House of Commons

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 18 July 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

1. What assistance his Department provides to UK technology companies with exports; and if he will make a statement.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

My Department helps UK technology exporters through UK Trade & Investment. In 2012-13, UKTI helped more than 3,000 companies with technology-related exports, and it is set to help more than 3,500 in 2013-14.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for his answer. He will be aware of my concern that officials in his Department are perhaps not operating a level playing field, in that American companies exporting products from their country are treated more favourably than companies in this country producing exactly the same products. Will he give me some clarification as to what is going on?

[Vince Cable]

First, I should explain that the Minister for Universities and Science, my right hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr Willetts), who might have answered this question, is currently at Chequers for a Cabinet away day. My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) is an assiduous defender of his constituents, their companies and their jobs. He has discussed this matter with me, and I have pursued it. It is not the case that Britain is more difficult than the United States when it comes to clearing export licences, but I have none the less established that we should dispense with some procedures relating to quarterly reporting, and we will do so. We will also work with the company in question to try to establish whether an open general licence can operate in this case.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses has found that only one in five of its members uses UKTI services. What steps will the Secretary of State take to encourage UKTI to work more closely with small businesses?

[Vince Cable]

The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that our overall export performance would improve considerably if more British companies were exporting. The big contrast with Germany is that roughly twice as many of its small and medium-sized enterprises are involved in exporting. UKTI has been substantially reformed in the past couple of years, and it now has a much more small and medium-sized company focus. It has activities around the country, and we have a lot of evidence that its outreach is substantially improving. I hope that it will reach the companies in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency too.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

At the last Business, Innovation and Skills questions, the Secretary of State admitted:

“The figures on exports are not great”.—[Official Report, 13 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 470.]

Since then, the UK trade deficit has widened to the point at which it is now the largest trade gap in the European Union, and the widest it has been since 1989. Following on from the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Nick Smith), will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he is happier with export performance this month? What changes to policy or priorities will he now make to facilitate an export-led recovery, or does he not think that changes are necessary?

[Vince Cable]

Monthly variations are not the issue, but there is an underlying problem. British exporters are currently doing extremely well in the big emerging markets. We have rapid export growth to countries such as Russia, China, India and Brazil, for example, but exports to the eurozone are weak, for obvious reasons. We accept that there are underlying weaknesses. We have not had the recovery of export volume growth that we would expect following a substantial devaluation. Much of this relates to the way in which supply chains were hollowed out in the long period of manufacturing decline, but we are trying to rebuild them through the industrial strategy.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

2. What recent support his Department has given to the automotive industry.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The automotive industrial strategy was launched on Friday by the Department in association with the Automotive Council. In partnership with industry, we will invest around £1 billion over 10 years in a new advanced propulsion centre.

[Mr Jones]

I met a number of business people from the motor manufacturing supply chain recently, and the main theme of the meeting was skills, and what we could do to help to increase the skills in the sector, in which there is now a real resurgence. Will my right hon. Friend explain a little more about his strategy? Will he tell us what part skills will play in it, and what more we can do to help the supply chain?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Automotive Council has identified skills shortages as a key problem. As a result of the adoption of the strategy document, the industry has committed itself to a significant growth in the number of apprenticeships. We have already seen a considerable increase, but he is right to suggest that this is an issue not simply for the big original equipment manufacturers but for the supply chains, and a lot more needs to be done to make the car industry seriously competitive through skills.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will the Secretary of State comment on the success of the sector and the impact on the supply chain? On Friday, I had the benefit of meeting a small business in my constituency, Automotive Insulations, which supplies products to, among others, Jaguar Land Rover and Bentley. It is looking to move to a new 60,000 square foot building, to employ a further 60 people and to generate £1 million- worth of investment over the next few years.

[Vince Cable]

This is indeed a very successful industry. Over the last couple of years, we have had commitments to something in the order of £6 billion-worth of new investment. One factor has undoubtedly been the confidence that the Government are fully supportive of the industry and are working with it through the Automotive Council. The confidence factor is indeed spreading into the supply chain. There are very good economic reasons why a significant amount of the supply chain that has been offshored should now be onshored—and that process is beginning. We want to do everything we can to encourage it.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

3. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of the regional growth fund.

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

The regional growth fund is a success. Last week, I published our first annual monitoring report, which shows that job creation in rounds 1 and 2 is on track. With our accelerated timetable, we have now completed the contracting process with all but a handful of beneficiaries in rounds 1, 2 and 3. Last week, I also announced that in round 4, 102 selected bidders will have access to over £500 million. Overall, this Government have committed over £2.6 billion to areas that most need private sector-led growth and employment.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

We have now had four rounds of the regional growth fund, and the north-west has done very well out of it, for which I am grateful to the Minister. Will he confirm that the Government will continue to use this as a mechanism to narrow that north-south divide, which of course grew so much wider under the previous Government?

[Michael Fallon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his important report on the north, and I congratulate him on his appointment as a small business ambassador. The spending review last month confirmed that there will be further rounds of the regional growth fund in 2015-16 and in 2016-17, totalling over £300 million in each case.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

If the regional growth fund is to be at all successful, it must not only create jobs but improve the skills base in our country. What checks has the Minister put in place to make sure that this actually happens?

[Michael Fallon]

The regional growth fund makes grants not simply to projects and individual companies, but to programmes organised by local enterprise partnerships and other private sector organisations, many of which focus on improving the level of skills in these particular areas.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Would my right hon. Friend be kind enough to accept an invitation to visit the site of the proposed junction 10A on the A14 near Kettering, which has attracted the interest of the Department of Energy and Climate Change, the Department for Transport and the Department for Communities and Local Government? An investment of £30 million in the regional growth fund could trigger private sector investment of more than £1 billion.

[Michael Fallon]

Happily, I have not fully finalised my summer plans, so I shall add to them this visit to a motorway junction. [Laughter.] My hon. Friend makes a serious point: there is clearly a bottleneck that needs to be removed. I will see if I can accept my hon. Friend’s invitation.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

4. What steps he is taking to encourage traineeships.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Following the spending review, we have extended the traineeships programme to young people up to the age of 24. Yesterday, we published the framework for delivery, and the first traineeships will start next month. We have already had strong interest expressed from employers such as Mercedes and Brompton Bicycle Ltd. We very much look forward to taking the programme forward.

[Mark Menzies]

Skills delivery is at its best when it is led by employers and by businesses. Can my hon. Friend assure me that that will remain the case throughout?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. It is vital to make sure that the skills system is focused on the needs of employers so that people who go through that system go on to get an apprenticeship and a good job. That is exactly what the traineeship scheme is designed to achieve.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Government suggested that trainees might be eligible for jobseeker’s allowance while they are undertaking their traineeships. Has the Minister sorted out the details with the Department for Work and Pensions because, at the moment, someone studying for more than 15 hours a week would not be eligible for the benefit?

[Matthew Hancock]

The hon. Lady makes an important point because the link to the benefits system, particularly for those aged over 18 who are in traineeships, is vital. In the framework for delivery set out yesterday, she will have seen the details, ensuring that eligibility for JSA and eligibility to get a traineeship are aligned. Of course, with the introduction of universal credit and changes in the jobcentres, we are making it easier for people to get training while also looking for work. Work experience is a vital part of that and a vital part of traineeships.

[Dan Rogerson (North Cornwall) (LD)]

Employers are being encouraged to provide travel support for young trainees. Will the Minister look closely at the issue of young people living in remote rural areas, and ensure that they, as well as those who happen to live near their employers, are given fair access to traineeships?

[Matthew Hancock]

Not only will I look at that issue closely but I have already done so, because it is a vital aspect of traineeships. Traineeships are there because far too many people leave school or college without the skills that they need to secure a job or apprenticeship. Of course we are reforming the school system to sort out that problem, but we must also ensure that everyone has an opportunity to acquire the character traits and skills that they need in order to get a job, and transport is a vital part of the practicalities of making that happen.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

5. What steps he is taking to protect the universal service obligation under plans for the privatisation of Royal Mail.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

12. What steps he is taking to protect the universal service obligation under plans for the privatisation of Royal Mail.

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

The Government’s overarching objective is to secure the future of the universal postal service. The minimum requirements of the universal service are enshrined in primary legislation, which means that the six-days-a-week, one-price-goes-anywhere service to every address in the United Kingdom can only be amended by Parliament. That protection will continue to apply following any sale of shares in Royal Mail.

[Graeme Morrice]

The Government’s Royal Mail privatisation has been opposed by a broad coalition, including employees of Royal Mail, the Countryside Alliance, the National Federation of SubPostmasters, and even the Conservative think-tank the Bow Group. Moreover, the results of a recent poll showed that the vast majority of the British public oppose it as well. Is it not time that the Secretary of State abandoned his plans for the fire sale of Royal Mail in the face of that overwhelming opposition?

[Michael Fallon]

Last week’s announcement confirmed our plans to allow this very successful British business access to private capital for the first time, and to deliver what Parliament agreed more than two years ago, namely that 10% of the company should be in the hands of the work force.

[Chris Williamson]

Despite those assurances, the public have seen that previous ideologically driven and badly executed privatisations have led to substandard services and price increases. The fact is that the polls show that the vast majority of the British public oppose this privatisation. Why is the Minister riding roughshod over the wishes of the British people?

[Michael Fallon]

Parliament has already decided that Royal Mail should have access to private capital. We are implementing that decision of Parliament, and the decision to put 10% of the shares in the hands of the employees. The level of service is protected under the Postal Services Act 2011, and any change in ownership does not affect control over the price of stamps or the future of the six-days-a-week service.

[Andrew Bridgen (North West Leicestershire) (Con)]

It is clear that there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear. My right hon. Friend has stated on many occasions—but perhaps he will reiterate it for the benefit of the House—that, regardless of ownership, Royal Mail will remain the designated universal service provider.

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, and my hon. Friend need not take my word for that. It is in the statute. It is a duty of the regulator, Ofcom, to ensure that the service is protected, and that can only be changed by a vote in Parliament.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend’s reassurances, but my constituents in the remoter reaches of west Cornwall, and indeed on the Isles of Scilly, want to be reassured about the delivery of not only first and second-class letters and postcards, but packages. They fear that the cost of those services will become prohibitive. What can be done to protect my constituents from exorbitant charges?

[Michael Fallon]

The best protection that I can offer my hon. Friend is to ensure that Royal Mail’s finances are put on a sustainable, long-term footing, and that it has access to the capital that it needs in order to innovate, compete and respond to changing technologies. Its parcels business is already growing rapidly, but it is in a competitive marketplace, and we need to free it so that it can operate like any other commercial company.

[Mr Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

As the Minister will appreciate, a universal service depends not only on deliveries but on uplift points, and there are serious concerns about the post office network and in particular whether post office locals will all be able to provide the parcel service. If that comes to pass, what powers do Ofcom or the Minister have to intervene to make sure that service is available?

[Michael Fallon]

I am proud to be part of a Government who have put an end to the post office closure programme we saw in the last few years. That has been brought to an end, and the post office network is being put on to a better footing, but the regulator Ofcom has all the powers it needs to ensure that the universal, six-days-a-week, everywhere-in-the-UK service is fully protected in the future, irrespective of any change in ownership.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

6. What progress he has made on a sale of shares in Royal Mail.

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

On 10 July the Secretary of State laid a report in Parliament and made an oral statement setting out our decision to sell Royal Mail shares through an initial public offering in this financial year. Shares will be available to both institutional and retail investors, and 10% of the shares will be available free of charge to eligible employees so that they have a real stake in the business.

[Richard Graham]

As my right hon. Friend the Minister has already heard this morning—and there are postcard campaigns to confirm it—a large amount of misleading information is being given to my constituents in Gloucester and elsewhere in the country: claims that the Royal Mail and the Post Office are the same entity, and that the Queen’s head will go, the universal service disappear and prices rise. Does my right hon. Friend agree that those of us who want to see Royal Mail succeed deplore this campaign of misleading information and want the innovation from new capital investing in new equipment, such as to track parcels that will enable Royal Mail to succeed in the way all of us in this House want?

[Michael Fallon]

Given that Parliament has already decided that this is the right future for Royal Mail, I hope the Opposition will now join in dismissing some of the unnecessary scaremongering, and make clear what would happen if there was ever the horror of a future Labour Government: do they intend to renationalise the Royal Mail?

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

It is not misleading to say that when the share-owning democracy of Mrs Thatcher was launched in the ’80s and ’90s and all those public utilities were sold off and many of the employees received shares—just like the possibility of that on this occasion—the net result is that those public utilities, almost without exception, are now owned by as many as 30 countries. What guarantee has the Minister got that this will not happen to Royal Mail as well?

[Michael Fallon]

In a public offering it is not possible to prevent others from subscribing for the shares, but we hope that Royal Mail, given now the freedom— later this year, we hope—to access private capital, will be put on to a longer-term sustainable footing and will be able to develop its business not just here in Britain, but overseas.

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

I remember what happened when Rolls-Royce was privatised and the work force were given shares—I did not accept any, by the way. Within about two years those shares will be sold. This is only a sop to the work force.

[Michael Fallon]

I have yet to hear whether the Opposition want to renationalise any of these businesses—Rolls-Royce or British Telecom or British Airways. I think they at least owe it to the 130,000 employees of Royal Mail to make clear whether they would renationalise the business.

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

7. What recent progress he has made on employment law reform.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

We are making good progress on our review of employment law. On Friday the Government published an update including a call for evidence on whistleblowing and outlining that the new employment tribunal rules of procedure will come into effect on 29 July. We are also making changes through the Children and Families Bill to extend the right to request flexible working to everyone and introduce a radical new system of shared parental leave.

[Mary Macleod]

In the last few weeks two Opposition Front-Bench Members have been to my constituency to talk to businesses, and I am so glad they are taking their lead from the Prime Minister, who was there in 2011 to talk to small businesses about simplifying employment legislation. Will the Minister build on the great work this Government have been doing in simplifying the process of doing business for entrepreneurs by reducing the amount of red tape and admin?

[Jo Swinson]

I commend my hon. Friend on her work championing small business in her constituency and beyond. She is absolutely right that we need to drive through the implementation of the reforms we have already outlined. She will be pleased to note that the CBI-Harvey Nash employment trends survey shows a significant improvement in employer perceptions of the burden of employment law. That is good for British business and good for job creation, too.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

According to the OECD, the UK already has one of the most lightly regulated labour markets among developed countries; only the USA and Canada have lighter regulation. Why on earth are we trying to water down employment rights even further?

[Jo Swinson]

The first thing I would say to the hon. Lady is that our lightly regulated employment market is an asset to the British economy. It helps the economy to grow and it is one of the reasons why, despite the very challenging economic circumstances we have seen and despite the fact that unemployment is still too high, we have seen employment rates bear up rather better than in some other countries. It is important that we simplify employment law—I would have hoped that there would be cross-party agreement on that—but of course it is also important for a functioning economy that we ensure that basic protections remain in place for workers.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In conformity with long-standing convention, the hon. Gentleman cannot come in a second time on substantive questions. His enthusiasm and appetite are appreciated and he can try his luck during topical questions.

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

8. In how many of the past 24 months net lending by banks to British small businesses has (a) risen and (b) fallen.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

The Bank of England now publishes monthly estimates for lending by UK banks to small and medium-sized companies. Those figures show for the 24 months up to May 2013 an increase in net lending in two months and a decrease in the others. The Government are working to increase the lending available to SMEs through the new business bank and, with the Bank of England, through the funding for lending scheme.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), that there is no evidence that the funding for lending scheme is helping small business?

[Vince Cable]

The funding for lending scheme primarily benefits mortgage lending, but changes were made in April to make it accessible to asset-based finance, for example. Several of the new challenger banks are now taking advantage of it, and it is beginning to make an impact on SME lending.

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

I visited the bank recently and was told that all people who come to it are given a fair hearing and that small business men are getting the loans they need. Is it not the case that what got the banks into this mess was irresponsible and over-optimistic lending and that what we need now is prudent and responsible lending to small businesses?

[Vince Cable]

Of course, we need prudent, responsible lending, but I subscribe to the view, which I hear frequently around the country, that many SMEs find it difficult to access finance from the banks and that we cannot just let the situation remain as it is. That is why we are in the process of establishing the business bank, which is currently marketing £300 million. There is substantial interest in investing in that project.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In the last period of time, it has been quite understandable that there have been problems with getting loans from banks, but another problem has been with small and medium-sized businesses being paid in time. It has been suggested that some £30 billion is outstanding in payments from big business to small business. What steps are being taken by the Secretary of State to help small business get moneys paid on time by big business?

[Vince Cable]

My colleague the Minister of State has launched an initiative to ensure rapid settlement, particularly down the supply chain. We name the big companies that do not settle their debts properly in that way. We also have a programme of supply chain financing, the advanced manufacturing supply chain initiative, which will help the settlements to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Two years ago, there was a crisis in small business lending. We have just heard from the Secretary of State that in 22 of those 24 months, it has got worse. The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is the latest to acknowledge that the Government response to the SME funding crisis is totally inadequate, using a British investment bank that funnels existing inadequate schemes through our uncompetitive banking system. Is it not time that the Secretary of State admitted that the Government will never deliver the scale of change needed and threw his weight behind Labour’s plan for a new generation of local banks with local decision making, based on the key features of the German Sparkasse model? Let us get the real change that British small businesses desperately need.

[Vince Cable]

I am a great fan of the German Sparkasse system, and it is a pity that we never had it in Britain. If the hon. Gentleman looks back on the record of the previous Labour Government, he will recall that in 2000, they had a report prepared for them on the inadequacies of British business lending and the enormous problems created by the fact that four banks accounted for all the business. The Government of the day, despite urging from myself and others, did absolutely nothing about the problem. As a result, we went into the banking crisis with massively over-concentrated ownership and damaged banks that are no longer able to perform properly. We are seeking reform, supporting new challenger banks though the business bank, and dealing with a problem that should have been dealt with a decade ago.

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

9. What recent assessment he has made of the take-up of apprenticeships.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

There were 520,000 apprenticeship starts in the academic year 2011-12. That is almost double the number in 2010. Our priority is to make apprenticeships both widely available and the very best quality, rooting out poor provision and enforcing a minimum duration. As we speak, 750,000 people are on an apprenticeship, which is a record: it is more than at any time in our history.

[Mr Robertson]

I am grateful to the Minister for that response. As he knows, I have a lot of engineering companies in my constituency, the largest being GE Aviation, which has more than 100 apprentices. Nevertheless, those companies find it difficult to recruit young people. Is the Minister satisfied that schools have adequate incentives to promote the concept of apprenticeship schemes, and will he consider awarding them recognition status marks for each apprenticeship that is taken up?

[Matthew Hancock]

We introduced a new duty on schools to provide independent and impartial advice in September, and Ofsted is looking at, and will report on, how well that is being implemented. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who brings together companies in his constituency to promote skills and working together, so that even though companies compete locally and nationally with their products, they come together on the skills issue to make sure that they give new skills to young people, rather than poaching from each other.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

The Minister’s Department has found that one in five apprentices currently receives no training. There has also been a reported rise in employers’ non-compliance with the national minimum wage for apprentices. Does he agree that for apprenticeships to be of value, apprentices need decent training, and need to be paid a decent wage? What is his Department doing to ensure that that happens?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, I do, and we are taking action.

[Mr Robin Walker (Worcester) (Con)]

Will the Minister join me in welcoming the initiative of Worcestershire housing associations, which created an 18-to-30 apprenticeships and job fair, bringing together local employers and the National Apprenticeship Service? Does he agree that the huge increase in apprenticeship take-up is one of the reasons why youth unemployment in Worcester is down 30% from its peak under Labour?

[Matthew Hancock]

It is very good news that youth unemployment is falling—there was a 20,000 fall announced yesterday—but it is still too high, and there is still much more to do. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work, and the work of others across the House, to make sure that apprenticeships and traineeships are available in future to help with that.

[Mr Gordon Marsden (Blackpool South) (Lab)]

Does not the Minister’s rhetoric on apprenticeships hit the buffers in reality? No amount of his crowing or tweeting alters the latest facts: there is a 13% drop in 16 to 18-year-olds starting apprenticeships, and a 6% drop across the board. He has failed to take up our plans to create thousands of new apprenticeships via Government procurement, and he has also failed to get a deal with Department for Work and Pensions Ministers. The Association of Colleges said yesterday that 14 to 19-year-olds taking up his new traineeships, so that they can move on to apprenticeships, are not likely to have any money to live on. When will he stop dithering and start delivering?

[Matthew Hancock]

We are delivering the new traineeships from next month. Given the need, after years of inaction, to bring together support for work experience and skills for those approaching the job market, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. I would have thought that the Opposition would have supported the rise in the number of apprenticeships to record levels since the election.

[Jonathan Reynolds (Stalybridge and Hyde) (Lab/Co-op)]

10. What the outcomes were of his Department’s summit meeting with payday lenders on 1 July 2013; and if he will make a statement.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

11. What the outcomes were of his Department’s summit meeting with payday lenders on 1 July 2013; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

The Government’s payday lending summit provided an excellent opportunity to deliver a strong message to the payday industry to get its house in order. It focused particularly on the Financial Conduct Authority’s priorities for reducing consumer harm when it becomes the regulator in April, ahead of its consultation on its credit rulebook this September.

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I welcome the Minister’s answer and the summit, but let us be honest—the Government have consistently ducked clamping down on predatory pricing and extortionate interest charges, despite the amendment secured last year in the House of Lords that gives the regulators the ability to control costs and loan duration. Notwithstanding the spin of holding a payday lenders summit, when is the Minister going to promise to act so that families across the country can be protected from these predatory activities?

[Jo Swinson]

Significant action is being taken. The Office of Fair Trading has referred the industry to the Competition Commission because of widespread non-compliance. It is taking its own enforcement action, which has already resulted in a third of the lenders that have responded so far—the rest are due to do so this month—leaving the market altogether as a result of the tough action being taken. We have given the FCA stronger powers to enable it to ban products, impose unlimited fines and order money to be paid back to consumers who have been ripped off. That is a pretty comprehensive package of action to clamp down on this unscrupulous and irresponsible lending behaviour.

[Ann McKechin]

If other jurisdictions, such as Florida, already have effective real-time recording systems that stop borrowers accumulating unpayable debts, why cannot we have such a system here, now?

[Jo Swinson]

Such systems rely on the industry to be able to update them. The industry is looking at and working on that. We have credit reference agencies, which work well in many of the credit markets, but the real-time issue that the hon. Lady raises is a genuine one and more difficult to set up than the systems in place. We are encouraging the industry to address that, because it will help to improve affordability assessments.

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

Is this issue not also about the level of household debt—households running into debt and not knowing how to manage a household budget? Much more information should be available to take people away from payday lenders.

[Jo Swinson]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. We are introducing financial education in schools, which is an important development to make sure that people have the tools to make decisions, but it is also important to note that half of the people who take out a payday loan are already showing signs of financial stress. So although we need to tackle the problems of payday lending, we also need to tackle the problems that get people there in the first place, and make sure that they have good access to the free and confidential debt advice available. I encourage anyone in financial difficulty to seek help sooner rather than later.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

A recent report by the Office of Fair Trading accused payday lenders of causing “misery and hardship”. The Minister herself said that

“the scale of unscrupulous behaviour . . . and the impact on consumers is deeply concerning”

and that the Government

“wants to see tough action”.

Despite an amendment in the other place last year, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) referred, to give the regulators the ability to curb costs, the Minister is still failing to act. The public will note with interest that a major donor to the Conservative party, Adrian Beecroft, has a significant interest in this industry. Is that what is holding the hon. Lady back from stronger regulation? She is in severe danger of becoming known as the Minister for APR.

[Jo Swinson]

The short answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question is no, because the Government are taking significant action. I think he misunderstands; the OFT report shows the biggest set of problems in the industry. I know that much of the focus ends up on the APR headlines, but the surveys and the consumer organisations working with the issue day in, day out show the problems around issues such as affordability assessments, continuous payment authority abuse and abuse of the way in which roll-overs are used. The FCA has said specifically that it is looking to plug any gaps in regulation in all those areas when it takes on the role of regulator next April. We do not have to wait very long to see its draft rule book, which will be published this September.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

13. What recent assessment he has made of the value of supply chains to the UK economy.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

In the UK and across the world, supply chains are diverse, complex and global. Their value is huge and their importance is vital. Support for supply chains is studded through our policy and underpinned by the industrial strategies.

[Neil Carmichael]

In contrast to the Labour Government, this Government are clearly doing something to build capacity in our supply chains. I welcome that and I see evidence of it in my constituency. May I stress the importance of making sure that supply chains are developed in our regions to ensure that we have a truly balanced economy, not just between manufacturing and services, but across our regions?

[Matthew Hancock]

Absolutely. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work on promoting the importance of supply chains, not least because of the high proportion of manufacturing in his constituency. We will make sure that they stay at front and centre of what we do in the Department.

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

One of the biggest infrastructure projects in this country over the next 20 years will be the construction of High Speed 2. That, through the supply chain, has potential benefits for businesses and workers not just along the route of HS2, but throughout the entire UK. What steps is the Department taking to engage in discussion with the Department for Transport to ensure that those supply chain benefits are indeed available throughout the entire UK?

[Matthew Hancock]

There are continual discussions between the Department and the Department for Transport about making sure that great benefits accrue not only when we build important infrastructure, but during its construction. We must ensure that there is good value for money, but value for money should be considered in the broadest possible sense.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

14. What recent assessment he has made of the prospects for economic growth in the Humber sub-region.

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

We are working hard to support the Humber local enterprise partnership to deliver the priorities for growth set out in their plan for the Humber. In round 4 of the regional growth fund £21.3 million was allocated to two successful bids from the Humber, one of them from the local authority in my hon. Friend’s constituency.

[Martin Vickers]

The local economy is experiencing something of a renaissance. Only yesterday, I and colleagues from neighbouring constituencies met a representative from Scunthorpe-based Wren Kitchens, which is looking to take over the former Kimberley Clark factory at Barton-upon-Humber, which closed earlier this year with the loss of 500 jobs. The hope is that, within two or three years, those jobs will be replaced one-for-one. It is a major site and there were fears that it would turn into a rusting hulk. Will my right hon. Friend, or one of his ministerial team, commit to visiting the factory when it opens in the near future?

[Vince Cable]

I praise my hon. Friend for the work that he has done. He has already taken me to his constituency and shown me the plans for the area. The Kimberley Clark closure was a major blow and it is good to hear that it is being replaced. Last week I was with the Humber local enterprise partnership when it met in Hull. We discussed some of these plans, particularly the enormous potential of the energy sector in the North sea. I am certainly very happy to visit that factory in due course.

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

15. What steps he is taking to promote sustainable economic development in the North East.

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

I welcome the most recent reduction in unemployment in the north-east. Across the region we have offered support of £330 million to 101 projects and programmes through the regional growth fund with the potential to safeguard or create 66,000 jobs. We are also working with the North Eastern local enterprise partnership to agree a local growth deal based on Lord Adonis’s recent report.

[Chi Onwurah]

The north-east has real strengths in sustainable process energy and transport industries, but lacks the funds and the skills to support them. Since the demise of the regional development authority, there has not been an effective champion to bring this about. The regional growth fund is not getting the money through quickly enough. What is he going to do to change that, so that the skills and the finances are available to industry in the north-east?

[Michael Fallon]

If I may say so, the hon. Lady is taking a rather pessimistic view of her region. There is plenty of money flowing from the regional growth fund to projects, two of which I have visited on the Tyne. There is plenty more support to come through the structural fund allocation, which has also gone to the local enterprise partnership, and through the invitation that has gone to the region to bid for the single local growth fund from 2015-16.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

16. What outcomes his Department is seeking through its science and society budget.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

Our science and society programme successfully engages people of all ages and backgrounds with science. It includes 25,000 science, technology, engineering and mathematics ambassadors providing positive role models for students to increase and widen participation in science; the biggest ever Big Bang Fair in March this year; and public dialogue supported through Sciencewise to inform public policy.

[Hugh Bayley]

The Science Museum Group, which includes the National Railway museum in York, has had its budget cut by a quarter over the last two spending reviews. It does immensely important work in encouraging young people to take an interest in science, leading to careers in science. Will the Minister meet people from the museum to consider how the science and society budget could be used to fund some of their outreach work, especially with young people?

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the science budget has been protected because we absolutely recognise the importance of science and research to the future economy and in encouraging people to take on science. The lead sponsor Department for the Science museum and museums generally is the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, and colleagues in DCMS will have been engaging significantly with the Science museum and others. I am sure that the relevant Minister will be very happy to meet—

[Hugh Bayley]

Will you meet them? It is your budget.

[Jo Swinson]

I will happily do so. I am answering on behalf of a colleague, but I will happily have that meeting.

[Hugh Bayley]

Thank you.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. We are ahead of ourselves, notwithstanding the sedentary chuntering. All relevant personnel are present and correct so we will proceed with topical questions.

[Hazel Blears (Salford and Eccles) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

My Department plays a key role in supporting the rebalancing of the economy through business to deliver growth while increasing skills and learning.

[Hazel Blears]

The Secretary of State will be aware that legislation is in place, supported by the Government, to ensure that when commissioning public services we seek social value as part of a wider value-for-money framework. That means local jobs, local supply chains, apprenticeships and local labour. How will the Secretary of State ensure that in his area, through the regional growth fund and massive investment in infrastructure, we get the same kind of social value to support our regional and local economies and get young people back to work?

[Vince Cable]

I recognise the considerable value of the Public Services (Social Value) Act 2012, and I acknowledge the right hon. Lady’s role in promoting its take-up. The Department has a unit that is currently promoting social enterprise, which lies at the core of this issue. Some 68,000 such enterprises now employ 1 million people, and I was at the launch of that unit last year. For our overall policy, we try through the industrial strategy to ensure that procurement is strategic and takes into account long-term training and innovation requirements.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

T2. My right hon. Friend is well aware of the scandal of mis-selling interest rate derivatives to small businesses, but despite the establishment of the Financial Conduct Authority redress scheme in January, not a penny has yet been paid out to small businesses. On Tuesday, one small business was offered a redress package for a technical fault of £1.3 million, but the offer was made on condition that no payments would be made by the bank in question unless the business also settled the consequential loss claim. Will my right hon. Friend take up that issue with the FCA and ensure that technical redress is paid prior to any agreement on consequential losses?

[Vince Cable]

My hon. Friend is right that this is a major scandal and it is being pursued through negotiation with the banks. As he rightly says, there are major anxieties about the terms of the settlement and some of the products currently excluded from it. I will see the head of the FCA next week to pursue the matter in some detail on behalf of my hon. Friend and his colleagues, and I acknowledge the enormous work he has done in the background to bring these problems to proper attention.

[Mr Chuka Umunna (Streatham) (Lab)]

Businesses, particularly on the high street, have found the trading environment very tough while the economy has flatlined for three years under this Government. Does the Business Secretary agree that increasing parking enforcement charges at this time would be nonsensical and drive customers away from businesses in our town centres at the very time they need that custom?

[Vince Cable]

Of course there has been a major problem in many of our high streets as a result of the recession, and particularly as a result of the development of internet commerce, which has changed the pattern of shopping. As the hon. Gentleman knows, parking charges are primarily an issue for local authorities, but the Department has developed a strategy with the retail sector to help it develop areas of growth, including export business.

[Mr Umunna]

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said this week that the Government are consulting on proposals to increase the maximum parking enforcement charges that local authorities may levy outside London—a competence for which they are responsible. Apparently, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government thinks that would be a bad idea, but he is in no position to lecture given that Conservative councils impose higher parking charges than others. We are clear that massively hiking parking enforcement charges at this time for businesses and their customers amounts to a stealth tax on our high streets. Why does the Business Secretary not stand up for our businesses and kill off that proposal?

[Vince Cable]

I already have responsibility for one of the biggest Departments in Government, and taking over responsibility for parking charges from my colleagues and local councils would be an exercise in departmental imperialism that I will not embark on. I note the hon. Gentleman’s question and I am happy to talk to my colleagues in government about it, but he is missing the bigger picture of how we help the retail sector adapt to the massive technological changes that are taking place, and the perverse fiscal incentives that currently operate.

[Mark Menzies (Fylde) (Con)]

T3. What efforts are the Minister and his Department taking to support small and medium-sized businesses in Lancashire in the export market?

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

My hon. Friend might know that more resource has been made available to UK Export Finance. It is important now to ensure that more and more SMEs understand that export finance assistance is not just something for the large companies, such as Rolls-Royce and BAE, but available to SMEs up and down the country. We will market our efforts there more intensively.

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

T7. Does the Business Secretary agree that the target, set by the Treasury on a moving basis, to be met before the UK Green Investment Bank can actually become a green investment bank—that public sector debt must be falling as a percentage of GDP—presents serious challenges for people planning green and low-carbon investments for the future? If so, will he take the opportunity of the recess to seek an urgent meeting with the Chancellor to see whether he can change that formula, so that the UK Green Investment Bank can actually become a green investment bank in the not-to-distant future?

[Vince Cable]

I think the hon. Gentleman might have missed some recent announcements. The UK Green Investment Bank is now succeeding and expanding rapidly, having already committed £700 million or more. In the spending reviews for 2015-16 and 2017-18, the Treasury has committed to providing an extra £800 million of funding and to beginning borrowing, initially through the national loans fund, in order to meet the objective I think he wishes to achieve.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T4. Boomerang Plastics is an innovative recycling start-up based in Tamworth and looking to expand, but one of its challenges is finding the right space to expand. What are Ministers doing with the Department for Communities and Local Government to encourage developers to construct the right sorts of business parks and to encourage local authorities to offer the right sorts of planning rights to allow firms such as Boomerang to find the space to grow and expand?

[Michael Fallon]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. It will be for his local enterprise partnership, as part of its local growth strategy, to ensure sufficient space for the development of business parks, so that companies can grow successfully without constantly having to move from their premises and can expand next door.

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

There is considerable concern among the further education college sector about the potential low take-up of the post-24 advanced learning loans and the impact that that will have on people’s finances. What assessment has the Minister made of this issue, and what help will he give to those colleges, if indeed there is such a low take-up?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

Since we launched the loans in April, there has been a robust take-up, and we are working hard to ensure not only that colleges are aware of the opportunities presented by loans to help over-24s to learn at higher levels, but that people are aware of the opportunities available to improve their skills.

[Mr Speaker]

Sir Malcolm Bruce—not here.

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

It has now been confirmed that the chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, the lobbyist for the large pub companies, made two false statements to the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee and said on television that the Government had figures for pub closures, which they do not. The opponents of much needed reform are conducting a campaign of misinformation. What assurances can I get from the Minister that the claims being made, which are simply not backed up by evidence, will not be taken into consideration when the decision is made?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Jo Swinson)]

My hon. Friend, who has been a strong campaigner on this issue, will know that the Government have conducted a consultation on the proposed statutory adjudicator and code for pubs, which has had more than 1,100 written responses, while we have had more than 7,000 responses to the online survey. Clearly, ploughing through and analysing all that information is taking a little time. He raises concerns about the issues with the Select Committee, but obviously Select Committees can ask further questions of witnesses, if they have concerns. I am happy to meet him, however, to discuss his concerns further.

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

Does the Secretary of State have any plans to look at the Insolvency Act 1986? Hedge funds appear to have the ability to acquire companies, to empty them of their assets, to appoint administrators of their choosing and to proceed without fear of being pursued vigorously. That certainly seems to be what is happening at Coventry City football club. Will he look at the situation and the framework of the law?

[Vince Cable]

Yes, we are doing just that. I spoke on Monday about that question in the general context of trusted business. We are, indeed, looking at the insolvency provisions. We are looking at insolvency practitioners’ fees, at some of the potential conflicts of interest that arise in that industry and at the regulatory framework.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

T6. Small businesses in Congleton and across the country struggle with the burden of regulations from Brussels. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on the work of the business-led taskforce on EU regulation, which he is chairing?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, the Prime Minister and I met the taskforce last week, and I will be meeting it again tomorrow. We have issued a call for evidence, which gives companies large and small the opportunity to provide us with concrete examples of European rules and regulations, including new proposals, that pose unnecessary barriers to the growth of British businesses and need reform. I encourage all hon. Members to ask businesses in their constituencies to submit examples and evidence to the taskforce.

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

Ministers are considering responses to the consultation on the recasting of the waste electrical and electronic equipment directive. There are real concerns that the interests of large producers will prevail, so would Ministers be prepared to meet me and representatives of the independent recycling organisations, which have deep concerns, to discuss their concerns?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I would be happy to do that. I know that the consultation has instigated a number of concerns across the sector. I have spoken at one of the conferences involved, and I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady.

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

HSBC has shut its branch in Masham and is now doing the same in Pateley Bridge, deep in the Yorkshire dales, in one of the most rural counties in England. In discussions with senior bank executives, will my right hon. Friend make the case for rural areas, lest we get into a banking-free, financial services-free zone in our most remote locations?

[Vince Cable]

I note what my hon. Friend has said. Of course, it is worth recalling that banking services are being disseminated through the post office network, and one of the consequences of our being able to save that network from large-scale closures is that banking services are available now even in the most remote rural areas.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State say what discussions he has had with the Home Office about the introduction of cash bonds for student visas, which has had a lot of negative press coverage overseas? Does he agree that the introduction of such bonds, either for student visitor visas or for tier 4 visas, would further damage international student recruitment?

[Vince Cable]

I am in constant contact with the Home Office about such matters. It is worth pointing out that the concept involves offering the possibility of a bond to people who have otherwise been rejected in the course of a visa application, so if it operates according to that spirit, it should ease, rather than make more difficult, access to visas.

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

May I thank my right hon. Friend for his Department’s decision to locate the world’s first Transport Systems Catapult centre in Milton Keynes? Does he agree that it will help to establish this country as one of the world’s leading development centres for transport systems?

[Vince Cable]

The Government have every reason to be proud of the catapult programme, which is now expanding quite rapidly. We are thereby able, through the Technology Strategy Board, to concentrate research excellence in particular locations. Some, such as those for renewable energy and advanced manufacturing, are now at an advanced stage of development, and I am delighted to hear that my hon. Friend is pleased with the location of the automotive centre.

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

Will the Secretary of State get together with the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to have a look at the way in which the Football League applies its regulations to private ownership of football clubs, because there is a diabolical mess at Coventry at the moment?

[Vince Cable]

Coventry seems to have some problem in that area. I come from the city of York, which went through this misery, as many towns have done in the English league. I can certainly have a look at that; it is not immediately clear to me where I fit into the picture, but I am interested in football and want to see it healthy.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

On employment law reform, does the Secretary of State agree that there would be a significant boost to our country’s small businesses if the cost of attending employment tribunals was reduced, given that, according to his Department, the average cost of successfully responding to and defending a claim is £6,200?

[Jo Swinson]

The hon. Gentleman is right to raise that issue. It is fair to say that employment tribunals are costly in terms of time, money and stress for everybody involved, both employers and employees, so what we are trying to do through our employment law reforms is reduce the number of cases going to tribunal. We are streamlining the rules of procedure, which should also help to reduce costs, but the really important savings will come from getting more cases resolved through early conciliation, which is what the Government are pressing ahead with.

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

This morning the Globe group of parliamentarians held a seminar highlighting the risk of financial instability as a result of the overvaluation of fossil fuel reserves internationally and nationally without taking account of international climate change commitments. Will the Government contact regulators to ensure that they take into account the risks of instability and ensure that we do not see the bursting of a carbon bubble in the way we saw dotcom bubbles burst and other collapses in the markets?

[Vince Cable]

That falls well outside my area of competence, but I have a personal interest in it. One thing I learnt from my years in the oil and gas industry is that it is very unwise to predict movements in the price of oil, whether up or down. The hon. Gentleman raises an important and fundamental question that I am interested in and will pursue if it is relevant to my Department.

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

Brompton Bicycle Ltd in Brentford is a brilliant example of British manufacturing and engineering. It has been growing at 25% a year over the past three years, sells 40,000 bikes a year and exports 80% of what it makes to 44 countries. Will the Minister meet me and Brompton Bicycle Ltd to talk about how it can find the funding to buy new premises in order to grow even further?

[Michael Fallon]

I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend and Brompton Bicycle. I am already aware of how successful and ambitious a company it is. We will do what we can to help it expand further.

Petition

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have great pleasure in presenting this petition in support of a fully used and fully utilised Cannock Chase hospital. Along with other petitions and pledges in similar terms, it has been signed by thousands of my constituents, and constituents of neighbouring colleagues.

I also want to pay tribute to Deborah Hubbard, a former nurse at Cannock hospital, who has amassed more than 12,000 signatures through the “Supporters of Cannock Chase Hospital” Facebook page, for her tireless campaigning to keep services in our local hospital.

The petition expresses the desire of my local community in Cannock Chase, who raised much of the money for the hospital to be built in the first place, to ensure that Cannock hospital is not overlooked in the review that is being carried out by Monitor and the trust special administrators. As colleagues will know, they are looking into the future provision of health services in Staffordshire, following the abolition of the failed Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

The petition reads:

The Petition of residents of Cannock Chase,

Declares that the Petitioners support Cannock Hospital and wish to ensure that it becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery, fully used, and with a secure and professionally managed future, within the NHS.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure Cannock Hospital becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery and has a secure future.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001216]

Business of the House

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

10:32

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for some time in the middle of September?

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

The business for the week commencing 2 September is as follows:

Monday 2 September—Launch of the second report from the Procedure Committee on private Members’ Bills, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the future for postal services in rural areas, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the all-party parliamentary cycling group’s report, “Get Britain Cycling”. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 3 September—Second Reading of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill.

Wednesday 4 September—Opposition day [6th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 5 September—A general debate on high-cost credit, followed by a general debate on the north-east independent economic review report. The subjects for these debates have been nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 6 September—Private Members’ Bills.



The provisional business for the week commencing 9 September will include:

Monday 9 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 1).

Tuesday 10 September—Consideration in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill (Day 2).

Wednesday 11 September—Conclusion in Committee of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. The Chairman of Ways and Means is expected to name Opposed Private Business for consideration.

Thursday 12 September—Business to be nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 13 September—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 9 and 12 September will be:

Monday 9 September—General debate on an e-petition relating to age-related tax allowances.

Thursday 12 September—General debate on UK trade and investment.



As this is the last business questions before the summer recess, may I, on behalf of the House, thank all its staff for their hard work? I hope that they have a good and very well-deserved break before we return at the beginning of September.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business for the first two weeks in September.

It is Nelson Mandela’s 95th birthday today, and I am sure that all Members across the House will want to wish him well as he fights his illness in hospital.

Last week I said that this Government have a blind spot when it comes to women. The Leader of the House told me that he did not agree, so what does he have to say about yesterday’s mocking of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan), who was miaowed and clawed at behind her back while speaking in the Chamber because of the outfit she was wearing? Does he think that this boorish behaviour by his Back Benchers is acceptable?

As the House adjourns for the summer recess this afternoon, may I take this opportunity to thank you, Mr Speaker, and all the House staff for the support provided to Members and their staff throughout the year? We are very grateful to all House staff for the support that they give us.

Before everyone heads off to their constituencies for the recess, I would like to give some end-of-term awards. The Man of the People award goes to the Chancellor for his posh burgers and mockney accent. The Bungle of the Year award goes to the Defence Secretary for his spectacularly bad attempt at making a statement to the House on Army reserves. The most contested category, Smear of the Year, was this week snatched by the late entry by the Health Secretary, ably assisted by his barnacle-scraper, Lynton Crosby.

With the Lords due to sit until the end of July and the Commons not due to return until early September, it is clear that this Parliament is no more joined up than this Government. With the two Houses now completely out of kilter, it is practically impossible for Joint Committees to meet. Does the Leader of the House really think that that is a desirable state of affairs, and will he make sure that this practice is brought to an end?

I note that we are to discuss the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in the first two weeks back. The Bill is not even 24 hours off the press but it is already being derided by campaigners, charities and lobbyists alike for failing to regulate over 80% of the industry. The Government’s Bill is a cheap, partisan attack on Opposition funding. It is constructed solely to divert attention from the real lobbying scandals of their dodgy donors dinners in Downing street.

It has been a bad week for Australians both in the Ashes and in No. 10. At Prime Minister’s questions on Wednesday, the Prime Minister once more pointedly avoided answering the question of whether he had discussed the plain packaging of cigarettes with Lynton Crosby. The Leader of the House may remember saying when he was Health Secretary:

“The evidence is clear that packaging helps to recruit smokers, so it makes sense to consider having less attractive packaging. It’s wrong that children are being attracted to smoke by glitzy designs on packets.”

Why has he changed his mind on this issue? I wonder whether he agrees with the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston), who tweeted yesterday:

“I’ve seen how election strategists drive current policy & simply untrue to suggest otherwise. It’s why we must know who else pays them”.

Quite so. It is clearly now in the public interest that the House is given full information about Lynton Crosby’s influence. At a minimum, he should publish his client list immediately. Will the Leader of the House support our calls for an inquiry into whether the ministerial code has been broken?

In his hysterical attacks on trade unions in the past few weeks, the Prime Minister has been emulating Senator McCarthy, but this week it has been more like Big Brother from “Nineteen Eighty-Four”. In that masterful novel, George Orwell wrote that the Party’s slogan was:

“He who controls the past controls the future. He who controls the present controls the past.”

I think that we might just have found the Conservative party’s new motto.

We may be living in Tory Orwellian times in which the Government think that Newspeak trumps reality, but we will not let their propaganda go unchecked. They can make all the claims they like about the NHS, but we know that it was they who did not act on 14 failing trusts. They can pretend that plan A is working, but we know that we have had a weaker recovery than during the great depression and that long-term unemployment is at a 17-year high. They can blame anyone other than themselves for as long as they like, but the British people will not be fooled. If the Conservatives want to play Orwellian games for the next two years, they can carry on as they did last week, but they should not think for a minute that they will get away with it.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House. I am not sure whether, in the midst of what she said, there were any requests relating to the future business, but I will try to answer the points that she raised.

Most pleasurably, I join the shadow Leader of the House in sending our congratulations to ex-President Mandela on his 95th birthday. He is an inspiration and an extraordinary man. The extraordinary nature of his capacities is further illustrated by the promising progress in his health. That is something in which we can all take pleasure.

The hon. Lady asked about the relationship between sittings in this House and in the other place. I am happy to discuss the operation of Joint Committees with colleagues across both Houses. That is something that we should certainly look at. However, it is for this House and the other place to determine when they sit. The other place does not sit in September, whereas we rise earlier for the summer and sit in September. We have different approaches, but they are not necessarily disjointed because there are differences in the flow of business in the two Houses that make them perfectly sensible.

The hon. Lady talked about the lobbying Bill, which was published yesterday. It will indeed have its Second Reading and pass through Committee in the first two weeks back in September. I was surprised by what she said; I do not understand how the Bill can be an attack on Opposition funding since it says nothing about Opposition funding. The only thing that is in the Bill—

[Ms Eagle]

Come on!

[Mr Lansley]

It is not in the Bill. Let me make that clear to the hon. Lady.

I wrote to the Leader of the Opposition earlier this week because he said in a speech that he wanted the participation of trade union members in the political funds of trade unions to be a deliberate choice. If that is what he wants, the Bill is available as a legislative framework to enable it to happen. If he believes in it, he should be willing to legislate for it. We have made him that offer and he should respond to it. In practical terms, if he wants to take up that offer and demonstrate that he means what he says, he needs to come back to us in the next three or four weeks to enable those amendments to be available for the Committee stage in September.

The hon. Lady talked about the NHS. I have listened to the exchanges, but the shadow Leader of the House should not have entered into the argument about our not doing anything in relation to the 14 trusts. I know about the matter because I have been Secretary of State for Health and shadow Secretary of State for Health. I was shadow Secretary of State when the then Secretary of State and Minister of State stood at the Dispatch Box and told us that Mid Staffs was an isolated incident and that nothing comparable was happening anywhere else in the NHS. They dismissed the idea that there were systemic problems in the NHS—they waved it away. I stood at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition on 30 November 2009 and asked why the then Secretary of State was dismissing the problems at the Basildon and Thurrock hospitals and saying that nothing would be done about them.

When I was Secretary of State, I stood at the Dispatch Box and made it clear that we were taking responsibility by moving NHS trusts towards foundation trust status not on the basis of their finances and governance, but on the basis of achieving quality. I said that we would use the NHS Trust Development Authority to make that happen. Agreements were put in place with NHS trusts to make that happen. I am sorry, but I will not take any lectures from the Labour party on that issue.

I will also not accept lessons from the Labour party on standardised packaging, which again relates to my former role as Secretary of State for Health. I saw what the Leader of the Opposition wrote to the Cabinet Secretary yesterday. I am afraid that it proceeds from a complete misunderstanding or misapprehension of the position. As Secretary of State for Health, I made no bid to the then Leader of the House for a place for such legislation in the Queen’s Speech for this Session. Why was that? As I said in the consultation that I launched on standardised packaging, I had an open mind. My successor as Secretary of State and other Health Ministers have come to the Dispatch Box and said that the Government have continued not to make a decision. As there was no bid from the Department of Health for a place in the Queen’s Speech, there cannot, by definition, have been any decision to take it out. I am afraid that this has all proceeded from a misunderstanding.

To be more cheerful, I hope the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) enjoys the sunshine in Wallasey over the summer. When she is thinking about the Opposition day debate, I am sure she will find that she still has a number of possible subjects to choose from in September. Perhaps she will choose to have a debate to celebrate the Government’s cutting net migration by a third, or a debate to celebrate the fact that the latest unemployment figures are down and employment is up, with 1.3 million more new jobs in the private sector. We are creating jobs in the private sector nearly five times as fast as jobs are being lost in the public sector. Perhaps she will choose a debate to celebrate the crime survey statistics published this morning that show a year-on-year reduction of 9%, taking the figures down to their lowest level since the survey began. That is all being achieved under this Government.

Finally, the hon. Lady talked about a motto. Let me remind her that at the Labour party conference last year, its motto was apparently going to be “one nation”. I have looked, but in this calendar year in this Chamber the Leader of the Opposition has never uttered the words “one nation”. We know why he has not done so. The Labour party is not a one-nation party; it is a trade union party, not the party of one nation. It is owned by the trade unions and it does not represent the people of this country.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. As usual, I am keen to accommodate the interests of hon. and right hon. Members, but may I remind the House that we have two statements to follow from Chairs of Select Committees, and thereafter two well subscribed debates scheduled to take place under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee? That means there is a premium now on saving time. We require economy from Back and Front Benchers alike, first to be exemplified, I hope, by Mr Robert Halfon.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is now 13 months since the brutal murder of my constituent Eystna Blunnie, and her unborn daughter, who died at the hands of her ex-boyfriend. Domestic violence continues to be a worrying issue in Essex, with a 14% increase in prosecutions in 2011-12. The Crown Prosecution Service has acknowledged that it should have done more in this case. May we have an urgent debate on domestic violence to stop such tragedies ever happening again?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure the House will join my hon. Friend in his shock, and that of his constituents, at what happened to his constituent and her unborn daughter. It was a sad and tragic event. It is precisely for the reasons he describes that the Government are doing everything they can to provide support to victims of domestic violence and abuse. The Home Office has produced the violence against women and girls action plan, including a ring-fenced budget of nearly £40 million for multi-agency risk assessment conferences operating over 250 areas across the country. We want an end to all violence against women and girls, and we expect every report to be taken seriously, every victim to be treated with dignity and every investigation to be conducted thoroughly and professionally.

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

When will the Leader of the House bring forward his proposals for improving the Government’s e-petition system by bringing it in-house and establishing a petitions Committee?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her question. I hope to be able to bring forward proposals on the basis of consensus. I welcome the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee’s report, which is published today. However, I do not share its view that petitions could fuel cynicism. I think it is demonstrable from the Hansard Society’s latest audit of political engagement that the public recognise that the House is debating the issues that matter to them more. The petitions process and the work of the Backbench Business Committee have been instrumental in making that happen. I note, for example, that of the 21 petitions that have reached the 100,000 signature threshold, 20 have either been debated or are scheduled for debate. We can do more and I have said that we can. I am sure we can do that not by transferring petitions to Parliament, with the Government standing back and leaving the process alone, but by engaging together so that the public can petition their Parliament while also seeking action and a response from their Government. I am sure we can work together to make that happen.

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

In the light of the poll just published by the Bruges Group, which shows that 71% of those expressing a preference said that Britain would be better off being a member of the European Free Trade Association than remaining a member of the European Union, may we please have a debate on the potential benefits of becoming a member of EFTA?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know that if we make progress and get the European Union (Referendum) Bill—which is currency before the House, but which the Labour party, not having voted against it on Second Reading, is now seeking to frustrate by filibustering in Committee, although I am sure Labour will not succeed in that—we will enable a debate not only in this House but in the country so that the people can make a decision. From my point of view, one of the instrumental questions in that debate will be about how the people of this country believe in free trade and see its advantages. That can be achieved, not least through a renegotiation of our membership of the European Union. As my old boss of many years ago, Lord Tebbit, said, he voted for a Common Market in 1975 and he would like to have one.

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

Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on football governance? Football League appears to be incapable of sticking to its own rules and policies. It has allowed Coventry football club to be taken away and moved to Northampton without having seen a plan for its timely return, and it allowed player registrations to be moved out of the company registered with the league itself through the golden share, against its own rules. If Football League is incapable of sticking to its own rules, the Government should look into that. Will he find time for a debate?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard what the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) had to say to the Business Secretary. He and other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones), have raised these issues at Business questions in the past, and I know they raise strong feelings. I cannot promise a debate in Government time, but I know that on a number of occasions there has been a compelling case, for many reasons, for the House to consider football governance. It is also something that Members might like to approach the Backbench Business Committee about. I will also talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and see what she can do to respond to hon. Members on this issue.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Yesterday the Minister for Schools announced a welcome increase in the pupil premium, targeted at children in difficult circumstances. However, Somerset county council is proposing cuts to its school transport budget, which will hit low-income families, and wants to ask schools to cover 50% of the school transport costs for those young people from the pupil premium they receive. That seems particularly mean and insensitive at a time when those Conservative councillors are giving themselves a 3% pay rise, so will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate? Does he agree that it is unacceptable to claim the pupil premium for that purpose?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend invites me to enter into a debate on decisions that are properly those for Somerset county council. If she wants to raise this issue on behalf of her constituents, it would be appropriate to do so on the Adjournment, so perhaps she can seek that opportunity. However, I entirely share the sense of achievement that yesterday’s statement takes us to the point where we are fulfilling the coalition agreement to provide an additional £2.5 billion in support of the pupil premium for the benefit of the most disadvantaged pupils. [Interruption.] I would have thought that that would be something to celebrate on the Opposition Benches, but I was struck by how few Opposition Members were able to come to the Chamber yesterday and express even a sense of appreciation for the resources being provided to support some of the children who are most in need of additional support in our schools.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will the Leader of the House take the time to study early-day motion 336, tabled in my name, on Crossrail step-free access?

[That this House strongly welcomes the construction of Crossrail but notes with concern that seven stations on the new Crossrail line, Seven Kings, Manor Park, Maryland, Hanwell, Langley, Iver and Taplow are not planned to be step-free to platforms; notes that despite the assurances given by the Mayor of London (MoL) to the London Assembly on 14 March 2012 that full disabled access will be a facility at each of the Crossrail stations in Redbridge, no estimates have been made of the costs and benefits and no plans put forward by the MoL or Transport for London (TfL) to introduce step-free access at Seven Kings station; calls on the Government and TfL to ensure that funding is made available urgently to ensure step-free access at Seven Kings; considers that the lack of planned step-free access on parts of Crossrail undermines the Government’s aim that by 2025, disabled people have access to transportation on an equal basis with others; believes that in the context of an ageing population, the benefits of accessible transport to disabled and older transport users, parents and non-disabled transport users outweigh the costs of installing lifts; further believes that the exclusion of disabled and older passengers from their local Crossrail station contributes to the marginalisation of disabled and older people in public life; and further calls on the Government, Network Rail and TfL to make Crossrail a truly accessible rail line.]

In that context, may we have an early debate on the failure of the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, to keep his promise that there would be step-free access at Seven Kings station in my constituency, and on the decisions taken by Transport for London over the past three years to stop work on the lifts at Newbury Park underground station?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course look at the early-day motion to which the hon. Gentleman refers. These matters are specifically the responsibility of the Mayor of London, so I cannot promise a debate on them, but in order to help him I will convey his remarks to the Mayor and see what his reply might be.

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

May I add my congratulations to Nelson Mandela on his 95th birthday? He is a truly remarkable man.

May I tempt the Leader of the House to give us a date for the Water Bill? We were expecting its Second Reading this month, but I note from the business forecast that it is not even scheduled for September. We have heard alarming reports today of possible disruption to our water supplies if there is a drought, and we are still awaiting the reservoir safety guidance from the Government, so it would be helpful if we could have a date.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. It is always difficult for me to resist temptation, but in this instance I am afraid I cannot offer her any guidance on future business beyond what I have already announced. As she knows, however, it is a signal achievement that we have brought forward the Water Bill, including the much sought-after provisions that will enable flood insurance to be obtained by those at risk.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

A recent report has shown that the University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust was the fourth worst performing trust in terms of accident and emergency services, yet five of its chief executives have left over the past 10 years and received substantial pay-offs. Does the Leader of the House agree that it is wrong to reward failure? When may we have a statement on these matters?

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has been assiduous in coming to the House to make statements on how he is trying to secure the best quality of care for patients and tackling failures, some of which are of very long-standing. The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have visited Leicester University hospitals in the past, and I am very familiar with the circumstances that he has described. I will not go into detail, but I will say that if we are going to make the progress that we need to make in many of our hospitals, we need to bring new leadership to the fore in the NHS. Some of our measures to promote a leadership college in the NHS were particularly designed to bring more clinicians to the point at which they will be able to take chief executive posts across the NHS. There are some excellent examples, including Julie Moore at the Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham, and we need more like her who are in a position to give the hospitals the leadership that they need.

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

Plymouth university’s Peninsula medical and dental schools have been a great success, and the university is keen to expand its excellent health student offer by establishing a new school of pharmacy to help to address health inequalities in the region. Some might say that we are producing too many pharmacists in the UK, but may we have a debate on pharmacy schools, to give us a better understanding of which regions are losing out?

[Mr Lansley]

I have had the benefit of visiting the Peninsula medical school, and seen some of the work being done there alongside Derriford hospital and the dental hospital in Truro. I wish it well in its work. We are working towards reforming pharmacists’ pre-registration training in line with the recommendations of the modernising pharmacy careers programme board. I cannot promise a debate at the moment, but my hon. Friend is right to suggest that there is a case for a discussion on pharmacy numbers and training. The House has not considered the matter for some time, and it would be relevant to do so.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

Thousands of people —including, I hope, everyone in this Chamber—will be heading off shortly for their holidays and are likely to use the motorways. May we have a statement about the regulation of motorway service stations, because all of us who regularly use the motorways know that getting refreshments there is an enormous rip-off. Buying petrol there is an enormous rip-off. Somebody should be regulating these motorway services; it is most unfair to people with families who simply cannot afford to eat at them.

[Mr Lansley]

I can feel a John Major moment coming on, if the right hon. Lady recalls that.

I will mention the issue that the right hon. Lady has quite properly raised with my colleagues in the Department for Transport—not least because they might have a better answer than I do. For both the public services and the private sector, we always need to look where there is any degree of monopoly of supply. It is important for such issues to be looked at from time to time by the Office of Fair Trading.

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

Some months ago, I asked the Leader of the House for a statement on very slow departmental responses to parliamentary questions. My right hon. Friend worked his magic back then, so I wonder whether he could apply the same lubricant to the Ministry of Justice, which is now six weeks overdue in responding to constituent inquiries, including a named day question.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will know the importance I attach to prompt responses to Members and I have sent the Procedure Committee some of the latest data on performance in the last Session. I can tell my hon. Friend that his question to the Ministry of Justice has been answered today.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Major health problems of diabetes, dementia, cancer, heart and stroke challenge us all. Health is a devolved matter for Northern Ireland. Would the Leader of the House agree to a statement or a debate to facilitate an exchange of information from the devolved Administrations to enable a joint strategy for all to be developed for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Lansley]

I know from personal experience that the devolved Administrations and the four countries of the United Kingdom work closely together on health matters and co-ordinate closely, while respecting the devolution settlement. I will see what plans Ministers from the Department of Health have on the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raises and ask them to respond to him.

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

Doctors and other professionals are held to account for failures in their performance. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate to discuss how senior, highly paid council officers can be held to account for the profound damage they cause to education and other services when they leave a trail of incompetence and then just wander away?

[Mr Lansley]

I can see how people might feel strongly about particular instances of that, but this is happening in the context of a democratically elected organisation. Councils are accountable to their electors, and the officers of any council are directly accountable to the members of that council and the leadership of that council. It is really to councillors themselves and the leaders of a council that my hon. Friend should look on this matter.

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

The Leader of the House may be aware of the disappointing increase in the number of service personnel diagnosed as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. Given that we sent these service personnel into dangerous conflict areas, we must have a duty of care to look after them when they come home. May we have a debate to assess the size of the problem and what we can do to help our service personnel in their moment of need?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware and I know many Members are very much aware and concerned about issues relating to the mental health of service personnel and veterans. The Prime Minister commissioned a report from my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison)—the “Fighting Fit” report—and we have implemented every single one of its 13 recommendations. That puts us in a much stronger place to provide support, and I know that my colleagues in the Department of Health and in the Ministry of Defence will continue to respond on this issue.

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

With all secondary schools in Brentford and Isleworth being either good or outstanding, I want to commend the work that head teachers and the Secretary of State for Education have done to improve standards. A recent CBI report last month, however, said that 39% of businesses were struggling to recruit STEM workers. May we have a debate on creating a better career service in schools and on how to engage more businesses in education so that we get the right skills for the future?

[Mr Lansley]

No doubt my hon. Friend will recall a recent debate on careers services that was initiated by the Backbench Business Committee. I agree with her about the importance of this issue. I think that the promotion of traineeships by my colleagues at the Department for Education will be of particular benefit in improving the skills, for employment purposes, of people who are as yet unable to gain access to apprenticeships or college education, but we are also supporting employee engagement in skills through, for instance, the employee ownership of skills pilot. Thirty-seven companies were successful in round 1, and Government investment of up to £90 million was matched by £115 million of private investment.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

May we have a debate about the relationship between general practitioners and the Department for Work and Pensions? My constituent Fiona Howells is in a really difficult quandary. Atos has decided that she should no longer receive any benefits because, it says, she is fit for work. She is appealing against that decision, which is fair enough, but she has been told that she must provide evidence from her GP. She has been to her GP, who has told her that Bro Taf local medical committee has declared that GPs are not in a position to administer or police the benefits system, and consequently should write no letters—no letters at all—for their patients for tribunal purposes. That strikes me as very callous and unfair. It means that not only are people’s crutches being kicked away, but the carpet is being pulled from underneath them.

[Mr Lansley]

If the hon. Gentleman has not already raised the issue with the DWP, I shall be glad to secure a reply relating to those circumstances. However, the management of the processes involved in medical assessment for benefits has improved following the Harrington reviews. The Government are continuing to consider the important “fitness for work” report by Dame Carol Black and David Frost—which concerns, in particular, issues relating to GPs and helping people back into work—and hope to introduce measures as a result.

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

It has not been a bad week for the Australians when it comes to rugby league. They won the women’s, armed forces, police and student world cups in the festival of world cups, while France won the wheelchair world cup. There are exactly 100 days to go until the men’s rugby league world cup, which will be the first major sporting tournament in this country since the London 2012 Olympics. May we have a statement from the Sports Minister about Government support, and will the Prime Minister agree to adopt “Jerusalem” as the anthem for England?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us about both those rugby league world cups. I look forward to watching the men’s rugby league event in the autumn. He may wish to raise the other issues during Culture, Media and Sport questions on the Thursday of the week when we return from the recess.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Further to our exchange last week about a debate on Prime Minister’s questions, may I ask whether we could, during that debate, consider renaming them “Prime Minister’s answers”? The Prime Minister seems to think that the possessive apostrophe means that his job is to ask the Leader of the Opposition and other Members questions rather than to answer them.

[Mr Lansley]

I thought that the Prime Minister gave excellent answers to questions yesterday, but if there is a problem with Prime Minister’s questions, the hon. Gentleman might like to worry about who is on his own Front Bench rather than on ours.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

May we have a statement on the revolving door that exists between the Financial Conduct Authority and the financial sector that it is supposed to regulate? It was announced today that Julia Dunn had moved from the FCA to Nationwide, and on Monday it was announced that Christina Sinclair was moving from the FCA to Barclays. Many small businesses that were mis-sold interest rate derivative products need to be reassured about the fact that the designer of the redress scheme has moved to one of the main sellers of those products.

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course raise my hon. Friend’s concerns with my hon. Friends at the Treasury. As he will, I hope, have seen in the course of the debate on the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill, they are very exercised about these matters and are determined to ensure the highest standards of conduct in the banking and financial services sector, following up on the parliamentary commission.

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

We would be outraged if a black person was refused membership of a sports club based on their skin colour, so please may we have a debate on why it is acceptable for Muirfield to ban women from joining its club, and does not that bigoted bunker mentality make the British Open less than open and less than British?

[Mr Lansley]

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Just say yes.

[Mr Lansley]

Before I even have a chance to say anything—

[Mr Speaker]

He is incorrigible.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, Mr Speaker, the hon. Gentleman is incorrigible.

I entirely agree with the hon. Lady: I think it is entirely reprehensible. We may not be able to have a debate about it, but she has raised the issue and she is right to do so.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

May we have a debate about the procurement policies of Government agencies? Small businesses are the lifeblood of our economy, but are often excluded from tendering for public sector contracts, although there is some good practice, and I am sure the Leader of the House would wish to join me in paying tribute to Rugby borough council who last week received an award from the Federation of Small Businesses in recognition of its small-business friendly procurement policy.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, I do take this opportunity to join my hon. Friend in congratulating Rugby borough council on its award from the FSB. The point he raises is very important, and that is why we are taking forward recommendations in Lord Young’s report to simplify and standardise bidding, payment and advertising of contracts, and to reduce complexity costs and inconsistency when trying to sell to more than one local authority. That will include the abolition of unnecessary bureaucracy such as prequalification questionnaires for small tenders. We hope to ensure greater access for SMEs to all the procurement that is available across the public sector.

[Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)]

Following yesterday’s performance by the Prime Minister—and bearing in mind that when we return in September for three days of the second week we will discuss not any of the issues around lack of growth in our economy, but how our politics is done—can we have any confidence at all that he and this Government will take seriously the real concerns about the way the Conservative party is funded? My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) made it clear that the Labour party is going to deal with its issues; when are this Government going to deal with their issues around party funding?

[Mr Lansley]

I am quite interested that the hon. Gentleman says he wants to talk about issues relating to funding in September. I have just announced business relating to transparency of lobbying, non-party campaigning and trade union administration. That will be at the forefront of business here. The point he makes is that he does not want to talk about growth in the economy, and his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition did not raise issues relating to growth in the economy and employment. Why? Because we are seeing growth: we are seeing increases in employment and we are seeing unemployment coming down because we are seeing a healing economy, one that is in complete contrast to the earlier 7.2% reduction in gross domestic product, a consequence of the bust that happened under the last Government.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

Payday lenders Wonga lend £1 million a year in Blaenau Gwent borough, so may we have a debate in Government time on support for the better value credit unions, to help vulnerable families?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Backbench Business Committee has selected a general debate on high-cost credit to take place on Thursday 5 September, and I am sure that will afford him an opportunity to make his points.

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

May we have a statement regarding the changing of the goalposts in relation to Remploy employees being able to make social enterprise bids in Coventry and Birmingham? Why have they been lumped together and put out to private tender?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will recall that the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), has made two statements in relation to Remploy in recent weeks, but I will of course raise the point he mentions with her.

Bill Presented

Representation of the People Act 1981 (Amendment) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Thomas Docherty presented a Bill to amend the Representation of the People Act 1981 to amend the period of imprisonment which disqualifies a person from membership of the House of Commons; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 6 September, and to be printed (Bill 99).

Backbench Business

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

Communities and Local Government Committee Report: Private Rented Sector

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

11:14

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the publication of the First Report from the Communities and Local Government Committee, on Private rented sector, HC50.

I am delighted to present the report of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government on the Floor of the House and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for giving me this opportunity, the first for our Committee. I thank all the Committee members for their unanimous support for the report, the Committee staff, particularly Kevin Maddison, for their excellent work, and our specialist adviser, Professor Christine Whitehead.

Why did we carry out the inquiry? We had two main reasons. First, the private rented sector is growing. In 1999, fewer than 10% of households rented privately. By 2011-12, the figure was more than 17%. More households now rent privately than are in the social rented sector. Secondly, the sector is home to a growing range of people, including, increasingly, families with children. In view of that growth and the changing nature of the sector the Committee thought it was the right time to consider how the sector could better meet the needs of those who live in it.

We make the point consistently that many landlords do an excellent job and our efforts should be targeted at the rogues who let substandard accommodation, often to those in real housing need. During our inquiry, we visited Germany. We are not calling for the German system to be adopted en bloc in this country but there are lessons to learn. We saw the advantages that a mature market brings for landlords and tenants: widespread understanding of rights, good-quality housing and a broad equilibrium of supply with demand.

In England, in contrast, the rapid growth of the sector has left in its wake regulation and legislation that was introduced in response to problems from decades ago. Our report identified a number of areas in which we believe action is required. First, we call for better, simpler regulation—not more of it. More than 50 Acts of Parliament and 70 pieces of delegated legislation relate to the sector. The result is a bewildering array of regulation that few landlords or tenants have a hope of understanding. That needs to be consolidated in a much simpler, straightforward regulatory framework. We have seen what the Government have done to simplify planning regulation: why cannot they do the same thing in this case? That is an obvious question to ask the Government and the Minister for Housing, who I see in his place on the Government Front Bench.

Once a new regulatory framework is in place, we need to publicise it. The Government should work with landlords, tenants and agents groups on a campaign to promote awareness of the new framework once it is produced. We call for a standard, easy-to-understand tenancy agreement on which all agreements should be based. Included with that should be a factsheet setting out clearly the respective rights and responsibilities of the tenant and landlord. We heard far too much evidence that people simply do not understand their rights and responsibilities.

We also say that councils should have the freedom they need to enforce standards and the law. First, they need more flexibility over the introduction of licensing schemes. We heard evidence that these are over-bureaucratic and restrictive in the way they can be used. Secondly, councils should have the power to require landlords to be part of an accreditation scheme. We saw an excellent scheme in operation in Leeds, but the landlords who were part of the scheme and tenants drew attention to the fact that those landlords who caused problems were generally not a member of the scheme. Such schemes should as far as possible be self-funding, with extra charges for those who do not comply. We must ensure that the overall burden of costs shifts to unscrupulous landlords and we call for a review of the level of fines and consideration of the use of penalty charges as ways to improve standards and act against bad practice.

In addition, we were concerned about public money, through the housing benefit system, being used effectively to subsidise landlords who do not meet legal requirements. We therefore propose that local authorities should be able to recoup housing benefit when landlords have been convicted of letting substandard property. To ensure we have a balance and that we are consistent, tenants should also have the right to reclaim rent paid in similar circumstances from their own resources.

A real concern—we probably had as much evidence about this as about anything else in our inquiry—was the need to crack down on sharp practice by some letting agents.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Betts]

Of course, and I welcome a fellow Committee member.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does the Chairman of the Select Committee agree that one of the most compelling pieces of evidence that we received on that issue came not in a formal evidence session but when we met tenants? A person told us that if he and a colleague were to visit an estate agent’s office where people were selling houses on one side of the room and letting properties on the other, one set of agents would be regulated and the other set would not, despite the fact that both parties going into the agency were looking to do the same thing: find their own home.

[Mr Betts]

Absolutely, and the hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. In the report, we welcome the Government’s commitment to a redress scheme, and we hope that our report helps to shape it, but we felt that we could go a little further. On the exact point that he makes, it is quite surprising to people who look at the issue afresh that letting agents are subject to less regulation than estate agents. We believe that they could be put on exactly the same basis. A key point is that the Office of Fair Trading has powers to ban estate agents who behave badly; the same power should be introduced for letting agents.

We also looked at the fees charged by letting agents and found that many of them were unreasonable and unclear. The first step has to be transparency. Wherever a property is advertised to let—in a window, on a website or in a newspaper—it should be accompanied by a full breakdown of the fees that a tenant is likely to have to pay. No more hooking the tenant with a property that they like, and then, once they are interested and are looking to sign the tenancy agreement, letting the hidden fees come out, little by little—drip, drip. We are talking about costs that the tenant never anticipated, and that can run into the hundreds of pounds. Also, there should certainly be no more charging the landlord and the tenant for the same service; that is completely and utterly unacceptable, and should be banned.

An important step in bringing the market to maturity and aligning supply with demand would be to meet the clear need for longer tenancies. The common industry standard is six months. That might be suitable for many mobile, younger people; it is certainly not adequate for the many families in the sector who want a secure home. One renter who came to give evidence to us told us that their 10-year-old daughter had already moved house seven times in her life. That is simply not acceptable. If families move home, it means moving school, and we need to tackle that sort of insecurity.

We need to look at and remove the barriers, real and perceived, to longer tenancies. Limitations in mortgage conditions need to be lifted. We were encouraged by the news that Nationwide building society has begun to allow longer tenancies; we welcome that. We have to ensure that letting agents work with landlords and tenants to make sure that they are aware of the different options for tenancy length. Too many letting agents seem to be hooked on getting repeat fees for short lets. They are almost like the football agent who benefits from constant transfers, rather than players staying at a club for a long period. In return for offering longer tenancies, landlords should be able to evict tenants who simply refuse to pay a lot more speedily.

We looked at safety standards. Safety is absolutely paramount. Landlords who let out death traps must face the consequences. The gas safety regime has gone a long way to making homes safer, but electrical safety is still a blind spot. The Government should develop an electrical safety certificate for private rented properties. It would confirm that wiring had been checked and was in good order, and we think that the check should take place at least every five years. We also call for a requirement that all private rented properties be fitted with a working smoke alarm and a carbon monoxide detector with an audible alarm.

Placing homeless households was another issue to which we gave consideration. Councils can now discharge their duty to homeless households by placing them in the private rented sector without their consent. When councils do this, they must ensure that the accommodation is suitable. As a matter of good practice, they should inspect properties before using them to house homeless families. We are aware that some councils are placing homeless households away from their local area. Where this is necessary, there should be a statutory duty of full discussion, including sharing appropriate information with the receiving authority and, of course, with the prospective tenant.

The Government need to look at how the housing benefit bill is spent in the private rented sector. There are obvious concerns in all parts of the House about the rising bill. We heard from Blackpool about how the market has failed there because housing benefit levels are set artificially high, as the calculation of local housing allowance, which determines benefit levels, includes surrounding rural areas where rents are higher. We heard wider concerns about the interaction between housing benefit and rents. Housing benefits can drive rents up across an area, which in turn leads to upward pressure on local housing allowances, creating a vicious circle and increasing costs for the taxpayer, who picks up the bill. We recommend that the Government conduct a wide-ranging review of the local housing allowance.

We looked at the issue of tax evasion. Very often the tax authorities and councils operate in different worlds. We called for greater co-ordination between councils and the tax authorities, which could go a long way to cracking down on tax evasion, both capital gains tax and income tax. It would be especially effective in areas where a licensing or accreditation scheme was in place and details about the landlords were known. We call on the Government to promote a more joined-up approach to tackling tax evasion, which would benefit us all.

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

I warmly congratulate both the Chair of the Select Committee and the all-party Select Committee on this very important report which, while recognising the very important role that the private rented sector has to play in meeting housing need, calls for it to change, introducing greater security, more predictable and affordable rents, and higher quality and effective regulation of the letting agents. Do the Chair and the Select Committee share my hope that the Government will respond quickly and constructively to the Select Committee’s recommendations?

[Mr Betts]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s welcome for the report. He is right to make it clear that all members of the Committee signed up to the report, based on the evidence we heard. We very much hope that the Government are not only listening, but will respond positively.

[The Minister for Housing (Mr Mark Prisk)]

I tried not to intervene earlier, but I want to make it clear that we welcome much of the evidence and ideas in the report. As the Chairman of the Select Committee knows, we are making major progress in terms of investment and righting the wrong arising from the absence of any redress scheme, which was the case before. We have now corrected that. I look forward to having a conversation with the Chair and other Committee members to see how we can push matters further forward.

[Mr Betts]

Agreement is breaking out on the Front Benches as well as in the Committee. We welcome that as well.

[Mark Pawsey]

Does the Chair of the Select Committee agree that it was pleasing that we did not receive any evidence at all from anybody calling for any form of rent regulation or rent control? We recognise that there are problems with some landlords and that people would like to see lower rents, but at no time was a convincing case put to us in respect of rent control.

[Mr Betts]

The hon. Member is right. We concluded that rent control was not feasible. We were concerned that it could drive some good landlords out of the sector and deter new investment. We certainly agree with the Government that we need to get more investment in the sector. Where we looked at rents, it was in the context of housing benefit and landlords not getting away with receiving rent for substandard properties which they were prosecuted for.

Renting can be an attractive alternative to owner occupation, but we need a mature market that meets many more renters’ needs. We need to drive bad landlords out of the sector altogether and to bring all property up to an acceptable standard. The Committee believes that the measures set out in our report will help to achieve this vision. We look forward to the Government’s response and hope that they will respond positively to our recommendations.

Question put and agreed to.

Political and Constitutional Reform Committee: Wright Reforms

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

11:29

[Mr Graham Allen (Nottingham North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the publication of the Third Report from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, on Revisiting ‘Rebuilding the House’: the impact of the Wright reforms, HC 82.

I am delighted to see you, Mr Speaker, in the Chair for this debate, which has some historical resonance. In 1642, our legislative predecessors fought a bloody civil war to control Executive power. They would be aghast at how their hard-won victory had been eroded and overturned and at how the Government are still not directly elected yet control a legitimately elected Parliament, right down to the minutiae of its daily agenda. They would be surprised at the mindset of many individual Members of Parliament, many of whom remain blissfully unaware of the difference between being in an independent Parliament rather than an Executive sausage machine.

The third report of the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee does not propose a new civil war, or even a proper separation of powers, but we do reserve the right to heckle the Executive steamroller.

I report to the House that we have examined the work of the Wright Committee, named after its Chair, our distinguished former colleague, Dr Tony Wright. I declare an interest, as a member of that Committee. Wright urged major change, calling on the House to give Back Benchers more say in setting the House’s agenda. Wright recommended the establishment of two new Committees: the Backbench Business Committee and a House Business Committee, which would itself have Back-Bench representation. Wright also proposed the introduction of elections for Chairs and for members of Select Committees, and called for various improvements to the petitions system.

The Wright Committee’s proposals were initially blocked by the then Labour Government—the heirs to Tom Paine and the Fabians had long since given themselves up to Sir Humphrey. But then a new Government—yet to be reprogrammed, and with a radical Leader of the House—acted swiftly to implement some of the key proposals.

It is important briefly to recap on some of those proposals, as many new Members may take as obvious what in fact took years to achieve. They will need to work hard to retain these minor improvements and to have a sense of what their generation needs to build for those parliamentarians who come after them.

The election of Select Committees by Members of Parliament in a secret ballot, rather than their being appointed, was one of the biggest steps forward. The second achievement was the election of Select Committee Chairs by MPs in a secret ballot of the whole House, meaning that they now speak for Parliament and their colleagues, not for the Government or the alternative Government. Our report welcomes the consequent advances in the effectiveness and quality of Commons Select Committees, which is broadly recognised by those who gave evidence to us in our proceedings. Yet the report says that some issues remain and must be addressed if the momentum towards an even more effective set of Select Committees is to be maintained.

It is unacceptable that Government Bills are scrutinised by Committees appointed by Government appointees not elected or even approved on the Order Paper of the House. As a minimum, the House should be asked to endorse—and, where it so wishes, amend—those who are proposed for membership of Government Bill Committees. The legislative scrutiny process in Bill Committees is so unchallenging and so irredeemable that some of us actually helped to invent pre-legislative scrutiny to try to bring some order and some sense to it. Our report underlines that pre-legislative scrutiny must in future be standard practice—an integral and mandatory part of the process of consideration for every Government Bill.

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

Does the Committee endorse the use of the Select Committee system for pre-legislative scrutiny, which Labour believes to be incredibly important in ensuring that legislation is rigorous and fit for purpose?

[Mr Allen]

Proper pre-legislative scrutiny can be undertaken in many ways, including by Select Committees, elected Committees, or a properly elected Bill Committee. It is not beyond the wit of Members of this House to come up with a system that is far better than having colleagues sitting and reading their newspapers, being told what to do and not to intervene. It is our role to intervene during the progress of legislation in order to make it better, and we should not be told by the Government that that is inappropriate behaviour for Members of Parliament.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one way not to do pre-legislative scrutiny is for the Government to publish a Bill one day before we rise for the summer recess, and then in the first week back to have Second Reading followed by Committee stage on the Floor of the House on three successive days, without any chance for Members to scrutinise the Bill?

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Gentleman—indeed, my hon. Friend from the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee—makes a valuable point, and I suspect he alludes to the lobbying Bill that is being produced with great haste, although no response has been sent to the Committee about the work it did over a year ago in examining that Bill and helping to make it better. Now we are being told that there is no time for pre-legislative scrutiny. We are trying to squeeze it in this afternoon, when we have been told that Members can go home—“It’s a one-line Whip, you can all clear off”—and we are trying, desperately, to get proper parliamentary scrutiny of a Bill that has changed considerably, and answers have not been given to the sensible proposals for improvement made by the Committee. We are then meant to come back after the break and dive straight into Second Reading and consideration of that Bill. It is apposite that at this moment we have a good example of how not to pass legislation, and to produce, in effect, a dangerous MPs Bill, as opposed to a dangerous dogs Bill.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I will give way to a fellow Select Committee Chair.

[Mr Jenkin]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his report and his statement to the House. Will he say a bit more about the selection of Standing Committees? Was not one of the most damning incidents of this Parliament when a newly elected GP was unable to serve on the Standing Committee scrutinising the Health and Social Care Bill? Does he have any remedy for that?

[Mr Allen]

Had Members of Parliament been allowed to elect the members of a Public Bill Committee, as they should be called, I find it difficult to imagine that colleagues across the House would not have recognised the great talent that was wasted by a process intended to give the Government—in this case the coalition Government, but it happens in every Government—an easy ride as the Bill went through Committee. That is not the way to improve legislation or ensure we do not come back in a year to amend law that was made in haste and without proper expert advice of the sort the hon. Gentleman mentions.

I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) is in her place because I want to say something about the Backbench Business Committee, which is a substantial achievement of the Wright reforms. It demonstrated, as Wright and members of that committee intended, that Parliament is perfectly capable of maturely and competently running part of its own agenda. Once the children have been given a little responsibility, we can see how good they can be. Perhaps we now need to go further and build on the serious and considered approach that my hon. Friend has been instrumental in achieving—she may want to comment on that.

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

I was saving my comments for when we discuss e-petitions, but one recommendation in the excellent report published today by the Political and Constitutional Reform Committee, and something that the Backbench Business Committee has really felt the lack of, concerns the presence of members from minority parties. How does my hon. Friend think that recommendation should be brought forward so that we can have full membership from the minority parties on the Backbench Business Committee?

[Mr Allen]

I will gladly give way again to my hon. Friend, who I know wants to make a point about e-petitions. She raises a serious point about the representation of minority parties, which is in a sense an unwitting casualty of the way we decided to elect members to Select Committees. That should be put right, and, to do that, the report makes certain recommendations. One possibility would be a reserve place that the Speaker could nominate to remedy any obvious injustice, but there are many other possibilities. If MPs were allowed to get on with it, we could deal with it ourselves, without the Government, whom after all we are meant to scrutinise, telling us how to do it. Parliament is perfectly capable of resolving the issues she raises.

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

I welcome the report’s publication and thank the hon. Gentleman for pursuing these matters so assiduously. Wright urged major change, much of which we have delivered; indeed, the hon. Gentleman has already referred to things such as the Backbench Business Committee, pre-legislative scrutiny and more time on Report. I suspect that the unfinished business that he is about to come on to is the House Business Committee, and I can assure him that there is not a closed door on that. We have put forward certain tests, however, that I hope he will respond to positively before pursuing the matter further.

[Mr Allen]

We are always grateful for any crumbs handed to us from the Executive and we are extremely grateful for those things gifted to us, even if—I must say—they have come after extensive struggle, campaigning and organising over many years. I am grateful that some of these minor things have been proposed, but we need to do far more for ourselves, without the benefit of the assistance of the Government. The work of my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire on the Backbench Business Committee proves, if it need be proved, that we are perfectly capable of running more of our own affairs.

I will come on to the House Business Committee shortly, but I am genuinely grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House of Commons for saying that the door is open. We will continue to press and push gently at the door and provide him with a road map that will not frighten the horses but will give MPs some say over the rest of their agenda.

There remain areas where we could help the Backbench Business Committee even more. Timetabling Back-Bench business on Thursdays, as often happens, lowers its status. Much, if not all, of that business could, and should, be taken at a time when the House is better attended. When the Front Benchers have had their spotlight, they have little interest in keeping Parliament well attended. We got a pager message yesterday telling us we were on a one-line Whip, which basically meant, “You can clear off, if you want to”, rather than listen to a Select Chair introduce an important report on local government and to other important issues that do not get the attention they should.

In this respect, despite Wright, the House remains subordinate to the Government. In that, we do not acquiesce; the fundamental principle remains that all time in here should be regarded as the House’s time. We believe that the present procedure for setting the agenda for most of the House’s business, which is not under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, is inadequate and disrespectful to Parliament, remaining in clear violation of the principles in the Wright report. The need for reform is obvious and urgent, so we remake—not make for the first time—the case for a House Business Committee, which has been accepted and signed up to by the Government. I shall quote the coalition agreement.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Allen]

I will be glad to, if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to read out this quotation about the solid commitment to a House Business Committee that his coalition Government have signed up to. It reads:

“We will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of backbench business. A House Business Committee, to consider government business, will be established by the third year of the Parliament.”

That is a direct quote from the coalition agreement between the two governing parties, but it has not yet been fulfilled.

[John Hemming]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work. Does he agree that one of the difficulties at the moment is that procedure is often used to prevent the will of the Executive from being tested against the will of the whole House, and that we need the opportunity for the latter to be tested, not prevented from being expressed by the use of procedural mechanisms?

[Mr Allen]

Most western democracies have a separation of powers, which allows an independent legislature to hold the Government to account. That is all we ask. Gladstone once said that the role of Parliament is not to run the country, but to hold to account those who do. It is an absolute injustice, and it flies in the face of natural justice, that those who are meant to be scrutinised are appointing and selecting those who are meant to carry out the scrutiny. Parliamentarians across the House must continue to try to do something about that.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am struck by the evidence that the hon. Gentleman cites in paragraph 76 of his report from Dr Meg Russell, who said:

“A House Business Committee already exists inside Government. It meets weekly. I used to attend its meetings when I was a special adviser to the Leader of the House.”

Why cannot this Committee be answerable to this House instead of just being a creature of the Executive?

[Mr Allen]

We are always trying to help the Executive—it is like the shrunken mouse trying to help the highly strung 800 lb gorilla to see the way forward. None the less, we will try to be as helpful as possible. My Select Committee has proposed a number of ways forward to the goal that was signed up to by the coalition parties, and they are outlined in our report. We show an immediate way forward. The Deputy Leader of the House said that we need to meet a number of tests to have a House Business Committee, but I am amazed at that, given the solid promise made to the electorate. It is another little obstacle, but I believe we have helped ourselves overcome that. If he reads the report, which is out today, he will find a menu of possibilities that will help him to fulfil that solemn promise, which his party and the other party in the coalition made to the electorate.

The Government should always get their business in this House, and we have never said anything other than that. However, the House Business Committee could be used for consultation rather than decision; that is one of the options. As our report outlined carefully, the opportunity is there for the Government even to have the nuclear weapon of voting down any business that they felt had somehow crept through all these safeguards and got to the Floor of the House—they would still have that nuclear weapon of saying no. It would never be used, but we included it as a final reassurance.

My Committee believes that colleagues from all parts of this House should take confidence from the progress of the Backbench Business Committee and use that as a base from which to build an ever-stronger and more independent House of Commons and Parliament.

[Jane Ellison (Battersea) (Con)]

rose—

[Natascha Engel]

rose—

[Mr Allen]

I will touch briefly—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the Backbench Business Committee recommended up to 15 minutes for this debate and we have other business to get through? I know that he is covering important topics of interest to Members of the House, but I ask him to bear it in mind that we have a very busy afternoon, with other Back Benchers waiting to speak.

[Mr Allen]

Indeed, I shall conclude my remarks quickly, Madam Deputy Speaker, to allow the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison) and my hon. Friend the Member for North East Derbyshire to intervene.

[Jane Ellison]

I look forward to reading the report in full with great interest. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his idea about consulting the House Business Committee might allow timetabling to be done much further in advance for Back-Bench debates for which Members need to prepare more thoroughly? One good example of that was the assisted dying debate, for which Members were given almost a month’s notice and, as a result, we had a well attended and well informed debate.

[Mr Allen]

The hon. Lady makes a strong point that I agree with wholeheartedly. We will all be better able to plan our week ahead, our month ahead and our long-term calendar, if people listen to representations such as the one she makes.

Finally, on petitions, we must separate Government petitions from Parliament petitions. It is no good the Government having a website and then fobbing stuff off on to Parliament, implying that if people can get 100,000 signatures, they are pretty much entitled to a debate. It is not the role of the Government to do that. These things should be distinct; there should be a clear separation of petitions to Government to get stuff done by the Executive and our own petitions process in this House—electronic, too—which would allow Parliament to be lobbied and allow debates to be requested, with no further implication and no lack of clarity about the fact that 100,000 signatures may or may not entitle someone to a debate. The current position is wrong, false and deceiving, and it adds to the cynicism out there.

A lot of progress has been made, but there is a lot of unfinished business. I urge Members to be vigilant, for what we have won can be taken away. We must work together across the House to ensure that the inroads made by the Wright Committee lead ultimately to an effective and independent Parliament so that both Parliament and the Executive become fit for purpose.

Question put and agreed to.

EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

11:50

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the economic implications for the UK of an EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement.

I was glad to secure this debate, with the support of the hon. Members for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) and for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), and I am glad to open it within a week of formal negotiations starting in Washington on a comprehensive trade deal between the European Union and the US or, as we have been led to refer to it, a transatlantic trade and investment partnership. It is fitting that the debate should be taking place in Back-Bench business time, because I think that underlines the strong cross-party support for a full and fair trade deal, so long as it is clear that there will be benefits to British consumers and workers as well as British businesses.

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

I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman for his work in setting up the all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment and ensuring that this activity has been cross-party. The Prime Minister played a major role in making the agreement a major part of EU-US negotiations, but the right hon. Gentleman really put the cross-party approach front and centre.

[John Healey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is right that the UK has for some time been one of the prime movers in the argument for a comprehensive transatlantic trade deal, which is a point I will return to later.

The fact that this debate has been initiated by Back Benchers from both sides of the House does not absolve the Government from the responsibility to ensure that the public are properly informed about the negotiations and the potential for this deal, or that the House has a regular opportunity to debate progress and scrutinise the actions the Government are taking to secure a successful agreement. That cross-party, and indeed all-party, support and interest was evident two months ago when, as the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) mentioned, we set up the all-party group, which I am fortunate enough to chair. We are working closely with the well-established and well-regarded British-American Parliamentary Group, of which Mr Speaker is the distinguished chair. We have set up working relations with the TUC, the CBI and Which?, and we have now been offered welcome administrative and policy support from BritishAmerican Business, which of course is the joint US-UK chamber of commerce.

The aims of the all-party group are: first, to provide a focus for UK parliamentary cross-party support for a comprehensive trade and investment agreement; secondly, to contribute to better public understanding of the potential benefits that such a deal could bring to consumers, workers and businesses across Britain; and thirdly, to strengthen the scrutiny that Parliament can exercise over Government actions towards securing such a successful agreement.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

The right hon. Gentleman may know that the European Scrutiny Committee is looking at the whole question of the scrutiny of this agreement and, indeed, other free trade agreements. One of the problems is that the negotiating mandate is not available to Parliament on the conventional basis until the conclusion of the agreement. We are pursuing that matter with the Prime Minister, and I have just received a letter from him about it. I shall refer to that in my speech.

[John Healey]

I am grateful for and interested by that intervention. I will come to the general questions of the relationship between the UK Parliament and the UK Government and the requirement for a better and more formal system of scrutiny of decisions and involvement in the European Union. I will be interested to hear the hon. Gentleman’s remarks when he contributes to the debate.

Finally on the all-party group, we see this as active but time limited to the period of negotiations towards what we hope is a successful conclusion of the deal. Personally, I hope that Presidents Obama, Van Rompuy and Barroso are right when they declare that they want this deal done within two years.

[Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the Ifo Institute that the UK has the most to gain from a transatlantic free trade agreement, but the problem is that we are likely to be hampered by the foot-dragging and protectionism of other EU member states? Given that non-EU member states in Europe already have free trade agreements with the United States, it remains an option for us to leave the EU and enjoy our own free trade agreement with the United States. Can he think of one reason why we do not have a free trade agreement with the United States like that of Switzerland? Is it because we are in the EU?

[John Healey]

If the hon. Gentleman looks, for instance, at the Bertelsmann Institute’s report, he will see some interesting evidence on the assessment of the potential impact of a comprehensive deal. It points out that the countries that are in Europe but not part of the European Union are likely to lose out the most. Britain could gain tens or even hundreds of thousands of new jobs in the long term through an agreement. In contrast, countries such as Iceland are set to lose at least 1,000 jobs, while Norway is set to lose about 11,000 jobs. In other words, the countries in Europe that are not party to the agreement are likely to lose out in future. The evidence is rather different from that which the hon. Gentleman cites.

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[John Healey]

I will, and then I will make some progress, because I am conscious that the Deputy Speaker might want me not to delay the House for too long.

[Mike Gapes]

I must declare that I went to Korea last month, and my entry will be in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of the EU-Korea free trade agreement there has been a significant increase in British trade with and exports to South Korea in the past year? We will therefore clearly benefit from being part of the European Union negotiation with the United States.

[John Healey]

My hon. Friend has a great deal of expertise and experience in this area, and he makes a strong case. I think that there is a cross-party view, irrespective of views on the British place within Europe, behind the value of well-negotiated and fair trade deals. The example of the Korean deal demonstrates that a deal negotiated through the European Union has particular benefits to Britain.

This debate is welcome though somewhat overdue. About three months, ago I contacted the House of Commons Library to ask for a briefing on the EU trade and investment deal. I said to the researcher, “I’m sure you’ve got something on the stocks; perhaps you could just update the standard briefing that you’ve got.” The response was, “We don’t have one. No one’s asked about this before.” The Library subsequently produced a very good briefing, as well as a very good briefing for hon. Members for this debate. That briefing, combined with the research that the Centre for Economic Policy Research has produced for the European Commission and the impact assessment produced by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, underlines just how important and ground-breaking this deal could be. Simply put, these are the biggest, most ambitious, best prepared bilateral trade negotiations ever. This would be the first ever such deal between economic equals. In other words, the partners have no significant imbalances in power or wealth.

Why do I say that these are the biggest negotiations? Together, the European Union and the US account for about 30% of global trade and almost half the world’s output. The more reliable of the studies and assessments suggest that if the deal is done, it could bring a boost to the UK’s national income of between £4 billion and £10 billion, and a boost to our exports of between 1% and 3% a year.

Why are they the most ambitious negotiations? The transatlantic trade and investment partnership aims not just to remove the remaining tariff barriers to trade between the EU and the US, but to reduce the non-tariff barriers by aligning the regulations, rules and standards to which we operate. It also aims to open the markets in services and public procurement.

Finally, why are they the best prepared negotiations? Really serious work has been going on for almost two years since the high-level working group on jobs and growth was set up between the EU and the US in November 2011.

It is important to remember that this is potentially a deal on trade and investment. Although the two-way trade between the EU and the US is worth about $1 trillion a year, the two-way investment flow is worth about $3.5 trillion each year. Of course, trade and investment have both been sole competences of the EU since the 2009 Lisbon treaty.

[Mr Jenkin]

I am interested in that aspect of the agreement. Historically, the UK has been able to access foreign direct investment free of EU interference. If such investment becomes subject to an international agreement, it will effectively become an exclusive EU competence. The other member states have been very jealous that we get so much foreign direct investment. How can the right hon. Gentleman be so sure that the deal will not be used to hamper flows of foreign direct investment into our country, because that would affect us far more than our fellow member states?

[John Healey]

Investment is already an EU competence. The deal is not about controlling the flow of investment, but about creating the conditions in which greater investment can flow across the European Union, including to Britain. All the impact assessments, including the one that the hon. Gentleman cited earlier, suggest that that would happen if we secured a comprehensive agreement.

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the UK economy would benefit from an opening up of the US economy, and that the Government should seek to gain access to that marketplace for our small and medium-sized enterprises to provide a stimulus to the UK economy?

[John Healey]

I suspect that in my hon. Friend’s area, as in mine, many of the important and good small and medium-sized companies depend on trade and export for their success. The agreement certainly has the potential that he mentions, but realising it requires the Government to ensure that it does benefit small and medium-sized firms.

One or two of my friends have said to me recently, “Look, you are a Labour politician on the centre left. Why on earth are you supporting a deal that looks set to reinforce the cause of global capitalism?” I have three answers to that. The first, quite simply, is jobs. The success of many good south Yorkshire firms depends on increasing opportunities for export and trade. This deal could bring that boost to jobs and the economy in south Yorkshire, as well as the whole of Britain.

Secondly—this may break the sense of cross-party unity—I see the deal as a way of regulating global capitalism. It is indisputable that the EU and the US have some of the highest standards of consumer safeguards, environmental protection, employment rights, legal process, trade rules and regulations. Together, as the two biggest economies, we have the opportunity to set standards and regulations that could become the benchmark, or gold standard, of any bilateral and multilateral deals.

[Julian Smith]

Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he is not talking about formal regulation? There is a huge opportunity for mutual recognition of standards, but we are not looking for Marxist-style overarching regulation of the world.

[John Healey]

The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) mentioned the negotiating mandate that has not been formally published, but has, in an unorthodox way, been made available. That certainly does not talk about a Marxist global system. However, given the size of the economies and the potential scale of the agreement, setting mutual recognition standards on workers’ rights, environmental protection, consumer safeguards, trade rules and legal process can set the standard we expect, and lead other parts of the world on, in future deals.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend not agree that that last exchange was enormously revealing? There is a tendency in part of the Conservative party to follow the Tea party Republicans: the sort of 19th century Republicans that let the robber barons run loose. They even step back from that great Republican President Teddy Roosevelt, who took pride in being a trust buster. They are the party of the robber barons. They are the party that supports the tax evaders. They do not want to regulate at all.

[John Healey]

My right hon. Friend makes a strong and vivid point. It will be interesting to see the degree of unified purpose and support on the Opposition Benches, and the divergent, not to say conflicting, views on the Government Benches.

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I intervene not necessarily to score a political point, but to make the point that between the World Trade Organisation, the International Labour Organisation and UN conventions, the EU and the US are already signed up—and are trying to sign up other countries, such as China—to raising important standards. Is that not what we want the treaty to advance?

[John Healey]

Indeed. In this post-global financial crisis period, and the global downturn in trade that followed, there is a crisis in citizen and consumer confidence in business. Reasserting that confidence will require standards and agreements that people believe will benefit them, their families and their areas, and are not just deals done by politicians and big business in the backrooms of Brussels.

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

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[John Healey]

The hon. Gentleman is the only Liberal Democrat in the Chamber, so I am delighted to give way.

[John Hemming]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way and congratulate him on his all-party work, which he is very good at. I agree that the views on the Government Benches are not united. I have a lot of sympathy with the idea of maintaining minimum standards.

[John Healey]

I am grateful for that continuing cross-party support at least. [Interruption.] The Minister is chuckling away; I look forward to hearing what he has to say a little later.

I have a third answer to my friends who ask why I am backing the deal, and it is this. I am pro-European and pro-internationalist, and I think this potential agreement underlines more clearly than anything the benefits for Britain of being part of the European Union. Those benefits would be simply unavailable if Britain left the European Union and tried to go it alone.

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

rose—

[John Healey]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman; then I would like to quote President Obama to him.

[Neil Parish]

Does the right hon. Gentleman not see that there is sometimes a conflict between international trade and the situation in Europe? My experience is that sometimes the way in which Europe organises trade is far too prescriptive and can be a barrier to greater international trade, rather than progressing it.

[John Healey]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Before the right hon. Gentleman quotes President Obama, I would gently remind him that he has been speaking for 20 minutes and I will have to set a time limit on Back-Bench contributions in this debate, so I would be grateful if he began to bring his comments to a conclusion.

[John Healey]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker; I will indeed. I think I have spoken for probably not quite 15 minutes, given the interventions I have taken, but I am conscious of what you have said.

When President Obama was with our Prime Minister in Washington in mid-May, he put it very delicately:

“I think the UK’s participation in the EU is an expression of its influence and its role in the world, as well as, obviously, a very important economic partnership.”

However, his officials were much blunter. They made it clear that there would be little appetite in Washington and no deal for Britain if it left the European Union. I have already said to the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) that some of the research suggests that European countries that are not part of the European Union would lose out most in the event of such an agreement.

However, this agreement must be well regulated and command public confidence. It will not and cannot be a deal done in the diplomatic backrooms, because Congress and, now, the European Parliament must approve the terms of any agreement. The European Parliament has already shown its mettle in rejecting the anti-counterfeiting trade agreement that was recently negotiated, including with Japan, Australia, Canada and the US. Unanimity, and not just a qualified majority, may well be needed in the Council of Ministers to approve some parts of any future agreement in, say trade in services, intellectual property, foreign direct investment and anything to do with social, education or health services. There is also a case for expecting any agreement to involve mixed competences. In other words, there could be a contestable case that member states, rather than the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers, will have to ratify any elements of such an agreement dealing with, for instance, intellectual property, transport or investor-state dispute mechanisms.

Let me begin to wind up. There are four things that the Government could do to help to secure a successful, well negotiated agreement that commands wide support. First, they should swallow hard, accept that we are in the hands of the European Union and throw their weight behind the Commission’s negotiators. That means—I say this to the Minister—no public criticism, no freelance discussions with the US and no distancing ourselves from the deal while it is being negotiated.

Secondly, the Government should map and publish the jobs linked to foreign direct investment and exports in every area of Britain. The US does that on a state-by-state basis for every member of Congress and every Senator. Even the British embassy in Washington, together with the CBI, has produced a state-by-state analysis of the jobs there that are linked to exports to the UK. Surely we can do that for ourselves in Britain as well.

Thirdly, the Government should deal with the fears that will arise during negotiations that could derail public or parliamentary support for the agreement. These include concerns about the NHS being opened up to big US health care companies and concerns about employment, consumer or environmental standards being weakened. There might also be concerns about the investor-state dispute system—even though the EU and the US have long established traditions and well proven systems of due process, the rule of law and respect for property rights—particularly when an ISDS is being abused in the way that Veolia, the French company, is abusing the system in trying to sue the Egyptian Government for raising the national minimum wage.

Fourthly, the Government should make the process open and transparent to the public and Parliament. In the US and the European Parliament, the negotiators are holding briefing sessions—in the Parliament and with the Parliament—before and after each set of negotiations. They are also doing that with wider interest groups and making public some of the position papers as they go into the negotiations. I would like much more formal reporting and accountability of the UK Government to Parliament on EU matters. Other countries, such as Germany, Portugal and Denmark, have formal legal agreements with their Governments and Parliaments covering negotiation mandates, the provision of documents, and notification and reporting arrangements. It would help to build wider confidence in, and strong democratic influence on, our involvement in the European Union if we followed that sort of model. We can start on this European trade and investment agreement.

Today we are at the start of the negotiations on what could be a groundbreaking US-EU trade deal. We are at the start of the debates that this House will have and the scrutiny that we must offer of the Government’s contribution to those debates. This is the first such debate but—I hope and expect—certainly not the last.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Given the number of Members who wish to participate, the time limit will be seven minutes, but it might be necessary to review that as we progress through the debate.

12:17

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

It is quite a big ask to do it in seven minutes, Madam Deputy Speaker, although I will not attempt to go through all the issues for that reason. I am extremely aware of the time constraints, so I will try to concentrate on the main issues and set out some headline points that are worth bearing in mind.

Curiously enough, I approach this issue in line with the EU constitution, by applying the precautionary principle. I would not want to be over-enthusiastic about something until I knew what the terms were. There has been a great deal of hype about this issue and some exaggerated views expressed. I would be cautious, for a variety of reasons, about making any assumptions that such an agreement will ever happen, given the Doha round and all that happened there. Nor would I wish to become over-excited about it necessarily bringing the benefits that have been described, because nobody knows.

Part of the reason for that is that the negotiating mandate is not available, as I said in an intervention. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I have correspondence with the Prime Minister and the Minister for Trade, Lord Green. At the moment, the whole thing is under discussion. Let me quote from a letter I received on 10 July from the Prime Minister, in which he said:

“Both the EU and the US are aiming for the maximum level of ambition”—

I am always keen on ambition, as long as it does not vaunt itself—

“in these trade negotiations.”

The letter continues:

“This means that all sectors are within scope, except, as I mentioned, the audiovisual sector”—

that was in reply to a point I made the other day in response to a European summit statement—

“although there is the option to include the sector at a later stage in the negotiations.”

The letter continues:

“The areas normally covered in a trade agreement with a developed nation will be included. This ranges from trade in goods, services, public procurement, to regulatory issues and rules in intellectual property rights, sustainable development and customs. Some of the issues covered are areas of Member State competence or shared competence; the EU’s negotiating mandate was therefore agreed by consensus.”

Whenever I hear the word “consensus” in the context of EU administrative arrangements, I get slightly concerned, to say the least, because it means that a deal has been done behind closed doors. We know that the negotiating mandate is being discussed behind closed doors, and we need to know who is going to benefit most from these arrangements, and in which sectors.

We have only 12% of the votes in the qualified majority voting arrangements. This is an exclusive competence of the Commission, which drives the entire operation. It has no particular interest in what goes on in the United Kingdom, and I am entirely dubious about the claims that this agreement would generate £10 billion-worth of advantage to the UK. I do not know whether it will, and I do not think that the people who are saying that know. As Chairman of the European Scrutiny Committee, I would like to insist—so far as I can—that we be given all the necessary information.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the 12 or 13-person team from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills and the Foreign Office that focuses on trade should try to achieve some of the things that he is looking for when influencing the UK’s position in this deal?

[Mr Cash]

I am sure that they will do their best, but whether they will do well enough has yet to be established. If we do not know what is going on during the negotiations —and if we do not even know what the mandate is—I must express my concern on that count alone.

I shall continue to quote from the Prime Minister’s letter:

“As David Lidington told your Committee when he appeared before it on 4 July, while the confidential nature of such negotiations means that formally depositing documents is not possible”—

which I have to say concerns me greatly—

“Ministers will keep the Committee abreast of significant developments in writing and we are happy to offer the Committee informal, private briefings on the progress of negotiations.”

We will be monitoring all this. I see that the Chairman of the Business, Innovations and Skills Select Committee, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), is in the Chamber, and I would be happy to exchange ideas and thoughts with him on this. He was a member of the European Scrutiny Committee with me for many years.

[Mr Jenkin]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the challenge will be to reconcile the differing objectives of the member states? That will be extremely difficult because, as a major European economy, we uniquely depend on imports, and we export more to the rest of the world than all the other member states except Germany. At the same time, we are dependent on trade with the EU. We have a unique set of circumstances and a unique economy, and it is going to be extraordinarily difficult to reconcile our requirements with those of the other, very different economies of the EU in one single agreement.

[Mr Cash]

I very much concur with that.

A number of extremely learned articles have been written about this matter, and they show that many European countries stand to be gravely disadvantaged by the deal. I cannot claim that we would be exclusively enhanced by it, but many of the Parliaments and trade associations of many other countries will also be watching these developments. Several countries will be given quite a jolt. An article entitled “Transatlantic free trade: boon or bane for economic cohesion in the EU” states:

“in a broad free trade agreement, trade activities between Great Britain and Sweden as well as between Great Britain and Spain are expected to drop by about 45%. Likewise, Sweden’s imports and exports with Spain and Finland will decline by 40%, and Irish-Dutch trade relations will shrink by 35%.”

All those factors must be taken into account.

However enthusiastic we may be about the concept of free trade, it is important to ask whether the deal is actually to be beneficial to the United Kingdom. It is our task to secure such benefits, and not only that of the EU. We also trade with the whole of the Commonwealth, and our trade relations with the emerging countries, the Commonwealth and the rest of the world have been improving. We have a net surplus of trade with the rest of the world of about £15 billion a year, according to the latest figures for 2012. However, we have a trade deficit with Europe. The figure for 2011 was minus £47 billion; it is now minus £70 billion. The Germans, on the other hand, had a surplus in 2011 of £30 billion, and it is now £72 billion. Many people believe that the United States will benefit the most from the deal, and those figures suggest that it will weigh up all those factors when dealing with these questions. This is a potentially difficult situation that will have to be dealt with.

An article in the Financial Times states:

“There would also be damage around the world from a sweeping US-EU deal. Advanced countries such as Canada, Australia and Japan would suffer, as would many emerging economies. Mexico and Chile, which have strong trading ties with the US, would be among the worst hit, along with most of Africa, Asia and Latin America—with the exception of Brazil.”

Brazil is in a lot of difficulty at the moment, however. The article continues:

“China’s trade flows with the US would shrink”.

There are many elements of all this that need to be thought out.

In the short time left, I shall draw the House’s attention to an article in Economia by Zaki Laïdi, entitled “Europe’s bad trade gamble”. Mr Laïdi is Professor of International Relations at the institute of politics known as Sciences Po in France. I am not saying that he has all the answers, but his article is well worth reading and can be obtained from the Library.

There are many conflicting views of the benefits that could be derived from the deal. The European Scrutiny Committee has made inquiries of the Government, and I would dispute the advantages of the EU-Korea free trade agreement. We know what the position is with regard to the EU, but unfortunately we cannot make any comparison with that arrangement to substantiate the claims of advantages for the UK.

12:27

[Mr Adrian Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Lab/Co-op)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing this debate. It is fair to say that, although the issues we are discussing have exercised the financial press, their implications have not yet achieved high levels of visibility among the general public. I hope that this debate will at least go some way towards rectifying that. Given the limited time available, I will not talk about the more general issues. Instead, I shall focus on the implications of an EU-US trade agreement for my own area. My right hon. Friend mentioned the need for the Government to demonstrate what the potential impacts would be in local areas, and the fact that some of the issues would be of particular importance to the west midlands and the black country has not hitherto been recognised.

Historically, the area’s manufacturing has been dominated by the car industry, which has suffered for many years but is now undergoing a renaissance, largely as a result of the foreign direct investment by the Tata brothers and the revival of Jaguar Land Rover. It gladdens my heart when I see those vehicles queuing up at the docks awaiting export. About 80% of the cars we produce are exported, and the US is the second-largest market after Europe for those exports. Jaguar Land Rover holds second and third place with its Land Rover and Jaguar models, but if they are considered together, it holds first place.

[Mr Spellar]

I thank my hon. Friend and good neighbour for giving way. As a fellow black country MP, I know that it is good that foreign buyers are buying from Jaguar Land Rover, but would it not be even better if British public bodies, especially the police, bought from Jaguar Land Rover rather than from Mercedes and BMW, which they tend to prefer?

[Mr Bailey]

I know that my right hon. Friend has campaigned on this issue for many years and I totally agree with him. We need to look properly at procurement policies to realise that point, but I will not get tempted further down that path now.

As far as I can see, the big issue for the motor industry is that, for the UK and the US, tariff barriers are relatively low but that is not quite the same as the barriers between the US and the EU. One of the challenges for the British negotiators as part of the US team is to ensure that the EU does not concentrate only on overt tariff barriers. If that is the case, there will be a general benefit, but the EU will benefit disproportionately. In case anyone considers this to be an anti-EU argument, let me make it absolutely clear that I think we have a far better chance of prosecuting a good deal as part of the EU negotiation than we would if we were not part of it—but this particular issue does need to be addressed. The fact is that the removal of non-tariff barriers within the US is considerably more important for stimulating exports or reducing costs, and the British Government must concentrate on those as part of the EU negotiating team.

Let me highlight a few areas where I believe the British Government need to get behind those who are already engaged in this work. The first relates to how the myriad of technical regulations—quite understandably in respect of road safety and the environment—dictate a range of different regulations in different countries. Standardising them provides a big challenge. I know that the European Automobile Manufacturers Association and the American Automotive Policy Council are working on this at this moment, but it is up to the Government to see that that work comes to a positive conclusion and give it all the support they can.

Secondly, on the global scale, the United Nations is working on standardising global technical regulations. Although this might not be part of the specific brief of the EU negotiating team, it would be helpful if the EU and the US, working with the UN, standardised their approach so that the standardisation of regulation applies not just within the EU and the US but throughout the rest of the world. That would provide a further impetus for both sides.

Another issue affecting our dealings with the US is the disparate and federated nature of its regulatory bodies. There are national federated bodies involved in regulations on environmental protection and road safety, but there are, of course, state bodies as well. That provides a specific challenge to get the sort of coherence and pace of reform that we need to conform to the timetable.

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Bailey]

I could not possibly resist the temptation to invite the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) to intervene.

[Mr Cash]

Would the Chairman of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee consider whether there will be a fast-track agreement in Congress, as this has been an issue of some contention? In that context and within the framework of the constitutional arrangements of the United States, it is important to bear in mind that the commercial rights of the states themselves are important, too.

[Mr Bailey]

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Provision exists within the US constitution for a fast-track process. To conform to the timetable we are looking at, that would certainly be necessary, and it is up to our negotiators to ensure that it happens.

The standardisation of the customs procedures is another issue. Manufacturers often complain that many hours are lost as a result of non-standard procedures, so this should be a potentially fruitful area for negotiation.

Finally, let me acknowledge that although the details are all terribly difficult, extremely technical and often obscure, their impact on trade and thereby on countries’ economies, jobs and growth is very significant. The Government therefore need to do everything they can to work with the organisations engaged in resolving these highly technical problems.

I mention the BIS publication, “Estimating the Economic Impact on the UK of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) Agreement between the European Union and the United States” final project report, which I am sure the Minister knows by heart. It spelt out the disproportionate level of benefit that would accrue to the motor industry and companies such as Jaguar Land Rover and their suppliers in my area of the black country from a successful reduction of both tariff barriers and the sort of non-tariff barriers to which I have alluded. On an optimistic view of a 75% reduction in non-tariff barriers, car exports could go up by as much as 26%—a 26% increase on the already vigorous and buoyant production from Jaguar Land Rover in my area. That would be of enormous benefit for economic growth and jobs.

I believe that by working with the EU to expand our market to 800 million people—half the world’s gross domestic product and a third of the world’s trade—the motor industry could be incredibly successful. I hope that the Government will map out the benefits of such a free trade agreement for areas such as mine.

12:37

[Jonathan Evans (Cardiff North) (Con)]

It is a great privilege to follow the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey), and I agree with much of what he had to say. Let me take the opportunity to congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who played such an important part in creating the new all-party group, whose establishment is both timely and necessary if we are to realise some of the prizes that should flow from a new transatlantic trade deal. Let me make it clear, bearing in mind some of the speeches we have heard, that I regard myself as an old-fashioned Tory. I believe in free trade, and I think it crucial for parliamentarians here in the UK and throughout Europe to be well aware and fully informed of all the arguments and implications at the very earliest opportunity.

[Mr Cash]

Would my hon. Friend be kind enough to give way?

[Jonathan Evans]

I thought that would be inevitable.

[Mr Cash]

It is inevitable. When my hon. Friend referred to himself as an old-fashioned Tory, I was bound to reflect on the fact that nobody was much more protectionist than Disraeli and that nobody was more in favour of free trade than John Bright and Richard Cobden, who were of course Liberals.

[Jonathan Evans]

I cannot help thinking that we are missing my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg). I had thought that we were likely to get on to the corn laws at some stage of this debate, but let us move that issue to one side.

The negotiations will be led by the European Commission, which is inevitable as we currently stand, and the White House. Legislators in Europe, however, will in many instances have the final say on whatever emerges from these negotiations, so I view early engagement with parliamentarians as of real importance. I also want to welcome the willingness of Ministers—we have already seen it from my noble Friend Lord Green and my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister without Portfolio—fully to engage with us. I welcome, too, the commitment of President Obama to place the delivery of this new trade partnership as a key objective of his final term, but it is important to understand that the aim of creating a truly free transatlantic market is not a recent phenomenon.

As colleagues may know, after an all too short period of service in this House during John Major’s premiership, I served as a Member of the European Parliament, leading the Conservative delegation, and I was later elected by the European Parliament as the president of its relations with the US Congress. I took up that post eight years ago, and from then on it was clear to me that many legislators on both sides of the Atlantic had already devoted decades of effort to bringing about much closer economic co-operation between the United States and Europe. I pay particular tribute to two British MEPs who will leave the European Parliament next year for the unswerving commitment that they have shown to the promotion of that trade partnership, and to the achievement of a truly free transatlantic market.

My Conservative colleague James Elles, who served six terms in the European Parliament, was the founder of the Transatlantic Policy Network, a forum for debate between Atlanticist legislators which I believe has played an important role in bringing us to where we are today. One former US chairman of the TPN is Chuck Hagel, who now serves at the heart of the US Administration as Defence Secretary. There is no doubt that many other members of the Obama Administration share the objectives that have been promoted by the TPN.

Another former TPN chairman who will leave the European Parliament next year is the Labour MEP for the South East, Peter Skinner. It may be strange to hear it said from these Benches, but I am pleased to say that Peter is one of the best-regarded parliamentarians in Brussels. We worked very closely together in the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee of the Parliament, and also later when I served as chair of the advisory board of the Transatlantic Economic Council, set up by Chancellor Merkel and President Bush in 2007. I well recall encouraging Peter to join me in establishing better links with our US friends, words that he took quite literally—I mention this particularly in the context of an earlier intervention—when he met his future wife Kimberley, a Penn State republican, during one of our parliamentary visits.

Much of the background research on the massive opportunities for economic growth to be gained from an EU-US an agreement has been done by the Centre for Transatlantic Relations at Johns Hopkins university in Washington. Daniel S. Hamilton and Joseph P. Quinlan from the university produce an annual report on the transatlantic economy. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) has seen that document, which surveys jobs and trade and investment between the US and Europe, and whose details make a powerful case for closer transatlantic co-operation. I shall ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) receives a copy, because I think it crucially important for him to see it.

The Prime Minister has said that a successful transatlantic agreement could be the biggest trade deal in history. I have heard some cynical observations about the figures, but much of the analysis shows that not only will the agreement constitute a gain for Europe and for the United States, but there will be gains elsewhere as a result of the growth in the world economy that will follow.

No one doubts the challenge that we face in achieving agreement. As may have become evident during today’s debate, we sometimes hear protectionist voices, which can be at their most seductive during times of austerity. I know that comments have been made about the “Buy America” legislation which exists in no fewer than 21 states. The latest state to pass such legislation is Maryland, whose legislators seem to be unaware that some 70,000 people in the state work directly for European companies, that $13 billion from Europe is invested in Maryland annually, and that every year $3 billion worth of goods are exported from Maryland to Europe. Immediately after signing the new “Buy America” law, the Maryland state governor flew to the Paris air show to urge Europeans to buy defence products made—believe it or not—in Maryland. You couldn’t make it up.

Narrow protectionism does not protect jobs in Maryland or anywhere else in the United States, and it does not do so in this country either. Reference has been made to the effectiveness of laws of that kind. I think it worth observing that Government procurement agreements made by the United States at the World Trade Organisation grant EU countries full reciprocity with Maryland providers and manufacturers. I believe that, in this instance, “Buy America” laws are not just wrong-headed but a blatant deception of US and Maryland voters. Let me add that my warning against protectionism is just as appropriate in the case of the French voices that successfully compelled the European Commission to remove audio-visual services from the scope of the negotiation.

Finally, let me say a little about the financial ties between Europe and the United States. At this point I should draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, although my own interests will not be affected in any way by this particular deal. Those financial ties represent a market share of between 66% and 86% of global financial sectors, which render this deal crucially important to the United States, and to us here in the United Kingdom. Delivering the deal by 2014 requires a tight timetable, but I urge Ministers to continue to engage with us as we proceed with our work.

12:45

[Gordon Banks (Ochil and South Perthshire) (Lab)]

I consider this to be a very important issue. I want any new trade agreement between Europe and the United States to have a substantially positive impact on the economy of Britain and, indeed, that of Scotland. I think we can all agree that international trade deals are vital to the creation of long-term economic growth and jobs in a world that is becoming smaller and smaller.

I was pleased to note that the negotiations on this agreement were formally launched, at Lough Erne on 17 June, under the UK presidency of the G8. When the G8 last met in the United Kingdom, it was hosted by Gleneagles, which is in my constituency and which is perpetually linked with our attempts to deliver improvements in the world through the millennium development goals. I hope that Lough Erne may be remembered for playing a massive role in the equalising of access to the United States market for United Kingdom and, indeed, European Union businesses.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing the debate. As he told us earlier, the United States and the European Commission have suggested that the deal could be completed by the end of 2014. As we know, it is a very complex deal. I may be a pessimist, but I rather fear that at some point we may be dragged into the 2016 presidential election campaign if we hit a road block, and I hope that matters do not stagnate during 2014 and 2015. I assume that, once the deal is done, it will have to be ratified in this place and in another 28 national Parliaments—including the United States Congress—as well as in the European Parliament, and I am also slightly concerned about the time that will be taken by its journey through 30 Parliaments.

Free trade agreements are very important to Scotland. For instance, the agreements between the European Union and Singapore and between the EU and Colombia and Peru are vital to the Scotch whisky industry, which exported £4.3 billion worth of whisky last year. The United States is the top whisky export marketplace: more than £700 million-worth was exported to it in 2012. It goes without saying that there is no expectation that the negotiations will have any damaging effect on Scotch whisky exports, but I have given that example to demonstrate how important and valuable such agreements can be when UK businesses seize the opportunity to promote the best of British around the world.

It is possible that at the time the agreement is approved, Scotland will be facing an independence referendum. I fear that, if Scotland votes for independence, we shall be very short-term beneficiaries of this piece of work. Perhaps the Minister will tell us at some point whether he has received any representations from the Scottish Government about the challenges that Scotland would face if it became independent and, being outside the European Union, could not benefit from the agreement. Indeed, one has to wonder what would happen to all the benefits of all the other free trade agreements negotiated by the EU if Scotland became independent. What would be the impact on, for instance, Scotch whisky production, exports and jobs?

Let me now return to more mainstream arguments. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is important for us to be able to explain the benefits of the deal to the population of the United Kingdom so that our constituents understand what it means to them in their daily lives.

The deal has the potential to be the largest trade deal of all time because the building blocks of trade between the EU and the US are already in place. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said earlier, one major British car manufacturer has already told Danny Lopez, the British consul general in New York, that it will save about £130 million annually from the elimination of tariffs as part of this deal. There are real gains and benefits for the UK and UK manufacturing from this difficult set of negotiations, therefore. The Government must ensure there is a road map that allows British SMEs to reap the benefits of this deal, because we will get real growth in this economy from the manufacturing and exporting SMEs.

It is difficult to conclude without referring to an issue that has hung over this debate: our membership of the EU. I do not always agree with the statements of Ministers in this Government, but I was pleased to hear the Minister without Portfolio say it would be very difficult for a trade agreement of this sort to continue if the UK left the EU. He might want to remind some of his party colleagues of the benefits of being part of the world’s largest trading bloc. That is important to the UK.

[Mr Jenkin]

What is the basis for this assertion? The evidence is that small countries find it easier to do trade deals and big trading blocs find it very difficult. I think of Switzerland, for example, and the EU’s trade deal with Korea.

[Gordon Banks]

I fundamentally disagree. The Minister without Portfolio will tell the hon. Gentleman where he is wrong in his thinking. There is no doubt that if he speaks to the Scotch whisky industry it will tell him about the benefits of being in a large trading bloc. The Scotch whisky industry has benefited, and if the hon. Gentleman will not take cognisance of that, he will not take cognisance of anything.

This is a really important opportunity for the UK. I want it to be important for Scotland, and I want it to be important for Scotland in the UK and in the EU.

12:52

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) on securing it through the Backbench Business Committee. I am also very pleased to be involved with the all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment, because it is important that we debate this issue sooner rather than later, as the House should take responsibility for what is potentially a very important treaty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) raised the important issue of scrutiny. That starts by having a debate on the Floor of the House in which Members can highlight important issues of concern. We have already heard a great variety of comments, which shows this House is making an important contribution to the scrutiny of this issue.

The debate has also been memorable because it marks the first time I have ever heard my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) described as a member of the Tea party. It is a shock that that description should be applied to him because if I were asked to identify the Conservative Member who would be least likely to be a member of the Tea party it would be him. I think the comment was made in jest, however.

There are issues to be discussed in respect of this trade and investment deal between the EU and the US. I was intrigued by the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich and North Essex (Mr Jenkin) that small countries could negotiate such deals better than the EU. That would be worthy of discussion, and I am sure the all-party group would be delighted if my hon. Friend were willing to contribute to our discussion by debating that issue.

[Jonathan Evans]

Specifically on that point, does my hon. Friend think it might be useful to invite the minister-counsellor from the US embassy in London, who has already made it clear that the concept of some separate UK-US trade deal is a non-starter?

[Guto Bebb]

That comment has indeed been made, and the all-party group could have a good debate on these issues. I am happy to have this argument. That is why we wanted to establish the all-party group and to have this debate. We need to ensure all the views in this House are heard.

I am a believer in free trade as I think it is beneficial. The concerns raised by some Members on the Government Benches are not about free trade, however: they are about whether the agreements would enhance free trade. That is a reasonable concern to have, and it needs to be scrutinised by this House. If we are to negotiate a free trade agreement between the EU and the US, we need to make sure it is a genuine free trade agreement.

The main town in my constituency is Llandudno, and the largest secondary school in Llandudno is Ysgol John Bright, which is named after an individual who believed strongly in free trade. To have concerns about whether this agreement would enhance free trade is not to oppose the treaty; it is more about making sure that what we create will benefit not just the economy of the UK, but the global economy. I say that because I agree that a genuine free trade agreement between the EU and the US will not just have an impact on the states in Europe and the United States; it will have a global impact as well. These issues are worth discussing, therefore, and that is why it is important that we have this debate at this point in time.

I have concerns about the time scale of two years for this agreement. I had the good fortune last night to be in discussions with one of the Canadian Prime Minister’s advisers, because one concern that must be expressed is that for a long period—certainly since I have been elected to this place—we have been involved in discussions between the EU and Canada in an attempt to reach a satisfactory trade agreement between those two trading blocs. Unfortunately, as yet, despite promises on numerous occasions that we were very close to an agreement, no agreement has been reached. We are being told by some individuals involved on this side of the pond that the issues are all to do with concerns about Canadian farmers and agriculture, yet when I was discussing this issue last night with that representative of the Canadian Prime Minister the concerns were all about the demands of the EU in terms of our agriculture. This two-year time frame presents a real challenge for us, therefore. If an agreement cannot be secured after so much time between the EU and Canada, there is a real question about whether the EU-US agreement can be secured within two years.

The two-year time frame should be applauded for its ambition, however. We should go into all negotiations with an ambitious timetable, but we also need to be realistic and acknowledge that that agreement with Canada is not yet in place. It would be a great achievement if we could have that agreement in place to show the way forward for a genuine free trade agreement between the EU and the US.

[Julian Smith]

Does my hon. Friend agree that pace is important, however, lest lobby groups and trade groups—especially very dynamic ones in America—get their act together and start slowing things down to the point of halting progress?

[Guto Bebb]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that excellent point. It is one of the key concerns in relation to the fact that we are still waiting for a Canada-EU agreement, because the more the issue is highlighted, the more it seems that the opponents come forward with further concerns about why the agreement should not go ahead. As I have said, I do believe we should support this ambitious target, but I highlight the fact that the experience in relation to Canada has not as yet been particularly positive.

I also think we should express concern at the ability of some countries in Europe to highlight their protectionist views in relation to this proposed agreement. It is a concern that the audio-visual sector has been excluded from negotiations. That is also a positive issue in many ways, however, because the decision to move ahead with talks has been made despite the fact that the European side has excluded that sector. We are aware of why that specific area has been excluded, but it is encouraging to see that one problem has not necessarily resulted in a decision that the whole negotiations should be stopped.

That shows a pragmatic attitude, which we saw when I was in Washington last year. People on the Hill felt that this was an opportunity to create a genuine agreement between the EU and the US. That is noticeable, because there was a feeling when we were there that the time to strike on such an important issue is when people can see the advantages. When the economies of the western world are doing well, the need for such an agreement is perhaps less.

Last summer in Washington, it was very apparent that people felt that the States still required fundamental changes to their economy. They saw the opportunity for freer trade with the EU as important and thought that it would lead to a much better agreement on much better global trading. An important point about free trade between the EU and US that has not been made this afternoon is that we would end up with an agreement on regulations, for example, that would be acceptable in many parts of the global economy. If the EU and the US were to agree on certain consumer protection standards that were acceptable to those two large trading blocs, they could be the basis for agreements on a raft of other issues that would allow other parts of the global economy to aspire to enjoy the benefit of global free trade and of an EU-US trade agreement by working to the same standards rather than undercutting them.

[Mr Cash]

I want to make a simple point. Some of the commentators—I would include myself—are slightly concerned that the objectives from the European point of view are driven less by the question of free trade and more by the idea of becoming a linchpin of the moves towards political union so that they can stitch up deals all over the world under the Lisbon treaty, which would then result in a greater opportunity for political union. Does he agree that that is a possibility?

[Guto Bebb]

I would be reluctant to agree with that rather negative view of the reasons behind the trade agreement. Again, one of the reasons I was keen to be involved in the all-party group was to ensure that we discuss such issues openly. If there are significant concerns of that nature, it is important that they are aired and that we instigate a public discussion.

Let me finish on the issue of whether such a trade agreement will have an effect on our relationship with the European Union. I am often made despondent by the behaviour of the EU and I believe that we need to renegotiate the relationship between it and the UK. We need to show the people of this country once more that the EU could benefit us, rather than being problematic, a drag on economic growth and a cause of deep frustration. As someone who represents a constituency that is dependent on small businesses, I see that small businesses clearly feel frustrated by much of what comes out of Europe.

The agreement is a hugely important opportunity for the EU to show the people of the UK that the EU can provide us with much more trade, which is what we want from our relationship with our European partners, and much less of the other stuff, which is so problematic. This is a challenge to not just the United Kingdom but our European partners to show that we can create something in the EU that will benefit the economies of Europe and the rest of the world. That is the challenge that the EU needs to stand up to. If it fails, it will make a huge problem for the future of our relationship with the EU.

13:03

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing the debate and on setting up the extremely important all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment.

Let me start by putting the subject in context. Even though the Chamber was rebuilt after the second world war, the ghosts of the 19th century and the debate on free trade seem still to be haunting it in today’s debate. I was slightly surprised that the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) did not pay tribute to the work of Robert Peel, who, after all, represented a neighbouring Staffordshire seat in Tamworth.

I want to look more at the period after the second world war, when the architects of the new world order fully understood that an open economy and world trade were important not only for prosperity but for peace. They had seen the significant problems in the inter-war period—the time of Montagu Norman, austerity, competitive devaluation and, in particular, the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act in the United States and competitive trade wars around the world—that resulted in a diminution of world trade from $5.3 billion in 1929 to $1.8 billion in 1933. That world financial crisis led inexorably to the rise of fascism and Nazism and into the second world war.

The post-war negotiators realised their responsibilities, particularly Keynes, whose searing intelligence and insight is lacking in some of the international discussions now. First, the negotiators recreated an international financial architecture through a World Bank and an International Monetary Fund, which were the preconditions for the other changes of freer trade, barrier reductions, the post-Korean boom, the consumer society—at which many elitists sneered at the time—and the huge surge in technical development. They also depended on significant transatlantic initiatives. We had the creation of the European Coal and Steel Community, which then merged into the European Community, but before that we had the Marshall plan and the creation of NATO, and both were key parts of the changes brought about by that towering genius of foreign affairs and the British Labour movement, Ernest Bevin, who could see the opportunities —perhaps even more than some of those whose names are associated with them, such as George Marshall—for creating a new world situation. He saw them not as separate developments, but as interwoven and inseparable.

Now we face new challenges following the global financial crisis and the new architecture of the world economy. Although many underestimate them, the Atlantic ties are still enormously important. Many of the world’s democracies and the most productive economies are on either side of the Atlantic, as well as the most technologically advanced countries. Half of the world’s GDP would be encompassed by such an agreement.

Yesterday, the Commons debated Trident, and we also recently debated NATO and its future post-ISAF and Afghanistan. As we negotiate an evolving international architecture, trade and security go hand in hand. It is not just about the formal relations but about the cultural links, which are especially important and significant for the United Kingdom—as many Members have mentioned, we are uniquely placed to benefit from such arrangements —finance, business, security and defence. For the UK more than any other EU country, this is important.

As hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), have remarked, President Obama and his officials have made it very clear that they are not interested in doing a number of minor deals with different countries. They see the negotiations between the EU and the US as crucial and they see the advantages. That does not mean that we should enter into the negotiations naively. They will be tough; the Americans are tough negotiators. We should drive a very hard bargain. There is also a danger that some on both sides of the Atlantic will seek to smuggle in a neo-liberal policy to try to undermine many protections for consumers and workers.

[Mr Cash]

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of an article by Fred Smith in Forbes Magazine from about 10 days ago? It illustrates the fact that the United States is concerned about the importation into the agreements of regulatory and environmental standards. That might be a sticking point.

[Mr Spellar]

There is the possibility of many sticking points. That is why it is so important to keep an eye on the bigger picture of the huge benefits. Talks of this kind can always be undermined by a number of niggling details, and therefore by local campaigning. That is not unimportant, and we need to recognise that there will be losers as well as winners, but we should also recognise the huge benefits, not just for the US and the EU, but for the world economy. That is possibly what happened in the talks between the EU and Canada, and we need to be concerned about that. A number of difficulties have started to bog down those negotiations for those reasons.

An American official associated with the negotiations said that the talks needed to be

“done on one tank of gas.”

They need to move forward. Regard has to be paid to the checks and balances, but no one should deny the overall impact and huge benefits.

We also need to look at how we make sure that the benefits are shared with others in the world. No one should underestimate the huge impact that the expansion in world trade has had, not only on the economies of developed countries, but on the hundreds of millions who have been taken out of poverty all around the world, not least in China, where about 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty. We have also seen the largest migration of humanity in history from the countryside to the cities. The benefits have to be shared, and we need to ensure that the architecture of the agreement does not close off that avenue.

Having sounded that cautionary note, I think that we should wish the talks well, and I hope that they are conducted with speed and a degree of urgency. I hope that they go into the fast track with that one tank of gas. I say: “It’s time—let’s get rolling.”

13:11

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

First, I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I do not think that I have any relevant financial interests on this occasion. I am a member of a copyright society, and I have traded with America in the past, but I do not think I have a direct financial interest; obviously, my constituents have a substantial financial interest in the subject, because I am the Member of Parliament for Birmingham, Yardley, and although there are no Jaguar Land Rover plants in the constituency, it is next to the JLR plants in Solihull and Castle Bromwich. An agreement could mean 26% more exports of vehicles, which would reduce yet further unemployment in my constituency, and that is obviously something that I would like.

The UK and the US were, in many ways, the first countries to promote and extend free trade worldwide, as we see it today. That vision has been furthered by our membership of the EU, and we have been a driving force in extending and widening the free market. There have been set-backs, both in the UK and the US. Both countries have toyed with protectionism—that is even going on at the moment—often with negative effect. More recently, the EU and the US have had periods of fracture. The dispute over the two biggest aircraft manufacturers in the world, Boeing and Airbus, at the World Trade Organisation was not good. The US obligations to scan shipping containers and the “Buy America” provisions have also served to undermine trade. The EU emissions trading scheme for airlines was seen as unilateral by international partners, despite decades of inaction on the issue.

Bars and grills have an exception from music licensing rules in the US; that exception exempts 70% of bars and restaurants and almost half of shops from having to pay copyright royalties, and that remains a key outstanding issue. That exemption was found incompatible with the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights, yet it remains in force, and no compensation, however minimal, has been made available to European and British artists since 2004. Interestingly, people are critical of China for not abiding by intellectual property law, but the US has an issue in that regard as well.

[Jonathan Evans]

That is sometimes called the music case. It is interesting; the US Government did pay some compensation on behalf of those people who are breaching the law, but they have not paid it since, so there is a clear precedent for their recognising that they are in the wrong.

[John Hemming]

Yes; I think $3.3 million was paid before 2004, which is why I said “since 2004”. The US Government recognise that there is an issue, but the problem continues none the less. I think that the US has been critical of China, but it should sort out its own issues as well.

I am sure that the House will echo my call for American Congress to uphold its obligations under existing international trade laws, respect intellectual property and use this process to salve wounds. A disregard for intellectual property only encourages others to have a similar disregard. It would be quite wrong for our laws to ignore American intellectual property, and it is about time the United States returned our courtesy.

Despite those set-backs, this new free trade agreement is to be strongly welcomed as a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK that will bring benefits of around £10 billion a year to our economy, help to build a stronger economy, and create many much-needed jobs. It is proof that our participation in the European Union does not restrict us from trading with the rest of the world.

Although the EU and US combined account for more than half of the world economy, our agreements with Korea have seen EU exports to Korea go up by 16.2%. For the first time in 15 years, we have a trade surplus with Korea, and UK exports to Brazil, India, China, Russia and South Africa have jumped from £12.7 billion in 2007 to £27.1 billion last year.

Being a member of the largest free trade area in the world creates jobs and opportunities for British industry around the world, and our relentless drive to widen and deepen the single market has created prosperity for the many, not the few. We simply get a better deal when we work with the world’s trade superpower—the EU—than when we act alone, which is why we should work with our allies to concentrate on reform and ensure that the European budget spends more on boosting jobs, research, development and infrastructure, as we did with the multi-annual settlement up to 2020.

The coalition Government are to be commended for ensuring that there is an overall cut in the budget and an increase in job-boosting measures. We need these negotiations fast-tracked, and I hope that Her Majesty’s Government are able to impress both on our allies in the US and our European partners the need to enter these negotiations in a spirit of can-do—with the “single tank of gas” approach mentioned earlier.

We have seen the greatest slow-down in world growth since the 1930s depression, and stalled starts must not be tolerated. My party, the Liberal Democrats, wants to see a relentless focus on jobs and growth. I personally do not believe that we can delay the discussion with the electorate on our role in the European Union, but I am unashamed to make the case for working with Europe to boost our economy.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman has seen that the CBI’s director general recently said that we pack a bigger punch in securing trade deals when we are inside the EU, rather than outside. He clearly set out that the US wants that bigger prize. Is that not exactly why the uncertainty about our future position in the EU is really unhelpful to British business?

[John Hemming]

I disagree. I think that we owe it to the British people to give them a vote. There is uncertainty until that has happened. It has been far too long since the vote in the 1970s, and we need a referendum on the issue, although I am happy for it to wait until 2017. I would most likely vote to remain in, but that does not mean that I do not support a referendum. The issue needs to be resolved by us asking the British people.

It is in our national interest and the interests of the wider world to encourage free trade through Europe and increase prosperity for all, because it undoubtedly works. We must uproot direct barriers to trade; end import tariffs, business restrictions on services and regulatory barriers; and make it easier for investment to reach both sides of the Atlantic. Where joint positions on rules governing competition, state-owned enterprises, raw materials, energy, small and medium-sized enterprises, and transparency do not exist, it would be beneficial if joint positions could be established, so that we can form a new global standard of excellence in trade.

The potential benefits of an agreement are huge. The US is our second-largest trading partner, with two-way trade totalling £129 billion in 2011, while £200 billion has been invested by US companies in the UK. It is in our vital economic and national interests to ensure that we expand our economy, and this US-EU free trade agreement should receive support from all sides of the House.

I accept that there are complexities, and I have sympathy with the argument that we should not have a rush to the bottom internationally, so I am sympathetic to the idea of looking more widely than just at issues to do with tariff barriers in discussions. However, from the point of view of the financial interests of my west midlands constituents who work either directly in the motor business or in the supply chain, it is clear that an agreement would be a very positive step forward in most respects and should therefore be supported. However, it is good that the all-party group on EU-US trade and investment has been created, because the fear in such processes is that if we do not look at the issues until the agreement is brought about, what can we do about them? I welcome the fact that the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and his colleagues asked for this debate, because we need to discuss the agreement before it is decided; otherwise, it is too late. However, generally, the agreement seems a good idea.

13:19

[Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab)]

I always come to debates about the EU with a copy of the consolidated texts of the EU treaties, as amended by the treaty of Lisbon in January 2008. That usually stops people talking a lot of hot air because they have not taken the trouble to read the treaties.

The question of competence is settled. The treaty on the functioning of the European Union states in article 3(2):

“The Union shall also have exclusive competence for the conclusion of an international agreement when its conclusion is provided for in a legislative act of the Union”.

It is clear from that where competence lies. We should therefore get behind the EU because, whether we like it or not, since Lisbon the EU has been given this responsibility. If it did not carry out its responsibility or if it did not seek those agreements, we would be right to criticise the EU for not using the strength that it has to benefit members of the Union.

There are remarkable opportunities available and I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) for securing the debate and setting up the all-party group. A trade agreement will run on for a number of years and must be studied in detail as it does. There are important opportunities for jobs and growth, and I can give examples from my constituency. Syngenta is a Swiss company that does its research in England and develops products that are made in factories in my constituency. It sells $1.5 billion worth of one product to the world, mostly used in the US to prevent soya rust, which is very important. We also have Ineos, made up of former parts of BP, which is seeking to buy ethane from the US, where it is now one tenth of the price of ethane from the North sea, to produce the chemicals required for industry.

Those firms would be helped massively by a tariff agreement, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, a trade agreement is not just about tariffs; it is about standards. The standards of the EU are set out in the treaty on the European Union in article 3(5):

“In its relations with the wider world, the Union shall uphold and promote its values and interests and contribute to the protection of its citizens. It shall contribute to peace, security, the sustainable development of the Earth, solidarity and mutual respect among peoples, free and fair trade, eradication of poverty and the protection of human rights, in particular the rights of the child, as well as to the strict observance and the development of international law, including respect for the principles of the United Nations Charter.”

What could be opposed in setting out to establish a free trade agreement with another massive nation that has similar values? If we think that is not the way to go, perhaps we are talking about having the type of agreement used by companies in Bangladesh, where the Rana plaza collapse revealed the use of buildings that were utterly unacceptable. That is the reality. If companies are not bound by trade agreements that contain priorities and strictures, then, as has been said, the result is a race to the bottom—the lowest standards, the greatest abuse of labour, and the least protection for the people who produce the goods that we use in our country.

Combining the EU article with the standards of the International Labour Organisation and the World Trade Organisation and with the conventions of the UN would result in an ethical trading alliance, and what a massively strong ethical trading alliance the EU and the US would be if we could bring that about. President Obama has declared that he intends to eradicate modern-day slavery, and already California has a transparency of supply chains Bill that makes firms audit for supply chain abuses and ILO labour abuses. Apple recently admitted that it had found child labour in part of the manufacturing process of the iPad in China, which it must now eradicate because of US law. It would be wonderful if we could spread that across the rest of the trading nations that we deal with.

There are many things to be gained from a trade agreement, apart from jobs and prosperity. However, concerns were expressed by the Labour Government during the negotiations on the Lisbon treaty, when we got a derogation on the provision of services of special interest. The health service was specifically named in the Lisbon treaty as something that would be controlled by the Government. Sadly, it is the Government here who are abusing the health service by bringing in not just free trade, but a Hayekian free-for-all in the provision of services in the health services.

[Julian Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Labour allowed the private sector into the health service in Britain, which had positive effects in many cases?

[Michael Connarty]

I do not think the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the time. The Labour Government said that we would use private services when they were available for people who needed public health services. It was not a case of giving provision over to the private sector. Now there is an open door for the private sector. It is a Hayekian model. Hayek was the driver for Mrs Thatcher’s advisers—the idea that there was no need for a state and that any service that was required could be brought in from the free market. If one reads Hayek—I am an economist—he even went as far as saying that armies should be hired, instead of a state having an army of its own. He also advocated private prisons, and sadly we moved down that road under a Labour Government.

The free trade agreement is regulated. Under the EU treaty, the EU will have to provide for the protection of services of special interest. Every Government in the EU will then be allowed to decide whether to have private sector involvement in their health service. It is interesting to note that in the EU-Canadian trade agreement which has just been accepted, the health service is not part of the agreement. That is a decision of the Canadian Government rather than of the EU, but it may have been influenced by the fact that the EU has that provision for protecting services of special interest.

For me there must be conditions, and I liked the four conditions set out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne—putting our weight behind the EU team, not being a drag on the process, and so on. I have three conditions. One is transparency. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), in his role as Chair of the European Scrutiny Committee, is quite correct to say that the Committee should be able to see the process stage by stage, but that alone is not adequate. Parliament must hear about it. There should be special reports from the Minister for Europe, the Foreign Secretary and even the Business Secretary to tell Parliament what is happening, what has been negotiated at any stage and what the potential decisions are. We do not want a secret process.

There must be accountability. Instead of one proposal at the end of the process, perhaps there should be staged proposals coming back to Parliament, where certain sections of the trade agreement are taken before the House and debated by a Select Committee or on the Floor of the House. For me, there should be conditionality. Everything that happens in the European Union should be conditional, the condition being that we do not end up with an agreement that subverts what we signed up to in our last treaty. It cannot be an attempt to rewrite the treaties by the back door, so we must always ascertain whether the conditionality of any trade agreement or any other agreement will undermine the rights contained in the documents to which I referred.

We want a more prosperous world, but one that is based on fairness and on the improvement of the conditions of the people who supply us with our goods and services and those who work in industries and enterprises in the EU and in this country.

13:27

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

I shall not speak for long, as I am still reeling from the accusation that I am sympathetic to the Tea party.

It is important that I start by paying tribute to the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Government as a whole for putting an EU-US trade agreement and talks at the centre of the strategy for the EU and for growth, which this Government are so relentlessly pursuing. All of us in the House understand the importance of America, and we need to make the case to the country and to British business that although there is rightly a pivot east in trade and activity—to the BRIC countries and other emerging economies—the American economy, with 310 million people with a per capita income of $48,000, and an energy sector that looks as though it is going to get incredibly competitive over the coming years, is a phenomenal opportunity for Britain. It would be wrong just to accept that we already have a relationship which is established and going quite well.

Companies in my constituency, such as Silver Cross Prams which produces traditional prams that hon. Members may have used or been in in the past, sell across the world, but in America they have to go through pages and pages of health and safety and other procedures in order to sell their already safe and already EU-recognised product in America. If Jet2, which flies out of Leeds Bradford airport, wants to fly to an American city and then on to another American city, it is unable to sell seats on the domestic US side, which has an impact on its business. Principle Healthcare sells drugs, vitamins and other products that are perfectly safe and have been rigorously tested here in the UK and in Europe, but when it tries to sell to America, it must start the whole procedure yet again.

I have great respect for the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey), but I was worried by some of his remarks. The idea that this agreement should try to have top-down formal regulation of all these things is quite wrong because to get the pace we have been talking about, we need to think much more about mutual recognition. If we have safe drug products in America and safe drug products in the EU, how do we recognise those regulatory processes? That is not to say that we should have a free for all but that we should recognise and be pragmatic about what we do. One of the strongest messages I have for the Minister is a request that he utilise his innate pragmatism to influence these negotiations.

The second push I would make is on something we have talked about: pace. There are moves afoot already in America—we have seen the French examples and there will be others from all interested parties—to slow things down and to have carve-ups and opt-outs. We must make the case for pace and ensure that we stick to the rigorous timetable set in place by the negotiators. I also think that the point made by the right hon. Gentleman is key: this debate cannot be a closed shop in this place or in Brussels or in America. We must take the argument to our citizens and businesses and explain to them the importance of the jobs that will be created by the agreement and by enhancing our relationship. The benefit for EU supporters is that if we can do that for this agreement, we can use that information and build on that argument as we make the case for Britain continuing to be an active member of the EU.

Finally, although we have a number of Ministers who are active in this negotiation on the British side, I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister answering today’s debate will be at the forefront of some of these discussions as they take place over the next couple of years.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to say we are overshooting on time. The other debate is well over-subscribed, so there will be a six minute limit.

13:32

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

This debate is very timely because of the discussion about where the UK’s future economic growth is going to come from: away from an overreliance on domestic consumption, which is now creeping back into the economy, and shifting once again, we hope, towards exports and manufacturing. Although the value of the pound is a fifth lower than it was at the onset of the economic crisis, unlike in previous downturns exports from this country have not risen but fallen. Completing a trade and investment area between the US and the EU will create more opportunities in this country for businesses and investors to grow out of the crisis. That will add to the 36 other countries with whom the EU already has a trade agreement in place.

The EU exports more in goods and services than it imports from the US, and 30% of the EU’s foreign direct investment is in the US, too. The estimated benefits to Europe of successfully negotiating a free trade area with the US would boost growth across the Union by 0.9% a year, and, according to an assessment by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, would provide £10 billion in direct economic boost to the UK.

The effect of a successful agreement would align technical standards; harmonise labelling and product specification standards; protect intellectual property; improve access to Government procurement schemes; cut agricultural tariffs; and, most important, help our largest manufacturing industry in this country—the food and drink sector. But to extract the full benefit from such an agreement, if it is successfully completed, the UK has still to be a full member state of the European Union. If we want to shape the terms of this trade and investment partnership, we can do so only from inside, not from the margins or, even worse, by excluding ourselves completely.

The Prime Minister was happy to accept President Obama’s hospitality on a recent visit to the United States, but it might help British business even more if he accepted some of President Obama’s friendly advice, too. The President, in his press conference on 13 May, said:

“We discussed with the Prime Minister the importance of moving ahead with the EU towards negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. Our extensive trade with the EU is central to our broader economic transatlantic relationship which supports more than 13 million jobs… I believe we’ve got a real opportunity to cut tariffs, open markets, create jobs and make all of our economies even more competitive.”

According to The Guardian, a senior US official commenting after the Washington visit of the Prime Minister said:

“having Britain in the EU will strengthen the possibility that we succeed in a very difficult negotiation, as it involves so many different interests and having Britain as a key player and pushing for this will be important. We have expressed our views of Britain’s role in the EU and they haven’t changed.”

The indications are that it will take between 18 months and two years to reach an agreement but perhaps as long as 10 to 15 years for the full effects of a successfully agreed accord to come into force. But perhaps before the end of the arbitrary time scale that, unfortunately, many Government Members wish the House to follow on an in/out EU referendum, the UK would already be seeing some of the gradual benefits accumulating from that transatlantic free trade area, only potentially to be forced out of it shortly afterwards as a result of such a referendum. The House of Commons Library has confirmed that all EU trade agreements would have to be renegotiated by the UK if it left the EU, so by leaving the EU and leaving the advantages of this agreement that we hope to see very soon, the UK would lose access to over 130 free trade agreements, which would not only have a negative impact on the economy but imply huge costs in individual renegotiation.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) said, the same logic applies to the plans to see Scotland leaving the UK, thereby harming our Scotch whisky and food exporters and seeing them lose the enormous potential benefits of the free trade agreement with the United States.

I hope that these negotiations will be completed speedily and effectively. I hope that they will equip our manufacturing sector with access to a larger free trade area. This debate has been important in emphasising the responsibility that the UK Government and the devolved Governments have in these islands to ensure that this future source of sustainable economic growth and high-skilled employment for all our constituencies is not put at risk by ambitions to erect constitutional barriers in a world in which they are increasingly irrelevant.

13:38

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

I add to the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and to the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on securing this debate. What a difference a week makes, or maybe two weeks. Here we are today debating something of importance in relation to our membership of the European Union, focusing on the benefits of our membership, and the Government Benches are empty, in such contrast with the excitable packed Benches we saw—[Interruption.] Practically empty. I apologise to those few Members who are there. The contrast, however, is not with the Opposition Benches today but with the Government Benches two weeks ago. Today we are debating a serious and important issue to do with our membership of the European Union.

[Julian Smith]

The hon. Gentleman says this is a serious and important matter, but does he agree that giving the British people a say on Europe is also serious and important?

[Paul Blomfield]

I thought the debate a couple of weeks ago was more about resolving internal differences in the Conservative party than a wider concern for the views of British people.

What an irony it is that too many Government Members want to lead us out of Europe, just at the moment that the already substantial benefits from our membership of the EU are set to become even better. I might even feel sorry for the Prime Minister if these problems were not of his own making. He knows that our future lies in Europe, just as our past always has done, and he wants this country to be at the heart of the European Union and his party to stop banging on about Europe. He knows the importance of this trade deal, but he made an early mistake back in 2005 when, lagging behind in the leadership contest for his party, he threw red meat to Conservative Members who would take us out of the EU with a promise to leave the European People’s party. He was warned by his Conservative allies in Europe—

[Jonathan Evans]

Perhaps I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that I was leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament at that time, and the Conservative party was never in the European People’s party at any time.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Conservative party’s alliances when the hon. Gentleman was in the European Parliament were better than those it has made subsequently.

[Guto Bebb]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Paul Blomfield]

Let me make some progress, My point is that the Prime Minister did not understand that the more red meat he threw to those on his right, the more they would want. We find ourselves being pushed towards the exit door of the European Union at a time when the case for membership has never been stronger.

Let me turn to the trade deal and the comments made earlier by the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash), who sadly is no longer in his place, when he sought to diminish the importance of our trade with the European Union. The EU is the UK’s main trading partner and comprises around 52% of the UK’s total trade in goods and services. Of course growing markets in China and India are important, but those two markets account for 5.6% and 1.6% of our current trade. Through the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, the Government estimate that 3.5 million jobs in Britain are linked, directly or indirectly, to our trade with EU member states.

Let us look to the future. It has been estimated that by 2020 the UK will have fallen to the ninth largest economy in the world. In contrast, the EU is the largest economy in the world, home to 7.4% of the world’s population and accounting for almost 20% of world GDP. The EU is not important to the UK simply for that reason, but also because of the access it provides to other markets. The EU is the top trading partner for 80 countries and currently has free trade agreements with more than 40. That process is continuing, and the EU is currently negotiating agreements with more than 70 countries, including important UK partners such as India and Japan, as well as growing economies such as Brazil. According to the CBI, the European Union has negotiated trade agreements that cover around 30% of trade outside the EU area, and it is in the process of raising that figure to 70%.

It has been estimated that the deal we are considering today will generate around €119 billion of benefits to the EU and create 2 million jobs. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne pointed out in his opening remarks, that could benefit the UK economy by up to £10 billion a year. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) was right to point out that current tariffs averaging around 4% are quite low, but given the volume of trade, the benefits are significant. Even more significant—my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne referred to this—is the alignment of regulatory standards and the opportunity that offers not only for trade between these two important blocs, but in raising standards internationally.

My right hon. Friend was also right to highlight concerns about the potential privatisation of public services—a threat that has been targeted wrongly at this deal. It is important that we reassure those who are worried about the impact of this deal on public services, and the health service in particular, which might disappoint some Conservative Members who would like to see much greater privatisation.

In the free trade agreements that the EU has negotiated, public services exemptions are provided in two ways: first, by provisions that refer to

“services exercised under Government authority”—

the police, for example, and the justice system—and, secondly, by provision for public utilities, which would cover health care. The former provisions are automatically excluded from all trade agreements. The latter are not automatically excluded but reservations are attached that allow EU member states to maintain public provision or limit access to a certain number of providers—both domestic and foreign—in those sectors.

It is important that we send a clear message that the EU-US trade agreement in itself cannot lead to further privatisation of health care in this country. The policies of this Government will do that—or perhaps not, if they are successfully defeated. The trade agreement could, however, lead to a significant boost to the UK economy. It would be the most significant bilateral agreement, and our combined economies are worth almost 40% of world GDP. We must be honest when responding to comments made by some Government Members who are no longer in their seats, and recognise where we stand internationally. The UK alone would not have the negotiating clout of the EU in striking the sort of deal that would benefit all member states, including the UK. As with so many other things, we are stronger together in Europe, and this deal is yet another reason why we must be at the centre of the European Union.

13:47

[Mike Gapes (Ilford South) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield). I agree entirely with what he said and I particularly endorse his remarks about public procurement and the importance of the national health service. It is vital that debates on this issue make it clear that the trade agreement will not be used as a way of justifying the privatisation policies of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition, by blaming it on the requirements of some European-US deal.

[Julian Smith]

I reiterate the question I asked earlier. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Labour party in government regularly used the private sector to deliver better services, where necessary, in the NHS?

[Mike Gapes]

I accept that because of the problems we had when we came to office, we had to get extra capacity. My constituents in Ilford benefited from the independent treatment centre that was established on the site of King George hospital. They had operations on their knees and noses that would not have been available previously because of the lack of capacity in the NHS. I make no apology for the fact that my constituents benefited from the investment and policies of the Labour Government, but that is not what this debate is about.

I want to make three points. First, in an earlier intervention I referred to the European Union-South Korea free trade agreement which, as the Foreign Secretary recognised in the House a few months ago, has not just been of great benefit to the European Union as a whole, but the removal of 97% of the tariffs that existed between Korea and the European Union led to a significant increase in British exports to Korea.

[Mr Cash]

I alluded to that in my speech. After inquiry, the European Scrutiny Committee was informed that it was difficult, if not impossible, to make a true comparison between the apparent benefits to the EU in general and the advantages to the UK individually, apart from in the car industry, where there appeared to be a distinct benefit.

[Mike Gapes]

On 23 April, the Foreign Secretary said:

“The free trade agreement with South Korea eliminated nearly 97% of tariffs, and some British businesses are now enjoying a huge increase in exports to South Korea as a result. We want to see the same thing happen on an even greater scale in relation to the United States.”—[Official Report, 23 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 743.]

I suggest the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash)has some comradely discussions about these matters with the Foreign Secretary in the next meeting of the 1922 committee or somewhere else.

I want to emphasise a point made by the hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith) about the significance of reducing the regulatory obstacles. Many of my constituents work in financial or banking institutions in London. TheCityUK has published a paper saying that it

“strongly supports the efforts being made in the US and the EU towards a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership.”

It believes that that needs to be comprehensive and should cover all aspects of the economy, and it highlights the absurdities of different regulatory regimes, the additional costs this imposes on both sides of the Atlantic and the serious delays involved.

In another publication, British Influence highlights how the pharmaceutical industry has completely different requirements on the acceptability and availability of drugs in the US and Europe, meaning that drugs that have already gone through one rigorous testing procedure must then go through another one. That is not necessarily anything other than an obstructive measure to preserve markets for certain companies by squeezing out competitors. If it can compete on quality—and our pharmaceutical industry is certainly high quality—industry in Europe and Britain will be well capable of competing on a level playing field in an American market.

There will be people in the US, as in Europe, who will try to resist and obstruct these measures. We have heard some of those voices today, unfortunately. The reason for that is partly ideological, but it is also linked to pork-barrel politics, the two-year congressional election cycle and all the other difficulties people have in winning public office in the US, so this will not be an easy process, and these negotiations will take time; it is a bit optimistic to think they could be over in two years, and they will not be helped if the EU adopts a minimalist position or says it wishes certain items to be taken out of the negotiations at the start. That will play into the hands of those in the US who also want to play that game.

It is a bit like the Conservative party’s position on renegotiating our membership of, and repatriating powers from, the EU. We cannot take things à la carte, and in the negotiations between the EU and the US, we will not get all we want; it will be a difficult process, and it could well be undermined significantly by diversions, such as those relating to Scotland, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) referred. It could also be undermined, however, if British negotiators, obsessing about other issues, divert their efforts and energies away from getting the best deal for British business and investment and trade in the United States, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield Central pointed out earlier.

According to The Daily Telegraph, the Prime Minister said that

“if Britain weren’t in the EU you would not directly benefit from an EU/US trade deal”.

That is the fundamental point. If we embark on a process of renegotiating terms with, or withdrawing from, the EU, we will damage our position within an internal EU process and our long-term relationship with the US. As the US President, the ambassador and others have made absolutely clear, the US believes it to be in the interests of its co-operation with Europe that the UK play a full part within the EU. If we want to get an EU-US trade and investment treaty, we need to support it wholeheartedly.

13:55

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) on using their strong persuasive abilities to convince the Backbench Business Committee to agree to this important debate. This issue has not had the prominence it deserves, and I pay tribute to right hon. and hon. Members for redressing that situation. Given the potential of this agreement, this is an important discussion.

This has been an important and, on the whole, positive debate. The sheer size of the American and European economies means that the potential prize of a significant free trade agreement is huge. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne said, together the EU and the US account for just under half of global GDP and about a third of world trade. About $2.7 billion of goods and services cross the two continents every single day—a trillion dollars every year. The proposed free trade agreement could be the biggest bilateral trade deal in world history, both in terms of its value and in the range of subjects, sectors and markets covered. Given the size of the sums involved, even modest reductions in barriers would lead to huge amounts of money—$325 billion—that could be ploughed into extra jobs, more investment and higher economic growth.

As has been said, a potential trade and investment agreement would yield an estimated increase in UK national income of between £4 billion and £10 billion a year over the next decade. That is huge and worth fighting for.

[Mr Cash]

Lord Mandelson said that when he was trade commissioner the over-regulation of business cost 4% of Europe’s GDP and about £6 billion a year to the British economy. Is that not something we should be tackling, and does the hon. Gentleman agree that some of his figures are based on estimates?

[Mr Wright]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. I was about to say that, as mentioned several times, the nature and structure of trade between the EU and the US is such that we do not have substantial or excessive trade barriers between the two blocs. Most of the gains would come from a reduction in non-tariff barriers. In response to his point, I would add that I am keen to see regulatory convergence.

Reductions in non-tariff barriers would result in reduced costs for producers and traders and so increase productivity, leading to greater investment and higher gains per worker. Forecasts predict that increased trade would lead to higher wage rates of between 0.2% and 0.5% for workers in this country. Again, that is a prize worth fighting for. If the free trade agreement were to focus more on tariffs than non-tariff barriers, the gains for the UK would be substantially less, as the Chair of the Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said.

What has been clear from today’s debate is that there is a huge amount of ambition in this House for this agreement, so will the Minister confirm that the scope and ambition of the agreement that will be negotiated will be as wide-ranging and comprehensive as possible, in order to ensure the maximum gains for British companies? Will he ensure that Britain is pushing for negotiations to be focused on where that maximum gain will be, which, as I have said, is on the elimination of non-tariff barriers? Will he give us an idea of the scope and scale of agreement he hopes to achieve?

Right hon. and hon. Members have rightly been talking about how the House can be involved in this process. Will the Minister tell us how he hopes to keep the House informed of progress on the agreement? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth and Dearne talked about this, but will the Minister tell us a bit about what he has planned for the scrutiny of the negotiations by this House? How can we debate this matter on a periodic and, we hope, positive basis?

Will the Minister also give the House a sense, wherever possible, on when he expects the talks to be concluded? I know that that is difficult, but it has been mentioned several times in the debate, and the US vice-president has said that he hopes talks can be agreed on “one tank of gas”, which means the completion of negotiations within 18 to 24 months. This is obviously a big priority for the Obama Administration, as I think it is for the British Government, but will the Minister give us a sense of when he thinks the process will be concluded? My hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire (Gordon Banks) asked about this directly, but how will this House ratify the deal? Will that be done by a full, substantial debate in Government time on the Floor of the House so that we can question and scrutinise the deal carefully?

I wish to focus on a few specific industries that could benefit enormously from a comprehensive and ambitious free trade agreement. The motor vehicles sector, which has been mentioned, is forecast to see considerable growth as a result of an ambitious transatlantic trade and investment partnership—TTIP. Estimates predict a rise in exports of between 15% and 26%. That will obviously help the German manufacturers, but we certainly should not discount the impact it will have on our important and growing automotives sector, where we are producing great-quality, high-premium cars that the rest of the world are keen to buy. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey).

In that regard, I hope the Minister will reassure us that regulatory convergence to ensure great export growth will be at the top of the agenda in the negotiations. I hope he will agree that a vehicle considered safe to drive in Europe should also be considered safe to drive in the US. Will he ensure that duplication of safety and environmental standards is dealt with and that negotiations prioritise mutual recognition agreements and equivalence standards? Will he also address the point, not entirely confined to the automotive sector, that differing regulatory arrangements apply at a state, federal level? Will negotiations ensure that state differences are dealt with, too? That point will apply to many industries, such as those producing electrical goods, chemicals and cosmetics. My area has the highest concentration of chemical engineering in western Europe, and if Europe and the US had mutually accepted standards, the potential for the chemicals industry in the north-east would be enormous.

The global aerospace industry is dominated by Europe and the United States, and particularly by Airbus and Boeing, as was seen in the recent sales at the successful Paris air show. Britain is the largest player in this industry in Europe and is second only to the US in the world. The European aerospace industry generates a third of the EU’s manufacturing exports, and we in this country are at the heart of it. We have to maintain our competitive advantage. The industry is subject to fierce competition from other nations. China is particularly ambitious about launching an aerospace company—COMAC—to rival Boeing and Airbus. Does the Minister accept—this is an important point—that an ambitious free trade agreement between the US and the EU would actually help to maintain our competitive advantage in this field, as consistency of international regulatory standards should give existing firms and their supply chains an important lever to use? That was certainly the conclusion of an important Chatham House report on manufacturing published this week.

Services are a key part of the British economy; we are the best in Europe on services. Will the Minister comment on the nature of the agreement in that area? For example, a UK lawyers’ qualification is not fully recognised in the US, which is an impediment to UK lawyers’ practising. If the EU and US recognised each other’s professional qualifications, a great boost would be given to trade, which would particularly benefit the British economy. Will he discuss that a little?

The scale of the prize indicates how important it is that Britain has a leading role to play in Europe, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) said. Does the Minister agree with Sir Mike Rake of the CBI, who said that there is an overwhelming case for Britain being at the heart of Europe for the sake of our businesses? Does he agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil and South Perthshire, who indicated that he agreed with the Minister without Portfolio that it would be curtains for our ability to play any leadership role if we exited the EU? The right hon. and learned Gentleman said in a recent article:

“Irony of ironies, it is of course the EU that is making deals with the United States and Canada possible. It should come as no surprise that Obama’s officials have commented that they would have ‘very little confidence’ for a deal with the British alone.”

Does this Minister agree?

Will the Minister also address the warnings from the Obama Administration that if the UK leaves Europe, we will exclude ourselves from a EU-US trade deal worth billions and that it would be unlikely that Washington would try to negotiate a separate trade agreement with Britain? A senior White House official is quoted as stating:

“Having Britain in the EU...is going to strengthen the possibility that we succeed in a very difficult negotiation, as it involves so many different interests and having Britain as a key player and pushing for this will be important...We have expressed our views of Britain’s role in the EU and they haven’t changed…TTIP negotiations underscore why we think it’s important that it continues.”

Is it not clear from White House officials that the United States believes that one of the key reasons for the special relationship is that we are in the EU, and that it would be naive and impractical to suggest that we could negotiate a separate trade deal that could have the same potential positive effect on jobs and growth?

[Mr Cash]

rose—

[Mr Wright]

I knew that the hon. Gentleman would not be able to resist, so I will give way.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. I would just like to be of help, because the shadow Minister has taken 10 minutes so far and he said he would only take that long. He will have reached 11 minutes in a moment, so we should be careful.

[Mr Cash]

I will leave it.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

We will leave it.

[Mr Wright]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I will mention one final thing and then draw my comments to a close.

Several hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), for Glasgow North East and for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), have mentioned the NHS. Will the Minister confirm that the free trade agreement will not be a green light to private health companies in the US to take over services within the NHS? Will he absolutely rule out that happening?

This agreement is a huge prize and the whole House is keen to see success on it. I hope that the Minister will be as ambitious as the House is on this, because the potential for jobs, growth and prosperity, on both sides, of the Atlantic is immense.

14:07

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Skills (Matthew Hancock)]

It is a pleasure to wind up this debate. It has run over time, for which I apologise to hon. Members taking part in the next debate, but that is testament to the importance of the subject and the exceedingly high-quality contributions. More important than the quality of the rhetoric has been the unanimity of argument in favour of an EU-US trade deal. Of course important questions need to be addressed, and I will deal with as many of those as I can in the time available, but all speakers have been in favour, in principle, of pushing to make this deal happen, and that message should go out loud and clear from this House. As a passionate supporter of free trade, believing that free trade and capitalism has been the greatest force for prosperity ever invented by man, I am proud to be part of a political consensus in this country in favour of free trade. That is one of our great political and economic strengths.

On that note, I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne (John Healey) and my hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), not only for securing this debate, but for starting up the all-party group on European Union-United States trade and investment to make sure that a forum is available for all Members to discuss the issues relating to the TTIP deal. The launch of the negotiations started last week, and they are a once-in-a-generation opportunity to secure the biggest bilateral trade agreement in the history of the world. As many hon. Members have said, it would bring significant economic benefits, in growth and jobs, to both sides of the Atlantic.

There are also compelling strategic reasons for the agreement, as the right hon. Member for Warley (Mr Spellar) and the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) argued, putting the proposal in its historical context. It would be good not only for trade but for the relationship between our two continents. A successful conclusion could allow the EU and the US to agree common standards and rules fit for the 21st century. The principle of mutual recognition is an important one, and perhaps the mutually recognised standards would form the basis for standards around the rest of the world, given the sheer scale of a free trade area between the EU and the US.

We heard Opposition Members argue passionately in favour of the EU and against giving people their say, not least the hon. Members for Linlithgow, for Sheffield Central (Paul Blomfield), who gave a spectacularly passionate argument against allowing people their say in a referendum, and for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain). I think that the TTIP is central to our vision of a reformed EU that is more competitive and better able to deliver jobs and growth for its citizens, and for that proposition to be put to the British people in a referendum is a strong strategy for the way forward. Opposition Members talked about Barack Obama’s White House officials saying this and that, but I will go by the words of the man himself, who fulsomely supported the strategy of renegotiating our relationship and putting it to the people in a referendum.

The EU-US trade deal would be the biggest in the world, and it would build on our strong relationship.

[Mike Gapes]

The Minister just said that President Obama had supported a referendum. Perhaps he will give us the source of that statement.

[Matthew Hancock]

The source of the statement was President Obama. He said during a press conference with the Prime Minister—I do not have the precise quote, but I have the substance of it—that he thought it was right to try to renegotiate a relationship before deciding to leave. I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the precise quote. I think that it is better to listen to a politician, rather than officials representing a politician.

Crucially, the free trade deal must genuinely support free trade, which I think it will. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberconwy commented on that, channelling Bright. Negotiating an ambitious programme is vital. Many numbers have been quoted in the debate. We are already negotiating trade deals with Canada, India and Japan, each of which represents 2% of our exports. The United States represents 15% of our exports. I think that sums up the scale and importance of the proposition.

The relationship is already exceptionally close and deep. The US is the top export destination after the rest of the EU, and the US and the UK are each other’s largest foreign investors, supporting over 1 million jobs in this country, and US investment stock in the UK is worth around £200 billion, which is eight times the size of US investment stock in China. The scale is important, the Government’s ambition is high, and all areas are in scope. Of course, as has been mentioned, the audio-visual sector has been set to one side, but there is the potential to include it if negotiations go in that direction.

With regard to whether regional jobs data can be made available, the hon. Member for West Bromwich West (Mr Bailey) and the right hon. Member for Wentworth and Dearne argued strongly that we need to ensure that we make the argument for the deal. We will look at publishing regional jobs data in as robust a way as possible. Arguments were made, not least by the hon. Members for Hartlepool (Mr Wright) and for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) and my hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Julian Smith), giving specific examples of how the deal would help British businesses and jobs and be a positive force for the economy and prosperity. It is some of the specific examples that were given that make the case most eloquently and strongly.

[Mr Jenkin]

Will the Minister address the concern, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash), that there are already vast disparities of economic potential in different parts of the EU, which has caused massive trade imbalances between member states? The danger is that a genuine free trade deal would exacerbate those tensions? Will the incentive in the EU not be for a more protectionist deal than we would want? How will he address that?

[Matthew Hancock]

The incentive in the EU is for liberalisation, because overall the analysis of the European Commission and the analysis that we commissioned on the impact on the UK indicated a positive impact on every member state. Of course there are winners and losers, but the overall impact on each part of the EU will be positive. That is what the Commission’s analysis showed.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister be good enough to supply the European Scrutiny Committee with that analysis?

[Matthew Hancock]

Yes, of course. I was just about to move on to scrutiny, which came up in many Members’ contributions and is important. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) about the uncertainty of forecasts and numbers, but I will give the Committee the analysis. The Committee will play an important part in scrutinising the negotiations. Of course, as many Members have said, the negotiations will be led by the Commission, so we must ensure that we do not get in the way of positive developments of substance by publishing things that the Commission would not want us to publish, but within those constraints we will ensure that we engage with the Committee, and indeed with Members on both sides. I think that it would be positive to have debates such as this one as the process goes forward.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Matthew Hancock]

Of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The Minister has now been speaking for 10 minutes, so I am sure that Bob Stewart can save himself for later.

[Matthew Hancock]

Let me just run through as quickly as I can some of the other points that were made.

The objective in the negotiations, including in TTIP, will be to have commitments in health services that are broadly in line with existing international trade agreements, so I can reassure Members on that point. It is true that this is an ambitious project, but our goal is that it should be concluded within 18 to 24 months. The US interpretation is that it should be concluded on one tank of gas, and we wholeheartedly agree. The British Government will put in place whatever support is necessary for the Commission to help that happen. The benefits will come not only as a result of reducing tariffs, although they are relatively low, but from non-tariff barriers, mutual recognition of regulation and the treatment of intellectual property, which has been mentioned.

We are under no illusions that this will be easy, but we are well placed and have a strong political commitment. In the first negotiating round, which took place last week, good progress was made. A framework for the negotiations was agreed and an initial productive exchange of views on ambition and approach across each dossier was achieved. As the Prime Minister has said, it is a once-in-a-generation prize and we are determined to seize it to ensure that the benefits of free trade can increase and strengthen jobs and prosperity in this nation and around the world.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I call Mr John Healey. You have up to two minutes, but please be brief.

14:19

[John Healey]

This debate has confirmed a strong cross-party interest in the negotiations—specifically, in the areas that will loom large in any deal, in how we make sure that we get the strongest benefits for Britain, in the historical and political background to free trade, and in Government reporting and accountability to Parliament during the process. It is clear that these negotiations will be tough, that an agreement is not certain, and that the benefits will depend on the content of any agreement. That is all the more reason for Parliament getting behind the negotiations and following them closely.

We have heard 13 Back-Bench speakers. I apologise to those who were unable to give us the full benefit of their expertise because of the time limit. As the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said, it is clear that scrutiny starts with this debate. As we heard from the hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) and my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty), these negotiations are a stage-by-stage process that require in this House stage-by-stage reporting from the Government and scrutiny. This debate is a marker for the months ahead, and this subject is one to which we must return.

Question put and agreed to

Resolved,

That this House has considered the economic implications for the UK of an EU-US Trade and Investment Agreement.

Summer Adjournment

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

14:20

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Before the House adjourns for the summer recess, I should like briefly to raise a number of points.

I feel that I was duped over the war with Iraq, and I will certainly not be duped again with regard to Syria. I am totally against any involvement in that country, although I praise and highlight the work of organisations such as the United Nations, the Red Cross and Christian Aid. We want to hear much less from Mr Blair and Mr Clinton in terms of any advice that they might be giving. Unless they are prepared to have some of their children sent home in body bags, they should remain silent.

On Iran, I have long been in favour of peaceful regime change.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

On Syria, will my hon. Friend make the very important point that the community that will suffer most in any armed intervention by the west is one that is protected by the Assad regime—namely, the Christians? It is the last major Christian community left in the middle east outside Egypt.

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. However, I hope that the House will understand if I do not give way any more because I have promised the Deputy Speaker that I will be very quick and set a good example.

The new President of Iran, Mr Rouhani, seems to have been given a wonderful welcome, including in the press. Now that he has the office of President, I caution the House to judge him by his deeds, because his track record is not particularly wonderful.

The Maldives were a British protectorate and for 30 years a dictator ran the country. On 7 September, there are new elections. Given that we have a real interest in the Maldives, it is very important that those elections are held properly and fairly so that this nascent democracy is given all possible support.

I was delighted that one of my colleagues was introducing a Bill to amend the Freedom of Information Act 2000, but rather perplexed when the Bill was not presented. It is absolutely ludicrous that people can make freedom of information requests but we are not allowed know their names and addresses. The House must change that as a matter of urgency. It is completely gutless when people are not prepared to be named and reveal their identities.

I served on the Health Committee for 10 years, and during that time we initiated a debate on obesity. Given all the current talk about obesity, it is as if it has only just been invented. I urge the House to go to the House of Commons Library and look at the report that the Health Committee produced in 2003. If those recommendations had been followed, we would not be in the situation we are in now.

The Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Act 2000, which I was privileged to pilot through the House, reduced the number of people in fuel poverty from 3.5 million in 2010 to 3.2 million in 2011, but there are still far too many. Although it is very warm at the moment, I hope that we will not take our eye off the ball in reducing the deprivation that some of our senior citizens feel when it comes to being warm in their homes.

Space exploration is something that interests us all. I am sure that all hon. Members can think of one or two people they would like to send up in a rocket, hopefully not to return. I would not think for a moment that the UK Space Agency would rival its counterpart in America, although I am very glad that a British astronaut has now joined the programme. Given that we are spending a huge amount of money on the High Speed 2 rail project, I hope, in the context of profitability, that we will look carefully at space exploration in future.

Mr Ray Woodcock is a local resident who raises a lot of money for charity by bungee jumping. On 18 August, he will be beating the Guinness world record for bungee jumping over water at a Welsh quarry, jumping a total of 400 ft. I know that all hon. Members will wish him well.

I recently had a meeting in my office with representatives of Coloplast, which was the first company in the world to develop the ostomy bag. They recently celebrated bowel independence day, which encourages GPs to offer newer technologies more regularly. I hope that the relevant Health Minister will look into this matter and support the company’s endeavours. On the same day, I met representatives of the Multiple Sclerosis Society, who informed me of the positive results that the MS risk sharing scheme has shown since its introduction in 2002. I hope that the scheme will be strengthened further in future and that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary will look into the matter.

I was appalled by this week’s announcements about a number of hospitals. As I know Basildon and Thurrock University Hospitals Trust extremely well, I feel very strongly that Monitor has played a significant role in what has happened in this tragedy. The people who run Monitor must be held to account by this House.

Monorails do not seem to be particularly popular in this country, but they do offer another way of getting round our busy cities. I am certainly going to encourage the good residents of Southend to have a monorail, and I hope that other hon. Members will be interested in this matter.

Essex bowling club is currently celebrating its 106th year. It is a wonderful club that has had a few trials and tribulations, particularly with the Inland Revenue. I am sending a message to the Deputy Leader of the House saying that I expect someone from the Treasury, as a matter of urgency, to extend the courtesy of meeting my constituents from Essex bowling club and helping them with their tax affairs.

We have all seen the commissioning of reports such as Chilcot and Leveson, and there is great news coverage at the time. Millions and millions of pounds have been spent on those reports. What has happened about the Chilcot report? Absolutely nothing. What has happened about the Leveson report? Absolutely nothing. This is a disgrace in relation to taxpayers’ money. I expect the House to take this issue seriously and to make sure that we get these reports delivered here as soon as possible. I assure the House that if there were an Amess report in years to come, I would not rest until action had been taken.

I conclude with Southend’s bid to be City of Culture. I was very disappointed that neither Southend nor anywhere in the south of the country was on the shortlist of four. All I can suggest to the House is that the Unite trade union probably had something to do with rigging the ballot. That said, I am now announcing that Southend-on-Sea will be the alternative City of Culture in 2017. We will do it through private enterprise, and I hope that everyone will visit Southend to see it.

I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your fellow Deputies, the Speaker of the House, all the Attendants, and everyone who works here a wonderful summer after what has been a tremendous success in terms of sporting endeavours. If anyone is at a loose end, I would welcome them to come and see how Southend-on-Sea rocks.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Let us see whether we can rock the House with Mr Jim Cunningham on an eight-minute limit.

14:29

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

When I applied to speak in this debate, I was not aware that I would secure a meeting, along with my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth), with the Minister of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson). I therefore intend to be conciliatory in speaking about what has happened to Coventry City football club.

Many people will be aware of the long-running dispute between Coventry City football club and the owners of the stadium in Coventry, the Ricoh arena. We had a debate earlier this year on the matter so we need not go into the details of the dispute again. I also raised the matter earlier during Question Time.

The situation has developed and matters have come to a head. Coventry City FC is now due to play its home games at the Sixfields stadium in Northampton. Neither I nor the people of Coventry have anything against Northampton and I am sure that it is an excellent stadium. However, the fans will have to make the round trip at great expense, which will be beyond many of them financially. Coventry has been the home of the club since it was founded and I am sure that Members can imagine the great disappointment among Coventry fans and residents that the club is having to leave its home city.

I want to make three points. First, I understand that all sides in the dispute are having a good deal of difficulty in having productive negotiations. I do not wish to go into the reasons why that might be. However, I believe that it is vital to bring all sides of the dispute to the negotiating table. A compromise arrangement can still be thrashed out that would enable the club to continue playing at the Ricoh arena. I am only asking for a temporary solution to be found until a long-term solution can be reached. I call on all the parties involved to put aside their grievances and work constructively together to see whether an interim agreement can be reached.

I believe that the sports Minister is well placed to mediate in the dispute and I have called on him to do so. Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East and I had a productive meeting with the Minister in which we put across our views on the situation. I obviously respect the privacy of that meeting, but I will just say that we now know that he will certainly be talking to the Football League.

Time is running out before the season begins and I hope that the discussions will ensure that the club stays in Coventry.

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

If I am lucky enough, like my hon. Friend, to catch the eye of the Chair, I hope to make some broader points about the power of football supporters within their clubs. Does he agree that the supporters of Coventry City, who are organised through the Sky Blue Trust, have done a sterling job in supporting him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) in campaigning for Coventry City to be able to play within the bounds of the Coventry conurbation?

[Mr Cunningham]

I certainly pay tribute to the fans of Coventry City. They have had great patience and have given me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East a lot of support. I cannot praise them highly enough. They are now in the situation of having to travel 70 miles to a stadium outside Coventry, which will cost a significant amount. With the economic situation these days, people are finding it hard to make ends meet, to say the least. The fans have been very loyal to the club over many years, in good times and in bad.

Secondly, the Football League has given approval for the club to play at Northampton. I understand that that might be contrary to the Football League’s own regulations, but we will have to wait and see about that. I disagree with the decision to grant approval because I do not believe that all avenues of negotiation have been exhausted. Until a week ago on Monday, I thought that there was a very good chance that we would make progress with the three main parties in the process. However, when the Football League gave its approval, that took the pressure off all sides to get together and resolve the situation. That was a weapon that the league could and should have used.

I believe that there should be an inquiry into whether the Football League’s regulations have been fully complied with. However, if we assume that they have been complied with, it is still shocking that the situation has reached this late stage without the Football League taking action. To let the situation unravel to the point where a football club cannot play in its home city without the league intervening seems to me to be ridiculous. There should be a review of the Football League’s regulations to ensure that cases such as this one and that of Wimbledon are not repeated.

Thirdly, on a related point, we all know how serious a problem debt can be for football clubs. Debt, rent disputes, company buyouts and takeovers can all be felt by the team and the fans. It is time for a review of the company law relating to football club ownership to take into account the fact that football clubs are not simply businesses. They are not commodities to be bought and sold to make a profit. They mean more than that to the players, the many people involved in a club and, importantly, the fans. It is a great shame when fans can no longer watch their team because of the financial decisions of a few business people. I believe that there should be a review of the law relating to football club ownership and clubs’ financial arrangements. It should not be possible to get into this sort of situation without anything improper or illegal occurring. At some point, Government regulations should prevent this late stage from being reached.

I hope that all Members who are present agree that urgent discussions are essential if a compromise is to be reached that will keep the club in Coventry next season. I urge all sides in the dispute to come together for the future of the club and I call on Ministers to consider carefully this issue and the changes that might prevent such a situation from occurring again.

14:36

[Dame Angela Watkinson (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)]

I hope to share with the House two positive stories from Hornchurch and Upminster, but given the time constraint, it might be only one.

First, I should like to praise the excellent public library service in the London borough of Havering and to highlight the positive impact of books in developing early years literacy. Havering council takes its libraries very seriously. I commend in particular its cabinet member for culture, heritage and sport, Councillor Andrew Curtin, who takes them even more seriously. He has fought hard, not just to protect library funding but to support our excellent library staff, to improve the quality of service even further and to increase membership.

In January, Havering ran a universal membership pilot as part of the project run by the Department for Education to examine ways for children to join the library automatically at a certain point in their lives. The council worked with 10 schools across the borough. Tickets were created for all reception children and the reader development team went into the schools with a selection of books for children to borrow. The children started with mini membership, which meant that they could borrow just one book and would face no fines. The children also received an information pack, which included an invitation to parents to come and meet professional staff who could teach them how to help their children to read and offer advice on which books to borrow. Volunteers were available during the February half-term to talk to children about the books that they had read.

Havering library service is also working with the registrar of births to join all new babies born in the borough. They have signed up 856 babies in the pilot period. Activities for babies and parents assist in early language development and fine motor skills, and combat social isolation. Read and rhyme sessions for three to five-year-olds improve concentration and listening skills, and help to make the transition to school successful. There are also workshops for parents and carers entitled “How to read to your children and instil a lifelong love of reading in your child”.

The positive approach of Havering council has resulted in a huge surge in library membership in both the junior and adult sections, with 67% of the borough now signed up. For adults, especially those who live alone, the library is a social contact point. It has computers that are available for job searches, informal learning and online courses, and, of course, an endless choice of books to borrow.

I want to stress the importance of books in developing early years literacy and all the benefits that that brings. I remember vividly my first ever visit to the public library. It was stressed to me as I walked along beside my mother that, “When we are in the library, we have to whisper.” The library was a traditional municipal building with wood panelling, not unlike the Chamber, which was a bit intimidating for a five-year-old, but it was a treasure trove because it was full of books. We did not own any books at home, and to see wall-to-wall books was wonderful. Even better than that, I was allowed to borrow them. I could choose them, take them home and read them. A very important lady stamped the back of the book to tell me when I had to bring it back—the whole thing was absolutely thrilling. I could not wait to get home and start reading. It was the beginning of my lifelong love affair with books.

Children who enjoy reading are more likely to have a good vocabulary, and the importance of good communication skills cannot be overstated. Reading develops imagination, creativity and ideas. Children learn to spell and absorb information without realising it, if they enjoy reading as part of their daily lives. They can be transported into other worlds and experience a gamut of emotions: excitement, fear, joy, sympathy and optimism. Characters in books display the good and bad in people, and set examples of courage and kindness, happiness and despair. Children who are introduced to books and acquire a love of reading in their early years are likely to continue to keep it all their lives. They are better informed and broader minded for it, and will be better equipped to face the many challenges that school and life bring.

There is no excuse for any child in this country to be deprived of books. No matter how modest the family income, the public library offers a limitless range of books for everyone. I commend the London borough of Havering for its progressive library service.

My second story—I see that I just have time to tell it—concerns my visit to Stubbers adventure centre in my constituency this week to see the National Citizen Service in action. The NCS is a Government-funded scheme for year 11 and 12 students and 16 and 17-year-olds who are not in education, that lasts about four weeks. The first week is spent away on an outward bound course doing challenging activities like rock climbing and canoeing with other young people from different backgrounds they have never met before. It builds confidence and interpersonal skills. Importantly, it is great fun.

The second week, which was when I visited, is residential. Other new skills are acquired: putting up a tent, personal financial management, learning how the community is made up and planning a local social action project. The students were full of ideas. They planned how to put them into action and raised the money they needed. They also found out who to contact for permission or information. It was wonderful to see such enthusiasm.

The third and fourth weeks are a lesson in practicality, organisation, overcoming setbacks and difficulties, and maintaining effort—all real life skills that will stand them in good stead. At the end of the course they all receive a graduation certificate signed by the Prime Minister, and parents often make comments like, “I don't know what you did with him, but he is completely transformed.”

Schools can help to raise awareness of NCS, which takes place during school holidays so there is no cost, either in time or money, to schools. They can pass on information or invite the NCS to speak to pupils, so that the opportunity to take part is available to 16 and 17-year-olds from all backgrounds. It really is a worthwhile experience.

14:43

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

I would like to share a shocking case with the House on behalf of my constituents George Shaw and Paula Davidson, who for 18 years have been the proprietors of the Fillings sandwich shop in Streatham Hill.

In March 2005, Mr Shaw was unloading his van outside his shop. He saw a man looking into his front window and became concerned that the man was about to steal his van. He then felt a sharp pain in his back: he had been shot. The man had been looking at the bank, which he intended to rob, on the other side of the street through the reflection of the shop window. This man, Mr O, fled in a minicab. It took some time for the police to arrive, but there was CCTV footage from the buses that passed along the street and there were witnesses who were prepared to give evidence, in spite of it being a violent crime. One would think that it was an open and shut case.

It took the police a week to find Mr O. They found him in the Republic of Ireland, where he was also wanted by the police. He was found guilty of a violent crime in Ireland and was imprisoned there for five years. He was later extradited back to the UK and went on trial in 2010. Mr Shaw and Ms Davidson tell me that in the five years between the shooting and Mr O being returned to Britain they were not kept informed and had no idea what was going on. To this day, they are confused as to why Trident investigated the case, as it was not a gang or black-on-black crime. A few days before the trial in 2010, they received a two-line e-mail telling them to be prepared for a case at the Old Bailey, and to be ready to give evidence.

Mr O was being tried for a number of violent crimes, including, I understand, a dangerous assault on a woman in a pub in Brixton. When Mr Shaw got to court, he learned that the police had lost all the evidence: they had lost the gun, the bullet and the CCTV from the buses. The people who were prepared to give evidence turned up in fear. They sat outside for 10 days completely uninformed about what was going on. Mr Shaw and Ms Davidson had never had anything to do with the police or the criminal justice system before, and this was an overwhelming experience for them. Mr Shaw had suffered greatly. He had been in hospital for weeks, and he continues to have a very large hernia as a result of the injuries he sustained. Nobody explained what was happening. As far as he knew, Mr O was not being prosecuted for his near murder.

On the advice of Victim Support, Mr Shaw came to see me in March 2011. I wrote to the Independent Police Complaints Commission to ask it to investigate. On 19 December 2012, Mr Shaw and Ms Davidson met Mick Foote, the detective superintendent in Trident gang crime command. Last week, they received a letter explaining that nobody was at fault for losing the evidence, and that nothing could be done to bring Mr O back to trial.

On Mr Shaw’s behalf, and to give some credibility to our Government system and our public services, I ask that Mr Shaw be informed of where Mr O is imprisoned and when he will be released. Not unreasonably, Mr Shaw and his wife are frightened that Mr O will be released. He is a man of violent conduct and might come back to their shop. I would like the police to meet Mr Shaw and Ms Davidson and explain exactly what happened, and what support they should have expected, from the crime taking place to the date when the trial took place, and what support they should have reasonably expected while the trial was going ahead.

If victims experience this level of bemusement in such a serious case, what happens in smaller cases? My constituent has run his sandwich shop on Streatham High road for 18 years and has had no involvement with the criminal justice system. He feels he has been treated like a criminal.

14:48

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

I rise to draw attention to an issue to which I drew attention in the last debate on matters to be raised before the Adjournment, which took place on 26 March. On that occasion I drew the House’s attention to concerns about the consequence of an EU directive on people’s ability to continue to use what was then, and still is, a relatively new product, namely electronic or e-cigarettes. Members will remember that an e-cigarette is an alternative to a conventional tobacco cigarette and consists of an electronic inhaler that vaporises a liquid into an aerosol mist, enabling the user to enjoy nicotine in a far safer form.

I return to this topic because, in addition to the EU legislation, there is a now a proposal by the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency for e-cigarettes to be considered as medicinal products. The EU directive seeks to lay down a legislative framework for the manufacture, presentation and sale of tobacco products. However, e-cigarettes are not tobacco products. Bringing them into line with their more dangerous counter- parts—standard cigarettes—will see the consumption of e-cigarettes drop. That means that people who currently use them safely will no longer be able to do so. If the MHRA’s proposal goes through, e-cigarettes will have to go through an expensive and time-consuming procedure to be approved as medicines. If that procedure makes them more difficult to obtain, smokers will simply continue to smoke tobacco.

It is important to remember that e-cigarettes were not developed as a medicinal product. Indeed, I heard them described at a seminar the other day as simply an “enjoyable consumer product”. However, their regulation as medicinal products would raise costs, reduce the diversity of products available, slow down innovation and inhibit creativity, and, in doing so, make them less appealing to the very people hoping to switch to them. These are by-products of the law of unintended consequences. More people will revert to tobacco.

Beyond that, the MHRA recommendation is for people “not to use”—that is its advice—the current generation of e-cigarettes available on the market. Its group manager of vigilance and risk management of medicines told a press conference held to announce the MHRA’s recommendations:

“We can’t recommend these products because their safety and quality is not assured, and so we will recommend that people don’t use them”.

However, that was despite the MHRA’s impact assessment giving no evidence of any harm caused by the use of e-cigarettes. In fact, Professor Robert West of University college London says that for current e-cigarettes “the risk is negligible”. Indeed, the NHS’s website states that their toxicity is one thousandth that of tobacco cigarettes.

One consequence of the MHRA’s recommendation has been that a major supermarket chain removed e-cigarettes from its pharmacy shelves, while a survey of 700 pharmacists has shown that 99.5% are declining to stock e-cigarettes because of the announcement. There is an emerging industry manufacturing e-cigarettes, which predicts that the reduction in their use caused by the MHRA’s recommendation will cost the NHS £2.5 billion, owing to fewer people giving up smoking tobacco. E-Lites, the largest producer of e-cigarettes, now forecasts a substantial reduction in the growth of the market. On its figures, 390,000 fewer people will be using e-cigarettes by the end of the year, compared with what would have happened without the MHRA’s recommendation.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Someone has to regulate e-cigarettes, but if they are not regulated as a medicine or cigarettes, who will do it?

[Mark Pawsey]

E-cigarettes are currently regulated in the same way as standard consumer products, and are subject to local authorities, trade descriptions and so on.

Users are concerned that it will become harder for them to access e-cigarettes in their bid to wean themselves off smoking, as the alternative of e-cigarettes will simply be more expensive. The directive is also of great concern to a number of small businesses, in particular a business based in my constituency called Smoke No Smoke, to which I referred when I last spoke on this issue. Its entrepreneurial owner, Jim Lacey, is facing a threat to the future of the business that he has worked so hard to build up. The feedback from his customers is that they will be unable to access the product. There is a danger that that will force the e-cigarette trade underground. If e-cigarettes were produced in an illegal market, it would be difficult for people to know where they had come from.

This is not the time to introduce these regulations. I urge the Government to look more closely at what they can do to avoid the implementation of the directive.

14:54

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

The end-of-term Adjournment debate is normally used by Members to raise matters of constituency interest or to highlight particular campaigns, but I would like to do something slightly different today. I want to talk about the European Union (Referendum) Bill. Two weeks ago, when the House debated the Bill’s Second Reading, I wished to speak but, as hon. Members will know, the debate was somewhat oversubscribed. I shall therefore outline my views on the Bill today, and set out my reasons for abstaining in the vote two weeks ago.

I remain to be convinced that there is a desperate clamour for a referendum on Europe, either in my constituency or in the country as a whole. Since I was elected in 2010, 20 of my constituents have e-mailed me to say that they want a referendum. During that same period, more than 1,000 people have contacted me about the NHS and more than 50,000 people signed my petition against changes at Lewisham hospital. My constituents are not generally shy about telling me what they think. They tell me how tough it is to find work, how they are struggling because their tax credits are being cut, and how they cannot afford their rent, let alone a mortgage. I do not dispute that our membership of the European Union is an issue for some people—I suspect, incidentally, that there is some geographical variation in the levels of concern—but I really question whether the time being spent on the issue in Westminster is proportionate to the scale of interest and concern that exists in the country as a whole.

We now have a Bill going through the House that would commit us to having a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU in four years’ time. I am not a particular fan of referendums—I think that the majority of people who vote actually elect politicians to do a job and want us to get on with it—but I am not opposed in principle to the idea of a referendum on Europe. But to legislate now for a referendum in four years’ time just seems like a huge leap in the dark when we do not know what changes to our relationship with Europe will have been sought or agreed.

If I were a business owner looking for a European base or seeking to expand my European operation, the idea that the UK might not be in the EU in four years’ time would surely make my search for a regional hub or headquarters much easier. Why set up shop in a country that might have cut its ties with the world’s largest single trading bloc, four years down the line? Legislating now for a referendum in 2017 will create huge economic uncertainty, which this country could well live without.

We also have to be clear that the majority of those who have led the campaign for an EU referendum want to take us out of Europe. That is not true for everyone, but it is the overriding motive of most referendum proponents. I, for one, do not want to associate myself with such a cause. I believe that the UK has to be at the heart of Europe, leading it, reforming it and making it work for the 21st century. The European Union is far from perfect. We need to tackle the waste and bureaucracy, and it needs greater democratic accountability. We can all point to x regulation or y regulation that we might want to see changed, but in my view, the overall economic and social benefit to our country that results from our membership of the EU outweighs those negatives.

Some of those who advance the case for withdrawal seem to think that, if we left, we would automatically get all the gain but none of the pain. I do not think that that is true. We would have to pay billions to access the free market, yet we would have no say over the rules that govern it. As much as we might want to strike free trade deals with the big global economies, their priority surely would still be the EU and not an isolated UK. And what of our bargaining power? Do we honestly think that by going it alone we would carry the same weight in negotiations and be able to strike the same deals in the interests of the British economy?

I was just one year old when the last referendum on Europe took place. I recently asked my dad whether he had voted. I had never spoken to him about it before—as in many families up and down the country, Europe was not the usual topic of conversation at the dinner table—but he told me that he had voted yes. I asked him what he made of the current debate on Europe. His response was, “It’s a bit like a football match, Heidi. You can’t hope to influence the outcome simply by shouting from the sidelines.” The Prime Minister’s European game plan is not just about hollering from the sidelines because half his side really want to play for a different team. To cap it all, half of them have already admitted defeat before the first whistle has even been blown.

The world has moved on since the last referendum on Europe. Thankfully, it has moved on, too, since my grandfather and my husband’s grandfather found themselves on opposing sides in the second world war. I believe that the case for being part of Europe is stronger now than it was in either 1945 or 1975. In an increasingly complex world where big challenges cross international borders and where enormous multinational companies have greater financial powers than many countries, we need governance structures that exist above the nation state to discuss the problems, explore solutions and build consensus. That is not to say that we should be subordinate to such structures—far from it—but the UK has to be part of the dialogue.

The truth is that the real reason for the European Union (Referendum) Bill is UKIP. UKIP’s rise is as much about people’s disillusionment with politics as it is about our membership of the EU. It is about immigration, welfare, fierce competition for scarce jobs and the lack of genuinely affordable housing. At its heart, it is about the public looking at their politicians and seeing, by and large, a bunch of people who all look the same and sound the same—but do not look and sound like them. It is easy for UKIP—a party that has just one all too notable face and seemingly no internal dialogue or debate. All UKIP politicians do is say the populist thing, take the TV cameras to the pub with them and convince people that they are more like them than the bunch of suits in Westminster.

The European Union (Referendum) Bill says more about the fears and obsessions of the Conservative party than it does about the hopes and aspirations of our country. It is a potentially dangerous distraction from the issues that really matter to people and to our country’s future. That is why I did not support it two weeks ago and why I wanted to put my views on the record today.

In the 30 seconds remaining, I would simply like to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House of Commons a very happy summer recess.

15:02

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

If people are still looking for a book to read during the summer recess, I would recommend “You Can’t Hide the Sun” by the Beirut hostage, John McCarthy. He provides a very disturbing and worrying account of life for Palestinians post-1948. He pulls back the curtains, goes behind the scenery and reveals what is really going on in that troubled part of the world.

By the time we return to Parliament in September, it is quite possible that a serious situation will have got even worse. The Israeli Parliament has voted for what can be described only as ethnically cleansing between 40,000 and 60,000 Bedouin. Clearly, the removal of such a large number of humanity will be undertaken only at the point of a gun. If ethnic cleansing were going on anywhere else in the world, the world’s leaders would be voicing outrage. The national and international media would have television cameras there reporting this crime against humanity, yet we have a deafening silence from political leaders in this country and in the United States of America.

It is the Americans who allow this sort of thing to go on, as they have since 1948. President Obama has failed to ensure that ethnic cleansing does not take place by the Israelis and the Israeli Parliament against the Bedouin. It is, of course, a track record that goes back over many years. The illegal occupation of the west bank and East Jerusalem; the obvious apartheid legislation of the Israeli Government; the ignoring of countless United Nations resolutions, the Geneva convention and international law: these are everyday occurrences for Palestinians living in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. Our Government have been silent. Two weeks ago, in this very Chamber, when I invited the Foreign Secretary to condemn Israel for the ethnic cleansing of the Bedouins, he declined to do so, and I therefore asked him a parliamentary question on 11 July.

[Bob Stewart]

I want to place on record that I personally condemn what is happening to the Bedu. I used to live in the area. I think it is disgraceful that there are two kinds of people—Israelis and the others—on the west bank, and that the law is different for each of them. It is appalling.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am extremely grateful to my hon. and gallant Friend, because he brings to the Chamber a very distinguished military record. He is a soldier whose reputation is such that he would never find himself up before the International Court of Justice. I am bound to say that some of the military leaders and Israeli political leaders would face the Court for what they have done, and for what they are doing.

In my parliamentary question, I asked the Foreign Secretary

“how many representations he has received in opposition to proposals by the government of Israel to forcibly remove 40,000 Bedouin from their historic lands.”

In fact, the figure may be 60,000 by now. A Minister replied:

“The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has received over 600 representations from members of the public on this issue.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 355.]

I will not be silenced on the issue. I am speaking here on behalf of the 600 or more people who have written to our Government, and I am speaking, I hope, with the blessing of all people of all faiths around the world who deplore what is being done. I want specifically to praise the work of the American-based organisation Jewish Voice for Peace, because, like that organisation, I want to see peace in the Holy Land. I want to see people of all faiths and religions and of none living in harmony. I am bound to observe, however, that the actions, past and present, of the Israeli Parliament are more akin to what went on in apartheid South Africa. The world did not like what went on in apartheid South Africa, but the world is silent about what is going on in Israel/ Palestine.

Where are the words of opposition from President Obama and the United States Administration? There are none. Where are the words of opposition from the Government of the United Kingdom? There are none. What is the European Union doing, other than having friendly trade relations with Israel? Earlier this year, there was the extraordinary situation of an international European football tournament taking place in Israel. The last time I looked at the map of the world, Israel was not in Europe.

I hope that, out there, President Obama, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, our Prime Minister or whoever will prevail on the Israeli Parliament. It must be made clear that the forcible removal of up to 60,000 Bedouins—in addition to everything else that has been done over the years—does not bring forward peace in the middle east, but sets it back. I want to see a peaceful Holy Land, but I think that leaders must speak up.

I hope that, if nothing else, I have drawn attention to what is happening to the Bedouins. The BBC is not covering it, our national newspapers are not covering it, ITV is not covering it, Sky News is not covering it, Channel 4 is not covering it. If 60,000 people were being subjected to ethnic cleansing in any other country in the world, it would be the lead news. Shame on our national media for pulling a curtain across the stage so that people do not know what is going on.

I ask Members please to acquire a copy of “You Can’t Hide the Sun” by John McCarthy, and to read it and find out what is going on in that part of the world. They will not find that out through the British media.

15:10

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

I hope I do not have to take my full eight minutes, but I sat in this House yesterday listening to Prime Minister’s Question Time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) asked the Prime Minister why he had not replied to a letter he had sent to him in February, to which the Prime Minister replied:

“I will look urgently at this case, because I reply to hon. Members’ correspondence right across the House, and I always will.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1090.]

Last month, I brought up at Prime Minister’s Question Time the fact that I had written a letter to the Prime Minister on 8 May this year about public health and Lynton Crosby’s involvement, or non-involvement, in public health matters. I asked several questions, including:

“Have you ever discussed cigarette packaging policy with Lynton Crosby? Have you ever discussed minimum alcohol pricing with Lynton Crosby?”

The last question was:

“Were the Government’s legislative priorities discussed at the meeting which reportedly took place at Chequers on Thursday 21 February, involving you, George Osborne, Ed Llewellyn and Lynton Crosby?”

I have not yet, months later, had a reply from the Prime Minister to that letter.

As I said, I brought the matter up at Prime Minister’s Question Time on 19 June. I told the Prime Minister I had written to him on 8 May and had not yet received a reply, and briefly mentioned that the letter was about Lynton Crosby and alcohol and standard packaging of cigarettes. He did not reply, instead saying:

“I can tell you, Mr Speaker, that Lynton Crosby has never lobbied me on anything.”

If that is the case—if he believes that—why he cannot reply to my letter of 8 May is beyond me. The Prime Minister continued:

“The only opinions that I am interested in are how we destroy the credibility of the Labour party, on which he has considerable expertise, though I have to say that he is not doing as good a job as the Labour party.”—[Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 891.]

It is perfectly clear what agenda Mr Crosby is setting. Members may recall that in yesterday’s debate on managing risk in the NHS, I intervened on my right hon. Friend the shadow Health Secretary, saying:

“My right hon. Friend knows well…that in the past two months there has been a marked change in the coalition Government’s approach on the national health service. It started with the absurd argument that the problems in accident and emergency departments were the result of the 2004 GP contract. Is it not more likely that what is happening is that Mr Lynton Crosby is telling Government Members to squeeze the lead that Labour has had over the Conservative party for many decades on the NHS?”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1177.]

That is exactly what is happening. I went on to mention that that is not only demoralising NHS staff and frightening NHS patients, but is doing enormous damage to the credibility of politicians up and down the land. I got an e-mail yesterday from a Conservative Member who was tabling an early-day motion. He said he thinks we should get party politics out of the NHS. I agree.

I am concerned about the non-reply to my letter for several reasons. The Prime Minister gave his view on this matter on 23 March 2012 in a No. 10 press release:

“The Prime Minister is leading Government action to tackle binge-drinking culture by supporting proposals a minimum unit price for alcohol.”

It says the Home Secretary is involved in that, and the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:

“So we’re going to attack it from every angle. More powers for pubs to stop serving alcohol to people who are already drunk. More powers for hospitals not just to tackle the drunks turning up in A&E—but also the problem clubs that send them there night after night. And a real effort to get to grips with the root cause of the problem. And that means coming down hard on cheap alcohol.”

We had a statement yesterday from the Home Office, again, which is most likely to view alcohol as a law and order issue. I wish that people would view alcohol as an issue of health and the damage it is doing to the young generation. Thirty years ago, people of my age—men in their 60s—died of alcohol-related diseases. Young men and women in their 20s are dying of cirrhosis of the liver now: not just one or two, but many of them. We must take a hold of this problem and the Prime Minister and the Government are not doing that.

During the alcohol strategy consultation statement yesterday, the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) asked a question that relates directly to getting a grip on the price of alcohol. She asked whether the Minister was aware of the evidence from Sheffield, which is where the original review was carried out on alcohol pricing and consumption in areas such as my constituency, which is just outside Sheffield. The review stood the test many years ago and stands the test now, so to hear Ministers say that there is no evidence on alcohol pricing and consumption is complete nonsense. I fear that Lynton Crosby and the people he has worked for in the past have more on that.

The hon. Lady asked:

“Is the Minister aware of the evidence from Sheffield that was published this morning and shows that the impact of having a threshold at duty plus VAT would be a decrease in consumption of one 400th of 1%?”

That is what the Government announced yesterday on health and alcohol, notwithstanding how A and Es up and down the land are swamped with people who have overindulged in alcohol not just on Friday and Saturday nights but midweek, too. Never mind the disease that alcohol creates; it creates chaos on our streets and in the hospitals, too. The hon. Lady went on:

“In other words, it will be meaningless.”—[Official Report, 17 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 1122.]

She is absolutely right.

I said yesterday that at the weekend the Faculty of Public Health withdrew from the Government’s responsibility group on the use of alcohol, as have Alcohol Concern, Cancer Research UK, the UK Health Forum and many other organisations. The Government are backing down and taking notice of industry, and the areas that affect public health are being left. Everybody ought to know that the dangers to public health in this century, as opposed to past centuries, are caused by individual lifestyles. The Government are ducking taking action on individual lifestyles in favour of industry. I thought I ought to put that on the record and I hope that one day I will get a reply to my letter.

15:17

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

This week, I have had a work experience student in my office. Members might say that there is nothing unusual about that, but this young man is different. He is from North Korea. Abandoned by his family as a child, he lived on the streets from the ages of eight to 14, scavenging food. He tried to escape his hopeless life to flee his country only to be caught by Chinese soldiers, returned, imprisoned, tortured, hung upside down, repeatedly beaten and left virtually for dead. He was just 16. He told me:

“They would have killed or imprisoned me for life, but I was still a minor.”

He managed to escape yet again, but was hunted down in China by the police and imprisoned there, where he attempted suicide. Later, after a long international journey involving the selfless kindness of many people, he arrived in the UK, where he is now a student with a hope and future, although he still bears the scars of his early life in many ways. He is still only 24 years old.

He is one remarkable young man from North Korea whose life, after years of terrible suffering, is now changed for ever. Dare we hope for the same for his people? The answer must be a resounding yes. We should indeed hope for a better future for the people of North Korea and do more than just watch and wait for it. We should act. I hear Members ask: but how? In these few minutes, may I suggest some actions at governmental, organisational and individual levels?

As time is brief, I do not propose to refer in detail to the egregious violations of human rights in that country, and the indescribable suffering of the people of North Korea—they have been described in earlier debates in this House and in another place—but I will mention the disappointment at the way in which young Kim Jong-un has dashed hopes and squandered the opportunity for the fresh start that his leadership could have provided. Despite that, there is still hope, and it is right to work for change.

How can we help? First, through practical support for the hundreds of North Korean escapees here in Britain, such as the young man I mentioned, who encounter the shock of trying to integrate into a free society. We can help to educate and equip them for the regime change that will surely come. When it does, there will be a need for leaders in North Korea who understand both its tragic past and the essential concepts for building a free society, such as the rule of law and democratic and human rights. I urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to engage with the North Korean diaspora in that way.

Philanthropic business people can consider supporting social enterprises in North Korea. There are isolated examples of such enterprises, including a shoe factory. Business start-ups provide potential soft power interventions, including through improved employee conditions, such as the very basic one of insisting that wages are paid direct to employees, and not via the state, with its inevitable deductions. At grass-roots level, North Korean people want DVDs, USB drives, radios and mini-computers to be sent to them. The regime’s information blockade is crumbling, as through these items North Koreans have much better awareness of the realities of life in the outside world than they would have done even five or 10 years ago.

On a structural level, improved equipment, technology, and production methods for farms are needed. Support for the constructive work of non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam is to be commended. Could the Department for International Development not consider supporting such NGOs? The excellent work of the British Council, which, on a relative shoestring, has taught English to 3,900 North Koreans over the past 13 years, is to be commended and would merit greater support, as would academic and cultural exchanges. The Pyongyang university of science and technology welcomes UK academics to teach there, and we can all join the all-party group on North Korea in calling on the BBC to start broadcasting into North Korea as soon as possible.

As individuals, we can support effective advocacy organisations such as Christian Solidarity Worldwide; I invite hon. Members to read Ben Rogers’s excellent article, which is on the Conservative Home website today. We can highlight the plight of foreign nationals such as Kenneth Bae, who is in jail in North Korea, and support the planned new grass-roots group, North Korea Campaign UK, which is to be modelled on the successful Burma Campaign UK, a country from whose recent experiences we should draw cautious optimism. Hon. Members should look out for this campaign’s launch in the media, which will take place on 27 July to coincide with the 60th anniversary of the Korean war armistice. It is often called the forgotten war, and I pay tribute to the 1,000 men who lost their lives in it; that is more British forces than died in the Falklands, Iraq, and Afghanistan combined.

All this—opening doors, building relationships, strengthening contacts, and opening as many channels of communication as possible through constructive and critical engagement—is the approach promoted in Lord Alton’s substantial new book, which he wrote with Rob Chidley. It is called “Building Bridges: is there Hope for North Korea?” At the risk of recommending yet more fairly heavy reading for MPs over the summer, I recommend the book; it really will impress. It suggests ways forward on the humanitarian and security challenges facing North Korea today—what Lord Alton calls

“Helsinki, with a Korean face”.

That means adopting the approach that Britain and the US took in the Soviet Union at the height of the cold war, and building bridges, not walls, between people.

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

I applaud my hon. Friend’s choice of subject. Is she aware of the annual international meeting of parliamentarians that focuses exclusively on gross human rights violations in North Korea? I have the privilege of representing the House at the next meeting in Warsaw in a fortnight’s time.

[Fiona Bruce]

I am delighted to hear that my right hon. Friend is attending that convention; I received an invitation, but was unable to attend.

I commend, too, the work of British officials who, behind the scenes at UN and EU level, in partnership with others, have helped to secure the recently established UN commission of inquiry to investigate crimes against humanity in North Korea—a real step forward. May I urge them, in addition, to press for the stopping of forcible repatriation of North Korean refugees from China, knowing as we do that they face the kind of experiences that I have described today?

May I encourage colleagues in the House to join the increasingly active all-party group on North Korea to help make the suffering of the people of North Korea, in the most persecuted country on earth, a thing of the past, and in the words of the young music group Ooberfuse to “vanish the night”? That is a song that the group wrote as a result of coming to one of the all-party group meetings. The phrase “vanish the night” refers to the fact that if one looks down on satellite pictures of North Korea compared with South Korea, one will see that North Korea is almost totally black. There is no light shining out from the streets in North Korea.

I finish with some words from Lord Alton’s wonderful book. Referring to the example of Burma, he says:

“What seems a faraway dream can happen more quickly than one might imagine.”

Events, he comments,

“can move much more quickly than we might sometimes anticipate.”

Speaking of young students such as the North Korean work experience student whom I mentioned at the start of my speech, Lord Alton says:

“We owe it to their generation—to the North Koreans who die trying to escape across the Tumen and Yalu rivers and those who still languish in prison camps—to take every opportunity to bring Korea closer to the dream of reunification. This requires opening up as many channels of communication as possible. We must do everything we can to saturate North Korea with goodwill.”

He goes on:

“The Korean proverb tells us that ‘to begin is half the task’ . . . We must build bridges, not walls.”

15:26

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

I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to take part in this pre-recess debate. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce). I certainly endorse her hope that the Department for International Development will use some of its resources to facilitate more positive communications of the sort that she describes with North Korea. I hope she will forgive me if I do not promise to read the heavy tome that she recommended on my summer holidays, but I thought she made a very interesting and important contribution.

As my intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) indicated, in my speech I shall press the case for more action to support the right of football supporters to have a say in the governance of the football club that they follow, and to call for a higher proportion of television revenues to be directed into grass-roots support. As my hon. Friend made clear in his intervention, Coventry City is just the latest example of a club where supporters’ concerns are being ignored. The particular concern of the supporters’ trust—the Sky Blue Trust—and other supporters of Coventry City more generally is the owners’ desire to shift their club for a number of years some 35 miles away from where it currently plays, with all the difficulties for Coventry City supporters that that will signify.

I welcome the fact that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South and my right hon. Friend the Member for Coventry North East (Mr Ainsworth) have met the Minister. I understand that Coventry City supporters are shortly to take part in a demonstration outside the Football League to demonstrate their concern to the powers that be in the Football League. Given that the Football League’s strap line is “Real football, real fans”, one hopes that it will listen to the concerns of Coventry City fans and intervene.

[Mark Pawsey]

As the MP for a constituency that neighbours Coventry and with many supporters in my constituency, I very much hope that the Coventry City issue will be resolved. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if Coventry City plays 35 miles away, there might be an opportunity to persuade Coventry City supporters to watch the oval ball game in the city of Coventry at the Butts stadium and see the Coventry rugby club restored to the power in the land that it once was?

[Mr Thomas]

If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I will stick to the more general point about the need to give football supporters more say in the governance of their club. Nevertheless, he has made his point and I am sure that Coventry rugby club’s supporters will be delighted that he chose to make it.

The successes of Swansea City and Bayern Munich last season emphasise, in their very different ways, the success of clubs where supporters have a very direct and significant role in how their football club is managed. Swansea City is unique in the Premier League in terms of the involvement of fans in the boardroom. I think that it is high time that that situation changed. The Co-operative party, which I am lucky enough to chair, championed in the late 1990s the idea of football supporters’ trusts to help football supporters co-operate to buy stakes in the running of their clubs. Now many Football League clubs and, indeed, many non-league clubs—the famous cases of AFC Wimbledon or FC United through to the likes of Exeter and Chester—are directly run by their supporters through the mechanism of a supporters’ trust.

The involvement of supporters’ trusts on the boards of clubs helps to ensure that that authentic voice of the supporter is heard when the role of the club in the local community is being discussed, when ticket prices are being debated or when players’ wages and contracts are being agreed. Supporters’ trusts help to ensure that longer term thinking about the future of the club and the need for sustainable finances over the long term are being considered. They help to deliver added social value to their localities and, indeed, on occasion they can boost enterprise in the area.

The Football Association has been under pressure for some time from football supporters to bring forward reforms to football rules to give fans more influence. To date, they have resisted any measures that challenge the autonomy of Premier League club owners. The FA Council’s summer meeting took place last Saturday and sadly was no different from previous such meetings. So if the supporters’ voice is really going to be heard, it seems to me that three key measures are required for change.

First, legislation is needed to make it easier for supporters’ trusts to buy their club. There ought to be a right to buy for supporters’ trusts that allows them to purchase a club at the point of a club entering administration and before receivership at a fair market valuation.

Secondly, for most supporters of Premier League clubs, administration is not likely to happen any time soon and there is no obvious sign either that, despite warm words from some Premier League club owners or managers, a stake in the ownership of Premier League clubs is likely to be sold to supporters’ trusts. Legislation is also needed to embed a right to observe in law. In other words, if a proportion—say 10%—of season ticket holders at a Premier League or Championship club belong to the registered supporters’ trust, that trust ought to have a right to attend and observe board meetings at the club, to receive board papers and to be able, as a result, to question and hold to account the club’s owners and senior staff.

Both these measures would help to embed supporters in the heart of decision making about a football club’s future. Such decisions about the future of a football club should not be the sole preserve of wealthy owners. We need to remember that such clubs have been built on the back of ordinary supporters’ money and commitment and they surely have a right to have better access to the key decisions and decision makers in their club.

The third measure to which I draw the House’s attention is the funding of grass-roots sport, and other related football causes. In 2001, the Premier League agreed to give 5% of its total broadcast income to the provision of grass-roots facilities, and to encourage better provision for supporters. It now claims that that was just for one TV deal, and only for domestic broadcasting rights. I wonder whether we need a back-stop legal power to ensure that that 2001 deal continues into the future. Without such a back-stop power, the Premier League and Football Association have been able to reduce the amount of money given each year to the Football Foundation directly from football clubs.

The need for more investment in grass-roots sport, and perhaps for a lever to change the minds of owners and their defenders in Premier League and FA boardrooms, points to a need for a legal power to impose a levy. If such a levy were ever to be used, it must clearly be kept well away from the Treasury. I hope we would never need to use such a power, but perhaps the Minister would consider the possibility of a back-stop statutory power to get the FA and Premier League to be more serious about funding for grass-roots sport in the future. With a £5 billion broadcast deal, it is not unreasonable to expect the Premier League to offer 5% of its income for investment in grass-roots coaching and facilities.

15:36

[Sir John Stanley (Tonbridge and Malling) (Con)]

My constituent, Mrs Rene Chung, is not an illegal immigrant, although that is how she has been treated, in part, by the Home Office and the UK Border Agency—I am glad to see that the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), is in his place.

Mrs Rene Chung is a Canadian citizen and she has been living in the UK, perfectly legally, since 2008. She is married to a British citizen and she is a top-flight business woman. She contributes to Britain’s economic performance, and no doubt to the revenues going into the Exchequer through the tax system. For her job it is essential that she travels. The chief executive of the company for which she works—an international, executive search and selection company—recently wrote to the Home Secretary as follows:

“Ms Chung works as a Senior Consultant for me, and as a valued member of my company, she holds expert knowledge about our clients and their businesses, and she also has valuable experience of interviewing and assessing the suitability of candidates for our clients. Ms Chung is also responsible for business development and she is required to support me in “pitch” meetings which involves visiting clients’ offices all over Europe. Our business travel occurs about two times a month, and is usually planned at very short notice i.e. one week notice or less. It is important for me to stress that Ms Chung’s ability to carry out her basic job responsibilities is directly linked to her ability to travel. Ms Chung has performed extremely well in my company for the past four years, and she has proven to be an asset to the company. It is therefore important for me to request that Ms Chung is allowed to continue travelling regularly for business.”

I will not detain the House with the details of Rene Chung’s case, but I want to highlight three points. First, Mrs Chung has been waiting for more than a year for the renewal of her spouse visa application—in my view, an unacceptable length of time. Secondly, the Home Office has already made a disastrous error in handling her case by incorrectly deeming Mrs Chung’s application to have been withdrawn—the Immigration Minister has apologised for that in his latest letter to me. Thirdly, and most disgracefully of all, when Mrs Chung recently returned to Gatwick, following a business visit to Europe, she was locked up for six hours and released only after her passport had been confiscated. Such conduct is more redolent of an authoritarian police state than what we expect in a democratic Britain that pays proper regard to basic human rights.

When it comes to supporting economic growth in the business community, the Home Office is wholly apart from the rest of the Government, who are doing all they can to support economic growth in the business community—some signs of success are, I hope, beginning to show through. On the other hand, as far as I can see, the Home Office takes absolutely no account of the need to support the business community, including individual business men and women trying to contribute to our economic growth. It is blindingly obvious that it should introduce a fast-track procedure for processing applications for visa renewals of people with a clear legal right to be in this country and for whom travel is essential to their work. I put it to the Home Secretary that fast-track processing should be put in place forthwith. In cases such as Mrs Chung’s, I see no reason why visa renewal applications should not be processed within a maximum of four weeks.

Finally, I want to make a complaint to the Immigration Minister about a recent answer he has given to me. I appreciate that he has probably got the worst job in the Government and is probably grossly overburdened, but on 11 July he gave me a seriously misleading answer. I tabled a question to the Home Secretary asking when I would receive a reply to a total of four letters I had sent to her about Mrs Rene Chung’s case. The Minister replied:

“I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 July 2013.”—[Official Report, 11 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 367W.]

The answer was misleading, because it related only to the first letter I wrote to the Home Secretary. I have received no reply to the remaining three letters. I ask my hon. Friend the Immigration Minister to make the appropriate correction in Hansard and, most particularly, to reply forthwith to the three outstanding letters I have sent to the Home Secretary about Mrs Rene Chung’s case, to return her passport to her forthwith and to renew her spouse visa application forthwith.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I have just learned that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has laid an order under the Communications Act 2003 to reduce the number of public service broadcasting reviews from a regular review every five years to perhaps only one a decade. The order is not available in the Vote Office and cannot be read on the parliamentary website. It is less than an hour before the House rises for the last time for several weeks. Can you give me any guidance or advice, Mr Deputy Speaker, on what to do?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Unfortunately not. It is a matter for the Minister, but I am sure that if anything is untoward, the Vote Office will investigate. The point is certainly on the record now, however, and I am sure we are all aware of the communication—or rather, on this occasion, the lack of it.

15:45

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley), one of our most distinguished parliamentarians. I had thought I might get away from talking about home affairs issues, because I want to talk about health, but the case he raises is shocking. I can assure him that as soon as this debate is over I will telephone the head of immigration and visas, Sarah Rapson, to draw the case to her attention. I will also send a copy of the Hansard record of this debate to the Home Secretary, because I am extremely disappointed to hear what I have heard. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Select Committee on Home Affairs examines these issues carefully. We have just published a report on the UK Border Agency, and it seems to me that there is no excuse for the way in which his constituent Mrs Chung has been treated or, indeed, how he has been treated in the way answers have been given to him. I can assure him that I will do those things. We have in the Chamber today two former members of the Home Affairs Committee, the Deputy Leader of the House and the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), who know that we will pursue these matters, as we have done in the past.

I turn now from home affairs to health, and to declare my interest as a type 2 diabetic. I want to raise the issue of obesity and diabetes, and the continuing war on sugar, which was started earlier this year when I presented my ten-minute rule Bill on this important matter. Obesity is the nation’s No. 1 health problem and it is a growing problem in our children. A report published last year found that a third of primary school leavers were either overweight or obese, and that obesity is a major factor in the development of type 2 diabetes. I do not need to remind the House of the deadly nature of type 2 diabetes, or that 80% of type 2 diabetes cases are preventable and 10% of the NHS budget is spent on dealing with diabetes complications. I just wish that earlier in my life I could have been tested for diabetes, because if I had discovered at an earlier age that I had diabetes or a propensity to it, I might not have contracted type 2 diabetes or, at least, I might have delayed its onset.

I hope to raise one aspect of the Government’s policy, which is the responsibility deal. It is a flagship Government policy that tries to get fizzy drinks and sugary drinks companies to own up to their responsibilities. Some 536 organisations have signed up to the 28 voluntary pledges initiated by the Leader of the House when he was the Health Secretary, but, as we have seen, all that glitters is not gold. Although it is a good thing to have asked the companies to sign up to responsibility in this area, the substance of the deal has not materialised. As Dr Aseem Malhotra of the Royal Free hospital, one of the country’s leading cardiologists, said, the deal is nonsense, with companies saying they are going to reduce sugar content but failing to do so. This is a voluntary arrangement, so there is no compulsion and these companies are not being held to account. As we know, diabetes, unchecked, could result in all kinds of other complications. Professor Jaspal Kooner, one of the country’s leading cardiologists, has talked on a number of occasions about the effects of diabetes on those with heart problems.

What we eat is important., so as well as trying to prevent type 2 diabetes, we must consider how we can examine carefully what we eat and we drink. You and I are frequent visitors to the Tea Room, Mr Deputy Speaker, and when we go to pay for our cups of tea and the healthy food that we both eat, we are confronted by baskets of chocolate biscuits. In the fridge there are cans of Coca-Cola, each of which contains between eight and nine teaspoons of sugar, which is almost the maximum recommended daily intake of 38g. We need to be very careful about how much sugar we consume, which is why it is so important that we take this issue seriously.

Last Friday I was able to present Abbey primary school in my constituency with a silver star, because it is first primary school in Leicester to ban sugary drinks and promote a healthy diet and exercise for its children. If any right hon. and hon. Members are looking for a summer campaign when they return to their constituencies, I hope that they will try to get their schools—they might be off for the summer holidays, but they can make preparations for the new term—to ensure that the meals they provide and the drinks they have in their fridges are healthy.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

The right hon. Gentleman is a wonderful advocate for the prevention and treatment of diabetes. He and I have shared our views about the importance of medication management in schools. Most of the schools in my constituency—I am sure that the same is true in his—are very aware of healthy eating and the quality of school meals is very good, but we need to raise awareness among parents, because young children have very little control over what food they are offered at home, and it is those meals that can often cause the problem.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right, and she has raised the issue in the House on a number of occasions. It is also the responsibility of parents, because they do the purchasing. We had a debate this week about a minimum unit price for alcohol. When parents walk down the aisles of one of the major supermarkets, as we all do from time to time, they will see huge plastic bottles of Coca-Cola and other fizzy drinks. Those of us with children always want to try to keep them happy, and they will demand to have those drinks, and we will try to placate them by buying them, but that is a slippery slope.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I would like to place on the record my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for organising the Silver Star charity event here in Parliament, where I had my blood tested. Does he agree that early testing of blood sugar levels not only in this House but across the country can help prevent some of the future harm of having type 2 diabetes?

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I do not know his test results, of course, because they are confidential, but I am sure that he came out with flying colours. Others Members did not manage that. At least one Member discovered that he had diabetes that day, and he would not have known had he not been tested. I pay tribute to Silver Star, UK Diabetes and all the other organisations involved. It is a very simple test. In fact, I think that you were present at the last Silver Star event, Mr Deputy Speaker, and found to be in perfect health—thank goodness—but it was perhaps not the same for others.

My message to the House today, as we approach the summer recess, is that this is perhaps a time when parents and children tend to lose their inhibitions and enjoy the summer, especially on a day like today. I would love to thank the Government for bringing us sunshine over the past 14 days, and I am sure that the Deputy Leader of the House will claim credit for it when he comes to wind up the debate, along with the Wimbledon win and all the other things that are going on. I am very pleased to see the former Chair of the Health Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), in his place because he worked very hard in that role to remind people of the necessity of prevention. Prevention is better than cure. Preventing diabetes by ensuring that the companies are held to what they say they will be responsible for and reducing sugar levels in our drinks is absolutely vital.

My appeal to right hon. and hon. Members across the House is to join the war against sugar. Let us all be part of this great crusade to make our great country healthy and strong again.

15:55

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). Again, I praise him for the excellent campaign that he has been running on type 2 diabetes.

I want to cover two big constituency issues in the next eight minutes. One of them is very positive, but first I have some recent disturbing news. Areas of Meltham in my constituency have been left without postal deliveries this week after a horrific dog attack left a postman needing plastic surgery on his arm. In fact, the wound is so severe that it has been described as potentially life-changing. When we return from the summer recess, I will be asking whether we can have an urgent debate on how we can reduce dog attacks on our brave postmen and women and keep the post being delivered. Rather ironically, it is Royal Mail’s dog awareness week. The statistics show that there have been 5,500 dog attacks on Royal Mail postmen and women since 2011. I have just had an update from the local police, who say that today they have seized the dog that attacked the postman and tests are under way to see whether it is a banned breed. I know that Members of the House would like to join me in sending their best wishes to postman Jason Lee as he recovers from this shocking dog attack.

Today and over the next couple of days, we will probably hear journalists use the phrase, “As MPs head off on their seven weeks of summer holiday”. As we all know, those cynical journalists should know better.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my amazement about this? Presumably, as the journalists who write about MPs going on holiday are political journalists, they are also going on holiday—or are they, like us, doing other things as well? Looking at the packed Press Gallery, it seems as though they have already gone on their summer holidays.

[Jason McCartney]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to say that, like most other Members in this Chamber, I will be working hard in the constituency throughout the summer.

For the third summer in a row, I will be doing a full week of volunteering in my community. I want to highlight and praise all the wonderful volunteering that goes on day in, day out, not just in my constituency but across the country. We are lucky to have a great organisation called Voluntary Action Kirklees that supports local charities, voluntary organisations and community groups. The centre works in partnership with many Kirklees organisations to support and promote good practice in volunteer involvement. In the past year, Volunteering Kirklees has helped over 4,000 local people who are looking to volunteer across Kirklees. That is an increase from just over 2,000 people two years ago, so well done to them.

This week, 4th Golcar Scouts signed up 65 adult support volunteers as a result of an exciting YouTube video to which they e-mailed me a link, so well done to them too. Thanks to all those adult volunteers, over 200 young people are now enjoying stimulating and exciting activities every week. On a larger scale, this time next year we have the Tour de France coming through Yorkshire, including my constituency and my village of Honley. Thousands of people are signing up to be “Le Tour Makers”—volunteers who will help to put on the Tour de France.

I mentioned my volunteering week last year. I am pleased to say that I helped to plant cotton grass on Marsden moor with the National Trust; helped out in the Age UK shop in Holmfirth; visited children and their families with the at-home care team from the Forget Me Not children’s hospice; helped out in the Kirkwood hospice shop in Lindley; put together food packs with the Welcome centre in Huddersfield; helped to do some painting at the Standedge visitor centre near Marsden, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman) came to join us; and organised big community litter picks with Councillor Donna Bellamy in Marsden.

I am just finalising my volunteering week for this summer. I will be returning to the National Trust and hope to get up on the moors while the sun is shining. I will be delivering meals to people’s homes with the meals on wheels team from Golcar. I will be helping out again at the Kirkwood hospice shop. I will be meeting and greeting, helping the porters and doing hospital radio at Huddersfield royal infirmary. I will again be organising litter picks throughout Lindley, Birchencliffe and Salendine Nook with Councillor Mark Hemingway and a candidate for local councillor, Gemma Wilson. Later in August, I hope to volunteer at the Oakes community café, which is part of Oakes Baptist church. I know from speaking to other colleagues who are heading off for the summer that they will also be working hard and volunteering in their constituencies.

I have also volunteered over recent months. I was pleased to join other volunteers at the Laura Crane Youth Cancer Trust to put on a fashion show. I swapped my suit for some vintage clothes at the Carding Shed in Hepworth. Wakefield Trinity Wildcats rugby league star Andy Raleigh joined us on the catwalk. We raised thousands of pounds for the charity, so well done to all the volunteers. I have also helped the volunteers at the Drop By community resource centre in Golcar, who run various lunchtime activities including arts, crafts and knitting.

There is so much wonderful volunteering going on in my constituency. Indeed, that has been recognised. The Examiner community awards, which celebrate everything that is wonderful in Huddersfield and the local area, has an award for local volunteering. I was pleased that a young man from my constituency picked up that award this year. Usmaan Saleem won the student community award for voluntary work for everything that he has done for the old and young people in his community. He is an 18-year-old student from Huddersfield new college. He helps out at Springwood central youth club and spent last summer working with autistic children.

As we break up for the summer recess, I look forward to working hard in my constituency. Yes, I will be having a week’s holiday, but I also look forward to doing a week’s quality volunteering. I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and all other Members a fantastic summer. They should not work too hard and should try to have a bit of a break, but I know that they will all be working hard in their communities to help local charities and organisations. I wish them well and look forward to seeing them again in September.

16:02

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

It is a great pleasure to be the last speaker in this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) on taking on the mantle of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) in trying to refer to the most constituents in the shortest time. I echo his concerns about dangerous dogs. We are doing a lot of work on that. Microchipping and other compulsory measures will help. People who have a legitimate right to go into a home, be they a postman, a midwife or a social worker, should not be bitten by a dog, especially a dog that is known to be dangerous. I want to pursue that matter. I have great sympathy for the postman who was bitten in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, as I do for the thousands who are bitten every year.

I will raise one or two serious matters from my constituency. The first relates to the A35, which runs through my constituency, including through Axminster, and on to the Dorset border. Recently, there have been a couple of fatal accidents on the A35 at the Hunters Lodge junction at Raymond’s Hill. In the first collision, a 60-year-old man from Plymouth died and two other people were injured. The second crash claimed the life of 82-year-old Pamela Manning from Harrow and her two elderly companions in the car were taken to hospital.

I have met the Highways Agency, Axminster town council and Uplyme parish council to discuss how we can improve the Hunters Lodge junction. Something must be done. Although there have been many accidents at the junction, the Highways Agency said at the meeting that there had been no fatalities. Unfortunately, they have now occurred, so it is essential that something is done, and I shall be working with my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr Letwin) on this issue.

The A303/A30 was mentioned in the financial statement. It should be dualled all the way from Honiton, right the way through those interesting stones in Wiltshire called Stonehenge, to London, so that we have a second arterial route into the west country, and to Devon and Cornwall in particular. Tourism is one of our great industries. Those who run businesses in the west country find that when the M5 is blocked, the A303/A30 is almost impassable. I look forward to its being dualled.

I would like to talk about health funding for primary care. The current age profile in Honiton and Axminster—to take two towns I represent—is estimated to be reflected nationally by 2035. The population is getting older. The doctors in Axminster say that the number of people calling them for advice has gone up from 6,000 to 18,000 in a year, and there are similar figures for Honiton. Health funding will have to recognise this trend. People breathe in the good clean air in Devon and live for a long time. I am pleased with that, but people will need to be treated more as they get older and that has to be recognised.

As we bask in the sunshine, we must remember that a year ago we were all under water. There were floods in Axminster, Uplyme, Seaton, Cullompton and Tiverton—all over my constituency—and many were caused by the blocking of rivers and tributaries. At the time, the Environment Agency said that it had so much to do just to help people who were already flooded that they could not do a great deal to manage the waterways, by dredging them and clearing blockages. Now is the time to do it: there is never a better time than when it is dry. What we do not want to do is just bask in this great sunshine. I welcome this great sunshine and I am glad that the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) congratulated the Government on providing it, even though I know he was only teasing.

[Mr Barron]

The sunshine is the only thing the Government have accepted responsibility for since 2010.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention, even if I am not sure that I entirely agree with him. I think will keep it fairly light-hearted at this stage of the proceedings.

We need to remember that flooding took place. We need proper dredging of our rivers. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is keen on it. Now is the time to do it.

I have mentioned Mrs Ethelston’s school in Uplyme previously. We need a new school in the village and we are trying to put together a funding package locally. Government support is needed to make that happen. It is a very successful school with very high grades and it will be a great asset to the whole area, not just Uplyme.

My constituency runs from Exmoor down through the Blackdown hills, so I have a number of farmers in my constituency. They are concerned about yet another reform to the common agricultural policy. It seems that yet more bureaucracy will be heaped on them, rather than less. There is no level playing field: payments between them and those on the continent, or even between them and farmers from Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, are all different. If we are to make a single market in food and agricultural products work, we need to pay farmers at a similar level. My argument over the years has been that we should either pay at a similar level or not pay at all, because otherwise we will distort everything.

We have had to negotiate a tough package in Europe. As a Conservative and part of the governing party, I cannot expect to go cap in hand to the Treasury for huge handouts over and above what the CAP provides. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look sympathetically at how we deliver environmental schemes and payments to farmers in a way that maintains the countryside—the beautiful grassland and hills in my constituency, which people come to visit from all over the place, including down from London and even the north of England.

People visit Devon, Cornwall and much of the west country because of their landscapes and the way they are managed. Who manages them? It is very much the farmers who manage them, and if we lose them, we will lose those landscapes. I look forward to a sympathetic reform and to trying to break the bureaucracy of the system. I rather fear that some of what comes from Europe will be somewhat bureaucratic, but let us hope we can make the best of it, because I am a great believer in good, traditional food that is well produced under high welfare standards, which is what our farmers deliver in this country.

Finally, may I wish you a very good recess, Mr Deputy Speaker? I am sure that, like my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley, you will be busy in your constituency, as will I and most Members of this House.

16:11

[The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Tom Brake)]

Let me start by congratulating all Members who have taken part in this afternoon’s debate. Those who are here in the Chamber are very much the hard-core membership of the House—the aficionados who have not taken advantage of a sunny Thursday, on the final day in Parliament, to depart early to their constituencies.

Normally I have to deliver my response to such debates in the style of the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess)—who is currently not in his place—because of the time available to me, which is usually a short 10 minutes. However, I have a little more time today—although I will not seek to detain the House until 5 o’clock. The hon. Gentleman raised various issues—

[Sir Bob Russell]

Seventeen.

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend says that the hon. Member for Southend West raised 17 issues. I think I counted 15, but it was certainly about that number, and he did it in his own inimitable fashion.

The hon. Gentleman’s first batch of issues concerned foreign affairs—in particular, Syria, Iran and the Maldives. Let me respond briefly to those. Members will be familiar with the tragic situation in Syria, with 93,000 people dead so far, some 7 million Syrians now in need of humanitarian assistance and 1.7 million having fled to neighbouring countries. The UK is playing a significant role in providing humanitarian aid, with many agencies supporting activities there, providing food and water, and making other contributions. The hon. Gentleman was concerned about the risk of military intervention from the UK or the UK making a military contribution. Clearly no such decision has been taken and, as has been stated many times in the Chamber, Parliament would be engaged before any such decision was put into action, with a vote in the House of Commons.

We have consistently urged, including at ministerial level, all parties to work together to find a solution that would allow for genuinely free, fair and inclusive elections in the Maldives. We are supporting the Commonwealth with its observation of the Maldives presidential elections, so we certainly hope to see substantial improvements in that country, including in human rights.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to Iran. We are all hoping that the recent change in leadership there will lead to a more positive relationship with the UK, and I hope that we as a Government can contribute to that.

The hon. Gentleman referred to obesity, a matter that was also raised by the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz). The Government are aware that this is a critical health issue, and our call to action on obesity sets out our approach and the role of key partners. The national ambition is a downward trend in the number of people with excess weight, and many partners will contribute to that. The change for life programme, the national child measurement programme and NHS health checks should all make a contribution.

[Keith Vaz]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for agreeing to look into this matter, and I am pleased that the Government take it so seriously. I know that, as Deputy Leader of the House, he spends a lot of his time in the House. During the recess, will he undertake to look into the fridges and look at the offerings that are made in our restaurants, to ensure that they do not contain the sugary fizzy drinks that lead to obesity? We in this House have a responsibility in that regard, and the right hon. Gentleman has a responsibility as the Deputy Leader of the House to ensure that those offerings are all good and proper, and appropriate for our diets.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. I am certainly willing to take up the challenge that he has thrown down to me. We should certainly be able to do as he asks. A few months ago, I visited a school in my constituency, Wandle Valley school. It has emptied its vending machines and replenished them with products that are much healthier. If that school can do it, I am sure that we can do it in this place as well.

The hon. Member for Southend West expressed his concern about the progress of the Chilcot and Leveson inquiries. Clearly they are both dealing with complex issues. He will be aware of the action taken in relation to Leveson. A submission from the press is before the Privy Council, and the Government will be submitting our own submission once that has been considered. We want this matter to make progress. Sir John Chilcot made it clear as recently as this week that his inquiry is determined to complete its task and publish its report as soon as possible. That matter certainly has not been forgotten.

The hon. Member for Southend West referred to space exploration. Had he been in his place, I might have asked him to intervene at this point to list the people he would like to send into space, never to return—[Interruption.] Yes, perhaps he has already departed in that direction himself. He also referred to bungee jumping; I have nothing to say about that. I have never done it myself, and I have no intention of doing it. He mentioned the important work of a company called Coloplast, and talked about bowel independence day, which I hope was successful in giving a higher profile to an issue that people are sometimes reluctant to talk about. He also talked about Monitor, and asked whether it had had played as effective a role as it possibly could. I am sure that when those in the Department of Health read Hansard, they will note his concerns about that.

The hon. Gentleman wanted a monorail. Well, good luck with that! He also wanted representatives of the Treasury to meet the Essex bowling club to help it with its tax affairs. He has put that request on record, and I have now repeated it, so I am sure that the Treasury will consider it carefully. He finished on a point about Southend regrettably having failed in its bid to become the city of culture. He suggested that Unite might have rigged the ballot. I cannot comment on that, but perhaps someone on the Opposition Benches might like to do so.

[Keith Vaz]

Just before the shortlisting, the hon. Member for Southend West, who is a good friend of mine, made some very disparaging comments about Leicester. The fact is that Southend did not make it on to the shortlist, but Leicester did. I challenged him to go on to Southend pier and do a Gangnam-style dance in competition with Leicester, but he chickened out and refused to do so. Unless he is there now, of course.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Deputy Leader of the House—answer that!

[Tom Brake]

I wish I had not allowed that intervention, as I am short of a suitable riposte.

The hon. Member for Southend West said that Southend would provide an alternative city of culture in 2017. We will have to see what that culture amounts to, and we look forward to hearing some reports about that.

The hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Jim Cunningham), who is no longer in his place, and the hon. Member for Harrow West (Mr Gareth Thomas) referred to Coventry City football club. They will be aware that Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions are scheduled for the Thursday when the House returns, so that will be the earliest opportunity for them to raise the matter. Football governance has come up repeatedly in this place, and I have heard requests for the Backbench Business Committee to consider it. The hon. Member for Coventry South wanted everyone to get round a table to discuss it, and I and others would certainly be in favour of such discussions. I will draw this exchange to the attention of the Minister for Sport as requested, and I agree that football clubs are more than just a business, as they support local communities. The clubs will receive greater support from local communities if those communities are heavily engaged in what the clubs do. The hon. Member for Harrow West wanted supporters to have a greater voice through supporters’ trusts and he made a request—the Minister for Sport will see it in Hansard—for 5% of the Football Association’s funds to go to grass-roots sport.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) talked sensibly about the London borough of Havering and its public library service. She praised Councillor Andrew Curtin for the role he is playing, and I think we would all echo what she said about the essential role that libraries play in developing children’s interest in reading and their culture. She referred to a read and rhyme scheme for improving, among other things, listening skills. Perhaps she could bring that to the House at some point, because listening skills could be developed further in the Chamber. We would all support my hon. Friend in what she said about the importance of reading. The second issue she raised was about the activities of Stubbers outdoor leisure centre and its important role in building young people’s skills and experiences, which they might not otherwise have, helping them to overcome their difficulties. She highlighted the importance of the National Citizen Service, and I hope that all Members will have played their part in promoting this valuable scheme.

My parliamentary neighbour, the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh), referred to an unfortunate series of failures in communication and a real lack of competence in the police’s handling of the case of George Shaw and Paula Davidson. She made some understandable requests for the police to talk to her constituents about their experience and to explain to them why they did not get the support they needed to bring about closure in what was clearly a very serious case. Currently, they have not had closure because of the failure to produce the pertinent evidence.

The hon. Member for Rugby (Mark Pawsey) referred, as he has previously in these debates, to electronic or e-cigarettes and the difficulties they have created for a company in his constituency. He expressed his concern that the regulatory aspect might discourage people from taking up something that could make a contribution to health. I am sure that the Department of Health will have listened carefully to what he said. However, I hope he would also acknowledge that there are issues such as the ability of such products to deliver a consistent dose. There is clearly a need for regulation, but I think that what concerns him is how that should be done.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) said that 20 people had written to her about the European Union referendum and 50,000 had been in touch with her about Lewisham hospital.

[Jason McCartney]

That was all due to 38 Degrees.

[Tom Brake]

I must say that when I ask people in my constituency what issues concern them most, health is often the number one issue, and Europe features rather low on the list of priorities. The main issues seem to be health and jobs.

[Heidi Alexander]

One of the right hon. Gentleman’s Back-Bench colleagues has just suggested that the fact that 50,000 people signed my petition about Lewisham hospital was all to do with 38 Degrees. I can assure him that that was not the case. In fact, hundreds of people were in Lewisham town centre collecting signatures.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady has put her clarification on record.

I heard Members behind me expressing surprise that Europe was not a big issue. I can only say that consistently, year after year, when I ask people what issue is most important to them, they reply that it is health, education or law and order. It is not Europe. I think we had better leave it at that.

As the hon. Lady will know, the European Union (Referendum) Bill is currently being debated, and will return to the House in September. I do not know whether she is a member of the Bill Committee, or indeed whether she would wish to be a member of it, given that its sittings seem to be finishing quite late and may continue to do so. She said that there was scope for reform of the European Union, and I accept that. I think there is agreement among Members on both sides of the House that the EU can and should be reformed. The justice and home affairs opt-outs, for instance, are part of the process. That reform may well deliver some changes which I think would be supported by Members in all parts of the House.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

Let me point out to the Deputy Leader of the House—who represents a constituency where my family lived for the best part of 100 years—that his assertion that Europe is not much of a priority in the minds of the electorate is completely at odds with the findings of all the opinion polls over a number of years. He might like to look at the report of a Westminster Hall debate entitled “National Parliaments and the EU”, which was initiated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Ms Stuart) the day before yesterday, and in which I took part. I think that all the questions to which he ought to be referring now are contained in the speeches that she and I gave.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend’s family were resident in my constituency 100 years ago, but things may have changed in the last 100 years. All that I can reflect today is the feedback that I receive regularly from my constituents—and I should add that I am the only one who has that information. No one else here has it.

On the European Union, let me finally say that one of the risks of being outside it—I think that this is Norway’s experience—is that a country will end up paying much more than it would pay if it were inside.

My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) made one of a number of suggestions that have been made today about holiday reading for Members. He recommended “You Can’t Hide the Sun”, by John McCarthy, and he spoke of what is happening to the Bedouins. He has tabled an early-day motion on the subject, and he is not alone: I believe that 21 Members signed it. There is clearly an acknowledgement in this place, at least, that it is a significant issue. I certainly agree with him that both the Israeli and US Governments have a significant responsibility for sorting out the situation there. I am pleased, therefore, that John Kerry has won Arab League support for his initiative to try to restart the Israeli-Palestinian peace talks, and if they do restart I hope the Bedouin issue will come up. We need to see urgent steps to ensure that a two-state solution is introduced there. I am sure the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will look very carefully at my hon. Friend’s strong words on this subject when Hansard is published.

The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) put on record his concerns about a failure to respond to his correspondence. I will ensure that is communicated to the Prime Minister’s office, and I hope a response to his letter is forthcoming. He talked about the NHS and alcohol, too. I hope he will acknowledge that the NHS budget is one of the budgets that has been safeguarded when many others have not. On alcohol, I think it is fair to say that a lot has been achieved through the public health responsibility deal, and it is worth pointing out that binge drinking is reducing, rather than increasing, which is also a positive trend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) described a terrible experience a North Korean student working with her at present had in North Korea. He is subsequently leaving that country. Her contribution highlighted the fact that often the issues of asylum and immigration get mixed up and we lose sight of the fact that the UK has a very important role to play in providing asylum for genuine cases of the type she described.

My hon. Friend referred to Lord Alton’s book. I happen to have a book called “Escape from Camp 14” by my bedside at the moment. I understand it is also about Korea, and although it is not exactly light holiday reading I intend to read it over the summer break.

My hon. Friend also gave some useful concrete examples of how UK citizens can help directly in North Korea. She gave the soft examples of making a financial or business contribution as a way of trying to open up a society that is still very closed. Finally, what she said about the desire of North Koreans to have access to information reminded me of the meetings I had about 30 years ago when I was in Czechoslovakia—as it then was—and met up with Hungarians. The Czechs were too scared to talk to westerners, but the Hungarians were a bit braver, and one of the things they said was how important it was that they could get news that was real news. They did not want to get their news through a filter that filtered out what was genuinely happening. That is clearly what is happening in North Korea, and the UK remains extremely concerned about reports of widespread and continued systematic human rights violations there. My hon. Friend will be aware that the UN has commissioned an inquiry to investigate human rights abuses, and we encourage the North Korean Government to co-operate fully with it and to engage with that process. My hon. Friend referred to the launch of a campaign on 27 July that will be about raising the profile of the situation in North Korea and trying to achieve there what was achieved through the Burmese campaign.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) went into some detail about a constituent of his, Ms Chung, and he has put down a very detailed request that I am sure the Home Office will want to respond to. I welcome the fact that the Chair of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, has also indicated that he will follow that matter up immediately, and I therefore hope my right hon. Friend will get a swift response on the issue of the passport, the fact that his correspondence has not been responded to and the request that the Home Office look at having a fast-track procedure. He will be aware that one of the reasons the changes were made to the UKBA was to ensure a separation between its role in processing the customer-focused part of the work it does from the enforcement part, to try to achieve what he was trying to achieve for business people.

The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East, focused on obesity and diabetes, as I mentioned earlier. He is a recognised campaigner on the issue in this House and referred to some of the statistics that highlight why we should take the matter seriously. As 10% of the NHS budget is spent on addressing the issue and 80% of cases are preventable, there is a clear win for the health service if we can focus on that. He referred to the responsibility deal and clearly felt that it was a mixed blessing—or at least that it was not delivering in the way he would like and that the substance behind it had not materialised. We all, as a Government, as Members of Parliament and as members of the wider public, need to do our bit to ensure that the 536 organisations that he referred to as having signed up to it are doing what they volunteered to do and to draw attention to them if they have not.

The right hon. Gentleman might like to know that I visited Greenshaw secondary school, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow), which has recently changed the catering contract and appointed a new chef. The new chef is cooking everything fresh in the school and there has been a huge uptake in school meals as a result. I visited and the queues were phenomenal, as a lot of the children chose to stay in school to have their meals as opposed to taking packed lunches or leaving school. Things can be done in schools, even within the same budget, if they are willing to be imaginative. The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the matter in relation to diabetes in the House before, in the debate on 24 April 2013.

The hon. Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) mentioned the distressing case in Meltham involving a postman, Jason Lee, and we will all want to join the hon. Gentleman in wishing him a full recovery. The hon. Gentleman and all Members will know that the CWU has done a lot of work on the issue. It is not only postal workers—I suspect that we have all been out delivering leaflets fairly recently and have faced the same sort of risks trying to push our respective party literature through doors in our constituencies. It clearly is a real issue and we have probably all experienced individual cases similar to the one he described.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) intervened to suggest that the hon. Member for Colne Valley was trying to compete with the hon. Member for Southend West in listing constituents who had achieved notable things, but the hon. Member for Colne Valley praised volunteers, which is something we cannot do enough in this place. I want to take the opportunity to praise OGRES—the Onslow Gardens residents association—which I visited yesterday. It is a volunteer organisation like any other, and is campaigning against a large McDonald’s that it does not want to see built on Stafford road. The hon. Gentleman mentioned 4th Golcar Scouts and the effective work they have done in signing up lots of adult volunteers to help them expand the work they can do.

The hon. Gentleman talked about the Tour de France—which, it seems, might be slightly lost if it is going through his village, or to have gone slightly off-piste—and it will clearly be a fantastic event for Yorkshire and the UK. We will all cherish the occasion, particularly if we manage to win it again.

Of course, we had a debate yesterday about MPs and second jobs. It is clear that the hon. Gentleman has not just a second, but a third, fourth, fifth and sixth job, but they are all volunteer jobs, so if the motion had been agreed to, he would not have been banned from undertaking them.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, the last speaker in the debate, mentioned the fatalities on the A35 and the discussions he has had with the Department for Transport and the Highways Agency about Hunter’s Lodge junction. He has used this opportunity, rightly, to raise the issue’s profile. He talked about health funding for primary care. It is an interesting fact that the age profile of residents of Axminster and Honiton is what we are expecting the national age profile to be by 2035, so we probably have quite a lot to learn from those towns’ experiences, in terms of types and costs of services. He made a request for a new school; I am sure that the Department for Education will have listened carefully to that request, and will respond to it. He also asked the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to consider carefully issues to do with environmental schemes and payments to farmers. I am sure that it has listened carefully to his contribution.

We have come to the end of this debate. I have had slightly more time to wrap up than I am used to, so I will take a few minutes to thank you, Mr Speaker, for keeping us on a fairly tight leash this Session; the staff of the House for helping us to ensure that this place runs smoothly; and the staff in the Office of the Leader of the House of Commons for supporting me and the Leader of the House in our roles. I hope that all Members enjoy the recess and come back full of energy in September for the full programme of activities that we will undertake then.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Business without Debate

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation (Committees)

Ordered,

That the Civil Procedure (Amendment No. 4) Rules 2013 (S.I., 2013, No. 1412) be referred to a Delegated Legislation Committee. —(Mr Syms.)

Cannock Hospital

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

16:42

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

I have great pleasure in presenting this petition in support of a fully used and fully utilised Cannock Chase hospital. Along with other petitions and pledges in similar terms, it has been signed by thousands of my constituents, and constituents of neighbouring colleagues.

I also want to pay tribute to Deborah Hubbard, a former nurse at Cannock hospital, who has amassed more than 12,000 signatures through the “Supporters of Cannock Chase Hospital” Facebook page, for her tireless campaigning to keep services in our local hospital.

The petition expresses the desire of my local community in Cannock Chase, who raised much of the money for the hospital to be built in the first place, to ensure that Cannock hospital is not overlooked in the review that is being carried out by Monitor and the trust special administrators. As colleagues will know, they are looking into the future provision of health services in Staffordshire, following the abolition of the failed Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust.

The petition reads:

The Petition of residents of Cannock Chase,

Declares that the Petitioners support Cannock Hospital and wish to ensure that it becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery, fully used, and with a secure and professionally managed future, within the NHS.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Health to ensure Cannock Hospital becomes a centre of excellence for elective surgery and has a secure future.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001216]

Henry Thorley and HMRC

Thursday 18th July 2013 Commons Chamber

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

16:44

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

I am holding this Adjournment debate in consequence of a very grave injustice that has been done to my constituent, Mr Henry Thorley, who is now aged 88, and in line with the fundamental principles of our constitution, namely redress of grievance and accountability, which go back to the earliest times of our Parliament.

I am appalled by the manner in which this matter has been handled because it strikes me that a case of this kind, relating to a man aged 88, whose correspondence has already been sent to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and to the Exchequer Secretary and has been handled by the person responsible in Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the director of criminal investigation, Mr Donald Toon, does not provide the justice that I believe is owed to my constituent.

The case goes back to the 1970s—indeed, it goes back to a period when my predecessor, Sir Hugh Fraser, was the Member of Parliament for Stafford. I became the Member of Parliament for Stafford in 1984 and I am now the Member of Parliament for Stone, where Mr Henry Thorley resides. I sent to the Minister on 21 May a letter that I received, which summarised various points relating to the case in question. The case is simply explained. At Stoke-on-Trent Crown court in December 1979 Mr Thorley was convicted of theft arising from VAT returns. In 1980 the Court of Appeal quashed the conviction and Mr Thorley left the court utterly blameless.

It appears clear that from the outset the prosecution case was fatally flawed, and the prosecution knew it. A Customs and Excise official had conducted a satisfactory inspection for the period subsequently complained of, and said so in a written report. So, in the words of leading counsel,

“How any prosecution could thereafter be considered let alone persisted in beggars belief.”

He goes on to say that the prosecution of Mr Thorley was, he believed, motivated by malice and conducted in chaos. That is why I have raised the matter and why I am looking for a suitable response from my hon. Friend the Minister.

I have here the report, which has already been sent to my hon. Friend. It is a note of the visit of the person in question from the then Customs and Excise, which shows four items and states quite clearly against them the word “satisfied”. On 2 July 2013 I received a letter through my office from Mr Toon which thanked me for my letter to the Exchequer Secretary and stated that on behalf of the chief executive he would reply, as he had operational responsibility for criminal investigation. He went on to say:

“I have reviewed the papers provided by Mr Thorley’s advisers”—

which, by the way, are well known in the Department—

“but I am afraid that there is nothing more I can add to David Gauke’s letter to you of 23 May 2013. Whilst I sympathise with Mr Thorley, HM Revenue and Customs has no papers in relation to this case and therefore nothing on which to base an apology. The papers enclosed with your letter seem to show that the Appeal Court overturned Mr Thorley’s conviction because of misdirection by the judge in the original trial but this does not mean that the decision to prosecute was flawed.

I know that Mr Thorley will find this reply disappointing but I hope you will understand that without the original case papers I cannot comment further.”

I also had a letter dated 23 May from my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary, in which he said:

“I am afraid that following my inquiries, I can only repeat what he has been told in previous letters. HMRC does not hold any papers in relation to his court case. There is no official record, either paper or electronic, of any information in relation to this case and so HMRC cannot confirm on what basis a prosecution was undertaken. Neither can it ascertain from records whether or not there was an appeal. It follows therefore that I cannot comment on the outcome of that appeal. HMRC does not hold any records in relation to Mr Thorley’s original VAT registration, which would have presumably been active when the prosecution took place. Whilst there are some records in relation to a later 1992 registration, these papers make no reference to any previous prosecution.”

In the light of the information I have supplied, I find it unbelievable that there would be no basis for an apology. My constituent—who, at 88, does not have by any reasonable standards much longer to live—has throughout this period been seeking by various means to obtain an apology. He does not want compensation and has made that absolutely clear in correspondence. There is no need for HMRC to be concerned about that if it made an apology. There is no need for electronic files; he was convicted and sent to prison for three years, serving 11 months. As a result of the diligent conduct of his defence by his lawyers, he was released from jail on the orders of no less a judge than Lord Justice Eveleigh. He asks only for an apology.

The judgment of the court was read on 27 and 28 October 1980 by Lord Justice Eveleigh. I will not go through every detail of it—the Minister has a copy—but I will read out some salient points. In June 1975, an investigating officer named Mr Evans from Customs and Excise went to Thorley’s office to investigate the claim for the repayment of £43,000. He expressed the view that he was satisfied, in the document I mentioned earlier. He was given a large number of documents and made inquiries—chiefly from a Mrs Mannering. He was left in the office to investigate these at his leisure and sent in his report. He wrote “satisfied” against all four periods that he investigated. Mr Evans also states that he investigated the position in depth. At the trial four and a half years later he could not say what had happened but felt that the word “satisfied” meant that he had compared the claim with the totals in the books and that the returns had been reconciled. That is why he put “satisfied” against it. I have the paper in front of me signed by this gentleman and so has the Minister.

No one is doubting that the trial took place, that my constituent was sent to jail and released, or that Lord Justice Eveleigh importantly quashed the conviction. Against that background, to my mind it is utterly astonishing that my constituent cannot even get an apology, simply because the records are not available. It is not for me to lay down rules about what records have been or should have been held by the Departments in question, or any other Department, but nobody with any sense of justice—or, indeed, with any common sense—would seriously dispute the facts as I have described them. Nobody has attempted to dispute those facts; they say only that they cannot find the records.

My constituent is now aged 88. He is an old man whom I have met on many occasions, and he is clearly deeply concerned and affected by the manner in which he is being treated. He simply wants an apology—that is all he is asking. The note that I have states:

“This Court concludes that the crux of the Appeal was the misdirection relating to Mr Evans…There had been a misdirection on the material point and the Court concludes that conviction must be quashed.”

Part of that includes a sworn statement by Mr Ian Wright, who stated:

“Between October 1957 and July 1994 I was a Customs and Excise Senior Officer.”

He described what happened, which I have already explained to the House. The statement continues:

“At the time of my own initial visit to Mr Thorley’s company and before the decision to prosecute Mr Thorley was taken I was aware of a report by a colleague, one Graham Harry Evans, of his control visit to the Thorley companies in 1975. This did not indicate anything untoward…Throughout my work alongside Mr Riley whilst in support of his investigation into the affairs of Mr Thorley’s company, I was made aware that Mr Evans’s report would not feature in any way in the Department’s conduct of the case.”

That is from a senior Customs and Excise officer who was looking at the manner in which a prosecution had been levied against my constituent, who has been convicted and released because the conviction was unsound. The statement goes on:

“I progressively became more anxious about this deliberate omission and discussed this in detail with Mr Riley and with numerous of my own senior colleagues over some months before the Court case. At the commencement of Mr Thorley’s trial, the omission of what I considered a very important document (Evans’s report) became apparent to me. Before my own evidence was due, I remonstrated directly with a Crown Solicitor that there were very great dangers in not producing the Evans report. It was then produced in Court immediately thereafter.”

I understand that it was only five minutes before the jury gave its verdict.

I also have a letter dated 13 May 2013 from Mr Thorley’s accountant, which was supplied to me and has been passed on to the Minister. It expresses, on behalf of its client, many of the concerns one would expect. Among other things, it says that, in 1980-81, Mr Thorley lost his home, his business and his family pride. His family were made homeless and his wife had to recommence work to provide food for the family. The letter says that since then he

“has had to try and rebuild what he has lost. Mr Thorley has also tried in vain to get an apology from HMCE (Now H M Revenue & Customs) for their failure of withholding back such crucial evidence.”

Mr Thorley says he is not seeking any financial compensation—

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

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

[Mr Cash]

I find it impossible to understand why so far the Minister has not been prepared to issue an apology. It simply does not stack up. There is no serious dispute about the facts. Is he going to say that Lord Justice Eveleigh had no case? Will he explain why HMRC does not hold the records or why my constituent was put in jail for three years and released because the Court of Appeal, on considering the facts, regarded it as completely unfair, unjust, unacceptable and unreasonable? I cannot explain it any better. It is incredible. I have never before come to the House on an Adjournment debate with such a case. I doubt whether many people have had to come to the House to ask a Minister to apologise. I do not know what he will say, although I have no reasonable doubt about what he should say. I will supply any necessary documents in my possession to anybody at any time to get the justice due to my constituent. He is not asking for compensation; he just wants an apology, which I think the House will agree he is due.

17:02

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr Cash) for his remarks, for securing this debate and for putting forward his constituent’s case with his characteristic eloquence. The case relates to the investigation and subsequent prosecution of one of his constituents by what was then Her Majesty’s Customs and Excise. His constituent and his advisers have approached my hon. Friend requesting a public apology for what they have described as a malicious prosecution by HMCE. I have great sympathy with his constituent for the worry and distress that the case has clearly caused both him and his family, and I hope this afternoon to offer reassurance that the case can be further investigated by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs. I shall return to that in a moment.

For reasons I shall explain shortly, however, HMRC does not old information about the case, other than that supplied by my hon. Friend in his correspondence and by his constituent.

[Mr Cash]

Is the Minister even remotely disputing what I have said?

[Mr Gauke]

I am not disputing any of the facts provided by my hon. Friend, but I hope he will allow me to explain the reasons why HMRC does not hold information about this case, other than what has been provided to it by him, and why that constrains what HMRC can say. I will also explain how we might be able to take this matter a little further forward.

Let me deal with the first point about why HMRC does not hold information. In line with the requirements of the Data Protection Act, HMRC must not hold personal data indefinitely, so the organisation regularly reviews and destroys or deletes information. For cases involving criminal investigation, the retention period varies depending on the outcome of the investigation. The default period is six years from the conclusion of the investigation, but when the investigation leads to a conviction, the retention period is the length of sentence imposed plus one year, or six years, whichever is the longer. When an investigation ends in conviction but that conviction is later overturned on appeal, as clearly occurred in this case, the retention period is six years from the Court of Appeal ruling. In the case of my hon. Friend’s constituent, the data relating to the investigation and prosecution would have been destroyed as early as 1986.

However, the Data Protection Act also requires that when someone makes a request for the release of information, the recipient of that request must make a thorough search to see whether it is held, even if the normal destruction date has passed. To that end, HMRC has carried out a department-wide check of all electronic systems and a targeted search of manual records. It also asked the Crown Prosecution Service to check its records to see whether it held anything relating to this constituent’s case. That check has revealed that no such records exist.

Further correspondence from my hon. Friend, enclosing correspondence from his constituent and addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, was passed to HMRC to reply under normal Treasury procedure. That correspondence was dealt with under HMRC’s complaints procedure for ministerial correspondence. I should make it clear that HMRC of course welcomes complaints as an opportunity to apologise and put things right where it has made a mistake, and as a source of learning to make its services better for taxpayers in future.

[Mr Cash]

On the question of procedure, is my hon. Friend aware of the Cabinet Office’s 2005 guidelines on dealing with letters from Members of Parliament to Ministers, which set out very precisely what has to happen in relation to such letters and the manner in which such letters have to be handled under the Cabinet Office guidelines prescribed by the Prime Minister?

[Mr Gauke]

The Treasury is aware of the guidelines that apply to ministerial correspondence, and we seek to comply with them. Where operational matters are involved and it is more appropriate for HMRC to deal with them in order to provide as much information as possible and to deal with them as appropriately as possible, HMRC will respond to those letters. My hon. Friend has received a letter from me and from HMRC—indeed, he has received several items of correspondence—on this front.

Let me return to the procedure. Usually, HMRC has a two-stage complaints process, which seeks to deal with as many complaints as possible at the first review. At the end of that stage, the reply tells the customer that if they are still unhappy, they can ask HMRC to look at the complaint again. At that stage, a different official takes a fresh look at the complaint and gives HMRC’s final response. If the customer remains unhappy, they may approach the Adjudicator’s Office. The Adjudicator’s Office will investigate the complaint, drawing together a full and impartial summary of details from the customer and HMRC.

[Mr Cash]

I have read out the salient reference in the statement of Mr Ian Godfrey Wright, the senior Customs and Excise officer involved. He is a member of HMRC, or he certainly has been—I dare say he is retired now. This statement is dated 1996, so it is possible that it could be followed up, and it contains serious allegations by a senior Customs officer about the conduct of Customs and Excise—as I believe it still was—at the time. It is not as though we are talking just about communication between me and the Minister; we are also talking about sworn statements made by a senior Customs officer, which can be followed up. They must have this record—if they have not got that, I do not know what is going on.

[Mr Gauke]

Again, I will not repeat the data protection guidelines and the length of time for which HMRC is entitled to hold on to personal data. I note my hon. Friend’s comments about a statement being made in 1996. I do not know what communications there were with HM Customs and Excise, the body in place until the merger in 2005, or how they were made. As I have made clear in my remarks, a search was made across HMRC to locate records on the case, and no records were found.

As I was saying, the Adjudicator provides an independent review of details and makes her decision and recommendation. Customers who continue to be dissatisfied can ask an MP to refer their complaint to the Parliamentary Ombudsman, who will then decide whether to investigate the complaint. If she decided to do so, her investigation might also look at the way in which the Adjudicator’s Office reviewed the complaint.

It is worth noting that this specific case did not follow the normal procedure. My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to contact Ministers about the matter. He has received replies from senior officials at HMRC and one from me dated 23 May 2013. All those replies carried the same message: given the age of the case and the lack of any of the original papers, HMRC is not in a position to comment with any certainty on the case.

Letters from the Adjudicator to my hon. Friend on 13 March and 25 April 2012 contained a similar message and provided contact details for the Parliamentary Ombudsman. However, if the constituent or his advisers provide HMRC with full copies of all the documents they hold in connection with the matter, I can assure my hon. Friend that it will carry out a thorough review and revert to them with its findings.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister please give way?

[Mr Gauke]

I will give way, but first I will make this point: my hon. Friend has provided HMRC with information regarding the case that indicates that a conviction was quashed following the finding that there had been a misdirection. As he will also be aware, his constituent’s concern is that there was a malicious prosecution against him. If HMRC has evidence that there was a malicious prosecution against someone, of course it should apologise. If that evidence is presented to it and it is satisfied that that is what has happened, I would hope and expect it to do exactly that.

[Mr Cash]

Whether or not it was malicious, the question is whether an apology is due, given the fact that—of this there is no doubt—there was a prosecution, my constituent spent time in jail, the conviction was quashed and then he was released. I am simply asking for an apology. There is an element of farce about the situation. I do not want to be told that I should go off to the Ombudsman; I am talking to the Minister, who is accountable to the House. He has responsibility for HMRC and for the conduct of Customs and Excise before it, in one form or another. All I am asking for—it sounds as though I am not going to get it, even this afternoon—is an apology on the Floor of the House from the Minister in relation to this. It is no good just reading out all the bits of paper that have been supplied—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman’s intervention is a little on the long side. He has expressed some frustration that he does not think that he will get what he wants this afternoon but, on the strength of his 29 years of service in the House and the indefatigability with which he has pursued a variety of causes over those years, he will be well aware that it is open to him to pursue the matter again, and again, and again.

[Mr Gauke]

Thank you, Mr Speaker, for setting out that prospect.

What I am seeking to say to my hon. Friend is that his constituent clearly feels wronged. He was, as my hon. Friend says, convicted on a case brought by HM Customs and Excise, and that conviction was subsequently quashed. I understand my hon. Friend’s position, which is, in essence, that in any circumstances when someone has been wrongly convicted, the prosecuting authority should apologise to that person. I fully respect that position. However, it must also be said that the fact that an individual is found not guilty after a criminal trial or their conviction being quashed by a higher court on appeal does not necessarily mean that it was inappropriate for the case to have been investigated, or even prosecuted, in the first place. I am sure that my hon. Friend, as a distinguished lawyer, can appreciate that point.

It may well be that in this investigation over 30 years ago HM Customs and Excise behaved wrongly and inappropriately. If that is the case, then his constituent would deserve an apology in those circumstances—let me clear about that—and I would be very happy to give that apology on behalf of HMRC. However, before HMRC is in a position to give a full apology, it needs to see the facts more fully. As I say, the mere evidence that a conviction has been quashed does not necessarily mean that HM Customs and Excise behaved in an unacceptable way. That is why I believe that it is essential that my hon. Friend’s constituent provide all the available paperwork that he and his advisers hold to enable HMRC fully to assess the reasons for the quashing of the conviction.

[Mr Cash]

Will the Minister give way before he sits down?

[Mr Gauke]

I will allow my hon. Friend to intervene again; he need not worry that I am galloping towards the end.

I am keen to ensure that HMRC looks at the evidence again thoroughly, and if it is in a position to make the apology—I can understand the reasons why my hon. Friend wants that apology sooner rather than later—I am keen to do all I can to facilitate that. My hon. Friend rightly has a reputation for being someone who weighs the evidence thoroughly, and HRMC also needs to weigh the evidence thoroughly before it reaches a conclusion. It might be the easiest thing in the world just to announce an apology, but it should do so on the basis of the facts, and at the moment it does not have those facts.

[Mr Cash]

Let me refer again to the statement by Mr Wright—a senior Customs officer who I presume, or hope, is still available to be spoken to because his statement was so clear. There is also the opinion of the leading counsel, and there are all the other papers that have been supplied. If the records are not in the Department and no papers are available other than the ones we have already supplied, then I do not know what else we would be able to produce. I think that a careful judgmental assessment of the justice of this case is required, and that the apology is due, although my hon. Friend is now making some very helpful remarks.

[Mr Gauke]

I am glad that I have had the opportunity to make some helpful remarks. I say to my hon. Friend that the more evidence there is that can be presented, the better. I assure him that HMRC will consider the matter thoroughly and follow the evidence. If an apology is due on the basis of that evidence, it will of course make an apology. I accept that no apology was made when the conviction was quashed more than 30 years ago and that there has been no apology in the intervening 30 years.

I hope that this wider airing of the case and the offer for HMRC to review all his constituent’s paperwork go some way towards providing the assurance that my hon. Friend is seeking. If I have not provided that reassurance or if HMRC’s investigation of the evidence proves to be less than fruitful as far as he is concerned, I suspect, as you have said, Mr Speaker, that we will return to the subject.

Question put and agreed to.

17:20

House adjourned.

Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 18th July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 18 July 2013

Carers: Young People

Thursday 18th July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

[Mr Mike Hancock]

To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what support his Department has made available for young carers in each year since 2010;

(2) what support his Department gives to young carers from a minority background who do not speak English as their first language.

[Official Report, 24 June 2013, Vol. 565, c. 104W.]

Letter of correction from Edward Timpson:

An error has been identified in the written answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), to the hon. Member for Portsmouth South (Mr Hancock) on 24 June 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Timpson]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education.

From 2011 to 2013, the Department allocated over £1.5 million in grant funding to The Children's Society and Carers Trust to improve the support available for young carers. This followed the conclusion of a three-year funding grant to help 18 local authorities develop and test intensive family focused models of support for families with young carers as part of the young carers pathfinder programme.

The funding has enabled The Children's Society and Carers Trust to deliver regional events for practitioners in local statutory and voluntary services on designing and delivering 'whole family' approaches to support for young carers. The events include training on engaging young carers in "hard-to-reach" groups, such as those belonging to Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups who have English as a second language. The training is based on learning and resources developed in partnership with the Black Carers Network and young carers from BAME communities. In February I announced the award of a new contract worth up to £1 2 million to those two organisations to continue this work for a further two years.

Additionally, the Department has worked closely with the two organisations to share evidence-based tools and good practice guidance, including an online training package for school staff which raises awareness about the issues facing young people with caring responsibilities and how it can impact on their school attendance and attainment.

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Timpson]

I have been asked to reply on behalf of the Department for Education.

From 2011 to 2013, the Department allocated over £1.5 million in grant funding to The Children's Society and Carers Trust to improve the support available for young carers. This followed the conclusion of a three-year funding grant to help 18 local authorities develop and test intensive family focused models of support for families with young carers as part of the young carers pathfinder programme. In February I announced the award of a new contract worth up to £1.2 million to the two organisations to continue this work for a further two years.

The funding is enabling The Children's Society and Carers Trust to deliver regional events for practitioners in local statutory and voluntary services on designing and delivering 'whole family' approaches to support for young carers. The events include training on engaging young carers in "hard-to-reach" groups, such as those belonging to Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) groups who have English as a second language. The training is based on learning and resources developed in partnership with the Black Carers Network and young carers from BAME communities.

Additionally, the Department has worked closely with the two organisations to share evidence-based tools and good practice guidance, including an online training package for school staff which raises awareness about the issues facing young people with caring responsibilities and how it can impact on their school attendance and attainment.

Empty Buildings

Thursday 18th July 2013 Ministerial Corrections

The following is the answer given by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the right hon. Member for Bath (Mr Foster), to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) during Communities and Local Government Question Time on 8 July 2013.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Further to the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), is not the problem that no real research was done before the introduction of the bedroom tax? The position is very different up and down the country, and in some areas it is clear that an inadvertent consequence might be more empty homes. If that proves to be the case, will the Government change their mind?

[Mr Foster]

I must say to the hon. Lady that clearly very detailed research was done and we had a number of pilots across the country. It would be very helpful if she would assist the House by indicating whether the Labour party, which has been so opposed to the measure, now intends to reverse it.

[Official Report, 8 July 2013, Vol. 566, c. 4.]

Letter of correction from Don Foster:

An error has been identified in the oral answer given on 8 July 2013 to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore).

The correct answer should have been:

[Mr Foster]

I must say to the hon. Lady that clearly very detailed research was done and an estimate was made of the likely impact in each region. It would be very helpful if she would assist the House by indicating whether the Labour party, which has been so opposed to the measure, now intends to reverse it.

Petition

Thursday 18th July 2013 Petitions

Thursday 18 July 2013

Proposed Closure of Suffolk Court Care Home

Thursday 18th July 2013 Petitions

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner objects to the proposed closure of Suffolk Court Care Home in Yeadon; further that with the increase in numbers and age of older people in our community, Suffolk Court is a vital resource, providing security and practical care for those unable to be sustained at home by community services; further that closing Suffolk Court would undermine services to the elderly and vulnerable in Yeadon.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons call upon Leeds City Council to reassess its priorities and keep this essential service open.

And the Petitioner remains, etc.—[Presented by Greg Mulholland, Official Report, 19 June 2013; Vol. 564, c. 1023.]

[P001188]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Health:

Local authorities are responsible for providing social care services, including residential care, in their areas. Local authorities are autonomous public bodies and it is a matter for the local authority concerned to decide how best to meet the need for social services, including residential care, in its area. It would not be appropriate for Government Ministers to intervene in such matters, provided of course that local authorities are acting lawfully.

It is for the local authority concerned to decide how best to meet the need for social care services. Local authorities are entitled to review their direct provision of residential care and other services to see if they can achieve a higher quality of care and better value for money.

Ministers do understand how traumatic it can be for frail, older and vulnerable people who have to be moved from residential care homes which have become their true homes. In considering changes to the extent of their direct provision of residential care, local authorities should ensure that, if care homes have to close and residents have to move, such moves are handled sensitively, with full account taken of the welfare and wishes of residents and staff of the homes concerned.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 18 July 2013

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

Backbench business

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

UK Shale Gas

Thursday 18th July 2013 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Seventh Report of the Energy and Climate Change Committee, Session 2012-13, The Impact of Shale Gas on Energy Markets, HC 795, and the Government response, Session 2013-14, HC 609.]

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

13:30

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and colleagues from across the House for supporting it. It gives us an opportunity to examine some of the measures that the Government are putting in place to promote shale gas, and to explore the implications of fracking for our constituents, our countryside and our climate. I read with interest the Hansard report of Tuesday’s debate, which focused in particular on the details of community benefit packages but also touched on some issues that I am sure we will return to and explore further in this debate.

Before I discuss those questions, in light of recent lobbying scandals and concerns about inappropriate corporate influence on politics and policy making, I will declare my relevant interests. I am a proud, albeit small, shareholder in Brighton Energy Co-operative, which invests in community-owned solar power in Brighton and Hove and whose vision for community-owned renewables at the heart of our energy system I openly support. I have a similar very small interest in the Westmill Wind Farm co-operative in south Oxfordshire. I hope that other Members speaking today will agree that in the interests of transparency and rebuilding trust in the political process, it would be beneficial if all of us declared fully all interests relating to the energy sector or energy companies.

As part of the spending review, the Government set out their commitment to put in place the conditions to allow the shale industry to “reach its full potential”: new planning guidance, community benefits and tax breaks. The planning document was to be published by 18 July, in the depressingly common pattern of waiting until just before the summer recess to publish unpopular policies, but I was told this morning by the Department for Communities and Local Government that it would, after all, be published not today but “very soon”. That is even worse for the House’s ability to examine the details and hold Ministers to account on behalf of our constituents. I am sure that we would all like to hear from the Minister the reasons for the delay. It is hard to avoid concluding that his colleagues in the DCLG are scared of scrutiny.

It is also pretty appalling that the new planning guidelines are set to come into force without public consultation, denying communities that stand to be affected by fracking any say in the new process. It is clear that Ministers and the fracking firms, which are, sadly, increasingly indistinguishable, are keen to press on rapidly, but it is wrong to refuse to consult on new planning guidance aimed at making it easier for developers to cast aside community concerns.

Even from a perspective of due procedure, I cannot see how the decision to deny communities a say in their new planning rules is remotely in line with the Government’s own definition of circumstances in which consultation is unnecessary. The relevant Cabinet Office principle makes it clear that that is appropriate only in the case of

“minor or technical amendments to regulation or existing policy frameworks, where the measure is necessary to deal with a court judgment or where adequate consultation has taken place at an earlier stage”.

Many of my constituents have e-mailed me over the past few weeks to call for a full public consultation, as well as for new planning rules that are strong on tackling climate change and follow the precautionary principle when it comes to issues such as groundwater contamination.

Another spending review measure is the consultation on tax incentives to encourage companies to press on with shale gas exploration. The Treasury is proposing reducing the tax payable on income from 62% to 30%. One of my concerns is that tax breaks for fracking amount to an additional fossil fuel subsidy, which is exactly what the UK and other G20 nations pledged to phase out three years ago. It looks like a backward step. Fossil fuel subsidies, which amounted to $500 billion worldwide in 2011, are effectively an incentive to pollute. Earlier this year, the chief economist of the International Energy Agency, Fatih Birol, called them

“public enemy No. 1 for sustainable energy development”.

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

Will the hon. Lady make it clear that what she calls a fossil fuel subsidy in the case of the UK is, overwhelmingly, simply a lower rate of VAT on all energy use? Is she calling for a higher rate of VAT on all energy use, or just a higher rate on fossil fuels? To describe it as a subsidy is surely nonsense.

[Caroline Lucas]

I do not think that it is nonsense. The Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, is in the middle of an inquiry into fossil fuel subsidies, and it is clear from some of the evidence that we have received that many people think that the Government’s definition of subsidy, which is narrow and does not include tax breaks, is wrong. I am happy to say that I do not think that fossil fuels should have tax breaks. Whether or not we want to call that a subsidy, I am clear that I think it is, and I am against it.

Charles Perry said in evidence to the Committee:

“The media in this country…would like us all to believe that we are paying a lot more for renewable energy as consumers, but if you compare what we are paying for renewable energy versus fossil fuels, it is six times more for fossil fuels as a taxpayer than it is for renewables.”

That sums up what I am saying.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I heard that number with interest: six times as much for fossil fuels as for renewables. Can the hon. Lady take us through the calculation that gave that number? Was it, for example, by comparing solar with gas?

[Caroline Lucas]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the Environmental Audit Committee evidence, which goes through that complicated calculation in a lot of detail.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Lady give way on that point?

[Caroline Lucas]

I have answered that point.

Ministers have given us an industry-led community benefit scheme. It was discussed at length on Tuesday and will be consulted on in the autumn. It is expected to yield £100,000 in community benefits per drilling pad, each with several wells, plus 1% of revenues. The hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made a crucial point about the importance of additionality when it comes to such payouts, over and above what localities would normally expect under local government or other funding systems.

I share those concerns, not least in light of recent comments from the chief executive of shale gas explorer IGas, who said that local communities should be won over to shale gas fracking by being rewarded with more teachers in primary schools or more officers on the beat. Given the coalition Government’s cuts to crucial public sector services and local authority budgets, it would be outrageous if communities were faced with a situation in which the only way to secure adequate numbers of teachers or policemen and women was by accepting a giant fracking rig in their back yard.

The other recent development discussed on Tuesday is the creation of a new Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil. The Minister explained its co-ordination role, which aims

“to accelerate the development of shale responsibly.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 215WH.]

The new office has been given the role of cheerleader-in-chief for the shale gas industry, as well as being tasked with ensuring that shale development remains safe and the environment protected. We heard that it would also play a third role, providing information to the public on apparent myths to help people separate fact from fiction. However, the office and the Minister’s whole Department are so rampantly pro-shale gas that I cannot see how the public will have confidence or trust in them either to maintain the highest safety and environmental standards or to provide independent, credible, non-biased information about the risks of shale gas development. How does the Minister intend to manage that perceived conflict of interest?

During the rest of my remarks, I will concentrate on some crucial questions about shale gas development in the UK. First, do we understand fully the local environmental and health risks of shale gas and what our constituents and the general public think about fracking, and can regulation and the OUGO adequately address such risks and concerns? Secondly, does shale gas really have the potential to deliver lower-cost gas power and reduce energy bills, as the Chancellor and other fracking enthusiasts claim? Thirdly, is drilling for shale gas a sensible approach to addressing concerns about future energy security? Finally, is shale gas development compatible with the UK’s climate change commitments? I will set out why, sadly, I believe that the answer to all those questions is no, and why shale gas ultimately cannot and should not have a role in a secure and affordable energy system that is consistent with the UK’s climate change commitments.

On the environmental impacts, I am sure that I am not alone in having been contacted by many constituents concerned about a wide range of environmental and health risks from shale gas. I worry that Ministers and those with financial links to shale gas companies are quick to dismiss people’s concerns, especially about water resources. The International Energy Agency, not known for an overtly environmental perspective or for hyperbole, states:

“The scale of development can have major implications for local communities, land use and water resources.”

It goes on to list serious hazards

“including the potential for air pollution and for contamination of surface and groundwater”.

The number of wells would, of course, depend on how much extractible gas there is and the geological conditions. Huge uncertainties remain, so all estimates are assumptions, but a study by Bloomberg based on average well extraction data from the US, rather than just sweet spots, found that meeting North sea production levels of 1,460 billion cubic feet and sustaining those levels for 10 years would require between 10,000 and 20,000 shale gas wells. Does the Minister think that the visual impact of so many drilling rigs and the associated traffic would be considered preferable to the aesthetics of wind turbines, for example?

On Tuesday, Balcombe residents delivered a petition to the Environment Agency in respect of Cuadrilla’s application for a mining waste permit for its operations in that area. It states:

“We the undersigned residents of Balcombe and its surrounds strongly object to the activities of Cuadrilla and demand that you take all possible measures to ensure the cessation of its activities with immediate effect, on the grounds that it poses an unacceptable threat to our water supply, air purity and overall environment.”

It is wrong for Ministers to dismiss such concerns and to suggest that local opposition stems from a misunderstanding of the impact of shale gas extraction. Local campaigners I have met are not stupid or scaremongering. They are extremely well read and well informed. Last year, a survey by Balcombe parish council found that 82% of residents wanted their local elected representatives to oppose fracking. That gives a good overview of people’s concerns, which include issues such as the increase in road traffic through the village, the pollution of water supplies, the impact on an area of outstanding natural beauty and the effect on property values.

Opposition to fracking goes way beyond organisations such as Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth. One example this week is the Quakers, who issued a statement on the EU’s climate and energy package and said of shale gas:

“This is not an option for replacing coal power. The greenhouse gas emissions during the life cycle of a well (including after decommissioning) are too high to enable us to reach our long-term climate targets and stay within the vital 2°C limit, especially given the high risk of methane leakage.”

It continued:

“The fracking process contaminates water and soils causing major concerns for the environment and public health.”

Even the National Farmers Union has raised concern that fracking represents an additional water user, which could increase water stress in times of shortages, and what about the views of farmers in places where fracking is already established? In Alberta, Canada, the Canadian NFU has led calls for a moratorium, with the co-ordinator, who is a dairy farmer, warning last year:

“Many farmers in my area who either have direct experience with the destructive nature of hydro-fracking technology on their water wells or who have neighbours who have been affected have come to me with their concerns…our ability to produce good, wholesome food is at risk of being compromised by the widespread, virtually unregulated use of this dangerous process.”

The Minister has given assurances about robust regulation in the UK, but the implications of fracking for British farmers remains to be seen, not least in the light of increasing water scarcity and food price hikes. The Co-operative Group, which also farms, perhaps not coincidentally, is also calling for an end to the use of unconventional fossil fuels and for a massive upsurge in community renewables instead.

Another local concern is that leaks from well casings that have been inadequately completed or have subsequently failed are one route by which water and air pollution can occur. The first report from the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change said that the risks are

“no different to issues encountered when exploring the hydrocarbons and conventional geological formations”

and recommends that the Health and Safety Executive tests the integrity of wells before allowing drilling activity to be licensed. The Minister has indicated that such a regime will be put in place. I wonder whether those same assurances were given in the US and elsewhere.

New data from the Marcellus shale show that 6.6% of Pennsylvanian wells are leaking. Examination of studies of well leaks by various bodies in the US, Canada and Norway shows that it is likely that world leakage rates come in at between 5% and 20%. Will the Minister confirm whether there is any difference between well design in the US and the UK that makes that less likely here? Will he also say whether there is a register of the performance of existing UK wells? I have not been able to find one. Such a register would allow us to have an overall picture of leakage in the UK and would tell us a lot about the world-class regulation argument that is so easily bandied about.

The need for robust regulation was discussed in our debate on Tuesday, providing a brief respite from the regulation-bashing rhetoric that seems to be fashionable at the moment. The hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) was present at that debate, and I am delighted that he spoke in favour of high environmental standards, in keeping with the gold standard that already applies to oil and gas regulation in the UK. However, last month alone, Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms leaked oil or other chemicals into the North sea on 55 occasions. I am not convinced that communities facing the prospect of shale gas drilling, albeit onshore for the time being, will find that reassuring.

The Minister says that robust regulation is now in place and that there is nothing to prevent licensees from bringing forward new drilling plans and seeking the necessary permissions. I worry that his Department is becoming increasingly indistinguishable from the fracking companies that are rubbing their hands at the prospect of tax breaks and drilling permits, particularly in his treatment of legitimate public concerns as myths.

It was heartening to hear the hon. Member for Fylde (Mark Menzies) speak of the need to put in place the highest environmental safeguards, as opposed to what is simply convenient for the industry. He also made the point that in addition to strong regulation, there must be sufficient resources to ensure that they are applied. The shadow Energy Secretary emphasised the importance of comprehensive monitoring. I would add that the remits and duties of the regulator also matter.

The proposed growth duty to be imposed on non-economic regulators such as the Environment Agency through the draft Deregulation Bill is of great concern in that respect. The Government claim that it will support growth without weakening environmental protection, but lawyers from the UK Environmental Law Association warn in their consultation response that

“A growth duty, as currently proposed, would make it harder for non-economic regulators to refuse environmentally damaging development, including those that threaten nationally important wildlife sites—even if the overall societal benefits of such a refusal are greater than the development.”

They continue:

“This arises because the proposed duty does not adequately reflect evidence about the economic value of the natural environment and the need to value it accordingly in decision making.”

Ministers have a lot of explaining to do before anyone will be persuaded that this growth duty is not simply the latest attempt to weaken crucial environmental and public health safeguards, capitulating to corporate lobbyists who want short-term profit-making to trump public interest.

An additional concern, which is almost entirely ignored in the UK but is at the centre of debates in the US, is the radon risk from fracked gas pumped directly into householders’ kitchen stoves and hobs. Two month ago, the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) was told in a written answer from the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), that

“Public Health England…is preparing a report identifying potential public health issues and concerns, including radon…that might be associated with aspects of hydraulic fracturing…The report is due out for public consultation in the summer. Once released for public consultation, the report will be freely available from the PHE website.”—[Official Report, 20 May 2013; Vol. 563, c. 570W.]

Subsequent follow-up by telephone with Public Health England this week established that the “summer” has become “later this year”. That seems to be a trend. Will the Minister explain the delay in publishing this research report when the public debate over fracking is moving ahead apace?

In brief, the concern raised in the US has been led by Dr Marvin Resnikoff, now of Radioactive Waste Management Associates, who has more than 50 years’ research experience in radiation hazards. My purpose in raising this matter is not to scaremonger, but simply to ensure that the risks are not ignored. I look forward to hearing from the Minister on that aspect as well.

As chair of the all-party group on fuel poverty and energy efficiency, I believe that the cost of energy policy decisions to householders, particularly those on low incomes, is an absolute priority. Current estimates suggest that fuel poverty now affects more than 6.5 million households throughout the UK. The Government’s figures show that rising wholesale gas prices are the overwhelming cause of higher energy prices, which raises questions about the economic merits of the gas strategy in which gas plays a big role long into the future, never mind that a gas-powered future would bust carbon budgets.

The Chancellor and the Prime Minister both seem to think that shale gas could have a positive impact on gas prices and household fuel bills. Yesterday, the Department of Energy and Climate Change published a new report in what looks like a desperate attempt to create some evidence to back up those dubious claims. The Daily Telegraph thunders:

“Gas prices could fall by a quarter with shale drilling”.

But on closer examination, the document is all about ifs and buts.

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

We all want evidence-based decision making, and it seems odd to say first that there is no evidence that shale gas will reduce prices, and when the Government investigate and commission a report, to say that they have done so in a desperate attempt to find something that looks like evidence. Surely we should welcome the Government’s commissioning of independent research so that we can have an evidence-based debate.

[Caroline Lucas]

I would certain welcome that if it were reflected in the sort of statements that we hear from the Government about shale gas, but it is not. Time and again I have had debates with Ministers when they have easily and quickly leapt to the defence of shale gas by saying that it will incontrovertibly lead to lower gas prices. That is the problem. There is a gap between the rhetoric and the reality. If we all agree that the jury is out on that issue, I am pleased about that. The DECC report states that there is

“a high degree of uncertainty surrounding any price forecast.”

Let us look at what some of the energy market experts are saying about the cost question. Jamie Spiers, researcher at Imperial college, said that

“figures suggest that the cost of extracting UK shale gas reserves will exceed the price. This is a big issue that not been addressed very much.”

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady makes the point that the cost of extracting the gas will be higher than the cost of selling it. If so, why would the private sector go ahead with such projects? Surely the problem will be solved. Why does she think the price of shale gas in the US has reduced the price of wholesale gas by 75%?

[Caroline Lucas]

I think it will be made commercially viable through the sort of tax breaks that the Government are already beginning to give. I will return to the situation in the US later, but it is vastly different. The regulatory regime is different, as are the geology and the issue of exports. Time and again, people from the International Energy Agency downwards have been saying that it is irresponsible to think that we can simply read across the impacts in the US and assume that we will see those here in the UK.

I was giving examples of reputable organisations that are warning that UK shale gas will not bring prices down. Those warnings come from Deutsche Bank, Chatham House, Ofgem, and the International Energy Agency. Even the CBI has warned that there is only one direction for gas prices, and that is upwards. The highly respected former Energy Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry), has warned that the reverse is true, saying that

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

The Government’s independent advisers, the Committee on Climate Change, have confirmed that relying on gas would be expensive, adding up to £600 extra on household electricity bills compared with low carbon power, which would add only £100 and would be a good insurance policy against high prices in the future.

Exploitation of the UK’s significant shale resources is unlikely to result in low natural gas prices as well, according to Bloomberg:

“The cost of shale gas extraction in the UK is likely to be significantly higher than in the US, and the rate of exploitation insufficient to offset the decline in conventional gas production, meaning market prices will continue to be set by imported gas.”

Professor Paul Stevens, Chatham House analyst and a recent winner of the prestigious OPEC award for outstanding oil and energy research, has said that the Chancellor’s view that gas will be cheap in the future, based on the views that that will be driven by a shale gas revolution as happened in the US, is “misleading and dangerous.” Here he comes to exactly the point that the hon. Member for Warrington South just mentioned, saying:

“It is misleading because it ignores the very real barriers to shale gas development in the UK and Europe more generally. The US revolution was triggered by favourable factors such as geology, tax breaks and a vibrant service industry amongst many others. However, in Western Europe the geology is less favourable notably with the shale containing a higher clay content making it more difficult to use hydraulic fracturing.”

At a meeting for concerned residents at a potential fracking site in West Sussex, a Cuadrilla representative was asked to comment on whether shale gas could drive down customers’ energy bills. Mark Linder, who is responsible for Cuadrilla’s corporate development, said:

“We’ve done an analysis and it’s a very small…at the most it’s a very small percentage…basically insignificant”.

In the article to which I am referring, a company spokesperson is reported to have said:

“Cuadrilla’s never said it…will bring down prices…We don’t think it will bring down prices, although it does have the potential to.”

The spokesman went on to stress that shale gas exploitation was about security of supply, rather than price, so now I will turn to that.

There is a broad consensus among gas analysts that little, if any shale gas will be produced commercially in the UK before 2020, so we should not expect domestic shale gas to have any impact on gas prices in the short to medium term. That time scale is very important, because so much of the energy debate focuses on the rest of this decade, for which shale gas is basically irrelevant. If we are talking about energy security perhaps in the 2020s, what that looks like obviously depends on how much gas is extractable. The British Geological Survey recently reported that the Bowland shale in Lancashire and Yorkshire may contain 1,300 trillion cubic feet of gas. It stresses that it is a highly uncertain estimate and that it is not an indicator of the volume of gas likely to be extracted, which will depend on economic, technological and environmental considerations. However, if 10% of that gas were extracted, it would equate to approximately 41 years of UK gas consumption, but defining energy security as security of supply, DECC believes that it is still too early to come to a firm conclusion on whether shale gas in the UK or elsewhere in Europe is likely to have a significant effect on security of supply.

The House of Commons Energy and Climate Change Committee recommended that the

“Government should not rely on shale gas contributing to the UK's energy system when making strategic plans for energy security”,

which seems extremely sensible given all the uncertainties. Indeed, given those uncertainties, a much less risky way to reduce the energy security risks associated with the UK’s growing gas import dependence is massively to increase investments in renewable energy generation—we know what the costs of fuel for solar and wind generation are, for example—and dramatically improve energy efficiency and reduce overall demand.

Much of the discussion on the climate change impact of shale gas centres on its relative emissions intensity compared with coal. That matter is of interest, but it must not distract from the most climatically relevant issue of the absolute quantities of emissions from the global energy system. When people get very excited that shale gas in the US is cutting emissions by displacing coal, they need to remember that that coal is simply being exported and the emissions created elsewhere, so that does not help very much with the overall reduction of emissions required in order to tackle climate change. Regardless of the precise life cycle in terms of the greenhouse gas impact of shale compared with other gas, the direct carbon content of shale gas means that its widespread use is incompatible with the UK’s international climate change commitments.

We hear a lot that the Committee on Climate Change says that we need to cut emissions from power generations to 50 grams of CO₂ per kilowatt-hour by 2030, but we hear less often that that needs to be a step on the way to a zero carbon grid very soon afterwards. Yes, shale gas is lower carbon than coal, although the methane leakage question is still to be resolved, but it is still a high-carbon fuel. Arguing otherwise is not dissimilar to an alcoholic justifying a barrel of 7% cider on the grounds that it is less harmful than a crate of 13% wine.

What about carbon capture and storage, which is usually raised at this point as the get-out-of-jail-free card? At commercial scale, CCS will be significantly less than 100% effective at capturing carbon dioxide, but more importantly, CCS is unlikely to be commercially viable for at least another 10 years and probably more. The Opposition Front-Bench team have been very outspoken about the need for a 2030 decarbonisation target in the Energy Bill. I welcome their strong stance, and indeed, that of Members on both sides of the House on that crucial issue. The Opposition Front-Bench team are clearly trying to create an impression that they understand, more than the coalition, the pace and scale of carbon emission reductions needed. I hope that they would agree that rebuilding cross-party consensus in favour of urgent action on climate change is crucial, too.

However, from all the evidence that I have seen, if we take a scientific, evidence-based approach to tackling climate change, it simply does not make any sense to exploit the UK’s shale gas reserves, however much may be economically or technically recoverable. That is not only a green or environmental argument. As John Ashton, who was the UK’s former head climate diplomat for 10 years, including under Labour, told the Energy and Climate Change Committee,

“the issue here is not emissions, it is the security and prosperity of 60 million British citizens.”

I want to take issue with the view of the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) that those who oppose shale gas are taking an absolutist position. He said on Tuesday that people who are against shale exploration have a principled position, but their views are “ideological objections” that must be separated “from legitimate environmental concerns”, and that regulation is the way to do that. However, is he really suggesting that opposing shale gas extraction on climate grounds is not a legitimate environmental concern? Will he still be saying that when the next set of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports come out and we are all reminded of what is at stake and the consequences of a rise of more than 2°?

I say to the hon. Gentleman that such a position is neither ideological nor absolutist; rather it is a position that is honest about the science of climate change and the massive risks of our current emissions trajectory. The lack of realism and integrity is to be found not among shale gas opponents, but on the Opposition Benches for as long as they remain in thrall to the fossil fuel lobby and in favour of adding a new source of carbon-emitting fossil fuel to our energy mix.

In Tuesday’s debates, not once did the words “carbon” or “climate” pass the lips of an Opposition Member. It is clear that the shadow DECC team have seen the analysis by Carbon Tracker, which found that between 60% and 80% of existing fossil fuels cannot be burned if we are to have any hope of staying below 2°. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Luciana Berger) has asked questions about those unburnable high-carbon assets, and the International Energy Agency conclusions on burnable carbon are broadly the same. Perhaps today we will hear from the Opposition, as well as the Minister, exactly how they think that the exploitation of new sources of fossil fuels, including shale gas, is remotely compatible with the action needed to avoid catastrophic climate change and with the UK’s international commitment to keeping global warming below 2°, which was reiterated just last month at the G8.

In conclusion, I want to return briefly to the issue of the inappropriate corporate influence in Government. I believe that that is doing huge harm to our democracy and is at the core of the coalition’s irrational enthusiasm for shale gas and fossil fuels more widely. This fossil fuel obsession, or addiction, is preventing us from making the most of the UK’s indigenous renewable resources. Worse still, it means that we are seeing policies designed to maintain the status quo, where power is literally and metaphorically concentrated in the board rooms of big energy companies such as the owner of British Gas, Centrica, which recently bought shares in Cuadrilla.

Before the cold snap last winter, Centrica raised prices by 6%. Its full-year profits before tax were reported in May to be £602 million, with the group’s full-year earnings after tax expected to be 2% higher than last year at £1.4 billion. Therefore, I think it is reasonable to ask why it is remotely acceptable, for example, that Lord Browne, a former BP boss, is now holding a key cross-departmental role as the head non-executive director at the very same time as he holds significant shares in Cuadrilla. Lord Browne reports to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), in whose constituency Cuadrilla wants to drill. The right hon. Gentleman explains that Browne

“has a cross Government role convening Non-Executives from the best of business and the third sector...The code of practice on good governance in government departments requires the board to record and manage conflicts and potential conflicts of interest appropriately. There is no conflict of interest in this case.”

However, a recent freedom-of-information response from DECC seems to undermine such assurances. It states:

“After a trawl of our Ministers’ private offices and very senior civil servants at DECC we can confirm that there have been four meetings with Lord Browne during the period specified”—

in other words, the past three years. Those all took place in DECC’s offices, and I am told that although DECC does not have minutes for the first two meetings, Cuadrilla’s activity plans and shale gas were discussed. The minutes that do exist are heavily redacted on the grounds that attendees were in a private discussion with the Minister. The response states:

“It would be likely to prejudice the commercial interests of Cuadrilla and inhibit communications with this organisation on an ongoing basis if we were to release details”.

Another non-executive director is old Etonian Sam Laidlaw, who has also had a long career in the oil and energy industry, including top roles at Enterprise Oil and Chevron. He is currently in charge of—guess what?—Centrica. I am therefore genuinely concerned that policy making on shale is skewed in favour of the companies, such as Centrica and Cuadrilla, and that the interests of our constituents are not being put first, as they should be, when it comes to the risks of fracking, keeping energy costs down or tackling climate change. I would like to know whether the Minister shares my concerns about the access and influence that these companies have in relation to policy making across the Government.

I want to highlight some questions that my constituents and other members of the public have asked me to put to the Minister during this debate. Will the Government confirm that they will mandate that fracking companies must name the chemicals that they use and their toxicity? Can he explain how fracking is compatible with the sustainability and emission reduction aims of what is meant to be the greenest Government ever? Where is the assessment of the risks of fracking, and how will those risks be properly managed? I would be grateful for answers to those questions as well.

I want to end my speech by saying a few words about the positive energy future that we could decide to pursue, instead of this headlong rush to exploit every last drop of oil and gas. It is a future in which we are free from our fossil fuel reliance and on a path towards climate security, not catastrophe. It is an energy system in which the big six energy companies are replaced by independent generators and a blossoming of community and co-operatively owned renewable schemes—local, sustainable and democratically controlled.

The Centre for Alternative Technology launched just this week “Zero Carbon Britain”, showing how Britain could eliminate emissions by 2030, and not just from our energy system. It is the latest of many reports that show, from a technological perspective, that fossil fuels are fast becoming redundant. I recommend it to anyone who thinks that the only way to keep the lights on is to fry our planet and condemn young people and future generations to unmanageable climate impacts, not least on water and food security. As many have said, what we are lacking is not technological solutions to end our fossil fuel addiction and tackle climate change; it is political will. I hope that this debate will be one step further in generating that will.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I should like to tell right hon. and hon. Members that I will call the first Front Bencher no later than 10 minutes past 4. The Chairman of Ways and Means has given the Chairman of this debate permission to impose a time limit. I will not do that at the moment. Nine Back Benchers want to speak, so Members can do the arithmetic.

[Mr Lilley]

For Members who cannot do the arithmetic, can you tell us how long we have to speak, Mr Bone?

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

No, you are quite capable of doing that, Mr Lilley.

14:02

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and to have your understanding that I may have to nip out and see a Minister about a school. I hope that I will also have the understanding of other hon. Members.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on ensuring that we could have this debate. I think that this is the fifth time in 18 months that we have had such a debate, and my right hon. Friend the Minister has had the pleasure of my company and that of other hon. Members only in the last few days on pretty much the same topic. I will try to take a different tack from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, given that I represent a constituency that sits on the majority of the Bowland shale, which apparently is becoming the nirvana of plugging our energy gap. That is how it seems to many of my constituents, who are worried on a number of grounds.

Personally, I have always tried to take the middle ground. I am not, and never have been, completely set against the use of shale gas in the UK’s energy mix. However, following conversations with constituents and having done my own research, I do have concerns about the safety and the environmental aspects of the fracking process. That includes, in particular, the integrity of water supplies for those who draw water from their own boreholes and not from the mains supply. That is an issue that I keep raising, and I have raised it in meetings with companies and civil servants, who still do not seem to understand that there are people in Lancashire who do not have a mains water supply. They are clearly concerned about the possible contamination that may occur with a process that goes on below the water table; but more importantly, they are also concerned about the quantities of water taken from the water table to use in this process. They are still waiting to have those questions answered.

My constituency is right next to where the small earth tremors happened. Test drilling at Preesall in the Fylde constituency was stopped to check what was going on. As hon. Members can imagine, in a county that was already seeing the speed at which people were trying to get to the shale gas but hearing few answers, the fact that a small tremor happened—whatever one wants to argue about the tremor itself—led to extremely serious worries among my constituents.

I accept that, since then, the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change has put in place a number of additional safeguards. Certainly, the regulatory system has been beefed up. He has also confirmed that all data from the exploratory process will be monitored to assess further the environmental impacts. The additional safeguards; the monitoring of seismic activity; a strengthening of the regulations in relation to wellhead integrity; and—this is the important one for me and I am grateful to the Energy Secretary for it—the presence of an independent expert on-site, while fracking takes place, are all moves in the right direction. They are important measures, but I believe that more can be done to strengthen things further, particularly the water safety element.

I understood the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion to refer to the DCLG in terms of the planning regulations, and we in Lancashire are waiting to see the nature of them. I hope to see very strong roles for the Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive throughout this process. There needs to be some understanding that the area of the Bowland shale is rural Lancashire, so there are extreme concerns about the impact not just on the ground, but on some of the most outstanding countryside that we have in this country. We need to be assured that each site will be assessed on its own merits in terms of how it affects the local landscape. I have always made the same point in relation to applications for wind turbines, and it would be wrong of me to approach planning consents for shale gas well pad sites differently. Local people must be allowed to have a full say in the planning process.

I will now return to a familiar theme. Hon. Members have heard this long and hard from me, but the issue still concerns me. If we are to have large-scale extraction of shale gas, how will that represent a bonanza for the local community? The mineral rights belong to the Crown, to the duchy or to the county, and local residents will not see the sums that communities and landowners in the US or Europe could get. Moreover, the statements on the number of jobs that will be available are not convincing enough for me. Promises are being made, but I do not believe that this activity will create large-scale employment opportunities across Lancashire.

I accept that a move to industrial-scale production of shale gas has not been advocated by the Energy Secretary at this stage, but it does look as though there is more and more evidence that economically viable extraction is possible. I have seen a reference to £366 billion-worth of extractable gas from the Bowland shale. Therefore, the community’s share of the profits needs to be sorted. I am determined that if Lancashire is to produce shale gas that benefits Lancashire and the rest of the country, Lancashire residents will get financial recompense.

We have now heard that a community compensation scheme will be established, which is good news. However, we are told that it will be a voluntary scheme, run by the United Kingdom Onshore Operators Group. The plan is to provide £100,000 per well at the exploration stage, and once production starts, 1% of all revenues generated during the well’s lifetime will be allocated to the local area, with one third going to the county and two thirds to the local community. That is a good start, but I and others in this Chamber would like to see a lot more. We want to see more clarity, more certainty, a guarantee of additionality and, ideally, more money.

[David Mowat]

My hon. Friend is making a number of strong points on behalf of his community in Lancashire, and I agree with them all. I will just draw his attention, though, to the unemployment figures that came out yesterday. The three constituencies with the lowest unemployment in the country are all around Aberdeen, and that has been achieved without community transfers. Does my hon. Friend not think that there will be a bonus in terms of economic activity, potentially centred on his constituency?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

On balance, my hon. Friend makes a fair point. It has been put to me that, if the area were the first where fracking went ahead, the potential for university research, engineering and skills would be an advantage, but as I have tried to explain, against that is the fact that we have had one test drill, which caused an earth tremor. We have seen nothing else, and we need to see what one of these well pads does to the environment. No one has seen that yet.

[Dan Byles]

I know that my hon. Friend is looking at the issue carefully, as well he should. Does he agree that we will be able to answer these questions only if planning permission is granted for the next series of exploratory wells? Only when we have wells being drilled and operated can people look, sniff and prod, and we will then know what the wells look like and what the impact will be.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely valid point, but he must understand that we then get the argument that, because we have had exploratory wells, we obviously need to go ahead since we have spent all that money on exploration. My constituents need assurances that the wells are exploratory, that they are part of a pilot and that there is the possibility that we can close down the whole thing if something else goes wrong. Those are the kinds of assurance that they want.

The community fund that the Onshore Operators Group will apparently be in charge of will provide more money locally, but there are still questions about what the local community is. Will funds go to community groups, parish councils or even district councils in my area, such as Wyre borough council or Lancaster city council? They are all below county council level and there is a huge spread of locality between them. What will the money be spent on? Could it come in the form of cash payments, reduced energy bills, building community facilities, reduced council tax bills or affordable housing contributions? If that kind of money is spent in those ways, there are possible tax implications, which is how the problems with the Shetland Charitable Trust developed.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman is probably already aware of the Sullom Voe agreement, under which community benefit is brought into the community at parish level. I believe that for every barrel of oil taken from Shetland Island waters, a number of pence—totalling something like £23 million or £24 million—goes to the Shetland Islands council for it to distribute. That is probably a good model for us all.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

It is an interesting model, but there are serious problems with the definition of what the council can spend money on. If the council spends money on certain things and gives financial recompense to the residents, they will face tax anyway, and that is the issue.

I turn to the subject of certainty. We are talking about a voluntary community compensation scheme. I had hoped that we would be dealing with something more substantial, preferably underpinned by statute. We need to ensure that there is no wriggle room. Local residents and councils need to know that there will be no about-turn, that promises will be lived up to and that changes in company control will not lead to changes to the commitments made by companies now.

Additionality is important. Basically, I want a guarantee from Ministers that if local councils receive extra funds through the community compensation scheme, that will not be used against them when calculating normal standard local government grants. Put simply, I do not want to see a case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. There must be extra money to compensate local communities for the problems that they will have to deal with in hosting shale gas extraction, and that compensation must not be seen by the Government, of whatever hue, as an alternative to normal grant funding. That might be achieved by using a separate fund, as the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) has already suggested, rather than by paying money into the usual revenue streams—almost a Lancashire sovereign wealth fund. Such a fund would be managed by professionals according to a strict charter, for the benefit of the most closely situated residents on the one hand and the whole of the county on the other. Obviously, it would have to work closely with local authorities of all tiers, to deliver genuine and tangible benefits for local residents and the county.

I hope there might be room for negotiation on the amounts involved. One per cent of revenues of £366 billion is interesting and a good figure, but we hope that it is just a starting negotiating point. If we are to have a profusion of wells, which I remind hon. Members are not like oil wells and need to be located every few miles across the patch or move round the patch—that is my understanding, but those more expert than I am may correct me—we want a fund able to invest for the time when the gas goes, as surely it must, given its nature.

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

The hon. Gentleman may find it helpful to consider—certainly looking at US experience—that a fracking pad in production is about twice the size of a football field and has six different wells, each of which last seven to eight years before a new well needs to be drilled. He is right that a number of wells and pads would be required in any area to sustain substantial shale gas production over a period.

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his technical expertise; that is also my understanding. I remind hon. Members that I am talking about rural Lancashire, the vast majority of which is defined as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I have fought wind turbines owing to the impact of their look on the area, and in the same way, shale gas development raises serious questions about protecting such areas, of which we have few left.

My obsession with compensation should not be taken as support for a move to full-scale fracking. Ministers have to understand how fracking is perceived at the moment. All they read in their national papers are new figures building on new figures and the huge possible bonanza, while my constituents sit on those possibilities. Too often, Lancashire has seen itself used to generate profits that did not return to the county. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion said, constituents in the affected areas have done a hell of a lot voluntary work to look at fracking at all levels. A farmer in the Bleasdale area of my constituency pointed out at the end of an involved meeting—I hope you accept the reference, Mr Bone—“Eric, this gas has been down there millions of years; there can’t be harm in waiting a little bit longer. It will still be there when we want it.”

14:09

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this Backbench Business Committee debate with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate and on the way in which she opened it. I have a potential site for fracking for shale gas at Barton Moss in my constituency, and I want to talk about constituency concerns, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) has just done. My constituents have a number of concerns, and they are building by the week and month. I want to talk about those concerns over the potential impact of fracking for shale gas on their quality of life, because that is the key issue for me.

First, even the suggestion of fracking for shale gas moving into the area is bringing house prices down. I had a quick look before I came to the debate, and found various articles talking about a house price downturn of up to 30% in various parts of Manchester and the north-west. When major projects such as large rail schemes are introduced into an area, they bring house prices down. Such a loss would mean a cost running into millions of pounds for all the local people affected by a house price downturn.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend wait until I complete this point? I will come to him in a moment. His constituency is at the other end of Salford from mine, and I know that he will disagree with what I say.

As we heard extensively from the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, there is talk of a community bonus of £100,000 per well. The difficulty is that it is out of scale with the potential loss in house values that people will see. The 1% of any revenue will also come along far too late. If someone’s house has lost value and they have become fed up and moved away, they will not be helped by 1% of revenue.

[Graham Stringer]

Outside London and the south-east, the highest house prices in the country are in Aberdeen, due to the benefit of the oil industry in the North sea. Eventually, the improvements in the economy if shale gas is exploited are likely to lead to a rebalancing of the UK economy and higher house prices.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is entitled to that view, but I do not agree with him.

There are serious concerns about the impact of fracking on communities. I want to quote from the International Energy Agency’s “Golden Rules for a Golden Age of Gas: World Energy Outlook Special Report on Unconventional Gas”:

“Producing unconventional gas is an intensive industrial process, generally imposing a larger environmental footprint than conventional gas development. More wells are often needed…The scale of development can have major implications for local communities, land use and water resources. Serious hazards, including the potential for air pollution and for contamination of surface and groundwater, must be successfully addressed.”

Those are the issues and concerns that are starting to bear down on my constituents, and the notion that anyone living in an area where such things were being contemplated would see house price increases is just not realistic.

I want also to quote from a report by the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research produced by local academics at the university of Manchester:

“The depth of shale gas extraction gives rise to major challenges in identifying categorically pathways of contamination of groundwater by chemicals used in the extraction process. An analysis of these substances suggests that many have toxic, carcinogenic or other hazardous properties. There is considerable anecdotal evidence from the US that contamination of both ground and surface water has occurred in a range of cases.”

The report also states that

“there are a number of documented examples of pollution events owing to poor construction and operator error. There are reports of incidents involving contamination of ground and surface waters with contaminants such as brine, unidentified chemicals, natural gas, sulphates, and hydrocarbons”.

Government Members appear to be saying “Nonsense.” I think I heard the Minister say it too, so I hope he can give me information that I can pass on to my constituents that will help to settle their minds.

[Mr Lilley]

There have been some 2 million wells fracked in the United States and not a single person has suffered from water contamination as a result.

[Barbara Keeley]

That is interesting, and if the right hon. Gentleman has references that he wants to pass on for me to use in my constituency, he is welcome to do so.

We have read the various reports, and it is clear that there are things that need to be borne in mind, not least the potential effect of the shale gas industry’s environmental impact on my constituents. There are many points in the process at which groundwater contamination could occur, due to fracturing fluids or contaminants being mobilised from migration under the surface. There is also the contamination of land and surface water, and potentially groundwater via the surface route, arising from any kind of spillage. Right hon. and hon. Members who have lived in the vicinity of chemical processing industry plants—we have a number in the north-west—know that such things happen. I used to work alongside someone who had worked for ICI, who constantly told me about the evil soup they would get rid of on one particular day. Such things have happened, and people remember them.

The key point is that there will clearly be impacts on the land and the landscape from the drill rig, the well pads, storage ponds or tanks and access roads. People will experience noise and light pollution during the well drilling, and local traffic will be affected. All those impacts are not uncertain; they are certain.

We also know that seismic impacts are possible, and the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood has touched on that issue. The western part of Salford was previously mined for coal and has many quarries—unlike the eastern part, which my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) represents. I have already had experience in my constituency of part of a street of newly built houses falling backwards—subsidence is a hazard for home owners throughout the area. We have come across a study by geologists at Columbia university, who feel that large earthquakes can trigger, even from a great distance, smaller seismic reactions near waste water injection well pads. People read the studies and take away that fear.

It would be helpful if the Minister could tell me, so that I can pass the information on to my constituents, what research has been conducted into that domino effect. If, as we get into shale gas development in various places—not, I hope, in my constituency—there are further seismic impacts, will areas such as mine be affected?

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right about the report, but it was, as she said, about geological waste water disposal, not about hydraulic fracturing. I believe that geological waste water disposal is already prohibited in this country, under a number of EU regulations. Last year’s Royal Society report considered closely the issue of induced seismicity and declared the risk of it to be very low.

[Barbara Keeley]

Those are interesting points, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that if he was at meetings with constituents of mine who have these fears, he would realise that it is very hard to persuade people who are personally affected by living next to a site.

I want to mention the Lancashire Wildlife Trust, because it is a key stakeholder in any proposals for gas exploration and exploitation at the site. The trust has a role in protecting and restoring the precious mosslands resource in Salford, which is adjacent to the site in question. The area of raised peat bog has suffered for decades from peat extraction, but we have just won council approval to refuse a licence for peat extraction—in which the trust played a key role—and people were feeling that things might get back to normal and calm down. The trust gave me the following statement:

“The Wildlife Trust for Lancashire considers that the most significant local issues for biodiversity are the impact of the footprint of the physical development (e.g. buildings, parking areas, waste water storage tanks and well-heads)”

on adjacent wildlife sites on the mosslands,

“and the safe disposal of the waste water. Any proposal for shale gas extraction should go through the full planning process including public consultation, compliance with EU Directives and a full Environmental Impact Assessment.”

I have concerns about planning, which I will come to. The statement continues:

“The Environmental Impact Assessment should disclose all chemicals involved in the process and identify the least damaging disposal route for the waste water.”

I am already getting questions from constituents that I cannot answer about what chemicals are involved in the process, so that is clearly very important to people.

The trust goes on the state that it

“will treat each planning application for energy generation on its own merits and we would expect there to be a net gain in biodiversity in line with current legislation, local planning policies and the National Planning Policy Framework”.

The final point the trust makes, as we have already heard from the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion, is that

“the precautionary principle should be adopted until adequate scientific evidence exists as to the environmental impacts.”

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Lady is being very generous in giving way. I might have misheard her, but I think she said that she could not answer the questions about what chemicals are put into fracking fluid. If she looks on the Environment Agency website, she will see that they are listed in full, as required by the agency’s rules. That is entirely transparent.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not think that that is my job—

[Dan Byles]

Of course it is.

[Mr Lilley]

Show some leadership.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order.

[Barbara Keeley]

I do not know about the particular developer we will have or the particular process that it will undertake. To be perfectly frank, in the current environment I do not know whether I have the resources to get into that anyway, so it would be helpful if the information could be provided.

[Mr Lilley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Barbara Keeley]

No, I want to make some progress.

I want to touch further on the potential environmental impacts of shale gas developments. Constituents of mine have brought reports to meetings and have raised their concerns. I have already mentioned the issues they see as being more likely to cause problems for the local environment and for human health, including water contamination and air pollution, and I want to go a little further into the latter.

In certain places in the States—Wyoming and Texas have been mentioned—there have been cases of photochemical smog, which increases susceptibility to asthma. A hospital system in Texas, which serves six counties, has reported asthma rates of three times the national average. In my constituency, we already have significant problems with air pollution, due to the volumes of traffic and traffic congestion on the three motorways. My constituency is surrounded by the M60, the M62, the M602 and the local road network. Recent roadworks near a junction of the M60 caused tailbacks of up to two hours, with traffic nearly at a standstill, and that was in the same area as the drilling site.

The current mortality figure for Salford attributable to air pollution is as high as 6%, which is higher than the average for England of 5.6% and much higher than the figures for other parts of the country, such as Devon and Cornwall. We have evidence from the United States of some hazardous pollutants being prevalent around shale gas wells. In my constituency, the Barton Moss site is close to two local housing estates—the real difference is that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood was talking about a rural area, while I am talking about a heavily populated urban one—so any drilling for shale gas would only add to the harmful air pollutants already breathed in by my constituents. Has the Department done any work to examine the outcomes and the potential risk of exploiting shale gas in such urban areas? I do not know whether there is information about that, because there is concern about air quality now that the monitoring duty has been taken away from local authorities.

There is a concern that many of the data currently used to promote shale gas extraction are limited or at best incomplete. Hon. Members have given examples and pointed out certain websites. The Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research has argued that, although there are increasing volumes of data on the subject—such as lists on websites—many of the data are built on provisional sources and there is a paucity of reliable data. Will the Minister tell us what measures he is taking to develop the information used to underpin Government policy, so that people have certainty? It is important to have certainty about the data on fracking that are being relied on and the potential effect on the environment.

Another concern is that any gains from shale gas will not be as substantial as claimed. A fear that I have heard from my constituents is that gains will go straight to the Treasury and bypass the local community, as we have heard today. It is right to question to what extent shale gas may cut energy bills. Although there has been a boom in the United States, experts say that costs in Europe will be up to 50% higher than in the US because of such factors as the less promising geology and the higher population density. Bloomberg New Energy Finance has said that hopes that shale gas will cut energy prices are “wishful thinking”, and the former Energy and Climate Change Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) has written that

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

Like the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood, I am concerned about the real bonus, if there is one, to the local community in Barton and Irlam, because they will experience all the disbenefits. It is said that exploiting shale gas will lead to cheaper fuel bills, but we have heard from other sources that it may not.

I return to the planning issue and whether local communities can have a proper say on any decisions about shale gas that affect them. I have to say to the Minister that the changes to the planning and permit process advertised over recent months have served only to make my constituents more anxious. We know that the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 will allow developers to bypass local authorities in some cases, which is a real concern in my constituency. The Act creates an opportunity for developers to fast-track major projects instead of going to the local authority, and I have many times been asked, “Is that going to happen to us?” The Act allows developments for large onshore gas extraction over a certain size to be fast-tracked to the Secretary of State, so it would be helpful if the Minister said whether he thinks shale gas extraction will be fast-tracked.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion has already referred to the fact that on 27 June the Government published their document on infrastructure investment, which stated that they intended this month to publish measures

“to kick start the shale gas industry in the UK.”

The measures were to include guidelines that, as she said, are not currently available. I am concerned about that, so can the Minister shed any light on why they have not been published? Most alarmingly, the 27 June document stated that the Environment Agency would

“significantly reduce the time it takes to obtain environmental permits for exploration.”

A process seems to have been built in for fast-tracking or streamlining permits in a standard period of 13 weeks from August, but in as little as six weeks in some cases. Alarmingly, by February 2014 permits will be issued within one to two weeks, based on standard rules. Will the Minister tell us what we can expect with the new planning and permit regime, so that I can pass that on?

I want to quote some policy lines that relate to the debate. The shadow Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), has said that

“the green economy and low carbon energy will be central to Labour’s plans in government”,

and that work for Labour

“on industrial strategy will also have energy and environmental policy at its heart. So will…Armitt’s review into the way in which we make our infrastructure decisions. Without a low carbon infrastructure plan and economic strategy, in the modern economy you simply don’t have an economic plan. Our vision is for a race to the top—to secure a world-leading position for British businesses in helping the world meet the low carbon challenge—and in doing so create prosperity and jobs for people in this country.”

The point about jobs has already been raised.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) has set out the questions that need to be answered to ensure that exploration and extraction are properly regulated and monitored, and he may say more about that later. He has quoted President Obama as saying that plentiful shale gas does not make climate change and its associated emissions go away; it makes the need for carbon capture and storage all the more essential and the need to drive renewable technologies more urgent. Legitimate environmental concerns should be addressed and, I would add, consultation with communities should be meaningful. Energy policy needs responsible leadership, and I hope that this debate helps point the way to that and, more importantly, helps to get answers that I can pass on to my constituents.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. Because of the number of Members who have indicated that they wish to speak, with the authority of the Chairman of Ways and Means, I am imposing with immediate effect a time limit on Back Benchers’ speeches of eight minutes, with added time for two interventions.

14:36

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

It is a pleasure to be at this debate under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, and I am delighted that you are a chairman of so many things. I congratulate the hon.—and old Malvernian—Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on obtaining the debate. I mention her school since she seems to be obsessed with other people’s schools. It is important to have the opportunity to debate the issues.

The hon. Lady asked Members to draw attention to their interests. I invite everyone to look at my interests, as declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. They will find that I have no interest in fracking or in any oil and gas companies in this country. Over my lifetime, I have been—indeed, I still am—involved in an oil company in central Asia and I was involved in analysing oil companies and predicting energy prices for 20 years, when I had a proper job before coming to this place, so she may try to insinuate that that somehow makes me too well disposed to the oil and gas industry. She may therefore be surprised that, as the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) will confirm, I was the only member of the Energy and Climate Change Committee who criticised, as she does, the suggested special tax breaks for fracking. On the basis of my knowledge of the oil and gas industry, I think that they are probably unnecessary, and we should not give away unnecessary tax breaks; although if they are necessary, that would be fair enough.

I want to draw Members, attention to one interest that is not declared in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I probably share this interest with all other Members, although too many ignore it. It is my interest in my 70,000 constituents who want their heating bills kept as low as possible, my interest in the people in this country getting jobs and my interest in reviving the manufacturing industry in this country and providing it with fuel that is as plentiful and cheap as possible.

I have great respect for the hon. Lady and those who, like her, simply want to keep fossil fuels in the ground, although if that was my objective, I would start by keeping coal in the ground rather than gas, which produces only half or less of the carbon dioxide emissions of coal. I do not support such a policy because, probably like her, I take as given the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change summary of the science, I also, unlike her, accept its summary of the economics of taking action to prevent global warming. It has concluded that, in relation to the level of CO₂ in the atmosphere, it could not identify

“an emissions pathway or stabilisation level where benefits exceed costs.”

Unless and until we can find a pathway or a stabilisation level for CO₂ that will produce greater benefits than its costs, we should not set about impoverishing this generation in the vague hope that we may make some generation in the future richer.

[Caroline Lucas]

I think I said that the driver for increasing fuel bills for most people today is rising prices of gas rather than renewables or anything else. Those interests that the right hon. Gentleman declared at the beginning of his contribution around jobs and keeping fuel bills low are better met through green energy sources than through gas, the prices of which are pushing up bills right now.

[Mr Lilley]

The current cost of electricity produced from gas or coal is £50 per megawatt-hour. The current cost of producing it from windmills is £100 per megawatt-hour. For offshore windmills, it is £150 per megawatt-hour and for solar it is off the scale. If we think that we will get cheaper, lower energy bills by going to energy sources that are two, three or four times as expensive, we are living in la-la land.

[Caroline Lucas]

Far from my being in la-la land, the right hon. Gentleman has very effectively not answered my question. I said that if we were to look at a fuel bill to try to ascertain which elements made it high, we would find that it was gas rather than renewables. Yes, renewables have a greater degree of subsidy now, but that is because they are new. They have a rate that will enable them to come to grid parity very soon. Gas, by contrast, is an old technology and hardly needs those kinds of subsidies.

[Mr Lilley]

Even that is not true. The most recent generation of gas turbines are so much more efficient than the previous ones that the savings from replacing all our gas turbines with the most recent generation would probably be greater than the savings in CO_2, emissions from using wind. I will, if I may, make some progress.

Until we find a way of controlling CO₂ levels in the atmosphere that will not cost more than the benefits of doing so, we should not impoverish this generation. My respect for the hon. Lady and her colleague, the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley), begins to evaporate when they abandon their real belief, which is that we should not burn any fossil fuels, and start to concoct fabricated fears and spurious arguments against fracking. Their first argument is that there will not be much there—that was what they originally said. Now the British Geological Survey says that there is probably an awful lot there, but that we will not know until we have drilled it.

The hon. Lady went on to say that the process will be so costly that it will cost more than the price, in which case no one will extract it, so her fears can evaporate. She clearly does not believe her own argument otherwise she would not even bother to attend this debate because it would not be important. She alleges that it will be more difficult geologically to extract shale in this country than in the United States, and that the geology here is less attractive than there, but that is simply not the case.

When the Select Committee interviewed Cuadrilla and BHP Billiton in the States, we asked them how thick the shale beds were in the States that they typically extracted from. They said 300, 400 or 500 feet thick. How thick is the Bowland shale? It is a mile thick; up to 20 times as thick as in America, which means that from one surface pod, we can get up to 20 times as much fracking as they can in the States—perhaps it is only a dozen times.

[Dr Whitehead]

indicated dissent.

[Mr Lilley]

The hon. Gentleman can intervene if he wishes to put me right.

[Dr Whitehead]

The right hon. Gentleman will lose time from me intervening, so I am sorry about that.

[Mr Lilley]

If the hon. Gentleman can be quick.

[Dr Whitehead]

Thickness is not necessarily the final indicator.

[Mr Lilley]

If the hon. Gentleman does not have anything interesting to say, then he should not waste my time.

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, it relates to geological faulting, clay, extractability, tightness—

[Mr Lilley]

Thank you very much. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. That was not very helpful to the debate in general.

The second and more plausible argument is that, even if there are large quantities of gas here and we will not know that until we have drilled, it will not succeed in bringing down prices in the UK, because our prices are fundamentally set by marginal suppliers from Europe. That is both plausible and possibly true, but either we will have so much here, and there will be so much elsewhere, that gas prices will come down, or they will not in which case the tax revenues from producing gas in this country will be substantially greater—three times as much per cubic metre extracted as in the States. With those extra tax revenues, we will be able to reduce our other costs on the economy or other tax bills that people face.

Shale is ubiquitous; it is incredibly widespread across the world. For the hon. Lady to suggest that it will be extractable only in the States is really to express the belief that God is an American, that he has created a particularly unique situation in America with shale that is so different from shale elsewhere in the world and with a technology that will only apply there, and that he has maliciously arranged things so that the technology will not apply to the shale in the UK, France, Poland, China or elsewhere in the world. I simply do not believe that that is true. In all probability, we will see a shale gas revolution worldwide that will probably keep gas prices low. It is certainly likely to prevent them going up, and it may even bring them down as it has done in the States.

When pessimism about reserves and prices fails, some people resort to fabricated scares, which are as irresponsible and as unjustified as the MMR scares, which stopped people taking advantage of vaccination. I hope that we will not allow similar scares to stop us taking advantage in this country of the potential resources that exist beneath our soil.

The letter from the people in Balcombe from which the hon. Lady quoted says that fracking is considered to be an uncertain and risky technology. It is far from being uncertain and risky. The first gas well was fracked on 17 March 1949. Since then 2 million wells have been fracked in the United States, and 200,000 in the last year, without anyone being poisoned by contaminated water, or any buildings or people suffering damage from minuscule seismic tremors.

The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering dismissed fears about water contamination. They concluded that any health, safety and environmental risks associated with hydraulic fracturing can be managed effectively in the UK as long as operational best practices are implemented and enforced.

14:47

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

The debate here falls into two categories: a wider category and a narrower category. It is undoubtedly true in terms of the wider category that we will have to leave a lot of the carbon that we otherwise could get out of the ground in the ground over the next few years. Indeed the understanding of the Department of Energy and Climate Change of this process in terms of what will need to be done with regard to gas as a component of wider energy sources in the 2030s reflects that in the way in which gas will need to be used at a much lower level and fairly sparingly in the running of gas-fired power stations. But that is also an issue in terms of what we do with oil, coal and a variety of other mineral sources of energy under our soils.

We are talking specifically about shale gas in the UK, and I want to address the narrow issue of what the consequence would be of our deciding that we really were going to go for a shale gas “bonanza” in this country and try to extract as much shale gas as possible in order to underpin our energy economy. First, there is indeed a large amount of shale gas reserve under the ground in the UK. How much of it is recoverable is another matter. If we recovered what looks to be a possible level of recoverability from the present fairly uncertain estimates of how much shale gas there is, shale gas could perhaps underpin 10% of our overall necessary gas supplies in this country.

[Mr David Amess in the Chair]

For shale gas to do that, we would have to have just over 100,000 shale gas wells. There is a popular misconception that drilling for shale gas is like drilling for offshore North sea gas, but that is not the case, as we have already heard. A large number of small wells would be the order of the day; in themselves, they would not produce a large amount of gas but collectively they would produce quite a large amount of gas. Perhaps there would be about 100,000 to 107,000 wells. Admittedly, they would not be separate wells. Usually, there would be about six or seven wells on one pad, going outwards from the pad, which would create a need for about 18,000 pads. So, if we did a straightforward division between the constituencies of this country, each constituency would have to support 164 wells. Obviously, the wells would not be distributed constituency by constituency, because there would be concentrations in different parts of the country, but I can well understand the concerns expressed by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley).

[Barbara Keeley]

Whatever number of wells my hon. Friend thinks each constituency would have to bear, does he think that there are particular issues in urban areas that already have very high levels of pollution, such as the ones I outlined?

[Dr Whitehead]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Indeed, in the US shale gas drilling takes place right in the centre of a number of towns, such as Fort Worth. There are very considerable concerns about that, precisely on the grounds she refers to, not because shale gas will kill us all but because of particular concerns about how the shale gas is extracted: what happens with the waste water; what happens with the operation of the shale gas facility itself; and indeed the arrangements in the US relating to mineral rights that cause that drilling to take place. That would not be the case in this country, so I would not for a moment suggest that we will get a rash of shale gas wells in the middle of town, because there is an entirely different mineral regime in the UK. Nevertheless, she makes an important point.

How would those 100,000-plus wells be built? Well, as I have mentioned, it would be on the basis of pairs of football ground-sized pads across the country, concentrated in particular areas, perhaps including my own area. Hampshire and Sussex would be one area where there would be a fairly large number of those wells, if that is the sort of ambition we wanted to achieve.

[Dan Byles]

I am not sure if the hon. Gentleman has seen the report by the Institute of Directors that was published two months ago, which did some modelling of what a UK shale gas industry could look like. The IOD concluded that potentially we could meet up to a third of UK peak gas demand by 2030 from 100 two-hectare sites across the country.

[Dr Whitehead]

Well, those are entirely different points. At a particular point we could meet a larger supply, but what I am talking about is the overall question of supply over a period of time that would be possible to underwrite as a result of that sort of level of shale gas production—two different points.

The additional point that needs to be borne in mind about shale gas wells is that they do not last very long. Research from the US demonstrates that the average life of a shale gas well is about seven years or so. That is because shale gas wells produce a lot of gas to start with, but they deplete very rapidly. So, after about seven years they are producing negligible amounts, even—as has happened in a number of instances—on the basis of refracking. Refracking of a well produces a little increase, but the well still dries over a fairly short period. Therefore, to maintain that sort of level of production over a longer period, one would need to redrill a number of those wells. That is the sort of scenario that we would set for ourselves if we were to introduce a level of shale gas production that would support the sort of intervention in the gas market that I have mentioned.

My second concern is this: would shale gas production actually reduce prices for everybody, if we went for it to that extent? The clear answer is no. The intervention of the shale gas itself would not reduce prices because of the way that gas is traded on the international markets, particularly in this country. There are three international markets for gas trading. Gas is not particularly transportable, except through vessels such as liquefied natural gas carriers, which make a marginal difference in terms of supply; gas is largely transported by pipelines. Gas is traded on the European market, the far east market and the north American market. The north American market has seen substantial price decreases because of the concentration of shale gas within that one particular market. We would need to have a similar amount of shale gas produced throughout Europe in order for the European traded gas market to come down significantly in price compared with what it is currently, notwithstanding LNG imports coming into the European market overall. So shale gas might make a marginal difference over a period of time, but probably not—for the reasons I have given—unless there were fundamental changes in gas trading.

[David Mowat]

I am trying to understand the point that the hon. Gentleman has just made. Is it that because there is not enough shale gas in Europe potentially, it will not have enough of an impact on the European gas price vis-à-vis what has happened in the US? Is that the point?

[Dr Whitehead]

If every country in Europe produced the same amount of shale gas that is being produced in the US, yes, that is possible, in terms of the trading in the European market, but that probably is not going to be the case. Therefore we have to look at the relevant prices of gas within the markets. It is a question of trading in a market, not a question of the gas being plugged into someone’s home and therefore creating a reduction in price there.

[David Mowat]

rose—

[Dr Whitehead]

I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more; I would lose the rest of my time.

What happens with those large numbers of wells in terms of the fracking process? That process involves the use of between 2 million and 7 million gallons of water, and 5,000 gallons of chemicals, per frack; whether we know what is in the chemicals or not, that is the sort of volume of chemicals needed. As has been said, that water cannot be injected into seams deeper than the fracking itself, as is the case in America, but would have to be disposed of by other means. Also, unless the fracking companies brought the water with them, water would have to be taken from the water table within the area where the fracking was taking place, which has implications for the integrity of the water tables in those particular parts of the country. That is an important but largely forgotten point.

The final thing that I want to say, given the short amount of time I have, is about the policy implications of going for a large amount of fracking. If we went for a large amount of fracking, as I have said we could perhaps supply—over a period—10% of overall UK gas supplies. If we went for a large programme of anaerobic digestion, we could provide 10% of the domestic gas supply. A farm-sized anaerobic digestion plant costs about £2 million to build—

[Mr Lilley]

What’s stopping them?

[Dr Whitehead]

The right hon. Member may well have asked a very valid question. As I was saying, such a plant produces about a third of the gas over a 20-year period that a fracking well would produce over 7.5 years, but anaerobic digestion plants will produce gas continuously because the cows that provide the stuff that produces the gas continue to produce the feedstock, as do we from our own waste and our food. Therefore, anaerobic digestion plants do not deplete. A long-term strategy for gas supply security might concern itself with anaerobic digestion and biogas, rather than going for a gas bonanza. We ought to look at all these factors when looking at the future of gas supply in this country.

14:58

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

I can confirm that I have no financial interests outside of this place whatsoever. I sit on the Energy and Climate Change Committee, I chair the all-party group on the environment and I also chair the all-party group on unconventional oil and gas. “Unconventional gas”—that is what we call shale gas, which is a bit of a misnomer, because it really is just gas. It is the same gas that we use to heat 83% of our homes and to generate 30% to 40% of our electricity.

Accessing gas from shale rock is not new. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said that gas has been hydraulically fracked in the US since 1949, but he may not be aware that the first exploratory shale gas well drilled in the UK was in 1875, in Netherfield in the south of England. It was an academic activity at that time, but the first commercial shale gas wells in Europe were drilled in northern Spain in the 1950s. Hydraulic fracturing itself is not a new or an unknown process, as my right hon. Friend has already said.

I want there to be a calm debate about this subject, informed by the evidence. Sadly, there is too much rhetoric around the entire shale gas debate, often—it has to be said—on both sides of the debate. Whenever anybody uses the phrase “shale gas bonanza”, I cringe as well. My view is that the evidence to date shows that shale gas can be accessed safely, if operations are done to a high standard and with effective regulation. That is backed up by a growing library of research from reputable expert organisations, such as the Royal Society, the International Energy Agency, the Royal Academy of Engineering, and others. The weight of evidence so far shows that unconventional gas can be developed safely, with effective regulation.

Ultimately, this is not a debate about whether to use gas. It is important to state that, because sometimes this debate strays into a discussion about the gas strategy. This is a debate about where we get the gas we use from. Under the Department of Energy and Climate Change’s central forecast scenario, we will be using broadly the same amount of gas in 2030 that we do today. The trouble is that both the Institute of Mechanical Engineers and the Institute of Directors estimate that by 2030 we will be importing up to 80% of our gas, at a cost of some £15 billion a year. That gas will come from Norway and Qatar and in future, probably, from Russia. It will include liquefied natural gas that has to be liquefied, transported and re-gasified. I have no confidence that Russian gas is produced and transported to higher, or even the same, environmental standards as gas in the UK.

[Graham Stringer]

Will the hon. Gentleman accept that not only would that gas be expensive because it is being imported, but the price would be artificially forced up, because under the Government’s scenario it is being kept for back-up supplies and is therefore used inefficiently? Although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that is the Government’s position, it would be better if gas were used as a main supply for energy.

[Dan Byles]

Although I said that we would be using broadly the same amount of gas, the hon. Gentleman is right; we will probably be using it in a different way, for back-up and peaking plant, which clearly would be less efficient—ceteris paribus—than using it for base load.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the hon. Gentleman concur—I think that he already is concurring—that the notion of that supply might make a difference to our balance of payments, but because one would purchase those supplies through the European market, and could not do otherwise, the cost would be based on the prevailing price in that market at that time, not on an artificial price for the UK?

[Dan Byles]

I agree. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman could accuse me of saying that lower prices is the reason why we should do this. In fact, later on I will mention other reasons why this is useful for the UK economy. Actually, lower prices are not the be-all and end-all of why we should develop shale gas, because, of course, we are part of a European gas market.

In terms of importing LNG, the Committee on Climate Change said:

“Our recent assessment of lifecycle emissions showed that well regulated shale gas production within the UK could potentially have lower lifecycle emissions than imported liquefied natural gas.”

The IOD, in a comprehensive report published two months ago, estimated that a domestic UK shale gas industry could, by 2030, halve our import requirement and meet up to a third of peak UK gas demand. The key thing here is that, unlike imported gas, every pound’s worth of domestic gas that we produce generates tax revenue for the Government—for the nation, not the Government; I am not socialist—and jobs. The IOD estimates up to 74,000 direct, indirect and induced jobs across the country.

With lower imports and lower life-cycle emissions than LNG, tax revenues, jobs and inward investment, an argument does not have to be made about the price of gas to argue that developing a UK shale gas industry could bring tangible economic benefits to the country. A few days ago in this Chamber, we debated the need for those tangible economic benefits to be shared directly with the local community, where shale gas is likely to be developed, in the forms of jobs and infrastructure and the community benefit fund, as we discussed. That is right. Communities that host shale gas developments should benefit from what are, in effect, their own natural resources.

It is right—I agree with hon. Members who have said it today—that industry and Government need to do more work to explain to people many of the basic facts and processes of shale gas and hydraulic fracturing. It is true that people get concerned, particularly about uncertainty. I agree, again, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden, who said that we have heard some scary and inaccurate comments today, from Members of Parliament.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. This issue is developing in my constituency, and the companies are not helping themselves at all, because they constantly minimise everything, saying that there will be no disturbance, no traffic movement and that people will hardly even notice that this is there. I say that this is a large footprint industrial process, but they never use such terms themselves. It is about time we started to level with our communities.

[Dan Byles]

I agree. If companies are implying that there will be almost no impact whatever, they should look at that. I often make the point that this is an industrial process, although I am making a slightly different point when I say it. I am saying that this is not a scary process; it is simply an industrial process that should be managed like any others. In my experience of looking at new nuclear at Hinkley and at this, most people are often more concerned about the generic construction type blight—about truck movements, and so on—than about the intrinsic nature of a nuclear power station or shale gas.

I want briefly to mention a few points that have already been made. The Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering were commissioned by the Government last year to investigate induced seismicity—earthquakes, for want of a better word—and they were clear in their findings: the intensity of the earthquakes caused or induced by hydraulic fracturing was lower than natural UK background seismic activity.

We heard that the public do not want it. I think the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) said that people do not want shale gas or fracking. Actually, only one organisation that I am aware of—Nottingham university—has been conducting regular background public opinion monitoring. Since 2010, it has monitored background public opinion on shale gas, approximately every quarter, using YouGov, with proper balanced samples. It has found that acceptance of shale gas is slowly rising and fears about it are slowly falling. Its most recent survey, with 2,200 respondents, done in the past month or so, found that levels of recognition are rising—more than 60% of people know what shale gas is when asked—and of those who can identify what it is, nearly 60%, although not quite, say that fracking should be allowed. The evidence is not clear that people are, on the whole, in aggregate, afraid of or concerned about fracking. I think people recognise it for what it is: that it is not particularly scary; that it needs to be managed properly; but that it could benefit the country.

Impact on water resources has been mentioned as well. I am not talking so much about fears about pollution of water, but about access to and quantities of water. Again, the Royal Society and the Royal Academy of Engineering assessed the impact of water use. They concluded:

“estimates indicate that the amount needed to operate a hydraulically fractured shale gas well for a decade may be equivalent to the amount needed to water a golf course for a month; the amount needed to run a 1,000 MW coal-fired power plant for 12 hours; and the amount lost to leaks in United Utilities’ region in north west England every hour”.

The idea that access to quantities of water is an issue is probably another myth that needs to be busted.

[Dr Whitehead]

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the use of water would not be on a regular basis over 10 years, but would be intensive during the period of fracking, re-fracking and clearing up?

[Dan Byles]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It peaks and then trails off, but in that entire 10-year period, including the peak, it is one hour’s worth of lost water from United Utilities. I agree with him.

On the impact on climate change, I find that often people who oppose shale gas increasingly no longer refer to earthquakes and some other issues, because I think a lot of people understand now that that is not an issue. The most common issue being raised with me now is the one that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion mentioned, in respect of bigger picture climate change issues, with people saying that fossil fuels should stay in the ground. There is a discussion to be had in that regard, but I still believe that the elephant in the room for climate change is coal. Some 600 GW of new, unabated coal-fired plants are estimated to be coming online globally by 2030. I am amazed at the effort being put into opposing gas by some people when they should be opposing coal.

I shall end by quoting the Committee on Climate Change, from its report published in May this year. It said:

“The overall picture, therefore, is one in which well regulated production of shale gas could have economic benefits to the UK, in a manner consistent with our emissions targets, while reducing our dependence on imported gas.”

Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will give them an extra 15 seconds.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Members will be pleased that the air conditioning has now been fixed. They will now feel better.

15:08

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

I had not noticed that the air conditioning had changed.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), whom I tend to either agree or disagree with 100%. Today I am afraid it is the second of those two positions.

There have been many excellent speeches on both sides, and I will try not to say what I was going to say, because that would mean repeating some of the points that have been made; instead, let me deal with some of the facts and issues that have come up.

One of the last points to be made was about water. While relatively little water is used, it has not been pointed out that there is, in most cases, a mile of rock between where the fracking takes place and the water table, so contamination is very unlikely.

On house prices, I was responsible, as chair of Manchester airport, for building the second runway there. At the bottom of it is a beautiful Cheshire village called Style. When the runway was being built, people claimed that house prices there would go down, but the only time prices were affected was during the campaign against the runway, when there were lots of signs up in the village. As soon as the campaign went away, house prices went up, even though the runway was taking very large planes. The fact is that house prices are related to economic activity, so my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) can reassure her constituents that house prices will not be brought down.

[Barbara Keeley]

It is important to tell my hon. Friend that I already have evidence that, because of these developments, people are planning to move out of the area, which I would not want to happen, while others have said they will not move into the area. This really is having an impact.

[Graham Stringer]

That is completely consistent with what I was saying—that the fear of the activity, rather than the activity itself, is the problem.

I want now to move on to the science and to speak as a scientist. I agree with virtually everything the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, apart from when he completely accepted what the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said. We must remember that it involves a political process, which lies on top of a number of scientific papers; its work is not necessarily put together by scientists themselves.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion could be accused of being unrealistically precise in her comments about what is likely to happen in the climate over the coming years, and I would make two simple points about the science. First, I have talked to most of the leading scientists on climate change in this country and in the United States, and there is no known way of distinguishing natural variations in the climate from impacts caused by carbon dioxide—nobody knows how to do that.

Secondly, the models that have been used to predict the increase in temperatures have all been wrong. In the Met Office, we have the biggest supercomputers in the world, which are great at back-projecting climate, but their projections of climate into the future have all been inaccurate. That is just an indication that there is something unknown about the science, which is not to say that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas, because it clearly is, and it has been known as such for a long time. However, an artificial precision is being introduced into the debate, and it really should not be there. We do not, therefore, often talk about the science.

My next point is about the costs of all the different policies and the price that will result. An interesting report by Liberum Capital indicates the difference between the cost of the Government’s policies on replacing the sources of our energy and the cost of replacing like with like. It finds that there is a difference of more than £200 billion between the two, and that will come out somewhere in the price of gas to our constituents.

The Government’s energy policy is based on taking a long-term position on the price of gas and oil—fossil fuels. Essentially, they are betting the house, the country or hundreds of billions of pounds that the price of fossil fuel will continue to rise. If that happens, and if renewables are put in place, they are likely to win their bet—and it is a bet. They will have to find the capital to fund those renewable energy supplies, but given that prices of publicly quoted shares in the European renewables market have dropped below their level in 2004-05, that looks very unlikely. If the Government lose their bet, our constituents will pay more for their energy than they should.

[David Mowat]

I agree with the point the hon. Gentleman has just made about renewables and potential increases in the price of fossil fuels. Effectively, the Government’s strategy is to use renewables as a hedge against increased fossil fuel prices. That is not altogether unreasonable, is it?

[Graham Stringer]

It would not be if it was just a hedge and it was not artificially pushing the cost of gas and other energy supplies up by holding them in reserve. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is a hedge, but it is a very expensive hedge indeed.

There are two reasons for being against fracking, and the debate has been helpful in clarifying some of the facts. One—it is a completely reasonable to make this point on behalf of constituents—is that people worry when they hear that there is to be fracking in their area. It is therefore quite reasonable for them to ask for the good health and safety standards and good environmental standards that apply elsewhere in the country. However, it is not reasonable to push those standards to the point where the fracking does not happen. When the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talks about the precautionary principle, that is really a way of trying to stop everything. She really should read the Science and Technology Committee report from the previous Session on the precautionary principle, which is often quoted, but it is often used to prevent anything from happening.

Let me give an example. One often has to use the best available evidence to do something, and the reason we are not getting protected areas in the sea at the moment is that the Government are looking for more and more scientific evidence when we should be using the scientific evidence available. If the hon. Lady wants to stop fracking by using the precautionary principle, she is likely to do that, but I think we have to look at the scientific evidence we have and apply high environmental standards.

Finally, I want to put the Government’s energy policy, which is not coherent, in the context of what is happening on emissions worldwide. Much of the Government’s policy is based on reducing emissions, in the belief that that will bring down global warming and slow down or stop climate change. However, the policy is failing, and emissions are going up. With emissions, one has to deal with imported goods, which are often created using industrial processes that create more carbon dioxide than processes here do. If we push up the price of energy here, we will export production to China, India and other places and increase the amount of carbon dioxide. That is a deindustrialisation policy, and I hope that, by exploiting shale gas in a safe and environmentally responsible way, we can start reindustrialising this country and creating the 72,000 jobs or more that it has been predicted will come from exploiting shale gas.

15:09

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on obtaining the debate and on her spirited contribution. Unlike the hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer), I can only recall being in debates in which I disagreed more or less 100% with her, but I may have missed some of the other debates.

I want to make a few points about the hon. Lady’s spirited contribution. One of the phrases that I have heard used several times is that we are “betting the farm” by moving ahead with shale gas. I have not heard anyone in the Government or otherwise saying that we should do that. We do not want to bet the farm on it. We want a mixed supply of energy for the future, and gas will rightly be part of that. She mentioned Sam Laidlaw who now runs Centrica and who was previously at Conoco and Amerada Hess. Just to put her mind at rest, he is an ex-Etonian, just as she is from Malvern, but I went to a state school in the midlands, and she can take my speech in that way.

I want to pick up on four points. The hon. Lady talked about fossil fuel subsidy. Apparently tax relief —VAT or other forms of tax relief—would be a subsidy. There is a difference between giving a technology money to make it work—I am not necessarily against doing that for some renewables—and just taxing it a little less, and we need to recognise that. I think that she also said—she must intervene if I am wrong—that fossil fuels were six times more expensive than renewables.

[Caroline Lucas]

They are subsidised.

[David Mowat]

I apologise; it is probably my fault. Just to be clear, the price of solar is something upwards of 45 times the price of electricity produced from gas at the moment.

As for the climate change issues around shale gas, or unconventional gas, I would take hon. Members’ concerns about the impact of climate change more seriously—I am inclined to think that we should address it—if they took a different attitude to nuclear power, the technology that is far and away the most likely, worldwide, to make a difference at scale to carbon emissions.

I want to consider whether shale gas will affect the UK economy. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made an interesting speech about the necessary volume of wells. I was not aware of what he said and found his numbers hard to believe, but if they are true, the point is interesting and important. Let us be clear: shale gas is already having a massive influence on the UK economy, because right now one of our major industrial competitors, the US, has energy prices and therefore electricity prices that are a quarter of ours. It has feedstock prices as an input to the global gas industry and the petrochemicals industry that are a quarter of ours. That is already making a difference at the margins. Some industries are already deciding not to invest in the UK and to bring petrochemicals and chemicals back to the US—indeed, out of China, let alone Europe. Shale gas is already having a massive impact on the UK economy, and it is nonsense to pretend that anything we say in this debate, or that the Government do, will make any difference to that.

[Graham Stringer]

One of the points that has not been made is that there is a slight assumption that shale gas is just methane. It is actually ethane and propane as well, and those can be used as feedstock to our chemical industry, lowering chemical prices and making the industry more competitive.

[David Mowat]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. He is completely right. Indeed, it would be more accurate for us to talk about unconventional gas than about shale gas, because coal gas is also part of what we are discussing.

Clearly, there is already an impact on the UK economy. I used to do a lot of work on the correlation between energy prices and GDP. They are closely correlated, and particularly so if we are trying to rebalance the economy back towards manufacturing, chemicals, aluminium, steel and chlorine production, and all that goes with that. We cannot do that if we have differentially higher energy prices than our competitors. I refer mainly to the US, although there is increasing concern that the rest of Europe is taking a different path from the UK on carbon taxes, and so on. It is right to let shale gas go ahead and let the market define prices and how things will work.

In the US, the gas price has fallen from $12 per million British thermal units to about $3. The cost of importing liquefied natural gas, if its export is allowed, is about $5. That implies a cap on European gas prices if there were a free market; and the hon. Member for Southampton, Test is right to say that there are three gas markets currently. Such a move would imply a cap of about $8 or $9, which is considerably lower than now, although I accept that for strategic reasons the US Government might not agree to export any gas at all.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) made an excellent point about climate change. The issue about climate change and gas emissions is how we get coal out of the system. The UK still produces 70% of its energy from coal and oil and something like 3% or 4% from renewables, taking into account transport as well as electricity production. The UK has lower carbon emissions per head and per unit of GDP than nearly every country in Europe, in spite of the fact that we have less in the way of renewables. The reason is that we burn less coal than most countries in Europe. Incredibly, apparently aided and abetted by members of the Green party in Germany, a programme has kicked off there to build 10 or 12 unabated coal-fired power stations.

[Dan Byles]

Lignite.

[David Mowat]

They will burn, as my hon. Friend says, a dirty coal. It is extraordinary that that is happening right now in the EU, and even more extraordinary that there appear to be members of the Green party in that country’s Government while it is happening—the same Green party that purports to care about carbon emissions and climate change.

[Caroline Lucas]

Germany is on course to meet its emissions reduction target far more effectively than we are. There is a short-term gap, admittedly, because it got rid of nuclear so fast. No one wants more coal, but it is a short-term thing as Germany gets its renewables even further up to speed. It is massively ahead of us on renewables and will get its emissions down faster than we will.

[David Mowat]

The hon. Lady makes an important point, if it were true, but the fact is that Germany has 25% higher carbon emissions per unit of GDP than the UK, and the UK is decelerating more quickly than Germany. To pretend anything else is not right.

I have some more time—I thank the hon. Lady for that—so I want to wrap up by talking a little about local considerations. When I first became interested in the subject, I could see that Lancashire—my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) made a good speech on behalf of his constituents today—was heavily affected. However, the maps of shale gas have since come out in more detail, and there is more in Cheshire, around Manchester and Warrington. Of course it is right that the work should not go ahead without adherence to the highest environmental standards and that the Government should not give permits without being satisfied that fracking will not considerably increase the earthquake cost and all that goes with it. There should be no compromise on that.

In an intervention, I mentioned the fact that Aberdeen contains three constituencies with the lowest unemployment in the country. That is not a coincidence; it is because the sort of economic activity that we are talking about brings jobs. I want to say on behalf of the people of Warrington that we welcome IGas and Cuadrilla. If they wonder where they should have their UK headquarters and if they pick up the text of this debate, I say to Mr Egan and Mr Austin from those companies, we are open for business in Warrington. We would like them to have their UK head offices in our town. It is only an hour and 40 minutes from London. They are very welcome, and we should go ahead as fast as possible.

15:10

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Amess. I want to focus on the area in Somerset that borders my constituency. I note that the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt) intends to speak next, so I hope that I do not steal too much of her material.

So far, four petroleum exploration and development licences have been granted in an area extending from Keynsham, just south of Bristol, down to Pilton and Evercreech—east of Glastonbury—and covering towns such as Marksbury, just south-west of Bath. The area is significantly covered by green belt and includes the Mendip hills—an area of outstanding natural beauty—and there are water catchments for several areas, including Bristol. Bath’s hot springs, which are of course a world heritage site, could be affected. The unique combination of features in the region is said to result from the

“specific geological circumstances of the Mendip Carboniferous strata.”

I understand that UK Methane, which has been granted three of the licences in partnership with Eden Energy, has confirmed that it has been working on plans in the Ston Easton area and around Compton Martin, both within the Chew valley, for its next test drilling sites. UK Methane intends to apply for permission for full production at a site beside the Hicks Gate roundabout on the Bristol ring road in Keynsham towards the end of 2013. Again, that is very close to the border of my constituency. I should say that the areas have been identified for coal bed methane extraction, rather than for fracking, although coal bed methane extraction commonly comes under the same heading and the process can involve fracking.

I thank Louise from Frack Free Somerset for her time this week in setting out the organisation’s concerns. The umbrella organisation brings together many groups, from families to farmers and from the Mendip Campaign to Protect Rural England to Bristol Rising Tide. Residents are particularly concerned about the impact of possible soil, water and air pollution on tourism and agriculture, and there are also concerns about light and noise pollution, especially as some wells could be flaring off gas 24/7. There will be noise from rigs operating 24 hours a day and roads will become blocked with lorries carrying chemicals and waste.

Another key concern is the potential for water contamination, which could also affect people living outside the licence area. The reservoir water supply in the Chew valley needs to be protected, and the impact on the hot springs that supply Bath’s spa water is still unknown. The British Geological Survey’s report to Bath and North East Somerset council concluded that hydraulic fracturing within the carboniferous rocks would

“pose an undefinable risk to the springs.”

The written ministerial statement issued by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change on 13 December 2012 acknowledged instances of water contamination outlined in reports by US regulators and review bodies, which he said confirmed

“the need for the industry to consistently apply good practice, and the need for proper scrutiny and oversight of the industry to ensure that this is in fact done.”—[Official Report, 13 December 2012; Vol. 555, c. 47WS.]

The Environment Agency is of course responsible for providing that scrutiny, but there is real concern that it does not have the staff to monitor wells effectively.

Residents in the area who are opposed to the plans are particularly concerned by evidence emerging from coal bed extraction in south-west Queensland, from gas leaking into local rivers to perceived heath problems such as nosebleeds and skin rashes. The Health Protection Agency does not appear to have published its review of the public health impact of shale gas. I hope that the Minister agrees that potential health risks should be assessed before exploration is allowed to go ahead.

Bristol Greenpeace has raised with me its concern about UK Methane, which was described by a local resident, Laura Corfield, in a recent article in The Guardian by John Harris as

“a company of two guys in a broom cupboard”.

It is difficult to confirm UK Methane’s financial position, but John Harris tracked down its head office to an industrial estate in Bridgend with no listed telephone number. I understand that DECC has set out criteria that need to be met for a company to become a licensee, including a level of financial capacity to show that it is able to meet the actual costs that may be reasonably expected to arise.

How does awarding three licences to UK Methane square with DECC’s guidance? Is it presumed that UK Methane will ultimately be trading its licences to a larger company in the same way as with Eden Energy, with which it was partnered and that has now sold its stake to Shale Energy, a UK firm, for a large amount? That does not appear to be consistent with DECC’s view that licences are not regarded as

“mere tradable assets, and we expect companies to buy licence interests with a view to exploiting them—not merely to sell them on.”

There are specific issues with the area’s geology, including the prevalence of coal mine shafts in Bristol and Somerset, which makes the land more unstable and potentially more prone to both subsidence and tremors. A recent technical report by independent geologists Integrale Ltd concludes:

“Unlike much of North America and Australia where ‘simpler’ rock strata occur, the Carboniferous Coal Measures of the Bristol-Bath Basin form the most tectonically complex area of the UK, ie the rocks are highly fractured, folded, contorted and faulted... So gasfield exploration and exploitation in this district will be commercially and technically ‘high risk’”.

There is a point about whether companies need public liability insurance, given the risks. I understand that, apart from employers’ liability insurance, there is no statutory requirement for insurance.

The hon. Member for South Thanet (Laura Sandys), who is Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), said that planning applications for shale gas

“make onshore wind farms look like a walk in the park.”—[Official Report, 6 September 2012; Vol. 549, c. 146WH.]

She was referring to the public opposition that is likely to be encountered.

[Mr Lilley]

Does the hon. Lady ever feel that she has a duty to her constituents not merely to pander to every anti-development pressure group and to give credence to every scare story, but to give some balanced account of what, for example, the royal societies, the Royal Academy of Engineering and the British Geological Survey have said? Two million such wells have been drilled in the States without untoward effect.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should speak to his Conservative colleagues who control Bath and North East Somerset council, which recently voted unanimously on a motion objecting to unconventional gas exploration and extraction in Somerset.

There is a concern that the Government’s scheme to provide financial benefits to local communities does not seem to cover coal bed methane extraction unless fracking is used. If he is actually listening to me at the moment, will the Minister confirm that that is the case? Will he ensure that the planning application process provides meaningful opportunities for affected communities to express their concerns? As shown by all the concerns that I have outlined, there is a great deal of uncertainty and unhappiness in the area.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent representation of her constituents’ concerns, and she is the third Member to do something similar in this debate. It is rather remiss of the Minister and Government Members to spend their time chuntering and shouting, as they did to me. It does not bode well for such debates when that goes on when we are doing our job representing our constituents.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The patronising responses from some Government Members, with their references to living in la-la land, are unseemly.

My final point is on the Government’s link to shale gas companies. Last year, The Observer found that two key executives of the energy trading giant Vitol—its chief executive officer, Ian Taylor, gave more than £500,000 to the Tories and was a guest at one of the Prime Minister’s cosy kitchen suppers—are personal shareholders in a company bringing fracking and CBM to the UK.

Just this weekend, an article by Mark Leftly in The Independent on Sunday detailed a host of senior Government advisers who have financial interests or close ties to fracking companies, from Lord Browne—the chairman of Cuadrilla, who is also lead non-executive across the Government—to Sam Laidlaw, the lead non-executive at the Department for Transport, who is also chief executive of Centrica, which has just bought a one-quarter stake in Cuadrilla’s licence in Lancashire.

Of course there is the conflict of interest between Lynton Crosby’s lobbying firm—which represents the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, which has been aggressively campaigning for shale gas—and the advice that he gives to the Tory party as its election strategist. When I raised the influence of the shale gas lobby with the Government in January, the Minister failed to respond. I hope that he will do better in answering my concerns today.

15:30

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Thank you for your generosity in allowing me to contribute to this debate, Mr Amess. I apologise for having to be absent for a short while.

I thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) first for bringing this debate to the House and secondly for setting out some of the points that I was going to make myself.

As the Member for Wells in Somerset, my constituency includes the Mendip hills, the southern fringes of the Chew valley and the very edge of the Bristol and Bath basin. It adjoins north-east Somerset and Bath. Both Bath and Wells are naturally completely intertwined with water—the clue is in the name, really. I, too, am delighted to hear of Bath and North East Somerset council’s recent unanimous, cross-party resolution formally to register with the Department of Energy and Climate Change its serious concerns about the potential impact of unconventional gas exploration and extraction in that critical area.

The source of the thermal waters feeding the Bath hot springs in the world heritage site is widely believed by experts to be in the Mendip hills. The hills also feed the city of Wells and the well known Somerset levels, with their several sites of special scientific interest and network of rhynes, most of which were dug under the aegis of the abbot of Glastonbury to ensure that there was water throughout the area. That beautiful and large environmentally sensitive area, with regionally important water supplies, is one of the most complex geological districts of the UK, and the state of geological knowledge of the lower coal measures rocks and the carboniferous shales is extremely limited. We simply do not understand the mechanisms by which those vulnerable hot springs are controlled.

The estimated economic value of the hot springs for tourism and employment is close to £100 million annually and, in my opinion, this is not an area in which any dash for gas can be allowed. The global embarrassment of damaging the world heritage site does not bear consideration. More concerning would be the unknown health and environmental effects of a pollution incident. The earthquakes in Lancashire triggered by lubrication of undetected and apparently still untraceable geological faults are an example of why it is crudely short-sighted to encourage a “drill and see what happens” approach for short-term commercial or revenue gain. Whatever the unconventional gas industry worldwide says, with the present level of technical understanding it is unable to rule out long-term disastrous impacts. Widely reported pollution incidents in the US and Australia seem to reinforce that.

I have no interests to declare, other than those of my constituents, their children and their grandchildren, in particular those who live in Compton Martin, Ston Easton, Glastonbury and Wells, but also the many residents of the villages and towns in the area where I have attended meetings and heard their concerns expressed. I am deeply concerned that any hasty legislative or regulatory streamlining that fast-tracks exploration will inevitably set us up for future environmental and geological failures. The precautionary principle must take precedence.

15:42

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) on securing the debate.

I first want to dismiss the poor arguments produced this afternoon and previously on the merits of shale gas extraction: we should not have the slightest interest in where executives of oil and gas companies went to school; the possibility of a company making a profit in a market economy is not a serious argument or a reason to dismiss its proposals; and nor is it of any interest or significance that a businessman might at some point have met a Minister to discuss shale gas—heaven forfend! In the end, the Government have to make a judgment on the basis of the national interest, and that judgment must be approved by the House of Commons. We therefore have to consider the arguments sensibly and seriously, not merely chucking mud or rocks in the belief that that will somehow strengthen the argument. In actual fact, it will not; it will undermine it.

Secondly, I want to talk about my interests, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) did. I have a constituency interest, because the Sussex Weald basin, which covers a large part of my constituency, has been identified as an area that might contain significant reserves of exploitable shale gas. At the moment, we do not know the extent of any possible drilling or how exploitable any reserves might be. Test drilling is about to begin, subject to planning permissions being obtained.

I want to engage in the argument about what the national interest is. It cannot solely consist of the contention that shale gas might lead to cheaper energy and economic benefit, powerful though that argument might be—in any case, we have heard that it is debatable. There are of course other arguments about whether the form of energy generated is sustainable or the kind of clean energy that we should be investing in for the long term. For now, I set aside that important economic argument.

There are other national interests, one of which is our landscape. To pick up on a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw), some of the areas in which the drilling would have to take place in Sussex are in the national park. National parks are areas with the highest landscape designation, and they are designated as such precisely because the landscape is treated like no other, so there should be a strong presumption against any kind of economic activity that may damage them. That does not mean that no activity can ever take place in a national park, or even that that should be the case, but it does mean that we have to make judgments carefully, recognising the national interest in protecting such areas, not only the local interest or vested local interest. That has to be considered. We must be able to balance the national interest properly.

What has struck me about the debate this afternoon is that we do not yet really know what the effect in each of our constituencies will be. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) suggested that there might be about 164 wells per constituency. I do not know whether that figure is right or wrong, but I do know that my constituents are completely bemused by the possible impact on their areas and the landscape in an entirely rural setting, which is tranquil and quiet and where the countryside is especially valued. Further concerns involve the supply of water in a stressed area and the impact on groundwater. It must be right that should any activity take place, it is conducted according to the highest environmental standards.

The kernel of my argument, however, is the importance of a system that properly balances the arguments both nationally, so that we take a careful view of the national interest and where we should do anything, and locally, so that we preserve the integrity of the local planning system. We must be able to judge locally where activity might be particularly damaging to the local area because of a high landscape designation or the impact on the local environment. The process should be gone through transparently, so that communities have a sense that their concerns are being properly weighed and balanced.

[Caroline Lucas]

I very much agree about the planning system. Does the right hon. Gentleman therefore share my disappointment that the guidelines we were promised from the Department for Communities and Local Government before the recess have not been forthcoming? Does he also share my disappointment that, when they finally arrive in the weeks or months to come, they will not be open to consultation, but simply there as a given?

[Nick Herbert]

My interest is in what the guidelines say; I will not criticise the Government for not bringing the guidelines forward. I am making a plea for the guidelines to ensure that we maintain the integrity of the local planning process.

I strongly agree with my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) about the need for an evidence-led debate and a good supply of information. That is exactly what my constituents want. They are unclear about the impact of any proposals. We do not know whether the shale gas is exploitable, or what the impact of drilling would be—the footprint of the drills might be minimised, or there might not be as many as suggested, because the gas is not exploitable—and that unknown is fomenting a great deal of fear. The provision of sensible information and having a sensible debate are therefore incredibly important.

[Barbara Keeley]

The right hon. Gentleman is making some good points about uncertainty, which I can echo from my constituency. Is he slightly disturbed or alarmed, as I am, to hear that the Environment Agency aims to cut its process down to six weeks by September and to between one and two weeks by early next year, and to base that process on rules? I am concerned that each site should be considered on its own merits. We should not have a rulebook approach or deal with things using a method based on “Let’s get this out in one to two weeks.”

[Nick Herbert]

I am not sure that I accept the hon. Lady’s point. Timely provision of a view by the Environment Agency should be welcomed by constituents. Of course, we do not want to allow a situation in which decisions are in effect being bulldozed through—I accept that—and the independence of the Environment Agency and its ability to weigh such issues properly are important. However, timely provision of information without any obfuscation or delay by the Environment Agency, as can happen in a lot of areas where development proposals are concerned, would be welcome.

I am not here to say that shale gas development must be a bad thing and that we should not pursue the drive to exploit shale. I seek a careful debate in which we ensure a balance of interests and a recognition that the national interest does not consist only in economic advantage, however powerful that argument might be. It also consists in ensuring that we can protect national assets, including the countryside and our landscape. We must ensure that we balance that interest in our national consideration as we design the guidelines and so on, and that locally elected councillors can do so and take specific local concerns into account. We should not drive towards this potential new energy source regardless; we should attempt to engage with people and ensure democratic support for what is proposed.

15:51

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship again, Mr Amess. I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee on allowing this debate to take place. This is the second debate on shale gas that we have had in this Chamber in the last couple of days; some Members here took part in that debate, and some did not.

I am pleased that the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) had the opportunity to read the Hansard report of Tuesday’s debate. I do not intend to repeat much of my contribution that day, partly because I am conscious that during this debate, Members have raised questions to which they seek responses from the Minister, and I want to ensure the maximum possible time for those answers that he has available to be forthcoming to those Members, who have expressed important points.

It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). Towards the end of his contribution, he made a crucial and important point about the balance in this debate between different issues that must be properly addressed. I have no financial or registrable interests in anything to do with any aspect of the energy industry, but I have an interest in ensuring that we have a balanced, rational, evidence-based debate and that conclusions are drawn and decisions made on the best evidence available.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion chided me for saying in the debate on Tuesday that some people had an absolutist position. It is not an insult; it is a statement of fact. She has an absolutist position against the extraction of unconventional gas. That is an entirely legitimate position for her to hold; it is a position held by some and diametrically opposed to the position held by others. It was not intended as a slight. My point in saying it was that some people will never be in favour. That is perfectly legitimate. I was interested during the debate on Tuesday, and I am interested during this debate, to consider properly all the factors involved and ensure that all the environmental concerns expressed by numerous Members with constituency interests—including my hon. Friends the Members for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) and for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), the hon. Member for Wells (Tessa Munt), the right hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer)—are properly addressed.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman implied that it was ideological or absolutist to say that I cannot see what scientific evidence is out there that would persuade me that the extraction of shale gas is compatible with staying below 2ºC. That is an evidence-based position, and to say that it is ideological or absolutist undermines that. That is the point that I was making in my criticism.

[Tom Greatrex]

The hon. Lady makes my point for me. That is an absolutist position, and she has defined in her terms why it is absolutist. In relation to the evidence, I point her to the report by the Committee on Climate Change. Sometimes, when we get into debate on the issue of unconventional gas, we consider that it is only about electricity generation. She will be aware, as other hon. Members are, that we use a considerable amount of gas in this country for heating as well, and we will continue to do so well into the future. I have been on a platform with her in the past when she has made the point about the need for gas as peaking capacity as well. I do not think that she is suggesting that we will not need gas.

The consideration, then, is whether it can be done safely, whether the regulation can be right and whether it can be monitored properly. That is why, in March 2012—I will not read it into the record again, as I did so on Tuesday—I set a number of conditions that I believe need to be met in terms of regulation. However, the monitoring must also be in place, and it must be as comprehensive as the regulation is robust. That is where I have continuing concerns, particularly relating to the resources of the Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and their ability to do that.

It is right that people should be concerned about some aspects of self-certification, particularly in the early stages. I take Government Members’ point that the technology is not new, but it is a new application of the technology in the UK context. For that reason, a higher public acceptability test must be met. If it is not met, planning applications will not be successful and shale gas development will not happen. There is an interest in ensuring that it is done properly, which is why I continue to have concerns about the level of monitoring.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Tom Greatrex]

I will give way one more time, but then I hope to conclude my remarks.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Gentleman is kind to give way. I am only intervening again because he is quoting what he says I did or did not say. On the issue of whether we need gas, yes, we need a small amount of gas as a transition fuel to get us to the renewable future that we need, but the question is what to do over the next 10 years. Do we lock ourselves into or put in place the infrastructure for a whole new gas business here in Britain, or do we use the 10 years that it would take to get shale gas going in Britain to invest properly in renewables? There is an opportunity cost and a decision to be made. I would rather we invested in renewables.

[Tom Greatrex]

I would like us to invest in renewables, because I think that it is important, but I take a slightly different view of the prognosis for how long we will require gas both for heating and for electricity generation. In relation to our indigenous gas supply from the North sea, the hon. Lady will know as well as I do that the extent to which we rely on imports has changed massively in the past 10 years. The trajectory is going one way. If it is possible to extract shale gas safely, and if it is properly regulated and monitored, we may have the benefit of being able to replace some of what we import with indigenous supply. We should not close our minds to that or seek to block it.

I would like to make a slightly different point to the other extreme. I have been listening to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) responding to other speeches from a sedentary position. He has said a number of times to Members with constituency interests in the issue that it is about showing leadership. With all due respect, leadership is not about hysterical hectoring; it is about ensuring that the approach is evidence-based and that all the arguments can be properly, systematically and fundamentally dealt with, so that people can see exactly what the level of risk is.

[Mr Lilley]

indicated assent.

[Tom Greatrex]

I see that the right hon. Gentleman agrees with me, so I do not want to chance my arm too much, but it does not help when he shouts across the Chamber to people that they should be showing leadership. They are entirely right to address and represent their constituents’ concerns in this debate, as we are in the early stages of potentially developing a new aspect of our energy supply.

I have a couple of final points to make. It is often considered whether shale is the answer to all our energy problems. This speaks to the point made by the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) about the tenor of the debate sometimes. I do not think that that is a realistic suggestion. Sometimes, the language around the issue does not help. Suggestions that shale will yield cheap gas, or that an extrapolation of the US experience will apply in precisely the same way in the UK, do not stand up to much scrutiny. My hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead) made a point about how gas is traded, which is one aspect, but there are a number of different factors that make it highly unlikely that the impact on costs here would be the same as in the US.

The Prime Minister talks, as he did yesterday, about making it easier for shale to be extracted. That is not particularly helpful or useful either. It should not be about making it easier; it should be about ensuring that it is done sensitively and appropriately. Members have mentioned the precautionary principle. I suppose that I would use the term “proportionate”. It needs to be proportionate. That is important. If it is not proportionate, it will not happen, and then the potential benefits may not be realised. It needs to be done proportionately and properly. We have had a couple of debates this week and I am sure there will be plenty more during the next few months. Some specific points have been raised with the Minister, and I hope that he will respond to them in those terms. If he does not, he may be in danger of stopping something rather than encouraging it.

16:00

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

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) for starting this debate, and all those who have contributed to it. For those of us who were here on Tuesday, this has been a slightly livelier debate, but none the worse for that. I will try to set some context, say more about the way in which the industry is being regulated, deal with some of the myths, and then turn to some of the specific questions and worries that have been expressed. I hope that colleagues will bear with me.

I start by saying that oil and gas are vital for our economy. About three quarters of our current energy demand is met by oil and gas. Even as we move to lower-carbon sources, which we all want to do, 70% of the primary energy we consume here will come from oil and gas by 2020. They are a vital part of our economy and will remain so for some decades to come, even as we move to a low-carbon economy.

Before I deal with some of the specific questions, let me debunk some of the myths about shale gas: that it is a recent technology, that it is new technology, and that accelerating its exploration involves increasing the risks. Let me take those three myths in turn. The first is that onshore oil and gas production began recently. In fact, we have been exploiting oil and gas onshore for nearly 100 years.

The first production well was drilled onshore in 1919 at Hardstoft in Derbyshire. Since then more than 2,100 conventional wells have been drilled, and onshore production continues to take place throughout our country from the south of England up to Scotland. Just last week, I visited IGas operations in the South Downs national park in Sussex, which is a very good example of how oil and gas operations can work even in the most sensitive environments. We have nearly a century of experience of oil and gas production with no history of chemical spills or gas leaks comparable with the experience in the United States. During that century, we have put in place robust regulation to ensure that oil and gas operations are safe for people and the environment. Given that century of onshore exploration and the expertise and robust supply chains that exist as a result of extraction in the North sea, we are very well placed as a country to make the right decisions about shale.

The second myth is that fracking is new. It is not. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) said, some 2.5 million hydraulic fracturing operations have been performed at oil and gas wells worldwide. It is thought that as of 2010 around 60% of all new oil and gas wells are hydraulically fractured. Some 27,000 wells were drilled in the United States in 2011 and most of them were fracked. Even here, that has been happening in some form for the past 60 years. We have already had some 200 wells fracked in this country. With all that activity, there is still no confirmed evidence of contamination of aquifers caused by fracking.

[Caroline Lucas]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

If the hon. Lady will excuse me, I will not give way.

The United States has felt the great difference that shale gas can make. It has reinvigorated the economy, gas prices have halved, reducing costs for industry and consumers, and billions of dollars of new investment and thousands of jobs have been created. Nations across the globe, including India and China, are looking in on that boom and joining in. We must start to think seriously about shale. We must get on and explore the resources that are there and understand the potential, to see whether shale gas can be extracted here as economically and as technically efficiently as it has been in the United States.

The third myth I must deal with is that we are somehow accelerating shale gas and that that means increasing the risk. Conditions vary from country to country, of course, and it is already clear that the shape and development of the industry here will be significantly different from that in the United States. We have the advantage of learning from experience in the United States, but we are, as the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) said, a much more densely populated country, which has implications for where and how we can drill. The geology of our shale, as has been said, is much thicker in some areas, but we are committed to ensuring that the industry can prosper here if the conditions are right.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Michael Fallon]

I will come to some of the hon. Lady’s concerns a little later.

First, we announced last December that fracking could resume with robust regulation, and I emphasise that nothing now prevents a licensee from bringing forward new drilling plans. Secondly, we provided the industry with much fuller geological data on the gas resource in the Bowland-Hodder basin, thanks to the work of the British Geological Survey, and our knowledge of shale resources will be further enhanced when we publish estimates for the Weald basin in the south of England by March next year. Thirdly, we have been very active in creating the right framework to accelerate shale gas exploration in a responsible way. Let me be clear. Accelerating shale gas exploration does not mean that communities will be put at risk.

We have a long history of successful onshore oil and gas production. Getting it right will benefit the industry where it matters in the long term, and across Government we are creating a coherent and concerted approach to shale. We have created the Office of Unconventional Gas and Oil to co-ordinate the activities of the regulatory bodies and Departments. We have a world-class safety and environmental regime with a joint approach to inspecting new exploratory operations, and for new and first-time operators, their key operations will be inspected, including the cementing and the main hydraulic fracture.

We are providing tax incentives to create a fertile ground for shale to prosper. We will consult shortly on a new pad allowance to help to unlock investment and to provide significant support to the industry, particularly during the critical exploration phase. I have already announced that next year we will launch a new round of onshore licensing, in which we expect a great deal of interest.

I turn to the planning and regulatory system, which will have a high degree of local scrutiny and prior consultation, which we are setting out in guidance that we will publish very soon. That guidance will not cover every issue when considering proposals for shale gas. It must be read alongside other planning guidance and the national planning policy framework, but it will carry weight in the system. The Government have heard loud and clear what the industry and others in the community have said about the importance of clarifying that the main focus of planning should be on the surface issues—traffic, noise, visual impact and so on.

Responsibility for regulating activities beneath the surface rests largely with the other key regulators. For example, seismic activity is regulated by my Department under our licensing arrangements; potential pollution of ground water falls to the Environment Agency; and design and integrity of the wells rests with the Health and Safety Executive. It will, of course, be critical for planning authorities to be content at the planning decision-making stage that the issues that fall to the other regulators will be adequately regulated.

The Environment Agency and the Health and Safety Executive have already agreed to work closely together and have developed a joint approach to inspecting new exploratory shale gas operations under a memorandum of understanding. That means they have agreed a joint programme of inspection for the next series of hydraulic fracturing operations in England and Wales. For new and first-time shale operators, they will meet and advise them of their legal duties, and conduct a joint inspection of key operations, including the cementing and verification of cementing, and the main hydraulic fracture. In addition, my Department will check that the Environment Agency or its Scottish equivalent, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency, and the HSE have no objections before consenting to drilling operations.

If hydraulic fracturing for shale gas is intended, we will also require measures to address the risk of induced seismicity—namely, prior analysis of geological risks—and the submission of a detailed fracturing plan, including a traffic light control protocol, before my Department gives any consent for fracking operations.

It remains our strong view that there should be early and constant engagement by the operators with local communities and the key regulators before any planning application is submitted. I therefore welcome the industry’s commitment, in the community engagement charter, to engage earlier with local communities and to be transparent in their activities. However, close engagement with the regulators by such firms is also beneficial, helping to identify issues to be addressed as part of the planning application and other approvals at an early stage. That is the right approach to create a sound basis for a shale industry that can provide more energy security, jobs and investment.

The industry has said that we can expect about 20 to 40 exploration wells to be drilled here in the next couple of years, but I am clear—this point was also made by the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex)—that success will come only if development is done in true partnership with communities. That means a responsibility to the communities that host shale operations, and there are two vital areas in achieving that: first, it is about engaging communities right at the start of every shale application, and secondly, it is about ensuring that where shale operations are hosted, local people feel that they are getting their fair share of benefit from the development of shale. The community charter that has just been adopted will now be consulted on in the autumn, and its proposals, I hope, will be developed further.

I now want to try to answer some of the questions that were put to me. The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South asked me about the impacts on adjacent wildlife sites, which are important issues to be addressed in the planning system. Where an environmental impact assessment is required, such issues will have to be addressed in the report. They will have to be consulted on and considered again by the planning authority on the basis of that report, before any decisions are made. If any SSSI or other European protected site might be affected, a habitats assessment must be made, and that, too, must be similarly considered by the planning authority before any decision is made on planning permission.

The hon. Lady also asked whether the Growth and Infrastructure Act could allow shale and gas projects somehow to bypass local authorities’ planning permission. The Act allows for certain business and commercial projects, defined by regulation, to go directly to the national regime for obtaining planning permission. The Department for Communities and Local Government has consulted on the possible inclusion of oil and gas projects in that process, but in light of the responses to that consultation, I can tell her that that option is not being pursued for the moment. We want those planning decisions to remain with the minerals planning authority in the normal way.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Columbia university study on the domino effect, where distant quakes in one place can trigger quakes at other water disposal sites. It is important to point out, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) did, that the research relates to waste water disposal wells involving volumes of water much greater than those used in fracking. The injection of very large volumes of water can trigger quakes in the ground. That is not news; it has been understood for some time. However, as he also pointed out, that particular technique of disposing of waste water is not used at the moment in the United Kingdom, and it is very unlikely that it would be approved if it were proposed.

[Barbara Keeley]

Will the Minister give way? There is a point that he has not moved on to, and I think there is time.

[Michael Fallon]

Of course.

[Barbara Keeley]

The potential site I mentioned is in a heavily populated urban area, and I spoke about pollution. There is a concern that the air quality is already poor enough and that pollution is exceeding what it should be, but there will no longer be a duty on local councils to monitor that. How can we go forward given that we already have very poor air quality and nobody will be monitoring it?

[Michael Fallon]

I must apologise to the hon. Lady. A large number of points have been made during this three-hour debate and I was not, I am afraid, going to attempt to answer each of them today. I will pick them up and, if I may, write to colleagues whose points I have not had time to consider.

The hon. Lady asked about pollution. During construction and drilling of the well, the operator will monitor emissions at the site, and that will have to be a permanent feature of operations should the activity proceed to commercial development. The Environment Agency has also recently published research to understand how emissions from a well can affect air quality, how they can be monitored and what controls are available. If I can give her any further information on that, I certainly will.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) had concerns about borehole users and whether there would be a reduction in their supplies. It is likely that most operations will use public water supplies so far as practicable, because that is the most likely way to reduce truck movements to and from sites. However, where operators want to extract water directly from aquifers, again, they will need a permit from the Environment Agency that will not be given if the quantities that they require are not sustainable.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion made a very large number of points, and I am afraid that I may have to reply to her in writing about some of them. She specifically asked me about the disclosure of the use of chemicals. The answer to her question is yes, the Environment Agency will require disclosure of all substances proposed for injection into groundwater that might affect the water, and it will only approve the use of those chemicals if they are assessed as harmless in that context.

[Tom Greatrex]

The Minister will be aware that the Environment Agency requirement is for self-certification of what those chemicals are. Will he say any more about ensuring, particularly in any early exploration, that the Environment Agency, or the Scottish Environment Protection Agency is on site when the chemicals are injected, so that it can be absolutely sure about what is going into the process?

[Michael Fallon]

It is certainly the responsibility of the operator to disclose that; but obviously, it is for the Environment Agency or SEPA to ensure that what is disclosed is accurate. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to write to him on that point to ensure that there is a procedure whereby that information is verified, I would be happy to do so.

[Tessa Munt]

I hope that the Minister will forgive me a brief intervention. In my experience, the Environment Agency always gives at least a week’s notice, sometimes more, of a visit to inspect when it is looking at procedures. I wonder whether the Minister, while he is writing about the subject, might consider ensuring that spot checks and investigations take place without a period of notice given to the body that is doing the drilling.

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly consider that suggestion, and if I may, I will write to my hon. Friend about it.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion also asked me about the differences in well designs between operations here and in the United States and about the possibility that we might have methane leaks on the scale that we have seen in Pennsylvania. I visited the United States to talk to experts, and I am aware that the standard of environmental regulation has varied widely across the different states of America. They do not have the overall, national regulatory system that we have. Practices appear to have been tolerated in some states that would not be acceptable in others.

I understand that the repertoire of well design technology is essentially the same as in the United States, but the regulatory framework in the United Kingdom is quite different. Here, we have a national regulator—the Health and Safety Executive—which will require a full review of well design and construction by an independent competent person. I should point out to the hon. Lady that the Royal Academy of Engineering commented that that was a highly valuable feature of the United Kingdom’s system. We can certainly learn from the experience in the United States, but I want to emphasise to her that we start from a position of having what the United States did not have—a system of national regulation.

[Caroline Lucas]

The Minister has referenced, now and at the beginning of his winding-up speech, the fact that our regulations are essentially much stronger. In that respect, I wonder why he would think that it is all right, perhaps, that Britain’s offshore rigs and platforms have leaked oils or other chemicals into the North sea on 55 occasions in the last month alone, according to the figures from DECC. The idea that our drilling regulations generally are somehow much better than those elsewhere is more questionable than he suggests.

The Minister also spoke earlier about the number of countries that are falling over themselves now to go down the fracking route. He did not talk about countries such as France, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Austria, the Republic of Ireland, Spain, Denmark and Germany, all of which have full or partial bans or moratoriums on fracking. That gives a slightly different picture.

Finally—this was one of the key questions that I asked the Minister—why have the planning guidelines been delayed; what does “very soon” mean; and if he is seriously genuinely concerned about consultation with local people, why are those planning guidelines not open to some discussion with the communities?

[Michael Fallon]

I am coming to the point about planning guidance—I was due to do that—if the hon. Lady can contain herself, but first let me deal with the point about the North sea.

[Caroline Lucas]

Honestly!

[Michael Fallon]

I was coming to the point about planning guidance. The hon. Lady has somehow suggested that I was not or that I had missed it. Let us just deal with her slur on the North sea. The North sea has one of the most extensive safety regimes in the world. Of course, we have learned from the accident on Piper Alpha, which sadly took place 25 years ago this month. Of course we have learned from that, but if she compares operations in the North sea with operations in other seas right around the world, she will see that we have one of the best and safest regimes there is. The proof of that is precisely the fact that the incidents that she referred to have to be reported to the Heath and Safety Executive, which is at present in Aberdeen. They have to be monitored; explanations are required from those involved. I think that it is rather remiss of the hon. Lady to try to suggest somehow that there is laxity in our regime in the North sea.

[Caroline Lucas]

On that point—

[Michael Fallon]

The hon. Lady raised two other questions in her last intervention, but I will give way if she wants to intervene again.

[Caroline Lucas]

I should like to intervene again, first to say to you, Mr Amess, that I think that this is yet another example of the kind of patronising tone that we hear again and again from Government Members, particularly towards women in this Chamber, and I absolutely deplore it. Secondly, and more to the point of the debate, the Minister says that I am casting a slur on the North sea somehow. The facts are that there have been 55 leaks in the last month. Is he or is he not comfortable with that fact?

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

Order. This is a very warm afternoon. I just appeal to hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber to bear that in mind. We are the mother of all Parliaments. Let us continue to have a civilised debate, but obviously I have heard what has been said.

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I am content that the safety regime in the North sea is fit for purpose. It is kept constantly under review. I was struck during the events to commemorate the Piper Alpha disaster that I attended by the commitment of those involved—the Health and Safety Executive and others—continuously to improve the safety regulation regime in the North sea, and that is what they are doing.

The hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion asked me about the fact that some countries now do not want to go down the fracking route. That is perfectly true. Some have decided not to do so, but there is fracking in other countries right across Europe. In Poland, fracking is taking place. It is taking place right across the globe and as far away as Australia. As I said, there is worldwide interest in the success of shale gas in the United States and other unconventional oil and gas in Canada. I think that it would be a little unfortunate if we were to close our minds to that.

The hon. Lady asked why we have not consulted on planning guidance. The Government do not normally consult on planning guidance. We consult on planning policy. We have prepared the guidance in line with the principles set out by Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. This is a living, web-based resource that is easier to read alongside other parts of planning guidance. It will be on the website shortly, and it will be easier to adapt if we need to do so on the basis of experience.

[Barbara Keeley]

We were expecting something to be published today; the word “publish” was used. The Minister seems to be saying that it will be published only on a website. Some of my constituents live in a deprived area and will not necessarily have the internet. Is he saying that no printed version of the guidance will be available?

[Michael Fallon]

I will certainly check that, but the point of putting the guidance on the website is that it is a living document that can be and is adapted the whole time in the light of experience. That is what it is up there for and that is obviously more difficult with hard copies, but I will of course look into whether hard copies can be made available for colleagues in the House. We were hoping to get the guidance out before the House rose for the recess. It is possible now that we will miss that deadline by a few hours or a day or two. We have been trying very hard not to do that, but it will not be long now before that guidance is available to everyone involved.

As we move to a low-carbon future, oil and gas will continue to be a key part of our energy mix for decades to come. We believe that shale gas has the potential to provide the United Kingdom with greater energy security, more investment and more jobs. We have a strong regulatory system, which provides a comprehensive and fit-for-purpose regime for exploratory activities, but we do want continuously to improve it. We have taken important steps to streamline the regulatory framework, but that is not at the cost of robustness. It is about ensuring that the regulation does not duplicate things and is clear, simple and understandable not just for the developers, but for the public and the local communities that will be asked whether they are prepared to host shale exploration and production. It is very clear—it is even clearer after this debate—that to get those basics right, we must also work tirelessly to engage people with clear, evidence-based information, so that they have hard facts on which to make an informed decision about fracking.

I think that I concluded Tuesday’s debate in Westminster Hall on this subject by saying that we should approach shale gas neither as zealots nor as victims, but looking at the evidence and going step by step to ensure that the potential of shale is thoroughly understood, analysed and explored, so that if it really can benefit our economy and our people in the way that it has benefited those in the United States, it will be able to do so.

[Mr David Amess (in the Chair)]

I was not anticipating that any time would be left, but would the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion like to speak again?

16:27

[Caroline Lucas]

That is very kind, Mr Amess. I sense that the mood in the room is one of warmth. We have probably done our best with this debate, so I thank the Minister for his words. It will not come as a surprise to him that I do not agree with him, and I am sure that the debate will continue.

Question put and agreed to.

16:28

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 18 July 2013

Business Premises Renovation Allowances

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The business premises renovation allowances (BPRA) scheme provides 100% capital allowances for the capital costs of converting or renovating empty business property in certain disadvantaged areas of the UK, where the property has lain empty for at least a year, in order to bring the premises back into business use.

The Government remain committed to the objectives of BPRA, which is to foster the regeneration of deprived areas, by helping to increase private investment, enterprise and employment in deprived communities.

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) has, however, brought to the Government’s attention a recent increase in DOTAS (disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) disclosures, involving BPRA, which appear to contain features aimed at exploiting the relief in ways that Parliament had not intended.

The Government are fully committed to tackling tax avoidance to ensure the Exchequer is protected and fairness is maintained for the taxpayer.

The Government have, therefore, authorised HMRC to conduct a technical review of the BPRA legislation, with a view to making its policy purpose even clearer, so that the scheme may be made simpler and more certain in its application, at the same time reducing the risks of exploitation.

HMRC will shortly be publishing this technical review, along with an associated “Spotlight” article to alert people to the fact that almost all of the disclosed BPRA schemes appear to be seriously flawed and that HMRC will investigate anyone using them.

The technical review will invite comments on new legislative proposals, with a view to introducing new legislation in 2014.

Targeted Capital Funding for New School Places

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

Today I am announcing the outcome of the applications to the targeted basic need programme. The programme was launched in March this year to provide additional funding for school places in areas where they are most needed. Local authorities were invited to bid for funding for new schools, or to expand existing outstanding and good schools.

The targeted basic need funding brings the total amount of funding allocated to local authorities for new school places over the current spending review period to over £5 billion—more than double the £1.9 billion spent by the previous Government over an equivalent period. That funding is sufficient to provide the 417,000 places we need by 2015. By September this year, we expect 190,000 extra places will have been created during this Parliament, with more still in the pipeline.

Our main basic need allocations—which go directly to local authorities, and are based on projections of their need—were issued in March, and gave authorities funding for the next two years, enabling them to plan provision. Those allocations totalled some £1.6 billion and will support local authorities to keep pace with projections of demand.

On top of this, we invited applications from local authorities for additional new places, particularly focused on places in outstanding or good schools, and on creating new academies sponsored by organisations with a good track record in educational success. We are determined that every pupil should not just have a place, but that the growth in the system is, as far as possible, concentrated in schools that parents and pupils really want to go to. So I am delighted to announce that the targeted basic need programme will provide £820 million to fund an additional 74,000 high-quality school places on top of those already created and funded—all in areas that face the greatest pressure on places. These new places will be in 45 new schools and in 333 expanding schools that are rated as outstanding or good.

The number of pupils in England will continue to rise and ensuring that every child is able to attend an outstanding or good school in their local area is at the heart of the Government’s comprehensive programme of reform of the school system.

We will continue to set up free schools where there is both demand from parents and where they can make the biggest difference to local provision through addressing basic need and improving the quality of local schools.

Over the longer term, we will also fund a further 500,000 places up to 2020-21, as announced in the recent spending round—again, we judge that this will be sufficient to meet the projected demand for school places.

I will write today to all those MPs with successful projects in their constituencies, and I will place a list of successful projects in the Libraries of both Houses.

Electricity Market Reform

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government yesterday published for consultation the draft electricity market reform (EMR) delivery plan.

As laid out in my 27 June statement, Official Report, column 12WS, EMR is a central component of the Energy Bill currently being considered by Parliament, and will address the need to attract unprecedented levels of investment in the UK electricity sector over the coming decades as we replace our ageing energy infrastructure with a diverse mix of low-carbon generation, and meet the expected increases in electricity demand as sectors such as transport and heat are electrified. The Energy Bill includes clauses to introduce contracts for difference (CfD) to support investment in low-carbon generation, and a capacity market, to ensure security of supply.

On 27 June, Government made a range of key announcements in relation to reform of the electricity market, and I laid before Parliament two policy documents: “Electricity Market Reform—Delivering UK Investment” and “Electricity Market Reform: Capacity Market—Detailed Design Proposals”. The document published yesterday for consultation provides further detail on the key components of EMR and seeks views from consultees.

Contracts for Difference (CfDs)

CfDs form a core component of the Government’s strategy to bring forward investment in affordable low-carbon electricity generation—including renewables, carbon capture and storage and new nuclear. CfDs provide efficient and long-term support for low-carbon generation, reducing risks faced by generators by increasing revenue certainty and through the backing of a long-term contract. Generators are paid the difference between the market price and a “strike price”, but when the market price is high the generator must pay back the difference, which reduces costs to consumers when electricity prices are high.

Our June publication included draft CfD strike prices for renewables technologies, decisions on key CfD terms, and the levy control framework (LCF) profile to 2020-21.

The draft EMR delivery plan published yesterday provides details of the assumptions which underpin the draft CfD strike prices and seeks views and additional evidence from consultees. The Government will use the evidence gathered through this consultation to inform final CfD strike prices, which we intend to publish in the final EMR delivery plan later this year, subject to Royal Assent of the Energy Bill.

Capacity Market

A key part of the challenge our market faces is in ensuring secure electricity supplies. The capacity market will give investors the certainty they need to put adequate reliable capacity in place, protecting consumers against the risk of supply shortages. It does this by providing a predictable revenue stream to providers of reliable capacity, including both generation and non-generation measures such as demand-side response and storage. In return, they must commit to provide capacity when needed or face financial penalties.

I confirmed on 27 June that Government intend to run the first capacity market auction in late 2014, for delivery in 2018-19—subject to state aid clearance and laid out more detail on design proposals.

I have now published Government’s intended reliability standard for the capacity market—which captures the trade-off between the cost of providing additional back-up capacity, and the level of reliability achieved. The proposed standard is expressed as a loss of load expectation (LOLE), i.e. the number of hours per annum in which, over the long term, it is statistically expected that supply will not meet demand, and which reflects the economically efficient level of capacity. This does not mean that we would have this level of blackouts in a particular year; in the vast majority of cases, loss of load would be managed without significant impacts on consumers. But no electricity system can be 100% reliable. Based on our assessment of the value consumers place on security of supply, and the costs of providing capacity, we are proposing that a reliability standard of three hours LOLE per year most efficiently makes this trade-off between cost and reliability. We are seeking consultees’ views on this proposal and will finalise the reliability standard in the final delivery plan in December.

Analysis and scrutiny

Alongside the draft EMR delivery plan, I have published a report from the system operator—National Grid—which lays out analysis conducted to support the decisions contained in the delivery plan.

I have also published the report of the independent panel of technical experts, which was appointed to oversee the analysis. Information on the members of the panel and their terms of reference can be found at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/policy-advisory-groups/electricity-market-reform-panel-of-technical-experts.

The consultation document is be available at:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-draft-electricity-market-reform-delivery.

I will deposit copies of the delivery plan and associated documents in the Libraries of both Houses.

Safeguarding British Businesses Overseas

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

Since the launch of the FCO’s Charter for Business in May 2010, the FCO has made supporting British business abroad one of its core activities to help build Britain’s prosperity. This priority sits alongside the FCO’s work to safeguard Britain’s national security and support British nationals around the world.

One of the commitments we made was to use the FCO’s knowledge to help businesses manage risks. The FCO created a new Commercial and Economic Diplomacy Department to help deliver this, to work more closely with UK business and liaise with the rest of the FCO to ensure we balance HMG’s commercial and security objectives. We do this by FCO staff sharing their political, economic and security analysis in written and oral briefings for UK business, and through the joint FCO UK Trade and Investment website Overseas Business website.

The attack in January this year on a gas production facility in the Algerian desert by a terrorist group linked to al-Qaeda underlined the threat British businesses and nationals can face overseas. Five out of the 38 people killed were British nationals and one was a British resident. Al-Qaeda, and groups inspired by al-Qaeda, continue to present a threat to British nationals and businesses around the world. We are determined to help British business thrive and operate safely overseas.

Since the attack we have consulted many British extractive industries that operate in high-risk environments and spoken to families of those affected by this tragedy. Many have said they would like to gain a better understanding from Government of the terrorism fuelling the threats we describe in the FCO’s travel advice. Companies have said the additional information could allow them to make better decisions on securing their employees, and also to make longer-term decisions on what can be significant investments. And we have stressed to industry how important it is to ensure the availability of information to all those employed at any site, including subcontractors.

I have therefore instructed officials to take the following steps:

To include more contextual information about terrorism threats in the FCO’s travel advice pages for countries where there is a high threat from terrorism. This is available to all members of the public on GOV.UK at: https://www.gov.uk/foreign-travel-advice.

For the FCO, through its network of posts in high-risk locations, and through the Counter Terrorism Department in London, to engage British businesses and organisations who employ British nationals in high-risk locations.

To offer British businesses and organisations the opportunity to apply to take part in crisis table top exercises in the FCO, and for officials to attend their crisis exercises.

To make available information on overseas terrorism threats to owners and operators of national infrastructure, through the Centre for the Protection of National Infrastructure.

The advice for companies operating in high-risk environments on the overseas business risk website has been updated. I have placed a copy of this new advice in the Libraries of both Houses. The advice can be found at:

http://www.ukti.gov.uk/pt_pt/edport/howwehelp/overseasbusinessrisk.html?null, with links to FCO travel advice.

NHS Modernisation (Costs and Benefits)

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

The Government’s estimates of the costs and benefits of implementing policies in the Health and Social Care Act were contained in the “Coordinating document for the Impact Assessments and Equality Analysis” published in September 2011. These estimates reflected the changes that the Government made to their proposals following the listening exercise and the report of the NHS Future Forum.

Officials have continued to track closely the actual costs and benefits of the changes. Last September I reported to the House that the current estimate of costs was in the range £1.5 billion to £1.6 billion, which is equivalent to £1.6 billion to £1.7 billion in today’s prices. I can confirm today that I expect the costs—including spending on redundancy—to be no higher than announced last year. Indeed, the costs are likely to be nearer the estimate in the business case for the programme (£1.5 billion in today’s prices).

I can also announce that, up to 31 March 2013, costs of £1,096 million had been incurred across the health and care system on developing and establishing the new arrangements, comprising:

£435 million on staff redundancies;

£54 million on IT for the new organisations;

£42 million on estates costs of closing bodies and setting up new organisations;

£22 million on internal departmental costs (e.g. programme management);

£299 million on setting up clinical commissioning groups (excluding items above); and

£244 million on other costs of closing bodies (e.g. primary care trusts (PCTs)) and setting up new organisations.

In the impact assessment, long-term annual savings arising from the changes were estimated at £1.5 billion per year from 2014-15 onwards. Gross savings over the transition period (2010-11 to 2014-15) were estimated at £4.5 billion.

Annual savings are still expected to be £1.5 billion from 2014-15. Over the period 2010-11 to 2014-15, on a comparable basis with the impact assessment, the cumulative savings in administration costs arising from the reforms are still expected to be at least £5.5 billion. This sets aside administration costs of around £1.5 billion that are expected to be incurred on implementing the changes across this period.

I am today publishing “Business Case for the Health and Care Modernisation Transition Programme” which was prepared for the major programme established to take forward implementation of the reforms. A copy has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office. This publication meets a commitment made in “Health and Social Care Reforms: Transition Programme Scheme for Publication” (published in May 2012). The business case reflects the landscape that existed in December 2011, after the Government had responded to the listening exercise. Although the financial estimates in the business case are largely consistent with the impact assessment they took account of some costs (estimated at £127 million in total) that were excluded from the impact assessment either because they were out of scope (for example, because they related to measures not requiring legislation) or because they were redacted (for example, because they were commercially sensitive). The business case estimated the costs of implementing the changes at £1.5 billion at today’s prices

Francis Inquiry (Costs)

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Robert Francis QC published his “Report of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust Public Inquiry” on 6 February 2013. The public inquiry report looked at the roles and responsibilities of the wider health system in the events at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust between 2005 and 2009. The inquiry itself sat for a total of 139 days; its oral hearings began on 8 November 2010 in Stafford and concluded on 1 December 2011. The inquiry took 352 separate witness statements in total, with 164 witness statements heard in person.

On the day of publication, the Prime Minister made a statement to Parliament. The Department of Health published the initial Government and system-wide response. “Patients First and Foremost”, on 26 March 2013. A further response to Robert Francis’s report will be published in autumn 2013.

Officials have compiled the costs of providing evidence to the inquiry incurred by the Department and the relevant NHS organisations, including foundation trusts.

I can now report to the House that the expenditure incurred by the Department and NHS organisations in their role as witnesses amounted to £6 million. A breakdown by type of cost is shown below.

Public Service and Demographic Change

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

We have today laid before Parliament “Government Response to the House Of Lords Committee on Public Service and Demographic Change report “Ready for Ageing?” (Cm 8677).

This country faces major demographic and economic challenges as a result of an increasingly ageing population. We welcome the Committee’s report, which shares the Government’s ambition of making this country a great place to grow old in.



We know the challenge is significant. The quality of our later life is an issue which affects us all. Cross-Government co-ordination and focus is crucial to achieving success. We all have responsibility for ensuring we make the most of the extraordinary opportunity of increasing life expectancy. These challenges are for individuals and communities, for local and national Government, for the private sector and the third sector.

This response describes the wide reaching programme of reforms this Government have put in place, as well as the plans we have for further work, which we believe will begin to address the challenges set out in “Ready for Ageing?” The reforms range from changes to pensions, transformation of the health and care system as well as improvements to wider public provision such as housing and transport.

Public provision must continue to adapt and respond as the needs and expectations of the population change. Individuals must take personal responsibility for planning for their later life, making choices and exercising control. This report is not a one off piece of work but an important dialogue between Government and the public, which must and will continue into the next Parliament.

As part of this dialogue, Government have committed to writing to the House of Lords Liaison Committee in a year’s time. This will update on progress of the Government’s reforms as well as provide any new evidence and challenges that might have arisen since the original report was published.

Public Health (Local Authorities)

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Anna Soubry)]

We have today laid before Parliament “Government Response to the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee Eighth Report of Session 2012-13: The Role of Local Authorities in Health Issues” (Cm 8638).

The Government are grateful to the Committee for its constructive and positive report, and for the opportunity it provides to set out our position and expectations on some key issues in greater depth.

I am grateful to the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions for their contribution to this report, and commend to the House the increasingly broad base for thinking and action on public health across Government.

Copies of the Government response are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Caring and Support Consultation

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

Today we are publishing a significant consultation that looks at the practical detail of implementing our reforms to what and how people pay for their care and support.

We have published plans for a new fairer funding system that will help people to more easily prepare for the cost of their future care needs, and will provide financial protection for people’s homes and savings.

The proposals are based on sweeping reforms to how care is paid for to give more certainty and peace of mind over the cost of old age or living with a disability. They will end the unfairness of unlimited care costs and ensure everyone gets the care they need with most support going to those in greatest need.

From 2016 the reforms will deliver a new cap of £72,000 on the costs of meeting eligible needs, additional financial help for people of modest wealth with less than £118,000 in assets including their home and, from 2015, a scheme to prevent anyone having to sell their home in their lifetime. The consultation confirms details of the plans including:

for people entering a care home, their property will not be included in the assessment of assets if a partner or dependant still lives in the home. In this case if a person has assets of less than £27,000 (excluding their home) they will qualify for financial assistance; and

the cap is based on the total cost of meeting someone’s eligible needs, not just their own contribution, an individual’s payments are added to those made by the local authority when measuring progress towards the cap. This means around two-thirds of people who reach the cap will have contributed less than £72,000 towards their care costs.

The consultation looks in detail at the various elements of the reforms seeking people’s views to help us deliver a fairer and more sustainable care and support system in local areas.

Reforming how and what people pay for their care intends to bring a number of benefits. Currently, a fear of high costs and lack of good information and advice can cause people to delay getting the care they need, and therefore see their needs escalate more quickly. This leads to more people (and their families) seeking and organising care in a crisis situation and risking higher care costs, due to their condition having deteriorated more rapidly.

The reforms will set some limits around how much people can expect to pay for their care, making it easier for them to plan and therefore putting them more in control. It will also protect more of what people have worked and saved up for during their lives.

The consultation launched today is about working out the practical detail of what needs to happen to make the changes to payment of care costs a reality. Reforming what and how people pay for their care will involve significant changes to how local authorities operate currently. We are therefore keen to hear people’s views on how these changes to the funding system should happen and be organised locally, to help us deliver a care and support system that is sustainable and fairer for everyone.

Consultation proposals include:

how best to provide people with information and advice, including on how to pay for

care and support, to help everyone plan for the future;

annual “care account” statements to project when someone will reach the cap or qualify for additional financial support;

the option of joining a not-for-profit “deferred payment” scheme where the local council pays people’s residential care fees and the person is able to repay from their estate, allowing them to keep their home during their lifetime;

possible new products from the financial services sector who are responding to these reforms by looking at how pensions and expanded life or health insurance could help some people plan;

principles behind the level of the cap for people aged under state pension age who have eligible needs; and

the process for providing redress and resolving complaints.

The Government have provided £335 million to local authorities in 2015-16 to cover the costs of implementation of the cap and the requirement to offer deferred payments for residential care. This includes funds that will enable local authorities to begin assessing people’s needs for care and support around six months before introduction of the cap, if they choose to do so.

The Department of Health, Local Government Association and the Association of Directors of Social Services (ADASS) have committed to work in partnership on a joint programme to ensure successful and sustainable delivery of these reforms.

The consultation will run from 18 July until 25 October.

“Caring for our future: Consultation on reforming what and how people pay for their care and support” has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Europol Regulation

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government have decided at this time not to opt in to the European Commission’s proposal for a Europol regulation which would establish the European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Co-operation and Training. The Government will however seek to opt in to the regulation post adoption provided that Europol is not given the power to direct national law enforcement agencies to initiate investigations or share data that conflicts with national security.

The Commission has a number of objectives in this proposal: to update the law on the European Police Office (Europol) and the European Police College (CEPOL) following the Lisbon treaty and to create cost savings by merging both the agencies; as well as to strengthen Europol’s role in the exchange and analysis of information on cross-border crime through increased obligations.

The Government value UK membership of Europol as currently established. The ability to access law enforcement intelligence directly from all other EU member states means UK law enforcement can significantly increase its intelligence yield and is effectively supported in the fight against organised crime and terrorism.

However, having analysed the draft proposal from the Commission the Government have identified two very serious concerns with the proposal which would fundamentally change the relationship between Europol and member states.

First, there is an increased obligation to provide data. In the proposal member states are not exempt from providing data, even where it would conflict with national security, endanger ongoing investigations or an individual’s safety. This conflicts with the national interest.

Secondly, while Europol can already request a member state to initiate an investigation, this proposal goes much further and includes an obligation to provide a reason if no such operation is conducted. Any reasons provided would be subject to challenge before the European Court of Justice. This creates a risk that the European courts could dictate what national law enforcement agencies should prioritise. This interferes with operational independence which is at the heart of UK policing.

We will remain a full and active participant in negotiations on the regulation and are committed to seeking to opt in post adoption provided that the above two concerns are met in the final text.

Action Fraud

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

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

Action Fraud, run by the National Fraud Authority (an executive agency of the Home Office), now receives all reports of fraud on behalf of all police forces in England and Wales. Between November 2012 and July 2013, 2,490 reports (of which 1,738 were reports of crime) were not processed correctly due to a fault in the IT system. This represents 1.3% of all fraud reports taken by Action Fraud in this period. No data was lost or compromised at any point and the IT fault has been rectified. Action Fraud has taken immediate action to process the affected reports and will be writing to apologise to everyone who submitted a report and to make clear that their report is now being dealt with.

This issue came to light too late to notify the Office for National Statistics for inclusion in “Crime in England And Wales” for the year ending March 2013, published today. Crime continues to fall. Although the levels of total police recorded crime and fraud would be affected by this issue, the annual percentage change for total police recorded crime and for fraud would be unaffected. As part of routine revisions to the data, any corrections will be included by the Office for National Statistics in next quarter’s crime publications.

These figures supersede any given in previous answers to parliamentary questions and I apologise to the House for this.

Commissioners (Annual Reports)

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I have today laid before both Houses copies of the latest annual reports from the Commissioners appointed by me to keep under review public authority use of covert investigatory techniques. The reports are from: the former Interception of Communications Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Paul Kennedy (HC571); the current Intelligence Services Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Mark Waller (HC578); and, the current Chief Surveillance Commissioner, the right hon. Sir Christopher Rose (HC577).

The Commissioners and their staff provide statutory oversight to check that public authorities, and where necessary the Secretaries of State where they sign-off covert activity, use correctly and lawfully the relevant provisions of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, the Police Act 1997, and, the Intelligence Services Act 1994.

The Commissioners’ functions are different but complementary and cover a broad and complex legal and technical area. Their annual reports provide information, as far as is consistent with public security, on current patterns of use, emerging developments and broad statistics.

In general they show a high degree of understanding, diligence and compliance with what the law requires from the agencies and the personnel required to observe it. They also show that regrettably there have been a small number of errors and instances where the law has not been applied correctly. The Commissioners have worked to correct the situation and assure themselves that safeguards have been adopted to minimise the risk of future error.

I want to thank Sir Paul, Sir Mark and Sir Christopher for maintaining the rigour of their scrutiny. I believe that it has never been more important that their roles are discharged effectively and efficiently. I regard the publishing of their annual reports as an important part of demonstrating that there are independent, external checks on public authority covert investigations and that public authorities may obtain private information covertly only when this is necessary and proportionate to do so.

“Foreign Involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure”

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

On 6 June I laid before Parliament a report of the Intelligence and Security Committee entitled “Foreign Involvement in the Critical National Infrastructure” (Cm 8629). Today the Government publish their response. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

The Government are grateful to the Intelligence and Security Committee for its report, and for its ongoing valuable work.

Intercity Express Programme

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I have decided to exercise an option that was contained in the Intercity Express Programme (IEP) contract, signed in July 2012 with Agility Trains, a consortium made up of Hitachi and John Laing.

The option is to purchase a further 270 vehicles to replace the electric Intercity 225 fleet which currently runs on the east coast main line with a fleet of new, high quality, modern, higher capacity class 800 series nine-car electric trains. This is in addition to the core order to build nearly 600 vehicles to replace Britain’s fleet of Intercity 125 high speed trains along the Great Western and east coast main lines that were originally deployed by British Rail in the 1970s and 1980s.

The first class 800 series trains will enter revenue-earning service on the Great Western main line in 2017 and on the east coast main line in 2018. We expect the second batch of new class 800 series vehicles to be in service on the east coast from 2019. Passengers will see improvements to their travelling experience, including even more reliable services, improved telecommunications connectivity, increased leg space without compromising on luggage provision, and a greater chance of getting a seat. Train capacity will be 627 seats per train, 18% higher than the stock they are replacing which will mean that the class 800 series deployment in total will increase the number of seats in to King’s Cross in the morning peak by 28%. Journey times between London, Leeds and Edinburgh will also be reduced by several minutes. The new trains will be capable of running at 140 mph, which would lead to further journey time reductions, although operation at this speed will require signalling and infrastructure upgrades.

Furthermore, Hitachi, the manufacturers of the trains, has announced that it will assemble them at its dedicated manufacturing plant at Newton Aycliffe in County Durham. The order is a boost for the facility and its 730 planned jobs and many more in the local and national supply chains.

Exercising this option represents around a further £1.2 billion investment in Britain’s rolling stock, bringing the total contract value up to £5.8 billion covering the design, build, finance and maintenance of the fleet over a 27.5-year period. This highlights the Government’s commitment to infrastructure, to rail, to British manufacturing and to the strategy of growing and protecting the key Intercity rail markets in readiness for HS2.

HGV Road User Levy Bill

Thursday 18th July 2013 Written Statements

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

I am today correcting a figure that I quoted during the Ways and Means resolution debate on the HGV Road User Levy Bill, on Tuesday 23 October 2012, and during the Second Reading debate on Tuesday 20 November 2012. There will be significantly fewer vehicles paying more than £300 a year extra when the levy is introduced than I previously stated.

The reason for the additional costs once the levy is introduced is because some vehicles currently pay close to or below EU minimum rates of vehicle excise duty (VED), and so VED cannot be reduced by the same amount as the levy, or indeed in some cases VED needs to be increased.

During the Ways and Means resolution debate I stated that

“our analysis of 7,000 rigid vehicles that tow a trailer has found that 40 vehicles would probably suffer a penalty of some £300, but that is only 40 out of 7,000, which is a significantly small part of the overall haulage fleet of the United Kingdom”—[Official Report, 23 October 2012, Vol. 551, c. 884.]

I also stated on Second Reading:

“there are a small number—about 7,000 of them on the road—of rigid vehicles with a trailer. Of those we estimate—the Department has done some analysis—that fewer than 50 will face potentially more than £300 extra in costs”—[Official Report, 20 November 2012, Vol. 553, col. 497.]

However, as a result of the Government continuing to consider and refine the analysis for these vehicles, an error in the source data was corrected, and improvements were made to the methodology used to set the VED rates that will apply from 1 April 2014. By making this improvement, it is possible for Her Majesty’s Treasury to amend the VED rates to reduce the number of vehicles paying over £300 more to just one vehicle. Even this additional cost represents less than 0.4% of the annual cost of running an HGV, which is normally in the range of £80,000 to £100,000.

There is no change to figures quoted in Parliament of 94% of vehicles paying no more than now, and 98% paying no more than an additional £50 per year, as a result of these changes. The Department for Transport will be republishing the full updated analysis on the consultation pages for “Charging Heavy Goods Vehicles” hosted on the gov.uk website:

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/charging-heavy-goods-vehicles-consultation.

The updated analysis will enable vehicle operators to see the revised details of how much will be paid for each type of vehicle.

These figures will remain provisional, until Her Majesty’s Treasury confirm the new table of rates in the “Overview of Outstanding Legislation And Rates” document accompanying Budget 2014.

This once again reinforces the Government’s commitment to introduce the HGV road user levy in April 2014 at as minimal a cost to the UK haulage industry as we can realistically deliver.