Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 15 October 2013

[Mrs Linda Riordan in the Chair]

Driver and Vehicle Agency (Northern Ireland)

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Amber Rudd.)

09:30

[Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)]

It is the normal protocol for those who speak in Westminster Hall to congratulate the Member who secured the debate and to say that it is about a topical, important issue. I can say, with the utmost assurance, that this is indeed an exceptionally topical, very important issue in Northern Ireland; more than 200 jobs are at stake in the Coleraine area, and more than 300 are at stake in Northern Ireland as a whole. The knock-on effect would be on a total number of jobs in excess of 500.

At the outset, I want to apologise for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), who has worked closely with me on this campaign, as his constituency adjoins mine. Many of the employees involved come from one or other of our constituencies, as they do from throughout Northern Ireland. I want to give a few indications of the wider context before coming to the nub of the matter, in relation to the Driver and Vehicle Agency and the services offered there.

The Causeway coast area and Northern Ireland as a whole have been severely hit by unemployment in recent years. People will ask: has the whole UK not been hit like that? The answer, of course, is yes, but more significantly so in Northern Ireland. We have been cushioned a little by the dependency on the public sector in Northern Ireland. In that context, last week, no less a person than the Prime Minister was in Northern Ireland to try to encourage inward investment, because he, the Government, the Executive and my friend and colleague Arlene Foster, Northern Ireland’s Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment Enterprise, realise that because of the dependency on the public sector, we need to encourage inward investment from the private sector.

This is not a case of taking jobs from the public sector and trying to transfer them into the private sector; it is a case of supplementing our existing dependency on the public sector through private sector inward investment. Therefore, the Prime Minister came, last week, to try to bring jobs to Northern Ireland, so the last thing we want to see, as a result of the consultation that closed a few weeks ago, is his Government taking jobs from Northern Ireland. Hopefully, that will not be the case. The north coast has a lower-than-average wage structure, compared with Northern Ireland as a whole, which has a lower-than-average wage structure than the United Kingdom. We can see the absolute dependency not only on getting and creating more jobs, but on sustaining the employment that we have.

The context of the proposed relocation goes back some eight years. I first raised the issue in 2005, when the previous Government were looking at possibly amalgamating driver and vehicle licensing services to Swansea. Thankfully, that was overcome; good sense prevailed eight years ago, when people saw the efficiencies that could be achieved and the service that could be maintained to motorists and others in Northern Ireland.

In terms of the numbers, 230 people are involved in Coleraine and more than 100 are involved in the rest of Northern Ireland through the various sub-offices. The employment of 200 more people, on top of that, depends on the DVA in Northern Ireland. Should centralisation go ahead to Swansea, the total wage loss to the Northern Ireland economy would be in excess of £11 million annually. That would lead to a total economic loss of about £20 million to Northern Ireland, which we simply cannot afford.

I raised the issue with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, as did many of my colleagues. She made a straightforward commitment:

“It is important that he”—

the Minister—

“takes into account the views of Northern Ireland before he makes his decision.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 944.]

That was an obvious but radical statement. Just two weeks ago, the views of the people of Northern Ireland became absolutely clear, if there was any doubt. A debate was held in the Northern Ireland Assembly. As interested observers of the Assembly will know, there can, just occasionally, be matters of division there on political matters. From time to time, we do not see eye to eye—says he, with a bit of sarcasm in his voice. On this issue, however, there was not only cross-community support, but total and utter unanimity. Not a single voice of dissent came from the Chamber. The voice and views of the people of Northern Ireland were endorsed two weeks ago, on 30 September, when the Northern Ireland Assembly voted unanimously to support the retention of jobs and services at the DVA in Northern Ireland.

I turn to the jobs and services that are provided. In the agency, an assessment has been done on the work force’s composition. Some 73% of the work force are female, many of whom are carers and have other dependants. Any decision to centralise the services in Swansea would have massive implications, not only for the employees, which is obvious, but for all their dependants. Some of those females are part-time employees. The prospect of trying to get other employment in a Northern Ireland that is trying to attract inward investment, as I have just alluded to, is going to be remote. It will be difficult to attract other employment opportunities for the predominantly female staff.

I turn now to the services. An analysis has been done of the services offered by the DVA, and current satisfaction rates are very high. I want to draw a comparison between the satisfaction rates for the services offered in Northern Ireland and those for the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Swansea. I do so with a word of caution, because I fully understand that the sheer scale and complexity of the DVLA in Swansea provides a much more challenging environment in which to achieve targets. That is all the more reason, I would have thought, not to add even more to the burden that the people in Swansea already face.

The facts are as follows. For example, a survey in the past 12 months has shown that 95% of the transactions involving changes of registration are completed at the DVA in Northern Ireland within five working days, which is an excellent achievement. The same 95% completion rate at the DVLA in Swansea is achieved in 11 working days. Given the sheer complexity and scale in Swansea, completing changes of registration almost exclusively in 11 working days—95% of the time—is a reasonably good performance, but in Northern Ireland we achieve the same in less than half the time. People in Northern Ireland will be saying, “If centralisation goes ahead, are the change of registration processes going to worsen by more than double?”

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. He might be interested to know that I questioned my officials on the issue he raises, because I was aware of the potential problem. I was assured that the differences in refunds are due to the different ways in which the transaction is measured. The DVA’s target is to process and refund within five days, but that does not take into account any subsequent work that may arise in complex cases. The DVLA’s target is measured from time of receipt until a refund has been issued. The time taken to process the transactions is about the same in both agencies.

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the Minister for that explanation. I was going to come to refunds next.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the staff side response to the consultation refers to the perception in the DVA, which in many cases is backed up statistically, that the DVLA has vigorously, systematically and aggressively underfunded the IT development system in the DVA. Under those circumstances, does he agree that Northern Ireland has a remarkable work force that should be cherished rather than centralised?

[Mr Campbell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I was coming on to IT—as he anticipated, in his usual prescient way.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Campbell]

Yes—I am in the mood for giving way, so I will give way to my hon. Friend.

[David Simpson]

I thank my hon. Friend and commend him for securing this important debate—when some 500 jobs are at stake, it is indeed a very important debate. If the figures he has given about Swansea are correct, surely moving everything from Northern Ireland to be centralised will compound the problem. A longer time scale for the completion of customers’ paperwork will be inevitable.

[Mr Campbell]

It appears to me, and I think to most people, that that would be the case.

The 95% target for applications for refunds is achieved in 30 working days in Swansea; again, allowing for the scale of the millions of people who tax their vehicles, achieving that figure is a challenge. The target in the same category in Northern Ireland is achieved in five working days—95% of refunds are cleared within five working days. Whichever way we cut this, it is absolutely clear that in terms of value for money for a service, a significant service is being offered.

The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) made the point, and the work force have repeatedly told me, that there has been under-investment, in the IT infrastructure in particular, for many years. In that context, the fact that the work force achieve such remarkable results is to be cherished and they should be secured for the future.

Recent analysis of the database of customers that the DVA serves shows that more than 60% of DVA customers are aged 44 and older. As we all know, that age group is less likely to be IT literate or to be online to take advantage of registration via a computer. The vast bulk of potential customers would be disadvantaged if the services were transferred to Swansea and the push for greater online registration continued, as a result of the loss of face-to-face and telephone services and local recognition and knowledge of that demographic in Northern Ireland. The Minister must take account of that.

I want to raise an issue about which there can be no dispute: Northern Ireland is the only region in the UK with a land border with another EU state—the Irish Republic. Traditionally, over many years, evasion rates have been significantly higher in Northern Ireland, but the rate has reduced considerably due to a comprehensive campaign there. Part of the reason is the local work force with local knowledge of vehicles and residences. Evasion rates that had continued to be high in the past have recently been reduced.

What are the chances of evasion in Fermanagh, south Armagh and Tyrone, which have borders with the Irish Republic, being detected by people operating from Swansea? The task will be much more difficult. I contend, with some justification given the previous figures, that evasion rates will rise, rather than fall. We do not want to encourage evasion or allow it to increase, rather than continue the drive to get it down.

An important reference point has emerged in the past four days. From media reports over the weekend, I understand that the DVLA’s independent complaints assessor has a draft report on the past two years, 2011-12 and 2012-13, with the various Departments for accuracy checking. When it is released in two weeks—I was assured yesterday that it will be released by the end of October, and I hope the Minister can confirm that—it will confirm a significant increase in the volume of complaints about the service people get at the DVLA in Swansea. Obviously, it is a draft report and we will wait to see the final outcome, but if complaints are increasing, part of the reason will be the sheer volume and complexity of cases being dealt with at one central agency. If anything can clinch the case for retaining a localised service, it will be in the context of the series of events I have outlined.

[Mr Goodwill]

Prior to the debate, I asked about the level of complaints. I was told that in the most recent year for which we have statistics, there were 12,500 complaints to the DVLA, which, measured against 170 million transactions, represents 0.01%. The increase in the level of referred complaints is due to a change in how complaints are handled. Previously, the chief executive had to refer complaints for consideration; they now automatically go through, which to some extent explains the increase in complaints that has been registered.

[Mr Campbell]

I am glad the Minister has confirmed that there has been an increase. I note that he said “in the most recent year”; my understanding is that the draft report refers to the past two years. Perhaps he has further information about the increase in the previous year, but I do not think he has. I accept the Minister’s comment on the increase and the reason for it. My colleagues and I have raised significant points and there are good reasons for retaining a local service that will take account of the issues.

In conclusion, I ask the Minister to do three things. I have invited the Secretary of State, and I invite him, to come to Coleraine in Northern Ireland to see at first hand the level of service and the work that is put in by employees, before coming to the final decision. In connection with that, I want the Minister to take account of the unique circumstances that prevail in Northern Ireland before coming to his decision. I also call on him to retain the excellent services that we have in Northern Ireland and those much needed jobs that go with them.

09:51

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate. It is nice to have a bevy of Northern Ireland MPs here—for once, we are the biggest party in Westminster Hall—to collectively support the need to retain the DVA in Coleraine and to ensure a good level of service provision for our constituents. That is why we are here: to see a continuation of the service that we have. As elected representatives we have an opportunity to respond and turn issues round in a few days or even after a phone call. The contribution from my hon. Friend and the evidence that we have individually show that such a response will not be possible if the service goes from County hall in Coleraine to Swansea in Wales. The 300 workers will certainly feel the pain.

I also congratulate in his absence my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) on his questions to the Transport Minister a few weeks ago. It is unfortunate that he cannot be here today owing to a family bereavement, but we thank him for his significant contribution. I know that he has worked long hard hours alongside my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry.

The detriment of the proposals will not simply be suffered by those who work in the DVA office; they will be suffered by those who use the service. I want to mention the service, the work that people do, and how that affects those outside, because there is a benefit to the whole of the local community. It has been estimated that some £22 million a year would be removed from the Northern Ireland economy if the move went ahead, which is something that could not be absorbed in such a short time. It would be detrimental to the economy of Northern Ireland, not only in East Londonderry but throughout the whole province. It seems that Northern Ireland would lose that personal service and the money that goes into local shops and businesses.

I am unsure about where the benefits will be and where the ripples of change will end up. I know that the local shop owners and businesses, who will no longer have that spending money in their shops, will certainly not feel any benefit from the relocation, and neither will those who work in those businesses, whose jobs or hours will be cut. I am not being melodramatic; I am explaining a sequence of events that has been seen in many areas and which cannot be allowed to take place. I am explaining the effect of relocating the DVA from Coleraine to Swansea.

My colleague is certainly right to highlight the irony of the Prime Minister removing jobs from Northern Ireland while at the same time celebrating the potential for business investment. If we look at those two statements from the Prime Minister and then the reality on the ground, we look with cynicism as we see the practicality of what is proposed. The notion of robbing Peter to pay Paul—robbing one area of jobs to provide in another area—is not an acceptable form of governing, and I trust that all MPs present here and elsewhere will send the message that such a movement of position and jobs is not simply an accounting form of moving numbers from one column to another; it is playing with people’s lives and the effect will reach out far beyond where we are.

Northern Ireland is an intricate part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain. As such, it is right and proper that we are used for central government purposes. The DVA centre is fit for purpose and is doing a great job. My hon. Friend outlined the service and efficiencies that are delivered at Coleraine, and he described the experienced personnel who deliver the service.

Will the relocation lead to efficiency? Indications show that it will not. I know the Minister has already responded to a couple of questions and he has given us his figures. However, the figures mentioned by my hon. Friend showed dissatisfaction with what has been delivered by Swansea. If that is the case, why move the DVA from Coleraine to Swansea? It seems illogical and will certainly not achieve efficiency, so it can only be for other—small p or big p—political decisions. If that is the reason, the Government are doing us an injustice, because we are very much a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and we want to remain so.

I recently read that there has already been clear evidence in Scotland that the ordinary purchase of vehicles and changing of tax discs is being delayed by up to six weeks. In Coleraine, that can be done in five days. It is efficient. The Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance has figures that show a customer satisfaction rate of 98%. Where else in the United Kingdom is there a business with a satisfaction rate such as that? We have it in the DVA in Coleraine. Because of that delivery and efficiency, the decision should be looked at again.

Centralisation of work in places such as Scotland has led to numerous complaints and delays in what should be simple services, as well as huge disruptions to the cash flow for car dealerships. The efficiency that the centre in Coleraine displays should make it a flagship centre and not one that is flagged to close. We have something good that is delivering efficiently. Let us ensure that it continues to do so.

I fully support my colleague, and, more importantly, I support the high level of service that is provided at Coleraine. I fully support the inherent right that we have in Northern Ireland to be a cog in the wheel of central Government provision. We want to be part of that. We deliver it in every sense of the word through our contribution to the economy. Our contribution is a central part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

As my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim has said, the Minister has the same jurisdiction in Coleraine as he has in Swansea. He also has the same duty of care to his workers there, and now is the time for him to set minds at ease and tell us that he is going to do his duty by the workers of Coleraine, recognise their work ethic and keep operations running smoothly in Coleraine. I am happy to support the proposal.

09:58

[Ms Margaret Ritchie (South Down) (SDLP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing the debate this morning. It is an important subject for all the people in Northern Ireland. I welcome the Minister—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill)—to his new position. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden).

Northern Ireland is a public sector-led economy. Last week, we were pleased that the Prime Minister came and led on an international investment conference. Importantly, private sector jobs should supplement jobs in the public sector. We want to see a fair and equal distribution of the private sector jobs that we hope will flow from the Prime Minister’s visit and the visit of international investors last week. In this debate, we are all telling the Minister and his Department, “No decentralisation of services.” There is a dichotomy of policy, in that the Government and the Northern Ireland Executive believe in decentralisation because it can underpin the bedrock of the local economy, but by the same token, taking jobs away means centralisation to us. That issue needs to be explored, answered and corrected.

The current proposal to centralise vehicle registration and licensing services in Swansea will remove 324 full-time equivalent posts from Northern Ireland, which in real terms will have an impact on about 380 employees, and will also have an impact on the services provided.

As a result of an intervention by the then Northern Ireland Minister of the Environment, my party colleague Alex Attwood, with the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), a consultation was agreed and launched by the Department for Transport. The support of the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland for retaining those jobs and services remains constant and has been backed by all political parties in Northern Ireland, as was mentioned by the hon. Member for East Londonderry. A strong case has been made for not only retaining the jobs in the DVA, but expanding services in Northern Ireland by transferring work for UK customers to Northern Ireland.

The impact will be felt in Coleraine, where the headquarters are based, and in areas such as Armagh, Ballymena, Belfast, Enniskillen, Derry, Omagh and Downpatrick. Under the proposal, my constituency of South Down will see the removal of services and jobs at the Downpatrick office, which has traditionally been the County Down facility for people to tax their car for many generations. Downpatrick is the main centre of public administration in South Down, and any reduction in staffing numbers will have an impact on its economy and on future services that might be attracted to the area. At the same time, we are trying to pool resources and administrative services to complement the role it has always had as a centre of public administration.

I appreciate that the constituency of the hon. Member for East Londonderry will be worst hit by the removal of services from Coleraine, but the injustice and disproportionate nature of the proposal will be felt by people whose jobs are affected and by people throughout Northern Ireland who rely on the services delivered by those offices, including those in my constituency.

The Minister will be aware of the representations made by me and my colleagues, including the former Minister of the Environment and the new Minister of the Environment, Mark H. Durkan. In the initial reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon, I was advised that the proposal to withdraw jobs from Northern Ireland was in response to the need to bring vehicle licensing and registration up to date and into line with developments in IT systems in Great Britain, and to provide a much-improved service. However, in his second reply, he outlined that the removal of 380 jobs from Northern Ireland would achieve significant savings for UK taxpayers.

Will the new Minister therefore clarify the reasoning behind the proposal? Is it simply a cost-saving exercise that will obviously have a disproportionate impact on staff in Northern Ireland, as well as on the wider community that relies on the services provided, or is it about developments in IT systems, through which local people will also lose jobs and services? If the Department for Transport is looking at the proposal as a means of cutting costs, it should consider the views of those employed in the service, who are some of the most dedicated people in the public service of Northern Ireland.

[Naomi Long (Belfast East) (Alliance)]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing the debate. It is right that all parties are giving support on the issue. Does she agree that if the proposal is about modernising how the service is delivered, such a modernisation could be delivered in Northern Ireland without the need for closing the base there? We can already deliver a high-quality service, and modernisation would simply aid us in doing so, as well as allowing the further transfer of UK services to sites in Northern Ireland.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her useful and beneficial intervention. Obviously, if there is to be modernisation, an idea which none of us rejects or opposes, it could take place in Northern Ireland facilities—the headquarters in Coleraine and the other offices. In fact, we could take services that currently take place in Britain and, I have to say, perhaps do them much better, more efficiently and more diligently.

I want to move on to the views of the staff who responded to the consultation. They say that the existing closure programme has had a serious impact on services offered by the DVLA to the motorist in Great Britain. It is unclear whether those services can be properly managed, but no doubt they could be if they were brought to Northern Ireland.

Interestingly, a commissioned study by Oxford Economics has estimated that the DVLA proposal for the removal of services from Northern Ireland would have a direct negative impact of £14.5 million in gross value added terms, as well as an impact of £7 million on workplace wages in the Northern Ireland economy, which, given the size of Northern Ireland, is a remarkable statistic. The removal of £22.2 million from the Northern Ireland economy will have an impact on all its sectors, notably wholesale and retail trade, accommodation spaces, food services, entertainment and recreation, plus financial services, property, housing and the supply industries—and all that at a time of economic downturn, although there might be a slight lift that we would all welcome.

The figures I have cited for what would be removed from the Northern Ireland economy do not add up to what the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon stated would be significant savings. Surely, a more acceptable form of improvement would be to upgrade the DVA’s IT systems. We must ask why the IT systems in Northern Ireland have been neglected, and not upgraded as a matter of necessity over the years. We ask that question because that has been replicated in other service areas. Some people say that, over recent years, some areas might have been prepared for privatisation and others for closure. For me, it is simply a case of downgrading a service and undermining the economic stability that exists in Northern Ireland.

I understand that staff working in the DVA feel that the service has been vigorously, systematically and aggressively underfunded for many years by the Department for Transport, despite which the staff have actively sought to provide the Northern Ireland motorist—whether the ordinary person with a car, someone working with agricultural machinery or people in the haulage industry— with an excellent level of service. That under-resourcing has left the staff open to the business criticism and the challenges in the current DVLA proposal for the future of vehicle registration and licensing services in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that, following the consultation that ended on this proposal on 11 September, the current Minister of the Environment in Northern Ireland will meet the Minister separately, as will a cross-party delegation of MPs from Northern Ireland. I hope that we can relay our serious concerns to him and demonstrate that the move will have a disproportionate impact on services, people and jobs in Northern Ireland.

Given the 100% opposition to the move and the strong case that has been made for the retention and the expansion of the services, I urge the Minister and his Department immediately to review the position, retain the jobs and, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry said, visit the office in Coleraine and pay a snapshot visit to the other offices. They should do that in conjunction with the local Minister of the Environment, Mr Durkan, who has a clear picture of what is going on and who has been steadfastly opposed to the closure.

[Stephen Pound]

Does the hon. Lady agree that as the efficiency case has been lost, cost is clearly the issue? Is she aware, as many of us are, that overtime payments in Swansea since this programme started have totalled £1.63 million? Does that not make a complete nonsense of the centralisation case?

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I was told that the figures for overtime payments in Swansea were nearer to £1.65 million. I am in no doubt that the work that precipitated those overtime payments could clearly be carried out in Northern Ireland where the service to the customer and the dedication of the staff are second to none. I urge the Minister to keep the DVA jobs and services throughout Northern Ireland. If he does that, he and his Department will not be found wanting.

10:12

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I am happy, Mrs Riordan, to take part in this debate. I recognise that this situation is not unique to Northern Ireland, because, of course, 1,200 jobs across the United Kingdom will be lost in 39 regional offices. However, the difference is that one quarter of those jobs are located in Northern Ireland, and one sixth of them are in one town. Our case is that there will be a disproportionate impact on one area, which has already suffered significantly from job losses.

I want to consider three areas this morning. First, will the new system be better than what we have at present? The Minister will argue that it will make available to people in Northern Ireland services that are currently not available. However, surveys show that not many people are looking for those services. Indeed, many have said that they do not wish to use such services. Some 60% of customers and 90% of dealers say that the services that are being withdrawn are the ones that they wish to use. The proposal, therefore, is not a response to what the public, who are paying for vehicle licensing, say that they want.

The people who will be affected include small dealers. Some 20,000 new registrations every year come through small dealers, who mostly use local DVA offices because they do not necessarily have the computer back-up for online services. Then there are the complex cases. Indeed, the Department’s own estimate is that 2,000 or 3,000 complex cases will have to be dealt with by post, so people will have to deal with Swansea, rather than having face-to-face encounters at local DVA offices. That will inevitably lead to difficulties. The fact that a case is complex suggests that a person needs to talk to someone.

By the Department’s own estimate, some 3,000 people will find that they are less well off. The Minister has cited the matter of refunds and given us some figures, but if wants to ask some questions of his officials, perhaps he should ask not just about refunds but about first registrations, changes to registrations and the average wait at offices. On all those matters, Swansea’s performance is poorer than that of the DVA offices in Northern Ireland. Service will be reduced to a wide range of customers and on a wide range of issues.

On fraud—I can see my colleagues laughing here—we have a rigorous system in place for those in Northern Ireland who do not pay their road tax. Indeed, I have been a victim of it. No allowances are ever accepted. I got caught taking my motorbike to the garage to get it prepared for an MOT. Even though I could prove that, officials said that it was on the road without tax, so I got fined and received a lot of publicity. Because of such rigorous enforcement, we have the lowest rate of evasion of anywhere in the United Kingdom. If that goes up—only seven prosecutors will be left and no arrangements have been made with local agencies—there will be a loss to the Exchequer.

On whether the service will be better, the answer has to be no, it will not. Will it save money? We already know that one reason behind the centralisation is the huge capital costs involved in the new IT system.

[Mr Campbell]

My hon. Friend alluded to whether the service will get better. As a number of Members have said, it appears that it will get worse. Does he agree that the service in Northern Ireland will not only suffer? Given the figures on the centralised process in Swansea, which a number of us have outlined, the service in the rest of the United Kingdom will also suffer because of the additional work load that Swansea will have to deal with if centralisation goes ahead.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is the point that I want to make in relation to cost. The hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) said that as a result of centralisation and the additional work load, even some of the savings that had been anticipated have not been realised because overtime payments have gone up.

Of course, the additional work load that will result from the Northern Ireland move will put further pressure on the system. I suspect that the 400 new jobs that will be created in Swansea will not be sufficient to deal with the work load, so some of the savings anticipated in the proposal will not be realised. We must look at what the customers want and what is feasible for the Treasury. The additional costs must also be considered.

We do not get much cross-departmental thinking, but we are talking about an area with high unemployment. I supported the restructuring of the Northern Ireland economy, and I would love to think that all the people who will be displaced as a result of the DVA decision will easily move into jobs in the private sector, but when there have already been significant job losses in the private sector in towns such as Coleraine, the only place that they will move to is the dole queue. That in itself adds additional costs to the public purse, so I do not believe that there is an economic case for this change either.

I do not want simply to say to the Minister, “Look, we don’t like this, so don’t do it,” but a number of options have been proposed, and the “do nothing” option is one of them. The IT costs, which have already been sunk, will be lost. The Department wishes to give additional services to people in Northern Ireland, even though the majority of them do not want those services. Indeed, I point out to the Minister that even after 10 years in Great Britain 50% of people still do not use online services, so we are not unique in Northern Ireland in that respect. As I say, the “do nothing” option has been proposed. Choosing it would not cost anything, but of course the costs of the IT system have already been sunk.

I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to one suggestion that has been made. Yes, there will be a transition; there is resistance to the changes. There is quite clear evidence that people still want to use the DVA services. If the new system were put in place, those who wish to use the new services and the new methods of delivering them could do so, and those who did not wish to use them—that residual group of people—could still use the full DVA services. That would probably mean that 100 jobs would be lost immediately, but the rest of the jobs would be retained. Three offices would remain, but the rest would have to close. That is the estimate that has been made in Northern Ireland. Over time, that situation might change as people get used to the new services, but at least this option would avoid the big bang of sudden job losses—all the jobs going—and there would be no gap for people who need, or want, to use the face-to-face services.

Choosing that option would also produce considerable savings. The savings on the running costs would be £4.5 million—a 36% reduction in running costs in Northern Ireland and twice the savings that the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency anticipate will result from the change to the integrated system. So the Minister could make the case for choosing that option on the basis that savings would still be available.

Choosing that option would also mean that DVA staff in Northern Ireland would be trained on the new system. Bearing in mind what has already been said about the pressures that exist on the Swansea system at present, choosing that option would provide a contingency for DVLA to fall back on—a contingency of trained staff in Northern Ireland, in a place where, as has already been pointed out, productivity is far greater than elsewhere. So choosing that option has a number of benefits. It is one way to retain a significant number of jobs in Northern Ireland and avoid the proposal’s high economic impact on one part of the United Kingdom. The impact would be disproportionate, but I will not go through all the figures that other Members have already mentioned.

There are, of course, other options, including transferring blocks of services, but I do not think that the Minister can simply say, “Look, we have decided that all these services will be withdrawn, and there will be this huge gap left in the job market in Northern Ireland.” To me, saying that would not be good for customers, the Exchequer or the Northern Ireland economy, and it would not make sensible use of the skills that already exist in Northern Ireland and that will be abandoned if this change is made.

10:23

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to meet under your chairmanship this morning, Mrs Riordan.

I commend the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) for securing this debate on an issue that obviously affects not only many people in his constituency, but people right across Northern Ireland, including people in the Driver and Vehicle Agency in my own constituency, which is in Foyle street in Derry.

We have heard that this is not only about protecting the significant number of jobs in the DVA in Northern Ireland, but about protecting the existing level and quality of services and, indeed, trying to improve them with future investment. Other hon. Members have quoted the high customer satisfaction indicators in Northern Ireland that are running at between 98% and 100%. Of course, we heard the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) describe himself as a victim of the DVA system as it currently operates, but he actually presented himself here in Westminster Hall today as a satisfied victim. [Laughter.] That just shows the degree to which there is customer satisfaction. The fact that he can advertise his own victimhood as a justification for keeping the status quo, and building and improving on it, says an awful lot for the DVA and its staff in Northern Ireland. It also possibly says something for the hon. Gentleman, too, who I never thought would appear as a satisfied victim. There again, my expectations have been confounded.

It is important to recognise that it is not only the defence of the jobs and services that has galvanised people from all parties and, indeed, from beyond party lines in the north of Ireland, but the way in which it took an intervention by the previous Environment Minister in Northern Ireland, Alex Attwood, even to get a consultation exercise provided by the Department for Transport.

Then, of course, there was the whole offensive implication that came in the context of discussing this issue—namely, that removing the jobs from Northern Ireland would be a way to remove any threat or fear of religious or sectarian bias. That was rightly seen as a direct slur, not only on the DVA’s work force, but on the entire public sector work force in Northern Ireland. This idea was, “Well, we’ll protect you from anything that might involve a suggestion of religious bias by removing jobs.” If that is the case, why stop at DVA jobs? Remove more and more public sector jobs if doing so is meant to be a way to try to create a shared future; it will be a shared future of poverty and unemployment, but at least there will be no bias.

Rightly, the previous Minister with responsibility for roads—the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond)—was forced to apologise, to a degree, for those remarks, but the fact is that they hurt and stung. They also exposed the folly and the contrived and scrambled thinking that has gone into this proposal from the London end.

We are not just concerned about defending the jobs and the service qualities that have been described. As other hon. Members have said, when we look at what has been happening with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency in Britain, we are also concerned. We have seen that the presumption that providing online services will mean that everyone moves online is not borne out by the experience of the past 10 years. The chair of the Scottish Motor Trade Association described the situation in Scotland as “a shambles”, because of the closure of local offices and the move to centralisation. When we have all this evidence of the experience in other areas, of course we should listen to it.

However, not only the representatives of the people of Northern Ireland, but the Department for Transport and the Minister should be listening to that evidence. They should be saying, “Does it really make sense to put all the eggs into the single option of one single, centralised location for the entire UK?” As other hon. Members have said, allowing the DVA to be retained in Northern Ireland—in particular, the significant capacity and resource that exists in Coleraine—would give the DVLA the option and the flexibility of having a centre of excellence that it can rely on alongside Swansea.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman mentioned some of the problems with the Scottish motor trade. The DVLA has acknowledged that it had temporary issues when some of the complex work was transferred from the GB local offices to Swansea. The DVLA has worked with the motor industry, and I understand that those issues have been rectified and performance is back up to target now.

[Mark Durkan]

I am not sure that I am fully persuaded by the Minister’s points, which, I accept, he has put on record. I think that I and others will test them with other soundings.

I want to make the point that we have had experience in Northern Ireland of other services being centralised. A number of years ago, when tax credits were introduced there was for a brief period a tax credit office in Northern Ireland, which tried to deal with complex cases; not all of them should have been complex, but by the nature of that system they became complex. We ended up with somebody having a bright idea, saying, “Let’s centralise tax credit.” The tax credit office was removed from Northern Ireland, although many cases in Northern Ireland are particularly complicated and people were unable to deal with or understand the needs and circumstances of people there, not least the cross-border cases that arise in the context of tax credits.

As other hon. Members have said, significant cross-border issues relate to vehicle licensing, including local traders’ dealings with the DVA, particularly in respect of used cars with a cross-border history. From time to time, there are changes in patterns of vehicle importation across the border from the south and the trade goes the other way, with people in the south buying their cars in the north. It is important that licensing and registration in both Shannon and the DVA in the north can work together, to track, connect and make sense of those things, and work with the Police Service of Northern Ireland and the Garda Siochana in relation to those matters. All that would be lost and we would end up with a repeat of the serious, chronic problems with border and cross-border issues on the centralisation of tax credits.

The fear is that the logic of centralisation will be not just be used in driver and vehicle licensing, but extended to other areas in future. Previously, we heard threatening suggestions from Whitehall Ministers that, if we did not make do with our lot on welfare reform, some of the servicing work—the back office work—done in relation to benefits in GB could be lost. Of course, the same argument could be applied in future to proposed changes in the regime for annually managed expenditure and further changes in relation to welfare reform and, for example, a new standardised computer system for universal credit.

We are not just defending the important jobs that we need to defend in DVA, but trying to hold the line against a relentless effort towards centralisation that goes completely against the grain of the commitments and promises made by the Prime Minister, in recognition of Northern Ireland’s talents and skills, its contribution and its offer.

Here we have talent, dedication and commitment from DVA staff, who, in spite of under-investment in technology by the DVLA, have delivered such a good performance. That commitment should be rewarded not with their jobs being removed to a remote location where the same quality of service will not be matched, but with their jobs being retained and new investment going in, so that they can provide an even better service to people in Northern Ireland and be able to provide that good service to people in Great Britain, as well, when it makes sense for the DVLA to call on their talents to do so.

[Mrs Linda Riordan (in the Chair)]

One hon. Member wishes to catch my eye. May I ask him to bring his remarks to a close at about 10.40 am, so that the Minister and shadow Minister have time to respond?

10:33

[Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP)]

I count it a privilege to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I welcome the Minister to his new post. I have personal respect for him and trust that he will not only enlighten us, but will give us some assistance in this matter, which my hon. Friend the Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) has brought to this Chamber. I congratulate him on securing this debate. This matter goes to the heart of his constituency and constituents. Other constituencies in the Province are impacted and affected, as well. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) for his efforts in this regard. I am sorry that he cannot be with us because of the death of his brother-in-law. I trust that that family may be comforted at this time.

It must be asked, in respect of changes in service impacting on the community, why are such changes being made? Are they desirable or needed? Of course, the natural answer from those who propose those changes is that this is better for the community. The contention is that there is no service that could not be bettered, and in many ways, yes, that is true. However, is the proposal for the betterment of, and is the demand coming from, the community? Is it better than what is offered?

I have great, grave doubts about the centralisation of services at the DVLA headquarters in Swansea. The consultation suggests that

“The proposals may result in the closure of a network of dedicated offices”

in Northern Ireland. We know that that is not so. Why did they not describe it as it is? It will—not “may”—result in the closure. Everyone knows that, so why was it not put in the document in the first place?

The people are offered

“Access to electronic vehicle licensing services, which will allow”

Northern Ireland

“motorists to license their vehicle or declare it off the road either online or via an automated telephone service, 24 hours a day”.

That means simply that they have the opportunity to go online or wait on the line—on the telephone—for this automated service.

We live in an impersonal age. People find that those making decisions for them are getting ever further away, when they try to contact them. That is not an improvement of service. For example, people are told to go online. That might help some, but the reality in the rest of the United Kingdom is that many who have that opportunity are not taking it. Why is that? Some cannot use online services or find doing so difficult. Instead of being of assistance to and helping them, that is more of a hindrance.

People who cannot go online are promised an automated telephone service. I must be honest and say, as a public representative, that I am sick, sore and tired of automated services. People are told to press this or that button and then move on to the next thing, after which they hope, at the end, to speak to someone. However, they just hear a voice. In this impersonal situation, people are nothing better than a number now. People are being promised exactly that with the services offered. They will be a number, rather than a person. There is no longer a human face to this service, as provided.

The people I represent want to talk to someone. I remember the decision being made to change things for representatives, regarding planning in Northern Ireland. People were told, “You’re not allowed to go out to sites any more. You’re to sit in an office.” Give me 10 minutes on a site any day, rather than sitting for half an hour in an office, because then I look at the reality, not at a piece of paper.

If we are looking for the betterment of a service, it should be judged by those who use the service. People in Northern Ireland, including my constituents, are saying, “We want the service retained in Northern Ireland, because we believe that it is a better service, not simply because we want to hold on to the jobs.”

As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) mentioned, the document states:

“Centralisation at the DVLA in Swansea will in fact remove any possibility that Northern Ireland services may be biased to any particular religious group, since these transactions will no longer be serviced by staff based in Northern Ireland, who could themselves hold particular beliefs.”

That is and was a slur. Who decided to put it in the document? Who thought up those words? When faced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim, the Minister said:

“I apologise for any offence that was inadvertently caused and accept that the wording could have been clearer.”—[Official Report, 12 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 1151.]

What did it mean, then, if it did not mean what it said? That needs to be put on the record. The person who put that in the document should be hauled over the coals, for that is an insult to those who have worked hard and served the people—

[Mr Goodwill]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr McCrea]

I only have a few seconds.

There is unanimity among elected representatives in Northern Ireland. We should retain these jobs in Northern Ireland, because that would provide the best possible service to our constituents, whom we represent.

10:39

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan. I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate.

I welcome the Minister. We are both new to our respective roles and we both have a long-standing interest in road transport—in fact, we were both involved in a Ford eco-driving training session some years ago, which I will swiftly pass over because he did rather better than me. I also welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), who takes a close interest in these issues as shadow Northern Ireland Minister.

The hon. Member for East Londonderry said that people always start Westminster Hall debates by saying that the issue is topical and important, and this one is that. The issue has rightly attracted huge concern from across the political spectrum in Northern Ireland. I will raise three major issues on how the process is being undertaken and its potential impact on Northern Ireland.

My first point is about how the reform is being done. I am sure we would all support in principle the modernisation of vehicle registration licensing. As has already been said, there has been significant neglect and under-investment in vehicle licensing services by the DVLA in Northern Ireland, and all drivers deserve the same high level of service. It may make sense to try to centralise databases between GB and Northern Ireland, to streamline the system and so on, but just because systems and databases can be streamlined does not necessarily mean that how the service is delivered to the public has to be centralised, too. That point has been made by a number of hon. Members today.

The experience of DVLA centralisation in other parts of the UK is not encouraging. The Minister said that the initial rise in complaints has not been maintained, but that does not answer the full point. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing North said that, since the start of the closure programme, the DVLA has spent in excess of £1.63 million on overtime payments, and my hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) corrected him by saying that the figure is worse than that—£1.65 million.

If that amount has been spent so far on overtime payments for the centralisation process, something is going wrong. That is no criticism of the staff at Swansea, who do a professional job, as their colleagues do in other parts of the UK, but there is a real question about whether Swansea is equipped to cope with the increased demand of the centralisation programme. We would all question whether centralisation from Northern Ireland should be added to the demand already being created in Swansea without significant investment.

I have some practical examples. In Scotland, all applications to transfer a personal registration plate from one car to another moved to Swansea, which led to processed applications falling well behind the seven-day target. The Scottish Motor Trade Association, as my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) said, reported delays of up to six weeks and described the situation as “a shambles.” That has caused frustration, and it is poor service.

It is not good enough for the Minister simply to say, “Well, we are getting on top of this,” because we need to learn from what has happened. We need to know how the Government have got on top of the situation and whether the centralisation in Northern Ireland will make matters worse; it seems to me that it is likely to. We should not repeat the situation.

My second point is on the centralisation’s social and economic impact. Hon. Members from across the political spectrum have rightly talked about that. Some 324 jobs are going in Northern Ireland, with 250 of those jobs in Coleraine. I know from personal experience in my own constituency that the closure of a major employment site not only causes direct job losses, serious enough though that is, but has an enormous impact on the local economy, too. Many hon. Members have made that point today. The actual job losses due to the overall effect of the centralisation programme in Northern Ireland is estimated to be closer to 500.

My hon. Friends the Members for South Down and for Foyle, and other hon. Members, have talked about the centralisation not only being an issue for Coleraine, although that is the biggest single concentration; there are impacts in Downpatrick, Derry and elsewhere. Bluntly, we are talking about the equivalent of many thousands of jobs going in GB if the same scale of job losses were to happen over here.

The Government have been rather coy about the likely impact of those job losses on the economy, but not everyone else has been. Oxford Economics has undertaken research estimating that £22 million of gross value added a year will be removed from the Northern Ireland economy, which will add to the rising unemployment bill. There will be an estimated increase of some £2.5 million in the annual jobseeker’s allowance bill because of the job losses alone, and there will be a further £3.6 million lost in tax revenue. If all that is added up, along with various other things, we are talking about substantial losses and a substantial hit to the Northern Ireland economy, as hon. Members have already said.

With such questions on what is taking place, people might think that the Government would at least have got their consultation procedure right, that they would have started the consultation in a timely fashion, that they would have done it sensitively and that they would have listened to advice from people on the ground who know what the real situation is. That just has not happened, has it? The Government failed to listen to local people’s concerns.

I pay tribute to the work of those, including the former Northern Ireland Environment Minister, Alex Attwood, who got the Government to consult in the first place. However, as many hon. Members have mentioned, the consultation document contains accusations that are, frankly, offensive—not to one section but to every section of the community in Northern Ireland. That requires a bit more than a public apology. I welcome the public apology from the Minister concerned, but the Government need to think about how they came to issue a consultation document containing that kind of thing in the first place.

I hope the Minister will reflect on what has been said today, and I hope he will reflect on what the Prime Minister said on his recent visit to Northern Ireland. He was over there promoting Northern Ireland, rightly, as a destination for inward investment. He said:

“Put your money in Northern Ireland and be part of this incredible success story because investing in Northern Ireland makes good business sense.”

Well, amen to that. But if that is the message to the private sector, perhaps the Government need to consider their own activities.

Unless and until the Minister can provide clear answers to the important issues raised today on the services that will be at risk, on the scale of job losses involved, on the impact on the benefits bill and on the hit to the UK taxpayer, and until he can quantify exactly what benefits will accrue from the change, perhaps—even though the consultation is formally coming to an end—he should pause, think again and come back with a considered response. The way things look at the moment, although the issue has been bouncing around for years, the consultation has been botched. There are very serious question marks about the centralisation, and the Government need to address them.

10:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr Campbell) on securing this debate on the future of vehicle registration and licensing services in Northern Ireland. I also welcome my opposite number, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), to his place. I hope we can work together constructively—at least most of the time.

Let me acknowledge from the outset that I recognise that this is an important and emotive subject for the hon. Member for East Londonderry, his constituents and other hon. Members in Northern Ireland. In that respect, he will be pleased to know he has friends in high places, because the First Minister raised the issue with the Prime Minister on Friday, and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland telephoned me on Sunday to discuss it personally; indeed, when I had my briefing session, I invited an official from the Northern Ireland Office, to ensure the voice of Northern Ireland was heard—talk about friends in high places.

Against that backdrop, I must explain that, as the hon. Gentleman will know, vehicle registration and licensing throughout the UK is an excepted matter and the responsibility of the UK Government. In GB, these services are delivered by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, in Swansea. In Northern Ireland, the DVLA has an agreement with the Driver and Vehicle Agency, which is part of the Northern Ireland Department of the Environment, to deliver vehicle registration and licensing services to motorists there. The DVA has traditionally delivered those services through its centre in Coleraine and eight other offices in Northern Ireland.

While I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, the crux of the issue is that the vehicle registration and licensing services available to motorists in Northern Ireland have fallen behind those available in the rest of the UK. For example, motorists in Northern Ireland are unable to tax their cars online and have only limited services available at post offices. As the owner of more than a dozen vehicles, I must say I find the online tax system very simple. I can tax a tractor in 20 seconds; where I have to pay to tax a vehicle, it takes about two minutes. Otherwise, I would have to travel 4 miles to my nearest post office, which I cannot, of course, do on a Sunday night.

The consultation that has recently ended contains proposals to modernise services in Northern Ireland and to ensure that motorists there are treated the same as those in GB and can enjoy the same services. If the proposals outlined in the consultation were adopted—I must stress that I have not yet decided on the way forward—motorists in Northern Ireland would be able to tax their cars online and via an automated telephone service that would be available 24 hours a day all year round. Many more services would also be available at about 150 post offices throughout Northern Ireland.

Services to businesses in Northern Ireland would also be improved. Companies would have access to the same level of service as those in the rest of the UK, allowing them to streamline their processes so that they did not have to manage the registration and licensing of vehicles differently from companies in GB.

The changes proposed in the consultation would also ensure that motorists in Northern Ireland can never again fall behind those in GB when new services are introduced in the future. When the DVLA introduces more digital and online services in GB, those would become available to Northern Ireland motorists at the same time.

I acknowledge that introducing new services online and through post offices and centralising the delivery of the remaining services delivered by the DVA in Northern Ireland at the DVLA in Swansea would have an impact. Currently, the full-time equivalent of 324 staff work on vehicle registration and licensing services at the DVA in Coleraine. Introducing more online services and making more services available at post offices would mean that those staff were no longer needed for that work. The DVLA forecasts that 75% of the transactions currently undertaken by Northern Ireland motorists would be carried out online or at local post offices.

I stress that, despite many reports and statements to the contrary, there is no intention to remove those jobs from Coleraine to create the same number of new jobs in Swansea. The DVLA estimates that, if the new online and post office services are introduced in Northern Ireland, there would remain about 500,000 transactions where customers needed to deal directly with the DVLA. That sounds significant, but the DVLA in Swansea currently deals with 97 million vehicle transactions a year. The extra 500,000 could be absorbed by the DVLA with no increase in staff numbers and no effect on customer services.

To answer a point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and the shadow Minister, the proportion of tax discs issued online is running at about 60%, and it is increasing. Of course, face-to-face services would also be available in post offices in Northern Ireland.

We must recognise that we are now in a fast-changing, digital world. Customers expect to be able to transact when and where they like—increasingly, from the comfort of their own homes. The way in which services have been delivered in the past, and the higher number of people required to deliver them, is becoming unsustainable. That is particularly true when more convenient and efficient alternatives are available and in use elsewhere in the UK.

Indeed, the DVLA is going through its own transformation process, which has resulted in many more services being made available at local post offices and in other services being centralised at the DVLA’s headquarters, in Swansea. That means that all the DVLA’s local offices in GB will close by the end of the year, with the loss of 1,200 jobs. The proposals for Northern Ireland vehicle registration and licensing services are no different from what is already happening in the rest of the country.

[Richard Burden]

The Minister is talking about the DVLA’s systems, but one important issue raised by Members from Northern Ireland, which I raised as well, was the impact on the Northern Ireland economy. We have heard the Oxford Economics estimate of direct and indirect job losses and of the impact on GVA. Will the Minister confirm those figures? If he is unable to do so today, will he write to hon. Members with the Government’s assessment of the impact on the Northern Ireland economy?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Unemployment in Northern Ireland is lower than the UK average, and it has fallen by 1.2% in the past year. The analysis provided by Oxford Economics does not reflect the full impact the changes to the DVA’s operations will have, because it takes no account of the benefits from the expansion of digital services and the widening of services offered at post offices. Those changes will increase choice and ease of access for customers and reduce the cost of vehicle licensing and registration to businesses, ultimately increasing employment in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Campbell]

The Minister alluded to the 1,200 job losses in the rest of the UK. Does he accept that Northern Ireland, which has a much greater dependency on the public sector, has one thirtieth of the population of GB, so 1,200 lost jobs in GB should equate to 40 lost jobs in Northern Ireland? However, rather than losing 40, we will lose 500.

[Mr Goodwill]

I appreciate that a large number of people in Northern Ireland are employed in the public sector, which means these job changes, should they happen, would have all the more impact—particularly in places such as Coleraine, which is isolated from parts of the country where other public service jobs may be.

There are also economic facts that need to be considered. If introduced, these changes will save taxpayers throughout the UK £12 million a year, while introducing significant new services for motorists in Northern Ireland. I understand that hon. Members from Northern Ireland are concerned about the impact that the loss of more than 300 jobs would have on the economy of not only Coleraine, but Northern Ireland generally.

The Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland, which employs the DVA staff, has stated that it will seek to redeploy them and avoid the need for redundancies, where possible. However, I understand that there are some local issues. For example, 73% of the workers are female, so redeployment may not be possible, for family reasons. In the event that a decision is taken to press ahead with the proposals outlined in the consultation, I will make sure that the DVLA works openly with its counterparts in Northern Ireland to develop a transition plan for the affected staff so that the impact can be reduced.

There is some question about how many people in Northern Ireland will want to use online services or will be able to do so, given limits to broadband internet access. The 2013 Ofcom report shows that 80% of Northern Ireland households have internet access, and 93% of addresses are connected to high-speed fibre-optic broadband, owing to investment by the Northern Ireland Assembly. That compares well with the rest of the UK. However, some people will be unwilling or unable to use digital services at this time, and it is, of course, their right to make that choice. That is why many of the services currently available only at the DVA’s centre in Coleraine or at one of the eight other local offices in Northern Ireland will become available at about 150 post offices.

To summarise, while I understand the concerns that the hon. Member for East Londonderry and other hon. Members have expressed, I am keen to stress the positive benefits the changes would bring to Northern Ireland motorists, if adopted. I hope I have done that today. The wider availability of online and face-to-face services can only benefit customers.

The Minister previously responsible for this matter, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), had agreed to meet the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members to discuss this matter. I am pleased to confirm that I am prepared to have that meeting, if not on 4 November, when it was scheduled to take place, then around that time. I stress that no decisions will be made until after that meeting. No firm timetable has been set, but we expect a decision by the end of this year or early next year.

Health Services (North-West London)

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Ms Karen Buck (Westminster North) (Lab)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to raise some issues in this short debate, and I welcome the Minister to her role. It is good to have a London colleague here to respond to the debate, which deals with my serious concerns about the management of the delivery of health services in north-west London.

I asked for the debate with considerable sadness. I have been involved with health care delivery in north-west London for decades, on the community health council, when it existed, and as a member of the health authority for the same area; and for many years I enjoyed positive relationships with hospital management and primary care trusts, so it is of concern to me that I shall be describing a diversion away from such good relationships and communications, and the serious implications of that.

The debate is not about individuals, although I have concerns arising from the communication of some individuals’ views about health care delivery in recent months. The problem is structural, and it is not fixable just by improvements in the exchange of e-mails. It goes to the heart of trust and clarity in the way health care is provided. I am not alone in my concerns—I know other elected officials feel the same; but this is not just about politicians having our noses put out of joint when communications are not handled effectively. It is about some fundamental questions that have arisen, to do with how care is and will be provided to my constituents, and residents of the London borough of Westminster, where St Mary’s hospital is situated.

Because the challenges are so great in north-west London, as they are, indeed, in many parts of the health service, it is even more incumbent on those who deliver and manage health care to ensure that communications are clear, that there is a shared strategic approach to planning, and that there are common assumptions. As the Minister knows, the backdrop to the issue is important changes in the provision of hospital care and the “Shaping a healthier future” strategy for north-west London. That, of course, proposes the closure of several accident and emergency units in north-west London.

Fortunately, from my point of view—because it something about which we all care very much—A and E will not be closed at St Mary’s hospital in Westminster. It is good to see my hon. Friends the Members for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) and for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) here for the debate; I know that my colleagues have concerns about how emergency services will be provided in their areas when A and E units close.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend shares my pain. Four out of nine accident and emergency units are designated for closure, and two of those are in my constituency; but the point that she is making is that every MP in north-west London shares the pain, because there is simply no capacity in the system to cope with such a decline in emergency services. The sooner the Government and the NHS realise that, the better.

[Ms Buck]

I agree with my hon. Friend. Of course, the proposed closures and the “Shaping a healthier future” strategy are themselves set against a financial context that puts extreme pressure on delivery. North-west London hospital services must accommodate a £125 million reduction in service between 2011 and 2015. At the same time—and this is pertinent to the core of my comments—local authorities have imposed dramatic cuts in their social care budgets. That is particularly germane to the issue, because the work of local authority care services relates to prevention and hospital discharge arrangements, and needs to be integrated with those areas, so that the highly pressured hospital service can work effectively.

Of course, another factor is the impact of the top-down NHS reorganisation that we were told would never happen, and the £3 billion that it cost, which has taken valuable resources and a great deal of energy away from the planned delivery of services. The slow death of the primary care trusts and the slow emergence of clinical commissioning groups during a time of massive changes has been part of the problem.

Colleagues such as my hon. Friend have legitimate concerns about the effect of the proposed A and E closures on their communities. St Mary’s hospital was not scheduled to lose its A and E unit, and we were pleased about that. I and others were briefed about ambitious plans for the development of a new, improved emergency care service, to be built at St Mary’s hospital. During the discussions and briefings there was no suggestion that there would be any specific consequential changes in the pattern of hospital services at St Mary’s. Therefore, when, at the invitation of my hon. Friend, I attended the independent review panel called to consider the A and E closures in other parts of west London, I was somewhat taken aback to be asked by the chairman how I felt about the closure of up to 200 beds at St Mary’s, and the movement away of most or all elective surgery, as part of the consequential changes resulting from “Shaping a healthier future”.

I immediately contacted the chief executive of the Imperial college health care trust, to ask whether that was accurate, what the implications were, and why I and others had not been told. That was not because I am automatically totally opposed to consequential changes in service delivery. We must be grown up about such things, and it is right that hospitals evolve and change. Things should not be, and never have been, set in stone. Good clinical reasons and financial necessity may drive change. However—and this is my theme today—to make that change work there must be clarity and partnership, and everyone must understand what is being proposed and how decisions are to be taken.

First, the Imperial trust referred me back to the “Shaping a healthier future” proposals, and to a slide pack that was shown to me and the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) in the spring. That set out very broad headings for how services at the three hospitals in the Imperial group—Hammersmith, Charing Cross and St Mary’s—would develop. There was nothing in it that would have led me to conclude that St Mary’s would lose the bulk—or all—of its elective surgery.

I checked with Westminster council, to see whether I was missing the blindingly obvious. I am grateful to the excellent health strategy officer at the council, who has been a model of clarity in explaining how things worked. He told me, with, I believe, the full agreement of local authority members, that the authority—a statutory partner, which there is a requirement to consult about major changes in hospital services—

“did not receive any indication that there would be significant consequential changes to elective surgery at St Mary’s Hospital as a result of Shaping a Healthier Future. Furthermore, Westminster City Council has not been informed of any proposals to re-locate much or all elective surgery currently performed at St Mary’s Hospital to Charing Cross and any developments in this area would be submitted to both the Cabinet Member and Chairman of Health Scrutiny to investigate.”

He said the authority would consider the assumption by the chief executive of the Imperial hospital group

“that these proposals were in the Decision Making Business Case to be incorrect”,

and continued:

“At Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust’s Board meetings on 24th July and 25th September, we were informed that Imperial were considering their options.”

Indeed, the chief executive of Imperial verbally, when I met him, and in writing indicated that no decisions had been taken and that the timetable for such decisions was for conclusion in the New Year. On 23 August, he wrote:

“I can assure you we are very much in the modelling and evaluation stages of any changes so are yet to consider whether we should propose moving any clinical services between our sites”—

note the use of “any”. That letter was widely circulated, so clarification could have come from other members of the local health service family, but no such clarification was received—to coin a phrase.

Meanwhile, a quick look at Hammersmith council’s website showed me that it was promising its community a reinvigorated Charing Cross hospital, but on a basis that did not appear to have been explained by Imperial to anyone in Westminster. Hammersmith announced in September:

“News that elective surgery is now on the list of possible future services would further boost the amount of expertise at the site, meaning patients in the local community benefit from the care it gives, and giving it greater status as a teaching hospital.”

[Mr Slaughter]

My hon. Friend is making a good case for the second of our concerns, which is not the closures themselves, but the chaotic, shambolic and amateur way in which they are being carried out. In the past six months, I have been told that Charing Cross hospital will close and be a clinic, a local hospital, a specialist social care hospital—whatever that is—or an elective surgery hospital. The person who told me most of those things, the chief executive of Imperial, has just left, suddenly, after only two years in the job. That is typical of the utter chaos in the hollowed-out NHS in north-west London and, no doubt, elsewhere.

[Ms Buck]

I totally endorse my hon. Friend’s words.

To return to my point about how Hammersmith council is presenting its achievements in winning services for Charing Cross that no one in Westminster or at St Mary’s hospital knows about, Hammersmith continued:

“Charing Cross will also become a specialist centre for community services which means that the many thousands of older and chronically ill patients, who need regular visits to hospital, will have less far to travel. It will mean local people will be better supported to live independently at home”.

It was good of Imperial to share that vision with Hammersmith and around Charing Cross, but it is a great shame that it chose not to share a single word with Westminster city council.

Reinforcing my hon. Friend’s point about chaos, however, I am not sure that even that is the true picture, because when I showed the press releases on Charing Cross from Hammersmith council to the chief executive of Imperial in September, I was told that it was spin on Hammersmith’s part and that what was proposed was only a 23-hour ambulatory care model, with no new beds at all. It is hard to square that with Hammersmith council’s vision and harder still to know what is true.

I do not begrudge Hammersmith residents their hospital—quite the reverse—but I am concerned about any sense of deals being done to secure their future, at the expense of local residents in Westminster and, critically, without so much as an opportunity for Westminster council even to consider the matter or to think about support services or the community care dimension, which Hammersmith so rightly talks about as important in a local hospital context and which can be applied to Westminster. If Hammersmith council can proudly claim that its new hospital means that

“the many thousands of older and chronically ill patients, who need regular visits to hospital, will have less far to travel”,

surely that cannot mean that older and chronically ill Westminster residents, who also need regular visits to hospital, should have further to travel—with no debate and no chance to put in place social care support or travel arrangements.

Things get worse. Four weeks after my meeting with the chief executive of Imperial, all my follow-up questions about what that means, whether decisions have been made or what services will be located where still remain unanswered. That is no doubt partly a consequence of the unexpected departure of the chief executive, who has been replaced in what is clearly a holding operation, in a manner that does not indicate a smooth and planned transition.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that one of the justifications for the closure of the A and E department mooted for Ealing hospital is that it will be possible for ill Ealonians to glide effortlessly through the gentle traffic of west London and rock up at St Mary’s in Praed street for their essential treatment? Will she enlighten us as to whether she feels that the closure, or proposed closure, of some of the St Mary’s beds should have been put to the good people of Ealing?

[Ms Buck]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is surely impossible to make decisions about one hospital after discussion with only one local authority—with its statutory responsibilities on consultation and delivery of services—and simply fail to talk about them to anyone else. I am afraid that that prompts so many questions about whether Imperial and, possibly, the north-west London clinical commissioning groups have buckled under the political pressure in Hammersmith— I understand that, political pressure is a reality—and have simply failed to recognise that they have responsibilities elsewhere in north-west London.

Things get even worse, I am afraid. I then had a letter from a north-west London CCG to say that the “Shaping a healthier future” programme did not include the St Mary’s site as one of those that would undertake routine planned elective surgery, but that that work was modelled to transfer to the Central Middlesex hospital, which was designated as one of the elective centres in north-west London—the first that any of us had heard about the Central Middlesex being part of the equation, and a fact not mentioned by Imperial. The letter went on to say:

“As the Trust are still undertaking this work and have not reached any conclusions they are yet to consider whether it should propose changing the location of any clinical services between their sites and therefore are not yet in the position to ask the relevant OSCs”—

overview and scrutiny committees—

“about consultation on this”.

Note again, the use of “any”.

Since then, however, further questions have emerged, including the suggestion that almost all elective specialties have already moved. So far from being the subject of future consultation and decision making, they have already moved, without any formal consultation on anything with Westminster council since 2011. That implies that no one actually knows where Westminster residents are being treated—an absence of grip that I find worrying.

Westminster council was therefore prompted to write to Imperial at the end of last week to say:

“We are at a loss to understand the presentation made to the Westminster Adults, Health and Community Protection Committee on September 25th”

when it was told that

“options as to what elective work could be located at Charing Cross Hospital were being investigated.

Westminster were informed by the North West London Commissioning Support Unit that Imperial were on course to develop a first view of the Outline Business Case…for the private meeting of Imperial’s September Trust Board. It was planned that this will take place alongside a discussion on the emerging clinical strategy. Following feedback from the Board, the complete OBC would be finalised to go back to the Board in the autumn for approval—Imperial are required to obtain NHS Trust Development Authority sign-off by Christmas and the OBC needs to be fully aligned as part of the FT application. Westminster are still of the view that the Outline Business Cases for the Alternative Proposals to Ealing and Charing Cross Hospitals (which did not include the transfer of Elective from St Mary’s) are yet to be agreed and are not confirmed.”

That is of substantive importance, and not only as an illustration of a monumental communications breakdown, precisely because health care is supposed to be moving in the direction of greater integration between primary, community and local authority-provided social care. How can such a model exist when a local authority, and, for that matter, some GPs, do not even seem to know where their patients are being operated upon?

Will the Minister ensure that Westminster council and the local CCGs, together with the Westminster MPs, get an accurate status report immediately, including what service changes have taken place over the past two years and without any going to formal consultation? What action can she take to ensure that the whole process of statutory consultation is not undermined by hospitals such as Imperial not even telling councils such as Westminster that substantial service changes have taken place, and that there is clarity on what decisions will be taken when, including in the context of the foundation trust application?

I have one last thing to say before the Minister’s reply, which I am looking forward to. This letter from Imperial, dated 15 February, made me smile:

“Clearly we need to reassess aspects of our attitude to our health care partners in NW London, including the bodies that are newly established as a result of NHS reform. Stakeholders clearly expect more engagement and visibility from me”—

the chief executive—

“and my team in order that we may win and cement your trust. Equally we are too often perceived as defensive and not good listeners in our approach and we are resolved to address that issue at all levels where we interact with the external world”.

That letter, I am afraid, turned out not to be worth the paper it was written on. In fact, we have had something of a car crash on communications over recent months. This matters not for us—not for our sense of probity or self-importance—but for the delivery of health care to patients. This is a serious and structural problem, and I hope that the Minister will not only respond today, but get a grip on the situation, so that we can learn from the mistakes and make urgent improvements.

11:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Jane Ellison)]

This is the first time I have served under your chairmanship, Mrs Riordan—in fact, under anyone’s chairmanship, because it is my first Westminster Hall debate. It is good to start off with such a straightforward and easy subject.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) on securing the debate. I am a London MP and I know that this matter is important to her and her constituents, to the constituents of her hon. Friends the Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) and for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) as well as to those of other MPs who are not here today.

Before I turn to the issues raised, I put on record my thanks to the staff of the NHS for their commitment and dedication in providing a first-class service, particularly as they enter a period of change. We know that that is sometimes not easy, but they are maintaining a first-class commitment to patients throughout.

The debate around aspects of the north-west London reconfiguration has been going on for some time, but it is fair to say that the hon. Lady discussed a slightly new feature of it. Today is the first time I have heard in detail directly from her about these important issues. I will give her a response, but I will look at the detail of what she said, reflect on it and come back to her more fully after the debate. It is not possible to do that instantly, because until now I had not heard directly from her about some of the problems on communication and so on in the past year that she said illustrate some wider issues.

My understanding is that the joint committee of primary care trusts agreed in February this year that further work was needed to bring about improvements to services at both Charing Cross and Central Middlesex hospitals. I am aware that Imperial College Healthcare is developing its clinical and site strategy based on the principles set out in “Shaping a healthier future”. The trust has put forward a case for some elective surgery to be carried out at the Charing Cross site and has developed a vision for each of its three main sites becoming centres of excellence for the service they provide.

It is right that hon. Members and local authorities should expect openness and transparency when discussing local health issues and changes, and the hon. Lady has vividly put across that she does not feel that that has happened. It is regrettable that she feels she has encountered, in her dealings with Imperial, a lack of clarity around its clinical and site strategy and, in particular, around planned care and elective surgery.

The hon. Lady rightly stressed the need for partnership working through periods of difficult change such as these. Her comments on the overall exercise and the expressed clinical priorities were balanced, and I take seriously what she said about wishing to work in partnership and her point that we can clearly do a lot better. I have been assured by NHS England that a real effort will be made by the new leadership team at the trust and the local clinical commissioning group to engage more fully with her, other local MPs, local councillors and the local NHS as the site strategy is developed.

I am aware that the hon. Lady met the chief officer and the GP chair of the central London CCG to discuss her concerns about the changes to planned care and surgery in north-west London. As a result, she will know that under “Shaping a healthier future”, St Mary’s will continue to provide out-patient services, diagnostics, therapies and appropriate follow-up. I understand that work is under way to agree the best locations across north-west London for planned care surgery services.

[Mr Slaughter]

I hear what the Minister is saying—it is reasonable and I know that she is sincere—but we constantly meet these people and they are, frankly, hopeless. The issue is now becoming political. So far, we have had political unity across the board and we now know that the issue is on the Secretary of State’s desk. I implore the Minister to talk to him about these proposals—in the interests of her party, if none other.

So far, apart from Hammersmith and Fulham council, which is supporting the closures, everyone across west London is united on this: it does not matter what party they are or what position they hold. This issue is moving from the local to the national. Will the Minister please look—it is in her interest as well as ours—at what is going wrong in north-west London before we take steps in closing hospitals that we will not be able to correct?

[Jane Ellison]

I am not sure that describing NHS colleagues as “hopeless” is a particularly helpful contribution to future partnership working, but the hon. Gentleman has chosen his words in his own style, as he always does. He is right to say that the matter is on the Secretary of State’s desk. I will report back to the Secretary of State after this debate, specifically on the new concerns expressed by the hon. Lady on the dialogue and the relationship she has had. Beyond that, I cannot comment further on the reconfiguration, because of its status.

[Ms Buck]

The Minister is kindly referring to my sense of the communication problems. To reinforce the point, I should say that at the heart of this problem is a local authority that is meant to be a statutory partner. It has a duty to be consulted and that has clearly not happened. That is what matters, because it is through that consultation that decisions are made on how a local authority performs its role on supporting care. I want that message to go back to the Secretary of State. It is not a matter of opinion; it is a matter of absolute fact that the local authority has been ignored by Imperial for probably two years.

[Jane Ellison]

I hear that. I believe in the role that local authorities have to play in shaping health outcomes for their residents; as the public health Minister, one of my jobs is to champion their role. Like Members of Parliament, they care so deeply for the health of their local population and are so close to them that they are well placed to shape the future of health care in their area, and we take that seriously. I will take the hon. Lady’s concern back, reflect on it and talk to the Secretary of State about it.

There is a limit on what more I can say on the detail that the hon. Lady has given me. We have a lot to look at and talk to health partners about. I can only assure her that I take it seriously. The role of hon. Members in periods of enormous change such as this is critical, as it is for key local authority partners, too. That message is fully taken on board.

I will use my remaining time to give a little background on the reconfiguration. I know hon. Members will be familiar with it, but it is worth putting on the record. The reconfiguration of NHS services is a matter on which the local NHS is taking the lead, hence the importance of engaging local partners. The hon. Lady has already made reference to the fact that we do not believe that these things can be shaped only in Whitehall. They have to be influenced by enormous local input. I cannot agree with the description of the service as “hollowed out”, which is neither accurate nor fair.

Individual health overview and scrutiny committees, and the joint overview and scrutiny committees, made up of democratically elected members of all the councils concerned, have the power to refer the reconfiguration to the Secretary of State if they believe that the consultation has not been conducted appropriately, or that proposed changes are deemed to be not in the best interests of the local health service. We know that one council has exercised that power.

As the hon. Lady is aware, the proposals were referred to the Secretary of State by Ealing borough council in March this year; the hon. Member for Ealing North referred to that. The Secretary of State has sought and received advice on that referral from the Independent Reconfiguration Panel. I fully understand the importance of the Secretary of State’s decision to the hon. Members present and to others who have been prominent in this debate. The Secretary of State is actively considering the panel’s report and that decision will be made public shortly. Although I have not been pressed on when that might be, it is imminent. I cannot say anything further about the IRP’s report.

The one thing I want to stress is that all the changes are being driven by clinical need and a desire to get better outcomes for patients. They are not driven by a desire to save money. In that regard, I reject the comments made by the hon. Member for Hammersmith. The hon. Lady acknowledged that the driving force behind the reconfigurations is looking at whether we can get better outcomes for all our constituents through greater specialism.

[Ms Buck]

rose—

[Jane Ellison]

If the hon. Lady wants to intervene again, she is welcome.

[Ms Buck]

The Minister is being generous. She refers to decisions made by Ealing council and Hammersmith and Fulham council, but Westminster council was not even told about some of these changes, so it could not exercise its powers on overview and scrutiny in this case. While that is absolutely true, I do not think that anyone is setting out to change these things deliberately. They are, however, doing it without telling anybody.

[Jane Ellison]

As I said, I have heard the hon. Lady’s points. All relevant CCGs and trusts supported the overall shape of the reconfiguration. Local authorities have been key partners in that as well. She has rightly made specific points on some specific aspects that affect her constituents. We will reflect on those points and come back to her.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Greener Road Transport Fuels

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Mike Weir in the Chair]

14:30

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir, as always. It is also a delight to see the Minister after his recent preferment.

The debate might not be as well titled as possible, and if it fails to run its course, I urge all and sundry not to feel the obligation simply to fill up the time. Primarily, I want to talk about how we move around in a more environmentally sustainable way.

A passage from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” should be pinned up in the Department for Transport. It is the definition of a bypass or a new road, described as

“devices that allow some people to dash from point A to point B very fast while other people dash from point B to point A very fast. People living at…a point directly in between, are often given to wonder what’s so great about point A that so many people from point B are so keen to get there, and what’s so great about point B that so many people from point A are so keen to get there. They often wish that people would just once and for all work out where the hell they wanted to be.”

14:31

Sitting suspended for Divisions in the House.

14:53

On resuming—

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

As all the main protagonists are here, we can resume.

[John Pugh]

I assume that my hon. Friend the Member for Redcar (Ian Swales)will be joining us shortly, but I think we can be less concerned about the timing of the debate, thanks to that interruption, Mr Weir.

I was trying to make the point that the most environmentally sustainable thing to do is probably not to move around at all, but for most of us in the 21st century, the daily commute, the school run, the journey to work and so on, are likely to be part of our lives for some time to come. Everyone in the room is surely familiar with that, as they surely are, too, with the constant need to refuel the vehicles that they use.

Everyone with a conscience in these times, when they are standing in the forecourt, probably thinks of two things: they consider price, primarily, but they also think of pollution. The Government, reflecting voters’ views, think not only of pollution and price, but of one other thing: revenue. It has long been a Government axiom that they are prepared to sacrifice revenue to achieve an environmental effect, because we all recognise that individuals by themselves are unlikely to bring about major environmental change. A community problem has to be solved on a community basis.

The fundamental problem presented by our travelling—that is, apart from noise, disruption and the permanent possibility of accidental death—relates to air quality and emissions from vehicles. We can address that locally through things such as the congestion charge, which, in London, has been a great success in improving air quality, and in a small-scale way through pedestrianisation, but that does not, by itself, do anything about the cumulative national, international and global impacts of transport.

The obvious remedy—not the only obvious remedy, but certainly one of them—is to make fuel less polluting or to make less polluting fuels, and to persuade, or alternatively, to coerce drivers to use them. A number of alternatives are clamouring for our attention. This list is not complete, but I put down hydrogen, bioethanol, biofuels, biogas—anything beginning with “bio”—electricity and electric cars, liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. There are exotic alternatives, too: I am aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) runs his rather large car on chip fat, which is one of the more exotic possibilities. None of them, particularly chip fat, is wholly unproblematic.

I want to put the case for LPG, particularly, as the least problematic alternative and the most worthy of Government support. By support, I mean fiscal support, rather than support in the form of further research and so on. I do not think LPG, as a mode of propelling cars, needs any further research. It can obviously been made more efficient over time, but the technology is well understood and well implemented.

I would like briefly to deal with some other candidates and my reasons for sidelining them in this debate. I am sure that other colleagues will wish to do otherwise and will perhaps want to highlight them. On hydrogen briefly, I think that we have to put that aside. People talk of conspiracy theories about the influence of the oil industry; there have been a good number of stories going back decades about how any promising research into hydrogen propulsion has been sat on, bought up or, in some way, scotched by the oil industry. I do not know whether that is true, but even advocates of hydrogen as a fuel would probably acknowledge that it is not yet a mature, scalable technology. More research is needed, and I hope that the Government will engage with those who research in this field, even if they do not actively support it.

Biofuels are further down the track, but consideration of biofuels and their mandatory mixing with conventional fuels, or their use as a substitute for conventional fuels, leads us to a series of what appear to be complex debates. The obvious debate, held at length in the Daily Mail, is about whether they will add to transport costs. Another debate, particularly on the continent, is about whether they are compatible with all forms of engine development—I understand that the German car industry has reservations and has blocked progress at EU level. There are debates about whether they will threaten food security or raise food costs, and about whether they will have a detrimental effect on land use as land use changes.

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman said that there is a debate about whether biofuels can affect food security. I quote the report from the Select Committee on International Development, which said that

“the FAO, the OECD and the World Bank”

all agree and that it is rare for so many organisations to agree on a fact such as that biofuels are a threat to food security.

[John Pugh]

This debate is swirling around the European community and effecting some progress, along the lines of putting a great amount of biofuel into ordinary fuel.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

Just to reinforce the point made by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell), I think the United Nations has latterly described the use of wheat for petrol as a “crime against humanity”, which I think sums up where we are on that.

[John Pugh]

I think I might reserve the phrase “crime against humanity” for other things, but I recognise the impact. A number of third world charities believe that the net effect will further impoverish the third world and the areas that most need our help.

[Graham Stringer (Blackley and Broughton) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rather skated over the issue of hydrogen-fuelled cars. I drove in such a car 10 years ago in Detroit. The technology is perfectly good. Does he agree that hydrogen suffers from exactly the same problem as biofuels, which is the source material, in that we must have land to grow source material from which to extract hydrogen?

[John Pugh]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands hydrogen propulsion a lot better than I do; I hope he makes a contribution. I am betraying my ignorance here. I am just providing a preamble to what I hope will be a successful plea in favour of greater and more effective use of LPG. I do not in any way counter or dismiss the value of what the hon. Gentleman said.

[David Mowat]

I think hydrogen technology works extremely well, but the issue is that hydrogen infrastructure does not exist anywhere. Some countries have tried to develop hydrogen infrastructure; Iceland is an example. The difficulty is that infrastructure exists for petrol cars but not for hydrogen. That is what will stop the use of hydrogen.

[John Pugh]

I am certainly surrounded by people who are far more learned than myself in the field, but I shall have the temerity to continue.

Even if the biofuels issue has moved on to the discussion of what are called second generation biofuels, where people talk about not using virgin land or crops but municipal waste and algae, technical questions about the reliability of supply remain, particularly if whole-scale, mandatory use in other fuels is considered an option. I am simply pointing out that there are problems, and I think hon. Members’ interventions have helped me to illustrate precisely that point.

In some ways, electric cars seem a perfect solution, until one considers the production costs, which are currently high. There are issues with the battery, such as its weight, life and endurance, and with how the electricity itself is produced; the electricity might not have been produced in a carbon-neutral way. There is also the issue of flexibility of use, which I think is well understood by anyone who considers the topic for a second or two: what happens when battery life is exhausted?

I recognise that electric motors can be made to become more efficient; that battery technology can be increased; and that we can have charging points across the country—in fact, grants are, I believe, available at the moment and points are appearing—but there is still some way to go. One of my constituents, who died over the weekend, had been progressing with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills some new development that would make electric motors a lot more efficient and batteries a lot more effective. Developments will be made in that field, but my best guess—this is borne out by conversations that I have had with the motor industry—is that despite Government investment and considerable Government enthusiasm, from some Ministers at any rate, electric cars will probably remain a niche market, extending only as the use of hybrids becomes more popular.

Even were electric cars to take off for the motorist, we will not see electric buses, unless we call them trams, and to be fair, the electric lorry is some way off. Lorries necessarily travel long distances, and the cost of that and the weight of carrying batteries to enable them to do that would probably be wholly prohibitive for quite some time to come.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the greatest challenges to the roll-out of electric vehicles is addressing what is called range anxiety, where drivers are worried that they will, like the Duracell rabbit, run out of power in an unfortunate place?

[John Pugh]

Yes. I think that, to some extent, the worry is misplaced. I think the range is greater than people imagine, but that underlying anxiety makes it difficult to sell purely electric cars, as opposed to hybrid cars; it is a lot harder ask of the consumer. In any case, when it comes to value for the consumer, electric cars are head to head with the new generation of the ever more efficient and quieter diesels. Looking at what is happening with car market sales, one can see the result. However, even with lower emissions, more diesels clocking more miles in bigger cars, which is what we seem to be seeing at the moment, will not significantly reduce the nation’s carbon footprint in the long term.

In the short term, there is also the added complication of more particulates being released into the air, which could have some negative short-term effects on people’s health. Some particulates are carcinogenic, and certainly none of them are particularly good for people’s respiratory system. Some people say that air pollution at the moment, particularly from diesels, is as dangerous as passive smoking. That brings me to LPG and CNG.

LPG creates fewer emissions—15% less than petrol and 40% less than diesel. It has no production problems; we make LPG vehicles in this country. Sadly, they are mostly left-hand-drive and exported, but they are made in large numbers in this country. It is a mature technology. It is being scaled up throughout the continent, and we have in place a distribution network—something like 14,000 points minimum, with most of the major supermarkets providing an obvious port of call for people.

An LPG vehicle can be easily converted—at the flick of a switch—to a petrol vehicle without detriment to its engine or its performance. However, when we look at what is happening with LPG in this country, we see stagnation, with very limited production. Granted, there are some post-production adaptations, but even when we think about that, it is a Catch-22 situation.

I have looked into the issue. I own two old cars, both of them about 16 or 17 years old. Both have fairly large engines, are quite expensive and could benefit from being converted. However, the cost of conversion probably now exceeds the cost of purchasing both cars, so someone in that sort of situation is unlikely to do so. The real issue with an older car is that, having done the expensive conversion, can anyone guarantee that the car will not fail in some other respect?

Equally, if someone is thinking about converting a new car, which makes an awful lot of sense over the lifetime of the car, they will run into issues regarding the guarantee on the car and its servicing. The garage from where the car was bought may not be happy to deal with it once it has been converted. The guarantee and service issues are enough to deflect all but the most determined purchaser.

Either way, there is a problem. The solution is for us to produce and use more LPG vehicles, but we are going backwards here. If anyone looks at the second-hand LPG market, as I have, they will find second-hand Vectras and Astras, but those cars are about seven or eight years old—vintage—simply because cars of that sort are not being produced for the UK market anymore. However, Opel, which is virtually the same company, is producing the Opel Adam, a new LPG car, as a brand leader. We therefore have the phenomenon where, in an allegedly not-so-developed country such as Turkey, there is a 20% uptake of LPG, while in England, the figure is 0.5%.

If the situation is poor with cars, it is probably worse with freight, where the whole-life cost of lorries—lorries are surprisingly expensive—have to be factored in by hauliers. In terms of cost per mile, it would benefit an enormous number of hauliers to convert, as long as they can predict the cost over a period, but to do so, they must have some sort of guarantee that the financial environment that they are in will remain somewhat similar.

We can see how a change in the financial environment has made a difference. At one time in the north-west, quite a few LPG buses were running around—they were very clean indeed—but changes in the bus grant and the subsidy bus companies got on their diesel simply destroyed the network, and firms such as Arriva rapidly withdrew from providing them. Initially, I thought it was an issue of reliability and so on, but that turned out not to be the case.

That is the problem. We have a solution, a partial solution or an off-the-shelf solution, which we can implement now, but we are not making any headway, while the rest of Europe is. Why is that the case? Given that we have a solution—it is not the sole solution, and it may not be the long-term solution, but we can do something appreciable to reduce emissions—why has it not been implemented? I think that it is because the Government are not creating a sufficiently certain economic environment.

It is often said that two things in life are certain: death and taxes. The problem is that taxes to provide fiscal environmental incentives are not that certain. There is a differential between LPG and petrol, but it is agreed annually. When the Government are pressed by Members to do more, they respond with a formula—it is in the debate pack—that goes something like this:

“The Chancellor keeps…under review and takes into account all relevant fiscal and economic impacts when taking decisions.”—[Official Report, 13 November 2012; Vol. 553, c. 176W.]

On the face of it, that sounds rational, until we recognise that long-term investment requires at least medium-term predictability. My worry is that, without predictability, many green technologies are destined to tread water. That is not speculation; we just need to compare the UK with other parts of Europe and to look at what happens there. The empirical evidence is clear: where there is a more far-sighted, more determined fiscal climate, LPG and, I dare say, other forms of green transport expand.

I can understand the Treasury view—it is anal, it is perhaps sound accountancy and it is prudent—but it is self-evidently a lousy business strategy, and it simply has to be challenged. When I raised the issue during the passage of the Finance Bill, the Treasury Minister—he is now the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and I am assured that he is going places—replied:

“I hope he will understand that the Government need to balance the provision of certainty with the ability to respond to economic and fiscal developments. We can provide a degree of certainty…but I hope he”—

that is me—

“will take into account that there needs to be a certain degree of fiscal flexibility.”––[Official Report, Finance Public Bill Committee, 13 June 2013; c. 526-27.]

I appreciate that, but if there is such uncertainty, it prevents consumers, councils and businesses from thinking ahead and doing energy deals over many years. What is to prevent the Treasury from making a decision on the differential that contains caveats to protect against unpredictable, massive future volatility?

An agreement could be established that gives the Treasury some comfort and investors in LPG who would like to invest further some confidence that they will get some return on their investment. Is it not better to try to achieve that outcome than to have what we have at the moment, which is a fiscal incentive that, if the facts are to be believed, does not act as much of an incentive? If that incentive was working, I simply would not be here. There is no point in me or the Treasury acting in a wholly futile way. If the incentive does not do the job, we have to look at it again.

We need critical mass if LPG is to be the force it might be. Members can probably recall a time when diesels lacked critical mass. They were associated, particularly in the passenger car market, with clouds of black smoke, noisy, rattling engines and slow acceleration. The tipping point came when one neighbour could look at the shiny car in the other’s drive, discuss it with them and find that the car, which did not appear to be belching black smoke or rattling, was actually a diesel. As a result, diesels took off to a great extent in this country. The same can happen with LPG, but we still have some way to go.

In 2005, all the political parties talked about Mondeo man. I actually live next door to him, in so far as my neighbour has bought a P registration LPG Mondeo estate on eBay for a modest price. He swears by its reliability and economy, and he gets a huge mileage. He has found a rare pearl and an unusual buy, because there are not many cars like that.

For many people, it would be desirable to have a vehicle that is reliable, economical to run and environmentally less bad than a diesel, but that simply will not happen until two things come about. First, the Department for Transport needs to listen a bit harder to the industry, and I hope this new Minister has an open mind and will listen. However, he has a bigger task: to ensure the Treasury listens much harder to the Department for Transport.

15:16

[Fiona O'Donnell (East Lothian) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate. I do not know whether he is aware of this, but it is particularly appropriate that we should be having this discussion today, given that the European Council will vote tomorrow on the extremely important issue of the cap on the use of food products in biofuels.

There are two main reasons why I wanted to attend the debate. The hon. Gentleman gave us an incredibly wide-ranging and well informed opening speech. He touched on air quality, and findings published today show that poor air quality can contribute to low birth weight. There is, therefore, still much to discover. However, that is not what I wanted to speak about.

My first main reason for wanting to speak is that I tabled a parliamentary question to the Department for Transport, which was due for answer yesterday. I thought I might be able to elicit an answer by turning up in person today. What representations have the Government made among other members of the EU in relation to the UK’s support for the 5% cap? I do not do this often, but I want to praise the Government for their support for that cap.

I also want to speak as a member of the International Development Committee, which recently published a report on food insecurity. We found that biofuels were a major contributor to food insecurity across the globe and especially in developing countries. In his opening remarks, the hon. Gentleman said their net effect would be to further impoverish the world, but we spoke in far stronger terms in our report, and we are not alone in doing so.

I am talking not just about the usual NGOs, which campaigned on biofuels during the recent IF campaign—I am sure the hon. Gentleman often wore the wristband and took part in photo opportunities, and he possibly responded to constituents in support of that campaign. A key part of it was to call on countries to act on biofuels and, in particular, to seize the opportunity to act in the EU.

When the Committee took evidence, however, it was disappointing that the Under-Secretary of State for International Development said that biofuels were not an issue the Government were engaging in at the G8 level. The issue needs to be pushed up the agenda, because the current situation is a shame. At one evidence session, however, we had encouraging evidence from the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). He expressed his enthusiasm for algae-based biofuels. Some people might say, “Get a life”, but I thought it was very encouraging.

The hon. Member for Southport also talked about using waste cooking oil; we have until 2020 to meet our EU targets for biofuels use, and I urge the Government to invest more and to consider more alternative sources of biofuels that do not use food-based products. It is not only a question of using food; land and water are also used, and in developing countries those are scarce and vital resources.

I have come here with not just two reasons for speaking, but millions. There are millions of people in developing countries whose lives are put at risk by the rush for land on which to grow biofuels. Unfortunately, in developing countries where the law about registration and ownership of land is not too strict, it is all too easy for land to be grabbed and used for biofuels production.

The Select Committee report found that there was an increased risk of hunger, and that between 25 million and 135 million more people might suffer hunger, in Africa alone, as a result of the world’s efforts to produce more biofuels. There is also a worrying link between food prices and energy prices. We know all too well in this country how volatile energy prices are, and anything that links food and energy prices is a reason for concern.

I should welcome reassurance from the Minister about what the Government are doing at EU level to campaign on the issue. We need to think about the price rises I mentioned. There are competing claims, but we found in our evidence that prices for oil seed could rise by 20%, those for vegetable oil by 36% and those for maize by 22%. As the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) mentioned in an intervention, wheat prices could rise by 13% by 2020. We know what food insecurity means in this country, but at least here we have enough food—it is just that people do not have the money to buy it. In the developing world, there is a huge threat to food production.

I hope that my speech has been short and to the point, and that in addition to dealing with the many issues that the hon. Member for Southport raised, the Minister will take the time to talk about food insecurity in developing countries. There can be no issue more important.

15:22

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing it and giving it an imaginative title, which allows us to range over the subject with abandon.

There is an important distinction between greener transport fuels and making transport greener, and I think that my hon. Friend made several points about the latter issue. There is no doubt that vehicle manufacturers and many others, such as fuel manufacturers, have contributed to an enormous reduction in the amount of fuel used for road transport. The car that I drive gets more than 60 miles to the gallon, which would have been unthinkable when I was tinkering with cars in my early 20s. We have heard about the possibility of switching fuels, but although liquefied petroleum gas may reduce fuel use, it is, as its name suggests, a fossil fuel.

I want to talk about fuels that I think of as greener than fossil fuels. There are three basic sources: liquids, gases and electricity. The important thing is to think about where they come from, and many contributions today have been about that. As my hon. Friend said, there are many sources of electricity, and some could well be more polluting than putting petrol in the car. For example, electricity may be generated in a coal-fired power station, then go down a line with the associated line losses, and into a car that is plugged in, but that is an incredibly inefficient way to fuel a vehicle.

An important point about electric cars is where the electricity comes from. Just last week a car went all the way across Australia entirely on solar power. Unfortunately, we do not have the weather here to see that as a long-term solution, but at least it proved that it is technically possible. The journey was 2,000 miles in six days, so that was pretty good mileage. Electricity is clearly an option for greener fuel.

There are gas possibilities, of which hydrogen is the most obvious. The subject is bedevilled by different views of science, statements from NGOs and so on. In an intervention, hydrogen was linked to crops, but the biggest source of hydrogen in my constituency is the ethylene cracker. Plastics are made by extracting hydrogen from gases, essentially, and there is a hydrogen surplus in Teesside, which comes entirely from the petrochemical industry—not from crops at all.

There are many sources of hydrogen, and the most likely one in future is surplus electricity from renewable electricity generation. It is technically fairly simple to use surplus electricity from wind turbines, for example, to generate hydrogen, which could become fuel for vehicles. There are many technical possibilities for hydrogen generation, without necessarily using crops. Hydrogen is an incredibly powerful fuel.

It is an amazing fact that splitting a water molecule into hydrogen and oxygen gives the fuel that sent rockets to the moon. It is necessary only to recombine them, and that can send rockets into space; it is the perfect fuel because it produces water again as a by-product. Hydrogen must be on the long list of future fuels for that reason, if no other.

There are many liquid biofuels, some more controversial than others. One is used cooking oil, which my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) is keen on. That is clearly a good environmental use for oil that would otherwise be thrown away. However, the amount of what is called used cooking oil throughout Europe is many times the amount actually used for cooking.

Imports of palm and other oils, which the hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O'Donnell) mentioned, are driven partly by the market for so-called used cooking oil. A great deal of policing of the source of the material is needed, because there are loopholes and many traders who run rings round the industry. Equally, however, many small-scale collection facilities produce fuel, and they have a role in the future.

I want to talk now about crop-based biofuels. I must declare an interest, because Europe’s largest bioethanol plant is in my constituency. I challenge the idea that we can have either food or fuel. We are still paying farmers in this country not to grow things—including 6 million tonnes of sugar beet, which is potentially a fuel for a bioethanol plant. The idea that the issue is all about land does not always stand up to examination. There are many political, economic and agricultural reasons why there are food shortages in the world, and, when overall world land use is considered, land is quite far down the list. Perhaps that is controversial.

[Mr Goodwill]

The hon. Gentleman should be aware that the current EU set-aside requirement is zero. When land is set aside it is usually, currently, because of some environmental arrangement that the farmer has entered into. The amount of set-aside in the UK is dramatically less than it was 10 years ago.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for that response. I recognise his special expertise in this area.

I want to talk about the sustainability of the bioethanol made in my constituency. It is made from animal-feed wheat, not human-grade wheat, and at the other end we get three products: bioethanol; carbon dioxide, which is captured for use in the food and drink industry in a separate plant; and crucially, high-grade animal feed. All the protein in the wheat ends up in high-grade animal feed, which is highly prized in the agricultural industry, to the point that there are times when those at the plant tell me that it is an animal feed plant with a bioethanol by-product, rather than a bioethanol plant with an animal feed by-product.

The high-protein animal feed replaces imports mostly from South America, mostly based on soya and mostly grown on former rainforest land. Far from being unsustainable, that high-grade animal feed, a by-product of the bioethanol business, is in effect replacing the use of rainforests in South America. A cradle-to-grave view of the sustainability of all greener fuels needs to be taken, because there are an awful lot of misconceptions about how some of the businesses work.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend will be aware that the by-product from those plants is suitable only as ruminant feed. Much of the grain in South America is produced to fuel the chicken and pork industries, which seems to be the big demand in the developing world.

[Ian Swales]

I recognise that the Minister has a special expertise, but I know that there is demand in the marketplace for the feeds, which form only part of the overall mix. Having enjoyed the product of a ruminant in my cup of tea earlier this afternoon, I know that they have a place in the final food chain.

[David Mowat]

I am not totally certain that I understood the thrust of what was said about rainforests. Was the point being made that it is good to convert rainforest into soya for use in transport?

[Ian Swales]

No, absolutely not. My point was that the high-grade, high-protein animal feed, which the by-product feed replaces, is typically grown in South America, so the by-product feed reduces the demand for soya-based proteins, mostly from South America. There is a green chain. The situation is not as simple as people say.

The Government have had a policy for putting biofuels into both diesel and petrol for years. Starting with diesel, they set the targets and people invested large amounts in chemical plant, but all the early investors went bust because the Government kept moving the goal posts—surprise, surprise, the same has happened with bioethanol. The £300 million that people invested in the plant in my constituency has largely gone and the plant recently changed hands for a lower price. Why? Because the Government have not delivered on the renewable transport fuel obligations they said they would when the investment case was originally made.

The hon. Member for Southport mentioned an important point: we need certainty for green technologies. If we are asking people to invest large amounts of capital, we cannot keep changing our minds. Changing one’s mind leads to an industry heavily dependent on imports of green products. Unless we give investors certainty about the goal posts and the environment into which they invest, they will not invest anymore. Most of the early investors in such technologies have done badly and that is mostly due to Government policy.

For the same reasons, we need to ensure at EU level that targets for the proportions of biofuel in diesel and petrol are separate. If we allow an overall target and let oil companies play games over how much biofuel they put into each one on any given day, the people who have invested heavily in capital plant will have years of feast and years of famine, as the oil companies play their games, and will eventually exit the market. Again, traders will be left to pick up the pieces.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and I have learnt a lot from it. Is not the fundamental point of what he is saying that in asking the Government to pick one technology over another, we are asking them to pick winners? History shows us that the Government are much better at picking losers than winners.

Rather than the Government’s picking winners and choosing where to put subsidies, would it not be better for them to switch some of the subsidies currently going into the energy industry—there is a huge debate about that at the moment—into research, so that we can move on to the next generation of renewable technologies, which the market will support?

[Ian Swales]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I have told many potential investors in the industry that we cannot expect the Government to make winners. As at a roulette table, they will put their chips on lots of different numbers, but having made policy on, for example, the proportion of petrol that should come from bio-sources, they cannot change it when people are putting in hundreds of millions of pounds. By the way, those biofuels do not get a subsidy; all they need is a market that is understood and left to prosper. I agree with his point, but at some stage we must not so much pick winners, as set the environment for particular sectors of the market to thrive.

[John Pugh]

One place the Government cannot avoid interacting with the market in one way or another is the taxation regime, and they do so to an enormous extent. A lot of the price of petrol is tax. They cannot opt out.

[Ian Swales]

That is a good point. The Government have a key role, because they are never out of the market, due to the environment they set and the rules they put in place. They are players, whether they like it or not.

We need to look constantly at the science behind the issues and not simply listen to the last non-governmental organisation we spoke to. Sustainability needs to be looked at from cradle to grave, and there is a lot of devil in that detail, such as the materials used to make a car battery for an electric car. We need to police systems, because once we put rules in place, there are usually lots of people working on the best way to get round them and maximise their take. We need to ensure that we are not naive about the systems we put in place. We need big thinking.

One of my concerns is that we need five Ministers to respond to the debate: one from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills; one from the Department of Energy and Climate Change; one from the Treasury; one from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and one from the Department for Transport, who I am sure—no pressure—will speak for all the others. The issues typically cross those five Departments, a fact that I know the Government recognise. They have put a high-level team in place, but we need not just high-level thinking, but high-level action to ensure we get a consistent view, over, for example, the value of waste and where it is best used.

Finally, I congratulate the Minister on his new role. I am sure that, having listened to the debate, he is wondering whether he did the right thing in accepting the job. I hope he will give us the clarity we all seek.

15:29

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. When do you want to call the Minister?

[Mr Mike Weir (in the Chair)]

We finish at 4.22, so you can split the time among yourselves.

[Richard Burden]

I will not go on for the sake of it. This is the second debate of the day for the new Minister and me in Westminster Hall, so we are starting as we mean to go on. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing the debate. We have heard important contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) and the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) and we have had important interventions from the hon. Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) and my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer).

When he introduced the debate, the hon. Member for Southport quoted from “The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy” on getting from A to B. Given the importance of what we are talking about and the seriousness of the consequences if we do not effectively tackle climate change, I was put in mind of a different quote from that book:

“For instance, on the planet Earth, man had always assumed that he was more intelligent than dolphins because he had achieved so much—the wheel, New York, wars and so on—whilst all the dolphins had ever done was muck about in the water having a good time. But conversely, the dolphins had always believed that they were far more intelligent than man—for precisely the same reasons.”

On the challenge of climate change, that makes a very good point.

Cutting emissions and tackling greenhouse gases is not simply a question of tackling the transport end of the equation, but transport is obviously central to the issue. We are talking about transport still accounting for more than a fifth of the UK’s CO₂ emissions, with 97% of that coming from cars alone. That is why the European Council of Ministers debate on achieving the EU target of 40% was important. I understand that the time scale has now slipped. Originally, the proposal was for 2020, and, as a result of the latest decision, it is now 2024. I understand the UK voted for that longer time scale. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case when he sums up the debate?

In the UK, we have ambitious targets to reach 1.7 million electric vehicles by 2020 and to ensure that all vehicles are ultra-low emission by 2050. Today we are not debating whether the transport sector needs to change, but what reforms are needed. I have had the privilege of chairing the all-party motor group for several years. It is a position I will have to give up now that I am in my current role. However, I know that great work has been pioneered in this country by the Automotive Council, in conjunction with organisations such as the Office for Low Emission Vehicles.

The hon. Member for Redcar might be right that we need five Ministers in a debate such as this, although the thought scares me a little, but one of the great things about OLEV is that it has started to bring together cross-departmental working. We could learn from that in other sectors. The Automotive Council and OLEV have both been important in ensuring that the UK is doing all that it can to promote innovation, development and the take-up of low-carbon transport. I am particularly proud of the Automotive Council, which was an initiative of the Labour Government. I am pleased that the success achieved by the council has meant that it has been continued by the current Government.

[David Mowat]

On the point about electric cars, does the hon. Gentleman accept the point that was made earlier? Given that 70% of our electricity is produced from fossil fuels—most of that from coal—electric cars are actually less carbon-friendly than petroleum cars at the moment, and will be for some considerable time.

[Richard Burden]

The point that we cannot simply measure emissions and the impact on the environment by looking at what comes out of the tailpipe is absolutely right. We do need to look at the whole-life question, and that includes questions of energy generation and where it comes from and so on. I would not go as far as the hon. Gentleman and conclude that electric cars are less environmentally friendly than petrol cars. It depends what we are talking about and what the circumstances are.

[David Mowat]

That is true, but in terms of carbon production, it is arithmetically inevitable that if we produce electricity from coal and then use that electricity to make a car go, with the losses that take place in each of those stages, we will use more carbon. I am not saying there are not other benefits, but the carbon is worse.

[Richard Burden]

There are all sorts of issues. The hon. Gentleman makes an assumption that the electricity is generated from coal. It is clearly the case that coal is an important part of the energy mix, but it is not the only one. The debate is about how we achieve the right kind of balance to ensure that, as far as our road transport is concerned, it contributes as best it can to combating carbon emissions; and not only carbon emissions, but some of the other emissions that the hon. Member for Southport talked about.

[David Mowat]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Richard Burden]

I will let the hon. Gentleman intervene one more time. I do not want this to become a dialogue.

[David Mowat]

I will make one final point. Of course it depends on where the electricity comes from, and sometime soon we might have more carbon-free nuclear at a scale that will enable electric cars to be carbon-friendly. However, at the moment, 75% of our electricity—this is broadly true of the rest of Europe as well—comes from fossil fuels. Until that changes, electric cars are a net worsener of the use of carbon. I will leave it at that.

[Richard Burden]

This is perhaps to be continued another time. I will simply repeat that, in fairness, the equation is not as simple as that. However, it is the case that we need to green our road transport in this country. As we do that and talk about the options, it is important that we all live in the real world, ensuring that the policies we adopt, whatever they might be, do not worsen the cost of living crisis that is hitting so many people at the moment. My constituents know that the Government might be patting themselves on the back in relation to fuel duty. The fact that VAT went up to 20% in 2011 has also been part of the mix as far as their cost of living is concerned, because that created a long-lasting impact on them as well. However, I do not want to dwell on that.

I want to ask the Minister to cover a few points in relation to alternative fuels and the action that is needed to promote lower emissions in different parts; issues to do with the recharging network; and other ways that the Government could promote behaviour change to cut transport emissions and protect the planet.

First, I want to address biofuels. The hon. Member for Southport raised important concerns. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian talked about the important work of the International Development Committee on this subject. I know it is important work. Not only was I chairing the all-party motor group until recently, but I was also a member of the International Development Committee as well. Important evidence was given to the Committee on the impact of agriculturally produced biofuels and the impact that they have on food prices and food security. That is why I am pleased that, as far as the European Union is concerned, there has been a recent vote to cut the number of food crops used to produce biofuels. However—perhaps the Minister can confirm whether I am right—we are now not talking about a 5% limit, but a 6% limit. The target was watered down. Sadly, the Conservative members of the European Parliament contributed to that watering down.

Will the Minister confirm whether I am right about the 5% or 6% target and the change there? What is the Government’s view? Would they have preferred a 5% target? Without wanting him to jump across too many departmental areas, what does the Minister think of the recommendation mentioned by my hon. Friend who sits on the International Development Committee, that the UK revise its domestic renewable transport fuel obligation to exclude agriculturally produced biofuels completely?

If the Government still want to be the greenest one ever, as I understand they are still saying, it is important that they set out their position on biofuels as regards not only how they affect food crops, which we have already discussed, but how in practice we can distinguish between different kinds of biofuels in relation to both their sourcing and how they are produced. I would not go as far as the hon. Member for Redcar on some of the points he made, but different biofuels have different impacts, and it is important for Government policy that such distinctions are made.

The hon. Member for Southport rightly stated that we need to look at the issues of liquefied petroleum gas and compressed natural gas. I will not repeat what he said, other than to make two points. First, I recognise that LPG and CNG still need to be part of the mix, and will stay part of the mix for some considerable time, so the questions he asked deserve answers from the Minister. Secondly, to repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton said, although decisions have to be made on fiscal incentives or disincentives for particular fuels, we must be careful to respond to the important point made by the Automotive Council and everybody else, which is not to try to pick winners, but to try to be technology-neutral in principle and to see what works. I hope that the Minister will answer the important questions asked by the hon. Member for Southport.

The promotion of low-carbon transport goes much further than such questions; it is also about the development of low-carbon technologies to provide a context for the use of different fuels, and how the progress already being made on petrol and diesel engines—they will remain part of our car and commercial vehicle fleet for a long time yet—can be sustained. That is why I welcome the work of the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, and its document, “Driving the Future Today: A strategy for ultra low emission vehicles in the UK”. I want the Minister to set out the Government’s thinking on some of the issues raised by that report.

On the demand side—assuming that electric vehicles will be an important part of the mix for the future—a recent Institute for Public Policy Research report showed that demand for those vehicles in the UK has recently fallen behind most other European countries and the United States, despite the innovation and leadership shown by the UK automotive industry. When Labour was in power, we took the important step of providing grant incentives for purchasers of low-emission vehicles, and I am pleased that this Government remain committed to that. However, the first bullet point in OLEV’s vision in its document is the need to develop a

“buoyant domestic fleet and private markets for ULEVs”—

ultra-low emission vehicles—which means demonstrating their economic benefits by tackling high up-front costs and dispelling misconceptions about their performance.

Are the Government committed to the continuation of plug-in car grants, and does the Minister accept that the Government could do more by leading by example? They could use their procurement processes more imaginatively to ensure that the switch to ULEVs spreads across the public sector, and they could consider how to maintain and provide aftercare for those vehicles to help promote local jobs and local industries, as well as the development of local skills. In a way, the Government car fleet could both buy British and support the ULEV agenda.

On infrastructure, the Government have now departed from what they originally said about having a national recharging network for electric vehicles, and instead favour what they describe as home and workplace recharging. However, OLEV has stated that that means supporting a network of charge points in homes, residential streets, railway stations and public sector car parks, which sounds a bit like a recharging network to me. OLEV has said that £37 million is available to help to roll out the infrastructure until 2015, which I welcome, but what does the Minister expect the £37 million to achieve, and how far short will it fall of what OLEV thinks is needed?

OLEV has emphasised the importance of the energy companies in delivering a step change towards having ULEVs, from providing a smarter electricity grid supported by new tariff structures through to using plug-in vehicles themselves as distributed energy stores that might even feed electricity back to the grid at peak times. Do the Government have any plans to achieve such innovative ideas in practice? Does not such a point suggest the need for a much more proactive regulatory framework for the energy companies?

I certainly welcome the UK H₂ Mobility project to stimulate the take-up of hydrogen-powered vehicles, which are a bit closer to reality than the hon. Member for Southport said. We still need to know the level of infrastructure that the Government think will be required for the scale shift of cars to hydrogen fuel cells, the time scales that are envisaged and the mechanism that will be put in place to achieve what the Government want.

In relation to automotive capability, the OLEV strategy rightly underlines the importance of the Automotive Council’s work, which I have already mentioned. Such developments as the recent announcement of an advanced propulsion centre are certainly welcome, as is the competition launched with a £10 million prize for the development of long-life battery production.

There are still questions, however, about whether UK companies, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises, will benefit from the shift to ULEVs through the promotion of jobs and employment in the UK. Research for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders by KPMG recently underlined the barriers faced by companies that have the flair, but too seldom the opportunity, to development their ideas and bring them to market. All too often, there are still difficulties in accessing affordable finance. The report estimated that UK companies are not securing about £3 billion-worth of opportunities for the automotive supply chain in the UK.

The Minister knows that the industry, in the form of the Automotive Council, is demanding more assertive Government action, so what will he do to press his Treasury colleagues to respond more effectively? As the skills agenda is also important to achieving our objectives, what discussions does he intend to have with the Secretary of State for Education to bring an end to the rather toffee-nosed valuing of traditional academic achievement over vocational achievement in this country?

The shift towards ULEVs is not only an environmental necessity for the future of our planet. In “Driving the Future Today”, OLEV has stated that the transition to such vehicles

“represents a once in a lifetime industrial opportunity for the UK automotive sector if it successfully positions itself in the vanguard of this new technology—delivering jobs and growth for decades to come.”

That is why the industry and consumers look to the Government to match their words with actions on such issues.

Finally, in considering greener fuels, it is important to remember that while H₂ powers hydrogen vehicles, O₂ powers human vehicles. I therefore hope that the Minister will set out some of the practical actions that he and the Government intend to achieve to ensure that another part of the ultra-low carbon mix of transport in this country involves measures to encourage cycling and walking as part of that agenda.

15:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Robert Goodwill)]

I am pleased, Mr Weir, to be here today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Southport (John Pugh) on securing this debate. He touches on a key issue for my new Department, which is how we can build a low-carbon transport system for the 21st century. Let me briefly mention my own interest in this, which was alluded to by the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales). As a farmer, I produce wheat. Indeed two loads of it went to the Hull plant last year to produce bioethanol. I must admit to feeling guilty when I saw perfectly good wheat, which could be used for animal feed or biscuits, going to produce ethanol, so I was reassured to hear from the hon. Gentleman that the residue is not wasted but used as a ruminant feed.

Although I am new to this role, I am not new to the issue or the subjects raised in today’s debate. Way back in 2008, I was fortunate to be called by Mr Speaker to ask a question of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who I understand is still a Member of this House, about the impact of biofuels on food production. My interest in the issue remains to this day. The question I asked went something like this: is it better to put ethanol in a Range Rover’s tank or food in an African child’s stomach? I must say I did get quite a good answer from the then Prime Minister. Before that, I was a Member of the European Parliament and served on the environment committee as a deputy co-ordinator for the European People’s Party group and was involved in much of the European legislation that we are using now to clean up our vehicle fleet and the atmosphere.

Many hon. Members will have seen the recent UN report on the latest science of climate change, which clearly reveals the costs of failing to address the dangers of climate change. The Government are committed to building a low-carbon energy system that avoids such risks, and transport must play its part in the challenge.

Transport accounts for around a quarter of UK carbon emissions, and the share is rising. It is essential that we act now to reduce the impact of transport on our environment. Last month, the Government published their strategy for electric vehicles, which is a key element of our plan for a low-carbon transport system. The Government’s vision is that by 2050 almost every car in the UK will be an ultra-low emission vehicle. As well as cutting carbon, electric cars have the potential to reduce our reliance on foreign energy imports and to clean up the air in our towns and cities.

The Government are determined to seize this opportunity, and to place the UK at the forefront of the design, development and manufacture of ultra-low emission vehicles, and I am sure that we will work with the Automotive Council to do just that.

[Ian Swales]

Does the Minister feel that his colleagues in the Department of Energy and Climate Change, who are worried about the lights going out this winter, are factoring into their work on future power generation the electrical demand that he is talking about?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, I am sure they are. I am concerned that one means of addressing the range anxiety problem is to have fast-charge cars. Electric cars work well when they are charged overnight with renewable energy or nuclear energy, but once we start fast-charging cars at filling stations, we will have a major problem not only with generation capacity but with the grid’s ability to carry that amount of electricity.

However, not all modes of transport can be easily electrified. Aviation and heavy goods vehicles are likely to continue to require liquid fuels for decades to come. It is therefore essential that we develop the technologies to produce low-carbon liquid fuels.

Biofuels are renewable transport fuels created from organic matter and offer one way of creating low-carbon fuels. However, biofuels—and bioenergy more generally— also present complex challenges. Last year, the Government published a strategy for bioenergy, which recognised its important role in allowing the UK to meet its climate change objectives. It concluded that by using bioenergy, we could cut the costs of decarbonising the UK by £44 billion.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

I thank the Minister for giving way and take the opportunity to welcome him to his new role. Does he agree with his predecessor, the Minister of State, Home Department, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), who has perhaps gone to a better place now, that some forms of biofuels are worse for the environment than fossil fuels?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have seen analysis of some of the bioethanol produced in the United States which indicates that that is the case. I will comment on the particular impact of fuels as I make progress in my speech.

The Government published a strategy on bioenergy, which concluded that by using bioenergy we could cut the cost of decarbonising the UK by £44 billion. Other reports have estimated that the biomass industry could provide 50,000 jobs. There are clear opportunities for the UK in the global race for growth driven by science and innovation, and it is an industry that we need to develop. However, the strategy also made it clear that bioenergy had its risks. If it is not managed properly, bioenergy can actually increase greenhouse gas emissions and put at risk key objectives such as food security. It is therefore essential that we proceed with care and develop systems that use bioenergy only where it is genuinely sustainable.

We have already taken important steps on the path to genuinely sustainable biofuels. In 2008, the Renewable Transport Fuels Obligation was established. For the first time, biofuel was required to be blended into road transport fuel. In 2011, the UK introduced mandatory sustainability criteria to the RTFO. Those changes meant that biofuels could no longer be sourced from areas of high biodiversity, such as rainforests or wetlands. In 2011, we also saw the introduction of double rewards for advanced biofuels, also referred to in this debate as second generation biofuels, and biofuels made from waste. Such changes have led to encouraging trends in the fuels supplied under the RTFO. The average carbon savings of biofuel supplied under the RTFO when compared with fossil fuel have increased from 46% in 2008 to around 68% in the latest statistics.

One example of the feedstocks behind this trend is used cooking oil. The hon. Member for Southport may be aware of the Olleco biodiesel plant in Bootle, which is the country’s largest purpose-built plant dedicated to producing biodiesel from used cooking oil, and is not too far from his Merseyside constituency.

[David Mowat]

The Minister makes the point about how these things are alternatives to fossil fuels, but does he accept that not all fossil fuels have the same amount of carbon? If we were to replace petrol with gas or liquefied natural gas cars, as opposed to liquefied petroleum gas cars—there are 15 million LNG cars in the world and 3 million in Pakistan—we would halve the amount of carbon being produced from the transport sector. That technology exists already. I repeat the point that I made to the shadow Minister that electric cars are not a panacea for as long as we continue to produce the electricity from fossil fuels, particularly coal.

[Mr Goodwill]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Methane, or biogas, is CH₄, so for every molecule of carbon dioxide produced there are four molecules of water, so it is a big improvement over fossil fuels such as LPG.

[John Pugh]

I was not aware of the cooking oil development plant in Bootle, but I was once the leader of Sefton council, which covered Bootle. The major environmental issue that we had was the strange smell that used to permeate households in the area, and that was regarded in those days as an environmental hazard. This environment is a complicated thing to deal with.

[Mr Goodwill]

Indeed. We have a big chip factory in my constituency, which occasionally has the same effect. Used cooking oil offers carbon savings of around 80% compared with those produced by fossil fuel, and the latest data suggest that last year around a third of biofuels supplied in the UK came from used cooking oil. We are very much on the case of ensuring that used cooking oil is indeed used cooking oil, and the Department is currently monitoring the situation closely because of the allegations that have been flying around. Certainly, the UK should not be criticised in that regard.

There is still more to do to ensure the sustainability of biofuels. In particular, we are concerned about the impact of indirect land use change. Studies have demonstrated that, due to ILUC, some otherwise sustainably produced biofuels can end up causing greater carbon emissions than fossil fuels.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way again. Does he not agree that that perhaps is what the hon. Member for Redcar (Ian Swales) missed in his contribution—while the products that may be used in his constituency are not fit for human consumption, they still use up valuable resources of land and water?

[Mr Goodwill]

The issue of displacement—the ILUC situation—is one that we are well aware of. It tends to be more of a problem with biodiesel than with bioethanol, but it is an issue that we need to address through negotiations and agreements at the European level.

The European targets that the UK has agreed to are legally binding. Therefore, the UK needs to work within the European framework to produce a biofuel policy that reduces the environmental and social impacts of biofuels. As part of this process, it is imperative that ILUC is properly addressed at European level. Negotiations are ongoing in Europe, and we are pressing for an ambitious outcome to the ILUC situation. The 5% figure is certainly the figure that we are negotiating towards.

As we have heard in the debate, there are also concerns about the impact of biofuels on food prices. Food versus fuel is an issue that I take very seriously. The primary goal of agriculture should remain food production, and the production of biomass must not undermine food security or increase food prices. It is accepted that increased demand for biofuel has played a role, but Government analysis has shown that although increased global crop prices have resulted from biofuel production there has only been a modest rise in food prices.

I must point out at this stage that there is only 10p worth of wheat in a loaf of bread anyway, so there are many other factors that come—oh dear, I have mentioned that I am a farmer again. However, I recognise the seriousness of even a small impact on food prices, as well as the potential for biofuel support policies to increase crop price volatility. Nevertheless, I am confident that our position on the ILUC negotiations, if it is successful in limiting crop-based biofuels and incentivising those produced from wastes and residues, should reduce the direct competition for food feedstocks.

I will turn now to advanced fuels. Resolving the issue of ILUC remains the main barrier to setting out the clear pathway to achieving our 2020 targets, which I know industry and investors need. However, in the meantime we can set out some markers for the longer-term path to more sustainable biofuels. That is likely to be achieved through the use of non-land-using feedstocks, such as agricultural residues and municipal waste. However, use of these feedstocks requires advanced conversion processes that have not yet been commercialised. These processes are an exciting technology, which can turn unwanted waste products into valuable transport fuel. A number of countries have already established production facilities for these advanced biofuels, although there are none as yet in the UK. However, with the UK’s world-class research capabilities we have the potential to become a global player in this sector.

That is why earlier this year the Government announced a £25 million competition for an advanced biofuel demonstration contest, which aims to deliver up to three demonstration-scale advanced biofuel plants in the UK. Later this year, we will also be announcing a call for evidence on advanced fuels. We will invite industry’s views on what more the Government should be doing to develop these essential technologies, which will be needed long into the future to allow us to reduce the carbon footprint of road travel and, increasingly, other transport sectors.

However, not all non-land-using biofuels rely on advanced technologies. For example, biomethane made from waste demonstrates some of the highest carbon savings of any biofuel, and the technology for its production is well understood. Indeed, I visited a BMW car plant in the United States, which was powered by biofuel from a nearby waste dump.

[Ian Swales]

May I ask the Minister a question about a detail in his speech? He mentioned “other transport sectors”. It is already technically possible for biokerosene to fuel aircraft. Some aircraft have flown—including, I believe, a Virgin aircraft—powered purely by biokerosene. Will the Government do anything about aircraft fuels?

[Mr Goodwill]

I will not digress too far into the area of aircraft but we certainly need to ensure that the quality of aircraft fuels is consistent, and currently we do not put biofuel into aviation kerosene for safety reasons. However, more research could lead to some progress in that area.

Biomethane represents a particularly compelling opportunity for heavy goods vehicles, which have few other options for decarbonisation. Biomethane currently represents less than 1% of renewable transport fuel, so there is clear potential to expand its contribution to reducing emissions in the UK. However, biomethane cannot be used in transport without the vehicles that are able to use it, and there are currently fewer than 1,000 natural gas vehicles in the UK. The Government are supporting the early uptake of gas-fuelled vehicles through the low-carbon truck demonstration trial. This £11 million project to trial low-carbon trucks and supporting infrastructure will support almost 350 natural gas trucks.

I am aware of industry concerns about the adequacy of incentives for the use of biomethane in transport, particularly when compared with other Government support schemes for the use of biomethane in electricity and heat. These issues will be considered as part of our forthcoming call for evidence, and we will then be in a position to propose the changes that we think will be needed to the RTFO in order to strike the best balance of incentives. With luck, we will then be able to introduce those incentives alongside agreed European proposals to address ILUC.

I turn now to some of the points made in the debate. I again welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), to his role. In many ways, we are on the same page. The renewable energy directive targets are still in place for 2020; under those targets, 10% of transport energy will be renewable. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that those targets have not changed as a result of our recent negotiations.

The hon. Member for Southport raised the issue of liquefied natural gas, which is the same as methane or biogas. As a transport fuel, natural gas has lower carbon emissions than diesel; it produces about 15% lower emissions. Natural gas also diversifies our fuel supply, increasing energy security, and it can improve local air quality. In addition, natural gas benefits from a lower duty rate than diesel. I should point out that matters regarding duty rates should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Liquefied petroleum gas vehicles have some environmental benefits. On a lifecycle basis, LPG vehicles produce about 14% less carbon dioxide than petrol vehicles do. However, LPG is not as good as diesel. LPG cars deliver similar air quality emissions to petrol cars, and better air quality emissions than diesel, although the gap has narrowed with the introduction of Euro 5 and Euro 6 cars.

The hon. Member for East Lothian (Fiona O’Donnell) asked about the 5% food crop cap. I hope that I have reassured her that we are sticking with that, and we have certainly made it clear to the European Commission, the European Parliament and all other member states in the Council of the European Union that the UK supports the 5% cap.

[Fiona O’Donnell]

Can I press the Minister further and ask what discussions he has had with the German Government, who would be key to gaining support for the 5% cap?

[Mr Goodwill]

I met my German opposite number in Luxembourg last Thursday. Although the discussion did not veer into that area, I am sure that we will have a good working relationship with the Germans. Of course, the Germans are currently in the process of forming a new Government, so I look forward to hopefully meeting my new colleague, or perhaps his replacement if there are changes to the Government. The hon. Lady is absolutely right—Germany is key to almost everything in Europe, and we certainly have a very good working relationship with our colleagues from the German Federal Republic.

Regarding electric vehicles, the point was made that the market for them is very much a niche one. We are happy with the take-up of ultra-low emission vehicles. We are working across Government with the industry and we have introduced a range of ambitious measures to make the UK a premier global market for these vehicles.

My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (David Mowat) made a point about the energy mix in terms of electricity generation. It is the case that electric cars—ultra-low emission vehicles—already produce lower emissions than conventional vehicles, and as the grid decarbonises their environmental performance will improve further. I am keen to see more renewable energy being produced, not least off the coast of my constituency. Also, as a keen fan of nuclear power, I know that we can use the electricity that nuclear power produces at night-time to trickle charge electric vehicles.

I was asked whether the Government are committed to plug-in car grants. We have announced £500 million of support for the period from 2015 to 2021, and shortly we will launch a call for evidence to inform how we will achieve the best value for that investment.

The issue of hydrogen was raised. The Government launched the UK H₂ Mobility project in 2012, which was a joint undertaking with industry. The project will evaluate the potential for hydrogen as a fuel, developing an action plan for a roll-out to consumers from next year if the evaluation is successful.

I think that I have responded to most of the points that were made in the debate. If I have missed some points, I apologise and I will certainly write to respond to them, as time is pressing now.

To conclude, I thank everyone who has contributed to this debate for taking the time to consider this important issue. The use of biofuels and non-conventional fuels is, and will remain, complex and controversial. However, that must not stop us from finding the right balance between producing the fuels we need for a low-carbon future and protecting the livelihoods of the most vulnerable, both here and in the developing world.

Sentencing Tariffs (Offences Against Animals)

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

16:19

[Mr Adrian Sanders (Torbay) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship for the first time, Mr Weir. I am delighted to see the new Minister here. It is wonderful that a fellow west country Member of Parliament —the real west country: Devon and Cornwall—is in a ministerial position.

Animal baiting and fighting legislation was first introduced in the United Kingdom in 1835. Yet more than 175 years later, these most barbaric and cruel activities remain alarmingly prevalent. Despite dozens of individuals being prosecuted every year, acts of animal cruelty continue to a horrific extent. Additionally, the practice is associated with other criminality, such as drug dealing and firearms sales.

We in England and the United Kingdom cherish our pets. The fact that dogfighting still occurs today would astonish most people. A lot of people describe dog and cockfighting as sports, but there is nothing sporting in watching two dogs being made to tear each other apart. Sadly, examples of such barbaric animal cruelty are still too numerous in our society. It is astonishing that people still cause untold suffering to animals in this way. There have been all too many examples of the practice over the past few years.

Last year, in Derbyshire, a mutilated puppy was found by rescuers from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The dog, a west highland terrier cross, was found in a filthy, mangled state, abandoned in a box dumped in a country lane. Half of both his ears had been cut off and he was riddled with fleas. Cutting ears off is apparently a standard procedure for dogfighting, as they can be bitten by other dogs during a fight. To make dogs last longer in the pit, the ears are cut off by the gangs beforehand. It can also be done to make the dog look more aggressive. It would have been excruciating for this terrier, done by an unprofessional person with no anaesthetic. The dog was still terrified when found by its rescuers; he flinched whenever vets went near his ears, so he obviously associates them with pain.

The RSPCA said that the terrier was probably an abandoned or unwanted pet and added that many such pets end up in dogfighting pits. Often, families struggling to make ends meet can no longer cope with paying for pets, which oftentimes are left on the streets. There has been an increase in strays. The RSPCA warned that these pets can be picked up by dogfighting gangs.

One such gang was broken up in Oxfordshire in 2011, when a father and son admitted to training dogs for organised fights. They were jailed and banned from keeping dogs, following a major RSPCA investigation. The father admitted using equipment such as treadmills, weighted collars and rudimentary veterinary equipment to train the dogs. RSPCA inspectors discovered an emaciated bull terrier, as well as shocking footage of dogfighting, when they searched his home.

In March last year, another gang was broken up, following another covert operation by the RSPCA. It was found goading animals into fighting, as well as training dogs. Those convicted received 20-week custodial sentences.

It is welcome that these people are being brought to justice. The sentences they receive send a clear message to others involved in dogfighting or thinking of taking part. Sadly, these individuals are not the first people to be sent away for the brutal practice and they will not be the last. Furthermore, dogfighting is the tip of the iceberg when it comes to ongoing animal cruelty.

In a cockfight, two roosters fight each other to the death, watched by people placing bets on the victor. If the birds survive, the organisers let them suffer untreated injuries or throw them away. They lie dead or dying in heaps. Left to themselves, roosters almost never hurt each other badly. However, in cockfights the birds often wear razor-sharp blades on their legs and get injuries such as punctured lungs, broken bones and pierced eyes, even when they survive.

Last October, a father and son were convicted of taking part in such a sick competition. RSPCA inspectors raided their homes and found evidence that they were at the heart of a global network of cockfighting. Together, they owned 484 birds bred for fighting, including 97 mature fighting cocks, and a cock-fighting pit. There were magazines and photographs, too, as well as evidence that the pair had travelled as far as South America to watch cockfights.

The RSPCA called the scene a “cockfighting factory”. It found more than 60 pairs of spurs, which are attached to birds’ feet to increase the damage inflicted, together with leg muffs, leg bands, beak muzzles and other blood-splattered veterinary items. Indeed, the pair were internationally renowned for their brutal practice. The father had featured on the front cover of an Asian cockfighting magazine. They exported the birds for fighting to Brazil, the Philippines and France, among other countries. Their birds had been fed with steroids to increase strength and stamina. Both men were given suspended sentences, large fines and community service, thanks to the RSPCA’s efforts. The question is, is that enough?

I highlight those cases to bring home the fact that animal cruelty in its most brutal form continues to plague our society and occurs even in this country. The most recent legislation on animal welfare is the Animal Welfare Act 2006. It was a welcome updating of the law on animals’ well-being, much of which was almost 100 years old. It simplified the legislation for enforcers and animal keepers by consolidating more than 20 pieces of legislation into one and eliminated many loopholes in the system.

The 2006 Act also ensured that people who organise animal fights, train animals for fights or publicise or record a fight, face the full force of the law. It sought to strengthen deterrence for persistent offenders by increasing penalties. For example, those causing unnecessary suffering to an animal could face up to 51 weeks in prison, a fine of up to £20,000, or both.

Despite that welcome legislation, the reports I mentioned show that more must be done to deter gangs who are organising these brutal blood sports. An already stretched RSPCA can only do so much to find the gangs carrying out these acts. It only has so many resources to pursue them through the courts. This is why we need to send a strong signal to individuals who may be, in any way, involved in the organisation of any sort of animal fighting, wrestling or baiting.

I suggest that penalties be doubled, allowing for custodial sentences of up to two years for particularly egregious cases of animal cruelty. That would send out a powerful signal to those engaged, or considering becoming engaged, in this brutal competition. It would give judges the necessary leeway to impose sentences they felt were appropriate to the crimes involved and ensure that people such as those I have mentioned faced the full force of the law and paid for their criminal brutality.

We are at something of a disadvantage in that the provisions for tougher sentences in the 2006 Act were never enacted. Will the Minister explain why? The most someone is likely to get, even for serious cases of animal cruelty, is a six-month sentence; in reality, they will probably only serve eight weeks.

Finally, I pay tribute to the tireless efforts of the RSPCA. Every year, it rescues and collects almost 120,000 animals. It finds new homes for about 60,000 of them. Another 60,000 animals are microchipped, helping them to stay safe. Ever since it was founded in 1824, the RSPCA has been a voice for animals throughout Britain. Despite facing countless difficulties in this time, it has always stayed true to its central charitable mission—namely,

“by all lawful means, prevent cruelty, promote kindness to and alleviate suffering of all animals”.

It is a charity that cares for all our animals, whether pets or companions, on farms or in laboratories.

Last year, the RSPCA secured more than 3,000 convictions by private prosecution. Its internal investigations unit looked into more than 160,000 complaints of alleged cruelty. It is especially worthwhile to highlight the work of the RSPCA at a time when donations are falling. The proportion of people giving to charity fell from 58% to 55% in 2011, according to the Charities Aid Foundation, and it is expected to have fallen again in 2012. As we all struggle with austerity, so do charities.

It is vital that we continue to support the work of charities such as the RSPCA, and any other animal welfare organisation, at this time. All the while, their workers and volunteers continue their efforts to ensure that vulnerable pets and animals receive the care they deserve. The examples of dog and cockfighting that I have raised today are proof that their work is much needed.

Animal cruelty in its worst form continues to take place in Britain. If we really cherish our pets in Britain, we should have an appropriate legislative framework to protect their well-being. We must give judges the power to punish the most egregious acts of animal brutality, and the measures I propose would do just that. The Government need to conduct a thorough review of sentences for issues beyond—

16:30

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

16:39

On resuming—

[Mr Sanders]

As I was saying before the rug was pulled out from under my peroration, we must give judges the power to punish the most egregious acts of animal brutality. The measures that I have mentioned will, I hope, do just that. The Government need to conduct a thorough review of sentences for issues beyond just dog control. We should have the data, so that we can see how effective the 2006 Act is and whether more needs to be done.

I would be interested to know what objection the Government might have for not undertaking such a review. The Minister’s time to respond is limited, but I hope he can meet me and the RSPCA to discuss the issues in more detail. An increase in the maximum penalties, fines and jail sentences faced by those who are caught will signal that this country is no place for such barbarity. We might finally banish their cruelty from our society, once and for all. I think that we can all look forward to that.

16:41

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Mr Sanders)—he is a fellow west country MP—on securing the debate and raising an issue that attracts a great deal of interest. He has always championed it, and I join him in praising the RSPCA for how it pursues some of the horrific cases that he outlined in his introduction.

I was personally interested in this area before I joined the Government. I served on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, and earlier this summer, as part of my research, I read an interesting report called “Unleashed”, which was written by an academic called Simon Harding. It looked at the phenomena of status and weapon dogs and tried to understand why we are seeing an increase in some types of dog fights.

There are three key types of dog fight. First, there are those awful dog fights where bets are placed. They often take place in private venues, and that is the type of thing that my hon. Friend mentioned. Secondly, there is what they call “back of van” fights or trunking, which are awful. The idea came from the US, where they lock dogs in the boot of a car to fight it out. The third type, which some of the evidence suggests has had the greatest increase, is chain rolling, where dogs are used as an alternative to a knife and there are impromptu fights in parks. There has been a significant increase in reports to the RSPCA of illegal fights of that sort.

A further problem has been the growth of the internet, which has made some of these crimes easier to commit. That point has been highlighted by a great many of the animal welfare charities. We have the awful problem of the different terms and code words used in internet advertising for dogs designed to be sold for fighting, such as red-nosed, game-proven, game-bred and blocky. I welcome what the Pet Advertising Advisory Group has done to try to tighten that up by creating a new code of conduct for those companies that advertise pets.

The Government deplore acts of animal cruelty and believe that offenders deserve the full force of the courts. Our responsibility is to ensure that the legislation is fit for purpose. My hon. Friend asked whether we would review the legislation. We reviewed the main legislation that protects the welfare of kept animals—the Animal Welfare Act 2006—in 2010.

The report prepared by my Department and sent to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for its consideration concluded that there was broad agreement that the 2006 Act has genuinely had a positive impact on animal welfare. It successfully brought together a number of different pieces of legislation into a comprehensive whole and placed a duty of care on those who are responsible for animals. The 2006 Act also introduced a preventive measure that has allowed action to be taken without animals suffering unnecessarily. Although the consultation highlighted some concerns that more could be done to speed up court cases involving seized animals, it did not cast doubt on the adequacy of maximum sentences.

Of course, legislation must set maximum penalties. It is then for the courts—usually the magistrates court for animal welfare cases—to take a view on what sentence should be given. Judges and magistrates have a great deal of discretion in sentencing. In coming to a view, they are helped by specific sentencing guidelines produced by the Sentencing Council, which has been responsible since 2010 for providing detailed guidance to courts on the appropriate sentence for individual cases.

Sentencing guidelines help to achieve consistency in deciding the type and length of sentence and set out the factors that should be considered in those decisions. The guidelines set out how a judge or magistrate can decide on the seriousness of a particular offence, and then determine the appropriate sentence. Of course, the circumstances of different cases can vary quite widely and that can explain the different sentences handed out. The guidance to magistrates covers cases of animal cruelty for offences committed under the 2006 Act and helps magistrates to impose an appropriate penalty. Those guidelines were last updated in 2008 and reflect the current penalties available.

The Government’s responsibility is to ensure that the courts have the flexibility to impose the appropriate sentence within acceptable ranges. To that end, the 2006 Act makes it an offence to cause any unnecessary suffering to an animal. That offence carries a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of £20,000 or, crucially, both. Someone found guilty of organising or participating in a dog fight, along the lines that my hon. Friend described, could receive both a fine of £20,000 and a prison sentence of six months. Six months is the highest sentence available to a magistrates court and the fine is much greater than the usual £5,000 limit.

In addition, the 2006 Act makes it an offence to fail to provide an animal with its welfare needs. That offence can attract a maximum penalty of six months’ imprisonment or a fine of £5,000, or both. The offender can also be disqualified from owning an animal in future.

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

As I was coming to work yesterday morning, there was a Staffordshire bull terrier-type dog dead in the Thames. I hear what the Minister says, and I commend the Government’s action on increasing fines and sentences, but what action has specifically been taken to stop the people involved from owning those dogs again, legally or illegally, and what action has been taken to stop these dog fights taking place?

[George Eustice]

There are a number of measures under which we can do that. Under the 2006 Act, which was introduced by the previous Government, people can be disqualified from owning dogs. Through that Act, Parliament tightened up the earlier legislation. The courts now have to state why they would not impose such a disqualification, rather than it being left entirely up to them.

[Chris Evans]

My concern is on the safeguards to ensure that someone who is banned cannot own a dog again by legal means. What evidence do we have that someone owns a dog, even if they are banned? How do we impose that ban? That is the issue that I was raising.

[George Eustice]

Clearly, it is for the courts and the police to enforce the bans. Other bits of legislation related to dog welfare and, in particular, breeding, contain anti-avoidance clauses, so that if someone has five litters of dogs being bred on a premises—regardless of who owns or claims to own those dogs—they are caught by the law and require a licence. There are elements of legislation that do that, and I am here to set out what the law states. I commend what the previous Government did in introducing the 2006 Act. As I said, it requires the courts to state why they would not impose such a disqualification.

I realise that some people would like to see the maximum limits raised, but we need to be clear why such a move is deemed desirable by those calling for such an increase. Is it because the maximum limits are considered to be low compared with other similar offences? If we make that point, however, we should compare them with the maximum penalties for other crimes, such as assaulting a police officer, which can attract six months of imprisonment, a fine of £5,000 or both. The maximum penalty available for acts of antisocial behaviour, under the new Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, will be three months, a fine or both.

My hon. Friend mentioned the Animal Welfare Act provision to increase sentences to 51 weeks. I think that he was referring to a scheme called “custody plus”, but it is not quite true that that would relate to a custodial sentence of 51 weeks; in fact, the sentence was always intended to be a combination of community service and imprisonment. It was not simply an increase—a mixture was always intended.

Alternatively, is an increase intended to act as a deterrent? The Government, however, have received no indication from magistrates that the penalties for animal cruelty cases should be increased because they are having to impose more and more penalties towards the upper end of the range. Crucially, for no convictions has a judge handed out the maximum sentence of six months. We therefore have to ask, why increase the maximum, if the existing one is not being used by the courts?

To give an example of the penalties handed down by magistrates over the past three years, convictions under the Animal Welfare Act have been roughly 1,000 a year; typically, about 10% of those have been sentenced to imprisonment, with the remainder getting a fine. That does not indicate to me that magistrates consider that the maximum penalties for animal cruelty should be increased. I understand the points made by hon. Members about increasing maximum sentences, but there does not seem to be evidence to suggest that a review is necessary, especially given that the issue was reviewed most recently in 2008.

My hon. Friend has, however, brought up an important subject for debate, which we all recognise as a growing problem, and the Government have introduced additional bits of legislation to deal with dangerous dogs, such as community protection notices or criminal behaviour orders, which allow the courts to ban people from owning or breeding dogs, or to require dogs to be neutered—a whole suite of other policies applies there.

My hon. Friend asks whether I am willing to meet him and the RSPCA, and of course I am, although the area is the responsibility of my noble friend Lord de Mauley, so he might well take that meeting on my behalf or with me. Nevertheless, I thank my hon. Friend for an important debate.

Protecting Older People from Fraud (Wales)

Tuesday 15th October 2013 Westminster Hall

16:52

[Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I am glad to be serving under your Celtic chairmanship, Mr Weir. I am sure that you understand that some of the issues in today’s debate are very much relevant to the whole of the United Kingdom. I am also grateful to the Minister, whom we look forward to hearing from later.

A few statistics will show the extent of scams just in Wales, and how they affect all of us who represent Welsh constituencies. Between February 2012 and February 2013, 2,500 scams were reported, but it is reckoned that only 5% of scams that occur are reported to the authorities, so the total number could be as high as 50,000. There were 958 doorstep complaints, with 19 prosecutions, and 1,658 post, e-mail and telephone scams, with only two prosecutions. Those figures are revealing, not least because the majority of the victims of those scams were probably people, such as myself, over the age of 60. Those who are affected by such crooks and gangsters, who prey on our old people, are, I fear, vulnerable, physically and mentally. On average, older people lose £1,200 per person when swindled, although they can lose an awful lot more—their dignity, their self-esteem and, tragically and occasionally, their very will to live.

Recent examples of scams in Wales include one that involved the distinguished correspondent for BBC Wales, David Cornock. His elderly mother was swindled out of £270,000 by fraudsters, eventually leading to her premature death. In addition, a man in my constituency sent money to a non-existent lottery, the so-called European Lottery Guild, while a woman in Wales sent nearly all her money to a clairvoyant in Switzerland. Those examples are only the tip of the iceberg, which is why Age Cymru—a fine organisation—is now campaigning on the issue, led by Gerry Keighley, who used to be the editor of my local evening paper, the South Wales Argus. They are all doing a great job.

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

The Bryn estate in Pontllanfraith in my constituency has been plagued by doorstep scammers, rogue traders and their ilk for a number of years. Thanks to the Bryn residents’ association, a “no cold calling” zone has been introduced, which has had a huge and beneficial effect. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such schemes require further sight by the Government and endorsement throughout the country?

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed I do, and I shall come on to that matter in one of my recommendations to the Minister. My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, however, about the role of neighbours. When someone is aware that an older person or couple, vulnerable as they are, lives nearby, neighbours, as well as friends and family, have a huge role to play in deterring such terrible things, as do citizens advice bureaux and our local authorities’ trading standards departments, all of which are aware of the issues.

I want to bring to the attention of Members a new sharp practice—that is what I shall call it at this stage—resulting from the so-called green companies exploiting the Government’s affordable warmth scheme and the green deal. Those schemes are, in themselves, good; they seek to give vulnerable people, such as those on benefits or who are older, help towards reducing their energy bills, whether through insulation or whatever. I am in no way criticising such excellent schemes, which are funded by the United Kingdom Government, not the Welsh Government, although of course they operate in Wales as well as throughout the rest of the United Kingdom.

Such phone-in companies call older people and try to persuade them to register for advice and assistance, for which they are charged. In reality, those who wish to take advantage of the Government schemes can simply go to the authorities, official help lines, citizens advice bureaux or trading standards departments and ask for advice on what they should do. As everyone in the Chamber knows, however, people are often caught by a person calling on the telephone, and they are susceptible and more vulnerable to such activity.

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing the debate and on his work with Age Cymru, which I hope will help people in future. I, too, have seen a huge increase in my constituency of companies using the green deal to scam older people—cowboy practices. Recent cases have now been referred to trading standards, but they are clearly the tip of the iceberg. Does he agree that this seems to be a particular problem in south Wales, as reported by Which? recently? We should investigate that issue more fully.

[Paul Murphy]

Indeed. I did not come across that until constituents came to me with their problems. I shall give three examples—there are many—of this sort of practice. Eco Green Deal Solutions has now shut down, I am delighted to say, after the consumer watchdog programme, “X-Ray” on BBC Wales found that several customers who were not eligible were charged up to £249 for arrangement and assessment fees. Another is Cornerstone Green Solutions, which took £99 from an elderly and vulnerable lady in my constituency. I understand that another company, Diversity Network Ltd, which is totally independent of the other two, has tried to arrange a refund.

The company that has caused most concern throughout south Wales, including in my hon. Friend’s constituency, is Becoming Green. It has caused great distress to some constituents who came to see me, and among other things, it caused me to raise the matter in Parliament. It is charging older people £299 for what it calls its advice service, and when it is challenged, my constituents are unable to get their money back. One of its customers—interestingly, bearing in mind the earlier debate, he lives in Torquay—recently wrote to a national newspaper, whose reporter contacted the company 17 times before getting beyond an electronic switchboard, which cut him off. I also had great trouble getting through to the company, as did my constituents.

The problem is that admirable schemes have been undermined by the activities of companies that are jumping on the bandwagon simply to make a big profit. I have contacted trading standards offices. Torfaen has an excellent trading standards office, which in recent weeks has received 62 complaints about such companies, 44 of which trade in becoming green, almost wholly from people over 60. The companies that I mentioned operated in Cardiff, where trading standards have received many complaints. Both authorities, and probably Newport and Caerphilly, are looking closely into the activities of those companies and others, and investigating them.

[Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that in many instances such companies come up with ideas that are totally inappropriate for the householders they meet. I know of people living in terraced houses who use coal to heat their homes but are being told all sorts of nonsense about new gas boilers when they are not on mains gas? Much of the scammers’ advice is hot air, and we must ensure that we get rid of them.

[Paul Murphy]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. The companies often confuse older people by offering opportunities that may never occur. They may refer to loans as grants, and confuse the people they are talking to.

This is not the Minister’s direct responsibility, but will he liaise on this matter particularly—I will come to other recommendations—with his counterpart in the Welsh Assembly Government and Welsh local authorities to publicise as much as possible the activities that we have all condemned today, so that our constituents are aware of them and can report them to the proper authorities? The Torfaen newspaper, which goes through every letter box in the valley, has highlighted the issue, so that people are made aware of it. That is the sort of thing that we must do.

I turn to more general points, which are important and on which the Government could help. First, will the Minister liaise with Royal Mail so that protocols are changed to allow staff to offer advice and to report suspicious mail? Postal companies should be empowered to refuse to deliver misleading, dishonest or scam mail in which promises and guarantees of large sums of money to the recipients are visible on the envelope. That might require the law to be amended, but it is worth considering. Age Cymru has heard of older people receiving up to 70 letters a day from companies encouraging them to take part in various scams. Secondly, will he work with the telephone companies to offer more protection against phone calls, especially from abroad, and to close down offenders’ lines? Thirdly, will he work with internet providers to increase protection by blocking access to known offenders?

My hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Chris Evans) referred to increasing the number of “no cold calling” zones throughout Wales. There are 14 in my constituency, and they are located specifically in areas where people are more elderly and vulnerable. They have been particularly successful in Torfaen, but they exist in other constituencies, and they should be encouraged. I hope that the Minister will liaise with Welsh local government to ensure that the matter is taken up.

It is the collective job of the United Kingdom Government, the Welsh Assembly Government and councils in Wales to protect the most vulnerable people in society from the activities of the unscrupulous rogues who plague us and prey on older people.

17:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Weir. I pay tribute to and congratulate the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), a distinguished former Secretary of State for Wales, on securing this debate on the importance of protecting older people in Wales from fraud and scams. I am aware of the specific companies and cases he raised, and I hope to provide some reassurance on how they are being investigated and what the UK Government are doing, working with the Welsh Assembly Government and Welsh local authorities, to make progress.

I confirm that officials in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills are in contact with trading standards colleagues in Cardiff and at the National Trading Standards Board about the three companies he mentioned. They are under active investigation. I understand that the Cardiff trading standards team and the Welsh scambusters team are investigating the issues raised by the right hon. Gentleman and they have been outlined in the BBC television programme he mentioned.

More broadly, I pay tribute to Age Cymru and its research on the matter. I met its representatives back in April to talk about the issue, and I know that many other Welsh Members of Parliament from all parties have also met people from the organisation. I pay tribute to it for its excellent work to help to protect and support vulnerable elderly people, to enable them to live their lives in comfort.

I hope that hon. Members will be interested to know that my noble friend Baroness Randerson, the other Under-Secretary at the Wales Office, will be holding a round table meeting at the Wales Office next month to support Age Cymru’s work. As part of that, we are bringing together organisations from across Wales, including enforcement and consumer protection agencies, Royal Mail, BT and Ofcom, to discuss how we can work together to reduce older people’s exposure to such scams.

I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that the cross-party group on older people and ageing at the National Assembly for Wales met only last week to discuss the issue and took evidence from a variety of stakeholders. We have invited the chair of the group to participate in our round table next month, which I hope will join up the discussions that are happening in Cardiff with the issues that we are focusing on at UK level.

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

The right hon. Gentleman has raised a particular type of scam affecting Wales. A constituent, Mr Davies—I call him that because it is his name—responded to persistent attempts to get money out of him for carbon credit and eventually sent £3,000, which he has not seen again. Local police say that they cannot investigate because it is too complicated, and the Serious Fraud Office says it is below its threshold. Will the Minister take that on board, and perhaps talk to me afterwards to look for a way forward to ensure that people receive justice?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank my hon. Friend for raising that case. Without more detail, I cannot comment further, but I would be very disappointed if Dyfed-Powys police or the Serious Fraud Office were not able to investigate. Let us see the detail, and hopefully we can raise that issue and get some progress on it.

We know that more than 3.2 million people—nearly 7% of the entire UK population—fall victim to scams each year, and that fraud and scams generate more than £9 billion of individual losses each year. That figure is truly staggering. We can all say that we are in complete agreement in this room this afternoon about the need to protect all sections of society, and especially the elderly, against the harm caused by scams.

I take on board the point made by the right hon. Gentleman about the level of prosecutions concerning reported scams. It is important to recognise and put on record that it is notoriously difficult to investigate phone and e-mail scams and to pursue the culprits behind them, because so often the scams originate overseas. The solution, therefore, cannot just be one of enforcement, and that is where prevention comes in, as the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

In Cardiff, for example, the trading standards team recognise that prevention is key to reducing such crimes. Last year, they set up monthly victim support meetings with South Wales police and other partners, such as Age UK, Age Cymru, Victim Support, and Care & Repair. They work to identify victims of scams and doorstep crime and provide further support, advice and education. As a result, they report that they are seeing the number of cases raised at meetings decline. Through making people aware of how to spot and avoid scams and by utilising telephone and mailing preference services, we can reduce exposure to scams and the likelihood that someone will be taken in.

The Government provide for advice on scams through various agencies—particularly through the citizens advice service, which provides clear and practical guidance to consumers over the phone and on websites. As a Government, we are also taking steps to ensure that people are aware of scams and know what to do if they suspect a scam.

[Nia Griffith]

The Minister will be aware that the hon. Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) proposed a ten-minute rule Bill. Will he comment on whether the Government have any plans to implement the meat of that Bill, which was to allow, with safeguards, postal workers to intervene when they saw a huge number of envelopes with those fancy prizes on the front going to one address?

[Stephen Crabb]

I thank the hon. Lady for raising that point. I shall come to Royal Mail a bit later and hopefully the information that I shall provide will suffice. If not, I can follow that up in writing.

The “Think Jessica” campaign and representative bodies such as Age UK and citizens advice bureaux work to raise awareness of the devastating impact that scams and fraud can have on those who fall victim—especially the elderly—and on victims’ families. The National Trading Standards Board has also provided funding to trading standards in Wales for a national doorstep crime project. That project has a number of actions to undertake and that includes working alongside the Older People’s Commissioner for Wales, the Welsh Assembly and other Government Departments.

The Consumer Protection Partnership, which is made up of partners from the enforcement community, as well as Citizens Advice and other Government bodies, has teamed up with fraud and scam experts, such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency and Action Fraud, to implement a more holistic and joined-up approach to tackling scammers. As part of that, the citizens advice service and the Trading Standards Institute launched a scam awareness campaign in May this year, which was endorsed by the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, my hon. Friend the Member for East Dunbartonshire (Jo Swinson)—the consumer Minister—to raise awareness and to help empower consumers to take firm action against scams. Through a renewed focus on prevention, there is an opportunity to try to protect some of the most vulnerable members of society from falling victim to unscrupulous people.

I will now mention some ways in which consumers can report scams and fraud. The Government have established Action Fraud to allow for the reporting of scams. Scams can be reported to Action Fraud by phone or by completing an online fraud report. It is a simple and quick process, and most importantly, it alerts the most appropriate authority to a potential scam. If someone believes that they have been the victim of a scam, or if they need help about how to advise someone whom they believe is the victim, they can also contact the Citizens Advice consumer helpline, which provides clear, practical help for consumers on what they should do.

Where Citizens Advice identifies a breach of consumer protection law, it can alert local authority trading standards enforcement. I encourage anyone who wishes to do so to make use of schemes such as the telephone preference service and the mailing preference service, which will stop addressed mail, and the “Your Choice” preference service, which will stop unaddressed mailings.

Over the past two years, the Government have better equipped trading standards to hit scammers hard by transferring responsibility for cross-cutting leadership and co-ordination of enforcement activity from the Office of Fair Trading to the National Trading Standards Board. The NTSB funds and directs specialist scambuster teams in England and Wales to enable trading standards to take a cross-regional approach to tackling scams and rogue-trading practices. Scambusters currently have five ongoing serious investigations into scams targeting older people in Wales, and I will highlight a couple of their successes shortly.

On the green deal, I strongly share the concerns of the right hon. Gentleman about rogue traders claiming to be associated with the green deal. We have seen that previously with double-glazing salesmen, with households being targeted for inappropriate investments in conservatories, and a few years ago, with the boom in solar panels.

As constituency MPs, we have all had experience of people coming to our surgeries reporting bad practice. The green deal is just another opportunity for some of these hardcore scammers and fraudsters to target vulnerable households. In April this year, I visited the British Gas training academy in Tredegar, where proper qualified green deal assessors received their training and qualifications. Those are the people whom households should trust for green deal assessments, and not the rogue companies that the right hon. Gentleman mentioned.

The Consumer Protection Partnership is collating emerging consumer issues around the green deal and has held discussions with the Department of Energy and Climate Change. The CPP aims to ensure that initiatives from all Government Departments—but especially on the green deal—take account of potential real harm to consumers through fraud and misrepresentation.

Both trading standards and the Green Deal Oversight and Registration Body naturally take a very serious view of rogue traders and will pursue them with the full force of the law. While instances of abuse under the green deal are only just starting to emerge, it is worth putting on record that scambusters have notched up a couple of impressive wins against other vultures who prey on the vulnerable in Wales. That serves as an example of what fraudsters operating under the green deal banner can expect to receive.

For example, one criminal was a cold-calling rogue trader builder, operating in the local authorities of south-west and mid-Wales. A scambuster investigation identified 21 victims of the man; they had paid more than £150,000 to him. The scambusters team was able to contact and offer support to a number of victims through dedicated specialists. The investigation resulted in the man being sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, suspended for two years, for using aggressive commercial practices against vulnerable people. I could point to other examples as well, but time is against us. In order to build further on successes such as that, and to continue to limit the real damage caused by rogue traders in Wales, the NTSB has allocated a budget of £325,000 for its Welsh scambuster team this year.

In summary, the fraudsters’ goal is a simple one: to cheat as many people as possible out of their money by making false promises. Fraud and scams hit the elderly particularly hard; on becoming victims of a scam, they often lose a disproportionate amount of money in relation to other victims. I hope that I have been able to demonstrate this afternoon how, as a UK Government, we are taking action to combat the issues—particularly in Wales, where we are working alongside local authorities and the Welsh Government. We will keep that in sight, and if the right hon. Gentleman wants to follow up in the weeks and months ahead, I will be very happy to continue the discussion.

I come back to a couple of specific questions that have been raised by hon. Members. We were asked about cold doorstep-calling and whether we would welcome a ban, or an increased number of cold-calling “notspots”, where people are prevented from doing so. As a Government, we are certainly not against such initiatives when they are genuinely community-led. When specific communities are being targeted by fraudsters and there is a demand in the community for such an arrangement, we certainly do not wish to do anything against that. However, it is worth putting on the record that neither do we want to harm genuine entrepreneurs, who make a living legitimately, providing a legitimate service and business to households on their doorsteps. There is a balance to be struck, but where there are vulnerable communities who have suffered repeated targeting, perhaps that is one of the solutions that can be community led.

The hon. Member for Llanelli asked about Royal Mail, which currently takes steps to raise awareness of the problem of scam mail among its staff. It has put in place an internal reporting facility that allows customers, including relatives or friends of suspected victims, to report concerns to postal workers or directly to a Royal Mail helpline, which allows advice to be issued and information to be passed on to an appropriate body—the police, trading standards or a support body—for action. The company has been working with the police on identifying possible victims and postage accounts suspected of being used to send scam mail. Again, I am happy to follow up with the hon. Lady if she wants further information about what Royal Mail is doing to prevent scam mail.

The right hon. Gentleman described the people who perpetrate such crimes as crooks and gangsters. That is probably some of the more polite language that we could use to describe such people. We absolutely want to prevent them from operating. They are at times notoriously difficult to investigate and track down, but we as a Government take the issue extremely seriously. We want to provide resources to local trading standards departments and to the cross-cutting partnerships to ensure that there is enforcement and action at the local and Welsh national levels, right across the UK and internationally where possible.

Question put and agreed to.

17:21

Sitting adjourned.