rating Bill. Many will also be hit by the bedroom tax and the loss of council tax benefit, and we now find from the updated impact assessment for personal independence payments that 10,000 carers will lose their carers allowance and 5,000 fewer will qualify. May we have a debate on why this Government are hitting unpaid carers with their reforms, rather than exempting them?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has to recognise, for example, that we specifically excluded carers from the constraint on the uprating of welfare benefit—recognising their role. The draft Care and Support Bill puts into statute for the first time specific support for carers, not least in respect of supporting their health.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The shadow Leader of the House made a very wise suggestion earlier today—for Conservative Members to date a Liberal Democrat Member tonight. I pick the Deputy Prime Minister; who would my right hon. Friend choose?

[Mr Lansley]

I think I may have detected a somewhat different sense to the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House than my hon. Friend has in his interpretation. I think that the Leader of the House and the deputy Leader of the House make a perfectly good team; that is how we regard ourselves for these purposes.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Leader of the House will have heard the Chair of the Health Select Committee on the “Today” programme earlier today talking about gagging orders and the way in which they have been used in the health service. Will the right hon. Gentleman make time for a debate so that we can discuss making it a criminal offence to put a gagging order into a contract that is guaranteed to be against public safety?

[Mr Lansley]

It would be relevant to consider that matter when the House has an opportunity to debate the Francis inquiry. I did not hear the Chair of the Select Committee today, but when I was Secretary of State for Health, I made it very clear—and the chief executive of the NHS made it very clear—that gagging clauses would not be put into NHS contracts. We set that out. If I recall correctly—I will, of course, make sure it is corrected if I am wrong—the particular case that gave rise to this report related to a contract of employment and a gagging clause that was applied before the last election.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on how Telford and Wrekin council consult local people on residential and retail development? In particular, we need to debate how the council is ignoring the concerns of Newport residents about the speed and size of applications both for housing and retail supermarket development in that ancient market town.

[Mr Lansley]

Local development framework consultation should explicitly allow for a response from local communities. In my experience, it can be buttressed by our new statutory provision for neighbourhood plans. I encourage my hon. Friend and his constituents to get together in Newport and look to providing a neighbourhood plan, which could entrench local views into the local planning framework.

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

Over the last two days, many of my constituents have been caught up in the extensive disruption on the Thameslink railway route. Could time be made available to discuss the problems on that line, particularly given that, in the light of the west coast main line debacle, the operator has been awarded a two and a half year contract to continue to run the franchise when it would otherwise have finished earlier?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might care to raise that matter at Transport questions, which I believe are on the Thursday of the week the House next sits. He will have seen the announcement on the Thameslink northern franchise, to which he referred. If I may, I will ask the Department for Transport whether there are any further issues arising out of recent problems and ask it to correspond with the hon. Gentleman and let me know the outcome.

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

Unemployment in the Vale of Glamorgan has fallen consistently over the last 12 months, and now stands at a rate of a little over 5%. For those people who remain unemployed, experience is an important attribute as they need it to try to get back into work. May we have a debate on the Government’s Work programme to clarify what was said in court this week, but also to underline the principle that for people who receive these sorts of benefits, experience can help them back into work?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not know whether a debate will be possible in the near future, but I certainly think it is important for us to continue to support the principle, which I think the court did not contest, that it is right and proper for the Government, and in the interests of the unemployed, to ensure that people get back in the workplace, get that experience and do not lose contact with work. That is at the heart of the Work programme.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the management of special advisers? The Education Secretary has taken the unusual step of writing to the Education Committee in response to an invitation that he has not yet received, asking him why he did not know that one of his special advisers, Dominic Cummings, was one of those who were involved in a grievance procedure initiated by a member of staff which resulted in a £25,000 payout. Should the Secretary of State not know about such things going on in his Department, and does he not have a responsibility, under the Ministerial Code, to know what his spads are up to?

[Mr Lansley]

I have seen the letter that my right hon. Friend sent to the Committee, and I think it perfectly reasonable for him to ensure that Select Committees are always given the relevant information at the earliest possible moment.

[Andrew Jones (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (Con)]

This is national heart month, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen Members wearing badges in recognition and support of it. Please may we have a debate about what is being done to support long-term funding of research on heart and circulatory diseases, and what is being done to help people take care of their own hearts?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I have seen the badges. Indeed, there was a specific day on which I wore a British Heart Foundation badge myself.

Because the Government recognised its importance, we maintained the research budget, including the budget for the National Institute for Health Research. I believe that, in the last full year, the institute spent some £54 million on research on cardiovascular disease and strokes.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

My constituents and I continue to be frustrated by the continuing saga of the roadworks and speed restrictions on the M62 between Huddersfield and Leeds. This has been going on for many months. Will my right hon. Friend raise it urgently with the Secretary of State for Transport, and also find time for an urgent debate? The ever-increasing number of accidents and the ever-increasing congestion are affecting the whole west Yorkshire economy.

[Mr Lansley]

I have driven along that piece of road, and I know exactly what my hon. Friend is referring to. The matter is very important to his constituents and to others, and I will of course raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know that efforts are being made to complete the work this year, and to do it as fast as possible, but I will encourage my right hon. Friend to say what can be done to ensure the best possible flow of traffic and maximum safety.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

On 28 January, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), I was delighted to welcome the Secretary of State for Health to the excellent Airedale general hospital. Many Pendle residents use the hospital and the outside services that it provides. For example, telemedicine is used in a number of Pendle GP surgeries and in our nursing homes. May we have a debate on the potential benefits of telemedicine to the NHS, to ensure that they can be realised and that proper joined-up working can take place between doctors, the ambulance service and our local hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased to hear that my hon. Friends enjoyed my right hon. Friend’s visit to Airedale general hospital. I recall visiting the hospital myself and being very impressed with the work it was doing. When I was in Kirklees, I was also very impressed by a demonstration of what telehealth and telecare can achieve. A trial was completed which led to the launch of the “3 million lives” programme just over a year ago, which achieved a 45% reduction in mortality rates among those who were enrolled in the programme.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

May I reiterate the calls for a debate about Harold Wilson, and ask whether, in the event of such a debate, we would be allowed to refer to the fact that he smoked a pipe? It seems that the politically correct brigade at the BBC have decided to block out that fact, Soviet-style, for the purposes of the programme that they are making about him. Perhaps we could combine a debate about Harold Wilson with a debate about politically correct idiocy at the BBC.

[Mr Lansley]

I find it difficult to conceive of the possibility of a programme about Harold Wilson without his pipe. How would it explain how he gave himself time to think? I must say that I am not sure how he managed not to use his pipe at the Dispatch Box, given that it was such an integral part of his make-up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Against the background of falling crime levels, a recent sharp increase in the number of burglaries in Kettering is cause for local concern. The Leader of the House will know that most burglars are already known to the police, and that most burglaries are carried out by burglars who are released too early from prison having not completed their sentences. May we have a joint statement by Ministers from the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice about what Her Majesty’s Government are doing to tackle this most pernicious of crimes?

[Mr Lansley]

I have listened to what my hon. Friend says and, to be helpful, I will, of course, ask my colleagues at the Home Office to reply, particularly on his local situation. If I recall correctly, they were saying that although there has been a reduction in crime, they have had a particular focus on the clear-up rates in relation to burglary. It is very important that they do that.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the approach to care in the Staffordshire NHS cluster? My 22-year-old constituent, Thomas Berry, suffers from spinal muscular atrophy, which means that he cannot do very much for himself, but the cluster wants to change his care plan, against his wishes, the wishes of his carers and the advice of his doctor. That could have a material impact on his health, yet the cluster is not even able to tell me whether it thinks it might have an impact on his health. May we have a statement so that we can question Staffordshire’s approach to care, including the apparent refusal of the chief executive and the head of continuing care to answer MPs’ questions adequately?

[Mr Lansley]

I know that the chief executive of the Staffordshire primary care trust cluster would be very willing to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this matter, if it would be helpful. Obviously I cannot enter into a discussion about his constituent, but the general point he makes is that the whole object of care plans is for them to be agreed between the patient, their family and their clinicians.

[Kris Hopkins (Keighley) (Con)]

We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the start of the Iraq war, a conflict that saw the loss of many British service personnel and more than half a million Iraqis killed. There are still unanswered questions about the legality of the war, so will my right hon. Friend facilitate a debate on this important issue?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend raises a point that I know has been raised with the Backbench Business Committee. I think we should particularly commemorate this anniversary and remember the loss of life, particularly our own dead and injured. I think that the Government should look to the Chilcot inquiry as the basis on which this House should then consider the lessons to be learned.

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

May we have a debate about the merits of introducing financial incentives to UK whistleblowing legislation? Such incentives are in place in the United States, where its Treasury makes a fortune as a result. If we had them here, be they in respect of health, banking or other sectors of our economy, more people would step forward and indicate where malpractice is taking place.

[Mr Lansley]

Of course, I am familiar, to some extent, with the fact that there are incentives for whistleblowers in financial services in America, but I did not know that they extended any further than that. In a number of contexts, we want to ensure, in particular, that there are no disincentives, but we also want to ensure that there are clear incentives for people to be whistleblowers, where that is appropriate.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

My constituents from the Wilton community land trust were delighted to have the opportunity, finally, to bid for the Ministry of Defence site at the Erskine barracks. However, they were somewhat dismayed by the lack of provision in the tendering document for communities’ views to be taken into account. May I reiterate the call by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for the MOD to make a statement on how it is going to listen to community groups when disposing of its assets?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North earlier, but it is important, in any set of circumstances where disposal is being taken forward, for the local councils and the partners to engage fully with the local community. I hope that that is the practice in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (John Glen), too.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

Many of my constituents will welcome the fact that this week the Government have taken an important step forward by committing to support people with their care costs where they have assets of up to £123,000, as opposed to the current limit of £23,000. Will my right hon. Friend schedule a debate on this issue, which is extremely important in respect of fairness, particularly for those who have saved hard and done the right thing for their retirement?

[Mr Lansley]

I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health was able to make a statement at the beginning of the week on the response to Andrew Dilnot’s commission, which I had the privilege of establishing. The relevant provisions are the subject of a further representation to the Joint Committee considering the draft Care and Support Bill and I hope that that will enable the House in due course to see the measures taken forward as rapidly as possible.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Lord Privy Seal agree that one of the successes of the coalition Government has been the provision of a proper framework for post offices so that they can feel secure, modernise and serve their rural communities? In my constituency, many post offices have felt a huge benefit from that support, in complete contrast to the closure programme under the previous Labour Government.

[Mr Lansley]

I can tell my hon. Friend that the Lord Privy Seal is very much in agreement with him. There will not be any repeat of the closure programme that we saw under the previous Government, which I experienced in my constituency and he no doubt did in his. We are committed to maintaining a network of 11,500 branches, with £1.3 billion of funding to support that during the spending review period. By 2015, at least half of those branches will have been modernised as he describes.

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

There are concerns in my constituency about the mortality rates at the local hospital, which will now be investigated by the NHS Commissioning Board. Will the Leader of the House allow an urgent debate on how we can improve such hospitals?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will recall that I visited Medway hospital. It is very important that we recognise that when there is a significant deviation from the standardised mortality data and too high a level of apparent mortality is recorded that is an indicator that should be acted upon and is not in itself evidence of poor care. From the point of view of the Department and the Care Quality Commission, one of the lessons from Mid Staffs was that indicators, alarm bells, smoke alarms or whatever we might call them should never be ignored. I hope that we will see determination to act on any evidence but not to jump to any conclusions.

Point of Order

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

12:02

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. This morning, I had the great pleasure of appearing on a radio programme with the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to discuss the fact that his book is the most borrowed publication in the House of Commons Library. In preparing for that programme, I was minded to go back around the Library and it made me realise what an extraordinarily fantastically great asset we have in the Library and the Library staff. I would be grateful for your advice on how we as MPs might express our appreciation for the staff and management, who, I suspect, are not thanked often enough.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order and my answer to her is twofold. First, she has already done so most eloquently on behalf of Members in all parts of the House. Secondly, she will be no stranger to the mechanism of an early-day motion. If she feels moved on the back of her point of order and the warm reception of it to table such a motion, she might well find a significant number of signatories. I note in passing that I, too, am familiar with the book entitled, “How to be a Backbencher”, penned by the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn), and it is a much-thumbed tome in the Bercow household.

Backbench Business

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Chair of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to move the first motion, it might be for the convenience of the House if I mention now that the next debate, on protecting future generations from violence against women and girls, is very heavily subscribed. I am therefore minded to impose at this stage a six-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions that will take effect after the mover of that motion sits down.

Contamination of Beef Products

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

12:04

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of the publication of the Eighth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Contamination of Beef Products, HC 946.

It gives me great pleasure to take this opportunity, for which the Select Committee is extremely grateful, to launch our report on the contamination of beef products, our eighth report. I am particularly grateful for all the support of colleagues on the Committee and for the swift turnaround in taking the initial evidence and receiving it in written form. We are grateful to those who gave evidence, as we are to those on the Committee secretariat who helped us to prepare the report.

This is a matter of huge public interest. Our earlier report in July last year dealt with desinewed meat, and I want to refer to the conclusion drawn by a former director of the Food Standards Agency that there is a direct correlation between the Commission’s unilateral ban on desinewed meats in this country and the entry of suspicious filler products in March last year. We conclude that the scale of contamination is breathtaking. This is a European crisis requiring a European solution. One month on, we are still no clearer as to where the suspicious substance enters the food chain. Today we heard from the Farming Minister of doubts being cast on the effectiveness of the European horse passport system.

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

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way and congratulate her on the report. She makes a valid point: we do not know where the horsemeat entered the food chain. Does she agree that not knowing that means that we do not know where it originated or what premises the horses were slaughtered at? They could be unlicensed premises.

[Miss McIntosh]

That is probably one of the most worrying aspects. What we do know is that since our evidence session on 30 January, horse and pig DNA contamination was found in more beef products. Samples of Findus lasagne contained more than 60% horsemeat, Aldi lasagne and spaghetti bolognese contained between 30% and 100% horsemeat, and beef products certified as halal supplied to prisons in England and Wales were found to contain pork DNA. Today we learn that bute has been identified in eight samples of beef products.

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

I thank the hon. Lady for chairing the Committee and bringing us the report. Does she agree that it is now more important then ever for people to know exactly where the processed product has been made, exactly what the ingredients are and exactly where they have come from, so that we can have confidence and use the Red Tractor and farm assured schemes to ensure that people know where their food has come from?

[Miss McIntosh]

I shall come to that very point. I am grateful to my hon. Friend and fellow member of the Committee.

The Food Standards Agency is an independent, arm’s length, non-ministerial body. The question we ask is: to whom is the FSA accountable? It was found on this occasion to be flatfooted. We note that the Food Safety Authority of Ireland informed of its testing in November, but the FSA UK started testing only when those results were known, on 15 January. We draw the conclusion that no statutory powers are given to require testing. We also note a need for the FSA to co-operate more with its European counterparts across the European Union.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady will know from the front of The Times today and from her own Select Committee that the former Agriculture Minister, the right hon. Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Sir James Paice), spoke to her Committee last summer and warned that unlawful meat would be imported from Europe as manufacturers sought cheap sources to make up for banned British supplies. She said the FSA was flatfooted. Does she think the Government should have been more ready for that possibility, given that one of their former Ministers had warned of that very thing in front of her Committee last summer?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has referred to conclusion 8 in our report, which is entirely relevant. I note with some sadness, as I represent one of the largest meat-producing areas in the country, that that one decision led to the loss of 30 jobs in my constituency. No other ban has been imposed on any other member state, and we are importing that so-called Baader meat, a similarly produced meat, and substandard —I would say—filler meat as well.

The one welcome aspect, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred, is that there appears to have been a change in shopping habits over the past month. The one shining light is that we can have absolute confidence in home-produced beef and other British meats. We are now buying more British beef, more local meat from butchers and farm shops and more meat marked with the Red Tractor logo at the supermarket. The Red Tractor signifies that the entire food chain has been traced from farm to plate. It shows that the highest animal welfare and hygiene standards have been met. The farmers pay for the inspections. I believe that that is the flagship that should be used for good traceability for all imports. They should meet the same high standards and be as transparent for processed and frozen meats as they are for fresh, whether the meat comes from home, Europe or third countries.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she courteously and expeditiously steered the Committee to the report. Does she share my astonishment that companies such as Tesco, which conducts minute product checks on our farmers’ fruit and vegetables, often causing them huge financial loss for misshapen produce, seem to have failed to do any checks on processed meat products? Might that be because they believed such checks could reveal some very inconvenient truths?

[Miss McIntosh]

I say to my fellow Committee member—dare I say my hon. Friend?—that that is worrying, and I will refer to those checks later. The Committee was astonished to learn that the cost of the checks—he will correct me if I am wrong—is in the region of £1 million to £2 million for one product line. Following the urgent question earlier today, we should be under no illusion that the cost of food will regrettably go up, but this is a wake-up call and an invitation to source more British meat going into frozen and processed foods, in particular. I believe that that will swiftly restore consumer confidence in those products.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Did the Committee consider whether a temporary ban on imports from the European Union would benefit everyone? Surely the processed meat industry in this country must be devastated, because no one will be keen to buy while there is a danger that there might be something wrong with the meat. If the processed products were made using only British meat, there would be no problem.

[Miss McIntosh]

We have yet to conclude all our evidence and have not had the opportunity to consider that point, but I am sure that we will.

There are insufficient controls in the food chain to protect consumers from contaminated and potentially unsafe food. We think that this is an opportunity to examine the whole food supply chain. Consumers have been let down by retailers who took on trust the assurances of their suppliers—that addresses the point made by my friend the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner). Many consumers rely on supermarkets for their weekly shop and take it on trust that labels are accurate. This situation is worrying precisely because Tesco and other retailers were trying to produce economy products at low cost. The drive to lower costs increases the likelihood of fraud, and that is the point of view of the National Farmers Union. Meat processors also have procedures to check and document sources of raw material, but they do not include DNA testing.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her excellent report and on her Committee’s endeavours. On the point about consumer confidence, one of the things that is traceable now is the customer. With their loyalty cards, the big supermarkets know who their customers are and what they are buying. Will she and her Committee encourage the big super- markets, at a time of crisis like this, to communicate directly with their customers to offer them the reassurance they seek?

[Miss McIntosh]

I believe that that will be an inevitable consequence of the exercise, and I hope that they will respond positively to that invitation.

Obviously, substituting horsemeat for beef, which is what has been discovered, is described as criminal activity and will be investigated. We are obviously delighted that the perpetrators will face the full force of the law. However, the potential shortcomings are particularly worrying, because the food industry currently appears unable to account for ingredients in all its foodstuffs. We conclude that it is improbable that those who are prepared to pass horsemeat off as beef illegally will apply the high hygiene standards that we require and that consumers expect in food production. With regard to lessons to be learnt, we strongly believe that the FSA has to be more fleet of foot. It must be given the tools to do the job. It currently has no statutory power to require testing by producers, taking into account the level of risk.

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

The hon. Lady rightly says that the FSA needs greater powers, but does she agree that the increasing length and complexity of supply chains inevitably make such risks more likely and that, therefore, as well as strengthening the FSA, we need a far more radical look at re-localising our food supplies?

[Miss McIntosh]

Absolutely. As I said, consumers have responded to the challenge by buying more locally, and I hope that they will continue to do so. For example, if we buy meat for a Sunday roast or stew and then freeze what is left over to serve in other ways over the week, we are basically processing the food ourselves, and that will lead to a much better understanding of what we are eating. I entirely take the hon. Lady’s point.

The Committee’s view is that the FSA has been reduced to a food safety body. We believe that its powers were weakened in 2010. It told us that labelling policy was “not really for us” because that is not a food safety issue.

[Sheryll Murray (South East Cornwall) (Con)]

With regard to the EU regulation that would allow certain national derogations, which the Government are consulting on at the moment, does my hon. Friend agree that when responding we should consider very carefully the implications that we have now seen?

[Miss McIntosh]

I am delighted that we do conclude that that approach should be taken, as I will mention in my closing remarks. It was very much the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) who proposed that, and the Committee was absolutely at one with him in that view.

Although policy is rightly the responsibility of Ministers, we are firmly of the view that the FSA’s diminished role has led to a lack of clarity about where responsibility lies, which has weakened the UK’s ability to identify and respond to food health concerns. Furthermore, the current contamination crisis has caught the FSA and the Government flat-footed and unable to respond effectively within structures that were designed primarily to respond to threats to human health. I believe that this is a firm wake-up call. Having had the BSE and foot and mouth crisis, we have perhaps been a little slack in our food inspections. We conclude that the FSA’s testing regime is weak. It was Ireland’s FSA that identified the contamination, using tests not currently used in the UK, which leads us to question whether the UK’s FSA is at the forefront of scientific analysis.

In our conclusions and recommendations, we state that the Government and the FSA have called for a wide range of tests to be undertaken, which we welcome. I am sure that the whole Committee would welcome the European tests that have been announced. I firmly believe that we need a European solution. We need to examine the whole supply chain. In the urgent question earlier today, an hon. Friend said that the miles and the number of countries that these ingredients have travelled through before ending up on our plates in processed and frozen foods is staggering.

The FSA should be responsible for food safety. It should be given the statutory power to require those in the food industry to undertake tests to determine that their products comply with food standards regulations. That process should be risk-based and proportionate, and the results of all tests, whether mandated by the FSA or carried out independently by the retailers themselves, should be reported to the FSA. As regards the European testing that was announced yesterday, we must ask to whom the results will be reported and whether they will be shared across the piece with all the responsible national authorities.

We want strengthened testing regimes in the UK meat industry. We want to know what the Government are doing to improve the operation of the European horse passport system, given that the Minister said earlier that it is not as effective as we would wish. The Government must also explore how best to avoid future contamination and to achieve the correct balance between affordable food prices and regulations to ensure transparency and quality.

In my constituency, we face a deep crisis in the sheep sector. Across the north of England, and I am sure in many other parts of the country, there is a real fear of sheep producers going to the wall. Most farmers have used their winter storage but are unable to allow sheep to forage because the grass is under snow or deep under water. I personally believe that this is a very worrying development. Farm gate prices have gone down and the costs of farm production have gone up. The cost of foodstuffs is going up, the cost of fuel to take animals to market has gone up, and farm gate prices are going down.

We have seen the constant drive by supermarkets to store on their shelves low-value, low-cost, and, we now know, very suspicious adulterated food. We are worried that the consumer will be caught in a Catch-22 situation between paying the costs of higher traceability, labelling and testing standards and having to accept that they will not be provided with comprehensive information about the provenance and composition of the food they eat. There are strong indications that people with criminal intent have intentionally substituted horsemeat for beef. That leads us to conclude that British consumers have been cynically and systematically duped in pursuit of profit by certain elements within the food industry. As my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray) and the hon. Member for Brent North said, this is not the time, given the current crisis of labelling and traceability, for the Government to be seeking through their consultation a derogation to reduce the labelling requirements for beef or other meat products,

We are calling for more testing of food safety and composition across the European food industry because the current arrangements for testing and control have failed UK consumers. The Food Standards Agency needs clear powers and responsibilities to back up what Ministers are demanding that it do, and what consumers expect from it, so that it can respond more effectively to any future food adulteration scandal. It gives me great pleasure to commend the Committee’s eighth report to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Violence against Women and Girls

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

12:24

[Fiona Mactaggart (Slough) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and calls on the Government to support this by introducing statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in schools.

I rise to speak to the motion on the Order Paper in my name and in the names of many Members across parties. Before I do so, I should like to say some thank yous. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us this debate. I thank the Leader of the House for tipping us the wink a few weeks earlier that we would probably secure a debate on this day, which is significant because of my other thank you—to the One Billion Rising campaign, a coalition of women around the world rising against violence against women. Many of us who are in the Chamber have been in Parliament square with them today, dancing, shouting and protesting. The movement was prompted by the 15th anniversary of “The Vagina Monologues” by Eve Ensler. Any of us who have heard her speak about how rape is used as a weapon of war will recognise that we are having absolutely the correct pair of debates today—the debate that I am initiating and the debate on sexual violence in conflict that the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) will introduce later.

I chose this subject for debate because activists in the One Billion Rising campaign around the country have been running workshops about what would make the most difference in addressing domestic violence. Over the course of history, quite a lot of things have been done in that regard. We have better prosecution rates, IDVAs—independent domestic violence advisers—and refuges to help victims of domestic violence. However, the workshops concluded that the most important thing to do is make the next generation safe, and that the shortfall in our response to such violence is caused by a lack of education to prevent it. That has led to a situation where one in three women will experience violence in her lifetime, and that is unacceptable.

Others have reached the same view. Although the recent cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancies focused on preventing teenage pregnancy, it also argued the importance of teaching young people in school to make informed choices and to resist being coerced through peer pressure into sex or risky sexual behaviour. The Schools Safe 4 Girls campaign, which was launched by the End Violence Against Women Coalition last autumn, echoes that message. Almost every Select Committee report that has looked into domestic violence concluded that the Government’s weakest response is in education.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend regret as much I do the fact that putting personal, social and health education, including sex and relationships education, on to a statutory basis was blocked just before the last general election? That could already have been in place.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

It is a real pity that that did not proceed. It is also a pity that the Government-initiated inquiry into sex and relationships education, which was launched in 2011, has yet to report. The Government have a lack of urgency and a lack of adequate commitment on this matter.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that many people will say that this education is the responsibility of parents and families and that it should not be done in schools? Many of its opponents—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] We can hear some such opponents on the Government Benches. I would say to them—I hope that my hon. Friend agrees—that many families do not have the capacity to educate their children, and many families, unfortunately, have violent relationships within them, and that is not appropriate to the education of children.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

The responsibility of families does not get rid of the responsibility of the education service.

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

Does the hon. Lady agree that some schools are already taking a lead on this issue and teaching it, and that that, along with partnership working with the police, is incredibly important? That is what I find in my London borough of Hounslow.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Yes, of course there are schools that are doing this well. The problem is that we do not have a comprehensive system—I will go into the details later—that guarantees excellent sex and relationships education. It is unsafe not to have such a system in schools, and that is my argument.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I am trying to make progress, but I will give way.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way and for being so patient, because I know she wants to make progress. The Office for National Statistics estimates that more than 500,000 people will be victims of sexual crimes in an average year, with only up to 10,000 prosecutions. Does that not show that there needs to be wider education so that people can protect themselves, as the state, through the police force, is clearly failing to protect them?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Let us be honest: the police response to this issue has improved over the past decade. It is better than it used to be, but it is not good enough. My hon. Friend is right that the police usually detect only about 2% or 3% of crimes and that there are even fewer prosecutions. The situation, therefore, is not completely unusual. The best response to crime is to prevent it in the first place. My argument is that taking on the challenge of teaching against violence is one way of preventing it.

I am an MP now, but I used to be an educator. I used to teach children in the last years of primary school and then I taught adults to be teachers. I know that good-quality education can transform lives, but I also know that, too often, this subject is an afterthought in too many schools. Let us look at the issue from first principles: is it necessary to act; will the motion’s proposed action make a difference; and what will happen if it does not?

The British crime survey shows that one in 14 women and one in 20 men interviewed in 2011-12 had experienced domestic abuse by a partner or family member in the past year. According to the same interviews, nearly one in three women and almost one in five men said that they had experienced such abuse since the age of 16. A freedom of information request made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) suggested that a third of 999 calls about domestic violence are from people who have been previous victims. Every week, two women are murdered in domestic violence murders. Around the world, women aged 15 to 44 are more likely to die or be disabled because of violence than as a result of cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined.

This is an issue in schools. A YouGov poll found that nearly one in three 16 to 18-year-old girls has experienced groping or unwanted sexual touching. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that a third of girls aged 13 to 17 in relationships had experienced physical or sexual violence, with 12% of them reporting rape. We know how often girls who are victims of rape do not report it, because they are not taught in schools about relationships and the importance of consent. The interim findings of the exploitation inquiry undertaken by the Office of the Children’s Commissioner and the university of Bedfordshire uncovered worrying trends of increased sexual exploitation of young people by their peers. Violence and sexual aggression in relationships has become too common for British young people. To overcome that, they need to be able to make positive choices for their own future.

The work on young people’s understanding is really important. This crime is almost unlike any other, because the victim tends to feel responsible or, indeed, is sometimes deemed responsible by society as a result of their actions. We do not tell burglary victims, “It’s your fault, because you haven’t got a burglar alarm,” yet society too often tells victims of rape and sexual violence, “It’s your fault. You were drunk and wearing sexually provocative clothing.” Those attitudes are absorbed by young women so that they think it is their fault.

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

My hon. Friend is making a compelling case for statutory education. On teaching girls about consent, is it not just as important that boys also learn that no always means no?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend is right. In preparing for this debate, I have been looking at research about whether sex and relationships education actually works. One of the things that that has shown is that there is further to go with boys than girls. We should take that very seriously, because we need to address the level of tolerance that young boys seem to have towards violence, seeing it as relatively normal. We do not know why that is.

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Fiona Mactaggart]

If I keep giving way I will take up too much of the debate, so I will try to resist, but if any Members are really assertive I will give way. How about that for a deal?

Research shows that young men have a higher tolerance of sexual violence than young women. Although both are changed by good-quality sex and relationships education, the sad thing is that a lot of research studies show that the young men move from a very bad set of attitudes to about where the young women’s attitudes start. The young women get more confidence and change their attitudes a lot by understanding that it is not tolerable to put up with physical violence, sexting, sexual bullying or being barged about.

As I have said, I used to be a teacher and a teacher educator in the days when things were much worse. I remember a teacher education resource about computers in education. In those days, computers were rather new in the classroom and the resource stated how the boys would be really excited about them and how the girls’ ribs would be bruised as the boys pushed past them to get to the computers because they enjoyed the lesson so much. That was a resource for people learning to teach. It indicated a tolerance of violence in the classroom that is utterly unacceptable, and that is the reason why I think the motion will do more to prevent the violence that too many women and men in our society face.

I have discussed successful sex and relationships education and how it can change things. Some of it is successful and some of it is very bad. Ofsted’s report says that about three quarters of the lessons observed were good and about a quarter were poor. Of the good lessons, Ofsted noticed that the bit that was not so good was relationships education. I think that we have created an education system that focuses far too much on the mechanics of sex and not sufficiently on autonomy, the right to say no, positive relationships and empowering young women in that way.

I commend the evidence sent by the PSHE Association, which provides teachers with assistance on personal, social, health and economic education. It notes that about 40% of 16 to 18-year-old students have not received or cannot remember lessons or information on sexual consent. Only 6% of respondents said that they got the information on relationships that they needed in PSHE. It points out that good quality PSHE teaching not only helps to raise young people’s awareness of abuse, but supports those who experience abuse to develop practical strategies and skills to stop it, and that it challenges prevailing negative attitudes towards women and girls. We know that this can work and prevent the appalling problem of young girls thinking that violent, abusive relationships are normal and that the controlling way in which their so-called boyfriends manage their behaviour is acceptable.

In view of the cases in Oxford, I asked my local police commander whether there was the same problem in my area of the exploitation of young girls by organised gangs which seduce them with violence, bullying, presents and threats. He said that he did not think that there was an organised gang in Slough, but that he had identified about 12 young women who are very vulnerable, but who think that they just have boyfriends and are not at risk.

That is why we need this education. We need it to enable girls to be safe. We need it to enable boys to know that such behaviour is absolutely unacceptable throughout society, even if it happens behind closed doors. We need it to ensure that people who have been victims of violence know that it is not their fault. We must make a society in which all those things are real. I believe that excellent sex and relationships education based on zero tolerance to violence will deliver that. We are still miles behind according to the evidence that has been sent to us by groups such as the National Union of Students, which reports that many students still face sexual bullying and violence as the norm in colleges and universities.

This motion, if implemented, could really make the difference. I urge the Minister in his summing up to tell us that he will talk to his colleagues in the Department for Education, which in my view has done less than his Department to deal with this issue, and remind them that this is not something for the future; this is urgent.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

There is a six-minute limit on speeches. We may have to reduce that towards the end of the debate.

12:41

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I congratulate hon. Members from all parts of the House on securing this important debate on the day of One Billion Rising. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on leading a fantastic cross-party group in Parliament square. It is a shame that the Metropolitan police tried to move us on. [Laughter.] They did not succeed, I might add.

I am pleased to speak in this debate for a couple of reasons. First, like many Members, I am a parent. I have two teenage daughters and was lucky enough to bring one of them to the event today. I find it impossible to disagree with the heart of the motion and what it is trying to do.

When I look at the UK, I think how lucky and privileged we are in many ways. I returned recently from a trip to Afghanistan. The sorts of rights, freedoms and protections that are afforded to us and our children are still wishful thinking for an enormous proportion of the women in that country.

There are some chilling points that we are right to discuss in this debate. I was interested to read an attitude to violence survey conducted among young people in Wiltshire in 2009—the latest research that I could find—in which a quarter of the children surveyed said that they thought that violence was okay in some or all cases. They thought that it was particularly okay in relationships, for example if somebody found out that their partner was cheating on them. I find that shocking. I find it particularly shocking that one in five young girls agreed with that statement. I also noted that 56% of the young people questioned said that they had witnessed domestic violence. Although some of the methodology was a little suspect—the categories included “parents checking up on my movements”—the survey provides food for thought.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Given that violence is such a big problem, is my hon. Friend not also concerned that only 34% of men and 17% of women who are sentenced for violence against the person are sent to prison? Does that not send out a very bad message about how seriously we take violence against the person in this country?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting point, particularly with regard to violence by women that is directed towards men, but that is not the purpose of this debate. There are wrinkles in that matter that I do not want to go into. However, it is important that we hear male voices in this debate and I welcome the Minister to his position.

I want to talk about what we have done already. I am very proud of the Home Secretary. That statement might not receive wide cross-party support, but we have taken some important steps, as did the previous Government. We have provided stable funding for those who counsel and support victims of violence. I know from the domestic violence support centre in Devizes that the stability of that funding is very welcome. We have put new funding into a number of initiatives. We have trialled domestic violence protection orders. I am proud that those have been trialled in my constituency. It would be wonderful if the Minister could tell us when we might hear the results of those pilots and whether the orders will be adopted nationally.

We have also introduced Clare’s law, which has been campaigned for so effectively by many Members across the House. We have started to criminalise the serious offences of forced marriage and female genital mutilation —problems that have bedevilled us for many years. We have introduced a campaign that focuses on the problem of teenage rape, which tells young girls that it is wrong. Importantly, we have reformed stalking law to help those who are stalked.

A special subject for me is online violence, abuse and bullying, particularly against women and girls. Again, there has been extraordinary cross-party support in this area, for which we are all grateful. I do not mean to scaremonger, but it seems to me that we are conducting a long-term experiment with our children, particularly our girls and young women, by exposing them so freely to the violent, degrading and sexualised content of the online world.

There are two buckets of problems that we are trying to deal with. The first is children looking at third-party content on websites. I may be classified as the Mary Whitehouse 2.0 of my generation, but I do not mind what people call me. With the support of Members from across the House, we have made extraordinarily good progress in bringing the internet service providers to a point where they will all introduce filters that provide protection on all devices in the home by the end of the year. The fundamental problem is that only four in 10 families with children currently use filters. That means that six out of 10 children live in a filter-free environment. By the end of this year, public wi-fi will not allow adult content by default. Mobile phone operators are also making tremendous progress in refreshing their adult content bars. That is a tribute to the energies of Members from all parts of the House, in particular the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) who has worked tirelessly on this matter.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I recognise the excellent work that my hon. Friend has being doing. As well as the online issues, is she concerned about the violence that is often depicted in games for computer consoles?

[Claire Perry]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. Work is going on to put age ratings on games and also on online music videos. Perhaps I am prudish, but some of the stuff that one sees in the gym these days is not what I want my children to be watching. It is fine as long as it is age rated and parents know that it is available.

On third-party content, Britain will be leading the world in the way that we protect our families. That is a tribute to the energy of this Parliament.

The second bucket of problems is often referred to as “sexting”. That is not a term that children use and it is rather an inflammatory one. It refers to user-generated content that we would all recognise if we saw it. The problem is children and young people exchanging inappropriate images, content and messages. That is a huge, growing and endemic problem and we have no idea how big it is. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children published qualitative research last year that suggested that it is almost the norm in schools for children to receive and exchange this sort of information.

There have been some extraordinarily tragic cases. Chevonea Kendall-Bryan, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), committed suicide after being forced to perform a sex act on a boy and then pleading with him to remove the image. Records show that she had sent him a text message saying:

“How much can I handle? HONESTLY. I beg you, delete that.”

He did not delete the image and she fell to her death from a window. That is a tragic case.

Only yesterday, another colleague gave me an e-mail from a woman saying that her 12-year-old daughter had been seriously sexually assaulted in class at a very good independent school. This issue cuts across all boundaries and affects all parts of the country. The mother said that when she talked to her daughter about why alarm bells did not go off when the boy sent a text requesting sexual acts, her daughter looked at her as if she was mad and said, “Mum, All the boys send texts like that.” Boys as young as 11 and 12 are sending highly inappropriate photographs of their genitalia around networks via social media.

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

Does the hon. Lady share the concern of many Members that seemingly mainstream companies such as Facebook have introduced applications that facilitate such behaviour through short-term images appearing and then being deleted after a number of seconds?

[Claire Perry]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, and that is part of the work that the UK Council for Child Internet Safety is doing with companies that want to be responsible.

Fundamentally, this is a behavioural point, and what we need is education. Right now, there is no technology that can protect our children against this sort of thing. Parental education and the education of children are both part of the mix. I look with interest at today’s motion as a consultation is under way, and we need to see the results before finally deciding what should be in the curriculum.

12:50

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who has done some fantastic work in the area of improving online protection for children.

Last week, I visited the St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre, which was the first of its kind to be established in the UK. There are now 41 across England and Wales. St Mary’s sees women, men and children, the youngest being three weeks old and the eldest 93 years old, and has more than 1,000 cases a year, of which just under half are children. The centre provides a range of services, including forensic medical examinations to collect evidence and document injuries; counselling, including pre-trial therapy; child advocates to support children and families; a young person’s advocate aimed at identifying those at risk of being sexually exploited; and independent sexual violence advisers, who offer practical support through the process.

The recent tragic suicide of Frances Andrade demonstrates the extent of the psychological damage suffered as a result of sexual assault, its enduring nature and the risk to victims of court proceedings. St Mary’s provides a holistic service to meet individual needs so that victims do not have to fight their way through various referral criteria and thresholds to get help. It is a valuable and important resource with a committed and experienced team.

Greater Manchester police have predominantly funded the sexual assault referral centre, including follow-on psychosocial support, in the belief, supported by evidence, that if victims feel supported they are more likely to have confidence and therefore continue with the criminal justice process. There are concerns, however, that changes as part of the restructuring of the NHS in April 2013, and changes in police funding in 2015, will result in deficit funding and the fragmentation of services that are currently offered at St Mary’s. Without those services, an 80-year-old woman would not be able to talk about the abuse that she has kept secret for years, and children who have been sexually exploited would not get the support that they need to feel confident enough to be a witness against their abuser in court. I would be grateful if the Minister looked into that for me.

Of course it would be better if children never had to be referred to St Mary’s, as the team there would agree, but that means that we need much earlier intervention in children’s lives. I have talked to the team working with sexually exploited children referred by the police as the result of an investigation, and they told me that children were sometimes reluctant to talk to them as they did not initially see themselves as sexually exploited. It is horrifying that many sexually exploited children are subjected to intimidation, coercion, blackmail and threats of violence, but it is equally shocking that others think their abuser cares about them.

To understand what we need to put in place to prevent violence and the abuse of children, we need to understand the long, sad journey of some children to becoming victims of sexual exploitation. They are often the type of neglected children about whom Action for Children talked in its recent report—children who feel so alone and so lacking in self-esteem that they welcome any attention, and who have no understanding of what a caring relationship is about because they have never seen one. Often, such children never reach the threshold for intervention by any services, so their neglect goes undetected. We can see why they are vulnerable to sexual grooming and how important it is to identify vulnerable children in their early childhood.

That is why I am impressed by Stockport’s supporting families pathway, which enables referrals to all council and other local services to be recorded on a single shared database. That means that a complete picture of a child’s life can be built up, and there can be early detection of children who are struggling. At the moment, the model that we have means that children have to reach a certain threshold to be referred to services, and that threshold is often reached far too late in a child’s life. The sharing of data across all agencies would enable a vulnerable child to be identified much earlier. The question would then be not whether their need was great enough to access services but what would be the most appropriate intervention that we could make to help them.

Of course, schools have an important role in safeguarding children. I believe that compulsory sex and relationship education in schools would give children and young people the confidence to reject inappropriate relationships.

[Claire Perry]

Does the hon. Lady agree that the consultation on computing content is an encouraging part of the consideration of the new curriculum? That includes communicating safely and respectfully online, keeping personal information private and general common sense in the internet space. That would go some way towards dealing with some of the problems that she has addressed.

[Ann Coffey]

I do agree, and I was interested to hear the hon. Lady talk about that yesterday.

Sex and relationships education in schools is very important, because it can help children to understand when they are being groomed by older men for sexual exploitation or involved in sexually coercive relationships by their peers. Both the Director of Public Prosecutions and the deputy Children’s Commissioner have spoken recently about the impact of pornography on young men who commit sexual and relationship violence. I was also concerned to read in a report by the chief inspector of probation, out last week, that some professionals fail to combat sexual offending by children because they miss warning signs. That report, conducted by probation inspectors, studied 24 teenage boys with convictions ranging from indecent assault to rape and found that opportunities to intervene when the offender was young had been missed in nearly every case.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

Action is needed not just when the offender is young but when the victim is young. It seems clear from the reports that we read of the case in Oxford that the police did not act fast enough when young women first disclosed that they were unhappy about how their controllers were treating them.

[Ann Coffey]

I agree, of course, and as I have just said, it is important to identify child sex offenders as well as children who are sexually offended against.

Sex and relationship education has an important role in challenging at an early age attitudes in boys that result in sexually offending behaviour. With better inter-agency working, data collecting, early intervention and compulsory sex and relationship education in schools, we can make a start on preventing harm from coming to our children, but I fear that centres such as St Mary’s will be needed for some time. I believe that without St Mary’s, there would be more tragic deaths among victims of sexual abuse. We want a better world in which victims are not afraid to speak out and perpetrators cannot rely on the silence of their victims. It is really good to see support from all parties for the excellent motion that my hon. Friend has tabled, because each of us is trying to make a difference in our own different ways. After all, 1 billion voices cannot be wrong.

12:57

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

It is traditional on these occasions for me to be a lone voice—in fact, that is customary in most debates. I intend to continue that tradition today.

Of course, we are all united in our opposition to any violence against women and girls. I would be astounded if any of us were not. I pride myself on being renowned as one of the most hard-line Members when it comes to matters of law and order and sentencing. I always find it rather strange that those who speak passionately about how we should have zero tolerance of any violence against people, which I agree with, are often the same people who then argue that the perpetrators of violence should do anything but be sent to prison. As I made clear in an intervention, we are in the ridiculous situation whereby, of people convicted of violence against the person in this country, only 35% of men and, shockingly, only 17% of women are sent to prison. If we really want to send out a message of zero tolerance towards violence against people, the first thing we ought to do is press for much tougher sentences for people guilty of it. That would be a better way of deterring crime than the education route that the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) thinks will solve these problems.

[Mrs Moon]

Is the hon. Gentleman saying that we should never try to prevent crime, that we should never intervene and try to educate and divert people from crime, and that we should always wait until they commit a crime and then lock them up for as long as possible? Is that not nonsense?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady seems to forget that for many people, respite from violence comes when the perpetrator of that violence is sent to prison. That is one of our best deterrents against violence. When people are prosecuted and not sent to prison, the violence continues. Sending people to prison is one of the best things we can do. It seems that Opposition Members are less keen on a zero tolerance approach to violence than their rhetoric suggests.

Given the title of the motion, we could be forgiven for thinking that the only—or main—victims of violent crime are women and girls, and that it does not apply to men or boys. In a debate that I secured in Westminster Hall last year on female offenders, I pointed out to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Women and Equalities (Mrs Grant) that the reality of these matters sometimes differs from the rhetoric. After the debate I asked her in a parliamentary question whether she accepted that the figures I had quoted were correct. I received a reply which seemed to indicate that she did believe those figures were correct, and given that they are the Ministry of Justice’s own figures, I will continue to use them.

[Sandra Osborne]

Does the hon. Gentleman understand that the vast majority of incidents of violence against women and girls never get anywhere near the criminal justice system?

[Philip Davies]

The hon. Lady may well be right and we certainly need to do something about that. I do not disagree with that point.

I want to quote the most recent biennial statistics—from November 2012—from the Ministry of Justice on the representation of females and males in the criminal justice system. They confirm that men are twice as likely to be the victim of violent crime as women. Some 2% of women interviewed for the crime survey for England and Wales reported being victims of violence, compared with 4% of men. The statistics also confirm that of all incidents of violence reported in the 2011-12 crime survey, 62% of victims were male, and 38% were female.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I cannot give way because time is limited and I have already accepted two interventions. There will be plenty of opportunity for people to make their points. My point also applies to children. Again, according to the Ministry of Justice biennial statistics and the British crime survey, a smaller proportion of girls than boys reported being victims of violence—5% of girls versus 11% of boys.

It is not just violence generally where men do worse than women. Women accounted for between 27% to 32% of recorded homicide victims between 2006-07 and 2010-11, while men were victims in between 68% and 73% of cases. We all agree that women are more likely to be victims of domestic violence. In the past, the Minister has stated that 7% of women are victims of domestic violence, but so are 5% of men. It is not just an issue for women.

[Claire Perry]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I have already explained that I cannot give way.

Those figures do not tell the full story because they relate to all abuse and all violence in households. In partner abuse, 4.2% of women are victims and 3% are men. Men and women are both victims of domestic violence and partner abuse. We must also bear in mind that the definition of domestic violence includes non-violent components.

[Mrs Eleanor Laing (Epping Forest) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Philip Davies]

I have not got time to give way; there is a short time limit and there will be plenty of time for other cases to be made during the rest of the debate.

I also want to talk about the perpetrators of violent crime—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. There are too many private conversations and it is difficult to hear Mr Davies. I am sure we all want to hear what he has to say—[Interruption.] Perhaps not, but at least he can enjoy it.

[Philip Davies]

That is part of the problem, Mr Deputy Speaker. They do not want to hear anyone who does not agree with them. One could be forgiven for thinking that the perpetrators of all these crimes were men and not often women, but again, that is not true. There are many female perpetrators of violence against both women and men, and according to official Ministry of Justice figures, the most common offence group for which both males and females were arrested during a five-year period was violence against the person—34% of females and 31% of males arrested in 2010-11 were arrested for violence against the person. Again, that is not restricted to women but applies also to girls. In 2010-11, violence against the person was the most common offence group for which juvenile females were arrested.

I am afraid that time does not allow me to go through those figures in more detail, which I would like to do.

[Claire Perry]

rose—

[Philip Davies]

I will take a quick intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Claire Perry]

May I offer my hon. Friend a slight lifeline? Does he at least agree with the first part of the motion, which is a call to end violence against women and girls?

[Philip Davies]

Absolutely. As I said at the start, we all want to end violence against women and girls, but—unlike some others, it seems—I want to end all violence. I do not take the view that violence against women and girls is somehow worse than violence against men and boys. As far as I am concerned, all violence is unacceptable and all violence against the person should be punished by law. We should not try to segregate men and women in the criminal justice system. Both men and women are victims, and both are perpetrators of crime. I believe in true equality and want people to be treated equally when they are a victim of crime and when they are a perpetrator of crime. At the moment, whether people like it or not, men are treated more harshly than women in the criminal justice system, certainly when it comes to sentencing. That is an inconvenient truth for many people.

13:06

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

It is traditional to say that it is a pleasure to follow the previous speaker, in this case the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), even if I do not subscribe to the views expressed. Hopefully the hon. Gentleman will now hear the other side of the argument.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to this debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) for leading our request to the Committee. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) who encouraged us all to get involved and has been absolutely committed. Unfortunately, she could not speak in the Backbench Business Committee debate, but she is a perfect example of a woman’s place being not only in Parliament, but on the Front Bench. This has been a cross-party issue—I was going to say cross-gender, but that has a completely different meaning. I should also mention my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), who attended the Backbench Business Committee debate with us.

Today, in London, we are debating violence against women and girls, but people are responding to this call from the shores of Brazil, from Australia with the Girlpower Goddess and White Ribbon event, and from India, where there was a flash mob in Parliament square and the song, “Jago Delhi Jago”—Rise Delhi, Rise. We know that two months’ ago in Delhi, five men were accused of the rape and murder of a 23-year-old medical student who did nothing but sit on a bus. People in Delhi have risen up, and we are saying yes to this day of action to end violence against women. The movement was started by Eve Ensler, but the tsunami has been pushed forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow.

I pay tribute to a friend of mine, the late Malcolm Richards. He used to be a journalist on the Brentford and Chiswick Times, which was part of the Richmond and Twickenham Times that I worked for as part of the Dimbleby newspaper group. He brought to the world’s attention the first woman’s refuge in Chiswick, started by Erin Pizzey. Both Malcolm and Erin were able to say to women, “We hear your silent scream and there is a safe place for you.” There is now a network of 45 safe houses that provide emergency accommodation for women and children.

This debate shows that around the world today there are still practices that victimise women and treat us as second class. We want to end the practice of the badly named “honour” killings, where women are killed for alleged behaviour and for bringing shame on their family although the behaviour of men is tolerated. There are 5,000 of those killings worldwide. We want to put an end to the dowry system where the payment of a sum effectively buys a female, a girl, for marriage. We need to end the terrible practice of female genital mutilation, which has no base in culture or religion. I applaud the bravery of midwives such as Alison Byrne in that respect, and draw the House’s attention to a conference in the Liverpool women’s hospital on 6 March, which will educate and inform women to try to end the practice.

What about modern-day slavery? Eighty per cent. of people who are trafficked are women. War rages in trouble spots throughout the world—rape is used as a weapon of war. The UN says that the roots of violence against women lie in the unequal power relationship between men and women, and persistent discrimination against women.

The debate is not about women and girls as victims, but about empowerment. Malala Yousef stood up and was almost killed because she wanted every girl to go to school. Women have been empowered by microfinance, although they might still be exploited. Those who stand up for no more page 3 say that women do not want to be objects in a newspaper. The first woman doctor had to pretend for 46 years that she was a man called James Barry so that she could qualify, but women now make up 50% of entrants. Carrie Morrison, who was the first woman to qualify as a solicitor, stood up. The women who gave us the vote stood up. The women MPs from Tanzania, Pakistan and Afghanistan, whom I have met, are trying to increase the quota of women MPs from 30% to 50%. Thirty per cent. is not enough in Tanzania. Parliament has celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi, who must daily stand up to those who try to take away human rights and progress made by democracy. We must highlight and support those women.

I have mentioned action around the world, but more importantly, what about the action through the generations, from our mothers, who sometimes did two jobs—working in the home and outside—to the suffragettes and suffragists, who gave us the vote, and the women in the peace camps at Greenham Common. All those women here and around the world have stood up. On this day, we recognise and celebrate their courage.

13:11

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I appreciate being called now, because—unfortunately—I have to go to the Westminster Hall debate at 1.25 pm. I want to talk about protecting future generations of women and girls from violence and forced marriage.

Worldwide, 10 million girls are married each year before they are 18, which is equivalent to more than 27,000 girls per day, or 19 every minute. In the developing world, one in three girls will be married before they are 18. In October last year on the first international day of the girl, the United Nations population fund released new data that predict that, by 2020, if child marriage prevalence trends continue, 142 million girls will be married before they are adults and, because of the rising global population, that means an increase in child marriage to around 14 million girls per year.

In most cases, laws and international conventions are in place to protect children from being forced into marriage, yet Governments fail to implement those protections. We do not know exactly how many British girls face forced marriage, but evidence shows that they are being taken out of the country to be married against their will. Here in the UK, families are also getting children married off in the community or in religious ceremonies. Some take advantage of the fact that the law in Britain allows the marriage of 16 and 17-year-olds with parental consent.

Understanding the causes and consequences of early and forced marriage is paramount in preventing girls from losing their childhood, their dreams and the opportunities to make their own choices about their lives and relationships. Causes and practices vary according to context, yet there are common themes. In some areas, child marriage has been practised for many centuries, while in others it emerges as a response to conditions of crisis, including political instability, natural disaster and civil unrest.

Poverty and gender inequality are common drivers of child marriage. Many parents marry their daughters off young to protect them from poverty, sexual harassment, the stigma of extramarital sex, and sexually transmitted infections. They also marry daughters off to reduce their own economic burdens, and yet child marriage entrenches those problems and does little to protect girls or boys.

In the developing world, a lack of access to education is both a symptom and a cause of child marriage, especially for girls, many of whom get very little formal education because they are valued more for their future roles as wives and mothers. As a result, they miss out on opportunities to learn, to build financial independence and to make autonomous decisions about their futures. Those effects are passed on to successive generations.

Child marriage is a shocking infringement of human rights and the rights of the child. It has many significant and worrying consequences. It leads to higher rates of maternal mortality and morbidities; it contributes to infant mortality and poor child development; it is associated with violence, rape and sexual abuse, resulting in emotional and psychological problems, desertion and divorce; and it increases population growth and hinders sustainable development.

[Mary Macleod]

In Bangladesh, an eight-year-old child ran away from her 60-year-old husband whom she had been forced to marry, and had acid poured over her. She has no life at all and is not supported or protected in the least. We must protect against such things.

[Heather Wheeler]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. The stories one hears from around the world are shocking.

Child marriage takes away opportunities for education and training, and removes autonomy. It removes economic independence, undermines self-confidence and reaffirms gender stereotypes. It is associated with, and helps to perpetuate, harmful traditional practices, including female genital mutilation. It is a severe threat to combating poverty and the achievement of the millennium development goals.

As the vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on population, development and reproductive health, I want to highlight child marriage and maternal and reproductive health, in response to “A Childhood Lost”, the group’s report, which was published last year following parliamentary hearings. The consequences of child marriage for maternal and reproductive health are grave. Child brides are unable to negotiate protected sex with their husbands, and are often under pressure to start bearing children immediately, which leads to a prolonged period of reproduction and larger numbers of children.

Girls under 15 are five times more likely to die in childbirth than women in their 20s, and also face much higher chances than older women of experiencing pregnancy-related injuries such as fistulas, and of contracting sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. The children of child brides are 60% more likely to die before the age of one than children whose mothers are aged 19 or over. Those problems are compounded by the fact that child brides are often unable to access life-saving health care for themselves and their children, including contraception, family planning advice and maternal health care.

The British Government have demonstrated a strong political will to tackle forced marriage in the UK and abroad, and a Bill to criminalise the offence in the UK is being drafted. As I said at the beginning, legislation is not enough to combat child marriage. Governments need to revise laws and policies on related important issues such as divorce, inheritance and property ownership to protect girls. Improved co-operation is needed across Government Departments and embassies, including in the UK. Other harmful practices such as female genital mutilation need to be tackled, and access to sexual and reproductive health services, improved registration systems, and professional support and shelters, are essential.

I am interested to know whether the Government will consider including child marriage in the personal, social, health and economic education curriculum; whether they will make registration of religious marriages compulsory in the UK; and whether they will increase the minimum legal age for marriage to 18 when criminalising child marriage. I urge the Department for International Development and other donors to evaluate existing interventions so that aid is spent effectively, and to scale up programmes to prevent child marriage and support survivors. The Department for International Development has shown great leadership in family planning via the June 2012 family planning summit. We need to work to meet the needs of family planning, and sexual, reproductive and maternal health care of girls and women of all ages, whatever their marital status.

We parliamentarians must work with colleagues in other countries, particularly in the developing world, to galvanise political will and to share best practice in tackling child marriage through programmes and services, and legislative reform and implementation. We urgently need to do something for women worldwide whose cries are not heard.

13:18

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

I am grateful to have been called to speak in this important and timely debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who has been a strong voice for women and girls since her election.

It is estimated that, in Hull, almost 25,000 women and more than 18,000 children will experience domestic violence each year. To put that in real terms, three or four children in every classroom experience domestic violence. Humberside police respond to some 55 incidents of domestic violence every month, and 81% of victims are female. Children who live with domestic violence have an increased risk of behavioural problems and emotional trauma. Mental health difficulties will definitely arise in their adult lives as a result of their experiences.

Hull has been working hard to address the problem. The local primary care trust, working with Hull city council, has implemented the Strength to Change programme. This is a voluntary scheme aimed at men who are often the perpetrators of domestic violence. It is a groundbreaking project that makes a real difference to victims of violence. There is an excellent women’s centre in my constituency, Purple House, which provides support for hundreds of women victims. However, cuts are affecting these projects, and there is currently a review to decide whether these vital services are necessary—they definitely are.

The total cost of domestic abuse to the criminal justice system, health, social services and housing amounts to approximately £3.8 billion a year. It is clear that to prevent violence against women and girls, we need to do more to ensure both young men and young women are educated to develop positive and equal relationships with their peers. That education and support must start in schools. Statutory personal relationship education and early intervention in schools will help to change attitudes and behaviour towards domestic violence. Schools need to play a key role in educating boys and girls to realise that violence and abuse in relationships are completely unacceptable. I therefore urge the Government to make sex and relationships education statutory and standardised.

In the time left, I want to speak to an issue that is an absolute catastrophe and a scandal: female genital mutilation. The Government estimate that approximately 20,000 under-15-year-olds are at risk from this practice every year—more than 50 young female victims every day. It is important to make the point that such mutilation is motivated only by the need to control women. It is bullying, and the most grotesque abuse towards women. Female genital mutilation has been a criminal offence since 1985. It is shocking that we have not yet seen a single prosecution. We have seen some positive steps in recent weeks and months, with the Crown Prosecution Service refocusing on this area, and I welcome the publication of its action plan. However, to eradicate this practice we need cross-departmental work involving the Home Office, Department for Education, Department of Health and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and proper funding. We need to secure justice for victims and prosecution will prevent future victims of this despicable criminality. We must remember that this is a crime and that people should face the law when they carry out this vile and abusive violence.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

I welcome the speech that the hon. Gentleman is making, and I also welcome the Westminster Hall debate he secured recently on this topic. I am sure he welcomes, as I do, the commitment the Home Secretary made on Monday to look closely at bringing forward a prevalence study in the UK to update our data, and, in particular, to make sure that the NHS records female genital mutilation.

[Karl Turner]

I agree entirely with the hon. Lady, who has done a great deal of work on this issue as the chair of the all-party group on female genital mutilation.

I will make one final point. The Metropolitan police set up Project Azure to tackle the problem of female genital mutilation across the country. However, a freedom of information request showed that the team consists of just one full-time police officer and one part-time police officer. It is simply ridiculous to suggest that this is sufficient policing. I welcome the Home Secretary’s work, but we need more resources to police this most disgusting violence against women and young girls.

[Michael Ellis]

I support what the hon. Gentleman has said, and I agree that the issue of female genital mutilation is important. I appreciate the difficulty in detecting and prosecuting cases, but it is important that prosecutions follow as this is an horrific crime. On the subject of statistics, does he agree that the reason why most statistics show men as the victims of crime is that men are mostly the perpetrators of crime?

[Karl Turner]

I am not necessarily sure that the hon. Gentleman’s latter point is entirely correct. What I will say is that his initial point was absolutely correct. I know that other hon. Members wish to speak, so I will end my remarks now.

13:25

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

As a former police victim examiner and doctor, I have seen deeply traumatised women in the middle of the night in the immediate aftermath of horrific sexual violence. I have also, as a doctor, met women in their 80s and 90s who are still suffering a lifetime of consequences. There is nothing new about sexual violence, but what has changed is the normalisation and acceptance of sexual violence within our society, and that is something that we really have to address. I am proud to be a patron of Devon Rape Crisis, and I welcome the £40 million that has gone towards setting up a network of rape crisis centres around the country. When I was a victim examiner, that was not available.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I am shocked that my hon. Friend suggests that there is a normalisation of violence. Will she define exactly what she means?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is an important point, but before I come to it, I would like to pay tribute to the 27 remarkable, talented and skilled volunteer women who work for Devon Rape Crisis in my area.

I will address my hon. Friend’s point. What do I mean by “normalisation”? Well, for example, 80% of 15 to 17-year-old boys are now regularly accessing hardcore pornography. To my mind, that constitutes normalisation, as does the issue of sexting, which my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) mentioned, and the extent to which it goes unchallenged. One might say that this is a milder example, but when I go into the Tea Rooms in the House of Commons and see colleagues reading newspapers with images that objectify women, I find that offensive. I find it a normalisation that across the country young girls are sitting in households where they see such sexualisation of women as a normal portrayal of women. People may find me prudish, but I assure hon. Members that there is nothing that makes me blush. These are not blushes, but anger. That is what I would term as normalisation, and I hope I have answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart).

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend for her explanation.

[Dr Wollaston]

That is wonderful.

It is crucial that we challenge through education the normalisation of sexualisation and violence towards women, but it has to be the right education. We need to make better use of peer educators. It is no use having an embarrassed teacher who blushes when talking about sex and sexual violence. Often, the best educators are peer educators, particularly those who have been victims and are prepared to talk about the impact that has had on their lives. We want the right people delivering that education, and of course “the right people” includes families. As my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes pointed out, parents should be aware of what their children are accessing and not be embarrassed to talk to them and challenge attitudes as they develop.

We also need to do something about prosecution and the number of people being brought to book for such crimes. Partly, that is about encouraging women to report crimes. From having spoke to women, I know how incredibly challenging that can be and how brave women have to be to come forward and go through the criminal justice system, so it is disappointing that there seems to be a perception in some quarters that women should not be encouraged to report these crimes. In my opinion, that amounts to collusion in a process that says, “Don’t report!” We need to challenge those attitudes and provide the kind of support given by Rape Crisis and the professionals in sexual assault referral centres across the country.

In conclusion, we need to challenge attitudes, encourage reporting, put an end to normalisation and see an improvement in the support provided through our criminal justice system in order to ensure that perpetrators of sexual crimes against women know that they will pay for their crimes.

13:31

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

On the day when we celebrate love and romance, I am glad to take part in a debate that seeks to ensure that no one should ever be subject to a mentally or physically abusive relationship. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) on her work in raising the profile of the incredible One Billion Rising campaign.

Despite Liverpool being the second safest city, victims of domestic violence make more than one in five of all 999 calls to Merseyside police—the highest rate in the country. That amounts to 43,995 calls. The increase in the incidence of domestic violence across Merseyside is staggering, with 32,511 incidents having been reported in the last year—an increase of 36% from 2003. This situation cannot continue. It is a terrible indictment that in 2013 in the UK one in six children aged 11 to 17 experience sexual abuse and that 109 women and girls lost their lives last year at the hands of a partner or former partner.

At least 750,000 children a year witness domestic violence. Although that affects both girls and boys—I note the point made by the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies)—80% of calls to ChildLine on abuse were from girls. The statistics on that are many. Even if the Government do not accept the enduring physical, psychological, emotional and social consequences experienced by too many women across our country because of this terrible crime, it must surely be in their interest, given that according to the Home Office violence against women and girls costs the public purse £36.7 billion a year, to address these heinous crimes and do more about this stain on our national conscience.

We have a serious problem in our society when findings from the crime survey in England and Wales show that one in 12 people think that a victim is completely or mostly responsible for someone sexually assaulting them when they are under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or when they are sexually assaulted by someone they were flirting with heavily beforehand. No one in the country should ever blame a victim for the crimes perpetrated against them.

Is this any wonder when too many abusers are glorified? Perhaps one of the most famous cases of domestic violence was in March 2009, when the music artist Chris Brown was charged for, and pleaded guilty to, assaulting Rihanna. Members will remember the shocking photos of Rihanna in our press—her lip was split and she had a bloody nose and major contusions on either side of her face—yet two years later Chris Brown was given an international platform at the Grammies. This is the man who subsequently got a tattoo on his neck showing a woman bearing a striking similarity to Rihanna and the scars of a serious beating.

We heard the other week that some of our major supermarkets are stocking an energy drink called Black Energy promoted by the convicted rapist Mike Tyson. It uses the slogan “Sex energy” and includes a series of adverts in which he is surrounded by scantily clad women in bikinis and calls himself “an animal”. I remind the House that this is a man who spent three years in jail for his heinous crimes. We also heard last year about the tragic story of a girl from Battersea who did not report a rape at the age of 11 because of a storyline in “Eastenders” that made her so worried about the court process that she thought she would not be supported.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I understand that a television advertising campaign beginning today or tomorrow will highlight the fact that 30% of young girls are sexually assaulted and that 25% are physically abused. Does the hon. Lady believe that such a campaign will help to reduce those figures?

[Luciana Berger]

We know that there has been a massive reduction, if not a complete moratorium, on the Government spending money on public information adverts. I think, however, that money spent in this area would be welcome, so I hope that the Minister will think seriously about allocating some of the budget to informing and educating the public about domestic violence and abuse, particularly at a time when this crime is on the increase.

There are people committed to tackling violence against women and girls. In Merseyside, our recently elected police and crime commissioner, my predecessor, Jane Kennedy, signed up to a dedicated series of pledges to tackle violence against women and girls that included maintaining specialist domestic violence and public protection units within the police service, which are at risk across the country owing to police cuts; delivering specialist training in domestic and sexual violence; and developing the roll-out of an integrated local action plan to tackle violence against women and girls. In December, we also saw the launch of the Draw A Line campaign, specifically aimed at combating domestic violence.

The reason for today’s debate, however, is that we need to do even more. We need our schools to do everything they can to educate the next generation. We recently saw the One Billion Rising sessions that took place across the country—we had one in Liverpool, at which women called for the statutory introduction of sex and relationships education in all our schools. We also need urgently to challenge the stereotypes in the press and media and to teach both girls and boys about how to respect each other in relationships. We need these statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in every school in our land.

Just before this debate, as has been mentioned, we came together in Parliament square in support of the One Billion Rising campaign and heard the names of the 109 women murdered last year by a present or former partner. It was tragic. The reason for the debate is that we need to do everything we can to ensure that we never have to read out the names of 109 women again.

13:38

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

On 16 December last year, a 23-year-old medical student in Delhi was gang-raped, and 13 days later she died. If this debate today could be in her memory, showing the world that this sort of abuse cannot be tolerated, some good may come from it.

We have already heard plenty of examples today. A girl of nine has given birth in one of Mexico’s western states. She was just eight when she became pregnant. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) has already spoken about forced marriage. Only 25 years ago in the UK, it was not considered an offence to rape within marriage, and 603 million women currently live in countries where domestic violence is not considered a crime.

One of my first cases at my weekly constituency surgery involved a girl who came to see me with her mother. She was absolutely convinced that her sister had died as a result of domestic violence but that it had not been recognised by the police. A second girl who came to see me had been raped twice by a man who was about to leave prison after serving a sentence for a separate offence. She was absolutely petrified, and the following weekend she ended up in hospital after having tried to take her own life. All this is happening right on our doorstep. We do not need to look at what is going on internationally; it is happening right in front of us.

I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) mention Chiswick, where the world’s first women’s refuge was started. I am proud to represent Chiswick today, and I believe that it is part of my remit as a Member of Parliament to stand up for all victims of domestic violence and abuse, locally and elsewhere in the country. In London, especially, we have issues. Speaking at the Tackling Britain’s Gang Culture conference last month, Chief Superintendent John Sutherland of the Metropolitan police said:

“I regard domestic violence as the single greatest cause of harm in society.”

He said that it was having devastating effects, and he is so right. Thankfully, the issue is at the top of the agenda in my borough of Hounslow. London has an issue with teenage girl rape, and that is something that we have to resolve.

Now is the time to act, and I was glad to see Members from both sides of the House at the One Billion Rising rally today. Those from my side of the House included my hon. Friends the Members for South Northamptonshire (Andrea Leadsom), for Battersea (Jane Ellison), for Devizes (Claire Perry), for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) and for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin). We were there in Parliament square to say that enough is enough, and that now is the time to act.

Globally, we should exert pressure through the United Nations, which is looking at the matter. UN Women was set up in 2010 to focus efforts on gender equality and the empowerment of women, and I will be going next month to the UN Commission on the Status of Women to talk about this issue.

Here in the UK, we have made progress in some areas, including the £40 million of stable, ring-fenced funding for specialist domestic and sexual violence support services. We have increased the number of rape centres in London to four, but we need more. Stalking has been mentioned already, as has female genital mutilation, on which my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea has done a great deal of work. Still more needs to be done. Internationally, we also need to put the pressure on and work together on conflicts, and I am glad that there will be a further debate in the Chamber today to discuss sexual violence in conflicts, because that should not be tolerated either.

Locally, in my constituency and my borough, we have taken various kinds of action. We have the Hounslow one-stop shop, which is run by the Metropolitan police, the Hounslow community safety unit and the Hounslow domestic violence outreach service. In December last year, Operation Athena, a London-wide crackdown on domestic violence, led to 22 arrests in my borough. The JAN Trust is visiting schools in Hounslow to deliver its Mujboor—meaning “forced” in Urdu—workshops on forced marriages and to educate young girls on their rights.

There is still much to be done, however, with regard to global awareness as well as to what we are doing right here in our own constituencies. That is where we all have a part to play. Every Member of the House can play their part by going to each of their schools—especially their secondary schools, but perhaps schools with younger children as well—and spreading the word that we can all take action on this issue. If we can encourage our colleagues to talk to young girls and boys about the issue, we will have played a part in changing the environment of violence that we see around us. There should be a zero-tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, and I would like the Minister to consider whether Ofsted could measure what schools are doing to educate children in this area.

Let us join together and say with one voice that enough is enough, that violence against women and girls will not be tolerated, and that we will make this country a much better place.

13:44

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is a pleasure to follow such a fine speech from the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod), and I also commend to others a reading of what the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) said earlier in her moving, sensible and informative speech.

Last year, I had the privilege of chairing the parliamentary inquiry into stalking law reform, which resulted in the creation of a new law a new law on stalking. I declare an interest, as I am a practising barrister, having practised for many years in the fields of crime and domestic violence. I have seen many lives ruined by domestic violence.

Early in 2011, I became aware of the limitations of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which eventually gave rise to the parliamentary inquiry. The panel drew its membership from both Houses of Parliament and from across the political spectrum. We considered the adequacy of the existing law and, over the course of six months, took written evidence and held five oral evidence sessions during which we sought the views of practitioners, legal experts, campaign groups and victims of stalking.

The panel concluded that the existing law was not fit for purpose and, in February last year, we published a report with recommendations on how legislation and practices should be improved. Within a month of our report’s publication, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would be implementing our main recommendations, and new clauses to that effect were passed by both Houses within a staggering 11 days. I only wish that changing the law were routinely so easy.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

The right hon. Gentleman has an honourable record on these issues. What does he think about the Welsh Government’s proposals to introduce a Bill on domestic abuse and violence against women? Does he agree that such a Bill would provide an opportunity to take concrete action on this issue?

[Mr Llwyd]

I am delighted to agree with the hon. Gentleman. I know that the Welsh Government are proactive on these issues, and I am delighted to hear that they are taking action, because this problem is as prevalent in Wales as anywhere else. I am grateful to him for making that point.

As of November last year, stalking is a named offence in the law of England and Wales. The new law is split into two sections, which have been added to the Protection from Harassment Act—namely, a section 2A offence, punishable by up to 51 weeks in prison or a fine, as well as the section 4A offence, which involves stalking that prompts fear of violence or serious alarm or distress. This latter offence is punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment or a fine, and is triable by either a Crown court or a magistrates court.

We felt that it was of utmost importance for the new law to take note of the fact that threats to the safety of those suffering stalking are not always physical. I do not want to enter into a debate about etymology, but I would argue that violence is not always physical. The “Oxford English Dictionary” defines violence as

“treatment or usage tending to cause bodily injury or forcibly interfering with personal freedom.”

It is in relation to that last part of the definition—forcibly interfering with personal freedom—that stalking can be considered an example of violence. Last year, the Association of Chief Police Officers also reviewed its definition of domestic abuse and, thankfully, it now takes account of controlling and coercive behaviour as well as of more immediate and obvious bodily harm.

Some forms of violence against women, such as stalking, are unfortunately more subtle than others, since they involve a pattern of behaviours which, taken alone, might seem innocent, but which take on a terrible significance when viewed over a period of time. Taken out of context, sending someone flowers or always being at the same events might not seem like threatening behaviour, but for a victim of stalking, every such incident can induce feelings of anxiety, panic and acute distress.

I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the survivors of stalking, and their families, who gave evidence to our inquiry and also acted as ambassadors for our campaign. Tracey Morgan, Claire Waxman and Sam Taylor gave us an insight into the sheer horror that stalking can wreak on people’s lives. Tricia Bernal and Carol Faruqui spoke bravely about the murder of their daughters, Clare and Rana, by their stalkers. John and Penny, the parents of Jane Clough, also gave evidence to our inquiry. Jane was murdered by her former partner, but only after he had raped her on nine separate occasions. When the man who was to go on to murder her was charged with those nine counts of rape, and four counts of common assault, the court made the disastrous decision to grant him bail, during which time he followed Jane and killed her.

That is why we recommended that there should be a presumption that anybody charged with a serious violent or sexual offence should not be bailed except in the most exceptional circumstances. We also recommended that judges and magistrates should take account of previous offences as serious acts of aggravation. Raping, like stalking, is characteristic of obsessive behaviour that is likely to escalate if it is not stopped and treated. That is why it is essential that criminal justice professionals are made aware through mandatory training about the patterns of behaviour that make up these crimes.

This motion focuses on educating the generations to come about the realities of violence against women, so as to prevent it from happening in the future. That is to be applauded, of course, but we must also tackle the prevailing attitudes. In earlier debates, we highlighted the need for a domestic abuse, stalking and harassment risk assessment—or DASH—tool. I understand that the Association of Chief Police Officers has been running a trial in Hampshire for officers, but it is not sufficiently widespread.

I would welcome any information on how many individuals have been convicted under the new stalking offences. I would also welcome an update on the Government’s intentions in respect of improving victims’ advocacy. Some of the campaigners I met over the course of our inquiry have written to me expressing concern that not enough is being done. I know the Minister will pass these questions and concerns on to his colleagues. I repeat again that training must be rolled out for all police officers, to hammer home the message that the psychological impact of these crimes is considerable.

This law will be a step in the right direction towards ensuring that women are not subjected to violence without the perpetrators being punished. We must protect women and give them redress. This is urgently needed.

13:51

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this important debate. I congratulate its sponsors, and especially the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who opened the debate.

First, I will discuss female genital mutilation, as I have done in previous debates, but I will not talk exclusively about that subject. We have made great progress over the past few years and as a result many more Members are now talking about FGM. We have brought it into the mainstream of our political discourse, which will assist us in making further progress. FGM is a terrible thing that affects hundreds of thousands of girls around the world and here in the UK.

I want to thank some of the people and organisations who are helping to make progress. The recent Crown Prosecution Service action plan is not just words on a piece of paper; it has genuine heart and intent behind it, and I hope it will lead to real progress. The all-party group on female genital mutilation has had some very productive meetings with Ofsted over the past year or so. It has seized on this subject, and has agreed to ask specific safeguarding questions around FGM when visiting schools that have girls from identified at-risk communities. That will also drive change.

The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) has very passionately brought to our attention the One Billion Rising campaign. She and I have debated that campaign, because as a result of my experiences in addressing FGM, I have become a little jaundiced about the possibility of changing things solely through education. Over the almost 25 years that FGM has been illegal in this country, there have been almost no referrals through the education system. In fact, it is quite difficult to get people working in education to talk about FGM issues. At the recent Home Office roundtable, a senior local government leader in London admitted that when she trained the teachers in her local authority about how to deal with FGM in schools, many of them point-blank refused to teach that it was a crime, saying that that would infringe on some people’s cultural values. That is absolutely not on. As a result, particularly in respect of FGM, I am cautious as to whether we can rely solely on education. We must instead have a multi-agency approach and massive cultural education.

I will support the motion, of course, but we must not give the message to the people who are listening so intently to this debate that we think the One Billion Rising campaign is the only answer, because we know there is so much more to do. It might be part of the answer, but I know the Minister will talk about some of the other things that are going on, too, and we must make it clear that it is not a silver bullet and that there are lots of other steps we need to take—many of which colleagues have alluded to in the debate.

I want to thank the Home Office, too. In November 2011, I spoke about the Dutch health passport on FGM and in less than a year—this must be record time for any Government Department to put something into action— it has brought our own version of that passport, the statement against FGM, into use in the UK. I have spoken to FGM campaigner Sister Fa, who wants to get the German Government to adopt the idea. I therefore hope that there will be a ripple effect across Europe.

People have asked, “Is it really a passport?” I always answer, “No, it’s an empowerment document.” I hope it will empower some of the girls who have been through FGM to help their little sisters when they go back to their country of origin, so that they say to extended family members, “You’re not going to do to my little sister what you did to me, and here’s something that will tell you what the consequences are if you do.” The document will empower girls to help protect other girls.

My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) referred to cases involving two of my constituents. One was the tragic case of Chevonea Kendall-Bryan. She died in terrible circumstances, with lots of dreadful sexting and other things circulating about her. It was a dreadful incident. The other incident my hon. Friend mentioned involved a little girl who, for obvious reasons, I will not name. I spoke to her mother this morning. She re-emphasised that the problem of sexual texting and imagery going around in schools is horrendously widespread. I return to an earlier point: what do we do if we cannot stop it happening even in school, and right under the nose of teachers? This little 12-year-old girl was physically penetrated by a 12-year-old boy with his fingers in class under the nose of the teacher. We have got to get a grip on what is happening right now. It is not just about education; it is about stopping crimes being committed in class.

Most—although perhaps not all—of us in this Chamber went to school before mobile phones were invented, let alone widespread. We do not know all the answers, therefore, and there will be girls listening to and reading this debate who might know more about what we can do. The mother of that 12-year-old girl said to me that some of the other girls in class were jealous of her daughter because they thought she had been singled out for sexual attention. If I were to send just one message out to these girls, it would be this: “Please stand together. It is not cool. It is absolutely dreadful. Make sure you don’t speak to those boys or have anything to do with them if they do this to your classmates.” We have to stand together on this issue.

13:57

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and I congratulate the Members who secured this debate, in particular the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who opened it so eloquently.

The One Billion Rising campaign reminds us that one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. Today’s debate gives us an opportunity to commend the women and men who in so many different ways are refusing to accept the status quo and are working either to support the victims of sexual violence or to change laws, attitudes, customs and institutions that perpetuate abuses of power here at home and internationally.

On a day when so many people around the world are celebrating loving relationships, it is important to highlight the extent to which violence against women and girls blights our individual and collective lives and to acknowledge the systemic nature of violence against women. It affects all of us, directly or indirectly, whatever our age, nationality and religion. I am sure all of us will have experienced gender-based violence or will know a friend, sister, mother, aunt or work colleague who has experienced it.

It is also important not to be overwhelmed by the dimensions of the problem and the scale of the challenge of ending the culture of violence. Some 20 or 30 years ago domestic abuse was seen as a private family matter. Too often criminal violence in the home was not pursued as it ought to have been. It was a taboo subject. Breaking the silence around abuse has been an important milestone on the road to taking the issue seriously and tackling it. It is a multifaceted problem, but I believe it is underpinned by inequality between women and men, and is perpetuated through unacceptable abuses of power. One reason why it is so difficult to address is that it challenges deeply held attitudes and beliefs, understandings of justice and ingrained cultural perspectives—yet it is neither inevitable nor intractable.

As legislators, we have a special responsibility to tackle the grave and serious human rights abuses happening in our own community. We also need to recognise that we are not impotent to deliver meaningful progress. Today’s motion has focused largely on prevention within the formal education system. Obviously, education is a devolved issue in Scotland, and the structure of the curriculum does not mirror the situation in other parts of the UK. Nevertheless, I wish colleagues well in their efforts to improve the curriculum in England and Wales, and I hope there will be reciprocal learning on how the respective education systems can rise to the challenge, especially given the alarming attitudes to sexual violence recorded among young people, to which Members have alluded. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) talked about the normalisation of violence, so I do not see how anything could be more of a priority for us.

One example recently brought to my attention in the Scottish context was a pilot scheme initiated by the Dundee violence against women partnership, which was an attempt to embed preventive measures in the curriculum for excellence in nursery, primary and secondary school settings. Working with a range of partners and using a rights-based approach, it tries to embed the idea that children and young people have rights and that their dignity is important. The project workers commented on how relatively easy it had been to integrate preventive measures across the curriculum. They used a thematic approach so that the issues could be addressed in an English class or a statistics class—not just in the timetabled slot for health, well-being or relationships education.

Another key part of addressing sexual violence is ensuring that perpetrators are held more accountable for their actions within the criminal justice system. Changing attitudes and beliefs will not be enough on its own if people cannot realise their rights. I do not think it would be controversial to say that the historical track record has not been good in domestic terms.

Again, I would like to share some perspectives from the Scottish context, which I am sure will resonate with hon. Members from other parts of the UK. I pay tribute to the Scottish Women’s Aid and Rape Crisis Scotland for its campaigning and advocacy to raise awareness and improve our legislative framework. Only one in four rape cases reported to the police in Scotland results in a prosecution; three out of four people who seek access to justice are still denied it. We know that huge numbers—perhaps a majority—of people who have been raped do not report it to the police. In that respect, confidence in the system remains far too low. Conviction rates have historically been woeful; they are improving, albeit from an abysmal starting point. It is easy to understand why many people who have experienced serious sexual assault are reluctant to put themselves through further trauma at a time when they might feel exceptionally vulnerable. Given the fairly low prospect of securing a conviction, it takes immense courage for women to come forward.

Our criminal justice system has failed and continues to fail far too many victims of rape and sexual assault. Many of us have been deeply saddened by the dreadful revelations about the suicide of Frances Andrade. Back in 2002, an equally tragic death took place in Scotland when 17-year-old Lindsay Anderson took her own life shortly after giving evidence at the trial of a person subsequently convicted of raping her. What was particularly appalling was that in court Lindsay had to hold up the underwear she had been wearing at the time of the attack. It was sickening and, frankly, it still leaves me speechless. In spite of real efforts to move away from using women’s character and sexual history in court, people subjected to sexual violence are still traumatised by the process, which can compound the very real harm done by the original offence.

I do not have much time left. Before concluding, I echo the points made earlier about the way in which women are portrayed in popular culture and about the misogyny often expressed in social media. We do not have any room for complacency. Prevention and accountability must go hand in hand. Together, we really can make progress and end—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order.

14:04

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford). This morning, I was not intending to speak—not because I was disinterested or uninterested, but because it seemed to me appropriate that this debate should be led by women. I have, however, been inspired by the clarity, compassion, cross-party consensus and expressions of support for the importance of this debate. My decision to speak was also provoked by my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), who is not in his place. I share with him a great interest in horseracing and I have a great affection for him. I thought he made some good points, but I profoundly disagree with him on one or two central points.

I have rearranged the day in order to speak up for many of my hon. Friends whose absence should not be misconstrued as lack of interest in this important subject. I want to put on record my personal commitment to this issue; I also want to speak on behalf of women and girls in my constituency and elsewhere who perhaps fear that men are not listening, and to speak up for a modern, compassionate, progressive conservative strain of thinking, which takes this issue very seriously and applauds the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their leadership on it.

It seemed to me that the central point made my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley was to insist on an equality of treatment and to deny the need for any gender-based policy approach. That denies something very fundamental: that men and women are different and, in respect of sexual and physical violence, are not equal.

Around the world—here, too, but especially in the developing world—we are witnessing a shaming prevalence of violence against women and girls, which we have a duty to tackle. I do not pretend to be an expert, but one does not need to be an expert to see the urgency of the problem. If we look around the world, we can see that the emancipation of women and the education of girls has been a profound force for good in our society and in human progress. On the subject of the education of girls, I know from my own area of science that we have a huge problem and a huge challenge in Britain to ensure that more of our girls are educated in a way that allows them to take part in the great opportunities of the modern economy.

Around the world, too, we have a huge problem of sexual violence, which has been a long-standing part of too many conflicts. We heard earlier from those more eloquent than me about the problems of genital mutilation, forced marriages, sexual slavery and the human trafficking of boys and girls. We are all mindful, too, of the appalling story of gang rape in India, which I think has triggered huge public interest and has fired people’s sense of moral outrage. In a world whose economic globalisation we celebrate day on day, we all face a challenge to take responsibility for other impacts of globalisation that are perhaps less visibly, immediately or directly seen as our responsibility. We need to take both those sides of globalisation together.

My main point, however, is that we have a serious problem here in the UK. In recent decades, we have seen an epidemic of sexual and violent crime, the casualisation of media attitudes to sex and violence, an explosion of pornography, and in recent years casual online sexualisation and prostitution and huge problems relating to stalking and even classroom abuse, as we heard in the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison). It is the casualness of all this that is worth highlighting. Such things are not any more considered by our media or our commentariat to be serious crimes. That, I think, is the most serious crime of all.

We should all be shamed that London has become a global centre of human trafficking and sexual exploitation. Far from this being, as my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley suggested, a distraction from the serious business of Government, I suggest that it is a vital and topical issue that affects more than half of our population.

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

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his eloquent speech, reminding us all that not every male member of the Conservative party is blinkered or bonkers on this subject. Does he share with me the hope that better health and sex education in school can help prevent the real blight of sexting? As a Member of Parliament and as a parent, I must confess that, like others, I am only just beginning to understand the gravity of that situation.

[George Freeman]

I agree. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I feel personally, too, as the father of an 11-year-old daughter. I also think, however, that as a Parliament and a Government we need to be brave enough to realise that advice on sex must be put within some kind of moral framework. We need to be brave enough to acknowledge that young children require of us some guidance about what is right and wrong. Difficult territory though it is, there is no excuse for simply suggesting that there is no sense of appropriate conduct that we should be conveying.

This is a vital and topical issue which affects more than half our population, and it is an issue of global and local significance. I believe that our generation in this great institution must address it, and that we all have a duty to take it seriously. As I said earlier, I am the father of an 11-year-old daughter, but I also speak as the husband of a wife and as the son of a mother. We are all, in one way or another, linked to this issue, and, as a compassionate Conservative, I am proud that this generation, and this Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary, have provided such leadership on it. The Prime Minister said recently:

“I want to see an end to violence against women and girls in all its forms. I’m proud to add my voice to all those who stand up to oppose it. Too often these horrific crimes have gone unpunished. We want this to change and that is why we have criminalised forced marriage, widened the definition of domestic violence and made stalking illegal.”

I believe that, as a result of cross-party consensus, our generation may be able to look back on what we have achieved and be proud of it. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on arranging the debate, which, given its significance, I should have preferred to take place on a Monday rather than a Thursday. I also congratulate the sponsors of the motion, and those who are speaking about this important topic this afternoon.

14:10

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

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for giving me an opportunity to contribute to this very important debate. I congratulate those who secured it, and those who have contributed to it so far. Let me also say that it is great to follow the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). This important issue is close to the heart of many Members who are present today, and I know that those who are not present support the motion.

A recent incident in New Delhi unfortunately led to the death of a 23-year-old woman whom the people of India named “Nirbhaya Damini”, the brave-hearted daughter of India. Damini was brutally gang-raped by a group of men on a public bus. She suffered from various injuries which severely damaged both her brain and her body, and as a result of that inhumane act, she died on 29 December 2012.

This particular act of violence has sparked much anger in India, here in the UK, and throughout the world, and it is part of the reason why I stand here to discuss the subject of violence against women and girls. Over the last few months, through vigils in my constituency and outside the Indian high commission, I have been able to witness the hundreds of people who have been brought together to share their anger against the perpetrators of such a despicable act. All of us were in Parliament square this afternoon to support those who were campaigning against the violence.

I want to focus my remarks on women and girls with an ethnic-minority background. Through my work in my constituency, I have come across many women and girls who, because of their background, require special assistance to protect them from violence, and who are much more vulnerable as victims. Women and young girls should not have to endure violence. We have a moral duty to protect our citizens, especially those who are in an especially vulnerable position. Many women suffer violence and are then unable to leave or take action against the perpetrators: they face different challenges, and feel powerless to overcome those obstacles.

Numerous acts of violence have been inflicted on women and young girls in recent years, and such issues are now being widely addressed. However, women from an ethnic-minority background may suffer various violent acts, notably female genital mutilation, “honour-based” killings—of which there are more than 2,800 a year—forced marriages, domestic violence perpetrated by their husbands, in-laws and other family members, dowry-related abuse, and suicide or self-harm aggravated by harassment or violence.

It is vital to acknowledge that in some cases, women with an ethnic-minority background suffer acts of violence that are deemed acceptable and perpetrated by a group of family members. The main concept behind those acts is the “shaming” of the women’s families or community members. It is absolutely vital to eradicate that absurd concept, which is often used by perpetrators to justify their actions.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is making a brave and impassioned speech. He seems to be hinting that there are issues involving power in the midst of these crimes and relationships.

[Mr Sharma]

I shall say more about that shortly.

The concept that acts of violence are justifiable if they will protect the family’s “honour” is ridiculous and unacceptable.

Furthermore, many women and young girls from an ethnic minority continue to suffer because they feel that there is no way out. There is evidence that, on average, women suffer acts of violence and abuse more than 20 times before they report it, but among women from an ethnic minority the number is higher—and that, of course, assumes that the acts are ever reported. The under-reporting of such acts is another serious issue which increases the complexity of the situation in which those women find themselves.

The funding of services for women who are victims of violence has been dramatically reduced. According to a report published by Women’s Aid, 27,900 women have been refused refuge because of a lack of vacancies, and the cutting of support for such groups will cause further problems.

I am also concerned by the cuts that are being made in my local police force. There will no longer be front-desk police officers 24 hours a day in my local police station in Southall. Those cuts could prove life-threatening when combined with the decreased funding for other services that help women who are victims of violence.

Let me end my speech by thanking Southall Black Sisters, who are based in my constituency. They have contributed positively to the community for more than 30 years, providing excellent services which help women from black and ethnic-minority backgrounds. Many people will know them for their work on the Kiranjit Ahluwalia case, which ultimately focused on issues that I mentioned earlier: issues which need to be resolved, and which lie deep within communities. Southall Black Sisters have provided valuable services, but, owing to their limited resources, they can only take on the most extreme cases, and there are still many more women who need assistance.

The matters that are being discussed today are of great urgency, and I hope that the Minister will resolve to work on a global basis with other Government agencies and non-governmental organisations to eradicate the fear of violence from women throughout the world.

14:17

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

I am pleased to note that a male Minister is responding to the debate. All too often, debates such as this are shunted off into the category of “women’s issues”, and it is left to our female colleagues to engage in them.

Other Members, including in particular my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), have spoken powerfully about sexualisation and normalisation. The issue of female genital mutilation was raised by my hon. Friend—my good friend—the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson), who I know have done extremely good work in that regard.

There are two issues that especially concern me, and on which I press schools in my constituency. One is the use of social media for the swapping of sexual images. What worries me is that, while adults swapping sexual images of children are committing a criminal offence, when children do the same thing it seems to be regarded as a bit of a lark. I hope that the Government will think about whether the providers of social networks should bear some form of culpability. Are they not committing an offence by allowing the transmission of what is effectively child pornography?

I have also pressed local schools on the issue of consent. Too often we think that if a woman does not say no, there is implied consent. I wrote to all my local secondary schools asking whether in personal, social, citizenship and health education—I wish someone could come up with a better name, as PSCHE is a bit of a mouthful—they teach express consent, because not saying no is not consent. I was pleased that all the schools replied saying that the point had been taken on board. Will the Minister press the Department for Education to update the curriculum on PSCHE so that express consent, not just consent, is taught?

Those are my two points. I hope that the Minister will comment on whether the transmission of what is, in effect, child pornography can be dealt with by taking action against the network providers and whether the curriculum can be updated.

14:20

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

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate, which shows the House at its best. As we make our voices count in the One Billion Rising campaign, we recognise that we cannot end violence against women and girls without also looking at wider attitudes in society. We need to consider how we, in our schools, our curriculums, our children’s services and our local authorities, are actively seeking to educate young people and safeguard them from dangerous and abusive situations. Alongside the resourcing of the immediate needs of those exposed to violence and abuse, we need to examine the widespread gender violence and attitudes to it that are so prevalent in society today.

As technology evolves, so, too, do the means of sexual exploitation. Grooming for sexual exploitation, the increased normalisation of sexual favours and the widespread sexualisation of the young all contribute to the vulnerability of our young people. Recent cases of systematic child grooming involving violence—often sadistic violence—for the purpose of sexual exploitation, such as those in Rochdale and Oxford, highlight just how necessary it is to equip our young people with the knowledge and resources to prevent such horrendous situations from recurring in other areas and ways.

Such cases are, in a sense, the high-profile, visible manifestations of this culture. Many young and vulnerable teenage girls, in particular, are targeted, groomed and abused in this way by such offenders and by their peers. Young people need to understand that they cannot “consent” to their own abuse and their own exploitation, and that they cannot do so must be reflected consistently by law enforcement agencies, support services and education services.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

Does my hon. Friend agree that these things are happening because there has been a huge reduction in the resources going to the agencies that protect these young kids?

[Gavin Shuker]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, because I do believe there is an issue of resources to address. It is also important to acknowledge that successive Governments have perhaps not sought to invest enough in these services, particularly in the kinds of hub and spoke models that would allow us to get into the community to engage with the people who are most vulnerable to sexual exploitation and violence. I believe that our educational bodies have a responsibility to teach and model respectful and healthy relationships for all young people.

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a key point about the importance of education. Statistics suggest that 750,000 children are witnessing domestic violence each year, so does he agree that it is increasingly important that our schools play a role in ensuring that children are able to understand that what they are seeing and experiencing is not normal?

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend is knowledgeable and accurate on this point. We understand that the models we grow up with affect how we engage with the wider world. One of my particular concerns is to ensure that young people who are subjected to seeing this kind of abuse in their own circumstances do not go on to perpetuate that violence in later life.

We know that this education needs to be of high quality; to have age-appropriate content; to enable people to make informed choices; and to highlight potentially dangerous patterns of relationships or environments. It is needed across the board; it must not simply be targeted at a group we would deem vulnerable. I appreciate the views of Members across this House who feel, just as I do, that sex is a spiritual as well as emotional and physical act. There are those who, like me, believe that deep moral and ethical questions are related to issues such as the scale of abortion in this country, but to deny young people the education and the capacity to prevent themselves from finding themselves in that situation in the first place is a perverse outcome of that belief.

Education targeting the prevention of violence against women and girls is not just an issue for women and girls, so there is a need to educate both young boys and young girls about mutual respect within relationships, recognising that men and young boys can also be victims of violence and abuse. Educating both boys and girls is a key element in a preventive education. Alongside statutory sex and relationships advice, resources should be made available in schools so that support can be accessed by young people experiencing or concerned about violence and abuse. I have real concerns about the resources available to engage those at high risk of becoming victims of sexual exploitation.

We do not just need to take action in schools and education authorities. In my role as chair of the all-party group on prostitution and the global sex trade, I have been struck by the measures taken by some good local authorities to introduce strategies to tackle violence against women and girls in their own communities. Introducing measures to tackle domestic violence, sexual violence, prostitution and female genital mutilation under a comprehensive strategy, with direct support and enforcement of the law, is a real step towards the goal of a zero-tolerance approach to violence against women and girls. It would be interesting to hear the Minister’s view on whether other local authorities should also adopt such strategies to work across their own communities. If such strategies were replicated nationally across local authorities and prioritised as a matter of urgency, that could go a long way towards ensuring that vulnerable people do not fall through the cracks.

In finishing, I wish to make a few brief remarks about one of the groups at greatest risk of violence against women and girls. The alarming statistics on adults involved in prostitution who were sexually abused as children, experienced domestic violence or entered prostitution before the age of 18—the age at which they could consent—highlight the urgent need for preventive education and support services for young people at risk. According to Home Office figures, 70% of those involved in street prostitution had a history of local authority care, and nearly half report a history of childhood sexual exploitation. Highlighting issues of vulnerability and the consent of children sheds light on the continued vulnerability of women into adulthood. The legislation on commercial sexual services currently sends no clear signals about the nature of this trade—these are signals to be picked up by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. Perhaps a debate such as today’s is an important time to assess the impact that these industries have, not only on those directly providing these services or being exploited, but on our society’s attitudes towards women and girls.

In our group’s call for evidence for our inquiry into the law on prostitution, I have been struck by the fact that much of the language from those who purchase sex completely fails to challenge, and in some places continues to perpetrate, the idea that access to sex is a man’s right. In normalising and legitimising occupations in this way, we not only maintain the prevalence of an industry that will be sustained by future generations, but we communicate attitudes accepting and promoting the commoditisation of women. It is notable, for example, that violence against women involved in prostitution is part of one of the most popular video games in this country. Inherent in this attitude is the idea of the entitlement of men to pursue sexual pleasure, no matter what the cost. That attitude continues to reinforce the power imbalance at play behind many of the issues we have heard about today. We need to assess how widespread the acceptance of such—

[George Freeman]

rose—

[Gavin Shuker]

I will give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

Order. I am terribly sorry, but you have taken two interventions already.

[Gavin Shuker]

I thought that was the case.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

It was. I call Diana Johnson.

14:29

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on securing the debate and the Backbench Business Committee on allocating time for it. I also pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) in promoting and getting behind the One Billion Rising campaign.

Many Members on both sides of the House have spoken with passion about the importance of ending violence against women. In my constituency, we have a wonderful football team, Hull City, with a wonderful football ground, the KC stadium, which holds some 25,000 people, and as a new MP I was told that the stadium would be filled to capacity by all the victims of domestic violence in the city. That statistic is a stark reminder of the prevalence of domestic violence in all our constituencies.

When I spoke to the police in Hull last week they told me that domestic violence was still one of their key priorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) spoke about the very positive Strength to Change campaign, which was funded by the PCT. It worked with more than 250 perpetrators to try and change behaviour, but those men had already engaged in domestic violence. I think we all agree that it is much better to prevent it from ever happening by getting in early and ensuring that our young men and women understand what is acceptable in relationships and that violence is never acceptable.

The education we give to our young people in schools is limited, as we have heard. It falls within the science curriculum and talks about the biology of reproduction and sexual diseases, but does not in any way address the issues that young people say they want to know about. Young people want to know what a healthy relationship should look like. We need to consider the self-esteem that our young girls, in particular, should be developing and the confidence they need to make good choices. We know from examples around the world that good sex and relationship education in schools delays the time at which youngsters start having sex and most Members of this House would think that that is a jolly good thing.

We must also remember that parents can still withdraw their children from sex education up to the age of 19. Nobody can accept that that is a realistic way of proceeding. We need to ensure that the law reflects what is going on in our country. We know that PSHE is taught with success in some schools and not in others and youngsters tell us that we must get that sorted out for their sake.

I respect the Minister for Immigration, who is on the Front Bench, but I am disappointed that the Home Secretary is not sitting there today. I understand that she chairs the inter-ministerial group on violence against women and girls, on which the Home Office takes a lead. She has spoken out against violence against women and girls on many occasions and I have great respect for her, too, but it would have sent a clear message that the Government were getting behind the motion had she been in the Chamber today.

Let me focus on the motion, which is about making PSHE a statutory requirement in our schools. The review undertaken by the new Government when they came into power ended in November 2011. We must remember that the previous Labour Government attempted to make sex and relationship education statutory in 2010, but that opportunity was unfortunately blocked in the “wash-up” by the Conservative party. The review finished in November 2011, as my hon. Friend the Member for Slough said, and since then I have been chasing the Department for Education. I have tabled many parliamentary questions and asked whether Ministers are meeting groups and organisations to ensure that they get their approach absolutely right, but it seems that very little has happened.

[Fiona Mactaggart]

My hon. Friend spoke about who she thought should be on the Front Bench. Is she as disappointed as I am that there are no Education Ministers sitting there?

[Diana Johnson]

Yes. One Education Minister was in the Chamber earlier, but unfortunately did not stay to hear the rest of the debate. The Department for Education is the villain in the piece today, because there is general acceptance across the House that although making PSHE statutory is not the whole answer, it is part of the jigsaw. It fits in with what the Government are saying and the steps they have taken since they came to power, as well as those taken by the Labour Government, to try to address violence against women and to equip our youngsters with the skills and knowledge they need to make good choices about the lives they lead. I am disappointed that no representative of the Department is in the Chamber to listen to the debate.

I was a little flabbergasted when I heard that the Department for Education had accepted that financial education should be statutory. If the Department knows that that is important and wants to give young people the skills and experience to deal with their finances, it seems rather ironic that it does not accept that young people also need the skills, experience and knowledge to deal with relationships and sexual matters. The Department argues that it does not want to prescribe what schools have to do, but it seems to me that if the Department can be prescriptive about financial education it could be a bit more prescriptive about sex and relationships education.

The Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), answered Equality questions earlier today but said nothing about the very effective campaign to reduce teen relationship abuse, which is working directly with young people. It is not being used by the Department for Education—I checked its Twitter account and it is not promoting that campaign. I think the Department for Education should stop turning its face away from what the vast majority of young people, parents and Members of this House want, which is for high-quality statutory sex and relationships education to be brought in as soon as possible with properly trained teachers and proper resources. That will not solve the whole problem, but it will help.

14:36

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) and I pay tribute to the leadership shown on this subject by the hon. Members for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy). We have heard compelling speeches from Members on both sides of the House and I was particularly struck by those from the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) and for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman). Notwithstanding that, I share the disappointment that has been expressed about the lack of vigour from those who sit on the Government Front Bench, in particular. When I asked the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), this morning about the importance of statutory education in PSHE and violence against women and girls, I was told that it is voluntary and that schools can offer it if they want to. Everything we have heard in the debate this afternoon suggests that that is not enough.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that it is a problem that PSHE is not part of the curriculum in academies and free schools? As we have all agreed during the debate, the problem goes across society.

[Caroline Lucas]

I agree. I also agree with those who said we need a whole-school approach. Yes, PSHE is vital but such education should also be mainstreamed across all other parts of the education system.

The figures, tragically, are all too familiar. In Britain, 60,000 women are raped every year and two women a week are killed by a partner or ex-partner. That culture of violence is doing enormous damage to our young people. As the hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) said, NSPCC research found that so-called sexting is linked to coercive behaviour, bullying and violence and has a disproportionate impact on girls. A YouGov poll for the End Violence Against Women Coalition found that more than 70% of 16 to 18-year-old boys and girls said that they heard sexual name calling towards girls routinely and, even more disturbingly, one in three girls said that they experienced groping or other unwanted sexual touching at school.

In a report published last year entitled “I thought I was the only one,” the office of the Children’s Commissioner found that in the space of just 12 months more than 16,000 children, mostly girls, were identified as being at risk of sexual exploitation. The report highlights that we need to ask why so many males, both young and old, think it is acceptable to treat both girls and boys as objects to be used and abused. That brings me to my key point: violence does not happen in a vacuum. We must recognise the impact of the wider culture, so I want to focus on just one aspect of that—the objectification of women in the media, whether it is in the newspapers, music videos, adverts and video games.

Women have been served up as sex objects in some of our daily newspapers for many years. They show images that would be prohibited on television or subject to the watershed, yet they are sold entirely without age restriction in shops, often at a child’s eye level. As the mother of two sons, there are shops I would prefer not to go into because of the eye-level material that they will see and have seen and because of the effect on them.

Every week we read in the papers cases of women who are killed by their partner or former partner. Every one of these cases should cause an outcry, but rarely warrants a paragraph because it is tragically becoming so routine. The problem was highlighted last year by women’s groups who gave evidence to the Leveson inquiry and later published a report called “Just the Women”. This examined how domestic homicide cases are reported as “tragic” one-off incidents, rather than as part of a well-understood pattern of behaviour. Rape cases in some papers are routinely placed next to pictures of half-naked women. Cases of forced marriage or so-called honour-based violence, a horrible misnomer, are explained in terms of culture or religion—anything but violence against women and girls. Lord Leveson himself suggested that a front-page report in The Sun headed “Bodyguards for battered Towie sisters” about violence against two women from “The Only Way is Essex”, which was accompanied by a picture of one of the women in an erotic pose in lingerie, may well infringe clause 12—the discrimination clause—of the editors code of practice.

No one is suggesting that the media are solely to blame for these attitudes, but their objectification of women and the treatment by some newspapers, for example, of rape cases go some considerable way towards explaining why prejudicial attitudes to women are so deeply entrenched and are so normalised. The chief Crown prosecutor for London, Alison Saunders, has expressed concern about the impact that the treatment of women in the media has on rape cases and jurors’ decision making. She believes that jurors are coming to court with preconceptions about women that affect the way they consider evidence and she says:

“If a girl goes out and gets drunk and falls over . . . they are almost demonised in the media, and if they then become a victim, you can see how juries would bring their preconceptions to bear.”

Fortunately, much needed work is being done with detectives and prosecutors, for example, to dispel myths and stereotypes about women who have been raped or subjected to sexual and others forms of violence, but Alison Saunders asks whether there is

“something more we should be doing”

so that people doing jury service are not being challenged for the first time, and the subject is not one that they are thinking about for the first time.

The answer to that question is, of course, yes. That is why our schools should be taking a lead. Work to prevent violence against women and girls must be an integral part of education policy, delivered in every school as part of the statutory curriculum. It is astonishing that in 2010 40% of 16 to 18-year-olds said either that they did not receive lessons or information on sexual consent, or that they did not know whether they did. Although PSHE education must now teach about consent, it needs to go further and cover all forms of violence against women, including teenage relationship abuse, forced marriage, FGM and sexual exploitation. It should also be linked to work on gender equality and challenging gender stereotypes; otherwise young women and men will never be exposed to education designed to reduce gender violence and to counter the damaging impact of cultural factors, such as the media.

The 1 billion women rising today want a world that empowers young people, rather than represses their sexuality, so work in our schools must allow young people to be more in control of their sexual identity, rather than being dictated to by the media or advertising. Crucially, it must address harmful notions of masculinity and present boys with positive alternatives. The Director of Public Prosecutions and the Deputy Children’s Commissioner have both spoken out about the impact of pornography on young men’s sexually aggressive behaviour, and there is evidence of the negative impact of porn on young men’s attitudes to women.

In my constituency, the domestic abuse charity Rise is an excellent example of existing good practice. It delivers a PSHE preventive education programme on healthy relationships to schools across the city. Our schools also subscribe to the whole-school approach recommended by the End Violence Against Women coalition, where heads take a lead, teachers are trained on the issues, and all students receive comprehensive sex and relationship education which deals with consent, equality and respect. If we are serious about preventing gender violence, those messages need to be reflected not just in our schools but across society as a whole.

14:43

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Two women are killed every week in the UK—109 women last year. Worldwide acts of violence against women and girls aged 15 to 44 cause more deaths and disability than cancer, malaria, traffic accidents and war combined. More than 53% of children aged five to 18 in India have been sexually abused, and 57% of Australian women reported experiencing violence in their lifetime. In 2010-11 728,145 incidents of domestic violence were recorded by our police, but only 8% of those cases ended successfully in prosecution. Some 45% of women in the UK have experienced violence.

It is no wonder that 1 billion women are rising today. As Kathy Lette said at the rally in Parliament square earlier today, “Women are always runners-up in the human race.” The statistics are shocking and possibly challengeable, but it is not enough to be horrified. We have to do something. A study by Professor David Gadd, “From Boys to Men”, found that among year 9 pupils, 48.4% of boys and 33.3% of girls thought it was all right to hit their partners in certain circumstances. The Girl Guides attitude survey found that 39% of girls and 43% of boys thought it was all right “to make you tell your boyfriend where you are all the time”; 21% of girls and 39% of boys thought it was all right for a boy to tell his girlfriend what she can and cannot wear; and 2% of girls and 11% of boys thought it was all right to hit or kick somebody if they spoke to someone else at a party.

When young people believe that violence in a relationship is okay, we have a long, long way to go, because domestic violence is not about uncontrolled emotions. It is about power and control of one’s partner. It is about how women are viewed in society. Think back to those traditional marriage vows, which start with

“Who gives this woman to this man”

and end with women promising to obey. The vows may have been updated, but in so many cases attitudes have not.

If we want to change attitudes, we need good sex and relationships education in schools. We need girls and boys to be confident in themselves and to have good self-esteem. We especially need girls to be assertive and not to accept that they have to do what they are told to do by their partner. Just think about where young people currently get much of their education about sex and relationships. Some may come from parents, but much more will come from peers and pornography. When I worked with young people, I was horrified by the publications they were reading and the films they were watching.

Porn does not talk about loving relationships or about young people waiting until they are ready to have sex. It does not talk about safe sex. It talks about taking women, about domination, about rough sex, about women as sexual objects to be used. I was deeply shocked when one young woman told me about being with a group of girls and boys in the bedroom of one of the boys. This boy was masturbating while looking at pornography in full view of the group. This was deemed to be appropriate behaviour, nothing unusual, perfectly normal.

I have worked with many victims of domestic violence over the years, including colleagues. Domestic violence robs the victim of confidence and self-esteem. Victims are told that it is their fault—if only they were a better girlfriend, wife, mother, lover, worker, cook, cleaner, this would not be happening to them. The reality is that whatever they did, however they behaved, the violence would still happen, because in the end that partner becomes the whipping boy, the outlet for frustration and anger—but, of course, “I only do it because I love you, dear.”

I believe sex and relationships education is essential in talking about good relationships, positive relationships, equal relationships. It is essential in building assertiveness in girls so that they do not accept that they should be hit and controlled. An Irish study showed that 12% of year 11 and 12 pupils think that boyfriends who hit girlfriends deserve a second chance. For me, that decision to stay, that excuse that “he only did it because he was stressed/upset/I was bad/he’ll never do it again” is far too often the start of a journey into long-term domestic abuse.

Such abuse is not only, and may not even be, violent, but it is psychological. It is controlling, threatening and bullying. The normal journey is one where the woman becomes more and more isolated because the perpetrator makes it impossible for the victim to maintain relationships with family and friends. Her self-confidence is stripped away and she can no longer see a way out. The fear of the perpetrator does not disappear if she manages to walk out. That is why refuges do not publish addresses and why women often have to move many miles away from their previous home and from any remaining support network.

Relationships are fundamental to our society, but too often they are not built on equality or mutual trust and respect. The very least we can do in a civilised society is give young people information and skills, and hopefully values, so that they can build positive and equal relationships.

14:48

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for selecting this important debate and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on leading it so eloquently. I want to focus my contribution on violence against women in the home, because I have been talking for some time with the Women’s Aid project in my constituency. It tells me that domestic violence against women in our communities is still for the most part hidden and not really openly spoken about, even by the women subjected to it. Why is that? We have heard a mixture of reasons today, not least of which are the fear of talking openly about it, the shame victims feel and their belief that they somehow brought the violence upon themselves, which is not the case. The real shame is that society still allows it to happen. In my part of the country, Scotland, a domestic violence incident is recorded every 10 minutes. Just imagine how many that is over the course of this debate.

No one deserves to be abused. No one should have to put up with abuse anywhere, let alone in their own homes. Domestic abuse can affect any women, regardless of class, race or age. There is no typical abuser either, but 82% of domestic violence incidents involve men attacking women—women they profess to love. Two or three women a week are even killed by former or current partners.

Many victims are not being attacked for the first time. In 2011-12, more than 33,000 of recorded incidents involved victims who had already experienced domestic abuse. The previous year the figure stood at just over 28,000. It can be a continuous cycle of violence, with women and children forced to flee their homes to seek sanctuary—many of us have difficulty understanding this —only to return to the abusive partner. Why? Again, the reasons are many: desire to try to maintain a resemblance of family life; they might have nowhere else to go; and even because, “Yes, I still love him.”

Domestic abuse causes serious and long-lasting harm. Apart from physical injury, it frequently causes psychological damage, and abused women can also lose their jobs and homes. It also affects the children who witness it. It undermines their relationship with their mother, disrupts their education and can even turn some into abusers themselves in later life. We have to stop this vicious cycle. Education in schools of zero tolerance is absolutely essential.

As I said, I have visited and spoken with those involved with the Women’s Aid project in Inverclyde. They believe that the causes of domestic abuse go back historically to the days when—believe it or not—a man was legally allowed to beat his wife. In Scotland, the problem can more usually be traced back to alcohol. For some, alcohol is the elixir that releases held-back pressure and frustration, allowing their rage to turn violent and leading them to lash out at those nearest and dearest. I always think that it is no coincidence that it took a Scotsman to write “Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde”, in which a potion released his darker and violent side.

Domestic violence corrodes and damages our communities and our society. The extent of the problem is shocking. A recent study revealed at the Scottish Women’s Aid conference in Edinburgh showed that domestic violence in Scotland has risen by 66% over the past 10 years. There is always a motivation behind the violence, whether it is physical or emotional: it is a way of maintaining control through fear. The woman becomes isolated from her family and friends. Many victims of domestic abuse blame themselves for the abuse, as I have said. Over time, domestic abuse creates an emotional and psychological state that is unique among crimes, similar to the fear endured by survivors of violent atrocities. I know that the police in Scotland have vowed to crack down on this crime and to make it easier for victims to raise the alarm, which I welcome.

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

The police have a major role to play in tackling domestic violence. We have the example of Gwent police force, which has established a dedicated domestic abuse and safeguarding unit, which appears to have had very positive results. Does my hon. Friend agree that we should replicate that on a national scale so that communities can be reassured and can receive specialised support services for the most marginalised and vulnerable?

[Mr McKenzie]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. He must have been looking over my shoulder at my notes, because I was about to move on to that subject. My local police force is now setting up remote stations to allow victims to report crimes without having to go to a police station.

We must go into schools and teach our young people that domestic abuse, be it physical, mental or sexual, is totally unacceptable. We must protect our future generations of women from this violence. All the agencies involved in tackling violence against women should be working together more effectively to eradicate it. There should always be zero tolerance for violence against women. We must be unremitting in our pursuit of those who carry out such crimes and in our support for those who suffer as a result. No woman should be subjected to violence, and certainly not in her own home. I applaud and support the work of the Women’s Aid project in my constituency.

14:55

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on initiating it and on the work that she has done in this field.

The Government estimate that last year 85,000 women were raped or sexually assaulted. That is a shocking statistic. Clearly, this violence takes place in a cultural context. I want to build on the remarks of the hon. Members for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), for Devizes (Claire Perry) and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) to suggest some concrete things that we might do to shift this culture which is portraying women in such a highly sexualised way.

During my adult life, women have made lots of progress in many respects. We have made progress at work, in education and public services, and in pensions and child care, but we seem to have gone backwards in the public portrayal of women and the impact that that is having on our self-esteem and on the way that men treat us. The all-party group on body image has looked into women’s attitudes to their bodies. That can appear to be at the soft and fluffy end of the scale, but it often drives into women’s sense of themselves and levels of self-esteem. People who have negative self-images can become extremely depressed and subject to mental health problems and eating disorders—so much so that 80% of women are unhappy with their bodies, 40% of children are concerned about their bodies, and 1.6 million people have eating disorders. People’s anxieties are strengthened by their being faced with a constant bombardment of images of perfection.

I thought it would be interesting to talk to two groups of young people about these issues. I went to a school in London to talk to a group of girls in year 10 and to a school in my constituency in County Durham to talk to a mixed group of boys and girls, also in year 10. They agreed that these were significant problems. The girls, in particular, drew a connection between the images portrayed in the media and the way they are harassed on the streets by complete strangers. They have now begun to airbrush their own photographs on Facebook—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Slough is groaning; I was appalled as well. There are some practical things that we can do about this. It is impossible to ban airbrushed photographs in advertisements, but we could label them as such.

The young people told me that they find such discussions valuable. As I said, they saw a clear link between sexualised imagery in the media and how they were treated in real life. The portrayal of such images should be covered in the PSHE curriculum. The Girl Guides have produced a fantastic pack about these issues. Another important aspect is that this is reducing trust between the genders. That is not a good thing, because obviously we want people to have happy, fulfilling long-term relationships, and they will not do that if they feel anxious and insecure.

The thing that most worried them was music videos that glamorise violence. They were particularly scathing of Eminem and of Rihanna’s video, “Love the way you lie”, which is about a woman who is apparently in love with an aggressive man. The girls were particularly alarmed by that.

We need to take some positive action, so I suggest that the Government consult urgently on introducing age-rating for music videos, which was one of the Bailey review’s proposals; that Ofcom look again at its rules for radio stations to keep sexually explicit and inappropriate lyrics to particular times of the day; and that we reduce the amount of on-street advertising containing sexualised imagery in locations where children are likely to see it.

A further problem that has been brought to my attention by ATVOD—the Authority for Television on Demand—is that R18 material is available on on-demand online sites that are not out of the reach of children. A survey of mine on The Huffington Post website is gathering people’s views on these issues, so Members should visit it if they would like to take part.

I know that the Minister will not be able to commit to my suggestions this afternoon, but we need seriously to take some concrete steps and move the policy on.

15:01

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

Today we are seeing what is being called a “feminist tsunami” around the world. The hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies) looks a bit worried; I think he should be, judging by the tone of some of his remarks. There are 160 events across the UK alone, and 203 countries around the world are joining in to say, “Enough. It is time. One Billion Rising.” Whether here in the UK in Sheffield, Liverpool, Ipswich, Corby, Bute, Norwich, Manchester or Kirklees, or whether in Manila, South Africa, San Francisco, Tel Aviv, the Lebanon or Afghanistan, women and men are coming together to say that they do not want to live in a world where one in three women will be raped or beaten in their lifetime. They are turning those billion women who would be assaulted into a billion people calling for change.

The question for us today is whether the British Parliament has done justice to that call. Having listened to the debate, I think we have. A fantastic range of contributions have reflected the number of issues that affect women’s safety in British society and, indeed, internationally. I briefly want to reference some of them.

Many Members, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Inverclyde (Mr McKenzie) and for Bolton West (Julie Hilling), have discussed the prevalence of domestic violence in our society and how we can tackle it. The hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made a fantastic and personal contribution about how we might deal with that. Others have highlighted the issues in some of our minority communities, addressing in particular the idea that this is a cultural issue when gender violence is gender violence. In that sense, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my hon. Friends the Members for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner), for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) and for Luton South (Gavin Shuker).

We have also discussed the need to express international solidarity. The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) talked strongly not only about forced marriage, but about how we need to tackle such issues across the world, as did the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mary Macleod) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz), who both spoke out for Jyoti Singh. Let us say her name and that we in the British Parliament stand on her side.

We have also heard many examples of how we could improve the way in which our criminal justice system works. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) mentioned Lindsay Anderson and the tragic case of Frances Andrade. I put on record my personal support for the work that the shadow Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has done in challenging and calling for a change to how we deal with victims of sexual violence in our court system.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) talked about his fantastic work on stalking. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) highlighted what the child protection system could do and the problems with the probation service’s lack of awareness of sexual violence among young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) gave the sobering statistic that one in five calls to our police is to report domestic violence. Something has to change in British society.

We have also covered broader cultural issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) spoke about the impact of body image. The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) talked about the objectification of women in society. I will extend the hand of co-operation across the House to the hon. Member for Totnes if she wants to run the “No more page 3 in the Tea Room” campaign. She is absolutely right.

The hon. Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who unfortunately is not here, made a fantastic point this morning when she told the police that when so many women from the UK Parliament are standing up to say that they want change, they should not move them on. She has been a fantastic champion of tackling the changes that are allowed by online technology.

All of the points that have been raised are examples of a broader issue that we need to deal with. The fundamental problem is not technology or the practice of female genital mutilation; it is that we live in a society that is unequal. That impacts on the safety of women in our society. Even if the internet did not exist, women would still face the same scale of violence. That will continue unless we tackle the root cause of inequality, unless we tackle those attitudes and unless we take the stand that we are taking today every day to say that something has to change.

That is what the motion speaks to. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who has been a fantastic champion for this issue with the Backbench Business Committee. I also pay tribute to Members across the House who have supported the motion, including the hon. Members for Erewash (Jessica Lee) and for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd), who cannot be here. I want to say why the Opposition think that the motion matters. We want to help the Minister if he is brave enough to listen to the arguments that have been made today about why compulsory sex and relationships education for both boys and girls is intrinsic to changing the culture in which we see violence against women in our communities.

Many Members have talked about the impact that is made by high-quality sex and relationships education. I accept the point that was made by the hon. Member for Battersea. The Brook advisory service has demonstrated the impact of poor-quality teaching. That is an argument for the use of expert guidance within schools rather than for having no guidance at all. I commend the work of Women’s Aid in that regard.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North put her finger on it succinctly when she said that the Department for Education was the villain of the piece. I agree with her. As somebody who has campaigned for financial education be a key part of tackling debt within our society, I do not understand why we can teach our children about compound interest but not about consent. That must be a critical part of the process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) talked about the importance of youth work. She is right that we must deal with this issue not only in schools, but throughout our culture.

The hon. Members for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) and for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) made well-meant contributions in which they seemed to suggest that this was a debate for women. Let me tell them very clearly that it is not the responsibility of women to avoid violence; it is the responsibility of society to stamp it out. We welcome them here to take part in the debate not because they care about women, but because it is for everyone in society to tackle these issues and to say that violence against women must not happen any more. With that in mind, I hope that they will help us to challenge those who suggest that this issue is about what women wear. I urge the Foreign Secretary, as he is in his place, to look again at the advice on the Foreign Office website and to consider what message it sends out about rape in our world.

It is not acceptable to offer a caution as a penalty for rape in our society. We have to tackle the way in which we deal with rape. When only one in 30 rape victims in our society sees justice, it is an argument not for cautions, but for changing the criminal justice system. [Interruption.] That was actually the suggestion of the Secretary of State for Justice, so I hope that the Government Members who are heckling will take it up with him.

My hon. Friends the Members for Slough, for Kingston upon Hull North and for Bolton West and the hon. Member for Battersea have spoken about the importance of sex and relationships education. We know that children will get their advice from somewhere. We know that they will go to Google if they do not go to a quality-assured source. We know what impact that has not only on their sexual behaviour, but on how they deal with relationships and whether they have respectful relationships. I am mindful of the comments of the hon. Member for Luton South about the importance of respect in relationships.

That is why we cannot avoid this question any more. That is why we must challenge those who are trying to stop us. That is why I challenge the Secretary of State for Education when he suggests that all we need to do is to raise educational attainment, as though sexual violence is not happening in the highest performing schools in our country. Let me tell Government Members that we know that sexting takes place in the poshest and most expensive boarding schools that children can go to. So this is not about—[Interruption.] Members are barracking me, but the Secretary of State told the Education Committee that one of the best ways to get children not to indulge in risky behaviours was to educate them so well that they had hope in the future. He seemed to be suggesting that it was about improving standards in schools—we all agree with that—but not about taking on the cultural aspects of what sexual behaviour people think is acceptable.

I actually agree with the Prime Minister on the issue. He said that

“I believe that sex education, when taught properly, is extremely important. It should not be values-free. That must mean teaching young people about consent: that ‘no’ means ‘no’. At the moment, this is not even compulsory in the sex education curriculum. This has to change – and it will change with a Conservative government. This will be an important step towards encouraging greater responsibility and helping tackle one of the root causes of rape and sexual violence.”

The Prime Minister said that to the Conservative Women’s Organisation in 2007. We all know that in 2010, Labour’s efforts to change the situation were a victim of the wash-up, and that the other coalition partners supported putting compulsory sex and relationships education on the curriculum. Since then, there has been a vote about academies, and the Government voted against the motion.

Today, we have heard the support in the country for sex and relationships education in schools through the One Billion Rising Campaign, including from Government Members, and particularly the concern that if 50% of our schools become academies, they will be able to avoid sex and relationships education altogether. I hope that there will therefore be cross-party consensus that the situation has to change, and cross-party support for the Minister if he chooses to say here and now that he will take on the Ministers from the Department for Education who could not even be bothered to come here today to talk about the issue and are not willing to support it.

That is key to tackling the root causes of these problems—we need to say that it is enough. It is time. We must not let those people get in the way of changing attitudes. One Billion Rising is because one is too many. The hon. Member for Battersea talked about solidarity and standing together. Let us stand up to the people in the Government who still do not take that line. I say to the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister that to tweet about One Billion Rising is fantastic and sends a message, but we will hold them to account every single day if these issues are still not resolved.

I ask Members to vote for the motion, to give Home Office Ministers the clear support that they need. I ask Members to give the Home Office the evidence it needs to show that the situation has to change, so that Ministers can go to the Department for Education and say that they want to see sex and relationships education on the curriculum. Anyone who heard Jahmene Douglas talking today about the impact that it had on his sister and his family, and who saw such a brave young man come forward, will know that we cannot leave it to chance that schools will provide it. We have to ensure that it is a standard across British society.

I hope that Government Members will put their money where their mouth is, vote for the motion and support us in this effort. I hope we will say that One Billion Rising is not just for one day but is the start of something different in British society.

15:12

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I congratulate the Members who bid for the debate at the Backbench Business Committee. It was an excellent idea, and well done to the Committee for setting aside the time for this debate and the one to follow, which is on the same theme of sexual violence. The House will shortly be able to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood).

I thought that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) rather spoiled the debate, frankly. It had been a good debate, and I had listened to powerful speeches from both sides of the House, including from Members on the Labour Benches and other Opposition Benches, but her tone at the end rather soured an excellent debate.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) finds my presence disappointing. I fear that may be the case for Opposition Members. I thought, though, that both she and the hon. Member for Walthamstow were rather churlish about the Department for Education. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), found the time to come and listen to part of the debate, and he and I have spoken about these issues previously, including earlier this week. Some Opposition Members cling to the idea that there is somehow a divide in the Government, but it is a false idea.

The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North said that the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), had not mentioned the teenage relationship abuse campaign when he answered a question in Women and Equalities questions. I may be wrong, but I listened carefully and the Minister not only referenced that campaign, but made the point that the Government are relaunching it today and are committed to continuing it because it has been so effective. On the basis that things said in the House of Commons are often the greatest secrets in the world, I will say it again: the teenage relationship abuse campaign “This is abuse” will be relaunched today with a focus on what constitutes controlling and coercive behaviour, and on raising awareness among teenagers of what constitutes abuse and violence. I have seen that campaign and think it rather effective. Evidence also suggests it is effective, and I am pleased the Government are relaunching it.

[Diana Johnson]

My point—I am sorry if I did not make it clear—is that the information was not on the Department of Education Twitter feed, which is obviously a place that young people might look to see what the Department is saying about these good initiatives.

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Lady will forgive me, if a Minister speaks in the House of Commons, I as a Member of Parliament happen to put greater weight on that than on what—with greatest respect to the Foreign Secretary, who uses Twitter in an excellent manner—goes on the Twitter feed. If the Minister says something at the Dispatch Box as a statement of Government policy, that is important. The fact that the announcement was made in the House of Commons proves the saying that things said here remain great secrets.

In the limited time available, let me pick up a number of issues raised by Members across the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry), who is not in her place at the moment, raised two issues that were taken up by others. She referred to the pilot scheme for domestic violence protection orders run by her constabulary in Wiltshire, and I am pleased to say that three pilot forces continue to operate those protection orders. The Government were asked to extend those powers, and we have done so. An evaluation of those pilots will be published this summer, and a decision will be taken about whether to roll the scheme out. The good news is that the pilots will continue in those areas.

My hon. Friend also mentioned sexting. That issue was taken up by a number of hon. Members, some of whom described concerning examples that either they or others had heard about. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre produces resources for teachers to use in the classroom, and my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) gave a graphic example not just of sexting but of sexual offences taking place in the classroom, suggesting a more serious problem in some areas than sexting itself.

The hon. Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey) referenced the St Mary’s sexual assault referral centre near her constituency, which is jointly funded by her local police force, the national health service and local authorities. Responsibility for those assault centres will remain with the NHS Commissioning Board, working with local partners to fund them. That partnership approach works well.

The hon. Lady also chairs the all-party group for runaway and missing children and adults and I pay tribute to her for that. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who was present in the debate, said that he spoke with her yesterday at a conference on child sexual exploitation. That demonstrates that the Department for Education is alive to a number of these important issues.

The hon. Member for Walsall South (Valerie Vaz) demonstrated—as did much of the debate—that concern about this issue is shared by hon. Members across the House. We have had a good constructive debate and heard some excellent ideas. She, like the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma), raised this issue’s international dimension and mentioned recent events that have pushed it up the agenda, not only in the United Kingdom but elsewhere. The hon. Lady and others mentioned the impact of human trafficking. That is an issue I take very seriously as chair of the inter-departmental ministerial group on human trafficking, and I have engaged on the issue with the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who so ably opened this debate. Together with fellow officers of that group, she will hold my feet to the fire as the Government make progress on that agenda.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) mentioned forced marriage, and I am pleased that the Prime Minister and the Government have committed to taking steps to criminalise that. The issue was raised by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, and the Government have made their position clear. We have led the world in tackling that practice. We will criminalise it and make a breach of a forced marriage protection order a criminal offence. It is not enough just to change the law; we need to change people’s attitudes and engage with communities to change people’s views. That point was made by the hon. Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Derbyshire and for Battersea (Jane Ellison), and hon. Members on both sides of the House, mentioned female genital mutilation. The Government have taken the lead on that. The Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention, has made it clear that FGM should be seen for what it is: child abuse. It is not acceptable. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) mentioned the importance of securing prosecutions. The Crown Prosecution Service wants to lead on that with its action plan on improving prosecutions. The Home Office will continue to work with the Director of Public Prosecutions to identify the barriers to successful prosecutions.

The declaration against FGM, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, sets out the law and potential criminal penalties. It is supported across the Government and has been signed on behalf of their Departments by the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, who has responsibility for crime prevention; the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for public health; and by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich, who has responsibility for children and families. There is good evidence that Ministers from a number of Departments are focused on a range of issues and on delivering progress. The characterisation of the Department for Education is therefore unfair.

The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd)—I hope he will forgive me for mangling the pronunciation of his constituency—mentioned the stalking offences that he worked on with the Government, which came into effect last November. Police and prosecutors have been given special guidance and training on the offences, and I hope they make an impact on dealing with that incredibly serious offence, which was previously not dealt with well in the criminal justice system.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

I will give way just once—to the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Sandra Osborne).

[Sandra Osborne]

Is the Minister aware of the recent cross-party inquiry by the hon. Members for Hastings and Rye (Amber Rudd) and for Solihull (Lorely Burt) and me on unwanted pregnancy? We called for statutory provision for sex and relationships education. Will the Minister comment on that—it is relevant to the debate—before he takes his seat?

[Mr Virendra Sharma]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I will answer that intervention. I was not aware of the inquiry on which the hon. Lady worked, but I am now.

Let me come back to sex and relationships education, if I may. Sex education is a statutory responsibility. I listened very carefully to the points made in the debate. Interestingly, many Members said that sex and relationships teaching as a component of PSHE is in many cases not high quality. It is important to focus not just on teaching sex and relationships education. Schools must have regard to the Secretary of State’s guidance, but it is important that it is well taught. That was the point made by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas)—

[Yvette Cooper (Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

If the shadow Home Secretary lets me finish my point, I will give way to her.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion referred to a charity in her constituency: Rise, which works in partnership with schools in her constituency. Partnership working with charities and non-governmental organisations can be important in effective delivery of high-quality education.

[Yvette Cooper]

rose—

[Mr Harper]

At the risk of trying your patience, Mr Deputy Speaker, I will give way to the shadow Home Secretary.

[Yvette Cooper]

I appreciate your tolerance, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The Minister will be aware that sex and relationship education is not compulsory in schools and that there is no requirement to teach zero tolerance of violence in relationships. The legislation available before the election, which the current Secretary of State for Education personally blocked, would have made it possible for him to require zero tolerance of violence in relationships to be taught in our schools. Can the Minister give me any reason at all why he opposes that today?

[Mr Harper]

I have just said that good teaching in schools is essential. I am not sure the route the right hon. Lady sets out is a valid one. I will take no lectures from her on the urgency of the task. She was in government for 13 years. She is now complaining about failing to legislate in the wash-up at the tail-end of 13 years of Labour government. If she meant what she said, she would have done something about it. I am afraid that her strictures are rather hollow.

This has been a very good debate. I think I am being glared at by Mr Deputy Speaker, and am being urged to bring it to a close. I am sorry that I have not been able to reference everyone who has spoken in this excellent debate. I think it will be followed by an equally excellent debate, with which Mr Deputy Speaker is keen to proceed.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)]

For no more than two minutes, Fiona Mactaggart will sum up.

15:25

[Fiona Mactaggart]

I will be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to thank everybody who has contributed; it has been an excellent debate. I am grateful to hon. Members for pointing out that sex and relationships education based on zero tolerance to violence might be part of the solution. However, it is by no means all of the solution. We have had many excellent contributions about the other issues that need to be taken on board to bring to an end to violence against women and girls—we need to bring this violence to an end. We have made progress on some of these issues. We have to make practical progress now, and that is why I tabled this motion.

I want us to vote on the motion, because we have heard one voice against it, and I will speak to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies). In my political life, I have campaigned strongly for all victims of violence. In the past year, 109 women have been murdered by the people they loved. Domestic violence, the violence we have talked about in this debate, and the control that goes on inside ostensibly loving relationships, terrorises all of women. That is why this is a specific issue, and that is why we need to deal with it. Unless we can teach young men and young women that wherever we go, however we dress, no means no and yes means yes, we will not have a society in which women are safe.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the One Billion Rising Campaign, and the call to end violence against women and girls; and calls on the Government to support this by introducing statutory provisions to make personal, social and health education, including a zero tolerance approach to violence and abuse in relationships, a requirement in schools.

Sexual Violence in Conflict

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant documents: Written Evidence and uncorrected Oral Evidence from the International Development Committee, on Violence against Women and Girls, HC 934 and HC 934-I.]

15:27

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the matter of preventing sexual violence in conflict.

My favourite ever quote is not particularly erudite, which is not very good for an Oxford MP. It is from “The West Wing”, when Leo tells one of his members of staff:

“Never let the urgent crowd out the important.”

In a nutshell, that is why, with all the domestic pressures crowding in on us at the moment, I still prioritise my work with the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, and why I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment to preventing sexual violence in conflict.

Major General Cammaert, the former peacekeeping commander in Democratic Republic of the Congo, said in 2008:

“It is now more dangerous to be a woman than a soldier in modern conflict.”

In that year, 14,591 new cases of sexual violence were reported in DRC. Since 1998, it is believed that more than 200,000 Congolese women have been raped. Today, we still hear of widespread sexual violence in DRC, Syria, Sudan and South Sudan. Just last week, there was a report of a Somali woman who spoke up about being gang raped by state security forces only to be sentenced to a year in prison, along with the journalist who reported her story, for daring to speak up. This reflects the exponential growth of conflicts that target civilians, especially women and girls, as a means of intimidation and ethnic cleansing. Films such as “Hotel Rwanda” and “Shooting Dogs” mean that most people now know that the abuses that these women suffer are among the most horrific that any of us can imagine. Nevertheless, as if the failure to prevent this violence in the first place was not bad enough, these women are still routinely denied access to any form of justice, or any engagement with the peace processes that follow.

Male victims, crimes against whom are even more chronically under-reported, face extreme stigma and almost non-existent access to services. It is almost impossible to estimate the scale of an abuse that remains largely unreported and unrecorded. I hope that the House will forgive me, however, given that I am chair of the all-party associate group on women, peace and security, if I focus my remarks on the issues affecting women in conflict. It is meant not to imply that the abuses suffered by male victims are less grave, but only to acknowledge that the protection challenges are different and that it is not my area of expertise. Whether the victims are male or female, however, the unpalatable fact is that the perpetrators prosper with impunity and that there remains little if any deterrent against sexual violence in most fragile and conflict-affected states.

The primary responsibility for prosecuting these crimes must lie with the states themselves, of course, but where the rule of law has collapsed or is failing to enforce domestic and international laws to protect victims, the international community has a constructive and effective role to play in capacity building and challenging those states over the need for justice and accountability. Security Council resolution 1325 is the cornerstone of policy on gender and conflict. It was the first resolution to acknowledge that women experience different impacts from conflict and that this matters for global peace and security.

In 2008-09, further resolutions concluded not only that violence against women was a criminal matter that could be addressed by justice systems once countries had stabilised, but that sexual and gender-based violence was often a deliberately deployed weapon of war, that a failure to stop violence against women was a failure to stop an abuse that catalysed and perpetuated conflict, and that until we started seeing violence against women as a security threat, we would never be able fully to achieve our defence, foreign policy and international development goals of conflict prevention and stabilisation.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My hon. Friend deserves great credit for having tabled this important motion, not least because, as she pointed out, girls and women are at the forefront of violence in the areas she identified. That is why so many of the Department for International Development’s programmes around the world specifically combat violence against women. Does she agree that it is hugely to the Government’s and particularly the Foreign Secretary’s credit that they have put this item squarely on the agenda for the G8 meeting in Britain later this year and that that helps to build on the international agreements that are aimed at tackling this subject and those which she has just mentioned?

[Nicola Blackwood]

I do indeed, and I thank the former International Development Secretary for his intervention. I know that he was a great champion of women’s rights when he was in that role. I hope that when the Foreign Secretary speaks, he will update us on progress at the G8 on this issue.

All the statistics and stories tell us that women are most vulnerable to the worst human rights abuses imaginable, but they are more than that. Among the women I have met are those such as Jineth Bedoya, a Colombian journalist who will not stop challenging arms dealing in her country, despite being abducted, tortured and raped by paramilitaries and then being told that there would be no prosecutions, but that she could have either bodyguards or a ticket out of the country.

Then there is Ikhlas Mohammed, a Darfuri survivor who speaks out continually about the abuses that women and girls have undergone in her community. The story she told still haunts me and demonstrates that practical solutions such as the preventing sexual violence initiative are not just western follies that tinker at the edges, but exactly what those who survive sexual violence are calling for. She told me this story: “I was in Tawila town when a girl’s primary school was attacked. The little girls in the school were raped, some in front of their families. Many were less than 10 years old. How do you stand being made to watch while someone rapes your daughter, or your mother or your sister? It is better to die than that. They use rape as a weapon. Now the women who were raped are pregnant they are unacceptable in their families. Most of the girls did not tell anyone they had been raped because of the stigma. If there is no justice, if there is no law, then everything has collapsed. We cannot stop women’s violence. We cannot stop rape. We cannot stop any kind of sexual violence towards women. We need justice. I am a representative of Darfurian women and we are looking for justice.”

Those women who speak up after they have survived sexual violence and who challenge it regardless of the risk are not just victims. They are not even primarily victims. Many whom I have met have become exceptional human rights defenders and leaders in their own countries, calling for their right to live free from the fear of all kinds of violence, for their right to access services and, just as importantly, for sustainable stabilisation. They are calling for women to be considered and included in peace processes so that they can hold their own leaders to account. Those women are indomitable agents for change whose determination and strength of purpose is a resource for peace and security that we can ill afford to ignore. They are, in short, a good investment.

I am delighted to welcome the Foreign Secretary’s preventing sexual violence initiative. I know from discussions with him and with the PSVI team that tackling sexual violence in conflict is a genuine personal passion of his, and I thank him for his leadership in driving the matter up the international agenda in a way that we have not seen since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that we in the developed world also need to address this issue? Is she aware that 20% of US female veterans report that they have experienced sexual assault during their careers?

[Nicola Blackwood]

There is no question but that sexual violence is a problem in every country, and every country needs to take responsibility for tackling it. It is also a fact that in certain countries the rule of law has entirely collapsed, and in those countries there is much more scope for capacity building and support. The G8 countries and the international community can offer support in a way that will make an extraordinary difference to women’s lives.

The all-party parliamentary group and our co-ordinating group—Gender Action for Peace and Security—have already taken every opportunity to engage with the PSVI team as the initiative develops. We have been making the case for participation, as well as protection and impunity, to be part of the PSVI package. We have emphasised that, in this sensitive area of policy, we need to take a “first, do no harm” approach, particularly by ensuring that support and protection are in place for the survivors of sexual violence and for those women human rights defenders who are brave enough to stand up but who face extreme intimidation and abuse.

We must also ensure a sustainable impact by integrating the PSVI with the national action plans developed around resolution 1325, with the building stability overseas strategy and with other DFID and peace-building programmes so that there is no risk of duplication. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give us an update today on his progress on the PSVI with the G8 member states, and on his plan for taking the initiative forward following the April Foreign Ministers’ meeting and beyond.

The practical measures that the PSVI offers are the missing link in our international response to the risks that women face in conflict. A frequent problem is the failure to understand the risks in the first place. Much of the rhetoric around women in conflict-affected states fails to address the full range of roles that women might have played in the conflict. Some take part as combatants, others as field operations supporters and some as sex slaves. Their inclusion in peace processes, in disarmament, demobilisation, reintegration, repatriation and resettlement programmes and in intelligence networks is every bit as important as the inclusion of their male counterparts, whom we would not dream of excluding.

Women represent 80% of refugees, along with their children. The number of war widows and female-headed families increases exponentially immediately after conflict, and those groups continue to face survival crises in post-conflict situations, making them even more vulnerable to sexual violence. They need access to employment programmes and to health, education, social and justice services if they are to protect themselves and, if they are already victims, to recover. However, post-conflict reconstruction and development analyses rarely prioritise and target women in conflict-related scenarios.

This is a matter of seeing the protection and inclusion of women as an integral part of the security challenge of stabilisation. For example, roads and ports are needed for commerce, but they might not help women to access local economies if they do not connect to the smaller, rural markets that the women frequent. Employment programmes almost always target young men, to absorb them, away from conflict-related activity, but that can leave women without assistance of any kind. One capacity solution is to focus on recruiting women to front-line services such as criminal justice, health or education. That would serve the dual purpose of ensuring that women found the employment that they needed to prevent poverty and vulnerability, as well as ensuring that they had access to those services. Both those outcomes would offer stability and security benefits in peace-building efforts.

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

I have looked at the support our country provides for policing internationally, and our Departments now work together much better in that regard. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that there is further work for the Department for International Development, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Ministry of Defence and the Home Office to do in ensuring international policing support operates in the best possible way and also that such policing projects are adequately funded, given our domestic financial constraints?

[Nicola Blackwood]

My hon. Friend makes a good point about cross-departmental working. This is clearly an area in which MOD, FCO and DFID need to work well together, and there has been an enormous improvement in the approach to conflict situations over the past two years, and the conflict pool—BSOS—has played a big role in that. There will always be more work to do in ensuring Government Departments work together better, however.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the National Security Council, set up by this Government, has made a huge difference to that cross-departmental co-ordination? In Afghanistan, training the police is enormously important, and that greater co-ordination has had a major impact on the ground.

[Nicola Blackwood]

I am sure that my right hon. Friend knows much more about this matter than I do, as he speaks from considerable experience. I will say, however, that we should be working to recruit more women to the Afghan police, and ensuring that they can play a role in enabling women to have more secure lives in that country, where they face extreme violence daily.

Whatever role women play, we need to get women involved in making peace, because without them peace-making and post-conflict stabilisation is more difficult and less likely to take into account the central issue of stopping the abuse of women or to be sustainable. There is a direct correlation between more inclusive models of negotiation and a greater chance of keeping the peace. The impact on the ground is clear. Melanne Verveer, who until last Friday was the first ever US ambassador for global women’s issues, noted at the end of 2010 that 31 of the world’s 39 active conflicts were recurrences of conflicts after peace settlements had been concluded, and that in all 31 cases women had been excluded from those peace processes. It is impossible not to conclude that, despite vocal support for the women, peace and security agenda, there has been negligible improvement in women’s participation in peace-building since resolution 1325 was signed in 2000.

I hope the G8 agreements and the preventing sexual violence initiative will lead to a recognition that the protection of women from sexual violence and the participation of women in peace processes are two sides of the same coin. In the quests to end conflict-related sexual violence and to stabilise fragile and conflict-affected states, we do not get one without the other. In order to achieve our goal, we must get a commitment to put into practice the EU guidelines on human rights defenders.

Over the past few years there has been an increase in geopolitical upheaval in the Arab world, which none of us could have anticipated. There has been famine in areas of east Africa and the Sahel, too, which is increasing the pressure on already fragile states, and international economic instability is widespread. As a result, the PSVI and related strategies to tackle violence against women and girls and the BSOS have never been more relevant. As the rate of political change accelerates in so many countries in the Arab world, and as conflict emerges and re-emerges unexpectedly in Mali, Democratic Republic of the Congo and Syria, and as the status of women becomes increasingly uncertain in those countries and many others experiencing instability, I hope we, too, can accelerate our rate of political change and embed the 1325 agenda as a fundamental part of our foreign policy response to fragile and conflict states.

Ms Joy Ogwu, former president of UN Women, has said:

“No one can run fast on one foot.”

A security agenda that fails to prevent sexual violence in conflict, that fails to support women human rights defenders and leaders and that fails to ensure women’s participation has been a limping beast, but I believe that the PSVI and the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to championing this issue at the G8 can mark a turning point in the international rhetoric on women in conflict situations, so that we can finally begin to put into practice changes on the ground that will protect these women, who so desperately need it.

15:44

[Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on her excellent speech in opening this debate. She began with a “West Wing” quote. I originally had a reference to “The West Wing” in my speech, but had taken it out; I shall now put it back in. I wanted to mention the episode “The Women of Qumar”. For anyone who recalls it, the President and his staff are managing a situation with the fictional country of Qumar—over an arms deal, I think. The President’s press secretary, C.J. Cregg says:

“They beat women; they hate women; the only reason they keep Qumari women alive is to make Qumari men.”

Unfortunately, I fear that that is not just a fictional situation for some women around the world.

I feel that I cannot do justice to this subject today, not because of time constraints but because of the horror of some of the situations the debate is about. I had the privilege of attending a meeting here in Parliament in January 2011, addressed by Margot Wallström, the first ever special representative of the UN Secretary-General on sexual violence in conflict. Her term in the position came to an end last year, and she has been replaced by Zainab Bangura, a senior politician from Sierra Leone. I am sure that we all wish her well in that role.

I am always struck by how we seem to accept that sexual violence is something that just happens—that it is a “fact of life” both at home in the UK and when it occurs in conflict. I do not accept that, and I think much more can be done to tackle it. In preparing for this debate, I unfortunately stumbled across some truly horrifying discussion boards, with comments illustrating appalling attitudes towards rape. While we are absolutely right to shine a light on these issues in a conflict setting, it is also true that the attitudes that lead to this behaviour exist in all societies. The issues we face here in the UK were well highlighted in our earlier debate.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady recall a recent case this year in which a Muslim man found guilty of rape was exonerated by the judge on the grounds that he had received education in whatever educational establishment he attended, which had taught him that women were of no value? Does she agree with me that this attitude permeates fundamentalist thinking, and that it can be traced in many of the conflict situations emerging, particularly in north Africa?

[Gemma Doyle]

The hon. Lady is right to highlight that issue, but I believe that these attitudes can be found across all societies. They are absolutely not acceptable; we should do everything we can to combat them.

Just as I believe that we will never entirely eliminate violence, it is unlikely that we will ever entirely eliminate sexual violence. The issues we are debating here today are depressing, upsetting and tragic—yet I think we have reason to be optimistic. If everything that could have been done had been done, and still no progress had been made, that would be a hopeless situation. I am optimistic because not nearly enough has been done, and I think that with the will and the resources we can drive down sexual violence in conflict. The investigation teams announced earlier this week were very welcome, and I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s commitment, too, although we need a greater emphasis on prevention, along with a focus on investigation.

There is no doubt that sexual violence is used as a weapon in war. The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia found that an estimated 20,000 to 50,000 women and girls had been raped during the conflict; the Special Court for Sierra Leone estimated 50,000 to 64,000 had been similarly affected; and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda found that an estimated 250,000 to 500,000 girls and women had been raped.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind if I do not. I want to make a bit of progress.

Disgracefully, in all those examples, only relatively small numbers of men faced prosecution for their crimes, and most got away with them. The extent to which people can get away with such crimes is illustrated by what was said by Korto Williams, of ActionAid Liberia, in October last year:

“It was routine during Liberia’s war for women to be raped at check points. Men who committed these crimes never faced the law and were allowed to act with impunity. Today we have had reports that at least one even became a Member of Parliament, representing the country, while the women he violated still wait for justice.”

It is no wonder that women have no confidence in their ability to seek justice in the aftermath of such conflicts. Justice for crimes of sexual violence remains far too distant for far too many women, and they are often marginalised during the subsequent process of resolution. In far too many cases, the rights of women have been sacrificed in attempts to secure formal peace deals. In only 18 of more than 300 existing peace agreements is there any mention of sexual, gender-based violence, and even in modern peace agreements, the position and rights of women in society are still being threatened. I agree with ActionAid, which suggests that that is partly because women are not at the table during discussions, and considers that we should make it a priority to seek to guarantee places for them. Organisations such as ActionAid, Amnesty and Oxfam are working around the globe to try to tackle these issues, and I think that we should try to make progress by harnessing their knowledge and their networks on the ground.

Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), the shadow Secretary of State of Defence, made an important speech outlining his ideas on early intervention, emphasising the need to work alongside our NATO colleagues in conflicts, and to monitor fragile states and, when we can, intervene to stop them from falling into conflict. Experience over the years has shown us the mistakes that have been often made in foreign interventions—mistakes that have cost women dearly in, for instance, the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

I think the fact that for the first half of the current Parliament there was not one woman in the Foreign Office, the Department for International Development or the Ministry of Defence was an enormous step backwards. If we argue that women should be sitting around the table in peace negotiations throughout the world, we must surely accept that they should also be sitting around the table in the Departments that make so many decisions that affect women’s lives.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Gemma Doyle]

I am sorry; I am about to end my speech.

There was no mention of sexual violence in conflict in the strategic defence and security review, and no recognition of that specific and particular weapon which is most commonly directed towards women. That is not unusual—I suspect that the subject has never been mentioned in a defence review—but it cannot be said that there was no place for it. There are parts of the SDSR in which it would have been entirely appropriate to raise the issue. Sexual violence is a weapon of war. It is about power, and about the abuse of power to humiliate and degrade. It causes untold misery, and it is the most obvious example I can think of that requires preventive work that can and should be done.

Al-Jazeera has reported a 22% increase in crimes of violence against women in Afghanistan. Many people repeat the statement that we did not go into Afghanistan to improve women’s rights. That is true, but it does not negate our responsibility to those women, given that we have been in the country for more than a decade. We have an opportunity to leave a lasting legacy there in the context of women’s rights and, in particular, their basic security, which is the cornerstone of their rights. I do not doubt the sentiment of the Ministers who are involved in the discussions on Afghanistan’s future, but I am sure they will agree that warm words will be of no comfort to those women if the progress that has been made is whipped away.

I have previously asked Foreign Office Ministers if they will support a guaranteed 30% women’s representation at the London 2014 summit on Afghanistan’s future. I am delighted that the Foreign Secretary is to respond to the debate, because that enables me to put the challenge to him again today. I urge Ministers—in fact, I beg them—not to let this issue slip to the bottom of their negotiating list. All of us who enjoy protections and freedom in this country, regardless of our gender, have a responsibility to the women of Afghanistan and to women all over the world.

15:54

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing and launching this debate, and welcome the words of the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle). I also welcome the opportunity this debate gives me to update the House on our initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict and to take into account, in developing that initiative, the issues that have been and will be raised by hon. Members.

We have set ourselves a very important and very practical goal: to use the United Kingdom’s diplomatic influence and resources to increase the number of perpetrators of sexual violence who are brought to justice and to help to build up the legal and practical capability of other countries to tackle these crimes. We are determined to confront the culture of impunity, to overturn the age-old assumption that rape is somehow an inevitable by-product of conflict, and to rally the world to do more to help survivors. I have made it my personal priority, as has been said, during the UK’s presidency of the G8 this year to ask all the G8 nations to make practical commitments to help us towards that goal. We have had representatives of the G8 here in London this week, and I have met them in advance of the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in April. The agreements we reach at the G8 we will then take to the United Nations.

We are pursuing this initiative for many reasons, many of which have been mentioned already, so I shall not dwell on them. In our lifetimes, millions of women, men and children have endured the horror of rape and sexual violence in conflict, including in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Bosnia, South Sudan, Colombia and Afghanistan, and in Syria today. The sad truth is that the perpetrators of these appalling, life-shattering crimes still go unpunished far more often than not. In many situations, survivors endure the fear and torment of their abusers living freely in their communities. This shocking culture of impunity is a moral issue. Survivors face emotional and psychological pain, physical injuries, disease and social ostracism. They have a right to justice and support, and to live dignified lives.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon pointed out, tackling the use of rape as a weapon of war is also central to a just foreign policy, because the psychological and physical trauma suffered by survivors affects whole communities, exacerbating ethnic, sectarian and other divisions long into the future, and preventing reconciliation. I have seen the consequences with my own eyes in some of the countries I have visited as Foreign Secretary and that has left a deep impression on me.

Ours is a country that can actually do something about this issue. Many countries might feel powerless in the face of it, but we have one of the largest diplomatic networks in the world and one of the largest development programmes of any nation, and we have a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council and play a leading role in UN agencies. Given that we have those assets and resources, and that concern for human rights and development in other countries is part of our national DNA, we should use those resources. I am absolutely convinced that shattering the culture of impunity for sexual violence in conflict is one of the great global challenges for our generation.

Some 200 years ago, this Parliament confronted the Atlantic slave trade. Now we are seeking, across parties, an international arms trade treaty. Our objective on this issue must be global action to end the use of rape as a weapon of war. Indeed, we have an even greater responsibility in the case of tackling sexual violence, because it affects women disproportionately. Ours is a world in which women in many countries still suffer discrimination, oppression and exclusion, and any effort that advances women’s rights must be pursued with the greatest resolve and commitment. I pay tribute to hon. Members from all parts of this House and in the other place who have drawn my attention to this issue, and who have championed women’s rights for many years.

Our aspiration is, of course, an end to violence against women—in any context, not just conflict, although that is what this initiative is particularly focused on. The Foreign Office works very closely with the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 as a whole as well. I am proud that our Government have a ministerial champion on tackling violence against women and girls overseas, the Under-Secretary of State for International Development, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone).

The initiative, which I announced nine months ago, has three main practical components. First, we have set up the first ever unit in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office entirely dedicated to working on the issue. The unit comprises officials from the FCO as well as from the Department for International Development and it is working full time to lobby other Governments and international organisations. It is focused extensively on our presidency of the G8, but the work will continue beyond this year.

Secondly, we have created a new specialist team of experts that can be deployed to conflict areas to address sexual violence. We have now recruited more than 70 experts. I met many of them a couple of weeks ago and they include police, lawyers, psychologists, doctors, forensic experts, gender-based violence experts and experts in the care and protection of survivors and witnesses. The objectives for each deployment of the team of experts will, of course, depend on needs in the country concerned but they will usually support a UN mission, assist a non-governmental organisation working on the ground or be deployed at the request of the national authorities of that country.

We have already deployed the team to Syria’s borders, alongside the NGO Physicians for Human Rights, to train local health professionals in how to respond to reports of sexual violence. We will expand that work this year and will deploy a team again to help Syrian refugees. The prevention of sexual violence was included in our project with the Syrian opposition on raising awareness of the rules of armed conflict.

I announced a few weeks ago that we will deploy the team of experts to at least four other countries this year: to Libya, to support survivors of sexual violence committed during the revolution; to South Sudan, to work alongside the UN and Government to strengthen local justice; to the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo, to help doctors and lawyers to investigate crimes against the hundreds of women and girls who are raped each month; and to Bosnia and Herzegovina, to help courts and prosecutors to address the backlog of war crimes cases and to protect survivors and witnesses for the thousands of women who are still waiting for justice 20 years after the war.

An effective response to sexual violence needs to be built into every aspect of conflict prevention and peace-building overseas. We have offered members of our team of experts as part of the EU military training mission to Mali to provide human rights training to the Malian armed forces on preventing and responding to sexual violence in the conflict taking place there now.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I welcome all the action that the Foreign Secretary is driving forward and the leadership he is giving. Does he agree that it is vital that the Prime Minister, in his leadership role in agreeing the post-2015 framework, should ensure that women’s rights are always on the agenda?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. The Prime Minister is supportive of the initiative and determined that it should be part of that agenda, too. Our initiative is focused particularly on sexual violence in conflict and we should maintain that focus. Of course, we can add more to it but it is important to make great progress—and to show the world that we can make progress—on this aspect of sexual violence with the particular characteristics of rape when systematically used as a weapon of war.

At the same time as taking the other actions I have mentioned, we have significantly increased our support for the UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict. We have provided £1 million in funding to her office and this week I announced that we will contribute an additional £500,000 to the International Criminal Court’s trust fund for victims, bringing our total support to £1.5 million in the past two years.

Thirdly, we have pledged, as I mentioned briefly, to use our presidency of the G8 this year to seek new commitments from some of the world’s most powerful nations. We have consulted UN agencies, the International Criminal Court and NGOs on how to make the most of that opportunity, and we have listened to the views of 75 experts from more than 26 countries who attended a conference we ran at Wilton Park in November, which I also attended. On the basis of those consultations, when I chair the meeting of G8 Foreign Ministers in London in April I will ask them to declare that rape and serious sexual violence amount to “grave breaches” of the Geneva conventions, signalling that we are prepared to pursue domestic prosecution of such crimes on the basis of universal jurisdiction.

We have also proposed a set of practical commitments to promote greater accountability and to overcome the most significant barriers to progress in this area. Those barriers are the poor quality of investigation and documentation of incidents of sexual violence in conflict; the inadequate support and assistance to survivors; the failure of wider peace and security efforts to address such issues; and the lack of international co-ordination.

In developing the commitments we have been careful to identify suggestions that we believe will have a real practical impact and will make concrete progress on the ground. Our proposed new international protocol, for example, on the investigation and documentation of sexual violence in conflict, should improve the evidence base from which investigations and prosecutions can be drawn.

We will suggest that the G8 provide greater protection and support to women human rights defenders, one of the target users of this new protocol, which will result in better documented cases, further building the evidence base. Doing so will also strengthen the support they provide to the survivors of sexual violence, as would broader G8 support for health, psychosocial and rehabilitation services, which will result in survivors feeling readier to pursue prosecutions.

We will also press the G8 to ensure that an improved response to sexual violence is reflected in their own security and justice sector reform programmes, as well as in any support that they provide to national legislative reform. Such actions would help to provide the domestic legal and institutional framework within which survivors can act which, if supported by more coherent international support to strengthen UN efforts, would further build this national capacity.

These commitments are ambitious. I am firmly of the view that taken together they will begin a comprehensive global response to tackling impunity for sexual violence through a combination of legal and practical interventions which complement existing international activity, but target gaps in the current global response. We have had encouraging and supportive responses from G8 partners and from others, including Australia, New Zealand and countries most directly affected by the issue, such as the new Government in Somalia. There is also enthusiasm to do more in the OSCE, the African Union and NATO. This is a time to take the issue forward. I believe we can develop a critical mass of support which will lead to serious concrete progress over the next couple of years.

What we started nine months ago and what we are going to do at the G8 is just the beginning of a long effort. We will do our utmost to galvanise greater collective action. We will take this cause to the United Nations, including to the UN Security Council in June when we hold the presidency of the council, and at the UN General Assembly in September, when we will hope to increase support for the concept of a new international protocol on the issue. I hope that the Government will have the support, advice and encouragement of Members across the House in taking forward this vital issue at a moment in world affairs when we genuinely have the opportunity to pursue it and to make a difference, for the sake of hundreds of thousands and millions of people affected by these appalling crimes.

16:07

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this important and timely debate in the House today. It is timely, not least because of recent developments at the United Nations and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and it represents a significant issue that deserves proper time, attention, debate and indeed action.

I welcome the personal interest shown by the Foreign Secretary in advancing work on this issue and recognise his personal efforts to raise the issue on the international agenda. Where there is agreement in all parts of the House, it is only right that it be acknowledged, and on this issue, the Foreign Secretary has our full support in the efforts that he has made to prioritise the prevention of sexual violence in conflict both for the United Kingdom and for the wider international community. His efforts have been widely acknowledged and are rightly praised.

However, the recent work of the Foreign Secretary builds on decades of vital and important work done by countless charities, non-governmental organisations, political leaders and human rights activists. I am sure the Foreign Secretary would agree with me when I say that their unrelenting commitment to this issue is what has helped ensure that the issue today is becoming more of a focus for Governments right around the world. Our efforts today build on the work of many and it is only right that we pay tribute to their contribution. In particular, it is right to single out the work that women human rights defenders do on this crucial issue. Those working in this area are often subject to the gravest threats and risks, facing intimidation, abduction and even killings by those who oppose the work they do. They do it simply because they are there to do the right thing. Much more must be done to support these groups and promote their agenda so that theirs is not a struggle they face alone.

I welcome the work already being done by the recently appointed UN Secretary-General’s special representative on sexual violence in conflict, Zainab Bangura. Hers is a crucial and difficult task, which is why we fully support the recent pledge Her Majesty’s Government made to offer direct financial support to help fund her office.

Given the degree of cross-party support on the issue, I will echo some of the sentiments already expressed by colleagues in the Chamber before turning to the specific package of measures the Foreign Secretary has set out. When debating policy responses on this issue, it is only right that we first take time to acknowledge the sheer scale of the challenge, and indeed the extent of the suffering, that we are seeking to address. More than 75% of rapes in England are never reported to the police, so it should come as no surprise that we know very little of the true extent of sexual violence committed in conflict. However, there must be no doubt that rape and sexual violence are used today as weapons of war, and indeed as weapons of torture and mass persecution. The UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-Moon, has rightly described sexual violence as

“the most pervasive violation of human rights across the globe”.

It is time for the international community to step up its efforts to respond to that harrowing truth.

The conflicts that have in part defined the last decades of war have themselves in part been defined by the prevalent and tragic use of sexual violence as a weapon of war. During the 1994 Rwandan genocide, more than 250,000 women were raped, and 50,000 women were reported to have been raped during the war between Croatia and Bosnia-Herzegovina. During the post-election violence in Cote D’Ivoire in 2010-11, sexual violence was widespread, with over 50% of reported incidents involving children. Although deeply disturbing, the statistics cannot do justice to the scale of human suffering involved; it is only the personal accounts that come close to beginning to shed light on the scale of the horror that the use of sexual violence in conflict inflicts on its victims. The horrors continue today in the conflicts that still rage across the world.

It is therefore right that the UK has made the issue a priority for our presidency of the G8. We sincerely welcome the steps that the Government have taken to help direct efforts at both UK and international level towards addressing the issue. The Foreign Secretary will therefore have our continued support in his efforts to ensure that tackling sexual violence in conflict receives the attention and, crucially, the resources that it rightly deserves.

However, I am sure that the Foreign Secretary would agree that the real challenge we face collectively is how to influence the facts on the ground in conflict areas. The true measure of the success and effectiveness of any steps agreed by the G8 will be their capacity to effect change in some of the most difficult and dangerous regions of the world.

Let me turn to the specific package of measures the Foreign Secretary has set out. We welcome the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative. It is right that one of its key components is trying to overcome the apparent impunity that has existed on the issue until today. Sexual violence as a tool of war remains one of the least prosecuted crimes. We need to do more to improve accountability on the issue more generally. That is why the work of the specialist teams the Foreign Secretary spoke about, which will be deployed to conflict areas, is welcome. The work they do to gather evidence, help build local capacity and help civil society to investigate alleged crimes will be vital. Tragically, however, demand will always outstrip the capacity of even those groups when documenting and prosecuting crimes on such an horrendous scale. That is why we support calls to ensure that this UK-led taskforce is also focused on building up local in-country capacity to deliver the necessary accountability without leaving countries totally dependent on welcome but necessarily outside support.

Also key to any effective response are efforts to improve international co-operation and co-ordination to prevent sexual violence in conflict on the ground. That level of co-ordination is best achieved through the United Nations, so it is vital, as we have heard, that the necessary resources are made available to the relevant departments so that well-meaning objectives can be turned into concrete outcomes. That is why we hope that the Government will consider recent reports that the gender-based violence area of responsibility within the United Nations remains chronically underfunded. Effective prevention must also extend to regulations on the supply of arms and trade in arms, which are too often ultimately used in so many of the conflicts where sexual violence becomes prevalent. In effect, the irresponsible transfer of military equipment across borders fuels gender-based violence within global war zones, and the equipment is also transferred outside war zones, remaining in operation long after conflicts have officially ended.

In that regard, we will be encouraging the Government to clarify their position in relation to the upcoming negotiations on the arms trade treaty at the United Nations. As the Foreign Secretary will be aware, article 4.6 of the draft text, which explicitly refers to gender-based violence, requires states only to “consider” taking measures to prevent arms sales from facilitating such abuses. Many argue that this provision must be strengthened if the treaty is to have a hope of providing effective prevention, and must therefore stipulate that all practical measures to ensure weapons are never used to perpetrate or facilitate acts of gender-based violence be included in the treaty.

Let me turn to the specific regions where I am sure that the Government recognise that we have not only a strategic interest but, potentially, an operational advantage. It is only right to acknowledge that the prevention of sexual violence in conflict is not confined to those countries that are technically defined as being at war. Afghanistan still reels from the effects of conflict in recent years. Given our operational capacities on the ground there, I would welcome the Government’s making it a priority area for UK efforts on this issue. The Government’s stated objective of making Somalia’s stabilisation and development a UK strategic priority means that any UK-led initiatives in that country should focus on responding to the reported use of sexual violence during decades of conflict and on ensuring that everything possible is being done to prevent its re-emergence in future.

No one can deny that at its core the issue we are debating is a moral one. The suffering and scale of the terror alone should be justification enough for the international community to act. However, the Foreign Secretary is right to say that it is also a foreign policy issue and therefore a strategic imperative for the United Kingdom in working together with the international community in its efforts to do more. The use of sexual violence in conflict not only makes the conflicts themselves harder to resolve but contributes to making their legacy even harder for local communities ever to overcome, in turn perpetuating precisely the type of insecurity that it is in our collective national interests to prevent.

Ultimately, the best remedy to prevent the use of sexual violence in conflict is to put an end to conflict. That might seem to be straightforward common sense, but it should inform all our efforts on this issue, because that means that any approach to tackling it will always be embedded within a broader strategy for preventing conflict, promoting stability, and protecting against insecurity. Where the Government are taking steps, as they are, to advance this kind of approach, they will have our full support.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In order to try to accommodate the half dozen colleagues seeking to contribute, I have imposed with immediate effect a four-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

16:17

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

I want to express my pride that Britain is leading the world in tackling this important issue. Given that so many conflicts around the world are ethnic in nature, it is perhaps not surprising that sexual violence as a weapon of war is becoming increasingly prevalent. I encourage my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to make every effort to take the rest of the world with him on his quest.

We have talked about some of the countries around the world where rape is being witnessed. I remind the House that we should not think that this is limited to faraway lands or countries that are less developed than our own, because it happened right here in Europe less than 25 years ago. I feel some shame that it happened so close to our doorstep. It is also shaming that so few people in Bosnia-Herzegovina have been brought to justice for the many rapes that took place there. The intent to dehumanise and degrade was an obvious weapon of war in that ethnic conflict.

I am mainly moved to address the House because of a story from Kosovo that I heard. I had the privilege of visiting Kosovo some 18 months ago. I met a very inspirational lady there, and I want to share some of the things she said. We can talk glibly about sexual violence in theoretical terms, but this story really brings it to life.

Flora Brovina is a Member of Parliament in Kosovo and a well-known Albanian feminist and poet. She was a paediatrician by profession. As the political situation in Kosovo deteriorated in the 1990s and fighting broke out, Flora was one of the community leaders. She rallied support for women and got involved in giving health care to victims of the war and giving shelter to those who were orphaned.

As a consequence, she became a high-profile target for the Serb paramilitaries and, sure enough, she was abducted in 1999. She was tortured and interrogated before being tried and convicted of terrorist activities, but thankfully, due to international pressure, she was eventually released. By then her family had claimed asylum in the US. It was probably anticipated that she would follow them, but that was not for Flora. She wanted to go back to Kosovo to help the women and children who were victims of the war.

Flora is doing a great deal of work to support that conflict’s victims of rape. She has told me in great detail about the impact it has had on some of those women. The circumstances of the rapes that took place are horrifying. They have been well documented by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. I will not go into the details, but I would encourage other Members to do so, because they bring to life the horror of the use of sexual violence in conflicts.

Flora also told me about how families treat women. Although this is a European society that is not very far from us, it is very rural and, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has said, a society in which women’s rights are not as advanced as they are here. Given the ethnic nature of the conflict, the Serbs knew how those of the Muslim faith would treat victims of rape, so it was deliberately used as a weapon.

The rights that we enjoy in the UK mean that it is difficult for us to grasp the impact on those women, who are often ostracised. It is natural for people to look to their families for support but, often, these families witnessed the rapes, so there is a double crime and it is very difficult for the women to grasp what has happened to them. It is difficult to understand just how lonely the victims’ plight can be. Flora was anxious for me to highlight the fate of those women and I am pleased to be able to do so today. I am also humbled by it, because all I am doing is talking. The day-to-day suffering of the women and, often, the children born as a consequence of what happened to them is very real.

That is why I am so proud of the initiative being taken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. We must go after the perpetrators. It is unacceptable that only 30 people have been convicted in Bosnia. We must also make sure that we do our bit through our humanitarian work to give support to victims, so that they are not left alone, as they have been in Kosovo.

I cannot do adequate justice to the forgotten victims of sexual violence in Kosovo, but I hope that today I have done my bit to bring to life what it means in practice and to give added resolve to the Government to ensure that this issue is central to our humanitarian and diplomatic activities.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. On the assumption of reasonable self-discipline in the taking of interventions, I think I can up the limit to six minutes per Member.

16:19

[Fiona O’Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I shall show myself to be the mistress of self-discipline.

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price). I am particularly glad that she referred to the war in Bosnia. Amnesty International’s report, “When everyone is silent”, was published last October and sets out for the Foreign Secretary—I am pleased that the International Development Secretary is also present—the scale of the challenge that we face in ensuring, first, that women feel able to come forward and tell their stories and, secondly, that justice will be done if they find the courage to do so.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this debate, and I am sure she will not mind me mentioning that, although the Order Paper does not reflect it, there was cross-party support for it. She should not apologise for not talking much about violence against men, because I remember following her when she made her maiden speech in the Chamber in which she spoke with passion about a project in her constituency for men who were suffering domestic violence. Although the prevalence of men who suffer sexual violence in conflict zone is not as great, the stigma for them is considerable. They can even find themselves criminalised and imprisoned because they are deemed by the nation to have taken part in an immoral crime.

I am pleased to be speaking in this debate because I am a member of the International Development Committee, which is currently undertaking an inquiry into violence against women and girls. I know that the Foreign Secretary said that it was important to realise that we are talking specifically about sexual violence in conflict zones, but we wanted to broaden our report to make it more general. I do not feel like we have had two separate debates this afternoon because every issue that was raised in the last debate affects our capacity to have an impact on sexual violence in conflict zones. If women are not supported by the justice system in their state or know that they will have to return to a community where they will be stigmatised, they will not come forward or seek justice.

I wrote to a Minister in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about a woman who was raped in Egypt. When the doctor was collecting the forensic evidence, he could not find the correct instruments and used a pair of scissors to try to take swabs. The woman said that that examination was worse than the rape. We need to be honest and admit that that is the situation in many countries. Although we want to support women, there is a lot of work to be done not just by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, but by the Department for International Development and the Ministry of Defence to ensure that women, girls, boys and men who are victims of sexual violence get the justice that they seek when they come forward.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s speech and his commitment. It is clear that he has real passion for this issue. However, I have some questions and hope that we can get a bit more detail about how he intends to achieve his aims. I am glad that he told the House that he will be working closely with DFID. I do not intend to be critical or to score party political points, but it is important that we are honest. What does he believe would be an indication of success? Does he have any numbers in mind or any particular areas that he wants to concentrate on? How is he working with DFID? It is important that the resources are given directly to projects in other countries that support women and girls who are the victims of sexual violence. It would be helpful to have more detail on how the two Departments are working together.

It is important, unpleasant as it is, for us to try to get inside the minds of the men who carry out these dreadful violent crimes. We must understand that when a soldier comes from a country where there is no respect for women and where women have no rights and are excluded in every way, it is much easier for them to take the final step of committing an act of sexual violence. That is why it is vital that the work with DFID continues. We must try to effect change in those countries. If we do not change the situation with regard to sexual violence against women and girls in peace and in conflict, at home and in developing countries, we will not achieve the laudable aims that the Foreign Secretary has set out.

[Margot James]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. Without wishing to compromise the focus of the Foreign Secretary’s initiative, which I support wholeheartedly, as I am sure she does, I agree with her that women’s unequal status and the misogyny that exists in many societies are both a cause and a consequence of the sexual violence that we are discussing this afternoon.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I thank the hon. Lady. I would go even further and say that countries that have such an attitude toward women are far more likely to be involved in conflict in the first place.

Let us call today for a swift and just international response to sexual violence against women, girls, boys and men. We have to acknowledge that the most effective way for us to improve the lives of women and girls, so that they can live free from the fear of violence and its devastating effects, is to work to bring about change across a whole range of issues—education, training, employment, access to finance, health care and justice. Those are the ways in which we can protect women and make it possible for them to come forward and tell their stories, so that we can deliver justice and so that their daughters will have a different story to tell.

16:30

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I appreciate that time is short, so I will get straight to the point.

There are two major areas in which girls and women who are raped in situations of armed conflict are repeatedly discriminated against. The first is the routine denial of safe abortion services to those victims of war, in violation of their right to non-discriminatory medical care under international human law, and the second is the failure to treat rape and the deliberate transmission of HIV as prohibited weapons or methods of war.

The denial of abortions to girls and women raped in armed conflict was recently the focus of debate in the House of Lords, and it has been the subject of many parliamentary questions. The Government responded by acknowledging that they considered girls and women raped in armed conflict to be the “wounded and sick”, and that they are entitled to non-discriminatory medical care, including abortions. They have also acknowledged that international humanitarian law, not national law, is the legal framework that must be obeyed in the provision of humanitarian aid. However, those acknowledgments are insufficient without concrete action to ensure that that right is granted to the wounded women who need it.

What concrete action could the Government take? To begin with, they could recognise that the right to abortion for girls and women raped in armed conflict is protected under humanitarian law and is not subject to national laws on abortion. That should be explicitly included in all relevant Government policy guidance, including the Department for International Development’s “Safe and unsafe abortion” practice paper.

Rape and the deliberate transmission of HIV are acknowledged as being used as weapons of war, but neither is treated as a prohibited weapon or method of warfare. Despite global recognition that they are used as weapons of war, they are invisible in weapons regulation. They none the less violate core principles of humanity in international humanitarian law, and as such they should be treated as prohibited weapons of war. The failure to treat war rape like other illegal weapons prevents victims from being entitled to reparations for their injuries. Victims should be entitled to have the perpetrators held accountable for their crimes. For that reason, the failure to treat rape as part of the international framework that regulates the means and methods of warfare is particularly confounding. We regulate starvation under that framework, so why not rape and sexual violence?

In April, the Government will work to secure a clear political statement from the G8 of its determination to make real, tangible progress on combating the use of sexual violence in conflict. However, if we are truly to lead, we must speak up for those who do not have a voice and bring awareness to issues that are often neglected or left out of the conversation. Acknowledging the issue is not enough, and talk is not enough. The UK must take concrete steps to ensure the provision of abortion services for women raped in war and to bring rape into the prohibited weapons or methods of war framework.

16:33

[Seema Malhotra (Feltham and Heston) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to speak in this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) and others. This is the year of the UK’s presidency of the G8, and G8 Foreign Ministers will be meeting in London. I am glad to hear the Foreign Secretary’s assurances that the issue will be high on the agenda. I thank the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) for initiating the debate, as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Stella Creasy) and the V-day One Billion Rising campaign that has called for and set the scene for today’s action.

The V-day campaign, which continues to drive the global movement to end violence against women and girls, has a strong history. In 2009 I joined its campaign to end sexual violence in the Congo and signed a letter urging the G20 to take steps to stop the war and violence. I extend my appreciation to all those who tackle violence against women and girls in our local communities and across the world, often placing themselves at risk. In Feltham and Heston I mention especially the new Hounslow one-stop shop, which last November launched a free advice service for victims of domestic violence and those who have suffered violence in other ways. The project is run jointly by the Met police, Hounslow community safety unit and the Hounslow domestic violence outreach service. Our communities also contain those who have suffered from sexual violence in conflict—I had a constituent who came to see me; the war has stopped, but her suffering, and that of her family, continues.

We know that in war zones, victims of sexual violence do not have their own local support networks or local crime prevention teams. For many, however, there is no protection, which is why the international community must stand together. Sexual violence in conflict is, of course, a moral issue and, as has been discussed, central to foreign policy. I am glad that the issue finds agreement on all sides of the House.

Rape in war is the darkest of military tactics, used to degrade and humiliate victims and undermine their families or the ethnic, religious and political groups to which they belong. Last year’s annual UN report on sexual violence during conflict provided horrific examples of how sexual violence has threatened security and impeded peace building in post-conflict situations such as those in Chad, Sri Lanka and Sierra Leone. In addition to the thousands of women who we know have been raped, it has been estimated that 50,000 women were raped in the war in Croatia and Bosnia Herzegovina, 250,000 in Rwanda, and 64,000 in Sierra Leone. From Syria we see in our newspapers today examples of women being raped in prison and in their homes. We have also seen the rape of men in many conflict zones, and that will be part of the agenda of tackling sexual violence. The major-general at the helm of the UN peace-keeping mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo stated:

“It has become more dangerous to be a woman fetching water or collecting firewood than to be a fighter on the front line.”

As we move forward with the G8 this year, I am sure we will continue the momentum to secure new international action against the use of rape and sexual violence as a weapon of war. I hope that action will focus on both investigations and prosecutions, as well as on prevention. Conviction rates of sexual violence in conflict are an international disgrace.

The strategy to end sexual violence must be couched within a strategy of support for women’s rights. Yesterday I welcomed to Parliament some key members of the global women’s rights movements. Activists from Africa and Asia were brought together in London by the charity Womankind to share their experiences and expertise of women’s leadership, tackling gender violence in their own countries, and political participation. Sexual violence is not just a problem in conflict areas. The brutal rape and murder in India at Christmas of a 23-year-old on a bus showed that we must tackle violence against women in all its forms and in all countries of the world so that attitudes of acceptability are not shaped for current or future generations.

This debate, along with our earlier debate, is important and seeks to end the continuing violence against women and ensure that that issue is a priority for us and our partners abroad. In conclusion, this is a challenge of enormous scale and a campaign that must cross nations and cultures. I am pleased it is on the agenda for the Foreign Secretary, and I hope that in his remarks he will answer a few questions. First, what support has he achieved from the international community? It should be not just on the agenda, but high on the agenda. Secondly, how will the strategies that are beginning be sustained by the G8 and other international bodies? How will they be reflected not just in foreign policy, but in our defence and international development policies, so that there is an end to sexual violence in conflicts in our generation?

16:40

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I saw rape used as a weapon of war when I was in Bosnia in 1992-93. Between 25,000 and 50,000 women were raped during the Bosnian war. At Foca, Visegrad, Omarska and Prijedor, rape camps were deliberately set up to be used by visiting Bosnian-Serb soldiers when they felt like it. My wife, Claire Podbielski-Stewart—she was then Claire Podbielski—was involved as a member of the International Committee of the Red Cross in visiting Prijedor to try to stop what was happening there.

Elsewhere, individually, women were raped in front of their families—their husbands and their children. Do Members really understand how ghastly that must be for the families? The woman and the husband are demeaned, and the children are terrorised and horrified. They will be horrified for the rest of their lives.

Too often, once that foul crime has been committed, everyone is killed. I found a family outside a house near Vitez—mother, daughter, son and husband in a line. The daughter was holding a puppy. She was killed by the bullet that killed the puppy. I took the family to the local morgue. I went past the same place the next day to discover they had been returned. They were the wrong religion in the morgue. How ghastly is sexual violence in war. How foul.

My soldiers buried 104 people in a mass grave, which I revisited last year. We think there were 104 people. Most were women; a lot of them were children. It was foul, it was ghastly, and it was most definitely something that we should campaign to stop. I applaud what the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development and others are doing to try to stop the revolting practice of sexual violence in war.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Stewart]

I will, if my hon. Friend is quick.

[Mr Newmark]

I will be quick.

I would draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that not only the rape itself is ghastly, but the conviction and prosecution rates. In the field where he fought, only one in 20,000 perpetrators of those crimes was prosecuted. Will he therefore join me in welcoming the international protocol proposed by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, which will ensure prosecution and investigation?

[Bob Stewart]

I thank my hon. Friend—that was quick. Of course, I agree with him. I have given evidence in five trials. I am thrilled that the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia has brought charges against people for rape as a crime against humanity, and secured convictions. I am fully aware that not even one in every 100 people guilty of such crimes in Bosnia has been brought to justice.

I am delighted that in Europe, for the first time ever, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia is bringing rape convictions. The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda started the process, and it is a great move. We must send a firm message to the whole world that sexual violence is considered as one of the gravest crimes.

I will end by commending our British soldiers. Shall I tell the House what a solider said to me when a previous Foreign Secretary—a Conservative one at that—gave me an order to start planning a withdrawal from Bosnia in December 1992? I wandered out and said to a soldier, “I am planning our withdrawal.” He said, “We’re not withdrawing, sir.” I said, “Well, we might have to if I am ordered by the Government to do so.” He said, “Not me, sir.” I said, “Why not?” He said, “Our duty is here protecting these women, children and the vulnerable. That is what we are here to do.” We never did withdraw, but my goodness that shows the quality of our soldiers. We hear far too many stories about how badly our armed forces behave, but here was a soldier who showed the quality of person we send out to put our values into the world outside our country.

16:46

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who knows exactly what the situations are like, and can tell us so graphically the experiences he has seen with his own eyes. It was important that this debate was secured, and it is appropriate to pay tribute to the Foreign Secretary, the shadow Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development. I mention the first two in particular, because they have given up their time to be here for the whole of this important debate. That is significant, and it sends a message that we see this as a very important issue. Some people may watch this debate, possibly at some unearthly hour of the morning on the Parliament channel, and think that there were not many people present, that it looks a bit thin, and that we cannot really think of the subject as important. However, the fact that senior figures have given up their time shows that it is very important.

As several hon. Members have said, this subject challenges those of us who would prefer no conflict at all, who would like to say that the answer is for there to be no war and that we should not get involved. It is a challenge to decide when to intervene, how to intervene and what ways there are to intervene. The examples we have heard from the former Yugoslavia vindicate intervention. The violence was occurring anyway; it did not happen because we intervened. Hopefully, some women, who might otherwise have been affected, were saved The challenge remains, because in all situations we have to ask ourselves whether it is right to intervene, or whether we would provoke an existing conflict. Some conflicts arise from some of the gross inequality in the world and its resources, so there are many things that we can do to prevent such situations.

[Nicola Blackwood]

Given that sexual violence is recognised as a key factor destabilising and catalysing conflict in the first place, does the hon. Lady not agree that tackling sexual violence and preventing it in the first place is one way to prevent conflict and achieve exactly the aim she calls for?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I agree absolutely. With a subject this big, it is sometimes tempting to think, “Well, it’s always been there throughout history.” We know that. The history of conflict going back hundreds of years contains examples of such behaviour, but 40 years ago, when the big campaigns on violence against women started in this country with the setting up of domestic violence refuges and so on, people said the same thing: “You’ll never change it. It’s always been there. It’s endemic.” Although we heard earlier how far we have left to go, even in our own country, progress has been made. Sometimes, when dealing with difficulties in the justice system and so on, it feels like three steps forward and two steps back, but nevertheless we have made some progress and changed attitudes. I do not wish to sound complacent, but those of us who started campaigns in the early days have seen a difference. If we make an effort, we can begin to change how people think and behave and how they are treated, so although, with a subject this big, people might think, “What can we do? What can anybody do?”, we must make an effort and start to change things.

Members of peacekeeping forces have a particular responsibility when it comes to their behaviour and attitudes. It is crucial that our own armed forces—and I am sure that they do—lead by example in how they treat women, including female members of the armed services in the field. One way to change things is by involving far more women in the process of change in their own countries and peace processes. As many people have said, far too few women feature in the big meetings and peace conferences. Where are the women? It is important that their voices be heard and that they be encouraged and given the tools to start to change things, not just for their own generation but for future generations.

[Bob Stewart]

Women need to be represented at peace conferences, but they can be only if they are leaders in their own communities. That is how we can assure their representation; we have to try to do that.

[Mr Hague]

indicated assent.

[Bob Stewart]

I see the Foreign Secretary nodding.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Many people who have been in conflict zones have fantastic stories to tell about women who can speak up, who have spoken up and who need to be heard. Admittedly, there are not enough of them and building from the bottom up is clearly important, but some are there already. We need to hear from them.

Yes, this is a big subject, but let us not just come back in a year or two and have the same discussion; let us instead come back and feel that there has been real progress.

16:53

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I would like to thank you, Mr Speaker, for indulging me in my request. I was trying to be in two debates at once. I spoke in the eating disorders debate elsewhere and unfortunately the winding-up speeches took a bit longer than I thought.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Nicola Blackwood) on securing this important debate, which I was happy to co-sponsor. She knows the enormous interest I take in this issue, and not only in the international context; I have also spoken about domestic violence in this country, and as I have said before, if men knew the odds of getting caught and prosecuted—the prosecution rate is 6%, so they have a 94% chance of getting away with it—they would probably go for it. The international statistics are even more dramatic. In the former Yugoslavia, men have a 1:20,000 chance of being prosecuted, and in Rwanda, where I have spent the past seven years travelling, the figure is 1:50,000. That is a disgrace, and the Foreign Secretary is absolutely right to take a lead in this important initiative.

As I have seen in Rwanda, the by-product of rape as a weapon of war are the orphans who live on after the conflict, infected with AIDS. I have spent time over the past seven years working with such children in a school in Kigali. Their mothers have been killed off by AIDS, but the children live on with the condition; they effectively have a time bomb within their bodies. They could die at any time. It is important to consider not only rape itself. We must investigate and prosecute the perpetrators of rape, but we must also think about what happens afterwards. We need to think about the children who were born as a result of rape, many of whom have AIDS. Perhaps through the International Development Secretary we can see what we can do to give them more support.

I also want to pay tribute to the International Commission on Missing Persons, which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary knows. I am spending a huge amount of time working on our taking a lead in supporting the excellent work of the commission in Bosnia over the past 15-plus years. It has done great work, and it is important that the UK should take the lead in securing a future for it. Finally, I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s international protocol to investigate and prosecute sexual violence against women, because prosecution is extremely important.

16:56

[Nicola Blackwood]

I would like to thank everybody who has contributed to the debate. As the shadow Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), said, it is timely and important. Also, the subject could not be more sensitive, and everybody who has contributed today has risen to the challenge.

I thank the hon. Member for West Dunbartonshire (Gemma Doyle) for sharing my passion for “The West Wing”. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price) for sharing her experiences in Kosovo, and the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) for her cross-party support in sponsoring the debate. She is a great champion of these issues, and her support today is greatly appreciated. My hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) got straight to the point with her comments.

I thank all the other hon. Members who have spoken today, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart), who spoke of his arresting personal experiences. Although she did not make a speech, I would also like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), who has been a long-term supporter on these issues and who supported us in securing the debate. I also thank the shadow Secretary of State for recognising that this issue transcends party boundaries and that it is a moral and strategic imperative for the UK.

I welcome the Foreign Secretary’s progress and his announcement on the G8 issues that we are facing. I am particularly pleased that there will be an emphasis on capacity building, on justice and accountability and on an end to impunity. I am also pleased that the preventing sexual violence initiative will build on existing peace-building efforts, and that he is committed to ensuring that United Nations Security Council resolution 1325 will be central to our vision. I am pleased that a key priority of the PSVI will be to integrate support services for survivors with protection for women human rights defenders.

For too long, the international community has uttered warm words and passed many resolutions on the violence and exclusion facing women and girls in conflict. It has recognised the problem and proposed solutions, but it has not implemented them effectively on the ground. It is now time to reject, once and for all, the myth that violence against women and girls is a cultural and inevitable consequence of conflict; it is not.

The proposals for the PSVI, in conjunction with the national action plans for resolution 1325, the building stability overseas strategy, the plans for violence against women and girls and the Foreign Secretary’s personal commitment to drive this agenda through the G8 and the United Nations, mean that there is now a real chance finally to get action on the ground to deter conflict-related sexual violence and genuinely to put an end to the flagrant impunity that exists today. In order to do that, we must make the most of all the resources at our disposal.

The message I most want to convey is that the women I have met and heard about have proved that, despite all the odds stacked against them, they are not just victims: they are a resource for peace and security, and without them peace will be harder to find and to keep. Many lives will be lost and ruined through the sexual and gender-based violence we have heard about today while we try to find that peace without them.

Question put and agreed to,

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of preventing sexual violence in conflict.

Coventry and Warwickshire City Deal

Thursday 14th February 2013 Commons Chamber

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

17:00

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

I am grateful to have secured this debate on the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal proposal, which has now been put before the Government. I congratulate the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership, the Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce, Warwickshire county council, Warwick district council, Coventry city council and all the local organisations, businesses and authorities—as well as my colleagues in the Chamber this evening—who have contributed to and supported the bid.

I fully support the city deal concept. I believe that devolving power to local communities and the principle of subsidiarity—devolving power to the organisation most capable of taking a decision—should be at the heart of Government policy. The city deal approach is that principle in action. Our city regions can be the engines of growth, and by crafting deals that provide targeted support and resources, we can generate significant economic momentum.

There are three factors in building a good city deal. First, it needs to build on local strengths and expertise. The UK economy is diverse, and city deals therefore have potential.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He mentioned local priorities. In our area, manufacturing is a local priority. It has been a strength for many years and continues to be so. Does he agree that the city deal will enable us to build on the strength of our manufacturing skills—there could well be a skills gap in the next few years—and thereby of our manufacturing industry?

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for attending the debate. The main part of my speech addresses those very issues.

The UK economy is diverse and city deals have potential as they can be tailored to the needs of local economies and build on the infrastructure that already exists. We should not be trying to reinvent the wheel or impose a top-down plan for economic growth on the country, and a good city deal will work with the grain of the local economy.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on having secured this important debate. The city deal affects the economy of the constituencies of all of us who have participated thus far. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important aspects of the city deal is that industry and business have worked with local authorities of a variety of political complexions in the best interests of the entire area?

[Chris White]

I do agree.

Secondly, a city deal needs to have wide-ranging private sector support. Too often, we create proposals and then put them to business, and that approach does not generate the best results. A good city deal should be co-produced with small, medium and large local businesses, and should seek to remove their barriers to growth.

Thirdly, a city deal needs to have widespread political buy-in. City deals should try to build as strong a consensus as possible among local authorities, so that businesses get the policy clarity they need and feel the confidence they need to invest in the future.

The Coventry and Warwickshire city deal meets all three criteria, and is an example of how a city deal can make a significant difference to the local economy. The bid focuses on advanced manufacturing and engineering. As co-chair of the associate parliamentary manufacturing group, I am pleased to see this vital part of our local economy recognised and championed.

Coventry and Warwickshire have a great manufacturing heritage, and the area is home to a range of world-beating manufacturing and engineering businesses. Our city deal area has one tenth of all English motor manufacturing jobs and the second highest proportion of employment in advanced manufacturing and digital media by each LEP area. My constituency alone has fantastic companies such as AGA Rangemaster and Dennis Eagle, which are examples of the pioneering businesses to which our area is home. Infrastructure is already in place with our world-class universities, further education colleges such as Warwickshire college and transportation links—and we should use these assets to our best advantage.

We are at the heart of the UK’s manufacturing, and as I and many other hon. Members have said repeatedly in debates in the past, manufacturing has the potential to bring jobs and to rebalance our economy towards a more export-oriented economy. This city deal recognises that the next 10 years are not going to be like the last. That kind of forward thinking is to be applauded. We need proposals that can adapt to the changing economic circumstances—national and international—that we face. I think this city deal does exactly that. The deal has been created in partnership with businesses, and I believe that this shows the thrust of the city deal’s proposals.

We all recognise that the bedrock of a strong manufacturing sector is skills. If we are going to grow advanced manufacturing and engineering in our region, we need to have the skills in place to enable businesses to grow and make the products that are wanted around the world. This city deal cuts right to the heart of this problem, and highlights the skills shortage that is holding back our local economy. According to the latest estimates, there is a shortage of about 18,000 high-level engineers in the west midlands. The Coventry and Warwickshire area is likely to need up to 25,000 level 2 and level 3 engineers to replace our existing work force. If we are not able to meet that demand, businesses will not be able to grow and we will have to spend more income trying to retrain staff or poach them from other businesses, reducing funding for investment, research and development —holding back growth in the long term.

[Mark Pawsey]

I endorse my hon. Friend’s remarks about the work force in the Coventry and Warwickshire area. I visit businesses in my Rugby constituency, many of which are doing well, growing and supporting the developing motor industry. I see workers there operating skilled machinery who are generally of the same generation as myself—there are few younger people there. Businesses tell me that that they have the business to grow and develop, but that they are struggling to find the youngsters with the skills. That is why the Game Changer proposal that is part of this city deal is so important.

[Chris White]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Part of solving a problem is recognising where the gap is. I think that the city deal goes a long way towards solving that particular problem in the local area.

I repeat that the city deal has strong political support from across the region, with Coventry city council, Warwickshire county council, Warwick district council and five other district councils supporting the proposal from across all the political parties. I believe that this will ensure that businesses can feel confident in these proposals and can know that if they invest in skills and training, they will be supported and will find partners in our region if they want to expand and grow their work forces.

The deal has brought various business groups together, such as the local chambers of trade and Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce. In the light of the city deal bid, Coventry and Warwickshire chamber of commerce has today agreed a new partnership with the Manufacturing Advisory Service and EEF, which will provide better services for manufacturers, engineering companies and automated businesses. It is an example of the additional concentration and focus that the bid has been able to provide.

To achieve this, the Coventry and Warwickshire LEP will create a re-engineering skills board, which will bring together businesses, universities, colleges and local authorities to join up supply and demand so that both providers and employers can plan for the future, matching training provision to business cycles rather than fixed academic cycles. The board will work on new courses to meet the specific requirements of local manufacturers, and to build on local successes such as the advanced skills accreditation scheme chaired by Jaguar Land Rover. The proposals sensibly focus on the upskilling of existing engineers and the retraining of unemployed people, which would enable us to use the labour resources currently at our disposal to achieve the maximum impact. All this will come under the heading of the Game Changer skills programme mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), which will be a brand that both local people and businesses can recognise and understand.

The city deal makes four requests. First, it asks the Government to devolve control of skills and apprenticeship funding to deliver the programme. Secondly, it asks them to allow Coventry and Warwickshire to pilot the new traineeships programme and level 6/7 apprenticeships. Thirdly, it asks for local flexibility that would allow it to adapt the Work programme to the proposal, so that those aged 18 to 24 could attend GAME changer skills programme events. Finally, it asks for capital funding to be realised for the development of an advanced manufacturing apprentice resource at the manufacturing technology centre in Ansty.

I believe that these are targeted, sensible proposals which will ensure that we obtain the maximum value for money and build on the programmes and infrastructure that we already possess, but they must be weighed against the expected benefits. I believe that this city deal bid shows great potential for the future of our area. The aim is to deliver 5,000 new engineers to the workplace over the next two years, and to eliminate the city deal area’s engineering skills shortage by 2020, as well as significantly increasing the number of engineering apprenticeships being delivered at intermediate and higher levels.

On the back of that stronger skills base, the city deal could potentially eliminate the productivity gap in Coventry and Warwickshire, adding billions of pounds to our economy and creating the environment for tens of thousands of new jobs. The bid itself estimates that about 30,000 jobs could be created through its skills programme alone. I believe that those are significant benefits which are in line with the Government’s objectives of reducing unemployment, rebalancing our economy towards manufacturing and exports, and reskilling our economy so that we are able to adapt to future and desperate needs.

I recognise that there is competition for wave 2 of the city deals project, and I know that Ministers will be considering a variety of other bids. However, I believe that the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal has fantastic potential for our region and for communities across the west midlands. There is a shared sense of purpose throughout the public, private and independent sectors as a result of the bid, and we have a unique opportunity to capitalise on the momentum that has been generated by this proposal.

I urge the Government to pick the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal bid, and to invest in the skills of local people in an area which has the infrastructure in place to grow. That will not only enhance our competitiveness but, most important, create tens of thousands of jobs.

17:13

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington (Chris White) on his excellent speech, and on securing a debate that is very important to his area. In the two and a half years for which he has been in the House, he has already established a reputation for being a tenacious champion of manufacturing industry and, indeed, the area that he represents. I know that his passion for manufacturing and for the creation of jobs in his area is entirely shared by our hon. Friends the Members for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) and for Nuneaton (Mr Jones). It is delightful to see them both in the Chamber.

As Members will know, the debate is very timely. The expressions of interest in the next wave of city deals were submitted just a few weeks ago. I am considering them as we speak—not at precisely this second, but as soon as I leave the Chamber I will resume my consideration of them. This bid is a tribute to the joint working and the enthusiasm that has been generated locally. The litany of different organisations that my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentioned underlines the degree of support for and consensus behind what could be a major opportunity for his area, if we are able to approve this city deal.

My hon. Friends will know that I visited Coventry last month to discuss the evolution of the city deal bid, and I was particularly impressed by the level of representation from all the local authorities in the area and businesses at the highest level. Sir Peter Rigby, the chairman of the local enterprise partnership, chaired the meeting, and other business organisations were represented, as were the universities and people from right across the board. It was clear that this is a united bid, very much looking to a very positive future for the area. It was particularly impressive to see everyone working together in that way.

It was also impressive to see the laser-like focus on manufacturing and skills there. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that one of the proudest traditions of the area that he and his colleagues represent is that of being the heartland of British manufacturing. Far from that being a story just about the past, it is very much a story of today and of the future. The people behind this bid were prescient in emphasising that the undoubted opportunities that will flow through the increasingly internationally competitive world of advanced manufacturing can be grasped only if we make sure that the work force in the area are equipped with not only manufacturing skills, but the particular skills that the new technologies of the future in this field will offer. The support of the universities, in particular, and of the research institutions make it clear that this is a very high-quality offer that is being made.

My hon. Friend will understand that it would be invidious of me to give any kind of nod or wink to him this evening—tempting though that might be—not least because this evening’s proceedings will doubtless be being viewed by 19 other places around the country. They will be very envious of his good fortune in securing this debate, so he will forgive me if I do not do that. Let me instead take the opportunity to reflect on the city deals process and the arrangements we have put in place. I start with a point that my hon. Friend made, which is that we should recognise the importance of local strengths in the future of our economy.

Obviously, it is of prime importance that our country has the right macro-economic conditions to sustain growth and prosperity in the future. Paying down the deficit we inherited and having an economy in which international lenders can have confidence is the foundation of any future economic success. All Government Members are engaged, day after day, in making the changes necessary to secure that. However, it is also important that we have the right micro-economic conditions: a tax system that is supportive of business and enterprise, and that encourages investment; and flexible labour markets that allow people to go into the places with an expanding number of jobs and allow employers to expand employment with confidence. Again, the work being done in not only my Department, but the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Department for Work and Pensions is very much geared to having those conditions in place.

If we do all that, it is still necessary to reflect that our economic prosperity ultimately depends on local places prospering. Economic growth does not happen in the abstract; it happens in particular places, when employers locate, expand their production and take on people. These are places that people can visit and address; they are tangible.

For too long—over many decades—how we have conducted our economic policy has paid too little heed to the importance of locality. It is tempting for politicians in Westminster and our officials in Whitehall to peer out from London SW1 and assume that the rest of the country is uniform, when we know that one of the glories of our country is that it is full of areas, towns and cities with proud traditions that are the foundation of our future economic success. The city deals programme is intended to ensure that that sense of place is part of our economic policy.

As soon as one considers that we should have a sense of place in economic policy, it becomes obvious that every place is different. We have already discussed the importance of manufacturing in the traditions in the west midlands, but that is true across the country. Everywhere has its local traditions and capabilities. Even cities as close together as Liverpool and Manchester are very different in their economic character, their skills, trades and industries, their politics and in almost every respect, so to treat them as if they are identical seems to me to deny them the possibility of living up to their potential and planning for the future.

The city deals programme was designed to reflect the differences between places. We started with the eight bigger cities outside London and in July 2011, when the Prime Minister asked me to become the Minister responsible for cities, we gave each of those cities the right to take the initiative and set out to negotiate what, in their view, would be the measures that would best unlock their potential. There was some scepticism at the time about whether it would be possible to break the monopoly of Whitehall in determining how things should be done, but in less than a year we were able to conclude a city deal with each of those eight places, which were transformational. In Greater Manchester, for example, £2 billion of local investment in infrastructure is being made in return for the city’s share in the resulting prosperity. In Leeds, apprentices and school leavers are being trained in the skills that the city’s future economy needs, as Leeds and the authorities around it have identified needs that should attract a particular focus.

[Mr Marcus Jones]

My right hon. Friend is making an extremely important point about locality and the need to ensure that we tailor the Government’s support package to each area. Does he agree with me that that is a far better and more effective approach than that taken by the previous Government through regional development agencies such as Advantage West Midlands? Private sector employment fell during that time rather than increasing. I appreciate that, as he has told us, my right hon. Friend will not be able to tell us the result today, but does he agree that if the Coventry and Warwickshire city deal was granted, it would be a far better step forward for the area than the previous regime?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The problem was that the regional development agencies were branch offices of Whitehall in the country, which seems to be the opposite of the approach we need to liberate the entrepreneurialism and local strengths of particular areas. The areas should be coming to Whitehall, as they are—as the Coventry and Warwickshire local enterprise partnership has—and saying what they want to do. The problem with the RDAs was that it was the other way around.

The RDAs described a geography created by administrators rather than something that reflected the genuine historic and economic geography that prevails. The west midlands is one example, but the north-west is another. The identities of world-renowned cities such as Manchester and Liverpool were subsumed and became totally anonymous in the Northwest Regional Development Agency, so it is absolutely necessary to make these changes. My hon. Friend is right to point out that even in their own terms the regional development agencies were a failure because the differences between London and the south-east and the regions widened during all that time. So it was right for city deals to be a priority.

One of the contrasts between our country and other countries on the continent of Europe, for example, is that in Germany almost every German city outside the capital of Berlin has a higher income per head than the national average, whereas in this country only one of the bigger cities outside London, Bristol, is above the national average. All the others are below. On the continent, not just in Germany but in France, Italy and other countries, the powerhouses of the regional economy drive the national economy, whereas regrettably over the past 20 years ours have been lagging behind that.

[Mr Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way again. He is making an extremely important point, which is reflected in the west midlands region, where gross value added has been on the decline since the mid-1970s, with the decline in manufacturing industry and the unbalancing of our economy. What he says is absolutely right. With the city deal that we hope to get for Coventry and Warwickshire, we could see that manufacturing base start to increase again, accompanied by an increase in gross value added and a better average income in our area, compared with the south-east and London.

[Greg Clark]

I totally agree with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the point of the city deals programme. It is designed to reflect what is undoubtedly the case, especially with the strength and breadth of the local engagement that this bid demonstrates. Who better to be able to make the decisions and the analysis of what is needed for the Warwickshire economy than the business people, the civic leaders and the leaders of some of the finest universities in the country, who are there? It is important that we build on those strengths.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is refreshing that local people and local businesses, having determined what is best to grow the local economy, ask not for infrastructure, roads, buildings or grandiose schemes, but for investment in people and in skills that will enable the economy to grow and prosper?

[Greg Clark]

My hon. Friend accurately reflects the difference between places. In some places the pressing need is for infrastructure because they have a legacy of infrastructure that is not fit for purpose, that has been made redundant and out of date. In other places the need is to supply the skills. That is the beauty of the bid programme.

Let me say a little about the second wave of city deals. Following the success of the eight initial city deals, I was very keen that the programme should be spread to other cities and areas around the country, so we have issued an invitation to 20 more areas to make a proposition to the Government. It is important to emphasise at this stage that these are expressions of interest and will be evaluated as such. It is not the final word. Those that are invited to go forward will be asked to engage intensively with me and my officials so that we can shape a proposition that can then be put to my ministerial colleagues for approval. There will be some way to go in those negotiations. It is right to remind people locally as well as in the Chamber that this is not the last word. It is an important expression of interest, but it has a further way to go.

We have said that there is no limit on the number of city deals that we will be able to conclude. For all those expressions of interest that demonstrate potential, my ambition is that we should be able to take them forward and achieve something important with them. Having spoken in Coventry with the leaders whom my hon. Friend the Member for Warwick and Leamington mentions, I think it important that we take advantage of the focus on advanced manufacturing and on skills, and the benefit of important institutions such as the Manufacturing Technology Centre and the motor industry research centre being located there.

The prospect that is held out is for 5,000 high quality engineering jobs. I can think of no finer contribution that my hon. Friend, following his advocacy today, could give to his constituents than to inject that into the future of his economy. Without pre-empting the announcement that will be made shortly, I congratulate him on his excellent support for a very encouraging bid.

Question put and agreed to.

17:30

House adjourned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 14th February 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 14 February 2013

[Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

Eating Disorder Awareness

Thursday 14th February 2013 Westminster Hall

Backbench business

Thursday 14th February 2013 Westminster Hall

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

13:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I pay tribute to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this three-hour debate. I know that the Committee had to negotiate with the Liaison Committee so that we could hold the debate during eating disorders awareness week. This debate is therefore timely as well as important. Others in the House clearly agree, as can be seen by the number of hon. Members present. I know how difficult it is to commit to this slot on a Thursday afternoon, particularly when serious issues such as violence against women are being debated in the main Chamber. I am conscious that several Members are trying to perform the parliamentary feat of being in two places at once.

Eating disorders have not been debated in the House since 2007, a considerable time ago, yet over the course of the past few weeks I have become aware of several hon. Members and members of staff with family connections to those with eating disorders. Just this afternoon, I received an e-mail from an hon. Member’s chief of staff, who told me the moving and difficult story of his wife’s experience with an eating disorder. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and for Wells (Tessa Munt), and the hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon), who applied with me for this debate and have significant knowledge of and interest in eating disorders.

Some 1.6 million people in this country have been or are currently known to be affected by eating disorders. That is a massive number, equivalent to nearly 2,500 in every parliamentary constituency. However, the number of unknown sufferers is also of significant concern. The true number of those who suffer is not fully understood owing to the paucity of data relating to those who are not in the system. The Department of Health acknowledges that unreported cases of eating disorders are a huge problem, and the true figure could be higher than 4 million, which is 6.5% of the UK population, or about 7,000 people per constituency.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

Those statistics are staggering. As someone relatively new to the issue, I was not aware that the numbers were quite so large. How many of those people are men, and are there data identifying the proportion of sufferers who are men of whatever age, and the proportion who are young men?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. It is thought—I emphasise “thought”—that about 11% of sufferers are male, but interestingly, they are among the fastest-increasing groups.

The figures that I have given do not take into account the families of those who suffer, meaning that the social footprint of eating disorders is breathtaking. Be assured—to refer back to my hon. Friend’s point—that sufferers are by no means all teenage girls. That is one of several myths about eating disorders that need to be exposed.

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

A constituent of mine, Cherie Hinchliffe, wrote to me saying how pleased she was that the hon. Lady was holding this debate. She wanted to say that eating disorders destroy families, and that GPs do not know enough about them. Doctors, dentists, local hospitals and schools do not know enough about them; the media know about them but report them in a terrible way. Does the hon. Lady agree?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely bang on. Many parents of sufferers have commented to me that they feel their GPs do not understand enough, and nor do schools and colleges. I will cover all the points that he raised later.

The fastest increase in eating disorders has been among young men. As well as facing the mental health problems typically associated with female sufferers, they are coming under more pressure than ever before to conform to a stereotype of the body beautiful. Imagery in magazines and advertising plays a significant role.

Of particular concern is the prevalence of eating disorders among gay and bisexual men, who are twice as likely to be sufferers as heterosexual men. I understand that eating disorders in gay and bisexual men are even more linked to concerns about body image than in heterosexual male or female sufferers. Although males account for only 11% of the total of those with eating disorders, the percentage is increasing, and we should be conscious of that. In the 10 years up to 2011, the number of hospital admissions for men suffering from an eating disorder rose by 67%. Furthermore, there is evidence that undiagnosed disorders are even more commonplace among men than among women. The scale of the hidden problem could be immense.

It is not only the young who are afflicted, although there is certainly a trend towards eating disorders manifesting at an earlier age than ever before. I was particularly moved by my contact with a woman whose daughter started suffering from anorexia nervosa at 10 years old but was not diagnosed for years, as her GP and other medical practitioners thought that she was too young to have the condition. Eating disorders are also being diagnosed much later; some sufferers present in their 50s and 60s, and there is evidence that increasing numbers of sufferers manage their conditions not just over the average of seven years, but for decades. An increasing number of people in their 30s and 40s have lived with their eating disorder for more than 20 years.

“Eating disorder” is a term used to describe a wide variety of conditions, some well known and others far less so. Obviously, the best known and most recognisable is anorexia nervosa, in which a sufferer intentionally deprives themselves of food and has a body weight at least 15% below the recommended minimum. People with anorexia have an extremely distorted view of their own body and a fear of gaining weight. However, anorexia is but one condition among several. Eating disorders also include bulimia, which in many cases is harder to detect, as sufferers may maintain a normal-looking weight. However, it is achieved through bingeing, purging and fasting, and like anorexia it can cause long-term damage.

From my research for this debate and my conversations with many sufferers of eating disorders, I have learned of many other conditions: binge eating; compulsive overeating; food neophobia, an extreme fear of trying new food; and compulsive over-exercising. A year ago, I met a young man who ran up to 30 miles every day. There is also selective eating: sufferers eat only an extremely limited range of foods.

Bulimia is a disorder linked closely to low self-esteem, emotional problems and stress. The sufferer may think constantly about calories, dieting and ways of getting rid of food that they have eaten. It is actually more common than anorexia, but it is more hidden, because people with bulimia usually maintain an average or just-above-average weight. Bulimia can go unnoticed for a long time while sufferers feel incredibly ill and unhappy.

Those with bulimia become involved in a cycle of eating large amounts of food and making themselves sick, cutting down or starving for a few days, or trying to find other ways to make up for the food that they have eaten. It can cause them to become so hungry that they eat large amounts of food because their bodies crave nourishment. Some people do not vomit, but instead take laxatives, which are especially dangerous. Just because bulimia does not cause the extreme weight loss of anorexia does not mean that it is less serious. Sufferers need help and support, as the side effects and consequences can be serious. I appreciate that I have given a very rapid description of some eating disorders, for which I apologise, but I am sure that other Members will wish to discuss some of them in more detail.

I do not wish to generalise, and I apologise if my next remark causes any offence, but in many instances, due to the extreme control with which sufferers approach their food consumption, eating disorders are a type of addiction. However, unlike addictions to alcohol or narcotics, a fixation with how one controls one’s calorie intake must be faced and addressed every day of a sufferer or recovered sufferer’s life. They cannot simply remove food from their lives in the way that others might develop strategies to avoid alcohol, for instance. They must eat to live. For sufferers, by necessity, that battle will occur three times a day for the rest of their lives.

Eating disorders are not trivial conditions. Anorexia kills about 20% of sufferers, and 40% never recover. It is the single biggest killer of all mental illnesses. It has been dismissed for too long as a problem of teenage girls who just need to get a grip on their eating patterns. That is far from the truth. Eating disorders are serious, potentially fatal, mental illnesses, which, even long after a sufferer has recovered, can have long-term implications for their health. The impact on fertility is well known, but there are many other serious implications. Abnormal heart rhythms are commonplace, even in teenagers with eating disorders. In fact, heart damage is the most common cause of hospitalisation for those suffering from eating disorders, but the kidneys and liver are also badly affected, and reduction in bone density leading to osteoporosis can happen in sufferers, even before there has been any physical manifestation of a problem.

As chair of the all-party group on body image, I have been privileged to work with a number of leading charities supporting those suffering from eating disorders and their families. I pay particular tribute, during eating disorders awareness week, to Beat; many of its members are in the Public Gallery. I also pay tribute to Anorexia and Bulimia Care and the Succeed Foundation. I vividly recall hearing the moving stories of ABC members at a reception hosted by my hon. Friend the Member for Wells a few months ago. These charities all do fantastic work with sufferers and their families, and to ensure that the wider community—Members of Parliament, the medical profession, schools, colleges and universities—have a better understanding of the signs of eating disorders, and how to help those in the grip of such a disorder and those who may be at risk. They also work with the media to ensure that they understand the importance of the portrayal of responsible images on advertising and in editorials.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful, moving speech. These issues have been discussed and debated before, but there seems never to have been any progress in addressing the issues and tackling the problems. Why does she think no progress has been made in the past 10, 20 or 30 years? These things were known about, yet there seems to have been no move forward.

[Caroline Nokes]

That is a difficult question. Later, I may even suggest that we are moving backwards. Unfortunately, these are hidden conditions that the media and others have chosen, occasionally, to trivialise. They are not trivial and they need much higher priority.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the subject of this being a hidden illness, in recent times mental health has risen up the agenda, and attention has been given to the topic in the House, which has shone a light on the issue of mental illness. Why, even in the field of mental illness, has this area in particular not received attention, when its mortality rates are the worst?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend makes an important point about the mortality rates, compared with those for other mental illnesses. In this place, we have made great strides in being far more open and willing to discuss mental illness. This illness is hidden, and has not received priority or generated the attention that it so desperately deserves. It is incumbent on all of us to ensure that the Minister, who I am sure is listening, gets that message loud and clear.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

Whenever we approach a public health concern such as this, one of the biggest things we have to do is educate the public. The media are an important partner in that. Does my hon. Friend agree that the media’s obsession with the cult of celebrity, and the focus on that, is holding us back on a significant public health issue?

[Caroline Nokes]

My hon. Friend is aware of the work that I do with the all-party group on body image. We have been sending that message to the media time and again. We need more realistic images in magazines and publications. Shortly, I will quote a 21-year-old sufferer from anorexia who made that point to me powerfully.

The causes of eating disorders are complicated and varied, and although there may be broad similarities, it is dangerous to suggest that any two individuals will have identical experiences or paths into illness or recovery. I know from talking to sufferers, experts, charities and families that genetics, low self-esteem, stressful life events such as death or divorce, academic pressure and cultural and social pressures, can all contribute. For every sufferer there will be different triggers or different combinations of triggers. It would be naive to suggest that a single cause could be identified. However, an issue that brought me to this debate is the social pressure to conform to a stereotypical view of the ideal body image, so ably demonstrated to us in advertising and magazines.

Last November, I attended an event in this place organised by Anorexia and Bulimia Care, and was impressed by the moving account given by Katie Waters, a 21-year-old student, who told MPs:

“Six years ago the eating disorder well and truly look over. The stress of GCSEs in a high-achieving all-girls…school meant my weight dramatically plummeted and I…developed anorexia.

During this time I did everything—speech and drama exams, piano exams, I sang in the choir, I was in school plays, actively taking part in church activities and of course was buried under a mountain of homework. I constantly pressured myself to be perfect at absolutely everything.

But the trouble is, when it comes to weight and body size, the images I frequently saw in the media of apparent perfection were unattainable. We have only just been recently made aware in the last few years of the transformation airbrushing and digital photo techniques do to women’s bodies in the media. So what I was seeing from such a young, vulnerable and impressionable age was actually not a real person.”

To those who dismiss the impact of the images we routinely see in the media, I hope the words of Katie, and other sufferers like her, will hit home. Although I do not claim that such images are causing eating disorders, they are contributing to them, and editors and advertisers can work to portray more realistic and positive images.

I should like briefly to mention the relatively new phenomenon of pro-ana websites. First appearing in the 1990s, these sites are numerous and are often characterised by a frequent migration to different web addresses or blog sites. Ana, or thinspiration, is portrayed on many of these sites as not a serious mental illness, but a lifestyle choice, and although those supporting the sites claim that they can provide the only forum for socially isolated sufferers, solid academic studies support the claim that they do damage.

[Claire Perry (Devizes) (Con)]

I hope that you will accept my apologies for joining the debate late, Mrs Osborne. Does my hon. Friend agree that the progress we are making on making it much easier to filter out pornography, violence, abuse, anorexia and self-harm from the family home is welcome?

[Caroline Nokes]

I commend my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing in that area. I sincerely hope that we see some progress on that, so that these websites, which are proliferating—there is evidence of a 470% increase in just one year, between 2006 and 2007—can be prevented from being accessed from family homes. US studies have shown a clear correlation between increased body dissatisfaction and viewing such sites.

We live in a complex, changing world where higher numbers of people than ever suffer from mental illness, and so it is with eating disorders. It is not just the number of sufferers, but the severity, that is increasing. What would have been considered an eating disorder 20 years ago might now be regarded merely as a bit of disordered eating. I do not say that in any way to dismiss the seriousness of disordered eating, but to demonstrate that the conditions now have to be a great deal worse to be recognised as such, and to make a sufferer a priority for treatment. That is one of the serious issues that I would like to mention.

In my home city of Southampton—not in my constituency, but in that of the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham)—is April House, a unit specialising in eating disorders, which I have had the privilege of visiting, and where I met service users and health care professionals. I attest to the outstanding work done there. Some of the service users and staff are here today. I admire their courage and determination.

I agree with the firm message that I received from staff at April House. With all eating disorders, there is a critical window of opportunity when a sufferer has been diagnosed, wants help, has acknowledged that they have a problem, and are reaching out for the assistance they desperately need. That opportunity can easily be lost if help is not available at that time.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech. I was concerned when I received an e-mail from one of my constituents, a student nurse, who wrote:

“I am currently on a mental health placement and two of my clients have eating disorders of varying degrees, however cannot seek support for their eating disorder due to cuts in services.”

Does the hon. Lady share my belief that, having raised awareness of eating disorders and encouraged sufferers to seek help, we must not then fail to provide the support and assistance that they need?

[Caroline Nokes]

The hon. Lady makes exactly the point that I am coming on to: it is critical that when sufferers feel that they can reach out for help and acknowledge that they have a problem, the help is there for them. A delay of six to nine months can be dangerous—or, indeed, fatal.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the level of knowledge among medical professionals? Is there a job to be done in raising awareness of what they should be doing and of the signs that they should be looking for among sufferers of these disorders?

[Caroline Nokes]

I have been struck by the number of times that relatives of sufferers have contacted me to make the point that their family member was slow to get a diagnosis, or to say that the GP dismissed the eating disorder as nothing more than a teenager being a bit fussy about their food. It is critical to raise awareness, not only among the wider community and the media, but among our general practitioners, because we need these disorders to be identified earlier so that damage to growing bodies, in the instance of young people, does not become permanent.

[Stephen Metcalfe]

As well as the medical profession being aware of these conditions and the first signs, should not parents have some knowledge of the indications, so that they can help their children earlier, before the condition gets too serious?

[Caroline Nokes]

One of the messages that I have received from parents is that they already feel enormous guilt, in some instances completely unjustifiably. They feel shame for what is going on with their child, and as if they are somehow to blame. They are not, and I find that in the majority of cases, parents were the fastest to identify the condition. They instinctively knew that something was wrong with their child, even though they might not have been able to put their finger on what exactly it was. I have heard some terrible tales from parents, which I will come on to—I assure you, Mrs Osborne, I am getting towards the end—about the responsibility and burden placed on them. I have even heard about parents who have been told that it is their fault. It simply is not.

We do not fully understand what causes eating disorders; it is complicated. All the parents I have spoken to have done the most fantastic job in supporting their children. As one sufferer’s mother said to me on the phone just yesterday, there is nothing that she would not have sacrificed to get her daughter the help that she needed. Had the mother been able to buy private health care, she would have sold her house to do it, so desperate was she for her daughter to get well.

I know how long sufferers have had to wait to gain admission to April House—something that has been emphasised to me incredibly strongly—and the picture from around the country is that the average wait from diagnosis to treatment in a specialist unit can be as long as nine months. For sufferers, that is simply far too long. As we move from primary care trusts to clinical commissioning groups, it is imperative that awareness of the scale of the problem is uppermost in the minds of GPs, who will be responsible for commissioning the relevant services.

I have mentioned briefly one significant theme, but I would like to mention it again. It is a message that has come from the parents about the impact on families. The effects are many and varied, and certainly include huge feelings of guilt and despair, and lack of comprehension of why this has happened to their child, or why an individual might choose to deprive themselves of the necessary nutrition to lead a healthy life.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I apologise to the hon. Lady, who is making a brilliant case on behalf of the sufferers of eating disorders, for intervening on an excellent speech. Given the shame and guilt she has mentioned, which are big factors, does she agree that it is fantastic that constituents of mine have got in touch with me to ask me to attend this debate? All of us have constituents who have got in touch with us on this issue and have talked about their experiences. Their coming forward helps to dispel some of those feelings, and some of the myths and rumours surrounding these conditions. Will she congratulate them with me?

[Caroline Nokes]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention. One word that keeps being used is “stigma”. She is absolutely right to highlight the bravery of individuals, some of whom were perfectly happy to be named; when I told Katie Waters that I wanted to quote her, she was over the moon that I was going to quote her in Parliament. Others did not want to be named but still wanted to tell their story. They have all been phenomenally brave, including those in this place who have contacted me and talked about their personal stories.

I have had mothers contact me to tell me that when their child was diagnosed with an eating disorder, they were accused of abusing their child. The assumption was made that they must have harmed their child for her or him to have developed an eating disorder. I am not saying that that never happens, but from my experience, the parents and families of people with eating disorders have been caring, loving, supportive, desperate for knowledge and help, and in many cases prepared to sacrifice absolutely everything for their family member to be well again. I therefore pay tribute to charities such as Beat and ABC, which have recognised that this is not a condition of the individual, but affects entire families, wider networks, friends and colleagues.

Beat is working in partnership with Student Run Self Help, which runs a number of support groups in universities throughout the country. Both organisations have heard of a number of cases in which students have not been able to access treatment, or have been able to access only intermittent treatment, due to a lack of co-ordination and flexibility on the part of GPs and eating disorder treatment services at their university and in their home location. They have asked me specifically to highlight to the Minister the serious problem with 18-year-olds going off to university. We know that people are most likely to develop an eating disorder at 17, so that is a vulnerable age.

What sufferers need above all else is continuity and stability of treatment, which Beat originally thought could be achieved by enabling people to register with two GPs at one time. However, after consideration was given to who would have overall financial and clinical responsibility for the patient, discussion turned to the proposal that the home GP could have those responsibilities. This should encourage greater communication between the home GP and the GP with whom the student is registered as a temporary patient at university. In addition, it is likely to be argued that the student should be able to register with more than one eating disorders unit—one at home and one at university—so that they can receive the necessary care during both term time and the holidays.

I am conscious that other Members wish to speak and my contribution has been somewhat lengthy, so I shall conclude my remarks with a tribute to one of my constituents, whom I first met at April House this time last year. She has gone out of her way to keep in touch with updates about what she is doing to raise awareness of eating disorders. She has certainly improved my knowledge and understanding, and is shortly to take part in a charity sky-dive to raise funds for eating disorders awareness. What struck me about Becky was her willingness to open up about her battle with anorexia and some of the stark truths.

Hampshire is a fortunate county, with excellent schools and sixth-form colleges. Even in schools and colleges rated as excellent, however, eating disorders can flourish. Transition from school to college can be difficult for many, and at times of change, stress and pressure, eating disorders can frequently manifest themselves. Even where teachers and head teachers are good, concerned and caring, and where pastoral care is superb, young people can fall victim to these disorders. I hope that in some small way this debate has helped to raise awareness and understanding in this place. I sincerely thank all those in the Public Gallery for attending, and I thank colleagues for their contributions this afternoon.

13:49

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on raising this issue and in particular on her comprehensive survey of some of the problems experienced mainly by young people but, as she said, not exclusively so. She presented her case clearly and did a very good job.

It is important for us to send a message from this place today: quite naturally, human beings come in all shapes and sizes. There is no perfect body or shape, each one of us is different; we are genetically predisposed to look a certain way. It is important for us to say that as loudly and as often as we can, to counteract the loud noises often experienced in the media by young people about what they should look like.

Before I move on to the specific area that I want to cover, it might be worth giving an example not of a constituent but of someone I know through my family friendships: a young woman who is now in her 20s and has been studying violin since the age of five. She is a talented and well trained young musician and was offered a contract to play at an international festival in, as it happened, the south of France. The contract specified what body size she should aim to be—that says so much about where we have gone with the issue—by the time of the event. That was outrageous, and agents who become involved in such contracts should be ashamed of themselves.

I want to speak about an eating disorder that affects young people with type 1 diabetes. It is informally known as diabulimia, but the medical profession does not recognise that title and, to be fair, it is not an accepted name. In so far as I use it, I do so as shorthand to describe a quite complex phenomenon. I pay tribute to Diabetics with Eating Disorders—DWED—and particularly Jacqueline Allan who provided me with briefing to enable me to take part in this debate. Diabulimia is a condition, although not officially recognised as such, that affects mainly but not exclusively young diabetics. For clarity, I emphasise that I am talking about type 1 diabetes, which people are born with a predisposition to, and which has nothing to do with lifestyle. Some people are born with something that is likely to trigger diabetes at some stage, and too often we confuse type 1 with type 2 diabetes when they are absolutely not the same.

Sufferers of type 1 diabetes are exclusively prone to suffer diabulimia. If a young diabetic does not take their insulin, their level of blood sugar—glucose—increases, as medical science has known for a long time. However, young people have discovered that when that happens, the glucose cannot be converted into energy, and in turn the glucose is removed through the natural process of urination. Consequently, necessary calories are also lost, so manipulating their insulin intake may lead to rapid weight loss. If the intake of insulin, which is needed to stay alive, is manipulated, diabetics can achieve rapid weight loss. That information is circulated all the time in the social media on Facebook and Twitter, and young diabetics who want to lose weight are learning from other young diabetics how to lose weight rapidly. I will move on shortly to the consequences for those young people.

First, it is important to give some context for diabetes and associated problems. Young female diabetics aged 15 to 30 have a nine times higher death rate than their non-diabetic counterparts, which is an alarming statistic. According to a BBC report last year, of the 26,000 avoidable deaths from diabetes, the highest increase is among young women in that age range, which bears out the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North. According to the Joslin Diabetes Center and DWED, having type 1 diabetes increases the chances of developing an eating disorder twofold, and 40% in that age range regularly manipulate or omit taking their insulin, which they need to survive, in order to lose weight.

At first glance from the perspective of young people who want to lose weight, that seems like a way of using their condition as a means of doing so easily. However, the problem for people with type 1 diabetes is that deliberately increasing their blood sugar levels may have serious consequences and lead to early death. In the long term, as the hon. Lady said, there is a risk of fertility problems, which are common in relation to other eating disorders, but for diabetics there is also a risk of loss of limbs, kidney damage, blindness, heart damage and many other serious complications.

There may also be serious short-term consequences. When a type 1 diabetic stops taking sufficient insulin to balance their blood sugar levels, the body produces ketones, which are highly acidic and dangerous, and above a certain point might lead to diabetic ketoacidosis or DKA, which is always fatal if not treated quickly.

The health system is very poor at dealing with this problem because it is not officially diagnosable and the reaction of health professionals is often confused, at best, which might lead to courses of action that can have serious consequences, including death. Sufferers report being told that diabulimia does not exist—it does not exist as an official medical term—and consequently they have been discharged with no treatment. Sometimes they have been designated as non-compliant. If the health professional does not recognise what they are looking at, they assume that there is a problem with lack of co-operation from the patient and simply discharge them, which may have dangerous consequences. I will give an example in a moment.

In other cases, such people have been diagnosed as anorexic or bulimic, and treated for a condition that they do not have, often with fatal consequences. DWED reports that sufferers have sometimes been treated by eating disorder specialists who have little or no knowledge or understanding of diabetes, or by diabetes specialists who have little or no understanding of eating disorders.

[Caroline Nokes]

I welcome the right hon. Gentleman raising diabulimia, about which I knew absolutely nothing prior to calling this debate. A constituent of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government contacted me to inform me that treatment of the condition is incredibly rare, and they were aware of only one hospital in south London that specialises in it. Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm whether that is correct?

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Lady is correct. I intend to address that issue when I bring my comments to a close, and I will make suggestions for what we need to do.

The consequence of people being treated either by a diabetologist who does not understand eating disorders, or by an eating disorder specialist who does not understand diabetes, is that they can be signposted to an unsuitable service altogether, or unforgivably, they will not be taken seriously when they have a serious problem.

An example I have been told about involved a young woman sufferer who was told that she was too heavy. That is not to say that she was heavy; she was very light, but she did not meet the criteria for being light enough to have an eating disorder, and was consequently told that she did not qualify for any support. The advice that she was given was that she needed to relax about food. Anybody who knows anything about diabetes knows that the relationship diabetics have with their carbohydrate intake is crucial to their well-being, so to say to a diabetic, “Go away and get more relaxed about eating”, could put them in a position where their life is threatened. Subsequently, the young woman concerned had to be admitted as an emergency case to hospital with ketoacidosis, which, had it not been treated quickly enough, would have been fatal. That was somebody who had presented themselves in the health system, looking for help, but was told to go away and get a better relationship with food.

DWED has some aims that I hope Ministers can address, and I shall go through those now. First, it wants to establish the principle, which I strongly support, that no diabetic with an eating disorder should be misdiagnosed or told, “There is nowhere to put you”, which is what is commonly said to them at the moment. That comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North.

Secondly, for type 1 diabetics with eating disorders—what I have termed as diabulimia—the condition needs to be properly recognised as a serious and complex mental health problem. I do not think that it is controversial for the hon. Lady to refer to it being a mental health problem, because although, in all the cases that she gave, there are serious physical consequences, the springboard often relates to mental health, relationship with body image, and so on.

Thirdly, those who seek treatment should receive the correct treatment with respect and compassion, on the basis of a multidisciplinary approach. In the example that I gave, there was not enough expertise in one specialism to be able to satisfactorily deal with the problem. Such an approach requires the Department actively to promote an understanding of the problem, so that health professionals catch on to what is happening. Protocols probably need to be in place, so that when somebody presents themselves with such a condition, health professionals know what to do.

The only people raising this problem, apart from me in today’s debate, are DWED, who work together with other bodies, such as Diabetes UK. DWED currently exists on an income, in the last financial year, of £9,000, which is not even enough to employ one full-time member of staff. DWED operates on the basis of having previous sufferers who are volunteers, under the co-ordination of Jacqueline Allan, who I mentioned earlier. I do not know whether it is more appropriate for support to come from foundations or the Government, or somebody else. I am not talking about needing hundreds of thousands of pounds, although I am sure that DWED would welcome that, but some way needs to be found to support the one organisation that is campaigning on, and raising and dealing with the problem. Given the importance of its unique role, I hope that the Government can find some support—not only for DWED, but for the issue as it exists across the health service.

Finally, just as it is vital that health professionals take a more multidisciplinary approach to this and other eating disorders, it is equally important that the Government take a more joined-up approach. I could have made the same criticism of the previous Government, and I realise how difficult it is to get a joined-up approach to eating disorders and many other things. However, on medical cases, there needs to be co-operation between different Departments, because a stronger push is required on the issue of body image and how that is dealt with. Perhaps it is not best dealt with by the Department of Health, but at the same time, some of the health issues involved need to be addressed.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Perhaps I can put an alternative view to the right hon. Gentleman. In my experience, people do not like being told what to do by the Government. If we acknowledge that the media are among the biggest perpetrators in pushing forward images that we should all aspire to, do we not need a good, populist campaign to educate the public that actually, curves are great?

[Mr Howarth]

The hon. Lady makes a good point. There is this idea of politicians wagging our fingers and saying, “This is what you should do”. For a couple of years in the previous Government, I had the responsibility in the Home Office for drugs policy, and one thing I know is that middle-aged men like me—perhaps I am flattering myself there—are probably the worst people to go into the media and say, “Actually, you should not be taking drugs.” A subtle, sophisticated approach is needed. A lesson from that, which applies equally here, is to provide information to young people so that they know the consequences of what they do. One problem we are dealing with is that people think there is an easy way to lose weight and to get to be the shape that they, or others, think they should be. Action has to be taken smartly, on the basis of real information about consequences, but it still has to be done.

The hon. Lady anticipated my next point, which is the responsibility of people in different industries. There is relentless media hype about what the perfect body shape should be, and the irresponsible attitudes often displayed by the fashion and entertainment industries need to be highlighted. Looking round the room, there might be one or two people who can remember what it was like to be a teenager—[Interruption.] I take that back. Several people around the room well remember what it is like to be a teenager, and one experience that we probably all share, and that every teenager in history has shared, is insecurity. They have not developed into who they are going to be, and they are insecure about everything, including their appearance—as is obvious, I have long since given up worrying about my appearance—the way they present themselves to the world, what it is to be cool, and all those things. A lot of that is dictated by what they read in magazines and see on cable channels—even on mainstream reality television shows.

It is wholly unrealistic for the industries that show those images to say, “Well, that’s a matter for the Government.” They have a responsibility to provide for young people role models that are realistic, that are just like the rest of the world, that show young people that they do not have to look like those images to be an acceptable, successful and attractive member of society. That responsibility is not just for Government or politicians, but for everyone who is in a position to influence how these things are presented to young people in particular, and to society in general. I hope that, as a result of this debate, we can at least move that agenda along a little further.

[Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)]

I call Heather Wheeler.

14:20

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

I appreciate being called to speak, Mrs Osborne, particularly because I am going to nip off later to the second debate in the main Chamber. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will forgive me. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne.

I begin by paying tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing this very important debate during eating disorders awareness week 2013. She is respected by hon. Members on both sides of the House for her knowledge of this issue. I thank her for the tireless way she is championing an issue that is one of the most pressing and, if the medical profession’s statistics are to be believed, one of the most rapidly growing health issues that the nation faces. Indeed, male admissions to hospital are up by 68% in 10 years.

I also pay tribute to the all-party group on body image, of which my hon. Friend is the chair and which exists to inform the media, the fashion industry and wider society of the complex issues arising from poor body image. Body image is, as reported by the First Steps charity, which works in my constituency of South Derbyshire, one of the most significant causes of disordered eating behaviour. It is heartening that such groups exist and it is evidence that, in some small measure, awareness of the issue is starting to grow. Only a few years ago, the very idea of a group committed to improving body image would have been met with a roll of the eyes and a dismissive comment, yet the reality has always been that women, and now increasingly men, spend fruitless hours examining themselves critically in front of the mirror and obsessing over every lump and bump. They are often driven to self-loathing by what stares back at them.

Poor body image and a media full of unrealistic and unobtainable examples of body shapes that we are told to emulate are undoubted drivers in individuals who go on to develop eating disorders. Many who suffer low self-esteem and poor body image, especially men, go on to suffer serious mental health problems, often manifested in eating disorders and chaotic, dysfunctional and disordered lives, and suffer lifelong unhappiness. Therefore, the focus of the all-party body image group is more than welcome; it is essential and, indeed, it is a weather vane for how attitudes towards such real human issues are changing for the better as awareness of these issues improves.

Eating disorders are a complex issue to discuss in just a few minutes. It is a shame that this debate is not getting the priority that it deserves, perhaps by taking place in the main Chamber, but I am very grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate to be held in Westminster Hall. The number of MPs and, indeed, members of the public here today is testimony to the issue’s importance. Having the debate in the main Chamber would have gone a considerable way towards assuring sufferers that Parliament is at least serious about raising awareness of these issues and the problems that people face.

Of course, not all people with eating disorders come forward to get the help that they need. The most accurate figures of which we are aware are those from the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. They suggest that 1.6 million people in the UK are affected by an eating disorder, of whom about 11% are male. Worryingly, the most vulnerable group are our young people, particularly those between the ages of 14 and 20.

[Jackie Doyle-Price]

Bearing in mind that we have heard from previous speakers in the debate that there is a critical window for intervention to support these people, and given that the incidence of these disorders tends to occur in the mid to late teens, does my hon. Friend think that there is a case for more education of our schools and teaching staff so that they know what signs to look for?

[Heather Wheeler]

Absolutely. I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention; she is absolutely right. We have been debating in the main Chamber what should go on the curriculum for personal, social, health and economic education. Perhaps the Minister can reflect on that in his speech. I apologise to him again for the fact that I will not be here at the end of the debate. I will read his speech in Hansard next week.

It is the case that 1% of the population between the ages of 15 and 30 suffers from anorexia. About 40% of those who suffer never fully recover and 30% suffer the illness in the long term. Official figures show that eating disorders rose by 16% in England from 2011 to 2012. The scale of the problem is therefore hard to ignore.

This subject raises issues pertaining to public health, mental health, nutrition, education and the way in which families are supported in dealing with disordered eating behaviour at an early age. That final point is, for me, the most important one and the one on which I shall focus in the few seconds that I have left. I am referring to how we raise awareness of disordered eating behaviour in such a way and at an early enough stage that recognition and treatment are possible and at a time that predates the long-term physical health problems that eating disorders can cause.

So many who suffer from eating disorders start to experience their troubles as children and adolescents. Many suffer in silence, and in so doing curse their lives, not just with a disordered relationship with food, but by destroying both their physical and their mental health in the process. That will probably affect every aspect of their lives: their career, their relationships and even, sadly, in some cases, their ability to become parents themselves.

The underlying cause of much disordered eating behaviour is a person struggling to cope with anxiety, stress and poor mental health. The cause of that anxiety and stress may be bullying. It may be an escape from abuse or traumatic events. The cause may be a lack of control, bereavement, poor parenting or simply uncertainty over one’s place in the world. However, the cause is undoubtedly psychological. The illness therefore deserves genuine sympathy and understanding, not dismissive attitudes, which compound the problem. Perhaps over time, the disordered eating behaviour may be modified through self-discipline or self-awareness. The sooner someone gets the treatment they need, the more likely they are to make a full recovery.

For the reasons that I have set out, this issue deserves at least equal priority with other physical and mental health problems. We cannot ignore or be indifferent to the obvious consequences of eating disorders. We have only to look at those who so bravely suffer them to see why we as a society must do more to tackle them, and we must start by raising awareness of their existence, their causes and their cures.

14:27

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I, too, thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing the debate. However, I particularly thank the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) for securing the debate. She and I are members of the all-party group on body image and, in calling for the debate, she has shown the commitment to, and concern about, the issue that demonstrate why she is deservedly the chair of our group.

Before I had decided to speak in the debate and while I was pondering whether I would be able to spare the time before returning to my constituency, I received a number of e-mails from people across the country, as I am sure other hon. Members did. One was from a young constituent of mine who is just 17 years old. This is why she asked me to attend the debate:

“Recently I have been having problems with my eating and raising awareness would mean people like me can get the help we need and feel less ashamed or judged. This issue is incredibly important to me and you showing your support on Thursday would really help…This serious mental illness is affecting someone you know right now in your constituency.”

What could be more compelling than that?

Today, I would like to be quite parochial and speak about services in the north-east. When looking on the internet to find out where these services were, I was quite concerned to find out how limited they are, but, fortunately, in the north-east we have a unique service; it is the only specialist provision outside hospital services in the north-east. The Northern Initiative on Women and Eating has worked in the area for 24 years; it is referred to as NIWE. Last year, according to its annual report, it helped 1,344 people with eating disorders. For the rest of my speech, I shall refer to them as people with eating distress, as NIWE feels that it is a more appropriate way to describe how people suffer when they have problems with eating. It has also helped 141 carers and supporters of people with eating distress and 636 professions have called on its expertise.

As has been said, 1.6 million people in the UK have eating distress, more than 90% of whom are women, and an increasing number of men are now affected. The figures include only those who are in-patients in NHS treatment, and therefore leave out people who have not come forward or have not been diagnosed and those who are receiving private treatment or being treated as out-patients or in the community. Eating distress is a general term with which people are more comfortable. It covers those diagnosed with conditions such as bulimia, anorexia, eating disorders not otherwise specified and binge eating. Problematic eating habits seriously interfere with people’s lives, as hon. Members have pointed out.

Some people have not even shared their disorders with others. The high levels of stigma have already been pointed out. When people have eating disorders, it often goes unreported to GPs or other medical services, owing to shame and the fear that people’s futures could be jeopardised if anything were recorded in health records. That fear needs to be removed. Sometimes people have lived with eating issues for many years, managing in secret and suffering in silence.

Under-reporting is exacerbated because many eating issues are due to a fundamental lack of self-esteem, which can be brought on by bullying or abuse. They are difficult to diagnose medically and not all GPs have enough specialist knowledge, as we have learnt this afternoon. I do not apologise for repeating some things that have already been said; I do not think we can say enough about what the issues are and how they affect the lives of sufferers.

Eating distress carries the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. During the past two years, hospital admissions in the north-east for eating distress have risen by 16%, compared with 8% for all other admissions. Unfortunately, the figures also show that the highest rates are in the north-east. Overeating is increasing, and the serious long-term health risks of obesity are being highlighted.

Of those on NIWE’s waiting list for support and help, 10% are from my constituency and the wider North Tyneside borough. I would like to thank it for helping people from north Tyneside, who, over the past two years, made up 25% of its attendees. Of the people with whom NIWE works, 61% are under 30. NIWE was keen to stress, as was my constituent, that there is a greater chance of recovery with early intervention. Sadly, NIWE also tells us that 70 people are on its waiting list for group therapy. Waiting times are too long, but it simply lacks the capacity to address the issue further, and every day it receives new names.

There is particular concern in the north-east from NIWE and public health leaders over the growing numbers of young people in the north-east, due to the student groups, who are at risk. We have a number of universities. Although NIWE is supported by North Tyneside, Newcastle and Gateshead primary care trusts and Newcastle council, and receives funding from charities, such as the Northern Rock Foundation, it operates on a shoestring.

Many treatments target core eating disorder pathology, primarily weight restoration, but there is a need to look at efficacy and effectiveness in minimising harm and reducing the personal and social costs of chronic illness. NIWE has therapy groups, which are proving successful, that address the underlying determinants of eating distress, but I have to keep returning to the fact that it is underfunded. NIWE has found that people from across the area who are recovering from an eating disorder want recovery groups to be set up, because they help them to progress and maintain their recovery, which must be the ultimate aim of anyone who comes forward to address a problem. The Stay Well group helps such people, but NIWE is, again, trying to raise more funds to support that vital service. It tells me that, as I think we all know, such services need more provision and we need more to be spent on recovery, because, sadly, there is a high relapse rate and many people go through a revolving door. It makes sense to invest in support for people in recovery, because bed rates for those with eating distress are between £450 and £750 a day. In terms of economics, the Government should look at supporting people in recovery.

Support for families and friends who are carers and supporters is important. There are effective family-based interventions. NIWE offers an initial listening and signposting service to under-18s and their families, but it wants to do more. I know that I am pleading for NIWE, but I am sure that those here today know of many other organisations in a similar situation, with the ability, but simply not the capacity, to help. People call NIWE wanting an appointment or asking for other services, but it finds that need far outstrips capacity.

I mentioned that eating distress is becoming more common among the male population and minority groups, including the transgender community. NIWE has been able to introduce some support for young men and others who come to it, but a lot more work needs to be done. Before I make a plea to the Minister on what needs to be done, I shall pay tribute to NIWE’s work by quoting some users of its service. One person said:

“NIWE has saved my life and is trying to help me make sense of it.”

Others said:

“I think this is an unbelievably amazing service. The counsellors in the session were brilliant. I just wish there were more of you out there for all the people still struggling.”

“A relaxed and non-critical atmosphere which enabled me to speak…without feeling isolated.”

There are more quotes, but those demonstrate how organisations such as this are critical and why they need full recognition and support in the health service.

Raising awareness of serious mental health issues and the profile of services is always crucial. With so much pressure on clinical commissioning groups in their new role, specialist non-acute services are in danger of flying under the radar and losing out in commissioning plans. Mental health services are often poor relations when it comes to health funding pots. Acute eating disorder services will be funded through specialised commissioning frameworks, and will often be large regional services remote from many of their users. Small local services, especially ones focusing on early intervention, are therefore vital, but there is a great risk that such services will not be commissioned.

As has already been mentioned, we need a comprehensive awareness-raising programme in schools and youth services. Organisations such as NIWE try to provide that, but much more is needed—more training for professionals and, above all, more money for services, such as NIWE, and more support and acknowledgment. I make a plea to the Government that, following this debate, they will help groups, such as NIWE, that are doing so fantastic and fundamental a job for our communities.

14:39

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this debate. I was privileged to support her application to the Backbench Business Committee and, with others from across the House, to commit firmly to this debate. I hope that, at the very least, one thing that comes out of it will be a greater number of Members of Parliament pressing for improvement.

I, too, am straddling debates and trying to be in two places at once. I apologise, Mrs Osborne, for the fact that I must leave to go to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Public Bill Committee, which is continuing its deliberations.

All of us must declare an interest when it comes to eating disorders. All of us have to accept that we know a friend, family member or constituent who is dealing with the issue, and if we do not know one, we are out of touch with what, sadly, is the reality. All too often, that is a hidden reality, which is why I so welcome our shining a light on this important concern.

I do not come to the subject as a great expert, but I have been involved over the years—I share this with the Minister—in the issue of addiction, which is similar. I increasingly see great similarities between the issues. There is the profound loss of freedom; the diminished and, sadly, lost lives; the effect not only on patients, but on family members and all those around them; the health concerns, and the wider social concerns for society; and the whole process of treatment and recovery, with individuals, their family and society at large having to make a long-term, continual commitment. That matters, in terms of the quality of treatment and the support from family members and peers. All those issues should be promoted.

Although there are, sadly, the negatives—I will predominantly talk about the problems—I have been particularly impressed by the power of recovery. The positive stories of those in recovery are immensely powerful, and we must given them a much louder voice.

I have said that I am no great expert, but from those close to me and from constituents, I have learned that we cannot find one magic solution, or seek a simplistic or generalised one. Eating disorders are complex and contradictory, and in many ways there is ambiguity as regards recovery. That makes them particularly problematic, in terms of illness, mental illness and recovery. They are highly resistant to change; unlike with a physical illness, the patient wants to hold on to these disorders as a method of coping, so they are inherently hard to treat.

I want to concentrate on treatment and recovery. We must accept that we have a problem, and I would be interested to hear the Minister’s response to that. We have a problem in terms of the prevalence of eating disorders. They are on the rise in the UK, which has one of the highest rates of hospital admissions in Europe. The most vulnerable may well be teenagers, but eating disorders cover all genders and ages. Indeed, it is right to mention boys: 25% of those affected at school age are boys, whereas I understand that 10 years ago that figure was 10%. We also have an NHS problem—I have to say that—and a family problem in relation to how families are involved.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that there might also be a problem in schools? We need to talk more about the issues with children at a very young age. Teachers can be part of that process by aiming to explain some of the issues and making young people feel more comfortable about body image.

[Mr Burrowes]

Very much so. The guidance is all on the side of early intervention. Indeed, the Government are very much on that side, and I am sure that there is a cross-party call for early intervention. That is a key area, and we must tackle the issue through not only better treatment, but profoundly better education and prevention, as well as culturally, through the media. That is an area on which we can give our views, which we are airing here, and where we can be part of a changed culture, but it really happens at an early age.

I particularly point to the pressure on services and waiting lists—an issue that has already been mentioned. The pressures on GPs and others for referrals to out-patient and in-patient services are growing. Anorexia and Bulimia Care—I pay great tribute to that leading national charity, among other good ones, on eating disorders—has told me that adult sufferers can wait up to nine months or even a year to receive treatment. That is profoundly damaging for adults, but think of young children who are susceptible to rapid weight loss waiting, at a time when they are growing. That wait for treatment while the right service is found could quickly put their life in danger.

Training in the complexities of eating disorders has been mentioned, but the general training that should be mainstreamed for GPs does not exist. Health professionals wrongly diagnose patients, mishandle their cases and lack sensitivity and proper judgment. Short time allocations for appointments mean that GPs cannot get to the heart of the physical and emotional needs of patients, who require time and cannot simply be moved on quickly. They need a proper rapport with GPs and investigations that involve the wider health community. With the pressures on GPs, are patients properly followed up, rather than allowed to slide into both physical and mental danger?

Sadly, among the most common causes of death are heart failure and, indeed, suicide, and the issue therefore needs to be grappled with properly and carefully. We must ensure sensitivity in the handling of that long-term involvement—because shortages in treatment services mean that patients end up falling back on pressurised GPs for the monitoring of their health and safety—but, sadly, that does not happen.

We have too few specialist in-patient units for eating disorders. The NHS has St George’s hospital, Tooting, a mental health unit largely for adolescents, which offers general mental health provision. Children who are already traumatised are going there; they are even more traumatised after going to units that do not have the specialists that we want them to see. We want more eating-disorder-only establishments. I will return to that in due course.

As has been mentioned, there is a profound issue about parents and carers. Parents raise the issue of their needs, and the important role that they play in recovery; those things are sometimes ignored or excluded, particularly if the child lives at home, as 16-year-olds often do. I understand that carer support services can be hard to find in several counties, and parents complain that they are simply shut out from the practical care of their children. That is totally contrary to the way that child and adolescent mental health services were set up to deal with such cases, but sadly, it happens all too often.

We have already taken up the issue of the statute with the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who has responsibility for children, and I look forward to meetings with the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) in relation to mental health. The Children Act 1989 seems to lead to a statutory anomaly, in that those aged 16 and over are given the right to refuse treatment for an eating disorder; there is therefore the prospect that they will be sectioned, and that that will be on their health record for life.

In effect, the Children Act enables GPs to tell children aged 16 and above that they can refuse treatment, which might sometimes undermine the work and values of parents. The number of complaints that I have received on that issue reflects the fact that it is a systemic concern. One set of parents told me about their 16-year-old child who was living at home—I know that this illness covers all ages and not just 16-year-olds. They were responsible for feeding and looking after her, but were excluded from her care. Such treatment might well have perpetuated the illness, and the dire straits that she was in; she may have been at the stage of trying to manipulate the system. These 16-year-olds, who are often intelligent and able young people, know the system as well as anyone else, and their manipulation of it can hinder the practical medical process of recovery.

Mental health legislation, including the Mental Capacity Act 2005, and the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court are interwoven in the treatment of this complex condition. We must also consider how we link in the organisations on the ground, such as CAMHS, to ensure that we involve all the relevant bodies in the health and care of our loved ones. Stigma and public misconception are also important issues, as the attitudes of the public and of health service professionals can hinder treatment.

I want to leave the final word to the experts—the families, who, sadly, have never wanted to be experts in this area. These are the sorts of stories that I hear all too often. One constituent became concerned about their daughter’s sudden loss of weight. They went to their GP, who made a referral to the local CAMHS team, which passed the matter on to the specialist eating disorder unit at the Royal Free hospital. The first appointment came up a couple of months later. The girl saw a consultant and dietician weekly or fortnightly. She attended various groups and family therapy sessions, but at no time did she receive any individual therapy.

Four months later, the child became abusive and violent towards her family. Despite attending regular hospital appointments, her intake of food was becoming more and more restricted. Her weight loss continued until she became skeletal. At times, the parents were in desperation. They phoned the hospital, pleading with it to admit their child, because they were reaching a point where they just could not cope. The response from the hospital was that in its opinion hospitalisation was not deemed necessary.

The parents felt completely helpless and as if they were battling the illness on their own. That went on until they found a helpline number for Anorexia and Bulimia Care, which proved to be a lifeline. A doctor eventually saw their daughter, who was so poorly that they were unable to get a blood pressure reading. There was no hospital involvement or admission at that stage, but the parents realised how important it was, and that their daughter needed to be admitted. Indeed she was admitted, not to an NHS clinic, but to Rhodes Farm clinic, which provides exceptional care. ABC underwrote the cost of treatment. We have been battling ever since to try to get the health service to take some responsibility for that cost of treatment.

Since then, there has been progress. No one would say that the girl is out of the woods, because it is a continuing process, but for her to be able to take food, gain weight steadily, feed the mind and the brain, and engage with processes has helped. The parents have said that without the support of ABC, they dread to think where they would be today; it saved their lives.

I have another example, which involves not lay people but a local doctor, who says:

“doctors know all about Anorexia and the best way to treat it, and the latest development in treatment—WRONG!”

She goes on to say:

“The help was not there. The doctors at best were sympathetic, at worst were downright dangerous.”

This is the mother of an intelligent and gifted daughter. She said that she could have been anyone’s 15-year-old, and yes, it could have happened to a boy as well as a girl. She was a normal loving child. The mother told me what happened:

“We went to doctors, paediatricians, bowel specialists. They found nothing wrong with her stomach. I told them of my worries. ‘Oh no. She is not thin enough to be anorexic!’”

The daughter was asked whether she was eating. “Yes”, she said. “Well, you need to eat more, sweetie”, her mother said. The daughter promised that she would try,

“But she didn’t. Always there was an excuse.”

The problem got worse. It is a familiar story:

“Every time we mentioned food or insisted on eating, she threw plates, broke things, kicked, screamed, destroyed her room. Her brain was now completely malnourished, starved of even basic nutrients. She had the look of a wild, caged animal. She told us…she was a bad person and wanted to die. ‘Please let me die mummy’ she would scream.”

Eventually, the parents got her to casualty and were told that she most likely had anorexia. The doctors said that a referral would be made to the CAMHS team. The parents were desperate. Their child had become psychotic and was in danger of starvation. The mother said,

“Even though I knew, hearing the doctor actually say ‘Anorexia’ made it real. ‘Anorexic? No way! She’s normal. She’s clever. She wouldn’t do this. She is not one of those silly girls!’ The guilt. The feelings of desperation, the sheer magnitude of what was happening was overwhelming. What a terrible parent I was! How could I have let this happen? How could I have not realised?”

There were no terrible parents involved in that story. This is an issue that must be tackled at an earlier stage, so parents do not go through that desperate nightmare. In conclusion, there is a good end to that story—well, not so much an end as a positive outcome.

Another parent who had the help of ABC and who used Rhodes Farm clinic said that they considered their daughter to be one of the lucky ones who has, through that excellent treatment facility, been given the chance of having a full life again one day. They said, “For every such one, there are 100 others who are not receiving the care they need or deserve for this dreadful illness, but hopefully they will.” As hon. Members on both sides of the House have said today, we can, hopefully, help to change that.

14:56

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), and for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) on recognising the importance of eating disorders awareness week 2013. As we have heard, more than 1.6 million people in the UK are affected by eating disorders; they are young, middle aged and older. They are every age from eight to 80, and they are women and men. This serious mental illness has the highest mortality rate of any mental illness.

Over the past 25 years, the incidence of eating disorders has increased enormously. There are many possible contributory factors. I observe the tiny size of models, actors and actresses, and screen, tabloid and magazine heroines and heroes; the cult of celebrity; the obsession with gyms and exercise; the constant barrage of advertising through every medium; the pressure on us to diet and to eat low-fat, low-calorie food; the ranges of “light” foods on sale and the so-called “healthy eating” regimes. There is bullying and name calling in the playground, in the workplace and during our leisure, and pressure to remove what is called excess weight and achieve someone else’s idea of a perfect body shape. We have life on the run. Eating on the go is now more common. There is an absence of what I used to have: formal lunchtime at school, at which a teacher sat at my table and watched me eat—even the semolina. If a child takes in a packed lunch, they can give it away or bin it, and no one has any control or sight of what they are eating.

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

I also observe that things are different from when I was young, which was quite a long while ago. Young women are often physically mature at a very early age. It is confusing for an eight, nine or 10-year-old to find out that they are much larger than their friends; they will not necessarily understand that their body is getting ready for full maturity.

We can even look to an escalating divorce rate, which means that many of us are single. There is huge social pressure to have a partner, and there is the implication that in order to count, we must be gorgeous, attractive or at least half of a couple, rather than an individual, with our own rights and responsibilities. I recognise that I am saying this on Valentine’s day. My list, of course, is not exhaustive, but feeling inadequate, worthless and lacking in self-esteem are common factors, and the list starts to provide some clues to the settings in which eating disorders can be triggered, and how they are sustained. That constant pressure has contributed to the suffering of those 1.6 million people, and their families and carers.

So often, eating disorders are evident when a patient perceives that choosing whether they eat or not is the only area of his or her life where he or she can exert complete control. Anorexia and bulimia are serious mental illnesses, and need recognition and the appropriate responses from our national health service. In the next few minutes, I will refer to anorexia, but I want it to be noted that my concerns also relate to bulimia and eating disorders generally.

Most patients with an eating disorder in this country struggle to find effective treatment. They may find that a GP looks at the figures, and not what is in front of them—the patient. I refer to cases where patients are told that they are “not ill enough”, and that their body mass index would need to be lower for them to qualify for referral for help or treatment. When they do qualify, in many cases patients are admitted to medical wards in hospitals where the nurses unfortunately know little about psychiatric problems, and even less about nutrition. Patients are given little or no family therapy or individual therapy.

Others go to psychiatric units, where they are offered psychological support, but where their physical problems and need for weight gain are severely neglected. The few good dedicated units, which combine re-feeding with therapy and education, are mostly privately run. However, at £700 a night, these units are often out of the reach of most families, unless their primary care trust or its replacement NHS organisation funds the treatment.

I want to concentrate particularly on the problems facing children and young people with anorexia and bulimia. In hospitals all over the country, there are children and young people—some as young as seven or eight—who are being treated by doctors and nurses who have very little training in dealing with eating disorders, and who often have no knowledge of how to set a safe target weight. Sometimes, they weigh patients who still have their clothes on, or who have their pockets filled with kitchen weights, or who have their stomachs filled with three or four litres of water. Families are not given the support they need, or clear-cut advice. Patients see a different doctor or specialist at each appointment, and the appointments are too far apart. Little heed is paid to the patient’s physical condition. I have heard about children attending out-patient clinics because of their weight loss, but having neither their pulse nor their blood pressure taken. Monitoring pulse and blood pressure is vital if we are to prevent a child from collapsing, and if we are to know when a child needs hospital admission.

There are very few doctors who specialise in the treatment of children with eating disorders, so the waiting lists for children who need to access those doctors are often dangerously long. Eating disorders must be a condition that students are taught about in medical school, and awareness of them must be included in the postgraduate training of GPs, psychiatrists and paediatricians. If children were seen early in their illness by professionals working as part of a multidisciplinary team, so that parents were given the consistent, sensible advice they needed on how to re-feed their child, and if patients were seen by a family therapist and an individual therapist, as well as having a medical doctor who understood the long and short-term risks, and who could make a referral to an in-patient unit before the patient became irreversibly damaged, we would have fewer chronically ill adults in later life.

No one should die from an eating disorder. At present, however, there are more deaths from eating disorders than from any other mental illness, and it is estimated that 10% of all sufferers of eating disorders die as a result of their condition. For adults, the courts always support an application for nasogastric feeding, but tragically the request for a court order is often made too late, or not at all. However, working with children with eating disorders reveals another serious problem, one that interferes with the ability to help them. That problem is the implications of the Children Act 1989, which deems children of 16 capable of making their own decisions about treatment. However, anorexic patients rarely want to eat voluntarily. Although many of them are crying out for help, the guilt wrapped around food and eating means that they need someone to help them to eat, and not someone to ask their permission as to whether they would like to eat.

Despite an excellent ruling a few years ago, which in summary states that anyone who seeks to starve themselves to death is not competent to make decisions, we nevertheless require 16-year-olds to give written consent before they can be admitted to a medical unit. There are some units where, in order to protect themselves and their staff, this permission is sought from 14 and 15-year-olds. Once children are in the unit, if they refuse to eat, no staff member would dare use a nasogastric tube for fear of being sued. Until the passage of the Children Act 1989, units treated anyone under the age of 18 and fed them if and when necessary, requiring only parental consent. What a ridiculous situation we are now in. The reality of the current situation leaves parents feeling completely ineffectual and frustrated. It also leaves the child feeling quietly victorious, as they go on their way home with medical permission not to eat.

Today we find ourselves in the ludicrous situation whereby staff have to tell parents of often very ill children who will not consent to eat that they must wait until their daughter or son loses another X number of kilos, whereupon that young person can be sectioned under the Mental Health Acts and treated compulsorily. That puts lives at increased risk, and being sectioned is an overly serious response to the problem. We should seek a more appropriate solution. Being sectioned jeopardises any hopes that that child in recovery might have of joining the armed forces, for example, or becoming a doctor or nurse, which is particularly sad, because when they have recovered, many of these children are attracted to working in the caring professions, such as health care. The Children Act might need to be amended, so that we are able to treat children who are damaging their health through starvation before they become so ill that their lives are in danger.

The hon. Members for Romsey and Southampton North, and for Enfield, Southgate, and I have met the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who is the Minister with responsibility for children, to explore the legal situation regarding the Mental Health Acts. I am very glad that the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) is here today. I am grateful to him for agreeing to meet us to explore whether practical solutions are available, or inventable, to allow those who care for young people with eating disorders to trigger some action short of using sentencing as a route to treatment and help.

I particularly want to recognise the work of two charities. One is the Somerset and Wessex Eating Disorders Association, or SWEDA, which is a user-led registered charity based in Wells in Somerset, in my constituency. It works on the principle of self-help, and its phone number is 07511 499 494. It has an online “health unlocked” community, and people can seek support and advice about self-help through that group.

The second charity is, of course, Anorexia and Bulimia Care, or ABC, which is a national registered charity that also happens to be based in my constituency. It is doing an amazing job. ABC was founded and is governed, run and supported by people whose lives have been touched by eating disorders. It offers kindness and compassion to sufferers at a time when they are desperate and alone. It has staff, professional advisers and a national network of volunteers, all of whom are carers or recovered sufferers. It provides positive, practical advice by telephone, by e-mail and via its website. It also offers a befriending service, and a range of literature and training advice. Lastly, it has a young people’s blog, called “To be honest”. ABC’s work is fantastic and its telephone number is 03000 11 12 13. That number will lead to a parent helpline, a sufferer helpline and a self-harm helpline.

We need a fairer system. Every child who develops an eating disorder should have access to first-class treatment, rather than the somewhat cobbled-together, inadequate provision that most have to accept. It is time that this life-threatening and debilitating illness was taken more seriously, and I truly hope that the Minister will consider what changes might be made to ensure that fewer lives are lost, recovery comes more quickly and families do not suffer the terrible consequences that often come with loving a patient with an eating disorder.

Lastly, I appeal to all those who suffer from this challenging mental illness: there is hope, and there is help out there for you. Our responsibility is to make sure it is better and easier for you to accept treatment and help.

15:10

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

It is very generous of you to call me, Mr Walker, because I had not intended to speak in the debate. I am not sure I will detain Members long, because I am not sure what I am going to say.

Twenty-four hours ago, the debate was not on my horizon at all, but in discussion with colleagues yesterday, I was very taken by some of the numbers that were bandied around. Today, having heard the opening speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), I felt compelled to say something in the debate. I come relatively new to this issue. I have sat here listening to powerful, passionate and informed speeches, and mine will be nothing like that. However, I hope it will give an insight into the epiphany I have had over the past 24 hours.

The numbers have been referred to many times this afternoon, but what strikes me is that although 2,500 people in my constituency may suffer from an eating disorder, not one has contacted me, either before the debate or in the two and a half years I have been a Member of Parliament. I hope that is because the services they receive from the primary care trust and the mental health trust are exemplary, but I would be surprised if that was the case. I therefore encourage constituents who are struggling to access the services they need to contact me.

I was also struck by the fact that 1.6 million people nationwide have been identified as suffering from an eating disorder, but that number could be as high as 4.2 million, because we count only those who have presented and who are seeking treatment. Another thing that struck me was that a quarter of those people could be men.

As I said, I came new to this subject. Following my discussions yesterday evening, I eventually went home. My children—I am fortunate to have two, who are 22 and 20—were up. Our television is currently broken, so one of our pastimes is talking to each other, which is a novel experience, I have to admit. We got talking about what I had been discussing—this afternoon’s debate and my intention to come along and perhaps make an intervention to highlight the fact that a quarter of those suffering from an eating disorder may be men.

I was surprised by my children’s responses, and I am going to refer to them. I have texted my children to apologise to them in advance, in case I embarrass them. I was shocked because both of them talked about friends and acquaintances who had suffered from eating disorders. What took me aback most, however, was that they both admitted that they had probably had an encounter with some form of eating disorder. For the record, that has not manifested itself in anything particularly serious, and they both see what the pattern was at the time, but it could have been serious, and that is why I felt compelled to speak.

I want to say a little about what my children said, and about what I think the reasons behind what they said were. My son, Tom, is 22. He is a fitness trainer and he runs a gym. He is a health fanatic: he is very fit, he is always at the gym and he plays rugby football. He recognised some time ago that he was getting to the point where, however much exercise he took, he still felt there was too much fat on him. He was deliberately avoiding food and certain other things to try to slim down. There is not an ounce of fat on him, and he does not need to do that. He knows that now, but at the time, for whatever reason, he felt he had to change his body shape.

My daughter, who is 20, is incredibly slim. She suffered the reverse problem from my son: people would accuse her of perhaps having an eating disorder, when she did not think she had one. The problem was that that gave her cause for concern and made her ask whether she perhaps did have an eating disorder. As it happens, she does not; she is fine—she is just a slim girl. Both my children therefore felt under pressure because of the way other people saw them, or because of their perception of the way other people saw them.

I know the reasons behind eating disorders are complex, and we have heard about them, but the thing that concerns me most is the idea of body image, of perfection and of trying to be something that we cannot be. We know the numbers: only 5% of us could ever get close to the perfect image we see in the press and the media. The rest of us are struggling to conform to that or just to be comfortable in ourselves. That is one of the main drivers of this issue. Those who get past their brush with an eating disorder may do so because they see through that. However, if there are other pressures in people’s lives—pressures relating to relationships, family breakdown, the future, money and education—they might trigger the body image issues that push people towards having a fully-fledged eating disorder.

The other thing that surprised me is that eating disorders are on both sides of the gender divide, and they affect old and young alike—there is pressure on not just the young, but all of us. However, I want to focus most on young men such as my son, who perhaps felt under pressure to change his image.

There is the statistic that gay men are twice as likely as straight men to suffer from an eating disorder, and I can see how that could well be true. However, when we hear that the proportion of men, including young men, suffering from eating disorders could be between 11% and 25%, how can we have any confidence that those figures are accurate, given that one is more than double the other? We do not know how widespread this problem is. Gay men may be more prone to coming forward to seek help, and straight men may not seek help. I do not know, and I suspect we will not know until we do more research. However, we do know that there has been a 68% increase in 10 years in the number of men presenting with an eating disorder, and the number is still rising. We therefore need to take action.

One remark that struck me earlier was from my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who said that if we are not aware of a family member, a friend or a constituent with an eating disorder, we are out of touch. Well, I have to say that I probably was out of touch. I feel less out of touch now, and I am grateful to my hon. Friends for putting me back in touch, but that, I think, is one of the issues, and I referred to this earlier in an intervention. I am not sure that, as a parent, I fully understood some of the tell-tale, early-warning signs, and I do not know how we get that information across to parents, especially parents of boys.

We have to help parents accept that these problems are not their fault, and they need not to feel the guilt that is perhaps associated with this issue. They can then signpost those who are suffering towards help at an earlier stage, rather than hiding the issue from themselves because it does not fit with the way they view their family set-up.

We also need to educate young men. We need to say that eating disorders are serious and affect not only young women, but young men. If young men do not seek help, that can have ramifications for the rest of their lives. We therefore need to help them deal with any stigma that might be associated with that.

The problem, which is obviously serious, has only come to my knowledge in any great detail in the past 24 hours. The condition affects all parts of society and all ages, and crosses social divides. I hope that through debates such as this one, and awareness week, and the information that I have been provided with, we can push the agenda a little further onward, so that we can help those who are in desperate suffering, many of whom suffer in silence. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North for obtaining the debate, and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak, and to become more informed about an important issue.

15:20

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I apologise for not being here at the beginning of the debate. I was co-sponsoring the debate in the Chamber on violence against women and girls and could not be in two places at once. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) I did not really expect to speak in the debate, but I want to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), who has not only taken a huge interest in the issue but has taken on a leadership role. She has persuaded me to out myself—but not in the way my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock might think. It was the speech that you made, Mr Walker, that inspired me to think that those of us in a leadership role who have had problems must take on the responsibility of talking about them. If we do not, people will think that we glided to the top easily and that life was easy.

I am 14 stone, but as a 17-year-old I was not. I had many issues that I did not understand, which caused me, one day, simply to stop eating. I had no support. I was at boarding school, and boarding schools in the ’70s were not exactly sympathetic to young boys who had problems. I felt, for whatever reason, under enormous pressure, and my weight plummeted to 8 stone. I did not know what was happening. All I knew was that I could not eat. I just stopped eating. A memory that has always stuck with me is being at school with a plate of food in front of me, and knowing, in my head, that I wanted to eat. I said, “I want to eat this: I know there is something wrong with me.” Intuitively, I knew that, but I could not eat. I remember taking a pea and putting it in my mouth, and simply not being able to swallow it. I want people to imagine how frightening that is. I was not hungry, but I knew I had to eat.

It was only years later that I began to understand what I was then going through, and I shall explain later how I got out of it, but it was not through the help of any outside party. I was under a huge amount of stress. I would get blinding headaches, and take aspirin to try to deal with them. That lead to addiction to the aspirin, and they did not help. I knew I was under a lot of stress because I would vomit every day. It was not bulimia. I did not have anything in me to be sick; but clearly I was under huge stress. I have five children, and thank God nothing has gone wrong with them, but when they have stress symptoms such as tummy aches I can relate to that. I understand that the tummy ache may not be from eating something wrong, but from some sort of stress. I think that that has made me a little more empathetic as a parent.

Other factors are fear—fear of failure in school or of letting down parents, for whatever reason; relationships that do not work; and, probably, a huge amount of anger, as a teenager. For reasons that, again, I did not understand at the time, there was a lot of anger. I know no one ever saw me smile. I suspect that a strange combination of stress, fear and anger created a tipping point for me, as a 17-year-old, when I just stopped eating. The reactions were varied, and none was particularly helpful, with a lack of understanding from my school. My parents did not know what the hell was going on, but they were concerned. My mother, who is a Jewish mother, would say, “Eat, eat.” That is the Jewish mother’s solution to everything: “You must eat more”.

The problem was not what is perhaps usually the problem with many women—body image. It was something else. Clearly it was psychological, and I approach the matter very differently. It is not simply about the physical body. In my view unless the mind is healed the body will never be healed. In coming up with a solution I begin with the mind: eating was not going to work, because I had not sorted out whatever was going on up there in my mind. I did not get much sympathy from the school other than isolation and teasing from a lot of the other boys. I certainly did not have any therapy, because men in boarding schools do not have therapy. It is just not the done thing. I had to help myself.

I am aware of other stories. A girl in my constituency had huge problems, one of which was that she could not get the care she needed, because at certain times her body mass index was not quite right. I thought that was a stupid reason for not looking after her. One could tell straight away that she had a problem. It is a bit like what happens with speed bumps in the road. A lot of traffic goes up and down a road, but unless a certain number of people are killed we will not put speed bumps in it. That seems a little counter-intuitive to me. My constituent’s parents told me that her second problem was that she would go in for four or six weeks and be given a quick fix, and hey presto suddenly everything would be sort of all right. She would be fed up a bit, and her BMI would be got over whatever the magic mark is, then she would be sent back out again. That was three or four years ago—so it is a recent example of the problems and the lack of understanding of the issues.

I was lucky. Eventually, after three or four months of being able to eat hardly anything, I found one thing I could eat. If I went down to the Chinese restaurant I could eat fried rice. I found something I could start to take in. That is how I began to repair my body slightly—through an attraction, for whatever reason, to fried rice from a Chinese restaurant. However, the big positive thing for me was a change of environment. I was lucky enough to get into Harvard, and that different environment outside the UK gave me, suddenly, a lot of self-confidence. It gave me a place to go from an unhappy space in my life. Even today I probably do not understand what was going on there, but I was clearly unhappy, so moving to a more friendly space where I could almost reinvent myself helped me to get a lot better. One of the advantages of being skinny was that when I got to Harvard—and I was very skinny—they said, “Why don’t you come and cox the Harvard crew?” I was a crewsman and coxed at 120 lb, which is the minimum weight. I was certainly the tallest cox on a national level at university. I never really found out what was going on at the time. I was lucky enough to be able to figure a way to help myself, which perhaps most people are not.

I have come up with some thoughts on what we can do for people who cannot help themselves in the way I was lucky enough to. First is education—for those in the health care profession, who I still do not think are up to speed. I get the sense that many general practitioners do not understand the issue or are not sympathetic. Teachers also need to be educated. They need to spot what is going on and to respond. Parents need to be better educated to spot what is going on, to see what the symptoms are and to try to ensure that their child, whether a boy or a girl, receives the help they need.

The problem is a mental health issue; it all starts with the mind. There are no short-term fixes. An individual needs long-term help—it is not two, four, six or eight weeks. There is no timeline to this. I appreciate that we have budget constraints, but mental health care is almost the orphan when it comes to health care in this country. There are many forms of mental illness, which we have talked about in other debates, and eating disorders are a mental health issue. I ask the Minister to look into the issue to see how we can provide more support for people.

As I said, I was lucky enough to help myself. I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North for helping me come to talk to hon. Members about my experience. It is helpful that people out there know that there is life after going through something like this. I went on to be well educated; I went to Harvard and Oxford. I made some money in the City, and I am here today as a Member of Parliament. There is life after anorexia, though I would not recommend the latter. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s speech.

15:32

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this important debate, particularly as we mark eating disorders awareness week, and on the extremely powerful case that she made in opening the debate. I, too, want to commend the work of the all-party parliamentary group, because it has ensured that this debate has been incredibly well informed. The debate has provided us with an opportunity to highlight the issue not only in Parliament, but, hopefully, in the media and the wider health sector, including among national health service staff, so that we can all examine what more we can do to help those with eating disorders. I also commend the personal contribution of the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who showed extreme courage in sharing his experiences with us today. He has really helped to inform the debate, and I thank him for sharing those personal experiences.

I pay tribute and offer my appreciation and thanks to Beat, a national eating disorders charity, and it would be unfair not to mention also Anorexia and Bulimia Care, and some of the other local charities that hon. Members have mentioned. According to Beat, eating disorders affect 1.6 million people in the United Kingdom, which is one in 39 people or 2.6% of the population. Statistically, that means that around 2,000 people at a top premier league club home game will have an eating disorder; 11 passengers on a jumbo jet; or more than 200,000 people here in Greater London. Therefore I am pleased that, throughout eating disorders awareness week 2013, Beat will highlight that the illnesses are far more common than perhaps most people would think or appreciate. The theme of this year’s campaign is “Everybody knows somebody”. It is a laudable aim of the campaign to encourage people to reach out to others—whether a partner, colleague, best friend, brother or sister—to talk about the illnesses, to express their concerns and to seek help before they reach hospitalisation stage.

Eating disorders primarily affect young women aged 18 to 25, but of course not exclusively. Most people would consider them as a young girls’ disease, and there is a great deal of stigma and misunderstanding still attached to the issue. Conditions such as anorexia, bulimia, binge eating and compulsive overeating have high mortality rates for mental health illnesses. Up to 20% of those affected may die prematurely. I was interested in the contribution of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) regarding diabulimia, which is something I was not aware of, so I thank him for sharing that with us today.

As we have also heard, an increasing number of men—some 20% of those affected—have an eating disorder. An important contribution was made by the hon. Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) in highlighting that issue. However, there can also be issues with older people, particularly the elderly and frail, for whom recognising an eating disorder may be problematic. Beat is right that the problem can affect anyone at any time in their life.

The media have a central role to play in the issue and, in many ways, have a great responsibility. Some media images of excessive thinness must play a large part in encouraging, particularly, young people to aim for an unrealistic body weight and risk becoming anorexic. What has perhaps been more worrying is the recent trend in social media that could encourage eating disorders. The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and others have raised that issue in their contributions. I am a father of three young children. I have two sons—one has a birthday today; he is a teenager, because he is 13—but I worry particularly about my daughter, who is 11 and very conscious of some of the unrealistic images that she gets bombarded with. It is a concern of mine, as a father, and no doubt of other hon. Members who have children. I can see how the problem could start to escalate. There were concerns earlier this year with online sites such as Instagram, which appeared to allow users to view pictures encouraging eating disorders and self-harming. According to press reports, some of the messages on the website encouraged people not to eat. That is incredibly concerning, because Instagram has more than 80 million users worldwide. The growing influence of a variety of social media and the popularity of phone apps give people, especially young people, access to images that encourage the individual to believe that an eating disorder—we have heard this in the debate—is a lifestyle choice. Surely that is wrong, especially as the number of hospital admissions for eating disorders is growing.

A report last year from the health and social care information centre shows that the number of hospital admissions for eating disorders has risen by 16% to 2,288, a point that was eloquently made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon).Of those admissions, 203 were men or boys. The statistics also reveal that more than 50 under-10-year-olds were admitted to hospital with an eating problem, and the biggest increase in admissions was among girls aged 10 to 15, which are up 69% since 2011. We must recognise that social media and pro-anorexia sites can affect those who may already be vulnerable to eating disorders and who already feel pressured. I am pleased to see that there have been at least some positive changes in the media. Last year, Vogue announced that it was banning models with visible signs of eating disorders from its glossy pages, and the editor of British Vogue pledged not to use any models under the age of 16, thereby helping to project an image of healthy models.

I also notice that Channel 4, alongside other broadcasters, has actively sought to raise awareness of body image issues, including a wide range of eating disorders, among its audiences through a number of programmes and online projects such as “Gok’s Teens: The Naked Truth”, which looked at British teenagers and offered advice on how to address their issues and anxieties, focusing particularly on teens suffering from body dysmorphia and anorexia. The programme also included an examination of the impact that the media and internet can have on young people’s body image. Clearly, the more programmes that highlight those problems, the better the chances of eliminating stigma and increasing understanding among the wider public. Media and social media have a role to play in addressing all of those issues, and I hope that media organisations work closely with eating disorder charities to introduce more positive stories and messages.

People who are experiencing an eating disorder often feel alone and need to be provided with good advice. We need to bring an end to the stigma surrounding the condition. There is also a need for good advice for those who may be able to spot the symptoms, such as family members or teachers, so that we can ensure that people are aware of the problems. Of course, the media have an important role to play in highlighting that. The symptoms of an eating disorder include finding reasons to skip meals, avoiding family meals or expressing a wish to eat alone, being noticeably self-conscious about body image or becoming very withdrawn. Those are all known warning signs. Clearly, anything that can help to identify the risk signs and help those affected to confide in parents or teachers can only be positive. We know that the sooner people come forward, the sooner treatment can start and the better the outcomes. Of course, we should also consider how to raise awareness in the national health service and to ensure that staff know about such conditions, can identify the signs of an eating disorder and are able to offer the right treatment as early as possible. We should consider how to ensure that all health professionals are fully aware of the symptoms.

This is not the time or the place to make political points. The Minister knows the concerns of Opposition Members about the new NHS structures, but I urge him, in the spirit of co-operation—the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North made this point in her opening contribution—to ensure that the commissioners within the new NHS structures take seriously the needs of those who may be at risk from eating disorders and ensure that their needs are seen in the round, because often a holistic approach to their health care needs is required. GPs, as commissioners of services, may not always recognise the symptoms of eating disorders. People must continue to receive the help they need when they need it. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, and the hon. Lady in an intervention, mentioned the treatment of diabulimia, which starkly highlights the issue. The experience outlined by the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) further reinforced those concerns.

I hope that when people are diagnosed with an eating disorder they get the help they need. Clearly, different people will require different treatments, and in some cases they will need access to mental health services. When Opposition Members talk about whole-person care, we mean not only the adult social care needs of the elderly but all society’s health needs. Eating disorders are an important issue that should be included within the concept of whole-person care.

There is an increasing incidence of eating disorders among men, and both men and women are influenced by what they see in the media. Indeed, as reported in the Nursing Times, NHS figures show that there has been a 66% increase in hospital admissions for male eating disorders during the past 10 years. That rise has been blamed on the increasing pressure on men to look good, with the media again having a central role. The eating disorder charity Beat has said that men’s reluctance to be open about their health is hampering efforts to address the problem. Again, I commend the hon. Member for Braintree for his contribution to today’s debate. We should bear in mind that resources and treatments for eating disorders are relevant to both male and female patients.

I have a couple of questions for the Minister, the first of which is on monitoring eating disorders. At present, as I understand it, the Government do not collate national statistics on the number of people affected by eating disorders who seek treatment. That would be a useful tool for assessing the overall need and geographical breakdown of eating disorders. What plans does he have in place to begin monitoring eating disorders? Likewise, does he plan to review the guidance on eating disorders issued by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence under the previous Government?

There is overwhelmingly broad agreement on both sides of the House that identifying eating disorders as soon as possible is important and that people should receive appropriate treatment as soon as possible, too. Again, I pay tribute to the work of eating disorder charities and the all-party group on body image, which have done so much to highlight the issue. Although they have done a great deal, there is clearly so much more that society can do to take on this challenge and to ensure that we all work together to prevent more tragedies and blighted lives.

15:40

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. You are an appropriate Chair for this debate because of your interest in mental health and your willingness to speak out about your own experience, which meant an enormous amount to those who are fighting the stigma of mental health problems. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) has done the same today. Such moments, when people are willing to speak out, are incredibly important in challenging and addressing the stigma of mental health problems in society.

I am deeply grateful to the members of the Backbench Business Committee for convening this important debate. It is good that Parliament has recently been willing to debate a number of different mental health issues in a way that perhaps has not happened in the past. Mr Walker, before Christmas you raised the issue of schizophrenia, on which we had a useful debate. The great value of such debates is that they force people to think about an issue, just as my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe) has today. His experience of recognising the problem, perhaps for the first time, and talking about it with his children demonstrates the great value of such occasions, because they force all of us to think about an issue. Indeed, they force officials in my Department to think about the issue, too. I am grateful.

I do not want to detain everybody unnecessarily, but I will devote a little time to responding to the specific issues that hon. Members have raised. If the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) does not mind, I will refer first to the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree. I am so grateful that she persuaded him to come speak in this debate, because he made an incredibly valuable contribution. I was struck by his remarks about the huge stress experienced by teenagers. As the father of two boys who have been through the teenage years, I am acutely aware of the pressure on teenagers and the impact that it can have on their mental and physical health. He discussed huge stress, fear of failure and anger. I was struck by what he said: unless the mind is healed, the body cannot heal. We must look at the problem holistically.

One problem with health care is that we have institutionalised fragmentation. We have managed to separate mental health from physical health, which is ultimately not a good thing. We must consider the whole person. I know that the Opposition have been talking about that. It should not be an issue for political disagreement; it is such an obvious thing to recognise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree discussed the need for education and raising awareness, including among parents. The strain, stress and anxiety that parents go through must not be underestimated. Improved awareness is needed in society of this range of conditions. He said that mental health care was the orphan within the NHS, which is absolutely true. There is an institutional bias against mental health. The way that money flows within the NHS disadvantages mental health. There is an 18-week target for physical health care and a tariff, meaning that every patient takes money with them into acute hospitals. Money is sucked through into acute hospitals, and there is great political pressure from every side to maintain the 18-week target. There is no equivalent in mental health. There is no right of access. Waiting nine months to access care and treatment is completely unacceptable. We must challenge that, and he was absolutely right to raise it. He ended on a positive note. There can be life after anorexia, however tough it is to get through it. Some, terribly sadly, do not. I will return to that point in a moment.

The hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North made some incredibly important points. She mentioned her local organisation, April House in Southampton, and the fantastic work that it does, and she spoke about the absolute importance of raising awareness in primary care. Some people are lucky enough to find a GP who understands mental health and is passionate about it, but some are not. Families with a GP who just does not get it can be desperate; they have nowhere to turn. There is a need to raise awareness.

In the first mandate, a set of priorities published by the Government for the new NHS Commissioning Board, mental health has been given a higher priority than it has ever had in the NHS. The mandate makes it clear that the NHS is under a legal obligation to deliver demonstrable progress towards parity of esteem by 2015. That means treating mental health on a par with physical health. By placing the commissioning board under that obligation and disseminating the message to clinical commissioning groups, we will start to make progress on forcing the system to recognise the importance of treating mental health and physical health equally. It will not happen overnight, but it is a journey that we must take to improve the condition of many people. The hon. Lady discussed the impact on families and the unfair sense of guilt that many experience. She also mentioned waiting times, which in many cases are simply unacceptable.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Knowsley (Mr Howarth) for his contribution informing me and others about diabulimia. He discussed the rapid weight loss that can occur with diabetes, and how some people use the condition to lose weight in a dangerous way. He also said that in too many cases, a wrong diagnosis is made and the wrong treatment given as a result, and urged me to ensure that the condition was recognised better at a national level and the knowledge disseminated through the system. I urge him to engage with the commissioning board. I am happy to work with him on that, and for him to write to me on the issue.

[Mr George Howarth]

I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way that he is addressing the problem. I have written to one of his ministerial colleagues on the matter. I arranged a meeting with her that she had to cancel owing to diary commitments, but I would be more than happy to meet him and anybody else he wants, including Diabetes UK and Diabetics with Eating Disorders. I am sure they would be happy to accompany me.

[Norman Lamb]

I am nervous about treading on other ministerial toes, but I am sure that in one way or another we can get the issue addressed properly. I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for informing me so well.

The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) made a helpful contribution and discussed the need to raise awareness of eating disorders. She mentioned personal, social, health and economic education in schools. All schools are encouraged to provide young people with good, age-appropriate education about sex and relationships, but we are reviewing PSHE to establish how teaching can be improved. There is clearly a need to improve the teaching in many schools.

The hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) mentioned her local service, NIWE, and the important work that it is doing. She spoke about the number of people who are not diagnosed but who none the less suffer from eating disorders, and about the fact that they have the highest mortality rate of any mental illness. She said that early intervention was important.

I was struck by what the hon. Lady said about recovery groups. This morning I spoke at a conference on mental health. I spoke specifically about recovery and a new way of looking at mental health. We must move from trying simply to treat the condition to working collaboratively with professionals and people experiencing the condition, and we must focus on recovery. Fantastic results are being demonstrated from that shift in approach. It is frustrating that in some parts of the country, great things are happening, but it is patchy, as many hon. Members have said, and improvement is needed. She also made the point that mental health is the poor relation, as I have acknowledged. That must change.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), who has had to leave, for the work that he has done on addictions, focusing on treatment and recovery. He has been committed to improving the experience of people suffering from a range of addictions. He, like other Members, discussed the growing prevalence of the condition among teenage boys, which should worry us all. My hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) spoke movingly. She mentioned the cult of celebrity, pressure on youngsters, variability of services around the country and access to those, the quality of care being variable and the need for much improved training and for multidisciplinary teams.

Interestingly, my hon. Friend mentioned issues of consent, a difficult area about which there are strong views on both sides. I am acutely aware of the horrible position of a parent wanting to help, but being unable to because of the legal constraints that prevent them from making an effective intervention. We need to think more about that, and the Children’s Minister is also involved in the discussion.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock got it right. Fascinatingly, he talked about his discussion with his children last night. I am so pleased that his television is broken, because it has led to our being given a valuable insight that we might otherwise not have had. He mentioned the increasing prevalence among males, including among gay men, which is a real concern. He also talked about the need for help for parents in understanding the condition much better.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), was right to talk about holistic care and the need to look at the whole individual. I will mention other things that he said as I go through my speech. I wish his son a happy birthday today, as he enters his teenage years.

The hon. Gentleman asked a couple of questions. On collating national statistics, we have a long way to go on the collection and interpretation of data relating to mental health. I have a fortnightly meeting on mental health in my office, so that we maintain an absolute focus on achieving tangible improvements. We talked specifically about data yesterday. The Health and Social Care Information Centre is getting more data but is not yet able, with the resources available, to interpret those. I want the same resources applied to mental health as to physical health. That is a challenge that I have made to the system.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence guidance. NICE is independent. I do not know whether there is a need for a review—a renewal—of the advice. I am happy to talk further to him about that.

This is an occasion on which we should not just raise awareness of the issue as part of eating disorders awareness week, but send a clear message to people with eating disorders, their loved ones and families: we hear you when you talk about your concerns. I am determined, as the Minister responsible for mental health, to do what I can to help.

I pay tribute to the work of Beat, based in Norwich in my county of Norfolk, which does brilliant work. Hon. Members have also mentioned Anorexia and Bulimia Care and the fantastic work that it does.

Eating disorders can be tremendously dangerous and damaging conditions. The UK has the highest rates of eating disorders in Europe. But it is a disease that is often hidden, as hon. Members have said. Sufferers are often unwilling to seek help or to recognise they have a problem. Reported cases are the tip of the iceberg. It is a disease that often strikes at the young. In 2009, the adult psychiatric morbidity survey showed that 20% of 16 to 25-year-olds admitted to having “a problem with food”. That is a significant percentage.

According to the Health and Social Care Information Centre, in 2011-12 the biggest increase in hospital admissions for eating disorders was among girls aged 10 to 15. The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish, mentioned admissions of those under 10, as well—shockingly, more than 50 children under 10 were also admitted.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

I apologise for not attending earlier, Mr Walker; I was in another debate in the main Chamber. I congratulate the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) on securing this debate.

The Minister mentioned young people. Will he say what services are available for 17-year-olds in terms of continuity of care, as they move to adult services?

[Norman Lamb]

I will talk about that later. In so many respects, we have problems with people falling through the gap between children and adolescent mental health services and adult services, and that is matched in other areas, as well. There is a need to deal with this. The draft Care and Support Bill deals with the transition from teenage to adult services. I will return to that matter. I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention.

A generation of young people is growing up depressed and unhappy with their relationship with food. I want to tell hon. Members about a case in my constituency. Charlotte Robinson was a bright, outgoing young woman who was about to secure straight As at A-level and had dreams of going to Cambridge—between Duke of Edinburgh’s awards and learning to fly helicopters—but tragically, Charlotte was a victim of anorexia, stolen from her family in her prime, with her whole life ahead of her. That is what I meant when I said that for some, thankfully, there is life after anorexia—but not for everyone.

Charlotte’s parents, Christopher and Pauline, who are remarkable people, have campaigned tirelessly to help others. Pauline even ran the London marathon in pink wellies, such is her commitment. They are fantastic people and their attitude was that they did not want other families to experience the same horror that they have gone through, so they have been determined to change things in their county of Norfolk. They discovered that there was no specialist commissioned service at all in their own county. This is what we find. Hon. Members have talked about the enormous gaps in services around the country.

As a result of Christopher’s and Pauline’s fantastic determination, there is now a specialist commissioned service, but it took their efforts to achieve it. Their efforts have helped to fund local centres and a helpline in Norfolk, working with NHS Norfolk and the charity Beat, which I have mentioned. Their focus is on early intervention, helping people like Charlotte—helping children, young people and adults as soon as they need help. Charlotte’s decline was dramatic and rapid and the wait, although nothing like the nine months that we have heard about, still was too long for her.

Speedy access and early intervention are critical. That is why our mental health strategy prioritises early intervention and demonstrates how timely action can help.

In many cases, eating disorders stem from low self-esteem or are linked to stress and emotional problems. That is why our support for local organisations in improving mental health services locally is so important. Our mental health and suicide-prevention strategies both include actions that local organisations can take to improve mental health in their areas: ensuring that children and parents get mental health support from birth; that schools and colleges promote good mental health, alongside targeted support for those at risk of mental health problems; that public services recognise people, of all ages, at risk of mental health problems and take appropriate, timely action; and that health services step in early if there is psychosis or a crisis, to stop more serious problems occurring.

The right hon. Member for Knowsley and my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North raised the problem of transition—moving from being a young teenager at home to a young adult. Often the problem is exacerbated by moving to university, where people suddenly lose contact with services that might have been available to them at home. As my hon. Friend mentioned specifically, that is where things can break down. Away from friends and family, in a new and often stressful environment and, crucially, registering with a new GP, young people can often enter a spiral of decline. The problem must be addressed.

I will now outline some of our ambitions for services. From this April, the NHS Commissioning Board will commission specialist services for eating disorders for adults and children. Having one specialist group to ensure that specialist services are commissioned everywhere has the potential to improve the position in many parts of the country where such services are inadequate or missing. The Commissioning Board will develop a national service specification and encourage better planning, access and outcomes, helping to bridge the gap when someone moves and raising the level of care throughout the country.

We want clinical commissioning groups to commission services with early intervention in mind. We also expect adult social services to work alongside CCGs to focus existing support on early intervention, integration, personalisation and recovery. Social services have a role to play, involving service users as equal partners in commissioning and monitoring services, ensuring that services are designed for the people who use them.

Public health services can articulate the many benefits of good mental health and, because of their pivotal role in the new system, they can talk about mental health directly with members of the public. The transfer of public health to local government, alongside children’s services, social care and other services, with a seat on the health and wellbeing board, potentially gives it a prominence that it has not had in the past. The funding settlement for public health has also surprised many people, with significant real-terms increases this year and next. There is great potential for a focus on public mental health in a way that we have not had in the past, so I hope that we can take advantage in the best possible way of that opportunity.

Of course, the problem cannot be fixed by tweaking the system. A huge stigma remains around mental health, which means that in too many cases children and young people are not getting the support that they need. That is particularly the case with eating disorders, and people affected often feel marginalised and excluded, unable to talk about their suffering. The problems can be compounded if the sufferer is a man or suffering from a less stereotypical but no less serious eating disorder, such as atypical anorexia or a binge-eating disorder. Personal testimony and the courage of individuals in speaking out send a powerful message, and challenge that stigma.

The Department of Health is therefore funding Time to Change, a brilliant campaign that was started under the previous Government but continues now. We are providing £16 million between 2011-12 and 2014-15, the first time that Time to Change has had central Government funding. It will also get a further £4 million from Comic Relief, the second time that that charity has awarded its largest UK grant to Time to Change. Run by the charities Mind and Rethink Mental Illness, Time to Change is England’s most ambitious programme to end the stigma and the discrimination against mental health through activities ranging from education to publicity. It aims to reach 29 million members of the public, explaining mental health and helping them to understand conditions, including eating disorders, that might at first seem alien or scary.

I was delighted that two young women from Time to Change came into the Department of Health recently to speak about their own experiences of mental health. They spoke about how talking about their own mental health had empowered them. One said that it had, “given me my life back”. Their stories were both moving and inspiring and I pay tribute to all those who find the courage to open up and to talk to others. Time to Change aims to increase the confidence of 100,000 people with mental health problems, helping to give them the self-belief that they need to recover.

The Time to Change campaign also works with schools to support children and young people facing problems of integration and bullying that can be caused by mental health issues. I have not only signed up to committing the Department of Health to be an exemplar employer on mental health, but made the commitment to try to get every other Department to sign up as well. We cannot encourage others to behave in the right way unless we practise what we preach. That is a challenge for Government, and I have not yet achieved that aim, but I am determined to pursue it.

The reasons for eating disorders are complex, as has been made clear in the debate this afternoon. Biology and genetics play their part, but so too does the pressure from our celebrity culture and the media. A recent controversy ignited by stick-thin La Perla lingerie models erupted only last week, and it is important to send out the message that organisations that do this sort of advertising have a responsibility; they cannot opt out. Government cannot do everything on its own. Everyone in society has a responsibility to get the right messages out. I was pleased to hear the shadow Minister’s reference to Vogue, which has made a good commitment to avoid getting out the wrong images.

[Caroline Nokes]

This is an important point. Last week, we had a controversy about La Perla using stick-thin models for its lingerie but, before Christmas, Marks & Spencer used some “larger ladies” in lingerie advertising. Some of them were almost a size 12. What would the Minister say to those in the health care professions who cited that advert as Marks & Spencer promoting and celebrating obesity?

[Norman Lamb]

I take the point and I am grateful for that intervention. We have to think before we speak on these things, to ensure that we do not send out confusing messages. There is a problem of obesity in our society and it is causing serious concerns about a drift towards type 2 diabetes and a whole series of health consequences, but let us be balanced in what we say and not confuse youngsters in such an unhelpful way. In the compelling words of Marya Hornbacher, in her memoir of anorexia and bulimia, we are “turning skeletons into goddesses” and teaching our children and impressionable young people to hate their own bodies. That is why I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and members of the all-party group on body image for their tireless work in addressing the causes and consequences of body image anxiety. Through the Government Equalities Office, the coalition Government are conducting our own body confidence campaign, with three main aims: to raise awareness about body image and encourage a more open and public conversation; to promote a world where all healthy body shapesare represented, and people recognise that their value is far more than merely their physical appearance; and to widen the definition of beauty to include all ages, ethnicities and healthy sizes.

Pro-anorexia and pro-bulimia websites, which were mentioned by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North and others, have grown significantly in recent years and are represented on sites such as Facebook. They do not cause eating disorders, but they play a significant role in exacerbating and reinforcing illness. Limited research is available, but what there is shows us that a significant number of teenage girls in particular visit such sites, including a substantial proportion of young people who already have an eating disorder. Disturbingly, nearly all of them report learning new weight-loss techniques from the sites. I am extremely concerned about those sites but cannot take legal action against them as they are not in themselves illegal and might also be hosted overseas, but we continue to explore other, non-legislative courses of action. For example, we recently worked with a media agency to run advertisements directing youngsters to more appropriate sites, because there is much good information out there on the internet, as well as dangerous sites.

A couple of weeks ago, I met security companies such as McAfee and Symantec, and urged them to work with groups such as the Samaritans, Beat and BeatBullying, as well as internet service providers, and to sign up to a concordat, speeding up the reporting of harmful content and blocking harmful websites. They told me they would explore such a concordat. In turn, the Government would be willing to facilitate and support such an initiative in any way we can.

We cannot place all the blame at the feet of the media. That would dramatically underestimate the scale and nature of the problem, but it is something we must challenge. Education and early intervention, keeping an eye out for symptoms, and providing relevant support are simple things that can dramatically increase the chances of recovery.

Sufferers have asked us to listen. My message to them is that we are listening. As I said, I have had personal experience from my work in Norfolk of the horror of this condition and its impact on families. While I am in this job, I want to do everything I can to help others to address this very serious problem and to improve the lives of those who are affected by it.

16:21

[Caroline Nokes]

I welcome the opportunity to summarise briefly. We have had a full and interesting debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon—I am sorry, I mean Braintree (Mr Newmark). I am trying to send him to a different part of the country. Everywhere in Essex begins with B! His contribution was fantastically personal and moving. I am convinced that many other hon. Members in the House have had personal experience of eating disorders in their families or personally, and we must, as the Minister said, take such disorders more seriously. I was delighted to hear his words this afternoon about his personal commitment while he remains in his job—long may that be so.

I thank all hon. Members who spoke. Many were unable to be here for the full time, but they came and went. Two important debates are taking place in the House this afternoon, which were also granted by the Backbench Business Committee, so I am conscious that we have been competing with others for parliamentary time and attention. I want to take this opportunity to reiterate some of the key points that we have made.

There must be continuity of care. We heard the important point about the transition from child services to adult services, and how some sufferers can fall through the gap. Equally, that transition, whether from school to college or college to university, may be a tipping point for those who suffer eating disorders when they need continuity of care. My strong argument to the Minister is that there must be flexibility in both specialist services and GP services so that if a young person moves away to university, there is joined-up thinking and treatment, and no moment of crisis when a young person does not get the care they need.

We have heard from hon. Members about the impact of eating disorders on male sufferers. They are the fastest-growing group, but that does not detract from the fact that clearly the majority of sufferers are women, and the vast majority are young women.

One stark statistic that I want to close on is that 20% of anorexia nervosa sufferers die from that condition. We must do more to ensure early intervention so that that number falls.

I thank the Minister for his time, and you, Mr Walker, for chairing the debate. I also thank all hon. Members who took part this afternoon.

[Mr Charles Walker (in the Chair)]

Thank you, colleagues, for such an informative debate, which was Parliament at its very best.

Question put and agreed to.

16:24

Sitting adjourned.

Written Ministerial Statements

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 14 February 2013

Political Opinions (Dismissal)

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

My noble Friend, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, Viscount Younger of Leckie, has today made the following statement:

The Government take the United Kingdom’s responsibilities to comply with human rights protections seriously. With that in mind, we are taking steps to amend our legislation following a recent European Court of Human Rights (“ECtHR”) ruling.

In November 2012, the ECtHR held that the United Kingdom was in breach of article 11 of the European convention on human rights by preventing individuals who do not have a qualifying period of service from making claims for unfair dismissal on grounds of political opinion or affiliation. The ECtHR considered that the UK Government should amend their legislation to protect employees who suffer such dismissals.

In the case, Redfearn v UK, a bus driver was dismissed after he became a BNP councillor. Mr. Redfearn was unable to bring a claim for unfair dismissal because he did not have the requisite qualifying service.

In principle, the Court agreed that a qualifying service period is reasonable and appropriate. The ruling is a narrow judgment, limited to instances where the alleged reason for dismissal is political affiliation or opinion.

Having considered the judgment, the Government have decided not to appeal this decision. To bring our legislation into line with the ruling, we have tabled an amendment to the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House of Lords. This amendment exempts claimants who allege that their dismissal was on the grounds of political opinion or affiliation from the two-year qualifying period.

Following the necessary Parliamentary stages, this additional protection would come into effect two months after the Bill receives Royal Assent and would apply to dismissals after that date.

UK’s Counter-Terrorist Asset-Freezing Regime

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

My noble friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Deighton, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report quarterly to Parliament on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

This is the eighth report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 October 2012 to 31 December 2012. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU Regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the al-Qaeda (Asset-freezing) Regulations 2011. Under EU Regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.

Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown by name of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

During this period the independent reviewer’s second annual report on the operation of the TAFA 2010 was laid in Parliament. The report made one recommendation, to which the Treasury will respond by 14 February 2013.

The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 31 December 2012:

Procurement and Tax

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Danny Alexander)]

The Minister for the Cabinet Office and I are today making available for comment a draft of new rules that will allow Government Departments to ban companies and individuals that take part in failed tax avoidance schemes from being awarded Government contracts. The discussion document and draft guidance have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and are available through the HMRC website.

The rules, which are intended to come into effect on 1 April 2013, are outlined in draft guidance published for consultation by the Government. They will require potential suppliers to notify contracting Departments if any tax return has recently been found to be incorrect as a result of, among other factors:

HMRC successfully challenging it, including under any targeted anti-avoidance rule (TAAR), the new general anti-abuse rule (GAAR); or

A failed avoidance scheme which the supplier was involved in and which was, or should have been, notified under the disclosure of tax avoidance scheme (DOTAS) rules.

Suppliers will also be required to disclose if they have been convicted for tax related offences or have been subject to a penalty for civil fraud or evasion. Departments will be able to disqualify any bidder meeting these criteria from the procurement process.

Following their introduction, the rules will also enable Departments to include a new clause in contracts that allows them to terminate an agreement if a supplier subsequently breaches the new tax compliance obligations. The supplier will be contractually obliged to tell the contracting Department if their status changes after the award of the contract.

The rules have been designed to operate within the EU procurement directive and Public Contracts Regulations 2006, which allow procuring authorities to apply tax and propriety-based criteria at the selection stage. In particular, a potential contractor can be asked whether it has fulfilled all its obligations relating to the payment of taxes.

These new rules are another significant tool as they will provide a framework to enable Government Departments to say no to firms bidding for Government contracts where they have been involved in failed tax avoidance.

Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

My noble Friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Deighton, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Following consultation with other relevant Departments and agencies, the Treasury is today publishing the Government’s response to David Anderson’s second report on the operation of the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010. This will be laid before Parliament today as a Command Paper.

Export of Works of Art and Objects of Cultural Interest

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

On 15 December 2011, Official Report, columns 113-114WS, I made a written statement to Parliament about the triennial review of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art. I am pleased today to announce the completion of the review.

The Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art fulfils the important advisory role of recommending to the Secretary of State action to be taken on all cases where refusal of an export licence for an object of cultural interest is suggested on grounds of national importance, and advising her on the principles which should govern the control of export of objects of cultural interest under the Export Control Act 2002 and on the operation of the export control system generally.

The review concludes that there is a continuing role for the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art as an advisory non-departmental public body with secretariat support provided by Arts Council England. It finds that the Committee has good standards of corporate governance and it makes a number of recommendations aimed at strengthening transparency and openness.

The review of the Reviewing Committee on the Export of Works of Art was conducted by my Department with the support of a review group made up of key stakeholders with a direct interest in the export licensing process. The review was publicised on my Department’s website and stakeholders were invited to contribute views.

I am grateful to everyone who contributed to the review. Copies have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Regional Planning

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Mr Eric Pickles)]

I am today announcing the coalition Government’s decision to revoke the regional strategy for the south-east of England. This decision follows an assessment as outlined in the written ministerial statement of 25 July 2012, Official Report, House of Lords, columns WS66-68. The order to effect this decision will be laid shortly after recess under the negative resolution procedure.

The decision to revoke the regional strategy for the south-east signals a significant step for localism. When the order comes into force, it will mean that development plans across the former south-east government office region will comprise local plans, and where they exist, neighbourhood plans. Localised planning enables councils to make the development choices that work for them; choices that are right for their communities and respond to the needs of the local area rather than to arbitrary top-down targets. This presents a far better deal for local people.

The Government have decided to revoke the regional strategy for the south-east, with the exception of policy NRM6 on the Thames basin heaths special protection area. We are also retaining Oxfordshire structure plan policy H2 concerning the Upper Heyford RAF base. The reasons for the decision to retain these policies and to revoke all other parts of the regional strategy and saved structure plan policies, will be set out in a post-adoption statement, which will be published on the Department’s website and placed in the Library of the House once the revocation order has been laid in Parliament.

Further announcements on the remaining regional strategies will be made in due course.

Armed Forces Independence Payment

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

In July 2012, the Prime Minister announced that the Government would introduce a new benefit that would provide additional financial support to seriously injured service and ex-service personnel. The Ministry of Defence (MOD) and the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) are working together to introduce the armed forces independence payment (AFIP) on 8 April 2013. The respective Secretaries of State agreed that MOD will legislate to create AFIP and DWP would administer and pay AFIP.

AFIP is designed to support the most seriously injured. It will be payable to service and ex-service personnel who have an armed forces compensation scheme award that includes a guaranteed income payment of 50% or higher. The payment will be £134.40 per week, which is the equivalent of the enhanced rates of the daily living and mobility components of personal independence payment (PIP). Those receiving AFIP will have access to other benefits in a similar way to those receiving disability living allowance (DLA) now or PIP in the future. In addition, they will not be subject to reassessment and their payments will continue if their circumstances change, for example if they enter hospital or a care home. Those receiving AFIP cannot claim other DWP disability benefits such as DLA or PIP.

AFIP is an example of the Government delivering on their commitment to uphold the armed forces covenant. MOD and DWP will track the progress of AFIP and will report on its implementation in the armed forces covenant report 2013.

Commons Act 2006 (Post-legislative Assessment)

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The post-legislative assessment of the Commons Act 2006, Cm 8551, comprising the Government’s memorandum to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Select Committee will be laid before Parliament today.

The main purpose of the Act is to provide a legislative framework for the better protection, management and understanding of commons and greens. It provides powers to commons registration authorities and other bodies involved in the management and protection of such land.

Copies of the document are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Horsemeat Fraud (EU Meeting)

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

On 13 February I met Agriculture Ministers from a number of other member states together with the Health and Consumer Policy Commissioner in Brussels. I sought this meeting to get co-ordinated action across Europe for consumers so that they can have confidence in what they are buying. I am pleased to report that we reached agreement on a number of key issues in order to ensure that the current unacceptable situation with horsemeat cannot happen again.

First, there will be a three-month programme of DNA testing of beef products across the EU covering domestic and imported products, with first results by 15 April. Meat products across the EU will be DNA tested for horsemeat. In addition, both domestic and imported horsemeat will be tested for bute. The current system is based on paperwork, this introduces a programme of testing real products.

Secondly, we agreed to a new intelligence system so that information about the current investigations can be shared immediately. This will enable other member states to act straight away if they have any suspicions that food businesses are not playing by the rules. Members states also agreed to use Europol to co-ordinate law enforcement efforts, something I will be discussing further with representatives of Europol and Eurojust in the Hague this morning.

Thirdly, because of the urgency with which we have to deal with what is clearly an international issue, we agreed that the European Commission’s report and recommendations on labelling the origin of all processed meat should be accelerated and published as soon as possible. I expect that this will provide consumers with clearer and more reliable information on where meat products come from.

Fourthly, we agreed that implementation of these actions will be progressed urgently at an emergency meeting of member state food experts in the Standing Committee on the food chain and animal health on 15 February. I also requested that these issues should be put to all EU Agriculture Ministers at the Agriculture Council meeting on 25 and 26 February, which was agreed. This agreement represents a clear and immediate response to the current Europe-wide incidents and demonstrates the strong will across affected member states to ensure that consumers get honest food labelling they can rely on and that firm enforcement action is taken against fraudulent activity.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (January)

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

I represented the UK on agricultural matters and the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), who is responsible for natural environment and fisheries, represented the United Kingdom on fisheries items. Richard Lochhead MSP and Alun Davies AM were also part of the United Kingdom delegation.

Fisheries

Work programme

The presidency ran through its work programme, underlining its priority to progress and adopt the common fisheries policy (CFP) reform package.

CFP reform

The presidency wants to return to the CFP basic regulation in February and have political agreement on the whole package in June; they urged member states to work flexibly towards a compromise rather than repeat their existing positions. All member states agreed they could support the timeline but many highlighted the issues they would need to see resolved before agreement could be reached. Despite a large number of member states stressing the need to stick to the Council’s general approach as closely as possible, many suggested they will seek delays to key deadlines, for example on discards or to make the provisions less ambitious.

Skaggerak

The Commission outlined the background to their proposal for a regulation on technical control measures in the area between Denmark, Norway and Sweden, explaining that it was needed in order to allow fishing to continue under a discard ban; a view backed by Denmark and Sweden. The UK and others saw this regional approach to a specific regional situation as reflecting the shape of the future CFP. Some were more hesitant about the use of CCTV for control purposes in this case, but they could accept it if it was not used as a precedent for implementing the discard ban elsewhere.

EU-Norway

Recent negotiations with Norway resulted in increases of the total allowable catches (TACs) for a number of species including North sea haddock, saithe, plaice, whiting and herring. The EU gained access to more Arctic cod and exchanges with Norway fairly reflected the interests of the different member states. The Faroes declared its intent to set its own TAC unilaterally on Atlanto-Scandian herring. The Commission would look closely into what could be done in response to this, including all legal measures available. The Commission also reported that the EU and Norway had agreed to take the traditional 90% of the mackerel TAG which was to be reduced in line with ICES advice. There was a need to consider further the possible introduction of trade sanctions against Iceland and Faroe Islands, but the Commission would continue to prepare suitable legislation.

Ministerial lunch

The ministerial lunch involved a discussion on how to secure agreement with the European Parliament over multi-annual plans; given a likely institutional disagreement over the correct legal base.

Agriculture

Common agricultural policy (CAP) reform road map

The presidency began by underlining their objective of securing an inter-institutional political agreement on CAP reform in June. The Commission welcomed the proposed timetable and confirmed that it would bring forward a transitional proposal for 2014 once the MFF had been agreed. Some member states highlighted a list of issues which they considered priorities and would need resolving before an agreement could be met. The UK supported the proposed timetable from the presidency highlighting the need to reach a deal to provide certainty for farmers and the food industry and underline the need for it to be a good deal for farmers, consumers and taxpayers. The UK also highlighted the disappointing EP agriculture committee votes, which risked halting or reversing the CAP’s progress towards a more market-orientated policy.

Any Other Business

Pig sow stall ban

A total of 17 member states were not compliant with the sow stall ban which came into force on 1 January 2013. The Commission stressed that non-compliance would impact on the single market and the perception of the EU’s ability to implement its decisions; but also noted that any national restrictions on imports would be against the spirit of the treaty. It was holding a stakeholder conference at the same time as the Council to discuss solutions and encourage compliance. The UK, supported by others, called for vigorous Commission pursuance of the level playing field, so that compliant producers would not be disadvantaged by inaction elsewhere in Europe.

Neonicotinoids (risk assessment for bees)

The Dutch introduced a request for EU-wide measures. A ban on all neonicotinoids did not appear justified. Many member states intervened to echo the need for further consideration of the evidence and, if necessary, for action to be taken at EU level. The UK emphasised the need for a science-based and proportionate approach. The UK also highlighted that it had carried out field research to address gaps in the evidence and would provide this to the Commission as soon as it is ready. The Commission agreed that EU action was needed and would bring forward a proposal for legally binding measures to the Standing Committee on the Food Chain and Animal Health (SCoFCAH) on 31 January. The Commission aimed to complete its impact assessment by May.

European school fruit scheme

The Commission introduced its evaluation of this EU scheme which last year supplied fruit to eight million children across 24 member states. The presidency confirmed that a forthcoming meeting of the special committee on agriculture would be invited to consider the Commission’s evaluation in more detail.

EU-Singapore free trade agreement

The Commission stressed that it had met a key aim of protecting EU agricultural products with geographical indications (GIs) as part of this trade agreement. Singapore would bring in legislation to guarantee such GIs from 2014 and the FTA would not be signed until this guarantee was complete. France and Italy intervened and were reluctant to give full approval until they could see how this guarantee would work.

EU-Canada free trade agreement and WTO negotiations

Negotiations on the FTA with Canada were entering the final phase. Canadian access to the EU fresh meat market is causing concern with some member states, which the EU needs to consider in the light of the interaction between the different FTAs. EU has made clear that a satisfactory result is necessary on geographical indications (GIs), enhancing protection of EU GIs in Canada. These issues would have to be overcome in order to finalise the EU-Canada FTA. On the WTO Doha development agenda (DDA), developing countries would want movement on agriculture and the EU may have to compromise on this, in order to secure a DDA trade facilitation agreement. The UK welcomed progress on trade, which is a key driver of economic growth, and supported swift progress on EU-Canada FTA, EU-US trade talks and the DDA.

Countering Terrorism Overseas

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I would like to update the House on the main principles underlying the Government’s approach to countering terrorism overseas.

The Threat

The greatest source of the terrorist threat to the United Kingdom remains al-Qaeda and other organisations who subscribe to an ideology of violent jihad. But the nature of the threat has changed, in three principal ways:

It has become geographically more diverse;

It is more fragmented;

It is based even more closely on the exploitation of local and regional issues.

Our Response

In the United Kingdom we have a long experience of confronting terrorism. Our intelligence and law enforcement agencies continue to work tirelessly to protect the British public from terrorist attack.

But unless our foreign policy addresses the circumstances in which terrorism thrives overseas, we will always fight a rearguard action against it. This means ensuring a comprehensive approach designed: to deny terrorist groups the space to operate, to help vulnerable countries develop their law enforcement capabilities, to address the injustice and conflict which terrorist exploit, and to combat their ideology.

In standing up for freedom, human rights and the rule of law ourselves, we must never use methods that undermine them. I am determined that as a democracy we must hold ourselves accountable to the highest standards. This includes being absolutely clear that torture and mistreatment are repugnant, unacceptable and counter-productive.

In order to confront the threat we must strengthen the ability of states to counter terrorism, while protecting human rights, as called for by the UN. This is difficult and challenging work, since the threat from terrorism is greatest in the countries where the rule of law and human rights are weakest. This is why I wish to set out the clear direction the Government will follow over the coming years.

When we detect a terrorist plot originating in a third country, we want to be in a position to share information to stop that planning, and do it in a way that leads to the lawful arrest, investigation and prosecution of the individuals concerned in accordance with our own legal obligations, and with their human rights respected at every stage.

In many cases we are able to obtain credible assurances from our foreign partners on issues such as detainee treatment and legal processes that give us the safeguards we need and the confidence that we can share information in this way.

Where this is not the case we face a stark choice. We could disengage, or we can choose to co-operate with them in a carefully controlled way while developing a more comprehensive approach to human rights adherence. This approach brings risk, but I am clear that the risks of the first option, of stepping back are greater still, placing our citizens at risk of terrorist attack.

How we go about this will have to vary from country to country depending on the scale and nature of the challenge. But we will seek justice and human rights partnerships with countries where there is both a threat to the United Kingdom’s security, and weaknesses in the law enforcement, human rights and criminal justice architecture. These are not one-off initiatives or stand-alone agreements, but rather a systematic process of working with authorities in question to identify shortcomings in capability, and to address these through the provision of UK assistance and expertise, over many months or years.

The sorts of measures we will take include:

Building up the capacity of overseas security services to improve compliance with the law and human rights and to make them more effective.

Working with local investigators to improve the ability to build cases based on evidence.

Supporting prosecutors and judges to ensure that they are capable of processing terrorism cases through the court systems, ensuring they are handled effectively, fairly and in line with the rule of law.

Working to improve and where appropriate monitor conditions in detention facilities so that convicted terrorists can be held securely and their treatment meets with international standards.

Crucially we are creating a strong and systematic framework for this work, with strong safeguards:

We will only engage in such efforts where there is serious and potentially long-running threat to the UK or UK interests, such as that flowing from terrorist networks in south Asia, Yemen, and parts of north and west Africa.

All our capacity building work will be carefully considered in line with our overseas security and justice assistance guidance in order to assess and to mitigate human rights risks, and specifically designed to improve human rights standards and strengthen the rule of law in that country.

It will not be carried out in isolation, but will be part of UK and international diplomatic and development efforts in that country.

The intelligence dimension will be subject to the same robust scrutiny and oversight that exists in other areas of intelligence-related activity and always be in accordance with the law.

Every aspect of this work requires ministerial oversight and approval. If I or another responsible Minister see any credible evidence that our support is being misused we will take immediate action. Any work that would involve breaking our legal obligations simply would not go ahead.

This is a framework of accountability and human rights to ensure that our counter-terrorism work support justice and the rule of law as well as our security, with the goal of creating the long-term conditions for better observance of human rights in countries that have a poor record and where the threat from terrorism is strong.

Foreign Affairs Council

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will attend the Foreign Affairs Council (FAC) on 18 February in Brussels. The FAC will be chaired by the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, Baroness Ashton of Upholland.

Southern Neighbourhood

Ministers will discuss the continuing crisis in Syria and the EU’s response, including the EU arms embargo, in advance of the roll over of the EU sanctions package, due on 1 March. We are urging EU partners to look at all options to protect civilians and to assist the National Coalition and opposition groups opposed to extremism, including amendment of the EU sanctions regime.

Middle East Peace Process

The discussion will build on January’s FAC, which agreed that it was important to engage with the US Administration on the middle east peace process. Ministers will also discuss the EU’s approach to settlements; Gaza; Palestinian recognition; and Palestinian Authority finances. The UK will emphasise the need for the FAC to agree concrete steps the EU could take to help support a renewed US-led initiative on the peace process. The UK will welcome discussion of settlements and Palestinian financing, and will reiterate the importance of EU action that supports the Egyptian-brokered ceasefire efforts, and addresses the underlying causes of the conflict in Gaza.

Iraq

Ministers will discuss the current political crisis in Iraq and what actions the EU might take in response. The UK will encourage greater engagement with a broad range of Iraqi political actors to promote dialogue and restraint. We will also emphasise the need for the EU to consider its long-term engagement with Iraq to help prevent similar crises arising in future, including focusing on the development of the rule of law.

Mali

Ministers will take stock of the latest developments in Mali since the last FAC on 31 January. Discussions will focus on progress on the political track, including the Friends of Mali meeting which took place in Brussels on 5 February, and the EU’s response to the situation, including the establishment of an EU training mission to support Malian forces.

Eastern Partnership

Ministers will have a discussion on the eastern partnership, looking ahead to November’s eastern partnership summit in Vilnius. I expect conclusions to be issued. The UK will reiterate its support for the eastern partnership process, which we see as an important driver for promoting economic and political reform in the region.

Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

I am today making a ministerial authorisation under schedule 3, part 4, paragraph 17(4)(a) and (b) of the Equality Act 2010. This authorisation may be cited as the Equality (Language Analysis—Palestinian, Syrian and Kuwaiti Testing) Authorisation 2013.

The purpose of language analysis (LA) testing in UK Border Agency is to assist in identifying an asylum applicant’s true place of origin where it is in doubt, and to deter claims made in a false nationality because of an actual or perceived benefit to an asylum claim. Where the United Kingdom is responsible for deciding a case, LA testing may be carried out on an informed consent basis, and presently, only if it is strongly suspected the applicant has provided false information regarding their place of origin. A refusal to submit to testing may be taken into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.

UK Border Agency data on language analysis testing between October 2011 and May 2012 shows that although 20 different claimed nationalities were tested, on a case-by-case basis, abuse was particularly apparent for three claimed nationalities. Where tested, those claiming to be Kuwaiti were shown in 26 out of 33 cases (79%) not to be from Kuwait; none of the 12 claiming to be Palestinian (100%) were found to be from Palestine; and, to July 2012, 12 of the 15 applicants (80%) claiming to be Syrian nationals were assessed to not be from Syria.

I therefore consider the ministerial authorisation to be reasonable, rational, proportionate and necessary for maintaining the integrity of the immigration system.

The authorisation gives approval for the UK Border Agency to use linguistic analysis to analyse the language of persons making an asylum claim where they claim to be of Palestinian national origin or Syrian nationality or Kuwaiti nationality, to assist in determining whether those asylum seekers are of the national origin or nationality respectively as claimed.

The authorisation shall come into operation 20 February 2013, and remain in force until revoked.

I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Library of the House.

Transforming Youth Custody

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government are today launching their consultation “Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention”. This forms the next step in delivering the Government’s rehabilitation revolution following publication of the “Transforming Rehabilitation” consultation last month.

Much has been achieved in the youth justice system. Overall crime and proven offending by young people are both down, fewer young people are entering the criminal justice system and the number ending up in custody has fallen. This is testament to the important work done by a range of passionate people working with young people to prevent offending.

But there remains a hardcore of serious and persistent young offenders for whom custody is the right place, and at present custody is delivering poor outcomes both for this group and for society. Seventy-five per cent of young offenders who leave custody reoffend within a year; education provision is patchy, meaning that many young people leave custody still lacking basic skills; and too often the support provided in custody falls away when an offender is released back into the community. On top of this, we are paying far too much for youth custody, close to £100,000 a place per annum, and in some cases more than £200,000.

Custody punishes by depriving offenders of their liberty, but we must also use that time constructively. It is an opportunity for young people to get help to tackle their offending behaviour and acquire the skills and self-discipline to secure placements in education, training or employment on release. My vision is for secure colleges which refocus a young person’s time in custody as education with detention, rather than detention with education as an afterthought.

To help me implement this change I want to seek ideas from the market on how it would deliver a secure college, drawing on the innovation and diversity of provision that characterises the free schools and academies reforms to education. If the consultation demonstrates that the market can deliver improved education and reoffending outcomes while driving down costs, I will seek to move quickly to launch a competition that will be open to all sectors.

I am today laying before Parliament “Transforming Youth Custody: Putting Education at the Heart of Detention”, copies will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

Informal Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council

Thursday 14th February 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Mr Mark Hoban)]

The informal Employment, Social Policy, Health and Consumer Affairs Council met on 7 and 8 February in Dublin.

On the first day, there were three simultaneous workshops covering: active inclusion for jobless households; job-rich recovery, key actions for future skills needs in ICT; and labour market engagement of older women. The UK attended the first workshop on jobless households and agreed that professional skills were important, but that benefit systems also needed to make work pay and labour markets had to be flexible. The challenge was providing tailored support to young people and that work experience had proved to be a valuable measure in helping young people find and keep work.

On the second day, there were two main plenary discussions. In the first discussion on youth guarantee, some member states called for flexibility both in the list of measures and the implementation deadline. The UK called for the current four-month deadline to be extended to six, suggesting that the focus should be on those most in need rather than those who re-enter the labour market within a short period of time by themselves. The Commission remained adamant that both the list of measures and the deadline had to remain closed. The presidency subsequently circulated a revised text which stated that gradual implementation of the recommendation could be considered for countries with highest levels of youth unemployment.

The second discussion was on a proposal for benchlearning across European public employment services (PES) and the potential legal formalisation of the head of public employment services (HoPES) network. The UK welcomed both proposals, but cautioned against blanket targets and measurements.

House of Lords

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 14 February 2013.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Worcester.

Crime: Domestic Violence

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:06

Asked By

[Baroness Gale]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to support the campaign One Billion Rising, which aims to draw attention to the level of domestic violence worldwide.

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, preventing violence against women and girls is a top priority for the coalition Government. The Department for International Development has significantly scaled up its efforts to tackle this issue overseas. The department is also supporting the One Billion Rising campaign by working with partners on the ground to raise awareness of the campaign and highlight work to prevent violence against women and girls.

[Baroness Gale]

I thank the Minister for her reply but does she agree that the 1 billion women who are raped and beaten is a truly horrific figure? In the light of that, would the Minister agree to work with international agencies such as the Council of Europe and the United Nations, as well as the devolved Administrations in the United Kingdom, so that a comprehensive programme could be organised to eliminate the violence against women on a global scale?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right that the figures on this are appalling. Globally, one woman in three is beaten or sexually abused in her lifetime, which is utterly unacceptable. We are working with all international organisations, and nationally as well, to try to raise this issue. It is a focus, as the noble Baroness will know, of the UN Commission on the Status of Women in New York in March. My honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is leading the delegation from here; that commission is focusing on violence against women and girls. The Foreign Secretary is focusing on this as part of our leadership of the G8 this year and, of course, it forms part of the discussions on the MDGs as we take them forward. It is extremely important. It is about time that it is on the agenda and we seek to tackle it.

[Lord Chidgey]

One of the cruellest and most insidious forms of domestic violence is that among young girls, some as young as four, who are subjected to female genital mutilation, or FGM, as it is known. There are more than 100 million women in the world suffering from the effects of that, mostly in Africa, and as many as 3 million young girls a year are at risk from this form of mutilation. Can my noble friend the Minister say whether the Government, in their development programme, are helping NGOs such as AWEPA on the ground—in the villages and at the grass roots—to try to stop this rather revolting and dangerous form of mutilation?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right that this is a terrible practice, which we seek to counter both in the United Kingdom and overseas. We are funding civil society organisations which are working to end the practice in Ethiopia and Kenya, and my honourable friend Lynne Featherstone is developing a major new programme to address FGM. We know that work with communities, as my noble friend says, including affected women and girls is key to ending the practice. Organisations such as AWEPA, which engage parliamentarians, are crucial in bringing about the change that we all need to see.

[Baroness Nye]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that when one in two boys and one in three girls in the UK think that there are some circumstances when it is okay to hit a woman, or to force a woman to have sex, it is essential that sex and relationship education is made statutory in our schools? That must include free schools and academies.

[Baroness Northover]

It is clearly unacceptable when children in our society hold these points of view, and I know that it is prevalent. The noble Baroness will be pleased to hear that today we are putting increased effort into a teenage relationship abuse campaign, because it is extremely important that we get across to teenagers—girls as well as boys—that this is unacceptable and what actually constitutes abuse so that it does not then lead on into domestic violence. That campaign will need to be targeted in every possible place.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the Minister accept that there is every reason to believe that only a fraction of very serious cases of domestic violence find their way to the courts, due very probably to the fear of reprisal, the consideration of the situation of children and so on? Does she accept that in a criminal situation where domestic violence is proven, there is every reason why sentencers at all levels should regard such conduct as being worthy of condign punishment?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord speaks from a lot of experience. Of course, this is very complex. Relationships are very complex. Quite often, people are unwilling to come forward. If one were to apply the same kind of test to another group—say that it was an ethnic minority that suffered in that way—it would be crystal clear that something was unacceptable. I think there has been something of a sea change in the attitude of the judiciary and the police, but we need to see that go much further. We are seeking to support those changes.

[Baroness Jenkin of Kennington]

My Lords, were we not here in the Chamber now, I am sure that my noble friend and I would be joining many colleagues from the other place who, as we speak, are rising up in Parliament Square to support the campaign. I will resist the temptation to dance on the Benches. As the Prime Minister says:

“I want to see an end to violence against women and girls in all its forms”,

and I am proud to add my voice to all those who stand up and oppose it. Does my noble friend agree that because of changes to the law, which include the criminalisation of forced marriage, widening the definition of domestic violence and making stalking illegal, it is far more likely that those who perpetrate those crimes will now be punished than in the past?

[Baroness Northover]

I agree with my noble friend. I also support the campaign that is occurring today, and DfID is supporting the campaign that will be seen in Cape Town today—which, in the light of the news this morning, is perhaps particularly relevant. My noble friend is right to highlight the way that we have taken this forward; there are, for example, two specific criminal offences of stalking that came into effect in March 2012, and the DPM announced in September the widening of the definition of domestic violence to include 16 to 17 year-olds and coercive behaviour. We are working very hard to bring greater protection for victims and to bring more offenders to justice. It is also important that we work with criminal justice professionals to ensure proper guidance and training so that we can support these changes in the legislation.

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords—

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords—

[Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead]

My Lords—

[Lord West of Spithead]

My Lords, I will give way to my noble friend Lady Corston.

[Baroness Corston]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that domestic violence is a major cause of women in this country ending up in prison? With which organisations in this country are the Government working to eradicate this drastic harm to all these lives?

[Baroness Northover]

I am well aware of the importance of domestic violence in bringing about women being in prison, and all the other challenges that women in prison face. We are very keen to carry forward the work that the noble Baroness did to try to ensure that we address the reasons why women end up in prison, which is often not in their interests or those of the family. We are working across the board with a number of different organisations. I myself have been at various meetings where these organisations have put their case, which is a very cogent one. We will continue to do that. Anything that the noble Baroness wishes to feed in to me, I would be very happy to receive.

Schools: Academies

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:15

Asked By

[Baroness Seccombe]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what progress they have made with the academy school programme.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash)]

My Lords, 2,673 academies are now open in England. Nearly 60% of state-funded secondary schools are now either open or in the process of becoming academies, and more than 1,000 primary schools are now open as academies. Three alternative provision academies are open, with 20 more planned, and 63 special academies are open, with 50 more planned. The department is working to ensure that as many good and outstanding state schools as possible have the opportunity to sponsor other schools.

[Baroness Seccombe]

My Lords, that is very exciting news. I understand that academies are producing increasingly high levels of attainment. Will the Minister say what plans the Government have to tackle underperformance in all our schools, including academies?

[Lord Nash]

My noble friend is absolutely right that these schools are increasing attainment. The Government are ruthlessly focused on tackling school underperformance, and it is one of my main responsibilities. The Government believe that every child, irrespective of background, deserves a high-quality education. We have built on the previous Government’s programme to establish a further 415 sponsored academies, including 200 of the worst-performing primary schools, and we are focusing on many more underperforming schools. Where we see underperformance and failure in any school, we will not hesitate to use all our powers.

[Lord Bilston]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the coalition Government are currently planning to convert academies and to move them from the public sector to the private sector? If that is the case, will the Minister confirm—it is certainly our opinion—that that would be entirely the wrong policy?

[Lord Nash]

I can confirm that we are not moving these schools into the private sector.

[Baroness Walmsley]

Will the Minister say how many academy schools are fulfilling their duty to support other schools to improve? Is he satisfied with that number? I have an indication that not all academy schools are doing that.

[Lord Nash]

All good and outstanding schools that have chosen to convert to academies are expected to support other schools. More and more academies are taking this further and sponsoring other academies. Eighty-nine converter academies are now sponsoring other schools and providing support by sharing innovative ways of thinking and clear examples of what works, and we are working hard to encourage more to do so.

[Lord Grocott]

Will the Minister comment on reports that heads are being offered around £65,000 as an inducement to convert their schools into academies? If that is true, what is the estimated cost to public funds if the number of academies turns out to be as he anticipates: that is, the number of schools multiplied by £65,000? At a time when we are constantly being told that austerity is the order of the day, can he confirm that it is his opinion, as it is mine, that this is a complete waste of money?

[Lord Nash]

We are offering grants—all this is available on our website—to help sponsors to turn round failing and underperforming schools. In its November 2012 report, the National Audit Office rightly acknowledged the extraordinary success of the academy programme. We make no apology for spending money on a programme that is proven to drive up standards and make long-term improvements. We want as many schools as possible to take advantage of the significant benefits of academy status.

[Lord Lexden]

Can my noble friend tell the House how successful the Government have been in working with independent schools in expanding their marvellous academies programme?

[Lord Nash]

We have a number of proven successes. I was delighted to see that Eton College is going to sponsor an academy. There are many other independent schools, and we are keen to involve as many as possible.

[Baroness Warnock]

Can the Minister tell the House whether any research is going on to monitor the progress of children with special educational needs in academies and free schools?

[Lord Nash]

Like all schools, academies have a clear duty to use their best endeavours to meet the needs of children with SEN, and they can go further with their freedoms. Special academies are at the heart of our programme.

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch]

My Lords, does the Minister acknowledge the problem, which was recently identified in the Academies Commission report, that many academies are in effect setting their own rules for admissions, which are incredibly complex for parents to navigate and are in effect excluding many children from disadvantaged backgrounds from the academies programme?

[Lord Nash]

I do not acknowledge that. All admission authorities, be they local councils or self-governing schools, including academies, must comply with the new, fair admissions code. Anyone who has concerns, including the noble Baroness, about how state-funded schools are admitting pupils can formally object to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator. The law requires that academies and free schools make the majority of their places available to children from the area.

NHS: Healthcare UK

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:21

Asked by

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government how they will ensure that the National Health Service benefits from the establishment of Healthcare UK to market the NHS brand abroad.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe)]

My Lords, Healthcare UK will focus on high-value opportunities internationally for both industry and the NHS. Where NHS expertise is used, those NHS organisations will benefit financially, with the income being reinvested into patient care for patients here in the UK. Furthermore, any activity undertaken by Healthcare UK will be overseen by a board, which will be jointly administered by the Department of Health, UKTI and the NHS Commissioning Board.

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes]

Can the Minister tell me whether, with the establishment of Healthcare UK, there is a danger that some areas of this country might be advantaged at the expense of other areas of this country?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are determined that that should not happen. We recognise that the whole of the UK healthcare sector, both private and public, has a great deal to offer internationally. This does not just apply to a few elite organisations. We want to support any NHS organisation that wants to work internationally by helping it to build its capacity and capability to do so. We also want to help industry. In doing that, I stress that we view it as of paramount importance that any work undertaken in no way harms or compromises the quality of patient care here in the UK.

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath]

My Lords, the NHS clearly has much to offer other countries. Does the Minister find it puzzling, as I do, that, in one sense, we are promoting the NHS all over the world yet, when people from other countries want to come and study here, particularly in health and medical sciences, they find that the visa restrictions are obstructive? When will the Government review their whole policy on visas?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord raises a pertinent issue in the context of medical trainees. We are addressing it. In particular, we are looking at a request from Saudi Arabia to send postgraduate medical trainees to this country. We believe that we have found a way through that, and will continue to work on that issue for the benefit of other countries as well.

[Lord Walton of Detchant]

My Lords, when the NHS began in 1948, most major hospitals had private wards and private consulting rooms. The great advantage of this was that they generated income which supported the care of NHS patients. The other advantage was that the consultants who were entitled to undertake private practice were geographically whole time. When the late Lady Castle was the Secretary of State, the Labour Government removed the private beds from NHS hospitals, resulting in a massive development of private wards outside the NHS. Are the Government now embarking on a programme to improve the facilities for private care in the NHS, thus generating more income for the support of NHS patients?

[Earl Howe]

I am sure the noble Lord will know that a number of our flagship hospitals already have private facilities which treat domestic and international private patients, including Great Ormond Street and the Royal Marsden. All such treatment of course takes place outside NHS provision. However, it is important to emphasise that Healthcare UK is about much more than private patients. In fact, that will not be its primary focus. It is about sharing this country’s expertise, technology and knowledge to support healthcare systems and infrastructure with international partners. Healthcare UK will provide support if there are NHS organisations wanting to bring patients in from overseas but that will not be its principal focus.

[Baroness Jolly]

My Lords, the NHS brand is the envy of the world and we welcome this enterprise. Will my noble friend tell me how many clinicians he expects might be involved and in what particular roles and disciplines?

[Earl Howe]

It is a little too early to say because the business plan for Healthcare UK has yet to be drawn up. We have appointed a managing director in the shape of Howard Lyons who I think will do an excellent job. It remains to be seen what requirements are needed. We are looking at certain target markets at the moment—in particular, the Middle East, the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Libya, China and India. But it depends on the requests that we get from those countries as to what skills set might be needed.

[Lord Harrison]

Given that the National Health Service has much to learn from other health services and best practice elsewhere in Europe and the wider world, what methods will the Government adopt to promote that interchange? Will the noble Lord give an example of such an exchange which has benefited medical practice in this country?

[Earl Howe]

The noble Lord makes an extremely important point. This is not only a one-way street in terms of exporting British expertise. I know one very good example in which some of our trauma clinicians have been seconded to hospitals in South Africa where there is tremendous expertise on gunshot wounds, for example. That has been of direct benefit to clinicians in this country.

[Baroness Hollins]

There are some very rare conditions, such as Hunter syndrome, in which the United Kingdom is a world leader in developing treatments. These treatments are very expensive to deliver for the very small number of people who have the condition. Would they be more affordable for UK citizens if the treatments were offered to a wider population base, such as across Europe? Will Healthcare UK have this kind of initiative in mind?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, potentially that is an area at which Healthcare UK could look. Certainly, some of our conversations with our partners in the Middle East have indicated that they are very interested in taking advantage of our world-class facilities in highly specialised areas.

[Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe]

My Lords, given that EU funds for investment and research will be increased between 2014 and 2020, and given the reluctance of British companies to participate in drawing down on that research money, will the Minister ensure that in the health service field we get involved, we partner with others and we use it to our best advantage?

[Earl Howe]

Yes, my Lords. Again, Healthcare UK will be in a position to foster collaborative research partnerships all over the world.

Media: Press Regulation

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:29

Asked By

[Lord Fowler]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to establish by royal charter a body to assure effective regulation of the press.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, as I said at this Dispatch Box yesterday, we need to see tougher press regulation. That is why my right honourable friend the Culture Secretary published a draft royal charter, setting out how tougher regulation might operate. It provides an independent panel to assess whether or not the press regulator meets demanding recognition criteria. This is a matter for continuing discussion between the three main political parties.

[Lord Fowler]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are manifold defects in the royal charter process, in that it hands over power to Ministers and will require 10 pages of legislation to implement? Could I ask him an even more fundamental question? According to the published guidance of the Privy Council,

“the grant of new Charters is comparatively rare. New grants of Royal Charters are these days reserved for eminent professional bodies or charities which have a solid record of achievement”.

Is it not curious that at this time of all, when we have had phone hacking and the worst press scandals for 50 years, we should be contemplating this step? If we are going to recognise anybody just now, might it not be the victims of press intrusion?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, the very first thing, as I said yesterday, is that we need to ensure—and we all seek to ensure—that what happened never happens again. On the point that my noble friend makes about the charter, I have looked into the number of charters, and there are hundreds of them covering a wide range of varieties. They are a vehicle for setting up a legal body. I say to my noble friend that we are seeking to achieve an upgrading and enhancing of the professional standards of the press. We have excellent men and women working in the press, and we have a few people who have let that profession down very badly indeed.

[Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean]

My Lords, when the Minister was at the Dispatch Box, he stressed the importance of victims—and he did so again in the Statement that we had from the Commons yesterday. Could he tell us whether the victims—the Dowlers, the McCanns—believe that the charter is going to serve their needs, and whether they support that, instead of the underpinning recommended by Lord Justice Leveson?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am confident that the points made by Hacked Off and other groups will form part of the ongoing talks. I should explain that the royal charter is a draft document published to aid the continuing cross-party discussions. The Prime Minister and the Culture Secretary have held a number of meetings with Hacked Off. I assure your Lordships that those views continue to be heard and are taken into account. I am, of course, aware of what the ladies and gentlemen and Hacked Off have said about the royal charter, but it is an honest endeavour.

[Baroness Hollins]

Does the Minister agree that the only prospect of a royal charter establishing a recognition panel independent enough to gain public trust, and the trust of victims of press abuse, will be if all three parties work together to stand up to the powerful press lobby, whose influence is so evident in the Conservative Party’s proposals? What prospect is there of the cross-party talks actually achieving that?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I am positive that the politicians who are working on this are going into the matter with good will. As I have said before, this is a draft document. I would not pretend that it was a final version, as I said yesterday, and I very much hope that the politicians who are attending these talks today and in the coming days will bear in mind what noble Lords, and others outside this Chamber, have said.

[Lord Ryder of Wensum]

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that, under the terms of the BBC charter, executives of the BBC can neither nominate nor veto members of the governing board of the BBC? Is he further aware that this principle also applies in the commercial sector in relation to Ofcom? Indeed, it was well recognised in the Leveson report that there had to be that separation of powers—that proper independence—and it became one of Leveson’s principal recommendations. So why has the Conservative Party flouted that recommendation in the document that it published yesterday?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, this draft royal charter is a vehicle for setting up an oversight body with robust recognition criteria. There are many examples of royal charters. Indeed, the BBC was set up for a different purpose.

[Lord Richard]

My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can help me. What role does Parliament have in considering the details of the royal charter? Does it have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament? Are we entitled to try to amend the terms of the charter? What is the next stage?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, under the process for the royal charter there would have to be the continuing talks that I mentioned. A new recognition body would then be set up, as recommended by Lord Justice Leveson. Certain criteria would have to be met, and a number of processes have to take place. The whole point about a royal charter, of course, is that it is set up and not voted on by Parliament.

[Lord Stoneham of Droxford]

My Lords, most of the attention following Leveson has been on press regulation issues. When and how are the Government going to address the issue of dominant media ownership and the need for greater plurality in the future?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, an effective media ownership regime must strike the right balance between securing plurality and allowing growth. The Government will carefully consider Lord Justice Leveson’s proposals for addressing concerns over organic growth. Online activity should also be considered in any assessment of plurality.

Horsemeat

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:36

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley)]

My Lords, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is providing the House with regular reports on the adulteration of processed beef products with horsemeat.

As the House will appreciate, it is not possible to give a running commentary on active investigations. Therefore, for operational reasons, we were unable to inform the House of the Food Standards Agency’s plan to enter the two meat premises in west Wales and west Yorkshire. As part of its audit of all horse abattoirs in the UK and the ongoing investigation into the adulteration of meat products, the FSA gathered intelligence which led to the FSA and police entering the two meat premises and seizing horsemeat. The FSA also seized all paperwork from the two companies and is investigating customer lists. The FSA suspended activities at both plants immediately. The FSA will continue to work closely with the police and, if there is evidence of criminal activity, I will expect the full force of the law to be brought down on anyone involved.

I met retailers and suppliers yesterday and they confirmed that they are on course to provide meaningful results from product testing by tomorrow. The Secretary of State has made a Written Ministerial Statement on the outcome of his successful discussions in Europe yesterday. The co-ordinated control plan proposed by the Commission is a welcome step to address a pan-European problem. The FSA’s most recent tests on the presence of bute in horses slaughtered in the UK checked 206 horse carcasses. Eight have come back positive, three may have entered the food chain in France, and the remaining five have not gone into the food chain.

The FSA is working with French authorities in an attempt to recall the meat from the food chain. I understand that the results of bute testing in the withdrawn Findus products have come back negative. The CMO and the CEO of the FSA will be making a statement on both of these matters later this morning.

11:38

[Lord Grantchester]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a dairy farmer with experience of the food chain. In today’s industrial food chains, the situation that broke three weeks ago was never going to be the actions of one rogue supplier. Three weeks ago, my honourable friend the shadow environment Secretary of State, Mary Creagh, called on the Secretary of State to ensure that all horsemeat intended for human consumption is tested for substances harmful to human health such as bute. Why did the noble Lord’s department not order full testing and stipulate that horsemeat should be released only when it is clear from bute? Given that the evidence of what has gone on is destroyed when products are withdrawn from the shelves, will the FSA now take overall control of all product testing?

11:39

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, at the Secretary of State’s suggestion, there was an official meeting with European Agriculture Ministers in Brussels yesterday to make sure that there is co-ordinated action across Europe on the horsemeat issue. Food businesses need to do whatever is necessary to provide assurance to consumers that their products are what they say they are, and we are expecting to see meaningful results from the industry testing by the end of the week. There is no evidence to suggest that there is a food safety risk.

In answer to the noble Lord’s specific question, the FSA issued a four-point plan on 16 January, the day after the Irish released their information. On 7 February, the issue for the UK changed when Findus’s test results showed that there were wrongly labelled products on the UK market. The Secretary of State immediately summoned the retailers to a meeting on 9 February. He is now in The Hague, co-ordinating European efforts to address what is clearly a Europe-wide issue.

As regards bute, the Chief Medical Officer has said:

“Horse meat containing phenylbutazone presents a very low risk to human health. Phenylbutazone, known as bute, is a commonly used medicine in horses. It is also prescribed to some patients who are suffering from a severe form of arthritis. At the levels of bute that have been found, a person would have to eat 500 to 600 burgers a day that are 100% horse meat to get close to consuming a human’s daily dose. And it passes through the system fairly quickly, so it is unlikely to build up in our bodies”.

11:41

[Lord Higgins]

Does my noble friend agree that in the context of this crisis labelling is crucially important? Is it not equally important that the labelling should show the country of origin? Is that not clearly the case with regard to this appalling trade in horsemeat across the European Union where live horses for slaughter may travel hundreds of miles from Poland to Italy to be killed there and labelled as Italian horsemeat?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes a very important point. Labelling is absolutely crucial here. What is in the tin must be declared properly on the label on the tin. I take his point about country of origin, and I will take that back, if I may.

[Lord Curry of Kirkharle]

My Lords, this is a deeply concerning crisis and potentially could impact on consumer confidence in the products that we produce here in the United Kingdom. I was involved in the 1990s in dealing with the deep concerns about food safety and the various crises that occurred at that time. We set up internal systems of traceability through insurance schemes. This is now known as the red tractor scheme. This crisis has led to a much deeper level of testing being required through DNA. That throws up a real issue around the thresholds to which we are prepared to accept tolerance of DNA testing. If we insist on zero tolerance, then butchers’ shops would have real difficulty in complying. Are the Minister and the department considering levels of tolerance for DNA testing?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an important question. The answer is yes. The FSA has advised that 1% is a level of evidence at which it can take action. This is a temporary level as we undertake urgent scientific work to set the most appropriate threshold. This is the level at which the FSA can be confident that the results are reliable for enforcement purposes.

[Lord Foulkes of Cumnock]

My Lords, what discussions has the department had with the devolved Administrations, and what has been their outcome?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there are ongoing, intense discussions with the devolved Administrations, particularly Northern Ireland. It is too early to say what the outcome will be, but the noble Lord can rest assured that we will be in close touch, not only with the devolved Administrations but, of course, with our colleagues all across the EU, as I indicated earlier.

[Baroness Parminter]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for the Statement outlining the steps that the Government are taking to deal with criminality. There is also the issue of consumer confidence. My noble friend said that he met retailers yesterday to discuss this and there have been other meetings with them. However, it is very disappointing that we have heard nothing publicly from retailers or their organisations to address the big issues of consumer confidence. Will my noble friend remind retailers when they next come to talk to Ministers of the need to do something publicly to promote confidence in high-quality, British, locally sourced meat?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend makes an extremely important point. We are in constant discussion with retailers. I suspect that they may be somewhat on the back foot at the moment. That might be why they have not done as she wishes. It is important that they are not overconfident. Clearly, there has been some pretty rum business going on. My noble friend is absolutely right that confidence is extremely important and that we must do what we can to bring that confidence back to the market. We will do that by taking the steps we are taking.

[Lord Elis-Thomas]

My Lords, I know that the Minister understands the importance of involving the European Union, the devolved Administrations and the FSA. I warmly congratulate the FSA on it robust response, but does the Minister agree that the time may well come, when the crisis has been taken past its immediate difficulties, for us to have a review involving the FSA, our European partners and the devolved Administrations to ensure that we have the most effective way of dealing with the international complexity of the food chain?

[Lord De Mauley]

The noble Lord is absolutely right that what we have to do at the end of this is learn the important lessons. I entirely agree with him on that.

[Lord Geddes]

Is my noble friend aware of this problem arising elsewhere in the world—in other words, outside the European Union?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is an interesting question. I am sure that countries in the rest of the world have their own problems. I am not aware of this specific problem arising elsewhere.

[Lord Whitty]

My Lords, will the Minister give a proper answer to my noble friend Lady Crawley, who after the previous Statement asked whether the cuts in resources for trading standards and the equivalent Meat Hygiene Service had had any effect on the effectiveness of enforcement? Secondly, in his assurances on health, will he assure me that the issue of people who are allergic to live horses has been covered in the possibilities of people being allergic to dead horsemeat? Thirdly, is his Secretary of State—a rabid anti-European—now convinced that European food chain issues can be resolved only by agreement at European level?

[Lord De Mauley]

That is quite a mouthful, my Lords. On the first point, the FSA oversees a rigorous, risk-based system of checking by local authorities. More than 92,000 tests were carried out in 2011-12. The FSA has assured Ministers that the recent machinery of government changes have not impacted on its surveillance and testing. On the health issue of people being allergic to live horses, I am not aware that this translates into the dead horsemeat arena. I am reliably informed that there are no risks to health unless the meat is contaminated with bute. We covered that issue in connection with the previous Statement. I am amazed at the noble Lord’s suggestion about my right honourable friend’s attitude to Europe. He is in Europe today, discussing the matter with his European colleagues in a very collegiate fashion. The noble Lord can rest assured.

[Lord Deben]

May I remind my noble friend that we in this Chamber are in Europe? May I also underline the previous comment that this is the moment for the Secretary of State to remind the country that if we want to protect our food chain, we have to do it from within the European Union, playing our proper part in it?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that we are in Europe. My right honourable friend is of course in The Hague. Perhaps I should have said, “continental Europe”. He is not only co-operating but leading the way in helping Europe to tackle this problem.

Deputy Chairmen of Committees

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:49

Moved By

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Bates be appointed to the panel of members to act as Deputy Chairmen of Committees for this Session.

Motion agreed.

Growth and Infrastructure Bill

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Order of Consideration Motion

11:49

Moved By

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon]

That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1, Schedule 1, Clauses 2 to 6, Schedule 2, Clauses 7 to 9, Schedule 3, Clauses 10 to 14, Schedule 4, Clauses 15 to 32.

Motion agreed.

Scotland Act 2012 (Consequential Provisions) Order 2013

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

11:49

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the draft order laid before the House on 10 January be approved.

Relevant document: 16th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 7 February.

Motion agreed.

Succession to the Crown Bill

Thursday 14th February 2013 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

11:50

Moved By

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Advocate-General for Scotland (Lord Wallace of Tankerness)]

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Succession to the Crown Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.

This is a relatively short Bill but I do not think that any of us are under any illusions as to how profound it is. Indeed, is a rare occasion to bring a Bill of such historical import to this Chamber, and I am sure we look forward to a full, learned and illuminating debate.

This is a Bill with a clear purpose; to bring gender equality to the rules of succession and to remove explicit pieces of religious discrimination from our statute book. In so doing, we will make the rules governing succession fit for the 21st century, and reaffirm and strengthen the place of the monarchy within our venerable constitutional settlement—a monarchy that has shown a remarkable ability to adapt over the centuries.

The Bill does three things. First, it ends the system of male preference primogeniture in the line of succession. Secondly, it removes the bar on a person who marries a Roman Catholic from succeeding to the Throne—a legal barrier that applies to Catholics and only Catholics and no other faith. Thirdly, it replaces the Royal Marriages Act 1772—an Act that requires any descendent of King George II to seek the reigning monarch's consent before marrying, without which their marriage is void. This clause has attracted some debate. It may help the House if I set out briefly why we have added this clause to the other principal planks of the Bill.

With King George II’s descendants now numbering in their hundreds, this law is clearly unworkable and so it is replaced with a provision that the monarch need only consent to the marriages of the first six individuals in the line of succession, without which they would lose their place. In this way, we retain the tradition of monarchical consent but, in limiting it to the people who could feasibly assume the Throne, it will be applied in a much more reasonable way.

These changes will be effected not just in the United Kingdom, but in each and every realm of the Commonwealth for which Her Majesty is head of state. This was the agreement made by the realm heads of government in Perth, Australia in 2011. That announcement let to a long consultation among the realms to agree a UK Bill that provides the framework for these important changes across the far corners of the Commonwealth.

Agreeing a Bill with such a global reach has indeed been a diplomatic feat and one which colleagues in New Zealand have led with vigour and dedication. It has also been some time in the making: it took more than a year of detailed discussions before we received the final written consent from each realm. At the beginning of this month, we saw the Canadian Succession to the Throne Bill have its Third Reading in the Canadian House of Commons, and that Bill is now being considered by the Senate. This demonstrates the careful choreography and consideration that has been required.

In many ways, this Bill is akin to an international treaty and it is incumbent on us to give this legislation detailed consideration of what I hope is a Bill with a clear purpose. This is not just to assure ourselves that the law is sound, but also to consider that these changes will be brought into effect in lands beyond our borders, lands that are tied together by a common history and monarch through the Commonwealth.

Some, such as Canada, will pass their own legislation to achieve these goals, while others, such as Belize and Papua New Guinea, have been clear that legislation is not required in their jurisdictions and the laws can apply directly. With this in mind, I make it clear that it would, in my opinion, be unwise to use this Bill as a vehicle for UK-specific changes that would be of little or no relevance to the realms.

For this reason, the Bill does not, for example, touch on the complex and often emotive issue of hereditary peerages. Moreover, there are some key differences between the law on hereditary peerages and the rules governing succession to the Crown. First, the Crown does not become extinct if there are only female heirs. Secondly, the succession of the elder daughter or her descendants is automatic in the rules governing succession to the Crown, as indeed we saw when Her Majesty succeeded her late father, King George VI. Changes to the law on succession to the Crown can be effected without any change to the legitimate expectations of those in the line of succession. Changes to the rules governing succession to hereditary titles would be far more complicated to implement fairly. For this reason, we do not believe that changes to the rules governing succession to the Crown should serve the purpose of addressing what is the quite separate issue of hereditary titles.

I want to pause on the issue of hereditary titles to assure the House that the removal of the male bias in the rules governing the succession to the Crown will not result in any other royal titles becoming detached from the Crown. We must also bear in mind that any significant change to the substance of the Bill would require further consultation with the realms before it could be agreed. But that should not, and indeed it must not, prevent us having a full debate and giving this important constitutional change the scrutiny it deserves and requires. I fully concur with noble Lords on the Constitution Committee of this House who in their report on this issue noted the need to provide the opportunity for full debate in Parliament. With this in mind, I was glad to note that Members in another place had more than sufficient time to consider the amendments that were selected for debate. A number of issues were raised by Members in another place, including by Mr Rees-Mogg, who instigated a most enthralling debate on the position of the established church and the potential for a Roman Catholic to succeed to the Throne.

I want to reiterate in this House the Government’s full support for the established church in England, with the Sovereign as its supreme governor. We consider the relationship between the church and the state in England to be an important part of our constitutional framework, which has evolved over the centuries, and we have no intention of changing the position. It is also worth pausing briefly to consider what the Church of England has said on this matter, which has been set out in a briefing issued to noble Lords by the church. It states that,

“the present prohibition on anyone remaining in the line of succession or succeeding to the Crown as a result of marrying a Roman Catholic is not necessary to support the requirement that the Sovereign join in communion with the Church of England”.

Indeed, this Bill does nothing to change the requirement that the Sovereign be in communion with the Church of England and maintain the established Protestant religion in the United Kingdom. In a speech in this place during the debate on the Queen’s speech on 14 May 2012, the then right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn said:

“The references in the humble Address to reform of the rules of royal succession are sensible and timely. I know I speak for all on these Benches when I say that we wish the Government well in their present consultations with the other Commonwealth realms. We look forward to and hope that it will then be possible for the necessary Bill to pass quickly through both Houses of Parliament”.—[Official Report, 14/5/12; col. 168.]

The Archbishop of Westminster has said that:

“I welcome the decision of Her Majesty’s Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic”,

and:

“I fully recognise the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today”.

I am sure that this issue will be something that noble Lords will wish to discuss further in the course of our deliberations.

A further issue that was raised in another place was whether the children of a mixed marriage would be required by canon law to be brought up as Roman Catholics. I should like to be clear that Roman Catholic teaching requires the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage to do their best to have the children raised as Catholics, but if there is a “just and reasonable cause”, and it is certainly my view that the protection of the place of the Established Church would qualify as a reasonable cause, then the local bishop can grant permission for the marriage. I want to make it clear that this decision is made at the level of the local bishop, not the Vatican.

There was also discussion in another place as to why the Royal Marriages Act was replaced with a provision requiring monarchical consent to the marriage of the first six in line to the Throne. I should make it clear that the power of monarchical consent to marriage should be limited to avoid undue restrictions and penalties on people who are not in the immediate line of succession. However, there remains a public interest that consent be given for the marriage of someone who may well become our head of state. Consent of the monarch to the marriage of the first six in line to the Throne provides, in the Government’s view, a modernisation of the rule. Since the Royal Marriages Act was passed, the Crown has never passed to anyone more than five steps removed from the reigning sovereign at the time of their birth, the furthest removed being Queen Victoria. Given that, the Government believe that the consent for the first six in line provides sufficient proximity to the Throne.

The Bill protects the spiritual and temporal position of our monarchy while also removing two long-standing pieces of discrimination currently entrenched in law against women and Roman Catholics. Removing discrimination should never be described as an “unnecessary tinkering”, as some have described it. The Bill provides for equality between the sexes in the line of succession. Looking back to our great female monarchs, not least to our own sovereign, Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, and the great service that they have all provided for our country, I hope that these are changes that we can all support. I commend the Bill to the House.

[Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Minister for opening the debate in that way. He says that he looks forward to a learned debate. I fear that I will not be able to start at that level, but I hope that others will raise the level thereafter.

I congratulate the Government on their successful negotiations with the other Commonwealth countries, and I warmly welcome the Bill both on behalf of the Official Opposition and, if I may, on my own behalf. Labour’s 2010 manifesto stated that the Labour Party believes,

“that there is a case for reform of the laws concerning marriage to Roman Catholics and the primacy of male members of the Royal family”.

That was in 2010 but my own commitment to this goes back almost 60 years when I was first incensed, at quite a young age, at learning of the rule that younger brothers took precedence over older sisters. Perhaps I should be grateful because I think that my feminism started from those days. However, it means that for me it is a particular honour and privilege to play even the tiniest part, along with your Lordships, in rectifying this centuries-long discrimination.

We have, of course, been expecting at least the first two clauses of this Bill since the Prime Minister’s announcement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth—mentioned by the Minister—in October 2011, along with the Commons Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s subsequent welcome of it in December of that year, as well as Her Majesty’s own words here in your Lordships’ House on 9 May last year, when she said:

“My Government will continue to work with the fifteen other Commonwealth Realms to take forward reform of the rules governing succession to the Crown”.—[Official Report, 9/5/12; col. 1.]

It is perhaps particularly apt that we should be discussing this on Valentine’s Day—a day of love and happiness—and in the Diamond Jubilee of the Queen’s reign, celebrating her 60 years of brilliant leadership. There is perhaps no finer record of female suitability for the Crown than her own. I think that this Bill is a better tribute to her record than a piece of frozen land in Antarctica.

The measure has been a long time coming, although of course if the summer babe is a boy, it may be another 30 years until that son produces a daughter and before this part of the Bill has any effect, so its long gestation may yet have some way to run. I hope, though, that I might be forgiven for keeping my fingers crossed that we may have a girl this year.

It is always fun to think about what might have been had the first born always been the heir. Today is the 400th wedding anniversary of the marriage of James I’s eldest child, Elizabeth Stuart, to the Elector Palatine Frederick. How different history might have been, had she been permitted to ascend to the throne.

The second clause, allowing an heir to the Throne to marry a Catholic, is also long overdue, and it is another issue that has troubled me for about half a century. It is a welcome move towards equality. It does not remove the bar on a Catholic becoming King or Queen but, again, I venture to suggest that this may not be an issue for some 50 years hence, and I, for one, will not be around in your Lordships’ House to speak to any amendment to the Bill at that stage.

The third clause removes an anachronism of which, despite supposedly being an historian, I confess that I was unaware until the Bill came our way. I will blame my supervisor, the noble Lord, Lord Hennessy—who is not in his place—for that lacuna in my historical education. It is true that I had always noticed the words, “The Queen has given her consent” on the announcement of the engagements of her grandchildren, nieces and nephews, but I had not quite realised the significance of those half-dozen words. Of course, this clause is likely to be the first of the three to have a real effect, so it is likely to be the one that we first see enacted.

I believe we all wish the young couple a happy event this summer and we hope that it will not be troubled by press harassment and intrusion. We wish this Bill well as it passes through your Lordships’ House.

12:05

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

My Lords, I enter this important debate with some trepidation. I cannot help wishing that the Deputy Prime Minister was able to say the same thing. A letter received by the Constitution Committee from the secretary to the Catholic Bishop of Nottingham criticised the,

“nonchalance with which the Deputy Prime Minister seems to be treating a Bill that goes to the very heart of our constitutional settlement”.

I agree. Legislating on the succession to the Crown is like performing open-heart surgery on our constitution: it needs great care.

As a member of the Constitution Committee, I share the view expressed in our report that a Bill of this kind should not have been fast-tracked. I am glad that the Government have to some extent relented, but I feel that the preparation of the Bill and the consultation upon it have also been fast-tracked. There has been no prior debate in Parliament, no pre-legislative scrutiny, no White Paper—we are presented with a fait accompli agreed by all the other Commonwealth realms. We are told it has been extensively discussed with those realms, but one cannot help suspecting that such scrutiny will have been confined to consideration of how these changes would fit into their own constitutional laws rather than the merits of the changes themselves.

Now, constitutional arrangements that have provided stability and clarity for three centuries are to be swept away in the blink of an eye. I do not wish to strike a discordant note, but it is hard to avoid the view that parliamentary scrutiny was not really wanted. I have no problem with the introduction of gender equality in the line of succession. It is in keeping with the mood of the times and does not seem to raise long-term problems for the Crown.

Freedom of religion is in principle a desirable aspiration, but of course this Bill does not provide it, and nor can it. The nub of the matter is that on the one hand it allows the heirs to the Throne for the first time to marry Catholics but on the other hand it leaves untouched the absolute ban on the Throne being occupied by other than a member of the Church of England. The dynamics of the Bill create an inescapable collision course. We may not know precisely what the unforeseen consequences will be or when they will emerge, but we may be sure that sooner or later they will emerge.

As neither a Catholic nor an Anglican myself, I have tried to view objectively the potentially destructive tension that is built into the Bill, but it seems to me that in a hereditary monarchy such as ours, the line of succession should be secure, settled, transparent, wholly predictable and with no room for doubt. The changes introduced by this Bill do not meet that test, and that may well place the stability of the monarchy at risk at some time in the future.

I would like to focus my remarks on two issues: first, the repeal of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which could easily have been updated and modified, and its replacement with an arbitrary designation of the first six persons in the line of succession as requiring the monarch’s consent to their marriages; secondly, the change introduced in Clause 2, which will relax the ban on marriage to Catholics. Confining the requirement of marriage consent to six certainly narrows the field, but it increases the focus upon them. It thus condenses the problem. It jars with the relaxation of the ban on marriage to Catholics in a way that is at best unsettling.

Why six, one wonders? I ask my noble and learned friend what the rationale for this number is. In his opening speech, he mentioned Queen Victoria, who started life at five removes from the Throne. Well, six is one more than five, but that is hardly a considered basis for long-term constitutional change. The Deputy Prime Minister described the decision as being arbitrary but pragmatic. With great respect to him, I suggest that “ill considered” and “wrong” could equally well describe it. I believe that the number is inadequate because it does not bring certainty. There is a tendency to think of the succession in a linear way, with the Crown passing down tidally through the generations, but that is not the way it happens. Initial expectations often go unfulfilled. Henry VIII, for example, was a second son, Charles I was a second son, George V was a second son, and George VI was a second son.

One should instead think of the line in terms of family groupings and with wide age ranges within each. Let us consider in times to come, perhaps many years from now, the example of an heir to the Throne, No. 1 in the club of six. He or she may already be aged around 60 or more given the trend of life expectancy, married to an Anglican, and with three children and a couple of grandchildren. They are all club members. The future looks secure, but life is always fragile—and I did not list the ways in which disaster can befall a family.

The normal assumption seems to be that those in the line of succession could start their lives close to the Crown then move down the line and out of the club of six as time goes by. But it could happen the other way. In the example that I have given, the reigning sovereign’s second and only other child could suddenly find themselves back in the club of six and heir to the Throne, but while out of the club he or she had married a Catholic and they had Catholic children, who are therefore debarred.

So the line shoots out to nephews and nieces of the sovereign and their children, who have been living relaxed and normal lives in who-knows-what marital and religious circumstances, with no expectation of being brought back into the club of six in which some of them may have started their lives. We would even end up with a succession by leapfrog, finding Anglican heirs each surrounded by their Catholic families.

Perhaps I exaggerate the risk of this kind of instability, but perhaps not. Six, I suggest, is not enough if we want a settled, stable line of succession of which we can be certain—12 perhaps, but not six. I understand that the number of six was not mentioned in the Perth agreement and ask my noble friend whether the Government might be receptive to an amendment to that effect.

On the issue of religion, we are told that both churches have expressed acceptance of the Bill. The Catholic Church has nothing to lose and everything to gain from it. Anglicans, however, have everything to lose and nothing to gain, so I fear their position says more for their generosity of spirit than for the worldliness of their wisdom.

In fact, the clause covering sovereign’s consent does not mention Catholics, but by specifying no religion it opens the door somewhat furtively to a potential ban in the hands of the reigning monarch on any of the first six in line at any one time from succeeding to the Throne, not because a Catholic spouse might be involved but for whatever reason or whatever religion the monarch chooses. Far from being a restriction, that is quite a substantial extension of their power.

In our constitutional monarchy—the noble Baroness referred to this—the monarch acts on the advice of Ministers, but given the very personal and familial nature of the decisions taken, involving some of but not necessarily all his or her own children, one can readily see how painful these decisions would be for the monarch and how easily controversy and crisis could alight on the head of the sovereign of the day. That is not a recipe for stability, or for happy families.

We know from the Minister’s statement during debate in another place that anyone who has ever “professed” the Catholic faith is barred from ever succeeding to the Throne. That seems to be definitive and to rule out a change to Anglicanism for those royal children who started as Catholics, again raising the possibility of block disqualifications from the succession. In his oral evidence to our committee, however, the Deputy Prime Minister indicated that the Catholic Church’s attitude had changed so that the royal children of a Catholic parent could be brought up solely as Anglicans and thus remain in the line. He told us:

“There is a lot of flexibility”.

The secretary to the Catholic Bishop of Nottingham disagreed. His letter to us told us that,

“there is still a presumption that the Catholic party in a so-called ‘mixed marriage’ will promise to have their children baptised and brought up as Catholics”.

I know that my noble friend referred to this, but I make no apology for repeating it as it is important. He quoted to us the detailed rules from Canon 1125 of the Code of Canon Law, which are indeed robust. For good measure, he added:

“Should a Catholic spouse of a future sovereign wish to bring up their children as Catholics, a constitutional crisis would surely ensue”,

so having a word with your local bishop might not get the right result.

Frankly, that is no way to contemplate the line of succession to our country’s Crown. The Deputy Prime Minister has cheerfully suggested that negotiations for a dispensation could be opened with the Vatican. I noticed that my noble friend was slightly backing off from that position today. Perhaps one could appeal to the Pope, and I suppose the Pope might say yes, but he might say no. After all, there is not a great deal of support in the Vatican for gender equality or religious freedom.

Anyway, I seem to remember that in 1533 Parliament passed an Act in Restraint of Appeals to Rome, which was part of the process whereby England underwent the Reformation. I would not go so far as to suggest that the consequence of this Bill might be to unpick the Reformation, but to encourage the British Royal Family to appeal to Rome in matters affecting the succession to the British Crown seems rather to cut across the history of the past five centuries.

In conclusion, this is not a well made Bill. It defers to the zeitgeist in matters of gender and religious freedom, at the expense, in the latter case, of stability and certainty. I believe that as a result of it pressure is bound to grow over time to allow our sovereigns to have a free choice of religion. Whether that is right or wrong, that would bring with it a sea of troubles. Church and monarchy in this country have been closely linked since almost as long as these two institutions have existed, long pre-dating the matters that we are tinkering with in the Bill. In each reign, the bonds are renewed and made manifest in the coronation oath and the anointing of the new monarch. This little Bill, hurried through Parliament, could well turn out to be a halfway house. I fear it does a disservice to both church and monarchy and casts an unsettling shadow over the future.

12:16

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

My Lords, I wish to begin by expressing admiration for the attitude that has been taken by the 16 realms towards the appropriate changes to the succession to the Crown. It is almost beyond debate that the gender disqualification should be removed in the 21st century. I do not wish to dwell on the positive aspects of the Bill, which are strong and which I think this House would wish to support, but I would rather wish to draw my noble friend’s attention to the unresolved issue of the religion of the monarch.

Some years ago, shortly after I entered this House, I proposed a Motion that was widely, although not universally, supported, calling for the disestablishment of the Church. As we live in a united kingdom, it is rather strange to have two established Churches. My father was Lord High Commissioner of the Church of Scotland and was the Queen’s representative there. She was potentially wearing two hats: one as the head of the Church of Scotland and one as the Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

[Lord Trefgarne]

Is the Church of Scotland an established Church? I think not.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Yes, it is an established Church. It seems to me that the time has come to recognise that the essence of Christianity is tolerance and to love thy neighbour as thyself. That cannot be entirely consistent with an exclusive attitude towards other religions. This is not a matter that presses down on our constitution at this time, but it is a matter of growing concern that we observe even in Europe rulings made by Governments about other religions, about what clothes they may wear, what turrets they may have on their places of worship. Those should not be matters for the state, they should be decided by the churches themselves, as long as they do not interfere with the freedom of worship of the individual.

I am happy that a move has been made, with the agreement of 15 other realms of the Commonwealth, to enable the heir to the Throne to marry a Roman Catholic, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang said, that reveals problems that will almost certainly arise in future. It is not clear what the attitude of the Roman Catholic Church is to the education of the children of Roman Catholics. In so far as statements have been made by the Church itself, as opposed to those made by the Deputy Prime Minister, it appears that bringing up the children of a Roman Catholic in the Roman Catholic religion is a requirement. I am bound to say that that creates a degree of instability to which the noble Lord, Lord Lang, was right to point.

At this time in our country, we ought to recognise that a Buddhist or a Quaker could succeed to the Throne, but that would not put any kind of threat on the stability of our society. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang said, the history of the monarchy has been linked to the established Church. I am sorry to say that I think that it has been a regrettable history. It has led to persecution of people for their individual faiths. It has led, for example, to our greatest playwright, William Shakespeare, concealing his religion and having to live under cover. It has led, in the reign of the first Queen Elizabeth, to the massacre of Roman Catholics as a matter of system.

[The Lord Bishop of Exeter]

I fully support the Bill, but if we are going to go into history, it is terribly important to remind ourselves of the reason why the prohibition against a Catholic was brought into English law in the first place. It has its origins in the bull Regnans in Excelsis of Pope Pius V in 1570, which absolved all English Catholics of any responsibility to obey the laws of the English realm, and indeed placed any English Catholic who so obeyed under the possibility, indeed, the likelihood, of excommunication. It was that bull that was used as the justification for the rebellion against the Crown in Ireland. That is the historical reason. I am not saying that it necessarily applies to where we are today, but if we are going to revisit history, it is important that we do so accurately and understand why these things entered into our historical experience.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I understand why they entered into our constitution but to judge people on the basis of their belief, because they have been given permission by the hierarchy of the Church to which they belong to disobey the laws of the state, seems not to connect the individual with the Crown. That led, in so many cases, to execution, cruelty, torture and abysmal behaviour on the part of those who were supporting the established Church—including the monarch herself.

[Lord Deben]

Did my noble friend notice that the right reverend Prelate said that he did not think that those reasons necessarily applied today? Surely it is unacceptable that anybody should say that those reasons apply in any sense today, given that of the people in church on a Sunday who pray for Her Majesty’s health, more of them are in Catholic churches than in any other denomination.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

I entirely agree with my noble friend. It seems to me that we should not allow our future disposition on the succession to the Crown to be governed by what happened in the 1570s, which to my mind was a period of shame.

[Lord Deben]

On both sides.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

On both sides—I accept that. I hope that we can accept as a very valuable step in the right direction the provisions of this Bill, which recognise that marriage to a Roman Catholic is acceptable by the heir. The fact that there are so many unresolved questions seems not entirely surprising, bearing in mind that we were seeking to get the agreement of 15 other Commonwealth countries, However, I hope that the discussion will continue and that we will see our country and our democratic Commonwealth fellows move towards recognising that religion is not a requirement of the sovereign and that the sovereign should be an exemplar to all religions. The utterance of the heir to the Throne about regarding himself as a defender of the faiths, in the plural, was an enlightened comment and I hope that we can move in that direction.

12:27

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a former Lord Chamberlain of Her Majesty’s Household and I welcome this Bill. I find it difficult to be quite as gloomy as some of the remarks we have heard so far from noble Lords because essentially, as the Minister said, the heart of this Bill is to remove discrimination against females and against Roman Catholics. This issue has been debated, as we know, over many decades. For the past three or four decades, we have been debating this and support for this removal of discrimination, particularly against females, has been widespread in Parliament and in the community. It seems that successive Governments have waited for an event to happen in order to feel the need to introduce measures of this kind, but I welcome them all the same.

The strengths of the monarchy, as we know, include not only the service that the monarch gives to the community, which is its most important strength, but the ability of the monarchy to adapt to new circumstances. This Bill is an indication of just that. Whether we have had enough time to debate these issues is a matter for discussion but I am glad that the Government are dealing with this in a typically British, pragmatic fashion. The Bill is limited in scope, principally because, as we have already heard, 16 realms had to be consulted and had to pass similar measures through their legislative assemblies. That also means that it does not tamper, I am glad to say, with the whole question of the establishment of the Church of England, nor with the question of succession for, for example, hereditary Peers. The commitment goes back to October 2011 and that agreement in Perth. Once all the Parliaments have implemented that, it will be retrospective to that date.

There is one aspect of the Bill that I would like to pursue, partly along the lines of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lang. It relates to Clause 2, under which marriage to a Roman Catholic will no longer result in a member of the Royal Family losing his or her place in the line of succession. If we look back over the centuries, as we have discussed, discrimination and prejudice against Roman Catholics has a very long history. Looking at the Act of Settlement 1700, the threat to the Throne from Louis XIV of France and the strains in those days with Rome, I find it difficult to envisage today President Hollande posing a similar threat to our Throne. We live in a different age of greater tolerance between the faiths.

Clause 2 does not affect the establishment of the Church of England and the requirement of the monarch as its Supreme Governor to,

“join in communion with the Church of England”,

but, as the noble Lord, Lord Lang, pointed out, for children to retain their place in the line of succession, they must be brought up within the Anglican faith. This has to be reconciled with Canon 1125, where the obligation on the parents is that,

“the catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith, and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power in order that all the children be baptised and brought up in the catholic Church”.

Some have used the term “best endeavours” to describe that canon, in that parents should use their best endeavours. I want to pose a question about whether we have sufficient assurance, as it were, that misunderstandings may not arise following the marriage of a member of the Royal Family to a Roman Catholic regarding the position of their children.

We have a precedent to go on: their Royal Highnesses Prince and Princess Michael of Kent, who are of a mixed faith marriage but whose children are both brought up in the Anglican faith. We hear that there is more flexibility in the Roman Catholic Church on these issues. If we go back to the Perth agreement in October 2011, it was the former most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, who said that there needs to be “a clear understanding” that the heir is brought up in the Church of England environment. Alongside that, the Archbishop of Westminster, Archbishop Nichols, as I think the Minister said, welcomed the proposals and recognised the importance of the role of the Established Church.

Clearly, if the parents are presented with a mixed marriage and are deciding about their children, they will be well aware that a Roman Catholic upbringing for their child would remove their right to be monarch. However, I ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they would consider exploring with the Roman Catholic Church, but perhaps particularly with the Archbishop of Westminster, whether it will clarify further its attitude to this in order to minimise the risk of misunderstanding. I have in mind here a statement along the lines of a reference to the importance of the role of the established church; acknowledging the special circumstances that might arise for the children of a mixed-faith marriage involving the line of succession; referring to the precedent of Prince and Princess Michael of Kent; and accepting that the children of such an interfaith marriage would be likely to be brought up in the Anglican faith. I would like see a clearer statement from the Roman Catholic Church in order to minimise misunderstanding, and I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that this matter could be explored over the next few weeks.

12:35

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

My Lords, I welcome the Bill. The Church of England, as has been intimated, is, broadly speaking, content with the Bill as drafted. We understand the concerns expressed by some about the fast-tracking of constitutional legislation and would usually share them, but the Government are entitled to point out that these proposals have been worked on over a long period, discussed carefully with the church and, as has been observed, agreed with other realms.

The vast majority of people would surely agree that male primogeniture is not appropriate and it is right that this should be changed. The Bill marks a necessary stage in the evolution of the relationship between the monarchy and the people of this country. Such evolution has helped to ensure that the monarchy has been sustained in the affections of the people of this nation. We are all delighted about the impending birth of a child to the Duchess of Cambridge, and it is timely that this change should take place now.

As for male primogeniture, so for the prohibition on marrying a Roman Catholic and remaining in the line of succession to the Throne. The relationship between the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church, as has been pointed out in your Lordships’ Chamber, has changed drastically, I am pleased to say, since the 15th and 16th centuries, but it is worth noting that there has been a sea change in ecumenical relations between the two churches in recent years, as evidenced by the warmth of the relationship between Pope Benedict and the former most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, a warmth that I would say extends over the realm. For example, the Archbishop of Birmingham has recently accepted my invitation to become an honorary canon of Worcester cathedral. This means that the prohibition on an heir to the Throne marrying a Roman Catholic is somewhat out of time.

This change would not undermine or replace the requirement that the sovereign join in communion with the Church of England or threaten the establishment of the Church of England—something, as has already been pointed out, that the Archbishop of Westminster has stated publicly that he values, saying that he fully recognises the importance of the position of the established church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I am most grateful to the right reverend Prelate for giving way. As a member of the Church of Scotland, could he help me with why it necessarily follows that if the sovereign were allowed to be a Catholic, the position of the established church would be undermined? This may not be the happiest of precedents, but James I was both a Catholic and head of the Church of England. Is it beyond the wit of modern men and women to devise a scheme that would allow the sovereign to be a Catholic and the head of the Church of England?

[The Lord Bishop of Worcester]

Our position would be that it is very important that the monarch, as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, should be a member of it. I am not sure that I want to go into that whole area at the moment; rather, I shall confine myself to what the Bill actually does and does not imply.

Her Majesty the Queen takes very seriously her position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and it is important to us that nothing in this legislation threatens that. The established church brings so much to our nation, as Her Majesty herself observed at Lambeth Palace last year. She said:

“we should remind ourselves of the significant position of the Church of England in our nation’s life. The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.

It certainly provides an identity and spiritual dimension for its own many adherents. But also, gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely. Woven into the fabric of this country, the Church has helped to build a better society—more and more in active co-operation for the common good with those of other faiths”.

I support this Bill wholeheartedly, and I wish the Government well in it.

12:40

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, in rising to intervene in this debate, let me start by saying that a powerful case can be made for the line of descent for the Crown being through the sovereign’s eldest child rather than the eldest son in the first instance. That said, I am not sure that the Government have really considered all the implications of this proposal. For example—the Minister referred to this—most hereditary peerages descend through the eldest male heir, where there is one, or sideways if there is not. Against that background, what will happen in respect of the hereditary peerages held by the sovereign other than the Crown itself? For example, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales is also the Earl of Chester, the Duke of Cornwall, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick and Baron Renfrew. What happens to them? They are all hereditary titles. They will also presumably descend with the Crown. Does that mean that they will now go through the female line as the Crown will? I hope my noble friend will be able to explain that.

His Royal Highness Prince Philip the Duke of Edinburgh holds at least two other hereditary titles: the Barony of Greenwich and the Earldom of Merioneth. These, likewise, are hereditary titles which will presumably one day be inherited by His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. What will happen to those titles thereafter if there is a female heir in due course?

If the principle of descent through the first-born child rather than the eldest son is important, then surely the same arguments apply in respect of the hereditary peerage. While a very few peerages—mostly Scottish ones—can and do descend through the female line, most do not, but the principle is the same and ought to be applied to hereditary peerages as to the sovereign. I hope the Minister will be able to explain in more detail why this Bill does not deal with hereditary peerages. I recognise that he touched on this in his opening remarks, but this matter cannot be left unaddressed.

Clause 2 removes disqualification from succeeding to the Crown arising from marriage to a Roman Catholic. Again, I am not persuaded that the Government considered all the implications of this apparently simple change. Is it not the case that when a Protestant marries a Roman Catholic—the noble Lord, Lord Luce, referred to this—the couple are required by Roman Catholic law to bring up their children as Roman Catholics, as has been mentioned already? The pressure upon people in a two-faith marriage to bring up their children as Catholics is pretty strong. I know that from within my own experience. Thus it follows, it would seem to me, that in certain circumstances the heir to the Throne and future Supreme Governor of the Church of England could be a Roman Catholic. Although it is apparently the case that at one point in the Middle Ages a former Archbishop of Canterbury was appointed to the Holy See, that is hardly a suitable precedent.

Clause 3 relates to the sovereign’s consent in respect of certain royal marriages. This provision apparently replaces earlier provisions relating to royal marriages, mostly in the Royal Marriages Act 1772, which is to be repealed. Has any consent required by the 1772 Act ever been refused, and if so, what were the consequences? Under the new arrangement, the consent, if granted, must be confirmed as provided in Clause 3(2). Could the consents required under Clause 3, or more likely refusal of consent, be challenged by, for example, judicial review? Such a consent once granted cannot, I suspect, be so challenged, but perhaps a refusal could be. I hope that my noble friend can offer some guidance on that.

Finally, Clause 5 relates to the commencement and Short Title. This is an important constitutional measure that changes the law going back many centuries. For such a measure to come into force purely as and when the Lord President may decide is, to say the least, unusual. Nobody is a greater admirer of my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister than I am—most of the time, anyway—but such an important constitutional measure should surely come into force when Parliament decides, not on the whim of a single Minister, no matter how senior. Should the Bill not come into force on Royal Assent? I appreciate that that cannot happen until all the Commonwealth nations have given their formal assent, which includes parliamentary approval in most cases, so perhaps some time ought to be allowed for that, but I do not think it is right that it should simply be decided upon by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

I have to confess that I am not overly enamoured by the Bill. It seems that much of it has not been as carefully thought through as it should have been. I referred to the Bill coming into force. I think there ought to be a sunset clause to the Bill so that if some of the Commonwealth nations do not decide within a reasonable period that they wish to be guided by the provisions of the Bill, it ought not to come into force. You surely cannot have a position where some nations have agreed to it and some have not.

I am not opposing the first principles of the Bill, but I believe that a number of its important features need careful consideration and, no doubt, amendment in Committee.

12:47

[Lord Dubs]

My Lords, I give this Bill my enthusiastic welcome. The issues have been debated frequently, there has been a succession of Private Members’ Bills, one of which I introduced to this House about nine years ago, and nobody can say that the topic is not pretty well understood.

I shall refer briefly to The Future of the Monarchy: The Report of the Fabian Commission, which came out about 10 years ago. It embodied many aspects of the Bill, but went a bit further. It may well be that this is the first time that the Fabian Society has produced a report that has been taken up by a Government other than a Labour Government. I am sure George Bernard Shaw and the Webbs would have been delighted if they had known that this would happen. The Fabian Commission included two Members of this House and a former Clerk of the Parliaments. Indeed, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop gave evidence to it. So there has been a great deal of discussion about this, but we may need to wait perhaps 30 years to know where the impetus for this Bill came from—whether it came from the Conservative Party or the Liberal Democrats—but perhaps that is not important today.

When I introduced my Bill, the main objection to it was that the issue was too all-embracing and too difficult to be the subject of a Private Member’s Bill, and on the basis of that argument, I withdrew it. Since then, 15 other Commonwealth countries have been consulted and this Government have worked very hard to bring the Bill to the present position. I think we should all be delighted that it is now before us.

The clear point, which has been stated by many Members of this House, is that as a country we are totally opposed to discrimination on grounds of gender or religion. It is wrong that there should be discrimination at the highest level in our country. In the words of the Fabian Society report:

“It should no longer be acceptable for the monarchy to embody what are effectively forms of institutionalised discrimination”.

That is very good. Of course, I fully understand that, given the happy event expected by the Duchess of Cambridge later on this year, it is important that the Bill becomes law before she has a son or a daughter. And there can be no doubt that the Queen herself has clearly demonstrated how ably and effectively a woman can do the job. I believe that history may well judge her to have been our most effective monarch. That is a big statement, but she must certainly be on the shortlist for such an accolade.

In passing, I remind the House of the Queen’s visit to Ireland a couple of years ago. By any standards, her visit was a breathtaking success and further improved our good relationship with Ireland. Although we do not talk about it very much now, in Ireland they still talk about the success and importance of that visit, and how well the Queen handled all the issues that arose.

Another matter that has been referred to in a number of speeches, including in the Minister’s, is the effect of the principle in this Bill on the nobility. I know that newspapers have written about it quite enthusiastically and have interviewed a number of Members of this House. It is clearly not for this Bill, and others may judge how to take it further on a future occasion.

Dealing with gender discrimination in the Bill is absolutely straightforward; nobody has argued with that proposition. The same clearly cannot be said of religion. Indeed, most speeches so far have been concerned with the difficulties caused by the reference to Catholicism in the Bill. Let me therefore tiptoe into areas of controversy.

It is clear that the obvious difficulty is the position of the head of state as Supreme Governor of the Church of England. I am not persuaded that that could not be brought to an end without the Church of England being disestablished. I do not understand why our monarch has to be the Supreme Governor. Surely the Church of England could be the Established Church without that happening? If the head of state were no longer to be the Supreme Governor of the Church of England, many of the difficulties described in the Bill would disappear immediately. That would be a much more sensible position. Obviously, the alternative would be to disestablish the Church of England entirely, but I am not arguing for that. I am simply saying that the position of the head of state as Supreme Governor should be questioned. I am not sure that it does the church any good, and it would certainly make the Bill much more straightforward.

I have absolutely no intention of dealing with that matter at later stages of the Bill. The most important thing is for the Bill to become law as soon as possible, but it is only reasonable that a Second Reading debate gives us an opportunity to float issues. This I have done.

I would like there to be a position in which the monarch herself or himself could in future be a Catholic, or of no faith, if he or she wished. That would be a better outcome than the present one. In any case, although we are talking about the Church of England—I am not an expert on all religions—we are also talking about the Queen as the sovereign in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All sorts of difficulties arise other than the Queen being Supreme Governor of the Church of England. That is an additional argument for making the change that I have suggested.

These are clearly issues for the future. Today, I repeat my warm and enthusiastic welcome for the Bill, and wish it a speedy passage into law.

12:53

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

My Lords, I declare an interest as father and stepfather of five admirable females, each of whom tends to treat me graciously as a kind of loyal subject.

The Bill is timely. It seeks to ensure the stability and the acceptable continuity of the realm. I happen to be, like a number of other Members of your Lordships’ House, the first member of my family ever born in the United Kingdom. My father could have gone to the United Kingdom, the United States of America or possibly elsewhere. He was born in 1904, and from an early age was a fervent Anglophile. Part of what brought him here, as he told me many times, was the sense of historical continuity given by the Crown. The Bill and the negotiations that have preceded it are a mark of the willingness of the Crown to embrace modern values and diversity in society, particularly relating to the role of women.

I will raise four points with my noble friend the Minister, of which he has had advance notice. I acknowledge the part played in these by a brilliant and unusual constitutional lawyer called Graham McBain, who has written copiously and persuasively about this subject and about redundant statutes. Although I will not be moving amendments at later stages of the Bill, as it would be inappropriate on this Bill, these are anomalies which the Government should consider.

The first relates to the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. The Government have remembered in the Bill to amend the Regency Act 1937 so that a person who fails to obtain the consent of the Queen to their marriage cannot be regent. This is reasonable. The Regency Act also prevents a Catholic from being regent by reference to the Act of Settlement 1700. However, the Bill provides that the Act of Settlement is now subject to the Bill. The result is quite simple: a Catholic can now be regent.

Except that it is not quite so simple, because the Government appear to have forgotten another Act of Parliament: the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829. It, too, prevents a Catholic from being regent. By not repealing the 1829 Act, we will have one Act that allows a Catholic to be regent, and one that does not. I do not know if anyone will brief me to apply for judicial review if we ever have a Catholic regent, but it seems that this is the sort of issue that ought to be tidied up.

[Lord Deben]

As I understand it, the regent is not Supreme Governor of the Church of England, which rather suggests that the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, was right to suggest that there ought to be some simple side-stepping of this to get over the whole problem. Would my noble friend not agree?

[Lord Carlile of Berriew]

I respectfully agree with my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, on this point.

My second point, which I was going to make in greater detail but will not, has already been made by my noble friend Lord Lang about consent to marriage and whether six is an adequate number. I would have taken the opposite view—that six is too large a number—on an entirely different point of principle. However, we should be able to debate this issue and determine it in relation to this Bill. It is a right in modern times for a man and a woman to marry whom they wish. Indeed, according to my rather dog-eared copy, the European Convention on Human Rights did not design that right but it makes clear that that right exists, not just in the United Kingdom but throughout the countries of the Council of Europe.

To prevent people from marrying whom they wish is quite an intervention in their human rights. To extend it to as many as six people is to extend it too far. I say to my noble friend Lord Lang that we live in a different era from the one in which Queen Victoria became the monarch. I have my doubts as to whether what happened then could happen now, or whether it is in the realms of reality given the welcome size of our modern Royal Family.

Thirdly, I suspect that the Government may have forgotten another law. Even before the Royal Marriages Act 1772, the sovereign had a right, and exercised it, not under statute but under the common law, to prevent marriages of other members of the Royal Family—for example, to prevent a dowager Queen from remarrying. It is possible that that right still applies and that, under the common law, the sovereign could enforce his or her consent in the case of the marriages of brothers, sisters, cousins et cetera. Therefore, I respectfully suggest to my noble friend the Minister that any anomaly in the common law should be abolished in this Bill so that we do not have another unforeseen problem.

My fourth point arises mainly from the fact that I was brought up in east Lancashire in the county palatine, where at every dinner I would be shocked if I did not hear the loyal toast made to the Queen, the Duke of Lancaster. Of course, that is a sovereign’s title, but there are other titles which the sovereign’s eldest child inherits, which already have been mentioned by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. I would have drawn particular attention to the Duchy of Cornwall and, as someone who represented a constituency in mid-Wales, the earldom of Merionethshire, which is regarded with great value in that beautiful, if hard to access, part of rural Wales.

If His Royal Highness Prince William and the Duchess of Cambridge have a girl, she will, thanks to the Bill, be able to become Queen. However, she cannot as of right become Duchess of Cornwall or Countess of Merionethshire. That seems to me to be an anomaly. I understand why the Government do not want to get involved in this Bill and in the hereditary peerage at large—that is a private grief enjoyed by a number of my noble friends in this House into which I would not wish to interfere. But surely we could engage in titles that belong to the heir to the Throne. In that, I support my noble friend Lord Trefgarne.

I raise these issues because, as I was thinking about it, I realised that we are unlikely to return to this subject for a few hundred years. That may be a blink in the evolution of your Lordships’ House—I would add “thank heavens” from my personal position rather than from my political position—but if it is to be a few hundred years before we return to this subject, should we not deal with it now? Should we not take into account these and other difficulties that might arise, sort them out and iron them out?

Finally, I am sure that your Lordships’ House would wish to join me in offering our warmest good wishes for the challenges of parenthood for the royal couple.

13:02

[Lord Janvrin]

My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. I, too, must declare an interest as a former member of the Queen’s Household, and I should add, if it needs adding, that what I say represents my own views alone. I share the general view that any constitutional change needs to be approached with great caution and infinite care. Laws and conventions shaped by centuries of history should not be idly adjusted according to fashion or passing trend. Much hard thought needs to be given to digging deep into the longer term or the indirect effects of doing things differently.

It is essential to ensure that what may seem to be the benefits of constitutional change are not in fact outweighed by unforeseen, unintended or undesirable consequences. This is certainly the case with such a central element of our constitution as the laws of succession to the Crown. The issues around change in this area are perhaps compounded by the fact that the Queen is Queen not only of this country but of 15 other realms. Changing the rules is not a matter for us alone. If such a change is to work, 16 realms need to be signed up. This makes it a complicated matter and one not to be undertaken lightly. I can understand why Governments in the past may have left this issue firmly in the “too difficult” tray over many years.

Although I come from this starting point of caution, I would like to express my support for this Bill and its introduction at this time. It will strengthen the monarchy and strengthen one of our fundamental national values—a sense of fairness. It does so in a careful and evolutionary way that takes account of social change and modern realities without prejudicing some other important parts of our constitutional framework. I can understand that the Bill has necessarily had to be kept simple to be acceptable to the Governments of 16 independent realms. I take this opportunity to commend the work of the New Zealand Government, who I understand have taken the lead in negotiating this text across the realms.

Let me comment briefly on three elements of the Bill. Central is the change to the existing system of male preference primogeniture; male heirs take precedence in the line of succession over their female siblings, regardless of relative ages. In this day and age, I do not think that most people would consider this to be fair. If in the future within the line of succession a younger son were to take precedence over an older daughter, it would seem to be at least controversial and at worst discriminatory, out of date and out of touch. To make this change now, therefore, strengthens the monarchy because it avoids any risk of such deep controversy.

However, there are of course consequences that need to be worked through. As many noble Lords have already mentioned, there are the rules governing royal titles and the much wider question of succession to hereditary peerages. I do not think that there is a problem with the Duchy of Lancaster, which remains with the sovereign whether male or female. As to the Duchy of Cornwall, I draw attention to the fact that the financial aspects of the duchy and parity were foreseen and are covered in the Sovereign Grant Act 2011.

On succession to hereditary peerages, the Government have stated that changing the rules governing succession to hereditary titles would be more complicated to implement fairly, which is probably an understatement but prudent. I think most people will understand that it is reasonable to ring-fence issues of royal succession from these difficult wider issues.

Clause 2 has been the subject of much of this debate. There is a balance to be struck between reducing discrimination against Roman Catholicism while at the same time upholding the position of the Church of England as the established church. On reflection, I support this change, and I declare an interest as a member of the Church of England and that my wife is Catholic. The law against the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic has looked ever more anomalous in our increasingly multifaith society, as there is no such ban on him or her marrying someone from any other faith. Clause 2 removes this ancient bar, which might be seen at best as a historical curiosity and at worst as specific discrimination.

However, I would argue that there is a much more positive reason for welcoming this change. The legislation as it stands limits, in perhaps a significant way, the choice of a lifelong partner, husband or wife, for the heir to the Throne, who is destined to take on the onerous responsibilities of being the monarch of our country. Removing this limitation might make it just a little easier for him or her to find that ideal partner and a source of lifetime love and support in his or her difficult calling. That is in all our interests, and it is why I believe that, despite the difficulties that we have heard about today, this change strengthens the institution of monarchy and makes the world a little fairer.

This raises the question of whether the children of an Anglican-Catholic mixed marriage would be raised within the Anglican faith. I have listened with great interest to the most interesting contribution by the noble Lord, Lord Lang, on this. It is my understanding that over the years the Catholic Church has become more flexible on this issue. However, I draw attention to what my noble friend Lord Luce said: we need to look at whether ways can be found to ensure greater certainty that an heir to the Throne does not have to choose between the Throne and his or her faith. I am strengthened in the belief that this can be done because, as my noble friend said, there is already a precedent within the Royal Family of the children of an Anglican-Catholic marriage being brought up in the Anglican faith.

The third element of the Bill, the repealing of the Royal Marriages Act 1772, seems to be an obvious rationalisation, and I think is widely supported. Most of the discussion has focused on whether the sovereign’s permission to marry should be required at all and, if so, why it should be the first six in the line of succession. I have heard the arguments that no one should be prevented from marrying in this way, but my reading of the Bill is that failure to obtain permission simply means that the person and the person’s descendants are no longer in the line of succession, not that they cannot marry at all. I would argue that the retention of this element of permission is recognition that the choice of partner by someone who may become our sovereign is not simply a private choice; there are wider consequences for the Royal Family and for the country. To have that seeking of permission is what I would describe as something of a pause button, and it may not be out of place. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about whether six is the right number of people who must seek that permission.

In conclusion, I look forward to supporting this Bill. It is an example of evolutionary and incremental constitutional change, and I welcome it. One of the great strengths of the monarchy is its ability to change and adapt and be part of the society in which it operates. The Bill strengthens the monarchy, an institution that continues to make a huge contribution to our national life.

13:13

[Lord Lexden]

Walter Bagehot wrote in 1867 that,

“one-half of the human race cares … fifty times more for a marriage than a ministry”.

So it came as no surprise at all when this coalition ministry decided that the immensely popular marriage of the second in line to the Throne should be followed by fundamental reforms of the monarchy, which had been under discussion for some years—indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, reminded us, for decades. The reforms overturn some of the principles on which our monarchy has rested, for the most part securely, since the Reformation nearly five centuries ago, principles strengthened and extended under the 1689 settlement. The changes are therefore of profound importance.

The coalition ministry is to be congratulated on securing for them the full support of the 15 other Commonwealth countries of which Her Majesty the Queen is head of state. However, little has been heard of the progress that the 15 are making in implementing these fundamental changes. Those who have been following events in the 15 do not report consistent vigour and diligence. Despite progress made in Canada, to which my noble and learned friend the Minister alluded at the outset, doubts have been expressed about whether the necessary assent will in fact be forthcoming from all of them. The Government’s most laudable aim is that the new era in the world’s greatest monarchy, which is now foreshadowed, should begin simultaneously in all 16 realms. It would be useful to hear from my noble and learned friend today when the point of common action envisaged by the Government is likely to be reached.

The merits of the reforms are well known and I shall not dwell upon them. An immense amount of preparatory work has clearly been done. Even so, the Government seem so far to have given insufficient consideration to some of the most significant and wholly predictable consequences that these major constitutional changes will have. The most obvious and predictable of them all involve the Roman Catholic Church. Other noble Lords have alluded to this issue but, in view of its importance, I would like to return to it, following meekly in the wake of my fellow member of the Constitution Committee, my noble friend Lord Lang.

No one who marries a Roman Catholic in future will be excluded from the line of succession, but no one who is a Roman Catholic can wear the Crown. Immediately, people ask the obvious question: if a marriage to a Roman Catholic is contracted in the direct line of succession or close to it, in what faith will the children of that marriage be brought up? Confronted with this question by your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution last month, Mr Clegg was totally untroubled, saying:

“The Catholic Church itself has not had a doctrine for many years obliging people who are of a mixed religious denomination to educate their children as Catholics … There is a lot of flexibility and the Catholic Church has been very clear about that”.

Mr Clegg is married to a Roman Catholic and might have been expected to have been absolutely accurate in his comments. In fact, as this debate has made clear, he was both right and wrong: right that the Roman Catholic Church is capable of exercising flexibility, but wrong that it has shed its doctrine on mixed marriages. As the Reverend Andrew Cole, to whom my noble friend Lord Lang, alluded, private secretary to the Bishop of Nottingham and Catholic chaplain to the University of Nottingham, stated in a letter to the chairman of the Constitution Committee, provoked by Mr Clegg’s remarks, there remains,

“a presumption that the Catholic party in a so-called ‘mixed marriage’ will promise to have their children baptised and brought up as Catholics”.

A blithely untroubled optimist such as Mr Clegg may happily assume that the requirement will be set aside in regard to the children of a mixed marriage in the line of succession to the Throne. In this crucial matter, helpful and reassuring comments have been made by the present Archbishop of Westminster. But Mr Clegg, the Archbishop and others speak only for themselves.

The greatest institution in our country—its 1,000 year-old monarchy—requires certainty to ensure its security and stability in the ages to come.

[Baroness Falkner of Margravine]

I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I, too, was on the Constitution Committee when we deliberated this Bill. Could he tell us whether what he describes as the constraints on the children of Catholics being bought up—and the Catholic Church’s perspective on that—would be different if the monarch was married to a Muslim, as is currently permissible? Muslim children are, likewise, expected to be brought up in mixed marriages as Muslims. So the anomaly exists in the case of other faiths, but perhaps not in the case of Catholics.

[Lord Lexden]

I thank my noble friend. This is a great matter. It is not possible for a child of a monarch to be eligible to take the position of the Supreme Governor of the Church of England if the monarch is a Catholic. That is why the issue arises in this connection and not in relation to other faiths.

I suggest a firm, binding and permanent declaration is needed from the Roman Catholic Church, recognising the unfettered right of a monarch, and of his or her heirs, to bring up their children as members of the Church of England for as long as the bar on a Roman Catholic monarch is retained.

I turn to a second set of utterly predictable consequences which the Government seemed singularly disinclined to address when the Bill was in the other place. They arise from the Bill’s first provision that succession to the Crown shall not depend on gender. The monarchy enfolds a number of historic titles to which deep respect as well as great importance is attached. Here I follow my noble friend Lord Trefgarne and the noble Lord, Lord Carlile. The historic titles are central features of our nation’s heritage: the Duchies of Cornwall, Lancaster and Normandy; the Scottish titles of Rothesay, Carrick, Renfrew, Lord of the Isles, and Prince and Great Steward of Scotland; and the title of Lord of Mann, under which the monarch is proprietor of the Isle of Man.

In its report on the Bill, the Constitution Committee highlighted the issue of succession to the Duchy of Cornwall. It stated:

“When the Duke of Cornwall succeeds to the throne, the Duchy automatically transfers to the new heir. At present, however, the Duchy can only be held by a male”.

As Mr Ben Wallace, who contributed so powerfully to the debates on the Bill in the other place made clear, the Duchy of Lancaster descends in the male line if there is a male child of a monarch to whom it can pass. Great properties and wealth are attached to both duchies. Both were originally established, I understand, in the Middle Ages under charters granted in Parliament.

As is well known, Scotland provides much more readily for female succession. Can all the monarchy’s titles in the peerage of Scotland be held by a woman with the principle of male primogeniture abrogated, along with the revenues that may be attached to them? What about the historic title, Lord of Mann? The people of the Channel Islands will want to know whether there are any implications of change for the Duchy of Normandy. So far the Government have shown themselves largely indifferent to these vital questions. In the closing stages of debate on this Bill in the other place, Mr Tom Brake, Deputy Leader of the House, said:

“Titles are a matter for the monarch. Because we are restricting the scope of the Bill, we can move forward”.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/13; col. 730.]

I suggest that we cannot move forward on that basis. The great titles in question are matters for Parliament and the nation as well as for the Crown. Authoritative advice is surely needed on the full implications that Clause 1 of the Bill will have for these historic monarchical titles. The country is not short of learned peerage lawyers; should they not now be consulted? For in all this is there not a clear principle to be identified and upheld: that any woman who is first heir to, and then succeeds to, the Throne as Queen of our country under the terms of this legislation must possess and enjoy all the titles, dignities and honours that would be invested in a King? Otherwise, true gender equality will not be achieved.

The third and final consequence of this legislation on which I would like to touch differs from the other two in that it has not so far been evaded or left in a vague condition by the Government. Here again, I follow my noble friend Lord Trefgarne. As soon as the Government made clear their intention to set aside the principle of male primogeniture in the royal succession, they were at once asked whether this hallowed principle would also be endangered in respect of hereditary peerages. They replied that this was an entirely separate issue, which they had no plans to address. That at once raises the spectre of acute disagreement at the centre of the Royal Family itself. It would be wholly unsurprising if, in the years to come, Lady Louise Windsor, the first-born child of the Earl of Wessex, did not view with perfect equanimity the prospect of the succession of her younger brother to the earldom when the principle of male primogeniture had been set aside in the main line of royal succession. The wider ramifications are already obvious. This legislation has given determined ladies of blue blood and their male supporters the opportunity to secure greater publicity than ever before for the incompatibility between the principle of the equality of the sexes and the rules of succession attached to the overwhelming majority of hereditary peerages.

The Government cannot dispose of the matter merely by saying they have no plans to address it. The campaign for change which is now well under way will have been heartened by Mr Clegg, who said during his speech on Second Reading in another place:

“Personally, I am sympathetic to that reform”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/13; col. 212.]

Elements of this legislation could introduce serious instability in the monarchy. The very existence of this legislation has already introduced it in the hereditary peerage.

I am not arguing against the principal aims of this legislation, which have such widespread political and public support. However, because of the far-reaching nature of the changes that it will make to our monarchy, the legislation needs to satisfy two clear questions: will it stand the test of time; and will it strengthen the institution that stands at the very centre of our national life? Unless both questions are satisfactorily answered, the Government will risk the charge that they have sacrificed tradition to modernisation instead of reconciling them sensibly and sensitively.

13:24

[Lord Lucas]

My Lords, I wholeheartedly welcome every aspect of the Bill. My peerages currently descend on the same pattern as the monarchy. My grandmother, who held the titles, was a campaigner for gender equality, as was my mother, who held the titles after her, and, indeed, my father, so it is not surprising that I think that it is wonderful to have lived the past 60 years in a period of such change and progress. We clearly have some way to go yet and I do not think we have yet realised what the full consequences of gender equality will be, but we have made great progress. It is wonderful to be standing here at last contemplating the change to the succession of the Crown, which means that our head of state will now enjoy the same gender equality that the rest of us expect in the course of our ordinary lives.

It is important to focus also on the tidying up that follows this crucial change. Generally, it is never good enough to think that we have got 80% of the way on gender equality and we should be satisfied with that. The Church of England will be aware of how difficult it is to tidy up some of the difficult corners of this matter. None the less, we must do it because until the symbolism of male dominance is gone we will not have granted gender equality.

Several of my noble friends have touched on the subject of the hereditary peerage. I have a Bill on this subject sitting in the Printed Papers Office. It will not be debated in this Session but I hope that we will get around to it in the next. This is a difficult area, as several noble Lords have mentioned, not least because one is dealing with a succession of expectations. This Bill is well timed for the monarchy because we know exactly what the expectations are, but you cannot spread that over 1,000 plus hereditary peerages, let alone the baronetage, which probably ought to be wound up in it too. There are also in many cases, but, sadly, not mine, substantial properties tied up with titles. One does not want to do something which means that those diverge any more than we want the hereditary titles to diverge from the monarchy.

I suspected that we would reform this House a couple of years after 1999. I have been proved very wrong on that and perhaps the present system will see me out, but eventually we will get around to it. Even if hereditary Peers have no place in this House as of right, it is still a considerable thing to be called “Lord” or “Sir” because so many people now have these titles through their own virtue. For that matter, I imagine that it is a great thing to be called a duke, too. It is useful. It opens doors. On one occasion my wife rang The Ivy to see whether there was a table. She used her maiden name of Rubinstein and they said no, so she got her assistant to ring up five minutes later and ask whether Lord Lucas might have a table. The answer was yes, so titles, even those which are unearned, are not without consequence in this world. They are part of the historical pattern of the nation. As someone who enjoys having a title but also appreciates that in others, I think it is a nice part of the fabric of the nation which should not be largely restricted to men. This is a reform which we should seek to make. The imperfection in the Bill, in that it does not deal with the royal hereditary titles, gives me hope that the Government may find the motivation to support my Bill, or something like it, in the next Session.

13:30

[Lord Berkeley]

My Lords, I am pleased to be able to participate in this Second Reading debate because it is an important Bill. I support all its clauses, which I shall consider, but I am afraid, as many other noble Lords have said, the Bill needs to go a bit further. I am pleased that the Government have allowed us proper scrutiny, with Report and Third Reading in addition to Committee, if we need it.

I should first say that whatever we discuss in the longer term, as my noble friend Lady Hayter said, the Queen has a fine record in what she has done and does, but that should not prevent us from having a full discussion about the role of the monarch and the established church. In addition to the contents of the three main clauses, I have concerns about the requirement to seek approval of certain legislation from the Queen or the Prince of Wales if it affects their private interests. I have a problem with why they should get that consideration but other people with private interests do not. It is reported—because one never officially hears about these things—that the Queen actually blocked a Bill some years ago that would have required Parliament to vote before the Government declared war. That is a serious issue; the Bill is one of the few that clearly needs the Queen’s approval, and that is appropriate.

However, as regards the role of the monarch and a constitutional monarchy, I have always had worries about why so many members of the Royal Family, 12 of them, get free travel around the country—usually in a helicopter because we are told that it is needed for security and they have to get to the next fete opening more quickly. From what I remember from when I was a kid, the King, the Queen Mother and their two daughters when they grew up were the only ones who performed any serious royal duties. I am sure that they had their travel paid for, but is it right that the taxpayer should fund all this? I make the comparison with dear Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, who announced her retirement and abdication last week and is regularly seen going around Amsterdam on a bicycle, whereas our lot, depending on their status, have either five or three motorcycle escorts. I can understand why the security people recommend that because it means more jobs for them, but is it all necessary, or is it hyped up a bit?

I turn to the succession issue in Clause 1. This is clearly a good thing. I am not going to get involved in the debate about the succession to peerages, although some of my cousins were splashed across the Sunday Times last weekend—that is fine. I do not know whether the succession of a peerage goes along with succession of property; I am no expert. However, the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, mentioned the question about the Duchy of Cornwall and whether a female heir would become the Duchess of Cornwall and the Princess of Wales. The Duchy of Cornwall is a bit of a money-spinner because its annual accounts for 2011-12 show a total income of £26.5 million, of which £18.3 million is surplus, distributable to His Royal Highness. That 70% profit in any other business would normally attract a very large amount of tax, unless one was on a tax fiddle—which I am sure does not apply in this case. However, it is questionable why anyone in the Royal Family should have this benefit when other landowners do not. There is a strong argument for merging the duchy with the Crown Estates and ensuring that the money allocated to the monarch for public duties also covers the eldest child. The only other organisation that I can think of that makes such hefty profits is the Macquarie Bank, which we mentioned in a debate in your Lordships’ House last week. There is time to look at issues such as that and perhaps make proposals in the long term.

In terms of the succession, I hope that gender does not matter, but there has been the resignation of the Pope this week. It made me think of the story of the female Pope, if it is true, back in 800 AD. She was found out only when she had a baby that fell from underneath her surplice or cassock, or whatever it is called. Ever since then, there has apparently been a medical method of checking whether the Pope is a man or woman. I do not think that they have found any women since then. I do not even know if the story is true, but in Tudor times it was normal to have a Minister present when the Queen had a baby, just to check that it was in the proper line of succession. It may well be, if we are that keen to make sure that one inherits after the other in the proper succession, that the modern equivalent would be a DNA test on the heir to the throne before they succeed. As a noble Lord said earlier, we need certainty, and that would certainly confirm the lineage of the prospective heir to the Throne.

As to whether the monarch can marry a Roman Catholic, I have listened carefully to the debate and I really cannot see what difference the religion of the head of state makes. We can consider the latest surveys of the proportion of people who go to which church and so on, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, reminded us, there are two established churches in this country—the Welsh have been sensible and do not have one, as far as I know. It is quite possible to separate the head of the Church of England from the monarch. An election could be interesting if the church decided to do that, and I suppose that the alternative is the Catholic way of going into a huddle and then producing a smoke signal when you have chosen someone. However, it does not make any difference to the monarch or the churches whether they are separate.

Then there is the question of whether the monarch can divorce. What would happen? Would they have to give themselves permission to divorce and remarry? It is an interesting question and I am sure that the Minister will be able to give me an answer. It is pretty odd that the whole edifice of the monarch and the constitution relies on who they are permitted to marry. What happens if the heir becomes King or Queen and then decides to get married? I suppose that he or she would have to take the advice of the Prime Minister of the day in considering whether the future bride or bridegroom was suitable and, presumably, came from the right background and religion, and was not someone who was not approved of. We are getting into difficult territory here. I would not dream of moving an amendment and dividing the House on such a matter at this stage, but I hope that we can debate this issue a bit longer and harder.

What are the roles and responsibilities of the monarch? What is their ability to interfere informally or formally with government? We are well aware of the infamous spidery handwriting of the letters that Prince Charles is alleged to have written. That is not the right way for the Prince of Wales to learn how to be a monarch who does not interfere in the day-to-day decisions of the Government. We must sort out the difference between private and public responsibilities. Who owns what? Who owns all those palaces and pictures? Is it the monarch as a private individual, or is it the state, with the monarch there for the duration of his or her reign?

In conclusion, the changes I have talked about are necessary to bring the monarchy and the constitution into the 21st century. They could all happen and it would not be the end of the world or of this country. I look forward to further debates on the issue.

13:40

[Viscount Astor]

My Lords, I suppose that I should declare an interest as a member of the Church of England who is married to a Catholic. Perhaps I should also declare that my eldest child is a girl who was followed by two boys. She announced that she would follow closely the proceedings in your Lordships’ House—to the slight consternation of her two younger brothers.

As has been explained, we live in a country where two powers are merged in the Crown: the head of state and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England. The Queen is not the head of the Church of Scotland but appoints the Lord High Commissioner to the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland. My worry is that the long-term effect of the Bill could be the disestablishment of the Church of England.

While many in the House will support the right of the first born to inherit, the Bill has constitutional consequences. We in this country have a long and distinguished history of having female sovereigns. Some titles in your Lordships’ House already pass through the female line. However, the Bill goes much further. While it prevents a person of the Roman Catholic faith acceding to the throne, it allows the heir to the throne to marry a Catholic.

The first issue one must address is: why rush this through Parliament? The Select Committee report pointed out that the retrospective element of the provision obviates the need for fast-tracking. The Minister in another place defended fast-tracking as a pragmatic solution, but, as my noble friend Lord Trefgarne pointed out, even after the passage of the Bill, it will not come into force until, under Clause 5, an award is made by the Lord President of the Council. Why does the Deputy Prime Minister want to retain this power? I presume it is because of possible delays in Commonwealth Parliaments. Should not the Bill come into force only after the countries involved have all passed their retrospective legislation? What happens if one Commonwealth country does not pass the legislation? Do we go ahead without its consent? If that is the case, it should be set out clearly in the Bill why that should or should not come about. I am confused about how the Bill will affect the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. I hope that the Minister will say whether they are included. I am afraid that I am not good enough at looking at Bills to discover whether they are.

As I said, the Bill will allow the heir to the Throne to marry a Catholic but not to maintain the succession if they bring up the child as a Catholic. The problem is that we know that, should the heir to the Throne marry a Catholic, they would be required under the Catholic Church’s canon law to promise to try to bring up their children in the Catholic faith. That is absolutely clear from talking to any member of that faith. Should that happen, it will cause upset and distress to all those involved. Should the heir to the Throne wish the child to be brought up a Catholic, either we will have to disestablish the church or the child will lose the right to succeed. I am sure that noble Lords can imagine the outcry there would be in this country if the then Archbishop of Canterbury tried to stop the heir to the Throne succeeding because he or she was of the wrong religion. It simply would not make sense in modern Britain—in particular as, under current law, if they were Jewish, Hindu or Muslim, they would be allowed to succeed, because the Act refers only to the Roman Catholic Church. That does not make any sense.

I have always pressed for other faiths to be represented in this House. It is sad that they are not. Our debate would have been enlightened by having a Catholic bishop or even a cardinal speaking in your Lordships’ House. I have always thought it a matter of regret that the Catholic Church in this country has always turned down the offer of being represented in your Lordships’ House. Of course, the Church of Scotland is not represented here, nor the Church of Wales, which was disestablished in 1920—and there has been no established Church in Northern Ireland since 1871. It is also possible that a future monarch might be of a different faith altogether.

I turn to the clause stating that the monarch must still approve the marriages of the first six in the line of succession. The only justification offered by the Minister in another place was that it was not an arcane provision but a pragmatic one. She never explained why it was necessary or desirable—or indeed pragmatic. I wonder how many noble Lords have noticed that when Ministers use the word “pragmatic”, it is often because they cannot think of any other justification for what they are saying. It has become government Newspeak. The only argument offered by the Minister in another place was that the same rules apply in Norway, Sweden, Spain and the Netherlands. This was an interesting introduction of EU—or rather European, because Norway is not a member of the EU—convention into English law affecting the monarchy.

When I first looked at the Bill, I was against it. I thought that it was unnecessary. However, I have changed my mind. I worry about the disestablishment of the church because I see the Bill as a failed opportunity for Parliament to properly debate the merits of the established church in this country—particularly in the light of when the Bill will be enacted. If we do not debate the issue, it will surface when we least expect it. It will be a ticking time bomb for the future. That would be detrimental not only to the church in this country but also possibly to the monarchy in future.

13:46

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, 325 years ago, the streets were full of a tumult of people celebrating the fact that the previous day, William and Mary had jointly accepted the Throne of England and committed to supporting the Protestant religion as a right of the people. I do not come today to say that I disagree with the principles that the Bill seeks to establish. However, as we have heard this morning, it needs an awful lot of tidying up on many issues. I have serious doubts about whether we in this House have the legitimacy to give a decision. I believe that we would be acting illegally and in contravention of our oath on joining the House if we were to consent by a vote to this legislation.

My reasoning is that I believe very strongly that we have been caught out—as I always feared that one day we would, although no other such Bill has come before us—by the fact that we are being given a delegation of the prerogative of the Crown, which puts the burden on us to decide whether this is in breach of the coronation oath. I submit that it is, and therefore that any noble Lord who votes for the Bill now should walk through the Lobby and out of the front door and should never return, because we will all have automatically disqualified ourselves under our oath of allegiance to support the monarch in the discharge of their obligations under the coronation oath.

Over the past couple of weeks, I asked various notable constitutionalists and legal minds around the House for their reaction to this idea. I find it significant that only one of the six is in the House today. I got a very interesting bunch of answers. Two Members of the Privy Council said almost exactly the same thing: “Good gracious, old boy, what a question. We have never been asked that. Nobody has ever given us any advice on it, so I suppose it must be all right”. That is not a good enough basis on which to proceed with a Bill such as this.

I went to two notable constitutional academics. One of them was my whip, my noble friend Lady Perry. She said: “You’ve got it quite wrong, old boy. It’s absolutely not like this. The Act of Settlement is the only thing that we need worry about, and we can alter it any time we want. We need have no concern about what is in the Declaration of Rights”. The second academic told me: “She’s completely wrong. It’s all about the Declaration of Rights and not about the Act of Settlement at all”.

On further reflection, and having taken further advice, I decided that they were both wrong—and I will show why in a moment. I sat down to work out what would be the reasons why we would receive a delegation of the royal prerogative. At this point, another noble Lord I put it to said: “Yes, you are definitely going down the path of treason”. I do not wish to commit treason, but the situation at the moment with the Bill is that if we are to proceed, we need to know what we are doing in the context of the delegation of the prerogative. I can think of only four reasons why we might have it, and this is where I am treasonous. The first, I believe, is that Her Majesty might very well have decided that this was an issue of such public concern and interest that it should not fall to any member of the Royal Family to give an opinion on it themselves. They are too closely involved. They would rely on the wisdom of Parliament to guide the interest of the people as a whole by giving its opinion on it. That would be fine. That is not in any way exceptional.

[Lord Elton]

I have stood at the Dispatch Box and signalled the ceding of the royal prerogative on more than one occasion. It actually happens quite often; it is just that people do not notice.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I am grateful for that intervention. The fact that that would apply in this case should be read into the record of Hansard before we are asked to vote. It should come from the Leader of the House. We need that on authority.

There are other reasons why this might be. It might be that the Majesty of the Crown is concerned that this is already seen to be in breach of the coronation oath and it is wondering whether it can avoid that problem by having us give an assent that overrides that breach of the coronation oath.

The third possibility is that the Majesty of the Crown simply does not like this at all and is relying on our good sense and common sense to throw it out. The fourth possibility is that the Majesty of the Crown really does not mind and thinks that it should leave it up to us to decide. We need clarification about the reasons why we have the delegation of the prerogative in this case.

In all of that, I have been making the assumption that we are talking here about the coronation oath. But since I asked my questions, I have found that there is another oath that preceded the coronation oath, which applied to every monarch in the 20th century. It is only 54 words long and I would like to read it to the House. This was signed on the morning that Her Majesty returned from Kenya. She was rushed to Clarence House in order to sign a proclamation oath so that officials could get on with what was now overdue—to get the royal proclamation of the new monarch before darkness set in in London. It states:

“I, Elizabeth do solemnly and sincerely in the presence of God profess, testify, and declare that I am a faithful Protestant, and that I will, according to the true intent of the enactments which secure the Protestant succession to the throne, uphold and maintain the said enactments to the best of my powers according to law”.

That is 54 words. I wish noble Lords would tell me which part of the Bill does not shred that oath.

As I said, 325 years ago, William and Mary accepted the throne. The circumstances under which they did so have a direct bearing on where we are today. It is a vexed question for me. Are we concerned with the Act of Supremacy or the Declaration of Rights? I am convinced that it is the Declaration of Rights. Every aspect that is supported by that oath is provided for in the Declaration of Rights, not the Act of Supremacy. Therefore, we need to be sure that we are setting out to amend the right bit of legislation and the right Act. I think that we have the wrong one.

William arrived at Brixham on 5 November, 1688. He set off with his own personal army of 13,500 to London. We call it the glorious bloodless revolution, but it was not. Some 104 people were killed just getting past Reading alone. It was not a bloodless revolution at all. When he arrived here, he was welcomed by the Lords and rulers of the day. James was still in the country. He wanted to go. William wanted James to go as well, but unfortunately the Bishop of Rochester could not get the plot. They sent James to stay with him because it was the nearest place that he could get a boat to go to France. The Bishop of Rochester seemed to think that he was the jailer to James and kept bringing him back every time he went down to the boat. Eventually, the House of Lords had to send some gentlemen down to have dinner with the bishop sufficiently to get him intoxicated so that he would not notice when James slipped out to get the boat, which he did. After that, they were able to proceed with the final negotiations with William and Mary for the throne. They put the Marquess of—

[Lord Lang of Monkton]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I think he is mistaken. I think he is building a house of cards. Even the members of the convention on the Declaration of Rights did not believe that it was legally binding. That is why they brought forward in 1689 the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act. That shows that Parliament did not consider itself bound by the Bill of Rights, which in the first instance had enshrined the Declaration of Rights. It placed it on an unimpeachable legal footing. There can be no doubt that all the matters that were covered by the Declaration of Rights were subsequently properly enshrined first in the Bill of Rights and then in the Crown and Parliament Recognition Act 1689.

[Lord James of Blackheath]

I am grateful for all helpful contributions.

The Bill of Rights was read to William and Mary by Mr Joe Browne, who was then the Clerk of the Parliaments, or rather he should have been reading it to them but he had sent his footman down with a sicky in the morning to say that he was feeling too unwell and could not turn up. He subsequently said that it was because he felt an irritation at the back of his neck where an axe would come. Similarly, the Archbishop of Canterbury declined to come, and proceedings were handled by the Bishop of London.

On the day in question, when it had been read through, William stood up and said:

“This is certainly the greatest proof of trust that you have in us that can be given which is the thing that makest us value it the more and we thankfully accept what you have offered”.

At that point, the Marquess of Halifax knelt down and gave the crown to him. Thereafter, the sackbuts and cornets of Parliament went out with armed guards to take the Declaration of Rights around the city, where the proclamation was read in four places and the next day was announced as a public holiday.

It seems that we are seriously confused as to which bit of the past constitutional history of this country we are trying to alter and what our rights are in so doing. None of the constitutional papers or others that have been given to us even begins to approach definitive advice on that.

I return to my initial point. I believe that we are not doing as we are required to do, which is to support the Crown in the decisions that they have to make, if we pass something that may still be a breach of that oath that was signed by Her Majesty on her proclamation day back in 1962.

[Noble Lords]

1952!

[Lord James of Blackheath]

1952, sorry. We have a very serious question now as to the legitimacy of the action that we are taking in this House. I am sorry if that causes disruption and dispute but I really believe that we have a problem here that has not been adequately addressed. It is not reasonable that we should not have better, stricter and further guidance from the Privy Council, the Clerk of the Parliaments and the Constitution Committee to give us a very clear way forward.

13:58

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, may I say how much I welcome this Bill on behalf of these Benches and on my own behalf? Our present law, whereby an elder daughter is displaced as heir to the Throne by the birth of her younger brother is an affront to women throughout this nation and the Commonwealth. Of itself, it damages the identification between the monarchy and the people, particularly women, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, movingly pointed out. I am delighted that we are to change it. It is also a great tribute to the Commonwealth as an institution that we are legislating for this change in a co-ordinated way in all 16 of Her Majesty’s realms.

Perhaps I may address for a moment the important constitutional point made by the noble Lord, Lord James of Blackheath, who has explained why he believes that this Bill is a breach of Her Majesty’s coronation oath and therefore, for us, a breach of our oaths of allegiance. As I understand his argument, he believes that because the Declaration of Rights in 1688 obliges the monarch to reject Roman Catholicism, it follows that she would be in breach of her oath by assenting to this Bill. In my view, the noble Lord’s argument gives insufficient weight to the doctrine of the sovereignty of Parliament and to the general rule that Parliament cannot bind its successors. The Declaration of Rights, made on the arrival of Prince William and Princess Mary in the kingdom, did not of itself have the force of law, as has been pointed out. It was enacted as an Act of Parliament as the Bill of Rights in 1689 and has been an important part of our constitutional settlement ever since. It is true that it was expressed as intended to remain the law of this realm for ever. However, the doctrine that Parliament cannot bind its successors was already well established by the late 17th century. In fact, the Bill of Rights has already been amended on a number of occasions. In the context of this Bill, the most notable amendment was made by the Act of Settlement 1700, just a decade or so after the Bill of Rights—

[Lord James of Blackheath]

My Lords, I had anticipated the argument concerning the alteration of the Declaration of Rights, but I think that the only occasion on which it has ever actually been amended was in 1825 when it was found that there were insufficient jurors available to fulfil the obligation to run the courts. On that occasion the threshold for serving on a jury was reduced to include £10 rental holders. Nothing else has been done.

[Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames]

My Lords, I am afraid that I disagree with the noble Lord because the Act of Settlement expressly changed the line of succession by introducing the Electress of Hanover, who was a granddaughter of James I and the mother of George I, into the succession just 10 years or so after the Bill of Rights was passed. A further amendment to the Bill of Rights was unwittingly mentioned by the noble Lord in the form of the Accession Declaration Act 1910 which brought in the very declaration he has read out to noble Lords. It changed the coronation oath which had been prescribed by the Bill of Rights. The present declaration, which he read out, reflects the present position: the sovereign promises to uphold only the enactments that procure the Protestant succession to the Throne. There is nothing inconsistent in this Bill with that declaration, and I have absolutely no doubt that this Parliament is as entitled to enact this Bill now as was the Parliament convened in 1689 to enact the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps I may mention the arrangements made for succession in the other royal houses of Europe. The position is as follows. Belgium, Denmark, Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden and the Netherlands all adhere to equal primogeniture, with no male preference. Indeed, in Sweden the heiress apparent is a woman, Crown Princess Victoria, who will become Queen of Sweden in due course. She was born in 1977 as the eldest child of King Carl Gustav. Her younger brother Carl was born in 1979, and Princess Victoria only became heiress apparent again in 1980 as the result of a similar change in the law to that which we are enacting now. I suggest that this demonstrates that it is plainly preferable to make such a change as this in advance, if we can.

Only Monaco and Spain have male-preference primogeniture as we do at present, although in Monaco the next in line is actually a woman, Prince Albert’s elder sister, because Prince Albert has, as yet, no legitimate children. Spain also plans to change its rules of succession in the same way as we are now. This will entail a constitutional amendment which needs to be passed by both Spanish Houses of Parliament with a two-thirds majority in each House, and then it would be put to a referendum. This has not happened yet, perhaps owing to the requirement in Spain that when a major constitutional change is passed, Parliament must be dissolved and new elections called. However, the proposed change in the law enjoys widespread public support in Spain, notwithstanding the difficulty caused by the fact that Juan Carlos’s two eldest children are women, and it is their younger brother who is currently his heir.

Without getting too technical, Liechtenstein has an old system of succession called agnatic primogeniture which completely excludes women from the order of succession. This was specifically criticised by a United Nations committee looking at gender equality in 2007. Luxembourg used the same system until June 2011, when equal primogeniture was introduced. As here, this change made no difference to the immediate order of succession, so Luxembourg is a good example of a country which has reformed its rules even more significantly than we are doing now. All this goes to show that the present succession arrangements for our monarchy and our Commonwealth are well behind the times.

I also welcome the end of the ban on the monarch and his or her heirs to the Throne marrying Roman Catholics. One can see that the monarch’s position as Supreme Governor of the Church of England suggests, even if it does not dictate, certainly for the time being, that he or she must be a Protestant. However, there can be no justification for any religious discrimination going beyond that requirement, and the Bill rightly gives effect to that principle. Clearly, marriage to a Catholic would present a monarch or an heir to the Throne with a stark choice, a difficulty even, in respect of the children. However, my view is that the approach of my noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton sacrifices the principles of tolerance and understanding that are enshrined in this Bill on the rather hard altar of certainty and stability, as he put it. For myself, I prefer the approach of the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Janvrin, which I believe may in time lead to an accommodation being reached on this issue. I have to say that the intervention of my noble friend Lady Falkner on my noble friend Lord Lexden raised an interesting point. She pointed out that there is no bar to the monarch being married to a Muslim and that there are similar rules for Muslims on the upbringing of the children of such a marriage as there are for marriages between Protestants and Catholics. Exactly the same issues would arise with such a marriage as would arise with a marriage to a Catholic. That simply highlights the anomalies of the present rules, the fact that they are rooted in history, and the need for these changes to help our country to continue to evolve in a tolerant and non-discriminatory way.

Before I finish, perhaps I may also say what a pleasure it is for those of us who value the continuation of this United Kingdom to see such a distinguished Scottish law officer as my noble and learned friend the Lord Advocate steering this important constitutional measure through your Lordships’ House.

14:07

[Lord Thomas of Swynnerton]

My Lords, even as the 18th speaker in this distinguished and very interesting debate, I have an observation to make about each of the questions at issue. The first is what happens when an heir to the Throne marries a Catholic. I believe that that is the most difficult question because, as the last speaker pointed out, it will cause difficulties. However, I would suggest to noble Lords that they are not impossible to overcome. Perhaps we should approach the issue in the spirit of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who pointed out that it would be desirable for discussions between the Church of England and the Church of Rome to be held now on what might be done in those circumstances.

The second question relates to the number of people who have to ask permission to marry if they are close to the succession. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, thought it intolerable that anyone should have to ask permission as to whom they should marry, but the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, in a far-reaching and important speech, thought that 12 would be a good limit. I am also of that point of view. However, perhaps we could arrange a compromise whereby the number of people to consult relates to the number of descendants of the reigning monarch. Thus, if, for example, as is now the case, the monarch has eight grandchildren, there should be eight persons who should ask permission to marry X or Y. Given that there have been many occasions in the past when monarchs have had many children—Queen Victoria had nine; it is difficult to remember quite how many King George III had but it was certainly more than that—I feel that it would be desirable to consider a figure larger than six.

My third point concerns the gender of the heir to the Throne. Of course, this is an appropriate change and it takes into account all the attitudes that enlightened people have these days. However, I think it is fair to say that, had we done this in the past, we would have lost a certain number of important monarchs. I do not suggest at all that we have had bad female monarchs, but we have had monarchs who would not have succeeded in the circumstances that are now being suggested. For example, King Edward VII was the second child of Queen Victoria. Both Queen Victoria and Prince Albert would very much have preferred their eldest daughter, Vicky, to be the heir to the Throne, and that is one reason why they treated Bertie so badly in the early days. It is fair to speculate what would have happened if King Edward VII had not been King. I can certainly suggest that the entente cordiale, which he so greatly and beneficially influenced, would not have come about had it been up to Vicky to arrange it. Of course, she would not have married a German emperor if she had been the heiress but, still, it is most doubtful whether she would have gone over to Paris and had the benign and creative relationships which King Edward VII had.

Going back in history, as the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, pointed out, King Henry VIII was not the eldest son. In fact, he was the third child. He had an older sister, Margaret, who became Queen of Scotland. She married the King of Scotland, who died at the Battle of Flodden—a battle whose memory we shall no doubt be commemorating at an appropriate point in the next few months. Although I hesitate to suggest someone so far back in history, King Alfred was the younger brother of Ethelswith, a lady who would have taken the position he had if we had had in 860 the rules that are now being advocated. I suppose that that must be dismissed as a joke. Nevertheless, we are changing something that has been in existence for many generations, and it is as well to bear that in mind.

Finally, we owe it to the noble Lord, Lord Marks, to recognise his contribution to our discussion, in which he pointed out what has been the case in other European countries. I think I am right in saying that he was completely correct about Spain, but there is one other element that should be mentioned as we discuss the relationship between what we are planning and the hereditary peerage. A gender change in the hereditary peerage in Spain has now been accepted, so that a duke has to accept that his daughter rather than his son will succeed him if she happens to be the elder.

It has been a pleasure to take part in this debate, and I have listened to many admirable speeches.

14:15

[Lord Northbrook]

My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. Living near Winchester, I have learnt a new fact about King Alfred, and maybe more will be learnt when they dig where they think he is buried, somewhere on the outskirts of Winchester, following the success of the Richard III operation.

As other noble Lords have said, the Bill makes three key changes to the law governing who can be next in line to the Throne. I approve of the legislation in principle and declare an interest as an hereditary Peer with three daughters who believes that future equality legislation should extend to daughters being able to inherit a title that otherwise might die out. However, the Government in their wisdom have decided that this Bill should be rushed through Parliament as though it were anti-terrorist legislation.

In 2009, the House of Lords Constitution Committee reported on fast-track legislation, identifying potential difficulties raised by this approach and recommending that better information be provided by the Government to explain and justify the fast-tracking of legislation. The Constitution Committee also reported on the Succession to the Crown Bill in January 2013.

In brief, I shall highlight the most important issues that the committee identified for the Government to explain their position. First, why is fast-tracking necessary? The Government argue in the Bill’s Explanatory Notes that at the 2011 Perth Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting they undertook for this to be the first realm of which Her Majesty was head of state to introduce legislation once agreement had been reached between all of them. Given the effort involved in the other states putting themselves in a position to give formal consent:

“In the Government’s view it is now incumbent … to act quickly to introduce legislation which accords with what has been agreed”.

In addition, the Government stated that, following the announcement that the Duchess of Cambridge is pregnant, they believe,

“there is a general consensus that the law should be changed as soon as possible”.

Why the haste when the legislation is not to commence immediately? Not only do many of the Commonwealth Governments have to pass the law through their own parliaments, but I do not think that anyone has mentioned so far that in quite a few countries, such as Australia and Caribbean countries, referenda will also be necessary to approve the legislation. The Government’s case for fast-tracking is also weakened as Clauses 1 to 3 have elements of retrospectivity.

Secondly, the Constitution Committee asks what efforts have been made to ensure that the amount of time made available for parliamentary scrutiny has been maximised. The answer here seems to be none. The Government argue that they could not foresee the exact time when all the realms would be able to move ahead. This has come relatively late in the Session and so the time available is limited. However, there has been much debate about the issues, which are well known. The Explanatory Notes say:

“The Government believes that a broad consensus has been reached on the content of the Bill”.

The overall conclusion of the Constitution Committee’s 2013 report is as follows:

“In our view, the use of fast-track legislation, while it may be necessary for reasons of emergency and overriding public interest, will rarely, if ever, be appropriate … for reasons of, in the Deputy Prime Minister’s words, ‘pragmatic business management’”.

The fact that legislation is short or that the Executive do not envisage it being controversial are not in themselves reasons to set aside the usual parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill. In parliamentary scrutiny issues can emerge that had previously been overlooked or hidden.

The proceedings in the other place were ridiculously rushed. The Minister has said that there has been more than sufficient time to discuss the amendments chosen. There were only four amendments: two in Committee and two on Report. Second Reading and Committee took only five and three-quarter hours on one day; Report and Third Reading took two hours and 10 minutes on the second day. This is no way to discuss important legislation.

A major issue that emerged in the other place concerned the religious beliefs of an heir to a monarch whose wife was a Catholic. Jacob Rees-Mogg put the matter well. As the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, and others have said, Canon 1125 of the Roman Catholic Church states specifically that the bishop, who can give a dispensation for a Catholic to marry a non-Catholic, is not to do so unless,

“the Catholic party is to declare that he or she is prepared to remove dangers of defecting from the faith and is to make a sincere promise to do all in his or her power so that all offspring are baptized and brought up in the Catholic Church”,

One possible scenario in this case would be to seek papal dispensation in respect of a child’s upbringing. Is this reliance on a positive response from the Vatican a satisfactory way to guarantee the royal succession? I agree with Mr Rees-Mogg that in these circumstances—this may answer the question put earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Deben—the legislation should be amended so that a regent should be appointed under the Regency Act 1937 to take on the role of Supreme Governor of the Church of England.

A further question raised in the other place is the relationship between Clauses 2 and 3. The Deputy Prime Minister warned against,

“mixing two things here. The restriction of who must seek the permission of the monarch to marry to six individuals is separate from the issue of whether the heir to the throne can marry a Catholic just as he or she can marry someone of other faiths”.

However, the Constitution Committee says:

“conceivably the Monarch could be expected to decide whether or not a person high in the line of succession should be allowed to marry a Roman Catholic”.

The 2013 report of the Constitution Committee highlights another area. It says:

“There is a lack of explanation in the explanatory notes for retaining a requirement of consent to certain royal marriages. On whether clause 3 is compatible with Convention rights (the right to marry), it is simply stated that ‘in the Government’s view there is a public interest in having special provisions’; that the clause has ‘a legitimate aim’ and is ‘proportionate’”.

Another issue highlighted by the Constitution Committee, which has been mentioned by other speakers, arises with the Duchy of Cornwall,

“which provides the source of revenue for the heir apparent to the throne. When the Duke of Cornwall succeeds to the throne, the Duchy automatically transfers to the new heir. At present, however, the Duchy can only be held by a male. If it is to continue to be held by the heir apparent to the throne, the Letters Patent for the Duchy will need to be altered”.

Finally in this area, the Constitution Committee focuses on the effect on hereditary peerages. When this Bill goes through, the European Court may take a view on female succession to peerages. I would support female inheritance but only if there were no male heirs at all.

I was going to bring up various points made by Mr Graham McBain, a lawyer well known and respected by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, but the noble Lord has already covered most of my ground. I ask the Minister to answer the queries put by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about the problem of the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 and possible faults in Clause 3 regarding the number of six persons, and to emphasise that even before the Act of 1772 the sovereign had a right under common law to prevent other members of the Royal Family, such as the Queen Mother, remarrying. Thus this Bill should abolish the right in common law.

One of Mr McBain’s concerns that was not mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is the esoteric topic of the Treason Act 1351, referred to in the schedule. I will spare your Lordships the unpleasant details of what is being amended. Suffice it to say that Mr McBain does not believe this part of the Act is still valid, and it should be scrapped altogether.

The Bill leaves unresolved a number of consequential matters which it should have clarified. First, if Prince William and his wife have a girl, thanks to the Bill she can become Queen. However, she cannot of right become of Duchess of Cornwall because the charter of 1377 governing the duchy provides only for a male. What is the situation about her becoming Princess of Wales? Secondly, the Bill seeks to remove anti-Catholic legislation preventing the sovereign having a Catholic wife. This is all well and good. It is obvious, as Mr McBain says, that legislation preventing Catholics and Jewish people from holding other state positions on account of their religion should be abolished. The Government have forgotten about the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829—for instance, not allowing the Lord Chancellor to be a Catholic—and the Jews Relief Act 1858. These Acts will have to be repealed at some stage as they prevent Catholics and Jews holding other offices. This could be a subject for the Law Commission to consider.

In conclusion, I support the Bill overall but ask the Minister to consider seriously the various issues I have raised.

14:25

[Lord Elton]

My Lords, I enter the forum with some trepidation. These are very complex and sensitive matters. Until about halfway through I thought that I would probably scratch. After that, I thought it was too late. I hope your Lordships will bear with me for a few moments.

I start off in a dilemma because I am not aware of any Bill that I have encountered in which the Government have consulted so extensively and for so long around the world and, no doubt, between the two palaces—Lambeth Palace and Buckingham Palace—but they have not actually consulted Parliament at any great length. Of course, the constitution of this kingdom rests on two foundation stones: the Crown and Parliament. One had to listen with sympathy to my noble friend Lord Lang when he complained, in a powerful and important speech, about the haste with which this is being done here.

I am searching for reasons. I think the reason adduced so far has been the impending happy event for the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. This Bill already has retrospectivity in it in the amendment to the Royal Marriages Act 1772. That principle can be used in this case so there is no hurry for that.

Then the question is: would the danger of an amendment here delay the Bill, making the rest of the Commonwealth unsettled and impatient? But the Bill has already been amended, at Second Reading in the other place. It is a small amendment but quite an important one, which proposes that,

“after ‘descendants’ insert ‘from the marriage’”—

otherwise the principles of illegitimacy would have to be addressed. I do not know if that is being agreed around the Commonwealth but if it is, there is clearly not tempestuous haste needed.

I am sure that will all be explained, and the purpose of a Second Reading is not really to unpick the detail but to address the general principles. The first principle, on which I agree with my noble friend Lord Lang, is that certainty is better than flexibility when it comes to matters of this sort. Secondly, one’s mind is focused, as was the mind of the noble Lord, Lord James, by the bringing to the table of the royal prerogative at the start of this process.

We are at the heart of history here, and many of your Lordships have looked back through history and seen various conflicting things. I see a constitution that has emerged from the power of the Crown being fought over by families and then by dynasties; then the struggle between the wish to be totally sovereign and the wish of the papacy to influence if not guide what happened here, and finally being domesticated after the Civil War in the settlement of 1688. The Crown then became the central focus of the national identity, but it was within the restraints of Parliament.

We have been on that subject for a very long time in this House, because the power of the Crown, which was severely limited by the invention of Parliament, is now being put back into it—but the Crown has changed: the Crown is not an individual; it is not a family; it resides in the Government, all except the very top. The Government do not consist of a thin band of ambitious politicians; they are a vast machine of civil servants, many with a good sense of history, many of them very pragmatic and many of whom regard Parliament as an unnecessary constraint—I have encountered some of them and been told this in terms. We are therefore the trustees of something which is already at risk.

We now look at the functions of a Queen, the person of the Crown, as opposed to the institution of the Crown. That is important in that it is spiritual. There is a withering of the spiritual in contemporary western society, not only in Christian spirituality but in other faiths. A secular society does not have the moral stability of one which has faith at its heart. The combination of the Crown being both the head of state and the head of the established church has an enormous and important symbolism and gives the monarch access to the church and vice versa. That is part of our national identity.

The other great change has been in the demographic composition—I would probably more correctly say the ethnic composition—of the country to which we all belong. That change has been dramatic in my lifetime. Not everybody adapts so quickly and completely as the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, to the culture and ethos of this country. What attracts is not just the permanence, the longevity and the historical continuity to which he referred but also the person of the sovereign. It is a happy coincidence that this issue has arisen during the reign of the present Queen, who I think is closer to the heart and the understanding of the country than almost any monarch in historic memory, and for that we owe her a great debt.

The nature of the monarchy is to evolve, to bend and to change to the needs and necessities of the time and the social pressures on government and on the Crown. It keeps the sympathy of the people by looking after, tuning into and being in sympathy with basic fundamental and moral understandings of the people. One thing is fairness. The introduction of this equality will be widely understood as an element of fairness which is needed in the structure of a country which seeks to be both profoundly democratic and a monarchy.

For those reasons, I bury my doubts and difficulties—quite a lot of them have been dug up during this debate. Some of them will be answered by my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace. As I can see that he is writing something about me, I shall extend my words for a moment or two by saying that the rest of the difficulties will come out in the wash in Committee. I hope that the Committee stage will be as long as is necessary to address the question. That at least is required as a gesture towards those of us who feel that the timetable at the moment is far too fast. I have bored your Lordships too long. I hope that I have reassured noble Lords a little; I have certainly reassured myself quite a lot.

14:34

[Lord Deben]

My Lords, I intervene in the gap merely to remind the House that we learn to live with anomaly—indeed, we might say that we are an anomaly. The difficulty comes when we seek to right that anomaly, and that is the problem with which we are faced. We can live with things because they work, until we decide to put them right so that they are right. The problem here is that we are not quite putting them right.

Last night, in the cellars of this House, more than 200 of Her Majesty’s loyal servants—Members of both Houses and servants of these Houses—gathered for the Ash Wednesday mass. We were not checked by the police to see whether we had taken bombs or any kinds of dangerous things down—the days to which the right reverend Prelate referred have gone—but we are as much citizens of this country as anyone else. If we are going to right the inequalities, we should recognise that. I shall vote later on, against many of my co-religionists, in favour of righting an anomaly which I think exists as far as gay marriage is concerned. It is an insult to every loyal Catholic that we still talk about the history, when, on both sides—let us say with equality—people behaved in an entirely unchristian way.

There is a simple way forward, which is to recognise that the head of state does not need to be Supreme Governor of the Church of England in the same terms. That was true in the past, because King James II was a Catholic and head of the Church of England. The dreadful William of Orange was technically a Calvinist and lot of other things as well, and he was the head of the Church of England. George I, who could hardly have understood the liturgy of the Church of England, was a Lutheran and was head of the Church of England. Indeed, we have those problems here today. The Church of England does not technically recognise the orders of the Presbyterian Church of Scotland, yet it has allowed its head to communicate in a church whose very ceremonies it holds to be invalid. If that cannot be the basis of sorting this problem out, I really do not understand it. What worries me is that we are not saying that this is the moment to see the monarchy again as the symbol of unity and as the symbol of equality. This is the moment to say that Catholics have as much right as any other members of this great country. I am ashamed of the fact that the Government have failed to do that.

The Queen is the Supreme Governor of the Church of England as far as the law of Christ allows. Can the Church of England really believe that the law of Christ allows it to say that there is inherent at the heart of our great country this fundamental statement, which is that, after 400 years, we can welcome His Holiness the Pope to the Houses of Parliament but we cannot allow those who in all faith—and I am a convert after all—have recognised the nature of the Catholic Church and have joined it?

I finish simply with this. I do not agree with my great old friend Lord Luce. This is not a matter of negotiation between the churches. Are we really going to say that an individual is going to be told that he must put either his faith or his heritage at risk? Talk about Paris is worth a mass! I am ashamed of a Government who cannot see that this matter should have been resolved in this Bill, instead of which we have half a Bill and it is not one that I am prepared to support.

14:39

[Lord Stevenson of Balmacara]

My Lords, I thank all speakers for contributing to this wide-ranging debate, in which we have heard many useful and important points. Although not all have been within the scope of the Bill, many of them ought to be addressed. Having said that, I fully understand why the Government may not wish to address them today, or even in the short term. At least on the evidence of today’s debate, and particularly on the evidence of the words said just before I started to speak, these points will not go away.

The Bill is a piecemeal assemblage. Given the nature of the uncodified UK constitution, it is probably inevitable that, when we have the opportunity to tinker with the constitution, that is indeed what we do. However, as several noble Lords and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Lang of Monkton, said, in our work in this House we need a sense of the principles and what the underlying proposals would lead to in the long term. On a number of occasions, we have come up against points where pragmatism seems to have trumped principle.

A number of noble Lords have raised the issue of why this Bill has been fast-tracked. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Northbrook, who made reference to the Constitution Committee’s 2009 report—its most recent one—which suggests that,

“the use of fast-track legislation, while it may be necessary for reasons of emergency and overriding public interest, will rarely, if ever, be appropriate for significant constitutional matters”.

The Minister said, when he introduced the Bill, that this was a profound measure. I think he goes along with the fact that this is an important, significant constitutional matter. I do not want to make too much of this issue, as we are going through all the stages in your Lordships’ House, but we should take from this the fact that using the expedited procedure for constitutional measures is, in principle, regrettable. It is to be hoped that the Government do not make a habit of resorting to the device.

Several noble Lords drew attention to the mechanics that underlie this Bill. I should put on record the fact that I had some involvement with those mechanics when I was working in Downing Street a few years ago. As we understand it, the whole point of consulting the other 15 states who have the Queen as head of state was to ensure that common action was agreed, which was necessary to avoid a situation in which different people emerge as monarchs in different states because there had been no uniform change to the succession rules. We also understand that the UK had to go first to blaze the trail, although some states will not have to legislate at all because their constitutions automatically accept whoever is the legitimate successor in the UK. Can the Minister, therefore, tell us how far we have got with simultaneous ratification in the other realms? I would like to follow up the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that the Minister should say what would happen to the Government’s plans if several states—or even one of them—that have to legislate, fail to do so successfully?

I appreciate that the agreed retrospection to 28 October 2011 removes the most urgent time pressures but it would be unfortunate if changes that we agree upon here are effectively negatived by what happens in other realms. I understand, for example, that the proposed method of proceeding in Canada may be inconsistent with what one—clearly favoured—reading of its constitution considers to be the right course. Perhaps the Minister could advise us of whether there is any recent information on that point.

On primogeniture, the change to gender-neutral primogeniture for royal succession is welcome and, despite the safety net of retrospection to 28 November 2011, there is a clear case for settling the matter before the delivery of the Duchess of Cambridge’s child later this year. However, although the change to gender neutrality demonstrates our monarchy’s protean ability to move with the times, a primogeniture rule is a pretty rum way of selecting people for any job, let alone head of state. Of course, it is not an unqualified rule, as we prioritise adherence to a particular religion more highly than personal merit, which is a trade-off that was certainly important to us in the past, but has surely lost its rationale in the present. Having said that, our present monarch has conducted herself impeccably, and has set what we must hope is an entrenched example that will be emulated by her successors. Of course, it is highly relevant that the modern monarchy has no executive functions, even if it retains many public roles.

On whether there is a possible read-across from royal primogeniture to a peerage succession, the Government’s argument is that Crown and peerage primogeniture are distinct. We agree that, as things stand, Crown succession must and can never fail but there is no public interest to be served by putting peerages in the same position. To my mind, regardless of questions of legitimate expectations and private law arrangements being invaded by unforeseeable changes in the succession rules, anxieties about peerage succession can serve only to raise the question of why hereditary peerages should continue at all, let alone in this House.

That is not in any sense to demean the arguments put forward today. Nor does it deal with the argument for change in the peerage succession rules, admirably put forward by a number of noble Lords but also by a number of wives, sisters and daughters who have corresponded with a number of your Lordships. They argue, and I agree with them, that the lack of a Y chromosome can and does see some women denied their natural inheritance. That should be addressed.

On the issue of religious tests, I am sure that the whole House welcomes the proposal to permit the sovereign to marry a catholic, which at least gets rid of one of the most visible bars to full Roman Catholic participation in our society. However, because abolishing this disqualification leaves untouched the remaining Catholic disqualifications, the question that naturally follows is: why should any remain? After all, it will still be the case that the monarch cannot be a Catholic and will also have to be “in communion with” the Church of England. As we have heard, this latter rule means that, even if all the explicit bans on Catholics succeeding were repealed, an implicit ban would remain, and it is not much of a consolation that the ban includes everyone else not “in communion”, that is non-Trinitarian Christians, all non-Christian believers and all non-believers.

I note that the Church of England issued a statement on 21 January about this Bill, which included the following about the marriage bar:

“Its proposed removal is a welcome symbolic and practical measure consistent with respect for the principle of religious liberty”.

It should be noted that it says “religious liberty”, not “religious equality”. Liberty and equality are not the same.

The customary defence to preserving the explicit and implicit Catholic bans is that repeal would be incompatible with the monarch remaining Supreme Governor of the Church of England, a title which derives from Section 8 of the Supremacy Act 1558. In practice, all senior diocesan and cathedral appointments are now made by the Church of England in a situation where the recommendations of its committees are waved through by the Prime Minister on their way to the sovereign. All measures require prior parliamentary approval and all canons the prior approval of Ministers. The actual content of the supremacy is therefore largely formal and the church is, in practice, autonomous.

We do not have an established church in Wales, Northern Ireland or in Scotland. I draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and my noble friend Lord Berkeley to the Church of Scotland Act 1921, which confirmed that the kirk has independence in spiritual matters. We ought to bear in mind that here we are talking about an English issue and not a UK one.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of whether it was time to abolish the supremacy. At the very least I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, that we should debate this otherwise it will suddenly come and get us when we are not expecting it.

It is my understanding that there are two possible ways of proceeding. We could do a wholesale statutory repeal or we could do a minimal change to the law combined with changes of practice. The first would require the repeal of all the relevant statutes. But there are precedents for that as we repealed, in an appropriate time and an appropriate way, the legislation disestablishing the Church in Ireland in 1869 and in Wales in 1914. How far and how deeply statutory reform would need to reach would depend on what, if any, roles the church wished to retain in England and Parliament was content to continue. This route would be technically laborious but not impossible and perhaps best undertaken by the church itself in stages, proposing the means by way of synodical measure.

The second method would be to proceed by minimal repeal; that is by repealing the prohibitions against Catholics and the requirements for the monarch to be in communion with the church, and amending the accession declaration oath. This would remove the compulsory religious qualifying link between the sovereign and the church and yet permit, as a matter of practice, the remaining formal functions to be regarded as the involvement of a friendly but non-confessional royal patronage towards one of the most ancient of national institutions. As the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has just said, free to adopt any belief system they wished, sovereigns could remain Anglicans if they individually desired but the compulsory link would be abolished and the way cleared for them to choose freely like everyone else. At the same time, all belief systems would thus become equal under the sovereign and, while there would be recognition of Anglicanism’s historic presence, that church would no longer have an entrenched constitutional role in England.

The present sovereign has herself voiced reinterpretive language about the modern role of the Church of England. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester cited extensively what the sovereign said at one of the first Jubilee celebrations at Lambeth Palace on 15 February 2012. The key passage, which I should like to repeat, is:

“The concept of our established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country”.

That certainly opens the way for further work, if the current Government are so minded. It is important to recognise that what one would be doing here is securing religious equality as well as religious freedom in this country.

The third part of the Bill deals with royal approval for marriage. It is a bit of a surprise to find that this subject occupies more of the Bill than the other provisions put together. Many noble Lords have expressed concern about the fact that that tidying-up exercise raises the question of whether royal consent should be required for anyone’s marriage in the first place. Although the 1772 Act machinery would have been an important element in, for example, Princess Margaret’s decision not to marry Group Captain Townsend, the objection that he was a divorced man would now perhaps not feature as an insuperable objection.

Presumably, other targets of unsuitability are thought to have force. If so, what exactly are they? Would the line be drawn at marriage to one’s personal trainer, as happened in Sweden, or to an unmarried mother, as happened in Norway, where official consent was forthcoming in both countries? Repeal of the clumsy—some would say vindictive and heavy-handed—1772 Act is clearly an advance, above all in the way in which the new system will not invalidate marriages where prior royal consent is not obtained. On the other hand, it would be helpful to know exactly in what circumstances the Government envisage that that consent would be withheld. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm that consent will be withheld only following and on the advice of Ministers; or where there is a well founded personal objection to an intended spouse by reason of their past conduct or present associations being likely to bring the institution of the monarchy into disrepute; and that those reasons would be given?

As the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, asked, will that all be subject to judicial review? If the Minister cannot so confirm today, will the Government set out before the Bill’s remaining stages when they envisage royal consent may legitimately be refused?

As I said, this has been an interesting, illuminating and highly educational debate. As was said earlier, this important debate has the capacity to interact very substantially with the culture of this country. Unlike most of the business with which we routinely deal, it is in some senses a one-off. It has impacts which are unlikely to be seen in full effect for about 100 years, as the succession moves on.

I conclude by stressing what my noble friend Lady Hayter said at the beginning of the debate, which is that we on this side support the limited but important aims of the Bill and will do what we can to ensure its smooth passage through your Lordships’ House.

14:52

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I begin by thanking all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has lived up to expectations by being wide-ranging and of considerable interest. A great deal of learning has been brought to the debate, particularly the very interesting historical exchanges between my noble friends Lord James and Lord Marks. This debate has been well informed because of the contributions from all sides of the House. I particularly welcome the fact that the Bill has been generally welcomed on all sides of the House—by the official Opposition, by those from my own party on the Liberal Democrat Benches, by Conservative colleagues and indeed, by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester, who indicated the welcome that the Church of England has brought to it.

My noble friend Lord Elton noted that I was writing down his name, because he possibly summed up the view of many contributors to this debate when he said that he believed that the changes proposed are sensible but that he has doubts and difficulties. It is important that those doubts and some of the potential difficulties, the concerns expressed about possible unforeseen and unintended consequences, have been aired in our debate. I am sure that they will be aired as the Bill proceeds through your Lordships’ House.

At the outset, I address the issue that the Bill has been fast-tracked. I accept that the Explanatory Memorandum states that, but in fact the Government in the other place paid regard to what was said by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee. My noble friend Lord Northbrook took exception to that when he talked about the amount of time available and the number of amendments. Of course, in the other place, not all amendments are debated; it is the Speaker’s selection. The point is that more time was made available than the time taken up by the amendments. It is not really the fault of the Government that no more amendments were tabled. There was sufficient time to debate the amendments that were selected in the other place.

With regard to proceedings in your Lordships’ House, I confirm that, as on any Bill, it has been agreed through the usual channels. The normal time limits will be observed, and I believe that there will be ample time in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading for proper scrutiny and consideration to be given to the Bill.

This might also be an appropriate moment to mention, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, said, the fact that provision on male-biased primogeniture is taking effect from the date of the announcement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government conference in October 2011 means that there is no rush with regard to any impending birth.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked whether a referendum was necessary in any of the other realms. Of course, it is for the realms themselves to decide how to give effect to the changes, but it is not our belief or understanding that any realm needs or intends to undertake a referendum. We have been assured as part of the negotiation that we have a full commitment to ratification by the respective realms of which Her Majesty is head of state.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about the commencement clause. Those provisions are framed as they are to ensure that they are brought into force by means of orders made by the Lord President. The Government expect to bring the rest of the Bill, including Clause 5, into force at the same time as the other realms bring into force any changes to their legislation or other changes necessary for them to implement the Perth agreement. There is, as will be noted, a power to specify the time of day of commencement. Assuming that the other realms make the same provision, that will enable the changes to succession to be brought into force at the same time, but at different local times, in all 16 Commonwealth realms. Clause 5(3) allows for flexibility in commencement should unforeseen circumstances arise.

As has been said, the first clause relates to the removal of the male preference in primogeniture, and will allow the firstborn child, be it a son or a daughter, to succeed to the Throne. My noble friend Lord Elton referred to fairness in 2013. The noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, also referred to a sense of fairness and made the important point that if we were not to do this, there could at some future stage be a situation where a younger brother would succeed ahead of an older sister and that in itself could cause difficulty for the Crown, because it would be seen to be not in touch. By doing this, we help to give stability to the Crown.

An issue initially raised by my noble friend Lord Trefgarne but also referred to by my noble friend Lord Lexden and others, was the implication for royal titles. I shall do my best to go through them. We do not believe that the removal of male bias in rules governing succession to the Crown will result in any other royal titles becoming detached from the Crown. The Duchy of Lancaster is held by the sovereign. We are confident that the Duchy must remain with whomsoever is the monarch. Clearly, the monarch at the moment being a Queen has not created any difficulty in the Duchy of Lancaster being held by the monarch. The attachment of the Duchy to the Crown is now established fact.

With regard to the Dukedom of Cornwall, at present, the title can pass only to the son and heir of the monarch. Thus, when Her Majesty was the heir presumptive, as Princess Elizabeth, she did not hold the title of Duke of Cornwall. Therefore, we believe that where there is a female heir, the title could not pass to a younger brother and would not detach from the royal line. I assure the House that, in any event, a female heir apparent will not find herself at a financial disadvantage because, as the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, pointed out, the Sovereign Grant Act 2011 ensures that financial provision equivalent to the income from the Duchy is made for the heir apparent. The title would not therefore be automatically inherited by a daughter; the Duchy would go into abeyance, as indeed happened when Her Majesty was Princess Elizabeth and was heir presumptive. Provision is made under the Sovereign Grant Act for the financial consequences that flow from that.

My noble friend Lord Northbrook asked about the position of the style of Princess of Wales. On this issue, I would simply say that the granting of certain royal titles, including that of the Prince of Wales, is a matter for the sovereign. Furthermore, it is a matter not directly related to the rules of succession. It would be a matter not for the scope of this Bill but for the sovereign personally.

[Lord Berkeley]

Very briefly, I understand what the Minister is saying about the Duchy of Cornwall but if there was a female heir to the Throne and she was therefore not the Duchess of Cornwall, who would go round and play landlord in Cornwall in their absence? Would it be nobody, so to speak?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I think I am right in saying that there is a council of the Duchy. Indeed, that position arose when the present Queen was heir presumptive but was not the Duchess of Cornwall. There is therefore ample precedent for the way in which the affairs of the Duchy can be arranged or dealt with in these circumstances.

15:00

[Lord Trefgarne]

Perhaps I should pick up the point that my noble and learned friend made about the princedom of Wales. Would it be in order for the sovereign to make their eldest daughter, the heir apparent, the Princess of Wales?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

That would be a matter for the sovereign, just as the present Prince of Wales did not automatically become so on the accession of the Queen. I think he was created Prince of Wales in 1958 and that his investiture was some 11 years later. It would be a matter for Her Majesty and I do not think we should be presuming or prejudging this—and in future it would not necessarily be Her Majesty. This is obviously not going to happen at the moment, so it would be a matter not for our present Queen but for our future sovereign to determine.

With regard to the royal titles in Scotland, a number of contributors, not least my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, pointed out that the peerage rules in Scotland are somewhat more generous to women, in some cases anyway. It is certainly our view that in the event of an elder sister becoming heir apparent, the Scottish titles currently held by the Prince of Wales—namely, the Prince and Great Steward of Scotland, the Duke of Rothesay, the Earl of Carrick, Lord of the Isles and Baron of Renfrew—can pass automatically to a female heir apparent. These titles have always hung together and the removal of male bias in the line of succession could therefore not result in the detachment of these titles from the Crown. We have consulted the Court of the Lord Lyon, who is the official heraldry officer for Scotland, on this matter.

My noble friend also asked about the Duke of Edinburgh. The Duke of Edinburgh has a normal remainder to the heirs male of his body, but at the time of the marriage of the Earl of Wessex, it was announced that the Earl would eventually receive the title of Duke of Edinburgh. It is my understanding that there would probably have to be a creation of that; it would not automatically be inherited from his father. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile that I will investigate further and write to him on the earldom of Merioneth.

This issue also gives rise to the question of hereditary peerages and a number of noble Lords contributed on this, some expressing concern and some hoping that this might indeed open the door to a change in the law. That just underlines the fact that it is not appropriate for this Bill. It goes much beyond the scope of it, although I do not for a moment minimise the importance of the issue. It would certainly not just be the Constitution Committee criticising us if we were suddenly to introduce in this Bill measures that were going to change the order of succession to peerages. My noble friend Lord Lucas reminded us, interestingly, that he inherited from his grandmother and mother but, as he pointed out, hereditary titles can very often go with financial interests and estates. These would not be issues to enter into lightly. As I indicated, they go beyond the scope of this Bill. I also remind your Lordships that even without this Bill, the rules of succession to the Crown already differ in most cases from the rules of succession to the peerage.

Clause 2 possibly generated the most concern and interest, not least because of what the implications would be if there is a marriage between an Anglican and a Roman Catholic. At the outset, let me say that it is important that we remove this element of discrimination, as a number of noble Lords who contributed to the debate made clear. This has been welcomed by both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church. I was particularly struck by the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Janvrin, on the importance of the heir to the Throne being able to have a wider choice as to who may be their spouse. There was a sense of that around your Lordships’ House when he mentioned it. Given the particular challenges that go with the monarchy, I think that the noble Lord referred to the importance of lifetime love and support. That was a very poignant but relevant contribution to our debate.

As I indicated in my opening remarks, it is not the case that the children of all mixed Protestant and Catholic marriages must be brought up in the Catholic faith. Catholic teaching is clear and perhaps more practical than has sometimes been suggested. The guidance is set out in Matrimonia Mixta, an apostolic letter from Pope Paul VI in 1970, and Pontificium Consilium ad Christianorum Unitatem Fovendam: Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, published in 1993. The guidance requires the Catholic partner in a mixed marriage to do their best to have the children raised as Catholics but if, as I indicated earlier, there is a just and reasonable cause which would qualify, such as the protection of the place of the Established Church, under those circumstances the local bishop can grant permission for the marriage. That moves us onto another issue, which I will come on to.

I also indicated that the Archbishop of Westminster has welcomed the decision of the Government to give heirs to the Throne the freedom to marry a Catholic. Indeed, in doing so, he recognised the importance of the position of the Established Church in protecting and fostering the role of faith in our society today. The noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Janvrin, echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, asked whether it would be appropriate to have further discussions with the Roman Catholic Church. It is clear that there have already been discussions prior to this Bill but I will certainly try to ensure that officials meet representatives of the Catholic Church—indeed, I would be willing to meet them myself. I could not honestly predict the outcome but that suggestion seemed to command some support around the House. I would be willing to see whether that might produce anything that we could report back to the House at a future stage of our proceedings.

My noble friend Lord Lang of Monkton referred to my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister regarding taking the matter to the Vatican. At Second Reading in the House of Commons, my right honourable friend said:

“I want to be clear that there is absolutely no prospect of our entering into discussions with the Vatican in order to bring this Bill into effect”.—[Official Report, Commons, 22/1/13; col. 215.]

The establishment of the Church of England has been a recurring matter that was raised in our debate. My noble friend Lord Maclennan and the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, said that it was an appropriate occasion to give that issue an airing. My noble friend Lord Deben indicated, with considerable passion, how he thinks that trying to address one anomaly while leaving another open is not acceptable. My noble friend Lord Astor raised this issue. I will come back to the Church of Scotland in a moment but my noble friend Lord Trefgarne got it right.

I got the impression that my noble friend Lord Lang was concerned that some of the provisions here might lead to disestablishment, whereas other contributors to the debate—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, did so from the Front Bench—were saying that perhaps this should be an incentive to get on and have that debate. Again, this issue goes beyond the Bill. We believe that nothing in the Bill detracts in any way from the sovereign swearing an oath to maintain the Protestant religion. The proposed changes are limited to removing a discriminatory bar on marrying a Roman Catholic. That would not allow a Roman Catholic to accede to the Throne but I suspect that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated, this debate is not going to go away. However, I do not believe that this Bill is the appropriate place to deal with it.

The issue is that the Act of Settlement and the Accession Declaration Act, which was quoted by my noble friend Lord James, both make clear that the sovereign must be a Protestant, which of course George I was. The position in the Church of Scotland is that it is not an established church as such; the Queen is not the supreme governor of the Church of Scotland. The relationship between church and state is symbolised by the presence of the monarch or her Lord High Commissioner in attendance at the general assembly; indeed, my noble friend Lord Maclennan’s father was Lord High Commissioner, as several Members of your Lordships’ House have been. Although they are invited to address the assembly, they cannot intervene in its business.

As indicated, the oath of accession includes a promise to maintain and preserve the Protestant religion and Presbyterian Government, but the Kirk has not been established by the state—I declare an interest as an elder of the Church of Scotland—and neither the Scottish Parliament nor the Westminster Parliament is involved in Kirk appointments. To that extent, it does not operate as a state church in the way that the Church of England does. I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, who pointed out that in matters of doctrine, government, discipline and worship, the Church of Scotland is free from state interference, operating under a constitution largely contained in articles declaratory that were recognised by Parliament in 1921. So there is quite a significant difference there, but I suspect that this is an issue to which we will return.

[Lord Deben]

Before my noble and learned friend sits down, is there not a terribly simple way out? That is, to say that there is no bar to any Catholic becoming King or Queen but, in the event of a new sovereign being unable to be in communion with the Church of England, a Regent would be appointed as supreme governor of the Church of England. That would help us should there be some other religion to which a sovereign might wish to belong. It would also get out of the way of this being a stitch-up between churches instead of being a proper decision by the individual concerned.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, my noble friend makes an important contribution to that debate. I hope that he will recognise that it would not be appropriate to open up that whole issue, not least given the conflicting views that we have heard in the course of your Lordships’ deliberations today, for the purposes of this piece of legislation. However, I have no doubt that, as the noble Lord, Lord Stevenson, indicated—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, had a Private Member’s Bill on this subject at one point—this issue is not dealt with, nor do the Government believe that it should be. We believe in the maintenance of the established Church of England. It is an issue, though, and when that debate takes place my noble friend’s contribution will be an important one for people to consider.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

I thank my noble and learned friend for giving way. When he says that it is not an issue for this debate, surely the very reason why the prohibition on the heir to the Throne marrying a Catholic being removed is to end that discrimination. My noble friend Lord Deben’s suggestion of a regency would work with the way in which the Bill is presently constructed—that is, the heir to the Throne may be a Catholic but cannot be one. For those of us who do not wish to see the Church of England being anything other than the Established Church, this would be a way of removing the discrimination against Catholics. I have to say that we are not repealing the vile and offensive language, from our modern-day view, which is contained in the 18th-century statute and which causes great offence to Catholics throughout the United Kingdom. Would it not be sensible to consider my noble friend’s suggestion?

15:15

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I believe that this would go beyond the scope of the Bill. Something as profound as that could not be imported into the Bill without much further scrutiny and consideration. It is also important to remember that the provisions in the Bill removing an element of religious discrimination have been welcomed not just by the Church of England but by the Roman Catholic Church. I do not think that that is a stitch-up; it is a welcome recognition by both churches that this is an important change in our law. To go much wider than that, in fact, would require consideration that is not appropriate. We would be subjected to justified criticism if this were all rushed through as an amendment to the Bill in Committee, quite apart from all the implications for the other realms that have been so carefully consulted on over a long time.

[Lord Maclennan of Rogart]

Before my noble and learned friend leaves this matter, while recognising that the Bill may not be the right place to do what the noble Lord, Lord Deben, has suggested, could he at least indicate that the Government might put in train discussions about this with other realms in the Commonwealth and consider whether this would be an appropriate direction in which to move?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am sorry to disappoint my noble friend, but the Government do not have plans to do that, although it is quite clear from the contributions to this debate that it is an issue. However, it is not the policy of the Government to go down that road; therefore, I regret not to be able to give a more accommodating answer to my noble friend.

With regard to the Royal Marriages Act 1772, my noble friend Lord Lang thinks six is too limited, but my noble friend Lord Carlile thinks six is too wide. I explained that if one looks at the 240 years of history since the Act was passed, Queen Victoria was the furthest away from the Throne at the time of her birth, at fifth. Therefore, six is a realistic number. I say to my noble friend Lord Carlile and other contributors that, unlike the consequence of the Royal Marriages Act, which is that the marriage is void, the consequence of marrying without consent under this Bill would be that one would drop out of the line of succession, so some of the convention issues that my noble friend mentioned are properly addressed.

My noble friend Lord Lang was concerned that the Bill might put the sovereign under some pressure about whether someone was an appropriate person to marry. That could be the case today. There is probably unlikely to be any pressure if the person is 710th or whatever in line to the Throne, but even today, the first six still require the sovereign’s consent to marry.

My noble friend Lord Trefgarne asked about judicial review. We do not believe that this could be reviewed. Although the decision would be taken on the advice of Ministers, it would be taken by the sovereign, and her decisions cannot be challenged in the courts.

My noble friends Lord Carlile and Lord Northbrook asked us to clarify the common law position with regard to the monarch’s consent. It is arguable that the common law no longer applies since it could be said that by legislating in 1772, Parliament has superseded the common law. The defects of the 1772 Act have frequently been pointed out, and the Government consider that there is a clear case for repealing and replacing it. A dowager queen is not in the line of succession, so the importance of royal consent is not as great as it is in the case of someone in the immediate line of succession. We do not see dealing with any possible surviving common law rules on consent as essential.

My noble friend made points about the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 that were picked up by my noble friend Lord Northbrook. It was argued that the Bill would allow a regent to be a Catholic. The effect of the Bill is not to make it possible for the regent to be a Catholic. Section 3 of the Regency Act provides that the regent is the person next in line of succession, if not disqualified, which a Catholic would be. A further disqualification is brought in under this Bill if a person in the first six in line of succession to the Throne marries without consent. That is the purpose of that clause.

My noble friend Lord Astor asked about the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. Historians will argue about whether the dukedom of Normandy is still live, but there is no doubt that within the Channel Islands the Queen is heralded and treated as the Duke of Normandy. Nothing in the Bill would change that. The Channel Islands have been consulted on this. The Bill will apply by necessary implication to the Crown Dependencies and the British Overseas Territories, which have been fully informed and consulted on this matter.

[Lord Lexden]

Will my noble and learned friend say a word about the Lordship of Man, which I raised?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The position with the Lordship of Man is exactly the same. No change is anticipated. The Queen would continue to be the Lord of Man when she is in the Isle of Man. The removal of male bias has no implication for the title of Lord of Man.

In her opening remarks, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayter, said how much we look forward to the birth later this year of the child of Their Royal Highnesses the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge. She got the assent of the House when she said that she hoped that there would be no press harassment or intrusion. The change that we are putting forward will mean that if the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge have a daughter, then a son, the daughter will precede the son in the line of succession. As we look forward to the birth, we can also celebrate that whether a boy or a girl, the child will have equal claim to the Throne. I think it is the mood of the House to wish the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge every happiness as they face up to the challenge of parenthood, and I commend this Bill to the House.

Bill read a second time.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

[Lord Trefgarne]

My Lords, can I persuade my noble and learned friend not to press this Motion at this moment? I am not remotely trying to obstruct the progress of this measure, but I rather think that the Bill would be better considered in a Select Committee. If my noble and learned friend would be willing to put off pressing this Motion until, say, Monday, that would give us an opportunity to consider the possibility.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, we were given notice that my noble friend might raise this matter. We are going to make time available for proper consideration in Committee of the Bill and amendments that will be tabled to it. It has already, as was indicated, gone through the other place with more time allocated to it than proved necessary. As has been said by numerous contributors to the debate, there has been considerable dialogue, negotiation and discussion with the other realms. It has been carefully considered. I hope for and fully expect proper scrutiny when we move into Committee. I will certainly seek to ensure that the time is made available for that to happen.

I recognise the spirit in which my noble friend speaks. We can give the Bill sufficient scrutiny in a normal Committee.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 3.24 pm.