House of Commons

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 17 October 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

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

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

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

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

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

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

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to group this question with several others.

I am taking many steps to help, which come under three broad categories—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think the Secretary of State is seeking to group this question with Questions 6 and 18. I understand the concept of the broad brush, but it can be taken a bit far. We need greater specificity.

[Mr Davey]

As always, I am very grateful for your advice, Mr Speaker, as I am sure the House is, too.

I will start again. I am taking many steps to help households with their energy bills. Those steps come under three broad categories: first, direct help for millions of people, with money off their bills and money to help to pay their bills, through the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments; secondly, energy efficiency, to help people to cut their bills by wasting less energy, through the energy company obligation, the green deal and smart meters; and thirdly, competition. I am intervening to make electricity and gas markets in the UK ever more competitive, so that energy companies cannot exploit people through market power.

[Ian Lucas]

Does the Secretary of State think that SSE’s proposed increase of 8.2% is reasonable?

[Mr Davey]

Of course I am disappointed by energy companies that are putting up their prices. The key thing is competition, and we in this Government have pushed competition hard. The big six were the creation of the last Government, when we saw the number of companies reduced. Under this Government, competition is increasing. I would urge people who are disappointed by increases from their energy company to shop around and switch, because there are some very good deals out there.

[Mrs Glindon]

Last week the Prime Minister said that Labour had definitely “struck a chord” on energy prices and that

“There’s a certain amount you can do freezing prices,”

so will the Minister freeze prices, which will benefit more than 47,000 households in my constituency?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady was obviously not at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, because the Prime Minister called it a con, and he is right. Labour’s energy price freeze is a con. Let me explain to the Opposition why it is a con, because when people see a politician promising something for nothing, they do not believe them. The policy cannot control prices before Labour’s price freeze and it cannot control prices after it, so energy companies are likely to hike prices before and after. Consumers will be worse off as a result of such a measure.

[Ian Lavery]

Energy bills have already risen by £300 and are set to increase by perhaps another £100 this year. In my constituency, more than 36,000 people would benefit if the Government took action to freeze bills this year, which could save up to £120 per household. Why will the Government not stop defending the big six companies and other companies, and get on the side of the consumers and help them out this winter?

[Mr Davey]

We are on the side of the consumer, because we are promoting competition. The hon. Gentleman and his party, through their price freeze, will hurt competition. Let me explain it to him. Whereas we have seen companies entering the market under this Government, a price freeze would hurt small suppliers. If he doubts my word, he should listen to the small suppliers themselves. Nigel Cornwall, of the Energy Suppliers Forum, says that Labour’s policy

“ignores real progress made in increasing competition in the market over recent years”.

Small suppliers do not like Labour’s policy because they know it would hurt consumers.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that nobody suffers more than consumers in rural areas that are off grid? The ECO system was supposed to ensure that 15% of the funding went to upgrade hard-to-reach homes in rural areas, but the evidence on the ground is that the big six are unwilling to assist with supplying new oil-fired liquefied petroleum gas boilers. Given that energy bills are more than 50% higher in off-grid areas, will he raise the issue with the energy companies and ensure that all households can receive help?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend raises an interesting question. Almost all aspects of the energy company obligation are working well, but the rural sub-obligation—the bit he is referring to—is not working so well, and we are looking at how it can be improved.

[Stephen Mosley (City of Chester) (Con)]

The Opposition want to have their cake and eat it. They say they want to decarbonise the energy market, yet they also say they do not want people to pay for it. Can my right hon. Friend bring some reality and honesty to the argument and tell us how we decarbonise the economy while at the same time trying to keep costs to consumers to a minimum?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Energy Bill and electricity market reform do just that. He may be interested to know that we have today asked the Leader of the Opposition 10 questions about Labour’s policy. If we look at it, we not only find that it is a con that will reduce competition and hurt the small suppliers, but that it will hurt investment, too, which is needed to keep energy security and to decarbonise. Labour’s policy is economically illiterate.

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

SSE’s 8.2% average price increase—we should remember that some people have to pay more than that—is unacceptable when the company is boasting on its website about the large dividends it pays out to its shareholders every year. I see competition as the answer. Will my right hon. Friend tell my constituents what concrete steps are being taken to improve competition and when they will be able to have a much wider choice than they have at the moment?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When big energy companies make these high price rises, I would urge all their customers to look at the competition available. There is a lot of choice out there. In fact, there is far more choice than there has been for a long time—possibly ever. The last Government killed choice and reduced competition; under this Government, we have seen a big increase.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

Let me tell the Secretary of State that if Labour is elected, our price freeze will happen, and if companies collude to increase prices beforehand, we will take action. The right hon. Gentleman is the one in government, so if companies try to hike up their prices beyond anything that can be justified before 2015, will he stop them—yes or no?

[Mr Davey]

We will help customers to get the best deals. The right hon. Lady knows that. She knows that on the current market, customers can get much better deals than those offered by the big six. She knows that the number of small suppliers has increased. She knows that in 2011 there were no independent suppliers with more than 50,000 customers. Thanks to our policies, there are now three with more than 100,000 and a further seven companies have entered the market in the last two years. That is the choice; that is the solution: people can cut their bills significantly by changing supplier.

[Caroline Flint]

There you have it, Mr Speaker: every single time, this Government put the energy companies before consumers. According to figures from the House of Commons Library, energy prices are rising three times faster under this Government than under the last Labour Government. Our price freeze will save money for 27 million households and 2.4 million businesses while we reset the market. It is the right hon. Gentleman’s policy that is a con; he says everyone will be put on the cheapest tariff, but is it not a fact that 90% of people will see no benefit from his policy at all?

[Mr Davey]

Millions are seeing benefits from our policy of competition. The right hon. Lady has made a very interesting point today. In response to our charge that Labour’s policy is a con, because energy companies could push up bills beforehand and after, she said that Labour would take action if they do. Does that mean that she is going to introduce full price regulation? Is Labour now promising that, because that is the implication of what she said?

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

3. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

11. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

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

16. What steps he is taking to help households improve their energy efficiency.

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

For the first time ever, the UK now has a national energy efficiency strategy. This is something no Government have put in place before. Helping to cut energy bills is at the heart of this drive through the green deal, energy company obligation, electricity market reform, smart meter roll-out and support for innovation, research and development. They all demonstrate the Government’s determination to drive unprecedented investment into energy efficiency.

[Alex Cunningham]

I think that just 25 people have benefited from the green deal in my constituency so far, but thousands of people across Stockton-on-Tees could have warmer homes thanks to a tremendous project to externally clad their homes run by the borough council and deliverer partner, Go Warm. This has attracted £20 million of investment and 300 jobs. Sadly, a legal judgment means that BT is the only company that can remove the eyelets that support the wires in the houses that are benefiting from the scheme. This is slowing the programme down because of insufficient resources to do the work in a reasonable time. Will the Minister please intervene, tell BT to get its act together, get the work done more quickly and give my constituents the warmth they deserve?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman raises a legitimate point about BT. I will certainly look at this in more detail and would be happy to meet him to discuss it. We want to press ahead. We have an ambitious efficiency programme, which is led by the energy company obligation. We believe that through a combination of the ECO and the green deal, nearly 250,000 people will have seen their homes improve by Christmas.

[Ann McKechin]

Fuel poverty is increasing, but the amount of money spent on energy efficiency programmes directed at the fuel poor has decreased by 50% since 2010. Is it not time that the Minister changed his priorities?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Lady seems to be confusing the record of the coalition with that of the last Government. During the last Parliament, fuel poverty rose in every single year; under the coalition, it has fallen in every year. [Interruption.] The definition has not been changed yet. It will be changed next year, on a cross-party basis.

We still have a great deal to do, but this Government are rolling up their sleeves and making a difference, unlike the last Government. They had the chance to deal with fuel poverty, but it rose in every single year of the last Parliament.

[Luciana Berger]

The Government forecast that the green deal and the energy company obligation would create 60,000 jobs, but earlier this year the Insulation Industry Forum confirmed that more than 4,000 jobs had been lost during the transition to the ECO. Just the other week, Carillion, a leading green deal provider, was forced to announce a restructuring that is expected to lead to further job losses in the green deal sector. That is a disaster for the workers who are affected, for their families, and for our low-carbon industry. Can the Minister confirm the number of people who have lost their jobs since the scheme was launched, and can he explain why this is happening?

[Gregory Barker]

We are certainly seeing a change in the industry, and we expect to see a structural change. New companies are now entering the market. The growth that we are seeing is not in the big energy companies created by the last Labour Government, but in the small and medium-sized enterprises, the independents and entrepreneurs who are being championed by the coalition. The ECO is helping more than 215,000 households, and we expect it—in combination with other measures—to enable nearly a quarter of a million homes to benefit from insulation, and from a range of new products that were not available before, by the end of the year.

[Charles Hendry (Wealden) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that fuel poverty would be worsened if the cost of the capital required for the billions of pounds of new investment rose because of heightened political risk associated with the United Kingdom? Indeed, is that not exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has achieved? Surely his comments will make fuel poverty worse.

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend, who has huge experience in these matters, is absolutely right. Labour’s policy would scorch investment. According to an analysis by Cornwall Energy, which leads the monthly forum for independent energy companies, Labour’s policy is “wrong”, and

“based on imperfect information, flawed assumptions and emotion, which will cost the consumer dearly. There are at least five significant problems with it.”

Labour’s policy would indeed have an impact on the cost of capital and on investment, and consumers—particularly vulnerable consumers—would be left to pick up the pieces.

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

A report by Anna Walker did a huge amount to improve energy and water efficiency. What are the Government doing to educate people, and to advise them not to heat water beyond what they use and to become more energy and water-efficient?

[Gregory Barker]

Any green deal assessment will feature a number of recommendations. We have found that people are very pleased with their assessments. More than 80,000 people have had a green deal survey, and 81% said that as a result of a survey they had taken action, would be taking action or were currently taking action, while 72% said that they were recommending the green deal to their friends. It is still early days, but the green deal, with its range of measures from handy tips to big structural changes in homes, is the way forward.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I have been contacted by a pensioner constituent whose annual heating bill is £700. He lives in a terraced house in the middle of Kettering with a solid wall that requires external insulation and rendering. He has been in touch with 17 local companies, and has been told that he must pay between £4,000 and £15,000 to get the work done and that the green deal is not available to help with that type of work. Can the Minister please advise?

[Gregory Barker]

That is very puzzling, because the ECO, which is designed to complement the green deal, has exactly that sort of consumer in mind. I should be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss his constituent and see how we can help.

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

During the passage of the Energy Bill I raised with the Minister the way that the Government’s policy on simplifying tariffs is resulting in some customers paying more. Ofgem’s recommendation of the reintroduction of standing charges is resulting in some customers who are energy-efficient, increasing, rather than lowering, their bills. That cannot be right. Why cannot the Government look into it?

[Gregory Barker]

I am sorry, but I did not catch all of the hon. Gentleman’s question. He raises a serious point, however, and I will be very happy to talk to him in more detail about our tariff plans. This is a Government who are taking real action to simplify tariffs, to get on the side of the consumer and to deliver better value for money after years of inactivity and inaction under the last Labour Government.

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

Because this Government will not stand up to the energy companies, Ministers in other Departments are clearly eyeing up the ECO scheme that funds energy-saving measures as a short-term, although counter-productive, way to reduce bills, but is not the poor running of the ECO scheme by Ministers what has made it so vulnerable? It is too bureaucratic, it is not geographically focused and it does not prioritise the genuinely fuel-poor. What is the Minister going to do to sort it out?

[Gregory Barker]

First, may I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post? I am not sure whether he is the 10th or 11th member of the Labour party I have had opposite me on the Labour Front-Bench, but I hope he has a long stay on the Opposition Front-Bench—a very long stay indeed.

The hon. Gentleman’s criticisms of the ECO are misplaced. I am not saying it is perfect, and as we go forward we will always look to improve the scheme, but, as I said earlier, we anticipate that between 215,000 and 230,000 homes will be helped by the ECO by Christmas this year—that is nearly a quarter of a million families benefiting from warmer homes and cheaper bills. I will be very happy to organise a briefing for the hon. Gentleman, so next time he can, perhaps, come to questions a little better prepped.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

4. What progress he has made on encouraging investment in new nuclear power.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

The Government are committed to securing the right conditions for investment in new nuclear power in the UK. This is the first nuclear programme in a generation and it is progressing well, with projects to build new power plants moving forward with EDF, Horizon Nuclear Power and NuGen. Between them, those projects involve plans to develop at least 12 new reactors on five different sites.

[Mr Jones]

My constituents are extremely concerned about future energy prices and continuity of supply. With one fifth of UK generating capacity due to come offline within the next decade, does the Minister agree that we need to bring forward this new nuclear capacity as a matter of extreme urgency?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes, I do. We are living with the legacy of 13 wasted years in which absolutely nothing was done to replace our ageing nuclear stations. Under this coalition Government plans are now progressing, as I said, and we have every prospect of 12 new reactors on five separate sites.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

The Minister will know that I am not a convert to nuclear power, but I accept that the coalition Government have done a deal that says there will be no nuclear power that has public subsidy—so public subsidy will not be provided. How is the Government’s position reconcilable with an application for derogation from the EU rules on state aid?

[Michael Fallon]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s predecessor set out to this House the circumstances in which support would be offered for the new nuclear technology we are negotiating on with EDF in respect of Hinkley C. When we conclude those negotiations—which I hope we will do very shortly—we will, of course, report the details of the investment contract to the House. I also note that the party of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) is now a supporter of nuclear power.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The Minister may be aware that when Hinkley Point C comes onstream it will produce as much electricity in a year as every single onshore and offshore wind turbine we currently have. Given that, will he assure the House that there will not be a further 10-year delay in respect of future nuclear stations?

[Michael Fallon]

Nuclear power is a very important part of our energy mix and of our future energy security, which makes it all the more criminal that nothing was done for the long, long period of the Labour Government to replace the nuclear stations that are coming offline in the late 2020s and 2030s.

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

5. What recent assessment he has made of the competitiveness of the UK energy market.

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

I keep the competitiveness of the UK energy market under constant review and have acted to make it more competitive. In retail markets, where companies are supplying customers, we have acted by deregulating to increase the number of suppliers and by reforming bills and tariffs. In wholesale markets, where companies are selling power they are generating to suppliers, Ofgem measures and measures in the Energy Bill will boost competition and market access for independent generators across the UK.

[Chi Onwurah]

Npower told my constituent Alan Gowers, a pensioner, that his tariff was ending and his new one would be 50% more expensive. SSE estimated that my spend would go up by 10% and so it tripled my direct debits. I have worked in competition regulation for six years and I can tell the Secretary of State that this is not a competitive market. When a market is not functioning—when it is fuelling a cost of living crisis—do a Government who stand up for people not intervene?

[Mr Davey]

We are intervening, because the market we inherited from the previous Government was not as competitive as it should have been. Before Labour’s previous energy market reforms, there were three generators and 14 suppliers—17 companies—but after those reforms the number went down to six, so Labour reduced competition. Labour is the party of the big six. This coalition Government have acted to make sure that we have competition to take on the big six, so the hon. Lady should speak to her Front Benchers because Labour is the party of non-competitive energy markets—the party of the big six—whereas our coalition Government are taking on the big six.

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

As part of the competition assessment, the Secretary of State could do worse than visit the workers at Ineos at Grangemouth, who supply the energy needs for the whole of Scotland and, indeed, the north of England, and whose jobs are now under threat from a belligerent employer that has walked away from talks with the trade unions and, more seriously, is now demanding taxpayers’ money in order to invest in the company.

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s question. I hope he will be reassured by the fact that I have spoken personally both to key Unite trade union leaders and to Ineos. We persuaded them to go into ACAS talks. I regret that those talks have broken down, but I urge both parties to resume them and try to resolve this situation without industrial dispute. May I take this opportunity to say that, working with the Scottish Government and industry, we have done everything we can to make sure that if there is a dispute, the fuel will flow through Scotland’s economy?

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) gave two of the many examples that hon. Members could give of how the retail energy market is not working in the interests of households or businesses. Ensuring that all power trading is on an open exchange and stopping companies selling power to themselves at secret prices, as we are proposing, will reset the market, encourage other entrants and ensure that people know why they are paying what they are paying. Will the Minister confirm the speculation in The Times at the weekend that his Government will shortly perform a welcome U-turn and adopt our proposal to introduce a pool that will bring clarity, fairness and transparency to the UK retail energy market?

[Mr Davey]

No, we will not, because we have got a much better policy. Working with Ofgem and in the Energy Bill, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know now, we are tackling the real problem in the wholesale market—a problem that the previous Labour Government completely failed to deal with. Interestingly, Labour’s new policy reverses the policy that Labour implemented in government —talk about confused; never have an Opposition been so confused in their policies.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

7. What progress has been made on exploratory drilling in Balcombe, West Sussex.

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

The licence holder, Cuadrilla, has drilled a well, including a horizontal section, in accordance with the planning permission granted by West Sussex county council, to explore for oil. Apart from the scrutiny by the planning authority, the proposals were subject to scrutiny by the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive and my Department to ensure that the operations are safe and that the environment is protected.

[Nicholas Soames]

My right hon. Friend will know that Balcombe lies in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who, as a Cabinet Minister, is unable to ask parliamentary questions. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the exploratory drilling at Balcombe was, as he said, subject to the most rigorous monitoring and regulation, that further detailed regulatory approvals would be needed before fracking could take place and that the recovery of these valuable energy resources will not override the need for local residents’ understandable concerns to be heard and registered?

[Mr Davey]

My right hon. Friend will know that I have spoken to our right hon. Friend about that. We have also ensured that the regulatory regime applying not just to west Sussex but across the country is as tough as any regulatory regime anywhere in the world and we keep it under review to ensure that it remains that tough. He might be interested to learn that the Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), as Energy Minister, will meet west Sussex MPs next week to discuss the issue.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

8. What proportion of UK energy demand is met by renewable sources.

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

In 2012, under the measure used for the 2009 EU renewable energy directive, renewable sources contributed 4.1% of gross final energy consumption. In terms of renewable electricity, however, the share of overall generation has more than doubled in the last three years, from 6% in the second quarter of 2010, when the Labour party left government, to 15.5% in the second quarter of 2013.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I welcome that answer from my right hon. Friend. Alstom in my constituency supplies component parts for turbines used in tidal lagoons, such as those proposed by Tidal Lagoon Power, a consortium of which Alstom is a member. What is my right hon. Friend doing to support such tidal projects, which generate clean electricity and provide critical base load energy?

[Gregory Barker]

My hon. Friend will know that this Government have put much greater emphasis on driving forward the efforts to develop the potential for marine energy around our shoreline. We have created two marine energy parks to do that. Tidal lagoon is a very interesting technology. The project in Swansea is at a pre-planning application stage, so I cannot give a specific answer on that project, but we are interested in working on research and development to drive the technology forward.

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

I do not know whether the Minister is as early a riser as I am, but on “Farming Today” there was a poor farmer who had been encouraged by a £1 million grant to grow willow and miscanthus. There is no market for it, nor great storage for it, so what kind of policy is that? Will the Minister listen to that programme, even if he has to listen to it on iPlayer, and do something about farmers who are trying to contribute to renewable energy?

[Gregory Barker]

A poor farmer with a £1 million grant seems a slight oxymoron, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is making a real point. I will happily look into the programme he mentions, but I regularly meet the National Farmers Union, the Country Land and Business Association and a range of stakeholders with an interest in bioenergy. We are making great progress under this Government and picking up the slack left by the last.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) is wittering away from a sedentary position and meanwhile the right hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) is chuntering about the merits of cricket bats. I have not yet had the pleasure of observing the right hon. Gentleman bat, but I feel sure that that delight awaits me in due course.

[Bill Wiggin (North Herefordshire) (Con)]

If The Times is correct that the nuclear industry will receive twice the wholesale price for electricity, what are the implications for renewable energy, and does that mean that we can continue to grow the sector?

[Gregory Barker]

The thing about this Government’s energy policy is that we want a range of technologies. Energy security will come from diversity, and we are committed to driving forward the nuclear programme in a way that the previous Labour Government did not, but not to the exclusion or detriment of significant investment in a range of other technologies, including, importantly, renewables and energy efficiency.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

What are the Government doing to ensure that the investment in the renewable industry paid for by UK taxpayers and UK energy bill payers results in jobs in the UK, not jobs elsewhere?

[Gregory Barker]

That is a very good question. We are doing a great deal more than the previous Government. The London Array, for example, was a fantastic installation, but it is a shame that 80% of it was constructed and contracted abroad. We now have an industrial strategy. We are working in partnership with the industry to establish, mobilise and grow a supply chain here in the UK. Only if we have a really vibrant UK supply chain is the roll-out of renewables at scale genuinely sustainable.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to promote competition in European energy markets.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

The Government strongly support a competitive and better connected energy market across Europe. Increased competition can put downward pressure on energy prices in the long term and help us maintain secure supplies. We are involved in a number of areas to drive competition, including the development of EU-wide market rules, regional infrastructure initiatives and cross-border projects, including more interconnectors.

[Neil Carmichael]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that expansive answer. Does the Minister agree that, in contrast to Labour’s energy price con, the Government’s focus on more competition through the single market by enhancing the role of energy within that market is right?

[Michael Fallon]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, and I could not have put it better. I shall be pursuing these issues later this afternoon in Brussels in the Commission.

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

Why have the Government failed to include interconnection with Europe as part of the capacity payment arrangements that they recently announced as part of the DECC implementation programme?

[Michael Fallon]

We have not ruled that out for the second stage. A number of proposals have been put to us for new interconnectors, and we are looking at each of them.

[Julie Elliott (Sunderland Central) (Lab)]

As a result of weak competition and ineffective regulation, electricity prices in Britain—according to the Department’s own figures—are the sixth highest in the EU15, the third highest in the G7 and almost 20% above the EU15 and G7 average. The Minister will know that energy bills are the second biggest cost that businesses face, and that ever higher prices cost jobs and deter investment. Why will he not support Labour’s policy to stop unfair price rises by freezing energy bills until January 2017, saving the average business some £1,800, and reform the energy market to reintroduce competition and rebuild trust?

[Michael Fallon]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her new responsibilities. I think that the prices she quoted were pre-tax rather than post-tax, but the answer is simple—to bear down on prices, we need more competition. The Labour party left us with the big six. It started with 14 retailers; we ended up with the big six. The answer is more competition, easier switching and ensuring that the most vulnerable people are placed on the lowest possible tariff.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

10. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of support for offshore and onshore wind energy.

[Andrea Leadsom (South Northamptonshire) (Con)]

12. What recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of government subsidy for onshore wind farms.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

Support for onshore and offshore wind projects is provided under the renewables obligation and, from next year, under contracts for difference. Support rates take account of the costs of each technology, and are intended to be sufficient to support delivery of our renewable energy and carbon reduction targets, while minimising costs to consumers.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for that reply. I hope that the Minister agrees with me that Bournemouth is one of the most attractive and popular seaside resorts in Britain. Whatever one’s views, tourism is important to the town and the area, but many of my constituents are concerned about the visual impact of the proposed offshore wind farm in Poole bay. There are many questions such as how many turbines will be built, the exact locations and how high they will be. I would be grateful for a meeting with the Minister to discuss this important matter.

[Michael Fallon]

I am very much aware of my hon. Friend’s strong concerns about the proposal. No application has been made, but let me assure him that the visual impact and acceptability of any installation is one of the factors that would be considered by the planning inspectorate and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in determining any application of this kind.

[Andrea Leadsom]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his reply on the subject of subsidies, but given that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said that current planning applications give

“insufficient weight . . . to local environmental considerations like landscape, heritage and local amenity”,—[Official Report, 10 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 31W]—

does he agree that the subsidies provided to developers need to take account of the very real local concerns about how these things are blighting the countryside?

[Michael Fallon]

We have reduced the support for onshore wind projects from April this year and the draft strike prices that we have set out are reduced over time up until 2018, but the new planning policy framework makes it clear that local authorities should have policies in place to ensure that any adverse impacts, including visual impacts and cumulative impacts, are addressed satisfactorily. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has made it clear that he intends now to call in more applications at appeal to ensure that the new planning practice guidance is meeting the Government’s intentions.

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

May I advise the Minister that while the incentives are clearly proving sufficient to encourage a number of prominent local Conservatives to apply for wind farms to be built on land in Northumberland, what concerns many of my constituents is whether landscape, which the Minister mentioned, and proximity to residences can be taken properly into account at every stage in the planning process?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes. I want to reassure my right hon. Friend. Planning applications in respect of onshore wind should be approved only if the impacts are acceptable to the local community. The new planning guidance from the Department for Communities and Local Government helps to deliver the balance that we expect, ensuring that proper weight is given to the visual impact, the cumulative impact and any heritage implications for particular sites.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

13. What progress his Department is making towards the UK’s carbon reduction targets.

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

The Government are fully committed to meeting the greenhouse gas emissions reduction targets set out in the Climate Change Act 2008, and I am pleased to tell the House that the UK is now 25% below 1990 emissions levels and on track to meet our 2020 34% reduction target.

[Andrew George]

Many people query why that is important. The recently published Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change fifth assessment report confirms both the nature and the scale of climate change and human contribution to it. Does my right hon. Friend believe that any Government engaged in evidence-based policy making can afford to ignore these trends? What would be the risks and consequences if we attempted to do so?

[Gregory Barker]

This Government are very clear that we will continue to drive forward the decarbonisation of the energy sector and of the wider economy, consistent with meeting our targets in the Climate Change Act, which we are committed to. But we need to make sure that we do that in a way that keeps our industry competitive, does not put a burden on consumers and is consistent with growing prosperity. I think this coalition is absolutely up to that job.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Why, then, did the British Government this week help Germany scupper a very important European agreement on reducing CO₂ emissions from the most polluting vehicles?

[Gregory Barker]

We did not. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I think I heard the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) make an allegation of dishonesty. I must ask him to withdraw that word. I think he used a three-letter word which implied direct dishonesty.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I apologise, Mr Speaker, but perhaps the Minister could clarify how Britain voted.

[Mr Speaker]

We cannot continue the debate in that way. Topical questions will continue the exchange, but I must ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw that word.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I happily withdraw it.

[Mr Speaker]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. All these matters will be aired further, I am sure.

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

It is true that emissions are down both from this country and in Europe, but the contribution of Europe and the United Kingdom to atmospheric carbon dioxide is increasing because of imported manufactured goods. What is the Minister going to do about that?

[Gregory Barker]

The hon. Gentleman does have a point. Ultimately, we will not defeat dangerous manmade climate change unless there is a global solution. Although we can play our part, the important thing is that we secure a global deal involving all the major economies, particularly China, America and the other fast-growing developing economies, and get everybody on a sustainable economic path. That is why we are putting more and more effort into securing a meaningful, robust global treaty in 2015.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

14. What steps his Department is taking to ensure that residents of Northumberland who are off the grid have sufficient support during cold weather this winter.

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

The Government want everybody to be able to access secure and affordable fuel supplies for heating their homes. This year’s “Buy oil early” campaign was launched on 11 September to encourage consumers to stock up early and join oil-buying groups, where cost savings can be found. I will continue to work through the all-party group and the ministerial roundtable on off-gas grid issues to see what further action is required.

[Guy Opperman]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Our concern should particularly be for vulnerable residents caught out by sudden spring cold snaps. Does he agree that there is scope for a pilot project in Northumberland in which a consortium of oil-buying clubs, parish councils and credit unions could be funded to assist such residents?

[Michael Fallon]

Yes; we very much welcome the development of local initiatives that can help promote a more affordable supply of heating oil to consumers. I look forward to seeing my hon. Friend’s final proposals for a pilot project in Northumberland and will then ask my officials to consider what support might be made available to assist him in taking it forward.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of the potential effects of proposed EU anti-dumping tariffs applicable to solar PV cells manufactured in China; and if he will make a statement.

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

Following a robust intervention from the UK, including a delegation of key industry players that I took to Brussels, the European Commission has negotiated an agreement with Chinese exporters that is a significant improvement on the initial EU position. The agreement should mean that we will not undermine the future of the UK solar PV industry or deprive UK consumers of the benefits of cheaper solar panels.

[Michael Fabricant]

I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. It is good to hear that he stands up not only to the energy companies, but to the European Commission. Does he not agree that if the European Commission had had its way, its tariffs would have not only been inflationary, but damaged the photovoltaic industry, which does so much good in employing people in this country?

[Gregory Barker]

How typical of my hon. Friend to align himself with an energy source driven by sunshine. I am grateful to him for pointing this out. The UK’s solar sector now has a strong future, thanks to our reforms. It is affordable for consumers, who pay for the subsidy through their bills, and it is now scalable. We are working with the industry to drive down the costs and make this an attractive proposition for consumers up and down the country.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

17. What steps he has taken to reduce fuel poverty this winter.

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

This year the green deal and the energy company obligation have already transformed the homes of 216,000 low-income and vulnerable households, cutting bills and keeping people warm. Additionally, this winter our warm home discount scheme will pay out to 2 million households, including over 1 million of the poorest pensioners. The Government have also permanently increased cold weather payments to £25 a week, and all pensioners will receive winter fuel payments.

[Andrew Stephenson]

I thank the Minister for that answer. My constituents want practical help with energy bills, not a rearrangement of the deckchairs at the regulator, Ofgem. Will he confirm what steps the Government are taking to help my most vulnerable constituents keep warm this winter?

[Gregory Barker]

Absolutely. There will be no return to the 1970s under this Government. We will offer practical help to people struggling with energy bills. This winter, as I have said, that means: a warm home discount worth £135 for 2 million households, including 1.1 million pensioners; guaranteed winter fuel payments for all pensioners; and cold weather payments permanently uprated to £25. Of course, we are also rolling out the most ambitious energy efficiency programme to date, which I am sure will be of great help to my hon. Friend’s constituents.

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

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

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

Since the last Energy and Climate Change questions we have been busy. The Energy Bill is continuing its progress through Parliament and we hope that it will achieve Royal Assent by the end of the year. That will help deliver the modernised infrastructure and cleaner energy that the country needs to meet our energy security requirements and climate change obligations. The House might be interested to know the latest figures we have on investment: we have seen at least £35 billion invested in increased electricity infrastructure alone since 2010, a 56% year-on-year increase in renewable energy investment and a doubling of renewable electricity generation under this Government. Also, our policies to help the fuel poor are in place for the winter.[Official Report, 1 November 2013, Vol. 569, c. 7MC.]

[Steve McCabe]

Pensioner Val Soames has been in touch to advise me that E.ON has told her that it is scrapping its fixed-rate StayWarm pensioner tariff as a result of Government policy, just in time to increase the bills of thousands of pensioners this winter. When exactly did the Minister last speak to E.ON about this problem, and how is he going to put it right?

[Mr Davey]

I speak to E.ON and other energy suppliers and generators frequently. We are looking at the tariff reforms to make sure that they deliver the competitive markets that Ofgem believes they will. We believe that a large number of people will be really benefited by these reforms.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

T3. The Government are rightly encouraging investment in energy infrastructure by institutional investors through initiatives such as the Treasury’s pensions infrastructure platform. Will the Minister’s Department tell the Treasury how important it is that that investment in infrastructure is low-carbon and compatible with our overall climate change goals, and will he welcome ShareAction’s campaign to encourage institutional investors to invest in truly green energy futures?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend knows that we are a champion of low-carbon energy investment. I strongly welcome ShareAction’s campaign to promote responsible investment by pension funds and fund managers. People who operate these pension funds should think long term, and there is no longer-term problem and challenge for the people they are investing for than climate change.

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

During these questions British Gas has announced that from 23 November it will increase its gas prices by 8.4% and its electricity prices by 10.4%. This is the company that, with Centrica, has passed on the highest share of its profits to its shareholders while making the least amount of investment into what we need to ensure our energy security in future. Two years ago the accountancy firm BDO warned that the big six energy companies could be under-reporting their profits and recommended tighter rules, but the Government and Ofgem failed to act. We backed the new rules, and so did a recent Select Committee report, but in their response all the Government could say was, “Government is not in a position to comment.” Why will not the Secretary of State stand up for consumers, support Labour’s price freeze and make the energy companies tell us exactly how much money they are earning?

[Mr Davey]

First, that is extremely disappointing news for British Gas customers. British Gas will need to justify its decision openly and transparently to bill-payers. British Gas was the only energy company not to meet its targets under the previous obligation to make its customers’ homes more energy-efficient. That left more homes cold and its customers paying over the odds. British Gas has form in failing to meet its targets, the last of which was set by Labour. I hope that the right hon. Lady will join me in making sure that British Gas is more transparent about its costs. We are pushing competition, and I urge British Gas customers who are unhappy to change their supplier.

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

T4. I welcome the emphasis on microgeneration, including ground-source and air-source heat pumps, plus deploying solar PV on rooftops and brownfield sites where appropriate, and I recognise its potential, but what is being done to stop deployment of the unwanted large-scale ground-mounted PV farms?

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

My hon. Friend makes a good point. We have an ambitious plan for solar, focused on rooftops, on-site generation and brownfield sites. That is why this summer we toughened up the planning guidance, distributed it to local authorities, and made it absolutely clear that the need for renewable energy does not automatically override environmental protections and the planning concerns of local communities. I want to see our guidance in force, and I will be writing to local planning bosses to make sure that they take it on board.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

T2. Under this Government, according to Ofgem’s latest figures, average household fuel bills have increased by £315 a year, while wholesale energy prices have gone up by just £145 a year. That leaves a gap of £170 a year. How much of that is made up by the extra tax taken by the Government from consumers, and how much by higher profits taken by the energy companies?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the vast majority of the rises in people’s bills have come from wholesale prices, as he said, and network cost rises. He should know that a bill is made up of a host of things: the biggest portion is wholesale and the next biggest is network cost. They are the big cost measures that people are unfortunately experiencing.

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

T7. In my constituency there are two major brick-manufacturing companies. As hon. Members will know, brick making is highly energy-intensive, and I am concerned that, without action, increased energy costs will make their product potentially unaffordable to the construction industry, which is getting on with the essential task of building the homes we desperately need. What is my right hon. Friend doing to address this urgent and pressing issue?

[The Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Michael Fallon)]

I will certainly look at my hon. Friend’s specific points about the brick industry. We have an energy-intensive industries support scheme and are already making payments under it. We hope to conclude further payments by the end of this month. I will certainly see what can be done to help the brick-making industry and see whether it can be included in our measures.

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

T5. On the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) about British Gas price rises, will the Secretary of State explain how British Gas has increased its operating profit to nearly £1.6 billion, as announced in June 2013, and yet people around the country will now see their prices rise by 8% and 10%? How can that be fair to this country’s consumers? When will the Government get a grip on this and finally do something about it?

[Mr Davey]

We are doing things about it. Not only are we promoting competition and urging people who are unhappy with suppliers such as British Gas to change and choose others—there are plenty out there, thanks to this and not the hon. Gentleman’s Government—but we are also making sure that the energy companies are more transparent. I urge British Gas to publish and be more transparent about the increased policy costs that it is blaming for these bill rises. We have looked at its initial figures and question whether the policy costs, which it claims are putting up the bill, are the root cause.

[Nigel Adams (Selby and Ainsty) (Con)]

T9. Given the importance that the Minister has placed on converting coal-fired power stations to biomass, including the plans for those in Drax and Eggborough in my constituency, and also in the light of National Grid’s winter outlook report, which states that capacity reserves could be as low as 5%, will he update the House on the progress of those two strategically important projects?

[Michael Fallon]

We recognise the importance of biomass projects such as those in my hon. Friend’s constituency. We included draft strike prices for biomass in the prices we published at the end of June and we expect to confirm them by the end of the year. We hope that between 1 GW and 4 GW of biomass will come onstream.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

T8. The Minister previously promised me that he would discuss cold alarms with the energy suppliers and let me know their response, but he has not. With people choosing between heating and eating, and with prices ridiculously high, will he please now tell me what progress he has made on cold alarms, which will alert vulnerable people and their carers when temperatures become dangerously low and prevent more unnecessary deaths this winter?

[Gregory Barker]

I apologise to the hon. Lady. I am not sure whether she actually wrote to me, which I invited her to do following her question. I will look at the issue again after these questions to see where we are, and I will write to her later today.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

Will the Minister confirm that he is continuing to work with industry to agree a long-term strategy for the offshore wind sector that will secure large-scale private investment and create thousands of jobs in my constituency and other coastal constituencies?

[Michael Fallon]

We have an offshore wind industrial strategy, which we published earlier this summer, and I look forward to taking it forward with the Offshore Wind Industry Council, which I co-chair. Offshore wind is part of the energy mix. We have put draft strike prices out for consultation, which has now closed, and we are analysing the responses. We expect to confirm the final strike prices for offshore wind by the end of the year.

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

A missive from Ineos Grangemouth, which supplies 80% of the fuel for Scotland and the north of England and accounts for 10% of the gross national product of Scotland, says that the plant is

“shut and will remain shut”.

I have kept all Ministers informed through the Secretary of State for Scotland, as well as those on the Opposition Front Bench. The Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change said earlier that he wanted people to get back to ACAS. However, he has also made it clear that supplies will still get through to Scotland by other means. The company has prepared for this and the cold shutdown of the refinery and petrochemical plant has been done deliberately. It must be urged to start up the plant again and to take the knife from the throat of the workers and the gun from the head of the Scottish people.

[Mr Davey]

I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter and is a voice of moderation. He knows that I have worked hard to get the ACAS talks going. They did get going, but unfortunately they broke down. I repeat my request that all sides get around the table and resolve the matter without a dispute. I am pleased that Unite called off the strike. We have been working with the Scottish Government and the industry to ensure that Scotland gets the petrol, diesel and heating oil that it needs.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

When will the Government publish the Atkins report and their response so that we can begin to unlock the huge potential in Cornwall and the UK for deep geothermal energy?

[Mr Davey]

That is an important report. I cannot give my hon. Friend an exact time, but it will be published relatively shortly.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Given the announcement from British Gas, would the Secretary of State not be best advised, rather than just expressing disappointment and urging transparency, to send out the message that there will come a point when he will intervene on these companies that are jacking up prices? At what point will he intervene?

[Mr Davey]

I have done more than that from the Dispatch Box. I have said to British Gas customers that if they are worried about the prices, they should change supplier. A range of competitors and alternative suppliers are offering much better deals. By the way, those suppliers are there because of the actions of this Government. In 2011, no other independent supplier could compete with British Gas and SSE, and none had more than 50,000 customers. We now have strong, independent suppliers that customers can turn to and I urge them to do so.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

In welcoming the new solar road map, in which the Minister sets out guiding principles for the appropriate siting of solar PV, may I ask what added protection from solar farms the road map gives to green-belt land?

[Gregory Barker]

The road map sets out our industrial strategy. The right place to protect important areas such as the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and grade 1 agricultural land, about which we care passionately, must be the planning process. In particular, we must ensure that local people have a proper say. That is why I am reminding local planning authorities that they have a duty to enforce that.

[Mr Speaker]

I do not know why the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) was not heard with his first question, but I hope that he will be heard this time.

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

A number of times today, the Secretary of State and his Ministers have defended the policy of simplifying tariffs for energy customers, but they have not once addressed the fact that low energy users, who are often people on low incomes, are worse off because of the recommendation from Ofgem to reintroduce standing charges. Will he look at that issue and ask Ofgem to reconsider the policy that it appears to be imposing on the energy suppliers?

[Mr Davey]

We believe, and there is a huge amount of evidence for this, that the Ofgem reforms will lead to more competition, because they will get rid of a lot of the confusion and complexity. The last Government failed to act on the multitude of tariffs, which have got in the way of the consumer’s ability to choose. There may well be a few people who see an increase in tariffs in the short term because of Ofgem’s reforms, but because of the extra competition that will bear down on prices, the majority of people will get a better deal.

Al-Madinah Free School

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

10:33

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

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Education to make a statement on the failings of the Al-Madinah free school revealed in the Ofsted inspection report.

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I welcome this opportunity to make a statement on the Al-Madinah free school, and I apologise to the House for the absence of the Secretary of State, who is abroad. We have received the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to the Secretary of State on 15 October, raising issues relating to that school, and Lord Nash and I will respond to it shortly.

The Al-Madinah free school serves children and young people between the ages of 4 and 16 in the Derby city community, and it has been open for just a year. After a steady start by the school we became aware of potential breaches of the conditions in its funding agreement late this summer, and at the end of July we began a wide-ranging investigation into the financial management and governance of the school. We investigated whether it was delivering on its commitment to be inclusive, and we investigated allegations about the imposition of a dress requirement on female members of staff. Our investigations did indeed find significant and numerous breaches of the conditions in the school’s funding agreement, and our concerns were such that we requested Ofsted to bring forward its planned inspection.

The Ofsted report is published this morning. It found that the school is dysfunctional, and inadequate across every category of inspection: achievement of pupils; quality of teaching; behaviour and safety of pupils; and leadership and management. We were already taking decisive action before we received the Ofsted report. Lord Nash wrote to the chair of the trust on 8 October, following the previous investigations, and set out all the requirements for the trust to take swift and decisive actions to deal with the serious concerns. We have been clear with the trust that failure to do so promptly will result in the school’s funding being terminated. We have also been clear that the trust must address all the breaches identified. We will not let any school, whether a free school, an academy, or a local authority school, languish in failure. The Ofsted report confirms that we are taking the right actions. We are not prepared to allow a school to fail its parents, its children and its community. We said we would take swift action in these cases, and that is exactly what we are doing.

[Tristram Hunt]

Today’s Ofsted report exposes the fact that the Government’s free school programme has become a dangerous free for all, an out-of-control, ideological experiment that has closed a school, leaving 400 children losing an entire week of learning. It is a devastating blow to the Education Secretary’s flagship policy, and reveals that pupils have been failed on every possible measure. Parents will want to know why the Education Secretary has allowed that to happen.

Contrary to what the Minister said, in a pre-registration report in July 2012, Ofsted deemed the school to be failing to meet basic child protection standards, even before it was opened. Why did Ministers not act on those concerns before signing a funding agreement for the school? Why have Ministers allowed a school to be run by large numbers of unqualified staff? Why have Ministers sanctioned “dangerous levels” of safety and behaviour, and why have they allowed children with special educational needs to be left to struggle? In a city where every child needs to be supported and educated to the highest possible level, the Education Secretary has sacrificed learning for ideology. It is not just Al-Madinah school that is dysfunctional; it is the Education Secretary’s free schools policy.

[Mr Laws]

The support of the Labour party for free schools did not last long, did it? I do not know how the hon. Gentleman has the nerve to come to the House. On Sunday he was going around television studios and saying that Labour was shifting its position on free schools. He said:

“We will keep those free schools going”.

Within the same set of Department for Education press cuttings in which he announced he was shifting his position in favour of free schools, we find a headline stating that Labour now plans to rein in free schools. It is complete and utter incoherence from the hon. Gentleman, and he should be ashamed.

Let me respond in detail to every single serious point the hon. Gentleman made—it will not take very long—and go back over what has happened in Al-Madinah school and the scrutiny to which it has been subjected. The school opened in September 2012. It had a pre-registration Ofsted report, as all such schools do—such a report is not sensational. In the report, Ofsted set down a number of requirements that it wanted met before the school opened. In advance of the school opening, the trust went through the requirements with the lead contact in the Department for Education. It produced certificates to show that it had done the safeguarding and first aid training, and a certificate—[Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State ought to listen to this. The school produced a certificate authorised by the director of planning and transportation at Derby city council saying that the building was fit for occupation. After that, the Department sent an adviser to the school two months after it opened, who saw the good progress that the school was making at that stage.

In July 2013, we became aware of concerns about equalities and management issues at the school and acted immediately on that. We established an Education Funding Agency financial investigation into the school and sent our advisers to it. We asked Ofsted to bring forward its inspection, which has now taken place. Prior to receiving that inspection, the Under-Secretary of State, Lord Nash, wrote to the school setting out precisely the actions that it will take, and making it clear that its funding will not continue unless it addresses those things.

If the shadow Secretary of State is so supportive of free schools, why does he not have the responsibility to put the failure of the school into context? Seventy-five per cent. of the free schools that have opened have been rated good or outstanding by Ofsted. That is a higher proportion than the proportion of local authority schools. We did not hear that from the hon. Gentleman.

On complacency, which I believe is the allegation the hon. Gentleman makes, may I remind him of the record of the Labour Government whom he defends? At the end of their period in office, 8% of schools in this country —more than 1,500—were rated as inadequate, many had been so for years, with no action. By focusing on one school in which the Government are taking action, the hon. Gentleman is failing schools in this country, including ones that failed under the Labour Government, when little action was taken.

People listening to these exchanges and to the hon. Gentleman, and reflecting on what he said on Sunday and how he has stood on his head today, will see nothing other than total and utter opportunism and shambles from Labour’s education policy.

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

The leaked Ofsted report states that

“the governors have failed the parents of this community who have placed their trust in them.”

Will Ministers intervene to replace the current board of governors with an interim executive board? Looking to the future, what steps will the Minister take to ensure that the training available to the governors of free schools properly equips them for that important role?

[Mr Laws]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman—the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education—that Lord Nash and I are taking decisive action to ensure that the school improves its leadership and governance. The hon. Gentleman will understand why I cannot go into all the details of that, although the clear requirements are set out in the letter Lord Nash wrote to the school on 8 October, which has been published.

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

The leaked report has rung an alarm bell. Will the right hon. Gentleman learn the lessons from it, because what begins as a good idea—having unqualified and sometimes untrained teachers in an establishment—can, in some cases, be very dangerous and damaging? May we have an explicit word from him this morning to say that, in this country, no establishment and no school—this should not even happen in home schooling—should treat girls in a subservient way and differently from boys?

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Gentleman, the former Chair of the Select Committee, is absolutely right: different treatment for boys and girls is unacceptable. We have made that absolutely clear and required the school to change those practices immediately, for both pupils and teaching staff. He is a reasonable man and will know that it is sensible and responsible to draw the right conclusions from one school, and balance them against the success of many free schools. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) wanted to praise and associate himself with that success on Sunday and withdrew his support by Tuesday.

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

I declare an interest as chair of governors of St James’ Church of England primary school in Bermondsey and as a trustee of Bacon’s college in Rotherhithe. Having seen the report that states clearly four findings of inadequacy, nine significant failings and only three strengths, will the Minister tell us the timetable for Al-Madinah school, if it is to continue, to be found good, satisfactory or excellent? What is the process for new schools on how soon inspections can happen? What is the trigger for parents and concerned parties in any school to start a process of additional inspection, and what is the speed at which that can be done?

[Mr Laws]

I assure my right hon. Friend that we are following a two-pronged strategy to deal with these concerns. The Minister with responsibility for free schools, Lord Nash, set out clearly, in a letter on 8 October to the chair of governors, a series of actions that are expected to be taken by the free school in swift order—within this calendar month. We will report back to the House and others on those actions, including the issues identified by Ofsted, to ensure that they have been taken and dealt with. In addition, given the highly critical nature of the report, Ofsted will follow up to ensure improvements are rapid. We will consider, very swiftly indeed, whether the governing body and the existing leadership have the capacity to make those improvements.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

The Minister will know that the majority of children who attend the school are of the Muslim faith: this is a faith school that is also a free school. Earlier this year, on 15 March, the Secretary of State opened the first Hindu free school that is a faith school in my constituency, which I applaud and welcome. Will he confirm that nothing he has said today will affect the Government’s policy if a faith school wishes to be a free school?

[Mr Laws]

I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we will still allow faith schools to be free schools. We must not lose sight of the fact that some of the best schools are faith schools. That includes Muslim schools—both free and non-free schools—some of which have secured impressive levels of attainment and progress.

[Mr Rob Wilson (Reading East) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware of the mess that the previous Government made of education, but he may not be aware that the chair of the education trust and chair of governors at Al-Madinah free school is a member of, and fundraiser for, the Labour party and recently stood as a candidate in the Derby city council elections. Does the Minister think the mess the school is in could have anything to do with a local leadership that seems to come directly from the national Labour party?

[Mr Laws]

What I can compare favourably is the swift action that this Government take when we find a school that is failing. That contrasts with the previous Labour Government, who had more than 1,500 schools categorised as inadequate. I do not remember any occasion where the same scrutiny was given to those schools.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Surely this situation demonstrates the need for those working with children to be properly trained and qualified. Will the Minister change course, follow our lead and require all teachers to be qualified?

[Mr Laws]

We want to ensure that teachers in schools have good qualifications and the capacity to teach. The hon. Lady will know, however, that there are plenty of teachers who may not have formal qualifications but who still do a superb job. We are ensuring, through the Ofsted inspection process, that every single teacher has the capability to teach. All classes are assessed for quality, and that is the right way to ensure a backstop of high standards.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

There are 170 free schools across the country and plans for more, including one serving my constituency. Will the Minister assure me that, notwithstanding this isolated case, the Government’s plans for these schools will go ahead so that they can continue raising standards?

[Mr Laws]

I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. The speed with which the shadow Secretary of State has stood on his head regarding Labour policy on free schools will unnerve many free schools across the country and undermine the confidence of the many free schools that are doing a fantastic and innovative job. I just draw attention to the fact that the proportion of free schools that are outstanding and good is higher than in the rest of the school population, even though many of them have only been in existence for two years.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

The Minister reports that his Department had concerns about this school. Which other free schools does his Department have concerns about?

[Mr Laws]

I think the hon. Gentleman is talking about the concerns we identified in July and August. We acted swiftly on those, and we would act swiftly on any other concerns.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Is it not right that the Government should take action, whether a free school or a Government-run school is having problems, and is it not wrong to leap on one single instance of a problem, because it is being tackled, and blame the other 169 schools, too?

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Gentleman is exactly right. When we consider how to intervene in failing schools, we need to consider the challenge of intervening just as swiftly as we are in this school in the hundreds of other schools across the country that are performing inadequately. The hard reality is that under the last Government and some previous Governments, too many inadequate schools across the country were able to sustain inadequate performance for long periods. The challenge is to ensure that the focus on this school is also on all those other maintained schools, which the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central seems far less attracted to focusing on.

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

The local authority in this case has neither the power nor the capacity to help, so who will help the school to improve and take the action the Minister is requiring it to take?

[Mr Laws]

We certainly will take action. The local authority concerned should reflect on some of the schools that it is responsible for in the area, many of which are not good or outstanding. It should focus on doing its job; we will do ours.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Is the Minister as surprised as I am that, interestingly, whereas the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), who has been vociferous in the national and local press about this school, because he is totally against free schools, wants it brought within the remit of the local authority, the chairman of governors, who wanted to be a Labour councillor, was quite happy with it? Labour’s policy is all over the place. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was at odds with the shadow Secretary of State, but clearly he is not.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. First, the question was too long; secondly, the Minister has absolutely no responsibility for the attendance or stance of absent or present Members. Perhaps we can deal holistically with the issue, rather than with the minutiae.

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Lady has succeeded rather well in highlighting the fact that anybody trying to understand what Labour’s policy on free schools this week would be rather confused.

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

The Minister spoke about the safeguards in place to prevent this sort of thing from happening, but his comments were unconvincing given that it has happened and children are suffering as a result. Will he now acknowledge that the Secretary of State in Whitehall cannot possibly provide the level of scrutiny, oversight or support that schools need and which the local community, through the local authority, is much better placed to provide?

[Mr Laws]

The very fact that we are having this urgent question about one particular school that has performed very badly shows the degree of scrutiny there is on free schools. The challenge is to ensure that every other failing school across the country has the same level of scrutiny.

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

The failing of any school is regrettable, be it a free school or non-free school, but does the Minister accept that we need to see it in the context of the success of the policy? Can he reassure me that strong action will be taken and that the model that has worked successfully elsewhere will also be used in this case?

[Mr Laws]

I can give precisely that assurance. I can assure my hon. Friend that those of us on the Government Benches will not ignore and run down the achievements of the vast majority of free schools, which have done an absolutely fantastic job in the last two years.

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

The Minister says he wants to ensure that teachers are qualified and supervised, but last year his Department announced that teachers in free schools and academies did not need to be qualified to be appointed and never did. As a result, Al-Madinah school appointed virtually all its teachers on an unqualified basis. Does he think that is any cause for reflection on the announcement he made last year about unqualified teachers being acceptable?

[Mr Laws]

The governing body and the school leadership have a clear responsibility to recruit teachers who are fit to do the job, and if they are failing to do that, we will act against them.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

I salute the Government’s swift action on this matter. Does the Minister agree that it also reinforces the argument that we need strong and effective leadership in schools, especially through school governance?

[Mr Laws]

I certainly do. If Members, particularly on the Opposition Benches, reflect more carefully on this issue, they will see that one of the lessons is that the speed with which we have acted on the concerns expressed should be reflected in the speed with which we see action in all schools that are weak.

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

Will the Minister ensure that one sector of these children—children with special learning difficulties—is looked after more than others? They are the ones who suffer most in any school that this happens to. Will he ensure through his office that those children get adequate cover while this period of uncertainty continues?

[Mr Laws]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to put the spotlight on the young people in the school, whose concerns need to be top of our list of priorities. We will ensure that those with special needs—indeed, all the pupils—are properly catered for through this period, which is one reason why Lord Nash has acted so swiftly to ensure that the school resolves the outstanding problems.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

The free school revolution has triggered a renaissance of educational hope and lit a thousand candles around the country, with people investing and taking an interest in new education. May I welcome the speed with which those on the Front Bench have acted on this school, but also urge the Minister and the team not in any way to allow the intellectual and political gymnastics of Opposition Front Benchers—who have opposed progressive reforms in education for years and have now seized on one case of failure—to slow down these important reforms, which are giving hope to millions?

[Mr Laws]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we are not impressed or distracted by the gymnastics we have seen over the last week or by the desperate attempt by the shadow Education Secretary to resolve his differences with his own Schools Minister, who has a totally different view about free schools. We will remain focused on improving this school—and, indeed, all schools across the country that need improvement.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that this urgent question demonstrates the Opposition’s political dogma on education? They are using one failing free school to criticise all free schools. Given that the comprehensive school that I attended is now sadly in special measures, does he not think it is telling that the Labour party is not asking questions—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I must have told the hon. Gentleman over three and a half years a score of times—I now tell him for the 21st time—that questions must be about the policy of the Government, not the Opposition; nor is this an occasion for general dilation by Members on their own educational experiences. The urgent question is narrowly focused on a particular school; it is with that, and that alone, that we are concerned. I hope my point has now finally registered with the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

I thank the shadow Education Secretary for asking this urgent question on such an important issue. We should be focusing on this particular school, not making party political points, although, interestingly, more Government Members are interested in this subject than Opposition Members. Can the Minister confirm that, if necessary, he has the power to close the school down if it cannot be reformed?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I can certainly confirm to him that we have powers to take action against the school, as Lord Nash has already made very clear in his letter.

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

Parents will have pressed for the Al-Madinah free school to be established because they felt that the school would provide a suitable education for their children. I am reassured by the actions already taken, but will the Minister also ensure that pre-applications are thoroughly scrutinised?

[Mr Laws]

I will certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. We scrutinise free school applications very carefully and reject many of them for a variety of different reasons. We will continue to scrutinise them very closely.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The OECD report published last week places Britain near the bottom of the international literacy and numeracy league tables. Does that not make the case for continued innovation in education? Will the Minister ensure that this poor example does not undermine the excellent and innovative free schools programme?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend makes a telling point about the educational challenges for this country and about the need to focus on educational failure from wherever it comes. It speaks volumes about the Labour party that it should choose to have an urgent question on this one individual school while across the country there are hundreds of other schools facing similar challenges in which it seems to have no equivalent interest.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite the failings of this particular school, free schools, university technical schools and the pupil premium are transforming education in our country and that we should not use the failure of one school to become the enemy of choice for parents who want to set up their own schools?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss), will publish information showing the progress made across the country in last year’s exam results—progress that, thanks to our reforms and to Ofqual, we can be assured is real progress and not simply inflated progress.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

What is actually happening for the children at this school to make sure that we look after them?

[Mr Laws]

What is happening is that Lord Nash is taking decisive action to address, one by one, all the deficiencies identified in the Ofsted report. He has already received detailed responses and assurances on many points from the free school, and we will make sure that we get assurances on all those issues. We will then make a judgment about whether the people running the school are fit to continue running it in the future.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that actions taken in respect of Al-Madinah school demonstrate that this Government are tough on low standards wherever they occur—whether it be in free schools, local authority schools or academy schools?

[Mr Laws]

My hon. Friend is right. If we reflect on some of the schools that were able to languish in failure for many years under the last Labour Government without decisive action being taken, we will find that our actions in this case compare very favourably indeed.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I welcome the action taken in respect of this school and the fact that the majority of the 170 free schools are outperforming local authority schools. Does the Minister agree that one bad apple does not spoil the barrel, and has he learned anything about Labour’s policy on free schools?

[Mr Laws]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. It is interesting that the shadow Secretary of State who speaks for the Opposition on these matters has not concluded that the Labour party’s last academies programme was deficient because some of those academies have failed. There is a basic lack of logic in Labour’s position and an ideological resistance to innovation in the school system.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Whether it be at the Al-Madinah school or any other school, most of my constituents would take the view that it is completely inappropriate for any school uniform policy to include a requirement for schoolgirls to wear the full-face Islamic veil. Is that the policy of Her Majesty’s Government, or is it up to each school to decide?

[Mr Laws]

I agree with my hon. Friend that we do not want these impositions on children or on staff—and we have made that clear to this school.

Business of the House

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

11:04

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to give us the business for next week?

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

The business for next week will be as follows:

Monday 21 October—A general debate on the future of the BBC, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the state of natural capital in England and Wales. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 22 October—Second Reading of the Immigration Bill, followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Wednesday 23 October—Opposition Day [8th allotted day]. There will be a debate on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland, followed by a debate on air passenger duty. Both debates will arise on a motion in the name of the Democratic Unionist Party.

Thursday 24 October—A debate on a motion relating to the Financial Conduct Authority’s redress scheme for the mis-selling of interest rate swap derivatives, followed by a general debate on aviation strategy. The subjects of both debates were nominated by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 25 October—Private Members’ Bills.

The provisional business for the week commencing 28 October will include the following:

Monday 28 October—Second Reading of the Local Audit and Accountability Bill [Lords].

Tuesday 29 October—Remaining stages of the Pensions Bill, followed by a motion to approve a European document relating to reform of Eurojust and the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.

Wednesday 30 October—Opposition Day [9th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion; subject to be announced.

Thursday 31 October—Remaining stages of the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill.

Friday 1 November—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the autumn statement will be made on Wednesday 4 December, and that the business in Westminster Hall on 24 October will be a debate on planning, housing supply and the countryside.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I also send my best wishes to the Leader of the House as he recuperates from his minor operation.

Let me begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who yesterday won the election to become Deputy Speaker. I hope that she will not mind my saying that it is unusual to see a Scottish Tory being elected. I am sure that I speak for many Labour Members when I say that it has certainly been an experience to be on the receiving end of the vote-gathering techniques of the Conservative party. We enjoyed welcoming all the candidates to a parliamentary Labour party hustings, and I am pleased to say that we managed to resist the temptation to set them a bushtucker trial.

Last week, I asked where the Offender Rehabilitation Bill (Lords) had disappeared to. I note that it is still missing. Will the Deputy Leader of the House confirm my suspicion that the Government are deliberately holding up the Bill so that they can privatise the probation service before they bring the Bill back to the House of Commons?

When the Government announced new plans for the funding of social care, they claimed that no elderly person would be forced to sell his or her home to pay for it. At the Tory party conference, the Health Secretary was at it again, promising

“for those who need residential care…We’ll stop them ever having to sell the home they have worked hard for all their life to pay for the cost of it.”

However, during the debate on the Care Bill in the other place, those grand ministerial claims have been exposed as empty PR posturing, and the truth has finally emerged: older people will be helped only if they have less than £23,000 in the bank. Given the huge disparity between the Health Secretary’s claims and the modest reality, will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for an urgent statement to be made?

It is a rare treat to face the Deputy Leader across the Dispatch Box. I often wonder what he is thinking when he is sitting next to the Leader of the House on Thursday mornings. I suppose that we are going to find out today. I am sure the Deputy Leader is aware, however, that for 39 of the 40 months for which the Government have been in power, prices have risen faster than wages. Labour’s promise to freeze energy bills until 2017 would be of real benefit to those who are struggling. What is the Government’s policy? The Tories want to scrap energy efficiency measures for the poorest in order to reduce bills, but the Deputy Prime Minister thinks that that would put prices up. What does the Deputy Leader think? We have heard only this morning that British Gas is going to increase its prices by nearly 10%. Is the Deputy Leader proud that the Government are arguing among themselves while the cost of living squeeze just gets worse? Would it not be easier to freeze energy bills?

Yesterday the Prime Minister could not clear up the confusion over his own policy on marriage tax breaks, which will benefit only one third of couples. The Deputy Prime Minister has made his opposition clear. So when this policy eventually comes to the House, will the Deputy Leader of the House and his party be voting against it, or will this just be another example of the Liberal Democrats saying one thing and doing another?

The Deputy Leader of the House will remember that before the last election he signed the National Union of Students pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees. I am sure he also remembers that just months after the election he was voting to treble them. I noted this week with interest that the Deputy Prime Minister has made another Lib Dem pledge on tuition fees: he has promised not to increase them to £16,000 a year. Will the Deputy Leader be signing up to that one, too, or has he learned his lesson? I am sure nothing will worry the hundreds of thousands of young people considering going to university more than another promise from the Liberal Democrats on tuition fees.

I understand that the Deputy Leader is heavily involved in his local save St Helier hospital campaign. In fact, he is so involved that the phone number and address on the campaign website is that of his own constituency office. To clear up any confusion, can the Deputy Leader of the House confirm that he is actually a part of the Government who are closing the hospital? Is there not a pattern of behaviour here: the Deputy Leader is campaigning against himself on St Helier, the Deputy Prime Minister is campaigning against himself on library closures forced by Government cuts in Sheffield, and now they are ready to sign up to a new pledge on tuition fees? The more they protest, the more we see right through them: you can’t trust the Liberal Democrats.

[Tom Brake]

May I start by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for her kind words, which I will pass on to the Leader of the House, who is recovering well? I am grateful to her for those remarks. I also echo her comments about the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs Laing), who not only is a Scottish Tory who got elected, but who did so under the single transferable vote, which is clearly very welcome, too.

On the issue of the funding of social care, I am sure the hon. Lady will be aware that no decision has been taken on that, and the consultation is still open and if Members want to make a submission, they have until 25 October to do so.

We have just had a full hour of Department of Energy and Climate Change questions, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State did a very good job of explaining why Labour’s policy of freezing energy prices is a con. In case the hon. Lady was not here to hear that, it is because prices will go up both before and after the freeze, and the Leader of the Opposition has indicated that if things changed globally during the freeze, he would not be in a position to hold prices down. That is why we do not support Labour’s position, but what the Government have done is maintain winter fuel payments, worth £300, cold weather payments of £25, and the warm home discount, which is worth £135. Indeed, more generally in relation to cost of living issues, under this Government 25 million basic rate taxpayers will be £700 better off next year, and 3 million people have been taken out of income tax entirely.

The hon. Lady mentioned the save St Helier hospital campaign. I thank her for promoting that and, of course, I am fully behind that campaign. It seems as though she is chiding me for running a campaign in support of my local hospital, something I will make sure Labour-inclined voters are aware of, but the important thing about the save St Helier campaign is that the review that has taken place was not conducted by politicians, but the proposals came from a team of clinicians and, on that team, St Helier hospital was under-represented, which is why we are campaigning against this. I am very pleased to be able to conclude my remarks on the subject of save St Helier hospital, because that is a campaign I intend to win.

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

Last week, the all-party group on excellence in the built environment, which I chair, published its report on the Government’s green deal for the domestic residential market. I was delighted that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who is responsible for planning, attended the launch. May we have a debate on this issue, so that the Government can bring us all up to date on the progress they are making on the green deal and how better insulation in homes will help to reduce the number of families and individuals living in fuel poverty?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be here for Energy questions earlier, but energy efficiency and the green deal came up then. Let me detail some of the specific things that the Government have done. In October 2012, the Department of Energy and Climate Change offered English local authorities the opportunity to bid for funding to reduce the extent of fuel poverty, and £31 million is now going into 60 projects involving just under 170 local authorities. Of course, we have the Warm Front scheme—it was closed in January for new applications but we are still processing others and measures are being taken on the back of that. In response to the shadow Leader of the House, I also set out the measures we are taking to support people who are in fuel poverty or are struggling to pay their bills with a range of initiatives, including the warm home discount, winter fuel payments and cold weather payments.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

I am grateful to you, Mr Speaker, for granting the debate next Wednesday on the fate of the Arctic Sunrise crew, who are still being held captive in Murmansk. It is nearly a month since the Russian authorities hijacked the boat and unlawfully detained and arrested the crew, including six Britons, three of whom are from Devon. They have now been charged with the ludicrous charge of piracy. May we have an urgent statement from a Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister on what the British Government are doing to secure their release?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his question, which raises a significant issue. Indeed, the Prime Minister responded to it yesterday in Prime Minister’s questions, because one of his constituents is also affected. The British Government have rightly made representations, and I want to see those people released as soon as possible.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

Following its recent survey of businesses, the Hull and Humber chamber of commerce stated that

“the economic recovery in the Humber region is gathering pace”.

Constituencies such as mine contain a large proportion of low-income and middle-income households, and we need to ensure that they are the first to benefit from the recovery. Will the Deputy Leader of the House find time for a debate when these issues may be fully aired?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly, we want to ensure that those on low incomes and middle incomes benefit first from the recovery, and that is exactly what is happening in the tax measures we are introducing. I am pleased that my hon. Friend is detecting good news economically in his constituency. Some 1.4 million more people are in work today in the private sector than there were at the time of the general election. On a whole number of indicators things are moving in the right direction. There should be no room for complacency, but we are beginning to see very positive indicators in the economy generally.

[Mr Dave Watts (St Helens North) (Lab)]

May we have an urgent debate on the ever-increasing cost of in-work benefits, given that it would appear that the taxpayer is having to subsidise employees of companies that are earning millions of pounds in profits? It is not about time that they paid decent wages and cut the welfare bill?

[Tom Brake]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that where employers are in a position to pay the living wage, they should do so, but that should not be at the expense of jobs. So he makes a valid point, but how employers address that is a decision for them.

[Mr David Heath (Somerton and Frome) (LD)]

There is a great deal of concern about the protection of vulnerable children, so may we have a debate on how child protection services in Somerset, which were adjudged to be outstanding just five years ago, were last year judged to be inadequate, with Ofsted saying this year that there has been no improvement? Does it not show an astonishing failure of political leadership and management that Somerset county council, which does not face overwhelming demands on its social services, is now considered to be among the 17 worst local authorities in the country at protecting our children?

[Tom Brake]

May I say what a pleasure it is to respond to a question from my hon. Friend, who did such a good job as Deputy Leader of the House before me? The Government take any failure to deliver adequate children’s social care services very seriously. I recognise the challenges that local authorities can face in delivering strong child protection services, but it is right that Ofsted should identify weaknesses clearly and set out the areas where improvement is needed. I can assure him that Ministers are acting robustly to ensure that failure is turned around quickly and sustainably. In Somerset, that process has happened. Department for Education officials have met senior representatives from Somerset council and Ministers intend to issue the council with a notice to improve. Clearly, my hon. Friend’s strong concerns are now on the record, too.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

The earnings limit for carers allowance was last increased in April 2010. Carers in my Bridgend constituency tell me that if they work more than 16 hours on the national minimum wage, they will lose their carers allowance. Carers are critical to our economy; they provide a vital service and support to vulnerable people. Is it not wrong that they should be punished in this way? May we have a debate on how we can support carers and ensure that changes to the benefit system do not leave them worse off?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question, because it gives me an opportunity to reinforce her point about the excellent work that carers do, which is acknowledged on both sides of the House. She has raised a specific issue about the earnings limit and I will ensure that her concerns are passed on to Ministers at the Department for Work and Pensions.

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

May we have a debate on the effect that decisions taken by one Government agency have on other Government Departments and on the public purse? Training for Travel in my constituency, which provides training for the travel industry, was days away from transferring its training providing business to another provider when the Skills Funding Agency told it that it was cancelling its training contract. The result is that that company is likely to fold, resulting in hundreds of thousands of pounds having to be paid out by other Government Departments in statutory redundancy and the like.

[Tom Brake]

The issue my hon. Friend raises is quite complex and I have a significantly complex reply that I could give him, but in the circumstances I think it would be better for me to ensure that he is written to. He might also want to raise the matter in Business, Innovation and Skills questions next week, if that is appropriate.

[Mr Speaker]

That is immensely considerate of the Deputy Leader of the House and we thank him for that.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May we have a debate or a statement about the regulations governing major retail developments in local areas? Late last night, I was contacted by residents on Melton road who were complaining bitterly about Sainsbury’s, which is trying to put up a huge store on the junction of Melton road and Troon way. The work goes on throughout the night. We are trying to make Leicester into the city of culture; Sainsbury’s is trying to make Leicester into the city of roadworks.

[Tom Brake]

There might be an opportunity for the right hon. Gentleman to raise the subject at Communities and Local Government questions on Monday and we will have a debate on Thursday on planning, housing supply and the countryside, and he might be able to raise the issue as part of the planning aspect.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

May we have a debate on restoring public trust in the police? Is it not the case that David Shaw, the chief constable of West Mercia police, should take immediate and appropriate action against the officer implicated in lying against my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell)?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question and I am sure that he will have heard the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister state their position. The behaviour was unacceptable and action would be appropriate, but clearly that is something for the Crown Prosecution Service and others to consider, rather than Ministers.

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

Has the Deputy Leader of the House seen this week’s article in The Economist, which referred to towns such as Hartlepool, Hull, Middlesbrough and Wolverhampton as “rustbelt Britain” and urged the Government to ignore and abandon them? May we have a debate on the issue so that we can reject that ridiculous notion and highlight the promise and potential of my area, or would such a debate merely confirm that the Government have already abandoned areas such as Hartlepool?

[Tom Brake]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that this is a matter on which there is agreement. No one wants to abandon any towns or cities, and that is why the Government have invested as heavily as we have in the regional growth fund to ensure that jobs in the private sector are there. We want to work constructively with him on that issue.

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

May we have a debate on the factors that lead to business investment and job creation? Honeytop Speciality Foods in my constituency has already exported naan bread to India. It is creating 200 extra jobs this month, and it has turned Dunstable into the crumpet capital of the United Kingdom. But it gets even better. I have now learned of an extra £22 million investment to produce the fastest burger bun plant in the whole of Europe. Is it not critical that we have this type of investment across the whole of the United Kingdom?

[Tom Brake]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman raised the same issue last week. He will remember that the Leader of the House promised to go and sample a crumpet if he was in his constituency. Last night I was at a planning meeting at my local authority to support strong local opposition to the opening of a fast-food restaurant, so it would be hypocritical of me to offer to come and eat a burger with the hon. Gentleman. However, he has put on record the fact that substantial, welcome investment is going into his constituency, which I am sure will create lots of jobs, building on what the Government have already achieved—the 1.4 million jobs that we have helped to create in the private sector.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The prison population is approaching record highs and the numbers of prison staff are approaching record lows, and that is causing prison staff up and down the country to have great health and safety concerns. The situation has been described as a powder keg. May we have a debate on how we approach safety and health for prison staff before we as politicians suffer greatly as a result of a tragic incident that is waiting to happen in the Prison Service?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on drawing attention to that. Clearly, we all want our prisons to be safe environments both for prison staff and for prisoners. He has made a specific request about staffing levels and the impact on health and safety, and I will ensure that a written response is sent to him.

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

Far too often, constituents of mine end up in destitution when their claim for employment and support allowance ends. Whereas they qualify for jobseeker’s allowance or income support, such a claim is not put in place. Will the Government introduce a motion to authorise the Department of Work and Pensions to institute automatically a claim in appropriate circumstances while the legislative environment is resolved?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He said something on which we can achieve consensus, which is that no one should be left destitute. If there is an appropriate way of ensuring the transition to which he referred, I am sure that DWP will seek to find it.

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

May I ask the Deputy Leader of the House to take time this week to read the article that I published in The House magazine this week about how we treat the people who work in this Parliament of ours? Most of our constituents and certainly mine in Huddersfield believe that this place should be a beacon of good treatment of people at work. Zero-hours contracts, no contracts and short-term contracts dominate this House now and it is about time we put our shop right. Let us lead; let us be a beacon. Let us treat our staff well.

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was able to speak in the Opposition day debate on that very subject yesterday. If he did, he will have heard the Minister’s response. I agree with him that we should be an exemplar in terms of how we treat people who work in this place. I will endeavour in the next few hours to track down a copy of The House magazine so that I can read his article.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

Over the past five years QinetiQ in Boscombe Down in my constituency has doubled the number of new graduate trainees and apprentices that it employs. It has also set up the 5% campaign to challenge other companies to aim for 5% of their work force being drawn from apprentices and new graduate trainees. Will the Deputy Leader of the House make time for a statement on how the Government can encourage this worthwhile campaign?

[Tom Brake]

My hon. Friend has rightly drawn attention to the importance of employers taking on graduates and apprentices. He will be aware that we have created a million extra apprenticeships, which is beginning to have a real effect. I am sure that in the contacts that both he and I have with employers, they underline how much added value apprentices bring to their company. So he has helped publicise this today, and I am sure that all Members will want to do so in the contacts that they have with employers.

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

The Deputy Leader of the House said that he was in the Chamber for Energy questions. He will have heard me tell the House that Grangemouth oil refinery and chemicals is shut down until further notice. It is not only the first time that there has been a full, cold shutdown of that plant, which represents 10% of the Scottish economy, in the 21 years that I have represented the town, but it is the first time since I first worked there as a student in 1967. The replies from the Energy Minister were all about securing supply and everyone getting supplies. May we have a statement from the Business Secretary and a debate in the Chamber about the fact that planning clearly went into this so that the company, which is owned by one man and two others but mainly by one man, who may be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch and may have been involved in collusion with this Government to store up supplies so that he could take on the work force and break them because he wants to take £50 million out of the terms and conditions of employment of the people on that site, so we need a debate on collusion—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The hon. Gentleman probably should seek an Adjournment debate on the matter in order fully to give vent to his multiple concerns on the issue. Business questions is an occasion when a brief request for a debate is made.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty) has put on record his concerns for a second time. I will not repeat some of the language that he used, but clearly from the Government’s perspective we would encourage the employers and the unions to work together to ensure that the matter is resolved. If he feels as strongly about the issue as he clearly does, there will be an opportunity for him to raise it again next Thursday during questions to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

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

The editor of The Guardian recently boasted online that he was “taking precautions” to prevent UK security services from having access to the files of vital national security information that he had sent outwith the remit of the UK courts to The New York Times. Security sources are still trying to decrypt these files, which The Independent described as “highly detailed” and a “threat to national security”. May we have a statement to reassure the House that The Guardian will be asked for a decryption key and if none is forthcoming, action will be taken?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman has been successful in securing a debate on Tuesday next week, when I am sure he will get a much more detailed response to his concerns than I am able to give him. Clearly, he is right that intelligence leaks are causing serious damage to the UK’s national security. The Government have a duty to protect national security and should make it clear to media organisations that publishing highly classified material damages our ability to protect this country. Journalists are not in a position to make national security assessments on what should or should not be published. As he will be aware, however, it is a matter for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to determine whether a crime has been committed and what action should be taken as a result. As I said, he will have an opportunity on Tuesday to raise these matters in detail.

[Mr David Winnick (Walsall North) (Lab)]

In view of what we have just heard and what was said by the Prime Minister yesterday, by the Home Secretary before the Home Affairs Committee and by the head of MI5, is the Deputy Leader of the House aware that many of us believe that what is happening at present are threats and smears against The Guardian for publishing details, which is not in any way a threat to the security of our country, but information which the public have a right to know? As the Liberal Democrats are supposed to be ardent defenders of our civil liberties, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will bear it in mind that it would be useful to have an overall debate on intelligence and security matters and not just leave it to the Committee which meets in private session.

[Tom Brake]

I will not restate what I have said, but the Government clearly have a duty to protect our national security. If a newspaper—whichever one—is in the business of publishing information that damages our national security or circulating information that has the potential to do so, the Government are required to respond. If that newspaper publishes information on certain matters that have no relevance to national security, clearly we want them to be able to do so.

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

In the next few days we will hear an announcement on the Hinkley Point C nuclear power station, which is obviously vital to UK plc. The Government will no doubt make a statement to that effect, which will be welcome, but may we have a debate in the Chamber to consider it more closely, because of the importance to skills and inward investment and what it will mean for UK plc over the next 100 years?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right to expect a statement on the matter very soon, and it would be appropriate for him to take that opportunity to make his point and to listen to the responses to all the other questions that will be asked.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

May we have a statement on the Government’s support for traditional music, as this year Wingates brass band is celebrating its 140th anniversary? On 26 October it will hold a concert at which two new specially written pieces will be introduced, as well as the launch of “From Bible Class to World Class”, a book about its history. Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in congratulating Wingates brass band on that fantastic achievement?

[Tom Brake]

I join the hon. Lady in congratulating that musical ensemble. I am afraid that my briefing pack, although extensive, did not run to traditional music, but she has put the matter on the record and I am sure that in future all Members will want to know more about that important subject.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The Commission on Human Medicines has today recommended that schools should be permitted to keep an asthma inhaler for general use for when children who do not have recourse to their own inhaler suffer an attack, which Members will be shocked to learn is currently against the regulations. May we please have a debate on support for children in our schools who suffer from chronic conditions such as asthma?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on campaigning on the matter. The Government are grateful to the Commission on Human Medicines for its recommendation and intend to act on it. We will consult on changing the regulations to allow schools, if they so wish, to hold a spare asthma inhaler for emergencies and to develop appropriate protocols for their staff to ensure its safe and proper use. She will have opportunities on Monday, during Communities and Local Government questions, and on Tuesday, during Health questions, to raise the matter of schools and health.

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

We already know that accident and emergency departments in the north-east are to receive no extra funding this winter, but this week we learnt that the South Tees clinical commissioning group’s per-head funding is to be cut significantly, alongside other north-east CCGs. Following that, Monitor indicated that it will be investigating South Tees Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust for a persistent failure to meet targets on waiting times, and on clostridium difficile and for a rise in never events. May we have a debate in the House in Government time about NHS funding for the north-east?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. I do not have the specific figures about north-east funding in front of me, but he will be aware that the Government have committed an extra £12.7 billion to the NHS, in contrast with Opposition Front Benchers, who I think described that proposal as “irresponsible”. The level of funding going into the NHS is very significant. On A and E and NHS waiting times, average waiting times remain low and stable. The number of patients who have been waiting longer than 52 weeks is 352—clearly that is 352 too many—but that compares with a total of 18,458 at the end of May 2010, when his party left power.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

Ellen, a year 11 student from my part of Somerset, wrote to me about the cancellation of her GCSE maths exam in November, having heard about it not through her school nor through Parliament but through the Sunday papers. May we have a debate to consider the method of communicating such changes, which Ellen says causes confusion, distress, upset and anger, and to see whether it would be preferable and more sensible for changes to apply only to students who started studying for their exams last month rather than making dramatic changes for those like Ellen who, since 2009, had planned her work with her teachers for an exam next month?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether my hon. Friend was able to be in the Chamber on Monday when the Minister for Schools made a statement about standards; she may find that pertinent to the issue. She has raised a specific point about which I will ensure that the Department for Education writes to her.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

My constituents continue to suffer from cold calling by claims management companies. Will the Deputy Leader of the House arrange for the Secretary of State for Justice to make a statement to this House on the performance of his Department in regulating those companies, including looking at whether to transfer that responsibility to the Financial Conduct Authority?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that every Member in the Chamber has sympathy with the hon. Gentleman’s point. These calls are persistent and an irritant, and we need to ensure that, as far as possible, the matter is addressed. He asked for the Secretary of State for Justice to respond to the issue. I will make sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of his concerns and writes to him about the matter.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on local authorities’ winter highways maintenance preparedness?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure that we are all hoping our local authorities will be getting in the appropriate levels of salt and sand to ensure that we have, as far as possible, an accident-free winter. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to hear that the Department for Transport continues to liaise with local and national partners to improve winter resilience so that this country enters the forthcoming winter season well prepared. A national strategic salt reserve of no less than 425,000 tonnes is going to be brought to bear on this issue. If he wanted to raise specific issues about local authorities, he could do so on Monday at Communities and Local Government questions.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Has my right hon. Friend seen my early-day motion 589, which deals with lower taxes for lower earners?

[That this House welcomes the Government taking 2.2 million people out of income tax so far by increasing the personal allowance threshold; further welcomes the Government raising the income tax threshold even further to £10,000 in 2015; notes that the Government is committed to helping the low paid with the cost of living by lowering taxes so that they can keep more of their own money; further notes that the National Insurance threshold remains at £7,748; and therefore urges the Government to examine the possibilities of increasing the threshold for National Insurance in the long term to help low earners with the cost of living.]

My right hon. Friend mentioned earlier the fact that our Conservative Chancellor has cut taxes for 20 million lower earners in our country. May we have a debate on whether we can help lower earners still further by raising the threshold for national insurance?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. He is a doughty campaigner on many issues and has had great success with some of them. I am pleased that the issues he mentions are very much on the Government’s agenda. Once we have hit the threshold to allow people to earn £10,000 before they pay any income tax, the Liberal Democrats would like to push the matter further, and the Government as a whole might like to do so as well. He raises the specific issue of national insurance contributions, and I am sure that he would support the Government’s initiative to reduce those in relation to employers. I can assure him that I have just read his early-day motion, and fantastic it is too.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

The Deputy Leader of the House is demonstrating that he could be Leader of the House by filling in for him today. Could this be extended so that other deputies could take over for a day? Perhaps the Deputy Prime Minister could take over for a day; may I suggest 1 April?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman. It was all going so well until the last phrase. In fact, I misheard it so I will just stick with the first part. I think it is entirely appropriate for deputies to take over on the occasions when they are required to do so. I was rather expecting my shadow, the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), to take over for today as well; I am not quite sure what happened there.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Today is international credit union day and the Bishop of Stafford is opening in a Stafford department store a branch of the Staffordshire credit union, with which I have an account. Could we have a debate on how credit unions can provide viable and excellent competition against payday lenders and other forms of credit on the high street?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Croydon, Sutton and Merton credit union. Clearly, there is real potential for credit unions to enter the market and provide people with loans at low rates of interest and to make a sustainable contribution. I am sure that Members of all parties are interested in the subject of credit unions, so the hon. Gentleman may want to consider making representations to the Backbench Business Committee through an all-party delegation.

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

Data published yesterday show that my Harrogate and Knaresborough constituency is one of the top three in the country for falling unemployment, with particularly encouraging falls of more than 40% year on year for both long-term unemployment and 18 to 24-year-old claimants. Could we have a debate on job creation, in order to explore not just that positive news, but how we can accelerate growth and ensure that it is spread around the country?

[Tom Brake]

I would welcome such a debate. I am pleased for the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that there has been a significant drop in unemployment in his constituency, which is something that is being replicated to a greater or lesser extent around the whole country. Employment is up, unemployment is down and youth unemployment is slightly down. Clearly, there are still many issues that we need to address and the debate suggested by the hon. Gentleman might give the Government the opportunity to focus on youth unemployment, on which we could make even more progress.

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

For some time I have been in correspondence with the Foreign Office on the unacceptable and illegal discrimination faced by UK and other foreign national lecturers in Italy. Despite repeated attempts to get the European Commission to act and intervene, no action has been taken and the Commission is now looking to close the file. Could we therefore have an important debate on this clear and systemic breach by Italy of the free movement of workers within the European Union, and its discrimination against them, and the failings of the European Commission to act on it?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. This is a serious issue and it is the Government’s view that the discrimination faced by UK and foreign national lecturers in Italy is not only unacceptable, but illegal. We have been pressing the Italian authorities to find a solution and the hon. Gentleman may be aware that the Minister for Universities and Science met the Italian Education Minister on 5 October and raised the problems faced by foreign lecturers working in Italy. He received assurances that the Italians are actively looking into a solution over the next year.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what I think is the case that someone from my constituency of Beckenham who happens to be a Scotsman and wants to go to university in Scotland has to pay tuition fees, whereas someone who lives in Scotland who happens to be an Englishman does not and someone who comes from France, Germany, Italy or Spain does not, either? It seems extraordinary.

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Gentleman is right. He will be aware that higher education is a devolved matter for Scotland and that under EU law member states cannot discriminate on grounds of nationality against people from other member states in the conditions of access to vocational training, which includes higher education. Where certain residency and nationality conditions are met, EU nationals and their family members will qualify for home fee status and will therefore be treated the same with regard to tuition fees as UK nationals who also satisfy the residency conditions.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones), I welcome the drop in unemployment in my constituency of Mid Derbyshire. I visited the local A4e last week, which is very successful at getting more than 100 long-term unemployed people a month into employment, but I was told that its biggest problem related to those with mental illness. May we have a debate on how we can further help people with mental illness who are long-term unemployed?

[Tom Brake]

The hon. Lady is right that organisations that are seeking to address long-term unemployment are coming across people with substantial challenges such as mental health issues and drug or alcohol addiction. The Government are committed to assisting them through various work programmes. She has made a pertinent point that requires a written response. She may be interested to know that I am meeting Rethink Mental Illness later today to talk about the sorts of issues that she has raised.

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

A few months ago, the Secretary of State for Health rightly made a statement to announce the suspension of the Safe and Sustainable review into children’s heart surgery after the Independent Reconfiguration Panel found that it had been flawed and biased. It seems that the same thing may be happening again. May we have another statement on the composition of the clinical reference group because three of its four members established a position in 2010 on what should happen? One of them, Anne Keatley-Clarke, the chief executive of the Children’s Heart Federation, has behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner. The Independent Reconfiguration Panel described her charity’s role as

“a source of unhelpful divisiveness”.

May we have a statement so that we can discover why a supposedly neutral body is being set up in such a biased way?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid that I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend a statement, but I can offer him the opportunity to raise the matter at Health questions on Tuesday. He has made serious allegations about the composition of the clinical reference group and it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State for Health to respond.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

Principled employment agencies throughout the United Kingdom are suffering and some are closing because of the practices of unprincipled employment agencies, which exploit staff by underpaying them and incorporating expenses into their remuneration, thereby undercutting the principled agencies that pay people properly. May we have a debate on how the rules could be changed to stop that unfair practice?

[Tom Brake]

I thank my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to that issue, of which I was not aware. I am sure that she will pursue the matter at Business, Innovation and Skills questions next Thursday. It might be possible for me to secure a response for her in the interim.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

As the Deputy Leader of the House knows, the Government are planning to introduce a hybrid Bill into the House before the end of the year on the vexed subject of High Speed 2. It will be accompanied by an environmental statement that contains more than 50,000 pages of information. On the day on which it is laid, the Government’s consultation period will commence. It is rumoured that it will be only eight weeks long and will take place over the Christmas period. Will he grant a debate on the efficiency and effectiveness of the consultation periods that are being allowed by the Government, to ensure in particular that my constituents and other people who will be affected along the line have a decent time to reply to what will be one of the largest environmental statements in history?

[Tom Brake]

Again, I am not in a position to guarantee such a debate. However, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the High Speed Rail (Preparation) Bill will be debated in this place on Thursday 31 October and she may have an opportunity to raise those issues during that debate. She will also be aware that there have been many legal challenges to what the Government are doing on this issue, but that overwhelmingly the Government have been successful in overturning them.

[Andrew Bridgen]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

[Mr Speaker]

There will be no points of order now because we have a statement.

Afghanistan

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

11:53

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

With permission, Mr Speaker, I will make a statement on the Government’s progress in Afghanistan.

First, may I welcome the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) to his new role? I very much look forward to his contribution to the important area in which we both now work.

Secondly, I pay tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin of 14 Signal Regiment, who was tragically killed in action in Afghanistan on 15 October after coming under enemy fire during an operation in Nahri Sarraj. My thoughts are with his family and loved ones as they come to terms with their terrible loss. Four hundred and forty-five members of the UK armed forces have died on operations in Afghanistan since 2001. Their bravery and commitment to our nation’s security will never be forgotten.

Our objective in Afghanistan has not changed since the Prime Minister’s statement to Parliament in July. We are protecting the UK by ensuring that Afghanistan is not used as a base for terrorism against our country and our allies. We are helping the Afghan Government in three main ways: to increase the capability of Afghanistan’s national security force; to make progress towards a sustainable political settlement; and to build a viable state that helps meet the needs of the Afghan people. Progress has been made on all three fronts. This summer, through the fiercest months of the Taliban fighting season, Afghan national security forces led the security response to the insurgency threat for the first time. That followed President Karzai’s milestone announcement in June that the ANSF has assumed lead responsibility for security throughout the country.

The ANSF has now reached its temporary surge strength target of 352,000 army, police and air force personnel, and today leads 93% of all operations across Afghanistan. Those numbers are having an effect on the battlefield. Despite an increase in violence levels and high-profile attacks in June, the ANSF responded effectively to the majority of security incidents, and launched several proactive operations to disrupt planned attacks in Kabul and elsewhere. That resulted in just one high-profile attack taking place in the capital since July, and an overall reduction in violence levels throughout July and August. Crucially, the ANSF is succeeding in keeping the insurgency out of the protected communities, and the majority of violence is now taking place away from populated areas.

There have been several successful operations in recent months, which were notable not only for their size but for their complexity and degree of co-ordination. For example, the ANSF launched Operation Seamough at the end of July—a combined clearance, security and international aid mission to secure the main supply routes south of Kabul. That operation involved more than 1,300 Afghan security personnel, working alongside other arms of the Afghan Government, as well as humanitarian organisations. In line with the clear progress of the Afghan national security forces, the UK and our international security assistance force partners are continuing the process of draw-down and redeployment. Today we have four UK bases in central Helmand as well as Camp Bastion—down from 137 UK bases at the height of the conflict. On 9 August the military headquarters of the UK’s Task Force Helmand moved from Lashkar Gah to Camp Bastion, symbolising the changing UK military profile in central Helmand. We have also reduced the total number of UK armed forces personnel in theatre from 7,900 in May, to currently around 6,800. By the end of the year we will have reduced that even further to 5,200 personnel, notwithstanding occasional fluctuations due to temporary surges into theatre.

We must not forget the challenges that still remain, and throughout all this the insurgency has remained a determined and resilient enemy. However, as we approach the final year of the ISAF campaign, we can be optimistic about Afghanistan’s future. Encouragingly, recent Afghan polls show that 90% of Afghans feel that security in their area is fair to good, and 80% of Afghans say they feel safe travelling outside their area during the day. Such perceptions in the minds of ordinary Afghans will ultimately determine the country’s fate. The ANSF is an essential component in achieving that, and in building a secure and viable Afghan state that can provide long-term security and governance for its people.

Progress has also been made in securing a sustainable political settlement for Afghanistan ahead of presidential and provincial elections in 2014. Afghans want and deserve the right to decide the future of their country, and we are committed to helping them achieve that. A constitutional, peaceful transfer of power from President Karzai to his successor will be a significant milestone for the Afghan people, yet we cannot underestimate the challenge of holding those elections. We are working hard to support the Afghan authorities to make them as credible, inclusive and transparent as possible, and we very much welcome the fact that two vital pieces of electoral reform were passed by the Afghan Parliament and signed by President Karzai in late July. That was an historic moment and the first time that Afghanistan has had laws of that kind debated and voted on by Parliament, rather than adopted by decree.

DFID has given £12 million to support the Independent Electoral Commission. The IEC has recruited and trained more than 5,600 officials for voter registration, including almost 2,000 women, as well as encouraged people to vote through public service announcements on TV and radio. So far, it has helped to ensure that more than 2 million Afghans have registered to vote—as of mid-October—of whom around 31% are women. Efforts to encourage women to participate in the electoral process will increase in the coming months. DFID’s programme to support women’s political participation will build the political capacity of female political candidates through training and mentoring. That is part of a wider DFID programme to strengthen political governance in Afghanistan and has been fast-tracked so that our support for women’s political participation is embedded long before the elections. Ahead of the election, the Afghan Government must continue to meet the needs of their people. DFID is taking an active role in supporting the lives of ordinary Afghans, be it to improve their livelihoods or exercise their rights.

Our support for the HALO Trust in removing landmines and unexploded ordnance from land in Herat province in western Afghanistan continues to deliver excellent results. Reporting from the HALO Trust and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees shows that, thanks to UK aid, more than 20,000 families, many of whom are internally displaced people, have benefitted from the return of land to productive use in the Jebrail township in Herat. Hazara refugees returning from Iran also benefit. Between April and June this year, HALO cleared more than 1.6 million square metres of land in Herat province and disposed safely of two anti-personnel mines, 10 anti-tank mines, 63 unexploded ordnances and 1,609 small arms ammunitions. The UK has committed to making the whole of Herat province free from mines and unexploded ordnance by 2018.

Elsewhere, UK support for the Afghan Government’s comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility continues to help farmers in four provinces across Afghanistan to improve their livelihoods by increasing the value of agricultural crops and building better links to markets for their products. In Helmand, UK support for technical and vocational education and training has helped more than 15,000 graduates to secure employment, already exceeding the programme’s 2014 target. DFID is looking at how best to strengthen the programme further to ensure that graduates get the best out of their training.

We believe that DFID’s support for Afghan civil society through the Tawanmandi programme is having a lasting impact. One of Tawanmandi’s core partners, the Community Centre for the Disabled, has successfully worked to improve the welfare of disabled people. As a result of its efforts, the Government of Afghanistan have passed legislation to enshrine the rights and active participation of disabled people in society. The second call for Tawanmandi grant proposals has recently closed, and we look forward in the near future to being able to extend our support to more Afghan organisations, including those supporting women and youth groups.

We are determined to support women in Afghanistan, who continue to face severe challenges in their daily lives, including the regular threat of violence. We are already providing support for girls’ education and women’s empowerment in addition to working with the Government of Afghanistan to ensure they uphold their responsibilities and commitments to protect women. Earlier this year, I said I wanted to go further and make tackling violence against women a strategic priority for DFID’s work in Afghanistan. My officials have consulted experts, non-governmental organisations and Afghan women to ensure that our implementation reflects their needs. I will announce our revised approach in due course.

In July, DFID and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials took part in a senior officials meeting in Kabul, where donors reaffirmed their aid commitments of more than $16 billion until 2015. However, the international community also delivered a clear message that existing levels of aid will be at risk if the Afghan Government fail to take forward their reform commitments. As well as ensuring credible and inclusive elections, we are particularly keen to see progress on tackling corruption, upholding women’s rights and managing the economy. Failure to deliver those reforms could jeopardise the stability of Afghanistan. During the recent World Bank annual meetings in Washington, I met Finance Minister Zakhilwal and reiterated the importance of Afghanistan continuing to make credible progress on agreed reforms, including the International Monetary Fund programme.

Finally, the UK Government look forward to co-chairing with the Afghan Government the 2014 ministerial meeting to assess further progress against the Tokyo mutual accountability framework. We expect that that will take place three to six months after the formation of the next Afghan Government. Working together, the Afghan Government and their international partners have a unique chance to set the conditions for political, security and economic transition. We must continue to focus on that over the coming months, and I commend this statement to the House.

12:04

[Mr Jim Murphy (East Renfrewshire) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for her statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank her for her warm wishes. I look forward to shadowing her, supporting her where possible and scrutinising when necessary, in particular when the Government seek to forge a domestic and global consensus on the post-2015 agenda for international development.

We meet amidst myriad security challenges, and while countless countries and communities seek UK support. For all the conflicts and the contest for resources, our commitment to Afghanistan must remain a constant beyond the 2014 military draw-down. Our safety at home is in part dependent on the security and stability of that country.

We reflect on the fact that Afghanistan cannot become a forgotten conflict in the knowledge that British men and women are risking their all for our security. That was brought home to us with the news of the death of Lance Corporal James Brynin of the 14th Signal Regiment. His family and friends, and all those lost, are in the thoughts of all of us and in the prayers of many of us.

The Opposition support the Department for International Development’s work in Afghanistan and we recognise that progress has been made. More children are attending school, access to health care is improving, the economy is growing and, for the first time, Parliament-approved elections are forthcoming. Progress, however, is not irreversible. Afghanistan remains one of the poorest and most fragile countries in the world, progress on the millennium development goals is slow, violence and corruption persist and, while the courage of many individuals in the Afghan security force is not in doubt, the resilience and capacity of that force remains uncertain.

I would like to ask the Secretary of State questions about four areas. I start by asking whether she agrees with the recommendation of the Select Committee on International Development that

“the UK Government reconsider DFID’s focus on creating a ‘viable state’, giving greater emphasis to the provision of services and alleviating poverty”.

It would appear that the two are symbiotic and that, should the alleviation of poverty be sustainable and services locally responsive, credible Afghan institutions and a viable Afghan state are prerequisites.

The enabling of such a state, however, is, as the Secretary of State herself alluded to, dependent on a reflective and genuine political settlement. These issues will come to the fore at next year’s Tokyo review conference, but the Secretary of State said that existing levels of aid will be “at risk” if the Afghan Government fail to take forward their reform commitments. Will she say which specific reforms she is referring to, and give an assessment of current progress and what is required to preserve current levels of aid? More immediately, what has been the impact of the arrest of senior Pakistan Taliban leader, Latif Mehsud, on establishing a post-2014 security agreement?

A political settlement is vital outside as well as inside the country. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what discussions have taken place with the Government of Prime Minister Sharif regarding NATO convoy routes, transportation of British equipment from Afghanistan through Pakistan, and Pakistan’s support in the run-up to Presidential elections?

It was a shared belief of the international community that female advancement was vital to delivering a secure society across Afghanistan. It was concerning, therefore, that the International Development Committee recently stated that “the situation for women” had “deteriorated in some respects”. The Secretary of State rightly talked about wider research and work. I invite her to update the House on progress on the implementation of UN Security Council resolution 1325 relating to the role of women in conflict, and on whether members of the Afghan civil service and military are being educated in the terms of that resolution.

We on the Opposition Benches are committed to effective delivery of aid. We know that that means that expertise on the ground is essential; but it is also compulsory in Whitehall. I pay tribute to the many civilian staff whose integrity and ingenuity is so central to our nation’s proud development record. Reports of high staff turnover and loss of capacity in DFID, however, are a worry. Can the Secretary of State say, therefore, how the numbers of individuals working on Afghanistan in her Department have changed since 2010? Specifically, how many staff have Afghan linguistic skills?

Finally, this is the UK’s fourth military campaign in Afghanistan. We have no intention of there ever being a fifth. In a conflict that has never had a purely military solution, the success of the DFID mission will be increasingly crucial in building the lasting stability that our armed forces have fought so tenaciously to secure.

[Justine Greening]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for those comments and questions. He is quite right that our Afghanistan programme needs to take a balanced approach. Alongside our work on livelihoods, it needs to focus on basic service provision. In fact, as he will know, much of the work done through the Afghanistan reconstruction trust fund has focused very much on that—on schools and health. Particularly in places such as Helmand, the UK has played a leading role in the provincial reconstruction team to ensure that those things happen on the ground.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the challenges and risks around donors’ support for Afghanistan going forward. What the donors want, including the UK, is for people to stick to what was agreed in Tokyo and the mutual accountability framework. It is very important that we see the progress that ultimately can only be made by the Afghan Government, particularly by passing the necessary laws through Parliament. The law on the elimination of violence against women, for example, which has passed through Parliament, must now be seen to be implemented. We also need to see action taken to bear down on corruption and a successful outcome to the appeal process in relation to the Kabul bank corruption. We want to see the Afghan Government continue to make significant progress in several areas, alongside the work that donors are doing on their behalf.

The right hon. Gentleman also asked about the post-2014 security agreement and was right to point out that the bilateral security agreement under discussion between the US, predominantly, and Afghanistan is yet to be finalised. Ultimately, that is a matter for the US Government, but clearly we are committed to playing our role in a NATO-led process after 2014, and as he will be aware, to date, we have been very clear that that will focus on our work with the Afghan national army officer academy. In addition, alongside that support, we will provide security and support for any UK personnel involved.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly flagged up the massively important relationship between Afghanistan and Pakistan, and of course he will know that the UK has played a key role in brokering the so-called trilateral talks, which have seen the UK bring together Afghanistan and Pakistan. At the World Bank meetings at the weekend, I met both Ishaq Dar, the Pakistan Finance Minister, and Minister Zakhilwal, the Afghanistan Finance Minister, both of whom made it clear that they saw as key the need to grow economic links, in particular, between Pakistan and Afghanistan. I was encouraged by their enthusiasm to work together and follow up those initial discussions between their respective Governments with meetings over the coming months. As I told them, the UK stands ready to play its role in helping that relationship to grow and become a positive one.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly flagged up the challenge of ensuring that we do not lose the gains we have seen on women and girls. This is a massively important point. I have elevated the issue of violence against women and girls to a strategic priority for my team to ensure that it never gets lost within the work that we do. It is worth bearing in mind the context. For a start, life expectancy in Afghanistan is 49, while 87% of women can expect to suffer violence during their lives. Under the Taliban, they faced the worst prospects of any women in the world. We are quite right, therefore, to focus on this issue, and Parliament is right to send out a message that we believe this matters massively. I wanted to take this opportunity to thank colleagues from across the House for enabling us to speak with one voice on this agenda over the past 12 months. I spend a lot of time talking with women in Afghanistan—I had a chance to meet parliamentarians there—and I know that it makes a difference to them. I can assure him, therefore, that this will remain a priority, and over the coming weeks I will set out how we will up our game.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman talked about staff in Afghanistan with linguistic skills. Obviously, the UK Government work closely, including on development, with many locally employed staff, which helps to ensure that we have the right skills in place. We recognise that it is an incredibly dangerous and challenging place for anyone to work in, which is why we have been clear that we want to be responsible and help those people in danger after working for the UK Government. That is why we have been clear about a repatriation package where we think those risks are significant.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This is an important statement, but I remind the House that there are two debates to follow under the auspices of the Backbench Business Committee, the first of which is especially heavily subscribed, so I must appeal to colleagues to ask single, short supplementary questions, without preamble, and to the Secretary of State for her customarily pithy replies.

[Mr James Arbuthnot (North East Hampshire) (Con)]

What does my right hon. Friend regard as the greatest strategic threat to the longer-term success of our mission in Afghanistan?

[Mr Speaker]

A master class from the Chairman of the Defence Committee.

[Justine Greening]

Ultimately, it will be having successful elections that can deliver a leadership in Afghanistan able to create a state that can keep itself secure. Without security, all our development work, including that on women and girls, will be undermined. Ultimately, what matters is having strong leadership in Afghanistan, which we hope to get following the 2014 elections.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with the secret Ministry of Defence document, published in response to a freedom of information request, advising the Government to conceal the news of deaths in Afghanistan and elsewhere in order to make future deaths more palatable? I do not know whether she has visited the facilities at Brize Norton, but it is clear that there are no facilities there to express grief, as there were on previous bases. Is it not right that the public understand the full effect of the grief of the relatives—a wound of grief that will never heal—rather than have a Government who try to conceal the true cost of war?

[Justine Greening]

I do not believe that there has been any such attempt. The UK has played a major part in the international security assistance force campaign and has played a correspondingly high price through the tragic loss and injury of UK servicemen and women. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is committed to ensuring that their memory will live on and that they can be commemorated appropriately.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

Next Tuesday, at a slightly earlier time than normal—3.15 pm— 120 soldiers from 1st Mechanised Brigade, returning from Afghanistan, will arrive at the north door of Westminster Hall, where right hon. and hon. Members will have the option to thank them for all they have done. Does my right hon. Friend agree that their legacy—the legacy of the 445 people who have died and the others who have been injured—will be a relatively stable and peaceful Afghanistan, and that the legacy of her work and that of other Departments will be to continue that good work?

[Justine Greening]

Yes, I absolutely pay tribute to the work of those soldiers; they have put their lives on the line, and many have lost their lives, in order to create a more stable Afghanistan that can be part of how this country remains secure in the future. The contribution they have made to our nation is incalculable, and we should recognise that, honour it and never forget it.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Afghan security forces cannot be sustained financially by the Afghan Government, certainly not in the short to medium term. What discussions have the UK Government had with their counterparts in the USA about post-2014 funding for the Afghan security forces?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that under the Tokyo mutual accountability framework and the summit that saw it emerge, donor countries committed to giving, on average, about $4 billion of annual support up to 2017. As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy), that is a contract between ourselves and the Afghan Government that needs them to deliver on the part of the framework relating to progress that only they can make. There is, however, a commitment and will to ensure that funding is in place for the Afghan national security force. I should also say, briefly, that we are working to help the Afghan Government to increase their tax base, so that they do not need to rely so much on the donor community. In fact, tax receipts have risen from $200 million several years ago to more than $2 billion, in part thanks to DFID’s work with the tax revenue authority to help it do a better job.

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

Is my right hon. Friend aware that the loss of British servicemen’s lives in Afghanistan is more than double what it was in Iraq, which was only 179—I say “only”!—and that the cost of operations in Afghanistan has so far been double what it was in Iraq? Given that we established the Chilcot inquiry to look into lessons learned from Iraq, what consideration are the Government giving to having a similar inquiry, once we have withdrawn, into what lessons can be learned from this long and bitter campaign?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Obviously we have yet to go through the draw-down process, between now and the end of next year. His point about the lessons we can learn from this conflict and the UK military role in it is well made and will certainly be considered at the highest level in Government.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State’s commitment to dealing with violence against women is extremely welcome. One thing we have found in this country is that it is helpful for women who want to report violence to have women to whom they can report it. Only 1% of the Afghanistan police force is female. What can the UK Government do to improve on that?

[Justine Greening]

We can continue our work with civil society, other donors and women’s groups across Afghanistan to encourage and help women to become part of the national police force. We can also continue DFID’s work as part of the Tawanmandi programme, which has seen legal aid centres established in several districts, as well as mobile legal aid centres, so that the availability of justice for women goes well beyond having women in the national police to having a justice system that they can rely on. Clearly that is a huge challenge, and I do not underestimate how far we are in Afghanistan from having the kind of justice system that people rely on and need here in the UK.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Can the Secretary of State reassure the House about the future, after 2014, of the vital work that her Department is doing for Afghan women and girls, including through the girls education challenge fund, the grants to War Child, Save the Children and Afghanaid, and the work with the Independent Election Commission, which is improving the visibility of women in the electoral process in that country?

[Justine Greening]

Yes, I can. I think of the women and girls agenda very much in terms of ensuring that women and girls have a voice and are participating in communities and national societies at all levels, and ensuring that they have a choice over how they run they lives and have control over their lives and their bodies. They should not have to live in fear of violence. DFID will continue to work across those areas and play what I would like to be a major role in the Afghan donor community to ensure that we push this agenda.

[Andy Sawford (Corby) (Lab/Co-op)]

Let me associate myself with the remarks about Lance Corporal James Brynin, who makes me think of Corby’s own Victoria Cross hero, Lance Corporal James Ashworth, and the Ashworth family’s worry about the future of our troops in Afghanistan after 2014. Given that they will be operating under a NATO mandate, can the Secretary of State tell us who will be responsible for their safety after 2014?

[Justine Greening]

There is a NATO command structure in place, but perhaps I should take this opportunity to reassure the hon. Gentleman that the draw-down will take place in a co-ordinated and agreed fashion within ISAF. We will ensure that our troops continue to have in place not only the security to keep them safe and secure, but the logistics needed to do their job effectively.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

On the draw-down of Her Majesty’s armed forces, may I encourage my right hon. Friend to discuss with the Defence Secretary returning as much kit and equipment as is practicable and practical back to the UK and, in particular, hosting it at RAF Cosford and MOD Donnington in my constituency, where there is lots of space?

[Justine Greening]

I am sure that the Secretary of State for Defence will have heard that kind offer. The redeployment of equipment is driven by operational requirements predominantly and, then, an assessment of what is value for money. I can assure my hon. Friend that the first desire is to see equipment redeployed or, if not, sold, or otherwise gifted or destroyed.

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

May I ask the Secretary of State how the repatriation of kit is going? Is the timing on schedule or are there any major problems? Given the choice of what we leave behind, I hope we are also being sensible and making the right choices, with a view to minimising the risk of kit perhaps being used against us in, heaven forbid, any future conflict.

[Justine Greening]

Perhaps I can take this opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend back to the House. It is great to see him in his place. To answer his point about progress on redeployment, we have got about a third of the way through so far, in terms of equipment such as motor vehicles and major equipment, but also some of the smaller matériel that we need to bring back from Afghanistan. We are on track to bring back all the equipment we want to between now and the end of 2014. As I have said, we will take a close look at value for money as we take those decisions.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

In the summer of 2008, 16 Air Assault Brigade transported a massive power station turbine through hostile and difficult terrain to the Kajaki dam. Five years later, may we have an update on the Kajaki dam mission?

[Justine Greening]

That is a specific project that for some reason is not in my briefing, but I will write to the hon. Gentleman and give him an update on progress.

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that we must do all we can ahead of next year’s important provisional and presidential elections to support the election commission to register voters, particularly women?

[Justine Greening]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. We are working in three areas: combating fraud, which we know was a feature of previous elections, registration and ensuring that women go out and vote. We are working hand in hand with the United Nations Development Programme on the latter.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin, who was from Shoreham in my constituency? He was bravely serving his country on his second tour of Afghanistan and was helping to defend civilians and ISAF personnel when he came under attack. He was described by his family as having the “heart of a lion” and by his commanding officer as

“immensely popular and an outstanding soldier in every respect.”

Lance Corporal Brynin was fighting for the safety of people in Afghanistan. When I visited Tajikistan a while ago, I taught in a school of Afghan refugees, who spoke well of their education in Afghanistan—they spoke excellent English—and the support for their schools, but had been driven out of their country by threats of kidnap and non-military violence from the Taliban and others. What is being done to stem the flow of people out of their country, so that we can look after them safely in their own country, where they belong?

[Justine Greening]

At the heart of all this is the work we have done to staff up and help to improve the Afghan national security force, which includes not only the army and the police but latterly the air force as well. As I said in my statement, they are now conducting 93% of operations and 90% of their own training. The draw-down takes place against the backdrop of our continuing work to ensure that they can play the role that my hon. Friend describes in the coming years. That role is vital, because as I said earlier, without security Afghanistan will not develop in the way that the people there and we want it to.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

In my experience of being on operations in Bosnia and working with aid workers, it was crucial that they were able to work in a secure environment. After December 2014, it will be much more difficult. May I ask for my right hon. Friend’s assurance that as much effort as possible is made in DFID to ensure the security of the large number of our aid workers left in Afghanistan when British soldiers are largely withdrawn?

[Justine Greening]

I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend that that is a constant preoccupation of mine, not just in Afghanistan but in all our country programmes where DFID staff are working. As we have seen in a different place, with the kidnap and, luckily, the subsequent release of Red Crescent workers in Syria recently, we often carry out work in dangerous places. We should never forget that when we put in the resources to keep our staff safe, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that is uppermost in our minds.

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

The UK has been given the task of taking a lead in reducing the narcotics trade and the growing of poppies in Afghanistan, which is essential if the country is to become a viable state subject to the rule of law. What ongoing role will the UK have and how do we intend to transfer the responsibility to Afghan agencies?

[Justine Greening]

The principal route for DFID, aside from our strengthening of institutions in the security and policing spheres, has been the focus on livelihoods, particularly in the agricultural sector. The reality is that we simply must give Afghan farmers an alternative to cultivating poppies. That has clearly been a real challenge. We have seen some significant progress, but the challenge remains, which is why DFID’s livelihoods work will continue.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I was delighted to hear the Secretary of State mention the HALO Trust which, along with MAG, is helping to de-mine large areas all over the world. When the Select Committee went to Afghanistan, I noticed that women were employed to de-mine areas, which helps to raise their status in the country. I hope that we will be able to continue to fund that in the future and the wonderful ICRC-funded hospital—everyone who works there is at least a single amputee if not a double amputee, providing fantastic role models for disabled people.

[Justine Greening]

I am very grateful for that question. As I have said, we want to allow HALO to continue the important work it does and clear Herat province of mines by 2018. I can assure my hon. Friend her that this work on health, and particularly improving the access of pregnant women to health facilities, will continue to be one of our key priorities.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

Following my right hon. Friend’s reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), how effective does she think the comprehensive agriculture and rural development facility really is?

[Justine Greening]

I think it has been effective, and the main challenges in getting it to work effectively have been to do security, which has fluctuated from month to month. We face a constant challenge in being able to work in the communities in Afghanistan. It is a challenge that we meet, and I am proud of DFID’s work, particularly with respect to livelihoods. As I have said, we will continue that work.

Backbench Business

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

Defence Reforms

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Relevant Documents: Oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 5 December 2012, on Future Army 2020, HC 803-i, Session 2012-13, and on 10 July 2013, HC 576-i; uncorrected oral evidence taken before the Defence Committee on 8 October 2013, on Future Army 2020, HC 576-ii; written evidence to the Defence Committee, on Future Army 2020, reported to the House on 24 April, 9 July and 8 October 2013, and published on the internet.]

12:32

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

I beg to move,

That this House notes concerns about the Government’s defence reforms in relation to whether its proposals for the reserve forces will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability; and urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established that the Army Reserve plan is viable and cost-effective.

Let me first express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. Many of us on both sides of the House believe this to be an important topic for discussion.

I suggest that Government plans to replace 20,000 regulars with 30,000 reservists are on the rocks. Territorial Army numbers are at a low ebb; reserve recruitment targets are being missed; costs are rising; and there are delays and disorganisation. The plans will produce neither the anticipated cost-savings nor the capability envisaged. The time has come to say “Halt”—to halt the axing of the regular battalions and units until we are sure that the reservist plans are both viable and cost-effective. We run the risk of wasting taxpayers’ money on the back of false economies and unrealistic expectations.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

Were we not promised by the previous Secretary of State that the cuts to the regular forces would happen only if it were clear that we could increase the reserves? Yet that is not going to happen, so what happened to the original promise?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the original plan, which was to allow the build-up of the reserves before we axed regular battalions because it was deemed that deployability was terribly important. Exchanges took place on the Floor of the House in 2011 between the then Defence Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), and my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), which clearly confirm that the plan was to get the balance right—to build up the reservists before winding down the regulars.

My first questions, then, to the Minister of State, Ministry of Defence, who is replying to the debate, are: why and when did the plan change? To make this debate as productive as possible, I would be delighted to take interventions from my right hon. Friend if he wishes to answer the questions we pose as the debate proceeds. I think that the questions why and when the plan changed are wholly legitimate ones, because the plan has changed and the House should be in no doubt whatever about that. Just two years ago, the plan was to say, “We will not wind down the regular troops until we know that the reservists are up to strength”. That plan has changed.

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

I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and the plan also changed in respect of the original strategic defence and security review. It initially planned for a reduction of 7,000 troops, but it suddenly increased to 13,000 and if recent press reports are to be believed, it might be even higher.

[Mr Baron]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. A number of changes to the plan have occurred, but to my knowledge, at no time have we had any explanation from the Dispatch Box of why the plans have changed, of the cost implications or indeed of when they changed.

The entire Army reforms depend on the successful recruitment of reserves. Let us examine that for a moment, and let us remember that without such recruitment up to 30,000, the Army reform plans fall apart. What do we know about recruitment so far? We know that TA numbers have been falling, not rising, since 2009 and are now at their lowest ebb since 2007. We know today that new reservist recruitment targets are being missed. The front page of The Daily Telegraph, under the heading “Reforms have left the Army in chaos” refers to documents clearly showing that reservist recruitment targets both for this and next year are being missed—and not just by a small margin, but by a massive margin—thus bringing the whole plan into doubt. Various reasons are put forward, including criticism of the Ministry of Defence for closing down local recruitment offices, and there is talk about privatisation and Capita, but I think that is somewhat overplayed. What we know is that there has been a lack of communication in the IT systems in the MOD as between Capita and Atlas. There are all sorts of reasons, but the bottom line is that key reserve recruitment targets are being missed.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The issue of recruitment targets within the reserve forces and the TA cannot be helped when it can take several months to get from someone signing up to join to turning up for their first night’s training. That is too long for people to be delayed along their way.

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend, who has experience of these matters, makes a valid point. [Interruption.] Yes, he is my hon. and gallant Friend.

Other reasons include the draw-down in Afghanistan, which is perhaps not encouraging reservists to sign up, and the fact that employers are reluctant to let key employees go. There is a host of reasons, but as I say, the bottom line is that the key reserve recruitment targets are being missed. Another key concern is that costs may be rising faster than anticipated, yet the Government have not presented to Parliament a fully costed plan, despite numerous requests for them to do so.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

On that point, would the hon. Gentleman care to comment on an observation in the current issue of the Army Reserve Quarterly to the effect that it is all to do with

“rebalancing Her Majesty’s Forces in light of the country’s needs and resources in the years ahead”?

[Mr Baron]

I would need further clarification of the comment, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that there is real concern about the plan among both the regular and the TA/reservist units in the Army, not just at the front end but in the highest echelons.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely debate. Before he deals further with the question of cost, may I as a layman suggest to him that, if the reservists cannot make up their membership in time for the disbandment of the regular battalions, there is bound to be a gap in capability?

[Mr Baron]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall be dealing with the capability gap—very briefly, if my hon. Friend will forgive me—because I think that it is an important issue, but may I test the patience of the House and stick to the cost issue for the time being? There is a real risk that, if costs rise faster than anticipated, we shall create false economies that will bring the whole project into doubt. That is terribly important, and we are right to ask questions about it on behalf of the taxpayer.

The Government have not come here to present a fully costed plan, but the pieces of the jigsaw that we can see do not reveal a rosy picture. We know from the Green Paper—and the Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces has confirmed this—that it costs more to train a reservist than to train a regular. We know that those who leave the regular forces to join the reserves will be given a £5,000 bounty, payable over four years. We have some questions about the reservist award, which is the difference between reservists’ pay and what they earn in civilian life. We are told that the potential cost has been accounted for, but the assumptions have not been made clear. We also know that, because employers are reluctant to let key employees go for extended periods, the Government have come up with an incentive for prospective employers amounting to £500 per reservist per month. Those are all added costs, but we still do not know what the fully costed plan is.

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

My hon. Friend referred to the Independent Commission to Review the United Kingdom’s Reserve Forces. I serve on the commission, and I do not accept his statistic. Broadly speaking, the cost of a reservist is about a fifth of the cost of his regular counterpart. In America, it is about a quarter, and my guess is that following the changes that we are making, it will be something between a quarter and a fifth.

[Mr Baron]

I must say to my hon. Friend, with the greatest respect, that he has confused training with deployment. There is no argument in the House about the fact that reservists will be cheaper; the question is, how much cheaper will they be? When costs are rising, do we enter the terrain of false economies—which brings into doubt the whole question of value for money and whether the plan should have been instigated in the first place? I was talking about training. There has been a dispute about whether it costs more to train a regular, but my hon. Friend should know from the Green Paper that it costs more to train a reservist.

However, this is not just about the bits of the jigsaw that we have seen. We know that there are hidden costs further down the line. According to a recent report by the charity Combat Stress, reservists are twice as likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder as regular troops. We may be storing up a ticking time bomb for ourselves. The necessary support structures for reservists are not in place, and I should be interested to know whether there are any proposals in that regard.

May I ask the Minister how much of the £1.8 billion—spread over 10 years—has been set aside for the Government’s plans? We are told that that money has been set aside and all is well, but there are various reports that some of it has already been eaten into. Has any of it been spent, and if so, how much?

While I am on the subject of costs, may I question the Minister about the impact assessment, which attempts to take an overall view of the costs? Again, we are dealing with assumptions and projected usage rates, and not all the figures are on the table, but I think we can all agree that the assessment is very dependent on projected usage rates. The way in which the reserve forces are used will depend on assumptions about future costs.

Artificially low rates can create false economies. The central case in the document seems to be based on an assumption of 3,000 annual deployments. I must ask the Minister whether that projection is realistic, given the original rationale of the reserve reforms. We are meant to be replacing 20,000 regular troops with 30,000 reservists. If the central projected use is 3,000, something is not adding up on the terrain. We need to examine the facts very carefully, because, again, we may be creating false economies and the taxpayer may be presented with a much larger bill than was originally envisaged.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

As my hon. Friend knows, I strongly support those who are concerned about a capability gap, but I am slightly worried about some of the figures that he has given. For example, the figure relating to the higher cost of training a reservist is correct on a per-day basis, but it is not correct overall. What worries me is that, if Members give incorrect figures, the Government will very quickly knock them back. Let us stick to the main thrust, which is our fear that there will not be enough soldiers to fight in any future deployments that may take place.

[Mr Baron]

I am indeed very worried about the possibility that we shall not have enough troops to deploy. I refer my hon. Friend to the Green Paper, which states that it costs more to train a reservist than to train a regular. However, he has made a valid point about the manpower gap, which I think is a central issue of concern. Will 30,000 reservists be enough, even if they can be recruited? According to figures from the Ministry of Defence, the present TA mobilisation rate is 40%. In other words, for every 100 TA soldiers on paper, 40 are deemed to be deployable at any one time. That suggests that if we are plugging a gap left by 20,000 regulars, we shall need 50,000 reservists, not 30,000.

In response to a letter sent to him a while ago by 25 Conservative Members, the Secretary of State suggested a mobilisation rate of 80%. He said:

“The total strength target for the Army Reserve in 2020 is 38,000, in order to deliver 30,000 trained reservists.

May I ask the Minister what research, what study, what evidence justifies the claim that the MOD’s budgets will double the mobilisation rate? It is one thing to recruit 30,000 reservists, but doubling the mobilisation rate as well would require an extremely large investment. Many of us would be interested to know what evidence supports the claim that the £1.8 billion that has been put aside will achieve both those objectives. It is a very, very tall order.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) raised the issue of the capability gap, and he was right to do so, because there is a fear that the Government plans risk creating such a gap. The Army reforms were put together before the strategic defence and security review, and since then a string of events have changed the international strategic dynamic. The nature of conflict is changing. Previously, it was thought of very much in binary terms—there would be one bloc against another bloc—but more fluid geopolitical forces are now at play, both state and non-state. War is becoming more asymmetrical, and we need well trained, agile, regular forces at high readiness if we are to meet the challenges that lie ahead. There is no disguising among the military their frustration about the fact that they could not have been more supportive to the French in Mali. The penny may have dropped on that side of the channel, but it has not yet dropped on this side.

I must ask the Minister whether 40 days’ training is really enough. Let us be absolutely clear about this: the Government’s plans represent a step-change in our approach. We are proposing to deploy whole units of reservists into the field. We have got to ask serious questions about this. Some would say, “Well, it happens in the US with the National Guard,” but it is, perhaps, not fully appreciated that the US National Guard has its own bases and its own equipment and training programmes. They take it very seriously in the US; they throw a lot of money at it, and even then the National Guard units are not infantry units. That is the interesting thing: the National Guard units are not infantry units, despite the investment the US puts into it.

[Mr Brazier]

My last visit to a National Guard infantry unit was in Kabul about a year and a half ago. It was doing an excellent security job, and it also had detached platoons along the Pakistani border. Some 60% of the American infantry is in the National Guard and 40% is in its regular army.

[Mr Baron]

All I would say to my hon. Friend is that there is a general view that the National Guard is very much focused on supporting roles, and the Americans treat their National Guard very differently from what I think is being proposed here. For example, I do not know of there being any details about separate training programmes, operational programmes or equipment programmes in the Government’s plans, which we have yet to see. All we are asking is to see those plans, because £1.8 billion may sound like a lot of money but it is spread over 10 years, and we must consider the scale of what we are asking—not just raising 30,000 reservists, or, to be more accurate, adding another 12,000 or 13,000 reservists, but doubling the mobilisation rate. That is a very big ask indeed.

What research has been undertaken to ensure that the money earmarked is sufficient to bring reservist units up to the same standard as regulars upon deployment? That is especially important given that it appears that human rights legislation will require equal training and equipment. That has not been raised much in the debate thus far, but human rights legislation is a concern in the sense that it is going to say, “Any troops put into the field, reservist or regular, have to have equal training and equipment.” I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that.

There is a concern that these plans are having a distorting effect on the ground. I come back to the fact that well-recruited battalions are being axed, including my own battalion, the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, yet more poorly recruited, and therefore more expensive, battalions are being saved. Such a policy reinforces failure. Can the Minister justify the decision for 2RRF to replace on the list one of the more poorly recruited battalions when it was not on the original list of five battalions to be scrapped? We know, because we have seen it in writing from the MOD, that five battalions were originally due to be axed as they had poor recruitment figures. One of those was replaced. They had to go looking for another battalion and they fell upon 2RRF, which happened to be the best-recruited battalion in the British Army. Many fusiliers and their families in swathes of constituencies across the north and the midlands of England would like an answer to that question.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

Both 2RRF and the 1st Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers are very close to my heart, my dad having been a member of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers before and during the second world war. I wonder what the MOD wants out of our defence forces. One of the battalions to be axed, 2RRF, is referred to as “Daring in all”, and it is said:

“Where ever the Fusiliers have deployed to they have proved capable of meeting every challenge with courage, determination and a will to win.”

That is on the Army website.

[Mr Baron]

That goes without saying. I sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman says. We have still not yet had a straightforward answer to a straightforward question: 2RRF was not in the original five; those five were chosen because of their poor recruitment and retention figures; one was removed and they had to go looking for another battalion to take its place; and they just happened to fall upon the best-recruited battalion in the British Army, and one with a very proud recruiting history. We recruit from across the major cities of Lancashire, Warwickshire and Northumberland—Newcastle, Coventry, Birmingham, Manchester—as well as from London, yet we were told we were having trouble with our recruitment, and that is simply not the case.

No wonder ex-military chiefs are critical. Many are pointing out that strategic thought has been abandoned at a time when many other countries, not necessarily friendly to the west, are increasing their defence budgets. They are asking all politicians to think again.

There comes a stage with any struggling project when common sense and evidence dictate a revaluation and I believe we have reached that point now. There is no doubt—let us be clear about this—that reservists are cheaper than regulars, but rising costs threaten the anticipated cost savings and raise the very real prospect of false economies, and that is before we consider the issue of capability gaps, yet the Government seem determined to plough on with this misguided plan and play down concerns.

That is evidenced today by this important debate having been downgraded, I believe, to a one-line Whip. That does not surprise me, but, all the same, I think it speaks volumes about the Government’s approach. This is a very important issue and the debate has been very well-subscribed to, yet we drop it down to a one-line Whip at a time when the Government have still not produced fully costed plans and there are very real concerns about whether 30,000 reservists can plug a gap left by 20,000 regulars.

I intend to test the will of the House on this motion. The time has come to say “Halt”—halt to the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reservist plan is both viable and cost-effective; otherwise the taxpayer could bear the brunt of many false economies to come.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. May I remind Members that there is a six-minute limit?

12:57

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate. It is the second such debate he has secured, and in the first debate we won the vote but the Government did not take a blind bit of notice. I hope they will do so today.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I had the pleasure the other day of helping to hand in a petition to No. 10 Downing street, when I met, and talked to, many of the ex-fusiliers. There is no doubt that they feel very strongly about what has happened to their regiment and battalions.

I appreciate that periodical reorganisations are necessary and that cuts sometimes might be required to ensure efficiency, but let us be clear: that is not what is happening here. This is a financial, not a strategic, change.

The Government say these cuts will not affect our military capability, but they clearly will. We are losing whole battalions—20,000 troops are to be axed. The Government know this will damage our military capability, creating gaps that will cost us both financially and strategically. That is why they keep insisting that their plans for reservists will fill this gap. That may or may not be the case. I am not a military expert and do not wish to discuss whether or not 30,000 reservists are a substitute for 20,000 regulars. I do, however, have experience of industry and, as a result, I am highly sceptical of the Government’s plans.

I fear that the Government are being highly optimistic in relying on 30,000 reservists. To be in the Territorial Army is admirable and I respect all reservists, but it is admirable because it is a serious time commitment—and, more than that, they can sometimes put themselves in harm’s way. In today’s economic climate, it is not easy for people to request time off from their employer, let alone take large amounts of time off. If companies are tightening their belts, employees feel it is important to be present, hard working and seen to be valuable to the company. Especially given today’s high living standards and bills, no one wants to risk losing their job. Many employers will also be very reluctant to make the extra demands of their employers. We must remember that being a reservist does not mean taking hours off; it can mean taking weeks off. There will be a real fear that being a reservist can jeopardise someone’s career. That is not to say that people will not volunteer to be reservists, but when push comes to shove reservists will put their employment first.

I understand that there are to be incentives for employers to take on reservists, but, again, I fear that when work is demanding and a deadline is looming employers would rather have their employee at work and will put pressure on reservists accordingly. Furthermore, I understand that the Territorial Army’s current mobilisation rate stands at 40%, so only 40 of every 100 soldiers are deemed fit for deployment. Given that figure, we have to bear in mind that we are going to need to recruit about 50,000 reservists, rather than 30,000. The TA has had a net loss in officers and soldiers since 2009; TA numbers are now at their lowest level since 2007. I also understand from recent reports that the reserves recruitment drive, which ought now to be in full swing, is falling well short of its targets for both this year and next. I will leave others to discuss the strategic considerations and the cost of the plans, which is considerable and escalating. I simply call on the Government to delay the axing of the 20,000 regulars until it is beyond doubt that the reserves plan is viable and cost-effective. Let us wait to see what the reservists plans look like before making such significant cuts.

[Ian Mearns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because it gives me the opportunity to highlight the sad disbandment of the 72 Engineers Regiment, which has its headquarters in my constituency. Although it is to be amalgamated into other regiments, the 72 Engineers Regiment has a long history of residency in my constituency and has the freedom of the borough. Many people in the borough are deeply saddened to see the demise of the regiment.

[Mr Cunningham]

I am sure that most of the House would agree with my hon. Friend.

We need to ensure that we do not cause unnecessary costs to the taxpayer and that we do not damage our military capability. Finally, I urge the Government to consider abandoning the plan to disband the 2nd Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers altogether. It is an excellent battalion with a proud history—the Warwickshire county regiment is part of that history—particularly during the second world war, and it has an outstanding track record of recruitment. I urge the Government to reconsider disbanding it while keeping more poorly recruited, and therefore more expensive, battalions.

13:02

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

I welcome this debate and I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing it. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham).

I understand my hon. and gallant Friend’s loyal defence of his fine former regiment. As the 100th anniversary of the start of the first world war is almost upon us, it is time to remember six Lancashire and Warwickshire Fusiliers who won Victoria Crosses in that war. Sir John French made the famous remark that without the Territorial units available at the very beginning of the fighting we would have lost in France before the war had really begun.

The reality is that we have a good plan that is being unevenly implemented. America’s land forces are almost exactly split 50:50 between regulars and volunteer reserves. Canada has 44% regulars and Australia has 36% regulars; in all countries there are more reserve infantry than regulars. Uniquely, Britain has a target that is much less ambitious. It is broadly the case that a reservist costs a fifth of the price of a regular. All of us who are keen on defence would like more resources to be allocated to defence. Indeed, more than 20 years ago, I stepped down from my post in government as a Cabinet Parliamentary Private Secretary over that issue. However, the reality is that we have to work within these very difficult economic times, and the alternative to 30,000 reservists is not 20,000 regulars, but somewhere between 6,000 and 7,500, and that would be if we got rid of all the specialist medics, cyber-people and so on whom the Regular Army does not have.

I therefore strongly support this plan; I have seen the work of American and Australian reservists, and I am proud that 20% of the British division that captured southern Iraq was made up of reservists. However, I am concerned about some of the details of how the plan is being implemented. From the beginning, Ministers and the Chief of the General Staff have made a strong commitment to it. Ministers have secured the support of every employers’ organisation in the country. The CGS, starting with his own pitch to employers in his excellent article in the Financial Times, immediately spotted the governance issue by appointing, for the first time since the second world war, a TA two-star—a major-general—to play a pivotal role in it. The problems largely lie within the recruiting group. At a time when the proposition has improved immeasurably as a result of changes the Army Board is making, it is deeply depressing that this department is failing to deliver.

I have before me the monthly recruiting statistics for one unit—I will not disclose which, for obvious reasons. In the 12 months before the first push on TA recruiting in autumn 2011, the unit had enlisted between three and 12 people a month. The figures after that push are: 15 for November 2011, 21 for December 2011 and 19 for January 2012. Then, for a reason not understood by anyone, the recruiting group introduced its new system for medicals and common selection, without any market testing and without talking to units, and within three or four months the figures had dropped to one or two a month. That muddle was sorted—it had nothing to do with Capita. Second time around, the arrangements with Capita—I do not blame Capita—were introduced without any market testing or discussion with units. I am sure we have all dealt with cases of soldiers who have waited six or nine months with their documents repeatedly lost in the system.

Time is extremely short, so I want to suggest three things that the Government need to do turn this around. The units I talk to tell me again and again that there is more interest in joining the reserves and that the figures for the two groups that are not under control of the recruiting group—officer applicants and ex-regulars—are both improving. So, first, we need to get more of the control over the enlistment process back with the units again.

[Mr Baron]

May I suggest that this is a clear example of where the plan is driven by costs, rather than by strategic design? The cost for Capita to take on the recruitment was derived in large part by scaling down, if not selling up completely, local recruitment offices. So to start opening those offices, although a sensible proposition, would require additional cost if we are going to reverse that recruitment loss.

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. and gallant Friend makes an interesting point. That is not what I am arguing for, although I would strongly argue that it is ridiculous that the offices we still retain are open 9 am to 5 pm Monday to Friday instead of, for example, 9 am to 9 pm Tuesday to Thursday, which would allow the people there to do both jobs rather than only regulars. I am calling for more emphasis on the units. A temporary measure has been adopted in that area, which I suggest should be more permanent—it need not be expensive.

The second major change we need is to have a senior reservist officer in the recruiting group who is tasked with talking to units and who has real power in the way in which decisions in that area are made. We have done it at Land Command at the senior level, where two highly effective successive deputy commanders at Land in that position have worked well, and the improvements in the proposition have stemmed in no small part from that. The same needs to be done in the recruiting group.

The third change we need is on a relatively small scale, as seven or eight changes among the 400-odd decisions that had to be made to the location of the reserves are not right. Seven or eight really well-recruited sub-units have been wrongly selected for disbandment, including the best-recruited squadron in the yeomanry, which is going down to troop level, the best-recruited battery in the TA gunners and three or four well-recruited infantry sub-units.

I believe that this plan is achievable and it is moving us in the direction of the allies we fight alongside. It is a good plan; it just needs an improvement in implementation.

13:10

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

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who made an earnest plea. I also thank the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for all he has done to secure the debate today and the debate last year. He deserves our support for what he said today.

This is an important debate, because, as yet, the Government have not made a good enough case for their plans to reform the country’s armed forces completely by 2020. Furthermore, we know that, of the three services, the Army will be most affected by the Government’s proposed changes. I confess that a particular concern for me from a local perspective is the plan to disband 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

A year ago, on 18 October, as my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) has mentioned, the House debated the proposed disbandment of that battalion. The vote was won, but we know that it was not binding and the Defence Reform Bill is before Parliament with the disbandment proposals intact. All the while, the Army is working to implement its restructuring by 2018.

Colleagues speaking in support of this motion cannot yet see any evidence that supports the Government’s decision to give reservists a bigger role in defending the country. To complete the transformation of the Army, the Government must meet their target of recruiting 30,000 new reservists by 2018. However, the Assistant Chief of the General Staff told the Defence Committee in July of this year that achieving the 6,000 target for this year is “looking tough”. Even if recruitment improves, there are concerns from many quarters about how employers will react when their staff, serving as reservists, have to be deployed for up to 12 months at a time every five years. There is also concern that the compensation of £500 a month to cover each reservist is too low to cover employers’ costs.

Moreover, can Future Force meet the same capability levels as the Army today? With less time for training and with a voluntary role, these soldiers cannot be expected to be comparable with full-time, fully trained and battle-ready Army personnel.

[Mr Brazier]

I am listening carefully to what the hon. Lady is saying. On the question about being battle-ready and so on, under the American system the regular troops are used to seize ground and the reserve troops, who can bring extra expertise—they include policemen, farmers, business men and so on—are used to hold ground. They are often more successful than regular troops at building links with the local community.

[Mrs Glindon]

The point at issue is the transformation to reservists.

So far, the Government have not been able to instil in either Members of this House or the people of this country any confidence in their cost-cutting proposals, because they have not laid the figures on the table. Instead, they have launched headlong into reform, announcing redundancies and undermining the morale of our forces on active service. I remind the Minister that the military covenant states that our military deserve our support, respect and fair treatment, and they should have that at all times.

As for the question of the depletion of our Regular Army, earlier this year I had the honour, along with the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), of taking to Downing street a 10,000-strong petition, which was co-ordinated by the Newcastle Evening Chronicle and signed by the people of the north-east, asking the Government not to disband the 2nd Battalion. On Tuesday this week, hundreds of fusiliers marched through Whitehall in support of a national petition to save their battalion that was presented at 10 Downing street. It was an emotional afternoon, charged with the pride of a regiment that has the best recruitment record in the land, yet tinged with sadness and dismay that that proud tradition could soon be consigned to history.

After the march, I was honoured to bring four veterans from the north-east on their first visit to Parliament. I am pleased to say that while I showed them around this great place, every member of staff and every MP we encountered treated them with the utmost courtesy and respect. Those veterans—Jim, Terry, Jim the Stick and Mac—fear for the future of their battalion and the opportunities for young people in the north-east to follow them into a full-time Army career.

None of us wants to see the battalion or any other unit disbanded in haste and without our being sure that the Government’s plan is cost-effective and wholly workable. This House, our armed forces and the people of the country have a right to see evidence from the Government that they can make the savings and maintain the level of defence that they claim the reforms will deliver.

If the Government are serious about defence reform, they must acknowledge the relevance of the motion and act in accordance with it. I support the motion and urge all other Members in Westminster today to do so, too.

13:15

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

The first responsibility of any Government is the defence of the realm. I put that point to the Prime Minister on the Floor of the House and warned him that on his watch the size of the British Army will fall to the level it was at the time of the battle of Waterloo.

I have considerable sympathy with the points that are being made about saving 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. As a member of the Select Committee on Defence, I will not venture too far in that direction, but I will say that I have placed on record my reservations and concerns about where the replacement of regulars of reservists will get to. I pointed out in an intervention on my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) the fact that the current issue of Army Reserve Quarterly states:

“These changes are not in isolation: they are part of rebalancing Her Majesty’s Forces in light of the country’s needs and resources in the years ahead following the 2010 Strategic Defence and Security Review, Securing Britain in an Age of Uncertainty.”

It goes on to say:

“The changes being made are modernising the Army to face an unpredictable future, transforming the Army to one that is affordable, wholly integrated, designed to be adaptable, and ready to meet the challenges of the future.”

My fear is that we might perhaps have a generational challenge in the leadership of our major political parties. I am of an age that I can remember the aftermath of the second world war and other conflicts, so I feel that reducing the size of Her Majesty’s armed forces to even lower numbers than present is not in the national interest. Today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph, a paper that I follow—

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Avidly.

[Sir Bob Russell]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing a word I was struggling to find; it was not my original thought, but it will do.

The Daily Telegraph reports today:

“Controversial plans to restructure the Army are ‘failing’ because cuts to the defence budget are putting off potential new soldiers…according to a leaked document”,

and:

“The memo, which is understood to have had wide distribution within the Ministry of Defence, says that ‘disappointing’ recruitment to the new Army Reserve means that targets for a larger part-time force will not be reached.”

It goes on to quote that document, saying that

“the Army faces ‘increased risk to its structure and operational capability’”.

The full-time Army has been cut from 102,000 to about 82,000 and five battalions will be axed. As someone who would desperately like to see 3rd Battalion the Royal Anglian Regiment reinstated, I well understand why people are anxious about battalion cuts. The cuts are supposed to be offset by a major expansion in the part-time reserve force, which is expected to grow from 19,000 to 30,000.

[Mr Brazier]

Just while my hon. Friend is mentioning the distinguished Royal Anglian Regiment, one should also say that the Territorials have produced a number of distinguished Members of Parliament, including Sir Winston Churchill and the hon. Member for Raleigh, a former member of the Royal Anglians.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Or indeed, the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois). I welcome a fellow Essex MP to the debate, and in a few minutes I will also be delighted to welcome from Essex the new Deputy Speaker. It is good to see an Essex girl doing so well.

The Daily Telegraph says that the 10-page report dated 6 August and marked “Restricted” claims that the Army is currently recruiting barely half the number of new reservists needed to hit the target. It says:

“The Army is currently failing to attract and recruit sufficient Army Reserve personnel. Reserve info numbers in Quarter 1 are disappointing. If this continues the Army will miss its challenging inflow targets both this year and next.”

That would have consequences for the full-time Army. The report continues:

“Only 376 recruits joined the Reserve between April and June, missing a target of 1,432. That puts the Army on course to recruit only 50% of the overall 2013-14 target”.

The defence of the realm should be based on the defence needs of the nation; it should not be resources led. I get the distinct impression that it is being resources led. I pay tribute to our service personnel and their families. I suggest to my colleagues, friends and chums on the Government Front Bench that, should windfall funds materialise from the disposal of MOD assets, which they could well do, the money should be used primarily to modernise our Army married housing. The modernisation programme is currently on hold because it is claimed that the country cannot afford it, but as heard in Prime Minister’s Question Time yesterday, the economy is improving. So if there is an MOD windfall, I suggest that the money goes on improving our housing.

I should like to end on an upbeat subject and advise the House that on Wednesday 6 November at 7.30 in the atrium of Portcullis House the Colchester military wives choir will be making a return visit. Everyone is welcome to come along and hear them.

13:22

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing this debate. It is an honour and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell). We reside on the same corridor upstairs, and exchange pleasantries on a daily basis.

I should also declare an interest as a member of the Backbench Business Committee, because I was part of the decision-making process for securing the debate today. I am rounding the circle. because I declared the same interest in the Committee.

I have previously alluded to my sadness and that of my constituents at the disbandment of the 72 Royal Engineers TA Regiment. It was a real pleasure to attend an event here yesterday afternoon, mostly about the Royal Engineers, at which members of the 72 Regiment were present. We saw the great work that the Royal Engineers do across the country and in far-flung fields. It is particularly disappointing that, as part of the review, in which we hoped to see an expansion of the TA, the headquarters of the regiment was removed from my constituency. As I said earlier, they have the freedom of the borough, and we will see their passing with great regret.

I referred in an intervention to the impending demise of the 2nd Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which recruits mainly from the north-west. I am concerned that if we disband the 2nd Battalion, that will leave one full-time regular battalion within that regiment. Using the Government’s own defence review criteria, single-battalion regiments are automatically subject to review, so that would place in jeopardy the last remaining 1st Battalion of full-time regular soldiers within the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The regiment is close to my heart. It was my dad’s regiment; he was a regular soldier, serving in Palestine and north Africa. He was captured in the early days of the second world war before becoming a prisoner of war for a number of years. I wonder why we are seeing the potential demise of such a regiment, which dates back almost 330 years.

I really wonder what more we want from our service personnel than what the Fusiliers already provide. According to the Army website,

“The First Fusiliers epitomise the modern British soldier … The Second Fusiliers are a superb, operationally hardened, light role infantry battalion.”

They are supported by the 5 RRF, a TA battalion, which has stations at Alnwick, Ashington, Newcastle, Tynemouth, Washington, Bishop Auckland and Doncaster—mainly a north-east regiment of the territorial reserve force. We have grave concerns about the future of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers per se.

Comparisons between the capability of our TA reserve forces and front-line regular forces and that of the American services are almost meaningless. Given the size of the American regular capability and the resources available to it, to compare them with our regular forces, who I believe are much better troops on the ground even though they are obviously many fewer in numbers, is meaningless. I would ask Government Members not to make such comparisons because they demean this debate.

I welcome the debate and ask the Government to think again about the proposals. There could be hidden cost implications down the line, and we worry about our real defence capability come 2020.

13:27

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), and I thank him and his colleagues on the Backbench Business Committee for taking note of the submission made by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), me and other hon. Members from across the House at last week’s meeting, and for granting this debate today.

This matter is one of enormous importance to my constituents in Bury, and I want to explain briefly why that is. The motion refers to the disbandment of regular Army units. As we have already heard, one of the units to be disbanded is the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. Bury has long been a productive recruiting ground for the Fusiliers—originally the Lancashire Fusiliers raised in 1688, who had their barracks in the town of Bury, as I know you are well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker. Following a previous reorganisation of the regular Army units, back on 23 April 1968, the Lancashire Fusiliers joined the Royal Northumbrian Fusiliers, the Royal Warwickshire Fusiliers and the Royal Fusiliers to form part of the new Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

The people of Bury are extremely proud of the town’s links with the Fusiliers. The town is home to the Fusiliers museum, which has recently moved from the site of the old barracks to a new venue right in the heart of the town. This was visited by the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for South West Surrey (Mr Hunt), when he was shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. Just a few weeks ago, my right hon. Friend the current Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport also visited the museum.

Earlier this year, in the summer, the Bury parish church played host to the funeral of Drummer Lee Rigby—a Fusilier—who was so brutally murdered here in London. The church is the garrison church of the Fusiliers. Each year on the Sunday nearest 25 April Bury commemorates the terrible losses sustained by the Fusiliers at Gallipoli in 1915. The Fusiliers were awarded six Victoria Crosses for the bravery that they displayed at that landing, and famously they are remembered as having won six VCs before breakfast.

We must never lose sight of the reason why the Government have had to make these difficult decisions. It is right that the defence budget must be balanced; no one disputes that. It is nevertheless prudent constantly to review the plans that the Government have put in place and monitor them to ensure that they are on track and that they will deliver the planned savings. My constituents are understandably angry and disappointed that the 2nd Battalion is being disbanded at a time when there is so much uncertainty in the world. On Tuesday this week I was honoured to meet the hundreds of former Fusiliers and their families who marched down Whitehall to hear the speeches in Old Palace Yard. This was the second such march, following the one we had last year. It is just one indication of the strength of feeling not just in Bury, but in all the towns from which the Fusiliers recruit right across the country.

The 2nd Battalion is one of the best—if not the best—recruited battalions in the British Army. My constituents ask why Scottish battalions, which are much more poorly manned, are being retained when the 2nd Battalion is being disbanded. They wonder whether the answer has anything to do with the impending referendum on independence for Scotland.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I be the first hon. Member of this House to welcome you to your new position, to congratulate you on your election as Deputy Speaker, and to wish you well in your new role in the House?

[Hon. Members]

Hear, hear.

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Certainly.

[Mr Francois]

We on the Government Benches have noted, Madam Speaker, that you have achieved what the military would call an initial operating capability. We wish you the very best and we are sure that you will succeed.

[Mr Nuttall]

rose—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Nuttall]

Certainly.

[Mr Jones]

May I, from the Opposition Benches, welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker? I see that you are getting clear guidance from your fellow Deputy Speaker. From my experience of the right hon. Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle), I would not listen too closely to him on every occasion, as he has a mischievous sense of humour.

[Mr Nuttall]

My constituents in Bury are concerned that not enough reservists will be recruited to fill the massive hole that will be left by the disbandment of the 2nd Battalion. The original plan was to keep the Regular Army battalions in place until it was clear that the plan to replace them with reservists was viable. It surely makes sense to be absolutely certain that the reservists recruitment plans are on track before the regular units are disbanded. We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay that the plan to recruit more reservists is behind schedule, but we should not have to rely on leaks published in The Daily Telegraph. What are the facts? Exactly how many reservists should have been recruited by now? Exactly how many have been recruited? They are not a cheap option. We need to know the facts. I urge the House to vote for the motion.

13:34

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a pleasure to see you in your place. I support the comments of my colleagues.

I commend my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) for his persistence in raising these questions. As has been said, the Government plan to more than double the size of the TA to 38,000. That figure has not been used yet, but as I understand it, that is the target figure, of which 30,000 will be potentially on call. At the same time the number of regulars will be reduced by 20,000. The motion

“notes concerns”

about whether these reforms

“will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability”.

My sympathies are with the members of the Government Front-Bench team, whom I know reasonably well after three years here. I know that none of them wishes to be in this position.

During my nine years in the Army, I worked alongside many reservists. They were capable, professional and dedicated. Their magnificent contribution to many recent operations from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya leaves us in no doubt of their valour or significance. However, reservists have other priorities in their lives, and that is even more pertinent in today’s tough and competitive world. For these reasons and others, their numbers must be kept to a sensible and manageable proportion of the whole. No military commander I have spoken to, serving or retired, agrees that the increase in the proportion of reservists to regulars is correct. Today’s conflicts require well trained, professional, regular troops to hit the ground running, so if we are to cut our armed services, the proportion of regulars to reservists must be higher, not lower.

Twenty thousand fully trained and experienced regulars are leaving the Army, creating what I and many other campaigners and commentators would consider a yawning capability gap. The Government argue that they inherited a multibillion pound hole in the defence budget, which was unsustainable. Although I accept that premise, I do not agree with the conclusion that we should cut the armed services to the extent that we are planning, and certainly not before plan B has proved sustainable.

To me, this is all about priorities. We are happy to strike a moral pose and devote many billions of pounds to overseas aid, much of which is unaccountable, while starving of cash the very organisations that defend our country. I have no problem with giving money to overseas aid, but it should be better targeted, and I think that a statutory target is incorrect. Furthermore, projects such as HS2, which is very controversial, will cost billions of pounds, and, dare I say it, there is the old elephant in the room, the EU. Charity starts at home, especially in austere times.

It is a sobering thought that at the height of the troubles in Northern Ireland we had nearly 30,500 troops serving there. In my day it took about six men to put one man in the field. Working on that basis, if—God forbids it ever happens again—Northern Ireland flares up, we would be pushed to meet that commitment, let alone retake the Falklands if Argentina were ever in a position to launch an attack.

Ministers tell us that this reduction is

“to make best use of the resources available”

and to

“harness better the talents of the country”.

It sounds good, but does it deliver? According to a leaked document from the MOD, it does not. I would be grateful if Ministers would confirm what percentage of GDP is spent on our armed forces. I am told that it is now below 2%, the minimum that our membership of NATO demands. In my day, it was above 5% —money that was needed not only to maintain our commitment to NATO, but for the defence of our dependants and of course to safeguard the realm, which is the most solemn duty of this House.

Yet today more redundancies loom and more reliance will be placed on reservists, who are not rallying to the MOD’s bugle call to the extent that we were led to expect. Those who do respond will receive 40 training days a year. Will that be enough to give a reservist confidence when his or her boots hit the ground? Will the already overstretched training facilities be able to cope with the increase in demand? Will the new arrangements be to the reservist’s detriment? As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has said, the statistics show that reservists are 50% more likely to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder than their regular counterparts.

I question whether the £1.8 billion investment over the next 10 years will be adequate. The Government’s target is a total Army Reserve strength of 38,000 by 2020, but it is reckoned that this will give us 30,000 trained reservists. I question whether that will be achievable, and certainly the statistics we have heard today indicate that it probably will not be.

As a humble Back Bencher, I urge the Government to stop dismembering our armed services before it is too late and at least ensure that plan B is in place and working.

13:41

[Sarah Newton (Truro and Falmouth) (Con)]

It is a privilege to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I would like to associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who sadly is no longer in the Chamber. Like him, I think that the whole plan for the Army Reserve is a good one. I know a great many serving reservists in my constituency who are excited and enthused about their role in a fully manned, 30,000-strong force that will ensure that they and others in future can make their contribution to the British Army. I note with interest that the south-west has been given an important role to play in this expansion, with the equivalent of 940 new posts being created for the region. However, like my hon. Friend, I have some concerns about the proposals as they stand.

[Mr Baron]

What is in no doubt is that one has great respect for the TA and, in many respects, wants the reserve plan to work. What one is arguing here is that, given the shortfalls in recruitment and the rising costs, surely it would be wise and prudent to stop the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reserve plan is viable and cost-effective, because we in this House must not forget that defence is the first priority of Government.

[Sarah Newton]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have certainly never forgotten my personal responsibility or the fact that the defence of our nation is, collectively, our first responsibility in this Chamber, and I do not think for one moment that the Ministers on the Front Bench have forgotten their responsibilities either. We have not yet had an opportunity to hear the Minister respond to the debate or explain the current situation with regard to reservist recruitment. I have some concerns about recruitment, which is why I am speaking in this debate.

The Green Paper published in July contained some proposals that concern me. One, in particular, is for the reconfiguration of D company of 6th Battalion The Rifles. I believe that the proposal, as it stands, will frustrate the delivery of the Army Reserve plan in Cornwall, particularly the aim of maximising its local potential now and in years to come. D company is an important part of 6 Rifles. It is currently based and headquartered in Truro and Plymouth, which allows riflemen from across Cornwall to play a full role in the life of the regiment. The Green Paper proposes a reconfiguration that would see the majority of the company, including its headquarters, based in Plymouth by 2016 and one platoon housed at a new facility in Barnstable.

The move from Truro would cause real problems for serving riflemen living in west and central Cornwall and impact on future recruitment from those areas. Cornwall, as Members will know, is a large and rural county, and it can take a considerable time to travel to Plymouth. A rifleman taking the train from Falmouth in my constituency to an evening training session in Plymouth would face a four-hour round trip. Those travelling further west would face even longer journey times. Is it reasonable or, with a view to future recruitment, wise to add such an inconvenience to the many other sacrifices required of our reservists?

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I agree wholeheartedly. My constituency will see the closure of Coltman house, a well served TA centre in Burton. When we are trying to encourage more people to join the TA, it makes absolutely no sense to make it more difficult for them to do so.

[Sarah Newton]

I definitely agree with the principle of my hon. Friend’s point.

As well as creating a tangible difficulty for Cornish riflemen, the proposed move from Truro will inflict a blow to local military identity. The link between Cornwall and The Rifles dates back to 1782, when the 32nd Regiment of Foot, a predecessor unit, was designated as Cornwall’s county regiment. That designation has lasted through the centuries and the reorganisations of recent years and, until now, has been physical as well as theoretical, with members of the regiment serving within Cornwall. The end of 231 years of The Rifles’s boots on Cornish soil will weaken the link between county and regiment.

I know that the Ministry of Defence recognises that such links not only are a matter of sentiment and heritage, but have a real impact on local recruitment. The case against reconfiguration therefore rests on the threat to recruitment, but the argument cited in its favour is that the move from Truro will save money. When considering this, it is important to remember that Truro’s TA centre, which is currently home to D company, would stay open if The Rifles move. The centre currently also supports local Army cadets and provides a base for the Royal Army medical field hospital and a squadron of the Royal Logistic Corp. The Green Paper would not alter those arrangements. If the move goes ahead, Truro TA centre will remain open as a facility but support fewer reserve units. It is difficult to see how that could lead to significant financial savings. Indeed, the proposed establishment of a new platoon-sized facility at Barnstable looks likely to incur costs that would not have to be met if Truro were retained as a Rifles base.

The reconfiguration does not need to be completely abandoned in order for its adverse impact to be mitigated. It is generally accepted that it makes sense for the company headquarters to move to Plymouth, as the nearest large urban area, but only while one platoon remains in Truro to enable continued service from central and west Cornish residents. I understand that that was the expected scenario following the talks with local commanders in advance of the Green Paper, so the loss of all Rifles units came as a dreadful shock. Given Cornwall’s population of 530,000, which is expected to grow at a fast rate in the coming decades, it seems likely that a Truro-based platoon would be readily able to recruit sufficient reservists to man it. It is currently a well manned unit.

In conclusion, my concerns about the reorganisation are very local. I support and welcome the strategy for the Army Reserve, which I think is widely supported by reservists in my constituency, but over 100 people have contacted me to express their consternation about the proposed move, including many serving riflemen in my constituency. During his time at the Ministry of Defence, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Leicestershire (Mr Robathan) listened closely to those concerns, met me and agreed in writing to look again at the proposed move. He had also been planning to visit Truro to help him to understand further the impact that the move would have. I hope that his successor as Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), will be able to continue that close consideration of that local concern. I hope that will lead to the proposed reconfiguration being reviewed. Such a review is simply essential if Cornish residents are to serve in The Rifles in the manner in which they have proudly done for centuries and if Cornwall is to continue to contribute to the British Army to the extent envisioned in the Army Reserve plan.

13:49

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

May I wholeheartedly join in the warm welcome that has been extended to you today, Madam Deputy Speaker? It is delightful to see you in the Chair.

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). I echo what she and other speakers have said about the size of the task that is facing Ministers with the £35 billion black hole they inherited, the need to put our armed forces on a sound financial and strategic footing—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clappison]

I have only just started, but of course I will.

[Mr Jones]

I think we have had black holes of £38 billion and £36 billion, and now we have £35 billion. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that, because the Government are clearly reluctant to do so?

[Mr Clappison]

The figure comes from someone who knows more about this than me; it is contained in the National Audit Office report of 2010. I have only six minutes to speak. I will happily debate the black hole in the accounts and the whole of the debt that the previous Government left to this Government, but that is not really why I want to take part in the debate. I wanted to do so to pay tribute to our Ministers. We have an excellent Minister who has served in the armed forces and we are lucky to have him serving in this Department.

The longer this debate has gone on, the more it has become clear to me that something is going wrong with the implementation of the Government’s plan. I speak on these matters as a layman. I do not have any gallant service of my own, but as a Conservative I take an interest in our armed forces and the strength of our defence. I am not remotely qualified to judge the merits of the plan, nor the size of the Army, although I have some sympathy with what the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) said about the size of our armed forces. Least of all am I qualified to judge the relative capabilities and costs of reservists as against regular soldiers. However, there is clearly common ground emerging that something is going wrong with the recruitment of reservists. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who has played a distinguished role in this regard, described it as “uneven”. Perhaps the Minister can put me right, but it seems that initial reports are not uniformly optimistic about the recruitment of reserves to take the place of our regular forces.

Let me put to the Minister the case that has already been put in a very distinguished way by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron). If there is a problem with the recruitment of reservists, and those reservists are needed to make up for the capability lost through the loss of the five regular battalions, surely the Government should look again at the question of disbanding those battalions.

[Mr Gray]

rose—

[Mr Clappison]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who is much more distinguished in these matters than I am.

[Mr Gray]

I am not even slightly distinguished. I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the risk of there being a capability gap. Does he agree that, while the MOD may well hope that the TA recruitment figures will improve, there must arrive a point at which it will become obvious that that is not going to occur? We might therefore want to hear from the Minister a date or a time at which the MOD might be ready to admit that the bold plan in “Future Army 2020” has not worked and will think again about regular units.

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that the Minister has heard my hon. Friend. If I may, I would put it even more strongly. My hon. Friend mentioned hope. I would say to the Minister that, if there is even an element of doubt about the recruitment of reservists, the Government should put these plans on hold and look again at the whole question of disbanding the regular battalions. In saying that, let me make it absolutely clear that I mean no disrespect at all to the excellent individuals who serve in our Territorial Army and to whom we owe the deepest debt of gratitude, not least for the way in which they have performed in Afghanistan.

This is simply a question of whether the implementation of the plans as they stand will give us the capability that we require. I very much hope that it will not be part of the Government’s thinking or policy to say, “Here we have a plan which should meet our capability needs, and will also save us costs, but even if it doesn’t meet our capability needs we will go ahead with it none the less.” That is not a position in which a Conservative-led Government should find themselves, and I am sure that they will not under the watchful custodianship of my right hon. Friend the Minister.

Let me say a few words about our Navy, which is also encompassed by the defence reforms. The previous Government’s strategic defence review in the late 1990s concluded that Britain required a fleet of 32 surface ships, destroyers and frigates, in order to fulfil its capability needs. Now we have a fleet of 19 surface ships in the form of frigates and destroyers. I know that these ships have greater capability than ever before, but I would be surprised if they had acquired a capability proportionate to the loss of numbers that has been experienced since the defence review in the late 1990s. Even as an amateur strategist, I can understand that, as the noble Lord West, a former Sea Lord, has helpfully pointed out, a ship can only be in one place at one time. I doubt that there are fewer threats in the world today than there were in the late 1990s and that the world has become a much safer place since the turn of the last century. While other nations are responding to the world as it is by increasing the number and capability of their surface fleet, we are seeing a diminution in ours.

The hon. Member for Colchester mentioned Waterloo. Helpfully, next Monday is Trafalgar day, which used to be celebrated nationally and is still celebrated in our Navy. I was interested to find out how many warships the British Navy had at the time of the battle of Trafalgar, and my rather amateur research unearthed a figure of 950 warships in 1805, so we may not have had a very big Army, as the hon. Gentleman said, but we certainly had a very good Navy.

[Richard Drax]

Bearing in mind that 85% of our trade comes by sea, would it not be foolish if we did not have the Royal Navy to protect, not least, our trade routes? My hon. Friend may recall that one man tried to cut us off before, not too long ago.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is right. Who knows what we may be called on to deal with through our Royal Navy? At the time of the Falklands conflict we had 60 frigates and destroyers. Recently our Navy played a very important role in the conflict in Libya. Four of the ships that we used in that conflict have since been decommissioned or are on their way to being decommissioned. Let me put this into further context by saying that, on the eve of the second world war, a conflict that tells us all we need to know about the need for military preparedness, Britain had 272 surface warships and the largest Navy in the world.

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

On ships of the past, the cannonballs only went so far; today, the force multipliers on ships are enormous. The situation is not comparable. We have fewer forces and fewer castles. Things have moved on in our capabilities, and that is what we need to focus on.

[Mr Clappison]

I hope that the ships have very great capabilities because we have only 19 of them. I think that my hon. Friend will know from his military expertise that it is said in the Navy that three ships are needed for every one that is deployed, so at any time we can deploy six ships. Let us hope that they are indeed mightily powerful. As I said, other nations are not taking the same view as us and are increasing the size of their navies. I am pretty sure that some of those navies will have very good capabilities as well.

Although our surface fleet may now be on the rather modest side, happily we are not short of commanding officers, because in our Navy we have 40 admirals and 260 captains. That is a ratio of just over two admirals per surface warship. If one takes into account our submarine force and HMS Illustrious, which is due to be decommissioned next year, we will have one and a half admirals per vessel in our Navy. At least we can see that all possibilities will be well and truly covered. As for the 260 captains, one is tempted to guess that, although in the past the dream of a captain may have been to command a ship, today his dream may be to set foot on one.

We do not have to look far back in time to find occasions when we have needed our Navy at short notice, and who knows when we may need it again? It is an excellent branch of our armed forces, as is the case with all our armed forces. Whatever we say about the size and capabilities of our armed forces, we know the quality of the people who are involved in them. They are excellent individuals who never hesitate to serve their country and put their lives at risk, and we are very lucky to have each and every one of them.

I say to the Minister that it is a credit to the Government that they have made it such an explicit priority to give our forces the equipment they deserve. However, on the reserves, as a straightforward, ordinary Conservative Back Bencher, I think that the Government need to think again.

13:59

[Sir Alan Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to be the first Liberal Democrat Member to welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and to wish you well. Of course, my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) welcomed you when you were waiting in the wings and I am sure he shares my view that your eye should never stray far from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers has a huge, historic association with my constituency. The regimental headquarters of the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers was in Alnwick and its museum is still there. The regiment also has a major Fusilier Territorial Army centre and the benefit of very good recruitment areas, which is why it is such a well-recruited battalion. The north-east, Lancashire, the midlands and London could hardly be better places for recruitment.

The defence plans, which have been widely discussed today, involve a significant and risky reduction in regular numbers and are dependent on a massive increase in reservists on a scale unprecedented in modern times. Two things follow from that. First, we need to make sure that we achieve regular recruitment at the necessary level, organised in a regimental structure that supports efficiency of operation. Secondly, we need to make sure that we do not take out regular strength until we can be sure that we have the reservists to replace it.

That brings me directly to the mistake that I think has been made, namely the disbandment of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. On Tuesday, hundreds of Fusilier veterans marched on Whitehall—it was a truly magnificent sight—after we had presented a petition to Downing street.

[Bob Stewart]

Based on the logic that we should keep regulars until we have reservists to take their place, we should mention in the same breath the other three regiments that are being lost, including mine, the Mercian Regiment.

[Sir Alan Beith]

The same logic can indeed be applied, but the sheer strength of feeling with regard to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers is significant, as is the number of Members who are taking part in this debate because of their concern about the future of the 2nd Battalion and of the regiment in general.

I do not want to spend too long on why the mistake was made, but it is clear that in the case of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers the decision to stand down was based not on efficiency, but on the cap badge argument, which preserved Scottish battalions that did not recruit as well as the Fusiliers. Interestingly, the cap badge argument did not count for much when, a few years earlier, we lost the King’s Own Scottish Borderers—the other regiment that had its regimental headquarters in my constituency—and they were merged with the Royal Scots to become one battalion of the Royal Regiment of Scotland. In effect, the two regiments associated with our area have sustained losses.

Since the decision was made—Ministers may claim it was right, but I think it was wrong—the facts have changed, and when the facts change, Governments have to look at things again. It has become clear how difficult it will be to meet the TA recruitment target. I do not know many people—indeed, anyone—who are confident that we will achieve the targets in the given time scale. It is therefore likely—in fact, I am certain—that there will be a capability gap.

[Mr Brazier]

The reason we are not meeting the targets is not that there is a shortage of people willing to enlist. As I explained in my speech, we have had two big surges, but both were wrecked because the Department in charge of recruiting and enlistment has set up systems that are simply not volunteer-reservist friendly.

[Sir Alan Beith]

My hon. Friend, who has worked diligently on strengthening the TA and its role in our military structure, makes an important point. I am not sure whether that is the whole answer or argument. If we are deterring potential recruits as a result of slow processes, that should be put right. Many years ago my hon. Friend was my Conservative opponent and he became aware during that time of the significance of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers in my area.

As well as the slowness of TA recruitment, TA centres are being closed. Alnwick in my constituency is keeping a good and strong TA centre of the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. The TA centre in Berwick was reassigned some time ago to the Royal Logistics Corps, which no longer needs it. I think we should have kept it and that it should be reassigned back to the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

If we give up on rural areas and create a situation whereby it is too far for people from rural areas to attend training nights, we will cut off a significant source of recruitment. There are many loyal people in rural areas who want to serve and many ex-regulars return to rural areas. At the very least, we need to devise ways in which the training structure can accommodate people who live 30, 40 or 50 miles away from a training centre, if we are not simply to write off a whole area of recruitment.

I do not want to take up much more time. It is clear from today’s discussion that a lot of people, for various reasons, have serious concerns about our ability to meet the TA targets. I therefore suggest to Ministers that the contingency plan they should have to hand and keep in preparedness is the retention of at least one of the regular battalions, and the obvious choice is the 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers.

14:05

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

It is a pleasure to speak in your first debate in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I speak as a former Territorial Army soldier, first in the Honourable Artillery Company and then in the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers. I served for about 12 years in total. A great-great uncle of mine lost his life as a member of the 25th Battalion the Royal Fusiliers during the German east African campaign of the first world war.

My understanding of the objective that the Government have set for the reserve forces and the Army Reserve in particular is that they need to capture 0.15% of the working-age population. I do not think that that target is beyond us, because many of our closest allies, such as America, Canada, New Zealand and Ireland, all manage to achieve significantly better than that. If our neighbouring countries and closest allies can achieve that, we should have faith in the volunteer ethic in British society. It is also important to remember that we will still have a larger proportion of regular forces in our total military than many of our closest allies.

[Mr Gray]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Andrew Selous]

I give way to my hon. Friend, who, like me, is a former HAC soldier.

[Mr Gray]

I am most grateful to my Honourable Artillery Company colleague. It is the oldest and, of course, greatest regiment, regular or territorial, in the British Army.

[Mr Ellwood]

Division!

[Mr Gray]

No dissent from other Members, please.

I agree with the optimism and hope of my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) that we can recruit a first-class reserve army to play the role called for by Army 2020. However, does he agree that the statistics so far are extremely disappointing to say the least? Does he think we will reach a point during the next year or two when it will become obvious that we will not be able to achieve the Army 2020 targets and we will have to think again?

[Andrew Selous]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his point. I have one or two positive suggestions on how we might be able to improve recruitment, based on what has worked in the past. I also have every confidence that our colleagues on the Front Bench want and need this to work. They are not stupid and I am sure they will make the necessary adjustments, if needed.

At present there are 19,000 people in the Army Reserve and the Government want 30,000, an increase of 11,000. To put that in round terms, that will be fewer than 20 recruits per parliamentary constituency, although I do appreciate the point that has been made about the fact that the Army Reserve is becoming slightly more regional than local.

Employers will play an essential role in this process. It is really important that the National Employer Advisory Board and Support for Britain’s Reservists & Employers do their job well and properly. I also want chambers of commerce, the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and the Institute of Directors—all the employers’ groups—to get behind the need to recruit and retain more reserves.

When I first joined the Honourable Artillery Company as a young man, I was working in the Lloyd’s of London insurance market, which had a reserve forces association. Many young underwriters and brokers joined the reserve forces. There was significant employer buy-in. We could talk about our weekend’s training when we got back on Monday morning. It was a normal and natural thing to do. There is no reason why clusters of employers could not copy that model.

[Jack Lopresti]

My hon. Friend is talking about a large organisation. Small and medium-sized enterprises and small towns and villages cannot be compared with Lloyd’s of London.

[Andrew Selous]

I accept that, but there is no reason why the chamber of commerce in my hon. Friend’s constituency or the Federation of Small Businesses could not do the same thing. I would like to see stalls on the high streets, in the market towns and at the village fairs in his constituency. We should literally be setting out our stall to get young men and women to join the reserve forces. Groups of employers could do the same thing.

To highlight one employer, Carillion is doing an excellent job of encouraging its staff to join the reserve forces because it is a two-way trade. Not only does the country get the reserve forces that it needs, but employers get back a capable, determined and well-trained employee who will be of even more benefit to their work force. It is important to recognise that this is not just about employers doing the decent thing; there are sound business reasons for employers to get behind the reserves. The Government also provide assistance to meet mobilisation costs.

It is important to recognise the contribution that the Territorial Army, as it used to be called, has made to recent campaigns. Up to 10% of our forces in Afghanistan have come from the Territorial Army. Indeed, my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) mentioned the figure of 14% for Iraq in our debate on 23 April.

We need a simple and straightforward recruiting system. My memory of joining the Territorial Army in 1980 is that it was a quick and easy process. Captain Simon Lalor, who is now a major-general, was the recruiting officer of the Honourable Artillery Company. I had friends in the company and I went in to see him. The process was very quick and I was doing my recruit basic training before I knew it. There was not a long delay, but I am sure that the necessary security checks were undertaken then, as they must be now. If we were able to do it quickly, simply and easily then, I am sure that we can do so now. That is important because if a young man or woman who is bursting with energy and commitment wants to join the TA, we have to act quickly to capture that enthusiasm or we may lose them.

I return to the point that I made about the need for community engagement. It is important that businesses, civic leaders, Members of Parliament, mayors, county council and unitary council chairs and so on get behind this effort, support the reserve forces and encourage people to join their local unit. I think that an extra 11,000 reserves is possible. I have heard about the difficulties with the current recruitment process that have been outlined, but I still believe that recruiting 11,000 reserves is possible.

[Mr Brazier]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. The central difference between the recruitment processes in this country and other English-speaking countries is that reservists here have very little say over the way in which it is designed, organised and implemented.

[Andrew Selous]

I defer to no one in this House more than my hon. Friend for their knowledge of and commitment to the reserves. He has advised the House well and loyally over the past few years. There are two Defence Ministers on the Front Bench and I am sure that they will have heard his comments. I know that they want to get the process right and that they will leave no stone unturned in ensuring that we achieve the target.

We need community buy-in. We need employers and civic leaders to be out there supporting our reserves. We need an extra 11,000 reserves. We have done it in the past. In 1990, we had 70,000 people in the Territorial Army. Surely it is possible for us to get to a figure of 30,000. I refuse to believe that we cannot do that if we have the right enthusiasm, motivation and recruiting systems.

14:14

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to see you in your new position, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I will talk about why the regimental system is so emotive for so many people in this House. I was in the Army, but I really wanted to join the Royal Air Force because my father was an RAF officer. However, he rather ruined it for me when I discovered that I was colour blind. I said, “Dad, that means I can’t fly and I can’t join the RAF.” He said, “That’s right son.” I said, “What about the Navy, dad?” He said, “Starboard and port are red and green. You’ve got to be able to see those.” So I said, “What about the Army?” He said, “Son, the Army will have anyone.”

When I got to Sandhurst, I discovered that the Army was not just the Army, but that I had to go in for a regiment. I did not really understand that. I lived in Cheshire and went to school in Essex—I was an Essex boy. I ended up being interviewed for the Cheshire Regiment. It was weird. I did not really understand what the regimental system was until I got to the regiment in Bahrain on 25 July 1969. When I arrived, I was suddenly taken into this very proud organisation. I discovered that the Cheshires had real ethos and spirit.

I was taught regimental history very rapidly. I was taught that the colours were the heart of the regiment and that they were carried by subalterns. Everybody in the Chamber will remember the story of the two young officers who were given the colours in 1879 to cross the River Buffalo in South Africa and died saving the colours. Essentially, the colours were the regiment. That gave great character to each regiment.

I did not understand how much that tradition mattered until I went to Londonderry later that year. When I lost a third of my platoon, I saw why regiments were so important. My men went back into the regimental system and said, “We’ve got to do the right thing.” Twelve years later, I saw that pride in action again when I lost six men at Ballykelly on 6 December 1982. When I buried six of my soldiers, four of their mothers put their arms around me and said, “We understand how you feel.” That was amazing. That is why the regimental system is so important to Government and Opposition Members. The regiment is a family and it acts like that. It gives the Army huge strength in adversity. That is why it is so important and why we must preserve it.

On Monday, I hosted a visit to this place for 15 soldiers and officers from my old regiment. I reminisced fondly about my time in the regiment. They tolerated an old man’s yearnings. However, when I looked at them, I could see that they were not with me. They had a different view. They were not the Cheshires that I had been in; they were another lot. Since 1 September 2007, they had been in 1st Battalion the Mercian Regiment and they were no longer the Cheshires. They had a new regimental identity that had been bonded in battle on two severe tours in Afghanistan. I realised that the way that I looked at things was all over and that a new generation was coming. I do not like it, but I have to accept it. Fundamentally, there are some things that we must accept.

I do not want 2nd Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers or any other regiment to go. I do not think that the reserves are getting the recruitment that is needed. Old regiments do not die; they fade away, just as those that made them go to their makers. Those of us who have served and have seen our comrades in action have great difficulty in accepting change—I do not like it, and I will fight tooth and nail to keep the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, and the other battalions. Sometimes, however, we will have to accept that we cannot do that. That is why people such as me, and other hon. and gallant Members from across the House, are fighting so hard for their local battalions and regiments.

I have 16 seconds left, so let me say this: please do not confuse regiments and battalions. A regiment consists of many battalions, and many of those battalions are from previous regiments. My time is up. Think of previous battalions.

14:20

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) who has given distinguished service. I never rose higher than a most diffident and incompetent trooper in the Honourable Artillery Company, so I speak with some diffidence in this debate. I may be an amateur in military strategy, but I know a bit about parliamentary procedure, and I am concerned about the way that debates on our armed services are effectively being downgraded. The House is on a one-line Whip, and we are debating a motion that we have not heard a lot about. The motion

“urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established that the Army Reserve plan is viable and cost-effective.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron), who is sitting next to me, will press the motion to a vote, so it will—I presume—be passed by the House. It is incumbent on the Government to listen to the House if it expresses an opinion in such terms.

[Mr Ellwood]

On that point, I stress that this is a serious motion, but the House needs to reflect on how we pay tribute to our armed forces. I do not believe that a half-day debate on a Thursday is the way to do that. We previously had four debates a year on the issue. I hope that the powers that be will listen—I hope my hon. Friend will agree—and that we can return to that and do justice to what our armed forces are doing for this country.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I agree with my hon. Friend. When I arrived in the House we had an annual Navy debate, which was the only debate in which Mr Bonner Pink—a great man who represented Portsmouth—spoke in the course of an entire year, so important was it. We greatly respect my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, but we would like the Secretary of State to be present on these occasions and in these most important debates.

We are, of course, sympathetic to Defence Ministers, and we know the intolerable pressure they have been put under. I will not get into a debate about the £35 billion black hole, just in case the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) intervenes on me, but as we know, the money has to come from nowhere—or rather, from somewhere—and difficult decisions must be made. I hope that was not a Freudian slip, Madam Deputy Speaker, and by the way, welcome to the Chair. Thank you for calling me; you are doing wonderfully well so far.

We all know the pressure that those on the Front Benches are under, but that does not absolve them from answering the central question in this debate. We can argue about the relative costs of reservists compared with regular forces, but we cannot deny that the previous Secretary of State made a pledge to the Chair of the Defence Committee that we would not reduce the Regular Army unless we were sure we could recruit these reservists. That is the nub of this debate, and we must not get lost in the detail. We must keep our eyes firmly focused on the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) has played a distinguished part in this debate, and his independent commission concluded:

“Our Reserve Forces are in Decline.”

Why are they in decline? The commission concluded:

“We have failed to modernise Reservist Roles.”

We must ask my hon. Friend, and the Minister, whether we can increase the burdens we place on reservists when we are still modernising their role. The 2013 MOD White Paper “Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued” was produced in response.

[Mr Brazier]

The central point was that for the past few years reserves have been used exclusively as a part-time personnel service with no command opportunities for officers whatever. That has now changed, and as a result we have a decent proposition.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

We all hope that that is true and will happen, but the fact is that we are still faced with what appears to be a crisis in recruitment. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay has ensured that two national papers gave enormous prominence to this subject this very day. There is a leaked report in The Daily Telegraph—perhaps the Minister will not want to comment on that—but we do not need a leaked report to know that the recruiting drive is in trouble. According to The Daily Telegraph

“only 50 per cent of the overall 2013-14 target of 6,383”

has been met. Clearly, something is going wrong.

Why have we closed recruiting services and placed the emphasis on Capita? I have some experience of dealing with Capita from the Public Accounts Committee. Is that really the right, hands-on way to recruit our Territorial Army and reserve forces? The Army is reducing the Regular Army by 19,500 personnel, and working to increase the Army reserve to 30,000 from a current trained strength of 19,000. That is fair enough. It has been said in the debate that we need to recruit 20 people per constituency, so why are we not doing so? We must get a grip on the issue and understand from the Minister exactly what is happening on the ground. Why are we cutting people who have done their jobs well and who would like to continue in the Regular Army in the hope of promotion and a career? Why are we cutting them and recruiting reservists when we are still not meeting our quotas?

Many colleagues, as well as other commentators, have been just as suspicious of the MOD’s ability to recruit and train so many recruits in such a short time span, and the more the debate continues, the more some of us worry about that. How many regulars will sign up as reservists? They entered as career soldiers and many may feel betrayed at being forcibly deprived of their jobs. Will they be keen to join as reservists? What preparations have the Government made for the loss of those skills and experience? The redundancy notices that the soldiers have received are real and can be held in their hands; the reservists who are meant to replace those soldiers are merely theoretical.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay pointed out that the plans are “flawed” and present a “high risk”. A think-tank suggests that current defence policy is

“merely a mechanism to slash defence spending.”

I do not accuse Ministers of that, but they must reply to the charge. Is the policy a mechanism to reduce defence spending, or does it hold up? Even the Liberal Democrats, our coalition partners, have expressed concern that the changes envisaged

“have not been adequately thought through and could pose risks.”

In conclusion, I believe history has shown that a standing Army adds tremendous value to Great Britain. During the first and second world wars, it was immensely easier to mobilise the male population, because we could add them to pre-existing units. It was both easier and wiser to add another battalion—or two or three—to an existing regiment, than to imagine an entire reserve force almost ex nihilo. These regiments have long and proud histories that have come under sustained attack over the past half century.

[Richard Drax]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I cannot. I will keep going for the last few seconds of my time.

Obviously, not every regiment can last for ever, but tradition is a priceless, incorporeal thing that takes centuries to build and yet can be destroyed in an instant. We must again remember Admiral Cunningham, who was criticised for the heavy losses his Navy ships suffered when they were exposed to German air assault as he protected the Army. He said:

“It takes three years to build a ship, but it takes three centuries to build a tradition.”

The tradition of our Regular Army is a real thing that we still have in this country. The reforms seek to replace that with a continental-style citizen army, and to do so stealthily without properly saying so. It may take only 40 days of a year to train a reservist, but we may lose centuries of tradition if the reforms are implemented in the wrong way.

14:29

[Mr Tobias Ellwood (Bournemouth East) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). I welcome you to your place, Madam Deputy Speaker, as other hon. Members have done. I hope that my voting for you will not in any way affect the frequency with which I am able to catch your eye, although I live in hope. I hope hon. Members join me in welcoming the new the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who has responsibility for veterans. I am pleased to see her in her place.

I am grateful for the debate. I should declare that I am proud member of the TA, which is soon to be called the reserves. I congratulate the Government on hosting the next NATO summit next year. The debate is on defence reforms and is about the capabilities to meet future threats and commitments. I wish to focus my remarks on one aspect of defence capability, the significance of which is not, in my view, fully appreciated by the House, namely the utilisation of our Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

We tend to obsess about platforms, ships and aircraft, but not what they are expected to do. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) fell into that. The 24 lb guns used in the battle of Trafalgar are different from the assets we have today.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend knows far more about these matters than I do, but may I gently draw his attention to the fact that we will not have the splendid Queen Elizabeth carriers until 2020? In the meantime, our only helicopter carrier is being taken for what is called recycling next year.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I did not want to focus on legacy issues and procurement—all hon. Members are well aware of them, and there are questions to be answered on both sides of the House.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

And the carriers must be protected by frigates.

[Mr Ellwood]

It depends which frigates we are talking about. It will be rare for us to participate in a conflict without an international flotilla, so we need to think about frigates other than our own. I want to focus on Britain’s military capability, which goes far beyond providing the senior service with a replacement for the Invincible class and thinking of carriers in terms of the battle of Medway and so forth.

We either need carriers or we do not. If we need the capability, we need a minimum of two carriers to guarantee that one is permanently operational. Let us bear in mind what happened in the operation in Libya. Halfway through the operation, the Charles de Gaulle had to head back to France for a refit. Previously, 40% of air operations had come from it. Let us also bear in mind our experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq, which highlight the need for a new and adaptable, but arm’s length, doctrine of intervention, with the flexibility for upstream engagement and stabilisation, including humanitarian tasks, based on a much lighter footprint. The carriers could become the centrepiece of British expeditionary capability.

The Queen Elizabeth class carriers provide an opportunity to facilitate a step-change in long-range manoeuvrable technology and capability, and allow us to recalibrate our joint-service approach to littoral, expeditionary and inland conflict prevention and upstream engagement. In a wider context, strategic carriers allow us to extend and embolden Britain’s diplomatic soft power and hard power in a manner not seen for a generation, for the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere has given. In my view, we are not reaching the carriers’ potential.

[Mr Brazier]

Will my hon. Friend confirm that there is no way we can fund that objective, which I strongly support, if we have an all-regular Army?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will come to funding in a second.

In my view, the full potential of the carriers needs to be exploited. For example, we are not considering having unmanned aerial systems on board, but that will become the norm in future. Drone systems like the ScanEagle, the Fire Scout and the X47-B are already available and exist on other carriers, yet we do not have a programme to consider them, even though our ships will be around for the next 40 years. On capability, it is worth noting that two thirds of airborne operations conducted over Afghanistan by the Americans took place from aircraft carriers based in the Indian ocean. We need to recognise that those are versatile bits of kit.

Rotary systems have been mentioned. The Apache played a pivotal and interesting but new role in Libya, with the use of Hellfire missiles, extending the range at which we can use our force capability. Hellfire has a range of 8 km, the Storm Shadow 500 km, and Brimstone 12 km. I stress these points because two thirds of the world population lives within 250 miles of the coastline. That is where future conflict will take place. If we do not want to put boots on the ground, it is aircraft carriers that will allow us to conduct and expedite such operations.

Continuing to operate two carriers will send a powerful message to potential adversaries, both state and non-state, but also to our allies, such as the US, allowing us in turn to employ greater leverage on their decision making. It will also save millions of pounds because we would not have to create forward bases or undertake long-range operations. In the operations in Libya, Tornados had to be refuelled five times—three times on the way there and two on the way back, putting massive strain on the airframes. Operating two carriers will give us greater flexibility compared with running just one. With one carrier, operations are likely to be carrier-strike only—there would be little expeditionary capability.

Hon. Members have spoken passionately about retaining the soldiers who live in their constituencies. My question is this: what are the soldiers expected to do? Huge work needs to be done on expeditionary capability, upstream engagement and stabilisation. We could win the war quickly, but lose the peace because we do not have such stabilisation. Aircraft carriers can play an important role in that. Two aircraft carriers could have a tailored expeditionary capability that we have never had.

Other nations are watching us with interest. The Americans have the Wasp class carriers, which are 44,000 tonnes, and the Nimitz class carriers, which, because of sequestration, are likely to be removed. They are looking at the 65,000 tonne class with interest, and also saw what we did with the Apache. They may want to follow suit. We do not talk this up. Building a third aircraft carrier is not even being considered because of the embarrassment and the legacy problems of the past.

I believe that the additional annualised cost of a carrier, which has been mentioned—about £65 million a year—is a small price to pay for the diplomatic signal and military statement of intent it would send to potential adversaries, state and non-state alike. It would significantly reduce the operational cost of war fighting, conflict prevention and peacekeeping roles. It would also elevate Britain’s ranking as Europe’s senior military power, justifying our permanent membership of the UN Security Council. I hope that hon. Members on both sides the House support my call for operating two aircraft carriers.

14:37

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I welcome you to the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. The great challenge speaking before the two Front Benchers is that just about everything that can be said has been said. I shall try not to let that stop me.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on his speech and his two-carrier Royal United Services Institute policy, which I am working my way through. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on his tenacious campaign. He has fought with great integrity and spoke today with great clarity.

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

I regret that an investigation being carried out by the Intelligence and Security Committee has prevented my taking part in the debate. My hon. Friend has referred to the two-carrier solution. Does he agree that the only reason we can consider that solution is the Government’s wise decision to have the short take-off and vertical landing joint strike fighter on the carriers? Otherwise, there was no way we could operate two carriers.

[Christopher Pincher]

In that, as in most cases, the Government are very wise.

I am pleased to be able to speak in the debate. I shall ask three brief questions. The first question, to the House, is this: do we need to restructure our armed forces? We had not had a review for many years. Given the military deficit that the Labour Government left the current one, if Labour were still in power—heaven forefend—it would have had to have one.

The second question is whether we need to rebalance the armed forces in favour of the reserves. Broadly speaking, that is the right thing to do. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay because in this post-cold war asymmetrical world he referred to, it is not appropriate to have an overwhelming number of regular forces. It is more appropriate to have a flexible reserve-based force. Our allies are doing that. In 1990, our Territorial Army was more than twice the size than the proposed Reserve Army, so I do not think that having approximately 30,000 reservists out of a total of 120,000 in our armed forces is inappropriate.

There have been many reforms and there has been opposition to them. There was opposition to “Options for Change” a generation ago, and to the Keith Speed reforms in 1980. There was opposition to the changes in 1959, and I am sure there was opposition to Edward Cardwell’s reforms in 1872. The question is not so much whether reform is wrong, but whether the Ministry of Defence has got this reform right. Broadly speaking, I think it has. The question we are asking ourselves is can we recruit enough people into the reserve to match the draw-down of our regular forces at a time of falling joblessness and increased career alternatives for young people? The answer is yes, if we get it right.

[Bob Stewart]

The regiments will have gone by 2015, and on any optimistic assumption the reservist plan will not be complete until 2018. There is a three-year gap.

[Christopher Pincher]

Gap planning is the trial and tribulation of any organisation. Businesses all around the country have to deal with gap planning, particularly when people who are in the reserves need to go on deployment or training. The issue for many such firms—I used to be involved in an organisation that had a lot of reservists going on deployment—is not so much planning for 40 days away, because that is something that can, to a greater or lesser extent, be planned for; the challenge is ensuring that there is somebody to step temporarily into the reservist’s role, that the handover is done effectively, the person is able to discharge their other responsibilities while stepping into that role, and, when the reservist returns, that the handover back is smooth. Making sure that those sorts of challenges are dealt with is one way for companies big and small to be confident about recruiting and retaining reservists. That is particularly important for firms whose bread and butter is deploying their resources at their clients’ sites. They have to consider what their clients might think of their staff leaving and coming back for periods of time.

The key message for the Minister, who is knowledgeable about these matters and is committed to our armed forces, is to ensure that big and small businesses recognise the advantages of having reservists on their books. Most firms put great store in training and skill capability. They need to know that the MOD, the Army, the Air Force and the Navy will train the reservists on their books, giving them the skills that their firms want, need and can use. As my hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) said in a very good speech, it is incumbent on the MOD to work with the Federation of Small Businesses, the CBI and local chambers of commerce to ensure that businesses know the value of the training that reservists will receive, so they are more likely to want to recruit and retain them. If we do that, we can move further and faster towards the objective the Minister hopes to achieve, and this change in the deployment of our resources will be successful.

14:44

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

I congratulate the Backbench Business Committee and the hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) on securing the debate, which has been excellent. There have been 16 speakers. I have done a quick tally and I think we have had 10 blue on blue attacks and two yellow on blue attacks so far. It has been good to recognise the importance of our armed forces and the unique role that reservists play. I have seen our reservists in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and I think everyone in the House would like to thank them for their contribution to the defence of our country. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

My hon. Friends the Members for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham), for North Tyneside (Mrs Glindon) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), the hon. Members for Bury North (Mr Nuttall) and for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), and the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Sir Alan Beith) raised the issue of the fusiliers. The Minister needs to answer why the Government have decided to axe the fusiliers in spite of the their good recruitment record.

The current situation needs to be put into context and I know that some hon. Members have short memories. It is important to recognise that, at the time of the strategic defence and security review, the Prime Minister said:

“Our ground forces will continue to have a vital operational role, so we will retain a large, well-equipped Army, numbering around 95,500 by 2015—7,000 fewer than today.”—[Official Report, 19 October 2010; Vol. 516, c. 799.]

We all know the reduction was increased to 13,000 and that compulsory redundancies have taken place. There is concern among many that the increase in the reserve is not for operational purposes, but to fill the gap.

We have heard that the reason for the gap is the previous Labour Government’s black hole in the finances—the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) tried to support that notion. We have heard about a £35 billion black hole, a £36 billion black hole and a £38 billion black hole. The fact is that a 2006 National Audit Office report said that the gap in the defence budget, if it continued in line with inflation, would be £6 billion and would only go up to £36 billion if there were flat growth over a 10-year period. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), will learn to listen in time. The Government have used that to hide behind their reason for making cuts to defence spending.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I will not give way. Unfortunately, I do not have much time.

It is time for the Government to be honest with our servicemen and servicewomen and say why they are making these cuts. The real reason is that in the SDSR, the Government reduced the defence budget by 9% and have made some silly mistakes since.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East spoke eloquently about the need for the carriers, but he was the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Defence Secretary who not only recommended changing the “cats and traps”, which wasted £74 million, but wanted to mothball one of those carriers.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Jones]

I am sorry, but I do not have much time.

There is clearly a recruitment crisis, but as is often the case, the Government are implementing a policy without thinking it through. That might be okay with things such as the green deal, but it is not acceptable when the defence of our country is at stake. From the recruitment figures, it is clear that there is a crisis. The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier) mentioned the drop in recruitment in one unit. I have got to say, having spoken to people, mistakes have been made, and I do not believe it is all Capita’s fault; the decision, which rests with Ministers, to take Army recruiters out of centres has been a mistake, and as has been recognised, they will have to backfill them. That needs addressing.

Another issue clearly needs addressing. Whether we like it or not, the general impression created by the Government is that the armed forces are not open for business. They can spend as much time and money as they like on glossy adverts, but if they are handing out P45s, giving the impression that people are not required in our armed forces, it is not surprising that people are not joining the regulars or the reserves.

There are some concerns over the leak in The Daily Telegraph this morning, one of which relates to mental health. Next week, we will table amendments to the Defence Reform Bill raising issues that need to be addressed as part of the long-term mental health care of reservists. To be fair to the Government, however, they have carried on and improved some of the things we did on mental health care for regulars.

When he was Defence Secretary, the right hon. Member for North Somerset (Dr Fox), rightly committed to getting the balance right. He said he would not reduce the level of the regulars until the reforms to the reservists had been carried out, which I think was a sensible, well intentioned proposition and the right approach, but now that things are going wrong, why are the Government steaming ahead? This is a serious issue. It is not just that the policy is failing. It is not good enough to say that this is not about the wider issue of finance and support for our armed forces. Unless Ministers change tack now, in the not-too-distant future, the defence capability of this country could be at dire risk.

14:51

[The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr Mark Francois)]

As this is a debate on the armed forces, I wish to endorse the tribute paid earlier by the Secretary of State for International Development to Lance Corporal James Brynin of the Intelligence Corps, serving with 14th Signal Regiment, who was tragically killed in action in Afghanistan on 15 October. He died in the service of his country, defending our freedoms, and I suspect I speak for the whole House when I say that our thoughts are with his family and loved ones as they come to terms with their grievous loss.

On a less sombre note, I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), who mentioned Trafalgar, that according to the Naval Historical Branch, a Jean Francois served at Trafalgar, although I am relieved to say it was in the Royal Navy.

[Sir Bob Russell]

Which side?

[Mr Francois]

In the Royal Navy. That’s our side, Bob.

I also say to my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) that I have not read his paper on carriers, which I think was published by the Royal United Services Institute, but having heard his speech today, I promise him that I will.

I am glad to have the opportunity to respond for the Government in this important debate, and I would like to remind the House why we are making these changes. On 3 July, we published the White Paper, “Reserves in the Future Force 2020: Valuable and Valued”, setting out our vision for the reserve forces and the detail of how we would make reserve service more attractive. It also confirmed our intention to change the name of the Territorial Army to the Army Reserve to better reflect their future role.

With this new approach, the UK is not breaking entirely new ground. In fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr Brazier), who arguably knows more about the reserves than the rest of the House put together, pointed out, it will bring us into line with our principal allies and partners, who currently rely more heavily on reserves than we do. Currently, reserves represent about 17% of our total armed forces, and that is scheduled to rise to 25% under our proposals. This compares to 36% in Australia, 51% in Canada—that is the figure I have—and 55% in the US.

Since the original Haldane reforms in the last century, the reserves have always made an essential contribution to national security. In world war two, eight of the 13 infantry divisions that went out in the British expeditionary force were from the Territorial Army. That shows the scale of the contribution it has made historically.

[Richard Drax]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I will take my hon. Friend’s intervention, but I am told that I must finish by 3 pm, so his might have to be the only one.

[Richard Drax]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. Although the reserves were bigger in those days, more resources were put into them. The big question is whether we will have sufficient resources to put into an increasing number of reserves. My fear is that we will not and that the regulars will suffer as a consequence.

[Mr Francois]

I understand my hon. Friend’s question. I believe that we will—we are devoting £1.8 billion to our programme of reserve expansion, which is a significant amount, given all the challenges in the budget.

Reservists have made a significant contribution to recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as well, with in excess of 25,000 mobilised for tours on Operations Telic and Herrick. Just as we were told earlier that the United States National Guard takes its responsibilities seriously and is taken seriously, I would respectfully suggest that our 25,000 men and women who served in those theatres were taking their responsibilities pretty seriously as well. Between them, those reservists have gained more than 70 gallantry awards in those campaigns. I would also humbly remind the House that 24 reservists made the ultimate sacrifice in combat during those operations.

We are establishing greater links with the national health service to enhance our medical units. Many of the lessons learned in combat, including at Camp Bastion—for instance, in treating haemorrhaging and bleeding—have now been fed back into the NHS. We are also setting up a new cyber-reserve unit—although I can scotch the rumour this afternoon that it has anything to do with attacking 38 Degrees. It is true that reserves can in some cases be more expensive than regular forces when deployed on operations, but they are significantly cheaper when held as a contingency.

[Sarah Newton]

I appreciate that my right hon. Friend sat and listened through the whole debate, but may I ask for confirmation that he will carefully consider the points I made about reservists being able to serve in the Army in Cornwall?

[Mr Francois]

Yes, I understand that my predecessor gave my hon. Friend a commitment that he would look at that issue closely. I will honour that commitment and look at it too. I cannot prejudice the outcome, but I promise my hon. Friend that I will look at it.

Central to the White Paper was the improved offer to reserves, which includes, among other things, investing an additional £240 million in improved training for reservists, including more overseas training, and investing an additional £200 million over the next 10 years for improved equipment. The reserves have already received the same new-style uniform as their regular colleagues, while Bowman radio equipment is being issued, along with new vehicles and personal fighting equipment. We will also pair Army reserve units with regular units to enable the sustained delivery of high-quality training and the development of fully integrated capabilities, as well as the sharing of knowledge, skills and experience.

Much has been said about support from employers, which is vital—we recognise that. Only recently I launched the corporate covenant, which all the major employer organisations have signed up to, including the Business Services Association, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and the Confederation of British Industry. In addition, individual companies such as Barclays, BAE Systems, National Express and General Dynamics have joined the covenant, one of the key points of which is endorsing the release of reserves. I am attending an event tonight, where I confidently anticipate more firms will sign up. Employers tell me there are benefits to having reservists on their payroll. They are highly motivated and trained personnel who can take their military leadership skills back into the workplace.

[Mr Baron]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I am afraid I really do not have time.

For some employers, there will be directly transferrable qualifications, skills and experience between reserve service and civilian employment, which can be very valuable. To come to the heart of this matter, I believe that as parliamentarians we should get behind the reserves and the Army to support them in their endeavours. It is true that there have been some administrative issues in the process—it is too bureaucratic, as some of my hon. Friends have pointed out. However, we are working with our recruiting partner, Capita, and the senior Army leadership to actively address those issues.

[Mr Baron]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Francois]

I believe we can work through those issues, simplify the system and meet the objective. We should remember that the key target is 30,000 trained to phase two by 2018. We start with around 19,000 or so trained. That is not a cold start: we are two thirds of the way there, and we need to achieve the other third over four years. My hon. Friend the Member for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) summed it up brilliantly: we need, on average, an additional 20 reservists from each parliamentary constituency across the country in order to do that. I believe we certainly can do that. As the Chief of the General Staff reminded us at a successful reception in Parliament for the Royal Engineers reserves only yesterday, that is a challenging proposition, but a workable one. I agree with CGS: we can do this; let us get on with it.

15:00

[Mr Baron]

I would like to add my warm welcome to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, in your new post.

I am afraid that I listened to my right hon. Friend the Minister, but found that key questions remained unanswered. In fact, I do not think he answered one of the questions I put to him. In a debate of this nature and importance, it is a shame that he is not willing to take an intervention from the Member who sponsored it. The bottom line is that questions such as “When did the plan change from back in 2011?” and “How much of the £1.8 billion has already been spent?”, questions about the impact assessment, about the costs involved in doubling the mobilisation rate and so on and so forth have not been answered in detail—all we have had is a sense of direction.

No one doubts for one moment the courage and service of past reservists or indeed of future reservists. One is not critical of that—

[Mr Francois]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Baron]

I will give way to the Minister if he will answer this question: does he accept that recruitment targets are being missed to the extent that has been reported in The Daily Telegraph today? If he gives me a straight answer to that, I will take his question.

[Mr Francois]

I do not normally comment on leaked documents, and I am not about to start now. What I will say to my hon. Friend on the point of costs—in fairness, I had only about seven minutes—is that he knows that he wrote to the Secretary of State about this in detail and he knows that the Secretary of State replied to him in detail and rebutted every point that he made. For the benefit of the House, I will ensure that a copy of that letter is placed in the Library this afternoon.

[Mr Baron]

I am pleased that the Minister is going to do that because all the points made by the Secretary of State have, in turn, themselves been rebutted; many of them were based on false assumptions.

Given how little time is left, let me clarify this. One is not saying “Scrap the reservist plans”. In many respects, one wants them to work. What one is saying is that there comes a point in any project whereby if extra costs keep being thrown into a plan—because it is failing or because recruitment targets cannot be met or because costs are rising and TA numbers are at a low ebb or because of disorganisation—there comes a point when one has to ask “Is this project creating false economies, therefore costing the taxpayer dear?” The motion says simply that we should “delay” the axing of the regular battalions until we know that the reservist plan is both “viable and cost-effective”; otherwise, because of false economies and unrealistic expectations, the taxpayer could pay dearly. That is not unreasonable, but I am afraid that my right hon. Friend has failed to answer that central point in the motion. I thus have no hesitation whatever in pressing the motion and calling for a Division.

Question put.

15:03

Division 104

Ayes: 92

---

Labour: 72
Conservative: 17
Liberal Democrat: 2

Noes: 0

---

Resolved,

That this House notes concerns about the Government’s defence reforms in relation to whether its proposals for the reserve forces will deliver either the anticipated cost savings or defence capability; and urges the Government to delay the disbandment of regular units until it is established that the Army Reserve plan is viable and cost-effective.

Deaf Children and Young People

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

15:17

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the importance of services for deaf children and young people and acknowledges the wide attainment gap; further recognises that communications support for deaf children and their parents is vital for social development and educational progress; acknowledges that the Government has stated there is an expectation that funding for vulnerable learners is protected, but is concerned about recent evidence uncovered by the National Deaf Children’s Society which shows that in 2013-14 over a third of local authorities plan to cut education services for deaf children; urges the Government to take steps to hold local authorities to account and support parents in doing so, including by asking Ofsted to inspect these vital services, improving access to communication support including sign language, and strengthening the Children and Families Bill currently before Parliament; and further urges the Government to deliver and implement reform of special educational needs.

It is a particular pleasure to be launching this debate under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker, having nominated you for the post. I know that you will conduct it with the usual good humour and common sense that is your characteristic, and I will do my best to respond in a similar fashion to any strictures you may impose on me.

I am particularly pleased to have the opportunity to launch this debate. I am grateful to 79 Members of the House who supported the call for us to debate this important subject, and to the Backbench Business Committee for agreeing to it. I have to declare an interest, in that I am a vice-president of the National Deaf Children’s Society and of Action on Hearing Loss, and I chair the all-party group on deafness. I can also declare a personal interest, as I have a deaf daughter. She is now grown up, but she was six when I was elected to the House, so throughout my time here, and for some time before, issues relating to deaf adults and deaf children have been of paramount concern to me.

I requested today’s debate because I am concerned that support for deaf children is being cut at a time when they need more, not less, support. Having campaigned on these issues for such a long time, I remain frustrated that this country does not support deaf people as well as I believe it should and as well as some other countries do. Ten years ago, I produced a report for the Council of Europe on sign languages. I secured support from the Parliamentary Assembly for legal recognition of sign languages across Europe; sadly, the Committee of Ministers never acted on it.

I still feel that we need to ensure that deaf children get the help they need, particularly in terms of communication support. More than 50,000 people have signed a petition calling on the Government to act on the issue and many MPs have signed the motion and shown support for the debate. There is considerable strength of interest in and support for the subject. The debate is being closely watched by deaf people and their families across the country and is being actively monitored in the Twittersphere by those who are most directly affected.

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

The right hon. Gentleman and I knew Jack Ashley, who then became Lord Ashley, very well and we remember his campaigning fervour and what a wonderful person he was. He was an exemplar—they said that a deaf person could not cope in this Chamber, but he showed that he could. I wanted to get his name on the record today, because we both worked with him and admired him greatly.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I absolutely acknowledge that. Jack Ashley was the honorary president of the all-party group and, having at first been sceptical about setting up a discrete group for deaf people, he actively supported it once it was created. That is a key part of this debate. I accept that all kinds of children have special educational needs and have no doubt that the Minister will allude to Government policy on special educational needs, but I hope that he will also accept that deaf children have specific needs that need to be articulated expressly in policy and not just swept up in general issues of special needs and disability.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Before the right hon. Gentleman moves away from the subject of sign language, is he aware of the problems faced by people such as my constituent Rachel Goswell? She has a profoundly deaf son, Jesse, and the only way of communicating with him will be to learn sign language herself. There is no support locally for parents to learn sign language. Does he agree that that and the training of educationalists at a local level cannot be left to a postcode lottery? There must be national guidelines so that everyone in England gets the same level of support.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am extremely grateful for that intervention, because my speech will make that point powerfully. There has been some progress from the previous and present Governments, but there has not yet been enough. That is a powerful point that I hope the Minister and other Ministers will take on board.

It is estimated that there are 45,000 deaf children in the UK, but no one actually knows how many there are. There is no systematic collection of statistics or data on deaf children, and that is a problem in itself. As we increasingly mainstream deaf children, they become less visible and can also be socially isolated, particularly if they are the only deaf child in the school. There is evidence that they might be bullied, they might suffer depression and not all of them thrive. I am not against mainstreaming in principle, but I believe that some profoundly and severely deaf children will make better progress in a school resourced properly and dedicated to their needs. Schools such as Heathlands in St Albans and Frank Barnes, which serves London, offer impressive education for deaf children but such schools are not found everywhere in the country.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way and commend him for securing this important debate. I am pleased to say that in Warwickshire there have been no reductions in services for deaf children, but there are great difficulties in finding qualified teachers to fill vacant posts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one issue we need to resolve is how to ensure that we train the next generation of specialist teachers for deaf children?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I absolutely do. The Government could take a number of measures that would help to lead to a market and a demand that would ensure that such teachers were trained and resourced. That is a problem. Too often, children are being taught by people who are inadequately qualified in such specialist teaching, not because the local authority does not want to employ qualified teachers but because they are not available.

[Michael Ellis (Northampton North) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, who is being very generous in giving way. Does he agree that the forthcoming Bill, which envisages a nought-to-25 process, will be more inclusive for families and administratively less cumbersome and burdensome? That can only be a good thing.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I am sure that the Minister will make clear the initiatives that the Government have taken, many of which I commend; they are helpful. I am not here to criticise the Government for what they are doing, but I think that more could be done, and I hope that we can press the Government to consider what that might be.

Ninety per cent. of deaf children are born to hearing parents who, when they are confronted, as I was, with the knowledge that their child is profoundly deaf, often have no knowledge of, or contact with, the deaf community. I pay tribute to the National Deaf Children’s Society, which provides excellent support for people when that happens to them.

Eighty per cent. of deaf children are now being educated in mainstream schools, which is different from the time when my daughter was educated, and they may be the only deaf child in that school. The question that has to be asked is how well deaf children are achieving. Government figures suggest that only 37% of deaf children achieved five good GCSEs last year. That is a dismally low, indeed a shameful, figure because it compares with 69% for hearing children. Let us be clear that deafness is not in itself a learning disability. There is no reason why the majority of deaf children should not achieve the same as other children, provided that they get the right specialist support.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

Not only is the difference in achievement between children with hearing problems and their peers shocking but it is getting worse. That figure of 37% was down from 40% the year before. So things are going in the wrong direction. The right hon. Gentleman may also be aware that it is estimated that 80% of teachers of deaf children are over 50. So we shall have a serious recruitment problem if we do not do something about this quickly.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

That is right. I have been shown local authority adverts for teachers of deaf children that did not require full capacity in sign language. In some circumstances, the sign language of the children is better than that of the teacher, and that cannot be satisfactory.

Things are getting worse in many areas. The NDCS has carried out a survey that shows that 29% of local authorities are cutting services for deaf children and a further 25% have identified that there is a risk of cuts. Of course we are living in a time of spending restraint, but that should not impact on people who have such real need and are so vulnerable. The Government have made it clear that they want to maintain support for vulnerable learners, but if it is not happening we have to ask the Government what more they can do to ensure that cuts do not happen and that standards are maintained. We have to work out what can be done to maintain support for deaf children, and we should have aspirations to do a lot better.

One suggestion is that Ofsted should be required to inspect services for deaf children. When we consider how much scrutiny mainstream teachers in schools are subject to by Ofsted, many people tell me that they are surprised that teachers of the deaf and specialist support services are subject to virtually no such oversight. That sends a signal that deaf education is less important than mainstream.

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the reason the Government do not want to examine these issues is that the poor standard of teachers for the deaf would be exposed and there would rightly be a public scandal?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

That is a problem of government, I suppose. I would like to believe that Governments in the end will say, “We need data and if the data show that we are not up to the mark, even if we cannot solve the problem overnight, we will at least embark on a strategy to do something about it.” So it is not a good excuse not to inspect services. I should be interested to hear from the Minister whether the Government would consider giving Ofsted a specific responsibility.

Ofsted did a report on communication last year, looking at three local authorities that had established best practice. That was interesting, but it did not tell us much about the other 149 authorities that it had not studied. So we do not know and we need to know. If there is a recognition that people are going to be scrutinised, that gets the Government off the hook to some extent because it means that the authorities must respond to that scrutiny. Every tier of government that has a responsibility must accept its share of responsibility. I hope the Government will consider that as a practical suggestion.

Communication support is at the heart of what deaf children and their families need. I know that from personal experience. I have very poor sign language. I did go on a course but I found it very difficult. It is a language and I had difficulty keeping up with it. I try where I can. I notice that every time I am in the company of deaf people—which, because of my interest, I very often am—the transformation of that relationship by the sheer appearance of an interpreter is phenomenal. Therefore I understand absolutely why communication support is so valuable. As one blind person said to me, “I would prefer to be blind than deaf because being blind cuts me off from things, but being deaf would cut me off from people and I would find that far worse.” That is what people need to understand—the social isolation resulting from the lack of communication support.

I tabled a private Member’s Bill which notionally has its Second Reading next Friday. It identifies the areas of communication support that the deaf community is looking for, and it identifies the need to ensure that we can develop sign language support for them. The point has been made that many families are paying thousands of pounds of their own money for sign language education—if they can find the teachers—so that they can communicate with their children. I do not believe that that is acceptable.

When I undertook a report for the Council of Europe, I discovered that the policies in Scandinavia meant that interpreters were readily available and that in most Scandinavian countries as soon as a child was diagnosed as deaf, free tuition in sign language was offered to the child and their family. I commend that as a practice that should be available to people in this country.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

The reason that is so important, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is that any form of communication in early years is critical to the life outcomes of children later in their life. Does he therefore agree that this is something that the Government should be looking at very hard indeed?

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

Indeed. The number of deaf children has diminished in recent years and in some ways that is a good thing. We have rubella vaccination and other measures, but deafness will not be eliminated. Congenital deafness or unexplained deafness in newborn children happens, and diseases such as meningitis can lead to deafness in infancy, so there will always be some deaf people in our community and they need to be adequately supported.

Although cochlear implants have made an impressive contribution, they are not a cure. There is evidence now of children who were given cochlear implants 15 years ago not coping brilliantly in the mainstream, as people had hoped. They are still deaf; they just have a very sophisticated hearing aid. We went through a generation assuming that we had solved the problem. We have not. We have made a contribution to alleviating it, which is not the same thing.

I commend the previous Government and the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who in response to a Prime Minister’s question, found resources within the Department for Education to set up a pilot project called I-Sign which ran in Devon and Merseyside to provide support to deaf parents and children, and led to the creation of more sign language interpreters and a very much stronger support network in those two areas. That pilot was a success and the present Prime Minister has acknowledged that fact, but the scheme has not yet been rolled out nationally. When he responds, I am sure the Minister will report that the Government have taken it forward, which I welcome, but I would love to believe that we will get to a point where that is the national standard.

The step change in sign language that we need could be driven by technical innovations. The Minister responsible for communications in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has been actively engaged with the telecommunications industry to try to develop video relay services. BT and, this week Sky, announced that sign language-using customers wishing to communicate with Sky or with BT can do so using a video relay service. Most deaf people I know who talk about video relay services say, “I don’t want a video relay service to talk to BT. I want a video relay service to talk to my mum, my boss or other people.” That system is established right across America, and it is hugely successful. I hope that we can find a way to achieve that, because it would make a huge contribution to communication. It would also lead to a rapid expansion in the provision of sign language interpreters, because they would have a reliable source of income. I commend the Government for what they have done so far but urge them to come up with a definitive solution that will make the difference.

Our attitudes towards sign language communication and spoken language communication are quite different. The Department for Work and Pensions gave sign language legal recognition, or definition, 10 years ago, which was hailed as a breakthrough, but it is not recognised across government, so that is another challenge for the Government. They recognise Cornish, Welsh and Gaelic, which receive huge resources, yet British sign language, which is an indigenous, created language—indeed, sign language itself was invented in Scotland—is not supported. For some people it is their only language. I know of no Welsh or Gaelic speakers—I do not know that there are any Cornish speakers—who do not also speak English, but there are sign language users who do not communicate in English. We do not support them in the same way we support people who use minority spoken languages. Baroness Howe of Idlicote has tabled an amendment to the Children and Families Bill to try to bring such support forward, so the issue might come back to this House.

I know that the Minister has done some extremely good work and have heard many people in the industry commend him strongly for it. However, like everybody else, he is a cog in a machine that cannot always deliver everything we want as fast as we want it and across the piece. I hope that he will tell us what the Government are doing. I do not expect him to say, “Yes, of course we will adopt all those things,” but we do want champions in the Government who are prepared to drive them forward and who recognise that it is simply not right to leave out a whole section of the community who have real and identifiable needs for which there are practical solutions, not all of which cost a huge amount of money, but which could transform their life attainment. They could also provide economic benefits, because the vast majority of deaf people either cannot get a job or, when they get into the jobs market, get one well below their skills and standards, so they are inevitably a drain on the community. They also suffer a much higher proportion of mental illness. Supporting them will have an economic benefit as well as improving the quality of their lives.

I have spent 30 years campaigning in this House. In many ways I feel frustrated at how little we have achieved. I acknowledge the steps that have been taken, but when I remember what I saw in Finland and Sweden and compare it with what I see in this country, it seems a real shame that the United Kingdom cannot do more to transform the lives of deaf people in our country.

We had been pioneers in this regard. Donaldson’s school in Edinburgh led the way in developing sign language. The ironic twist—this is my final point—is that when Thomas Hopkins Gallaudet came from America to find out how to set up a school to teach deaf children in Boston, the Donaldson’s institute said that it was not prepared to share its teaching mechanism with him. In despair, he found that there was a seminary in Paris teaching deaf children. He ended up taking a squad of teachers from Paris to America, which is why American deaf people use a sign language based on French sign language, rather than British sign language. We invented sign language, but we have not always led the way in innovating and establishing it.

I challenge this Government, and any Government who come after them, to say, “We will no longer leave deaf people behind. We can transform their lives.” The resources are not great and the mechanisms are clearly understood, so let us just do it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. We are short of time this afternoon, as Members will be aware. The debate has to finish by 5 o’clock. I will not impose a time limit at this stage but will wait to see how we proceed. I ask Members not to make long speeches. Hopefully they will be about eight minutes long, but 10 minutes is the maximum, including interventions. I hope that everybody will be able to participate in this important debate.

15:39

[Mr Michael McCann (East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow) (Lab)]

I have quite a lot to say, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I will try to bear in mind the time constraints.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on bringing this debate to the Chamber. I declare a personal interest, because my three siblings—my younger brother, Brian, and my two younger sisters, Clare and Delia—are profoundly deaf. Equality is a word that we often bandy about in this House, but deaf people in the United Kingdom have never had equality in education. Progress has been made thanks to deafness campaigners such as my parents, Bridget and Charles McCann—the self-same parents the right hon. Gentleman mentioned who suddenly had a deaf child and did not get any access to services to support them. However, the fight goes on. The motion highlights the fact that we still have much work to do, with the fear and danger that local authorities might cut back on services for deaf children and young people. The National Deaf Children’s Society has evidence to suggest that education services for deaf people might be cut. We should not be talking about cuts; if we genuinely seek to bring about equality for deaf people, services must be increased.

Colleagues will have noticed my Scottish accent and the fact that I represent a seat in Scotland that some people have difficulty in pronouncing, particularly the last part. I entered this debate also to flag up the fact that Scotland is a year behind the cuts and austerity measures that have been brought in for local government, although I do not mention that in a party political sense. The Prime Minister agreed with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, that Scotland would retain its budget in 2010, so we are a year behind the curve. There is already speculation in Scotland about local government services being cut, and I suspect that services to deaf children and young people are in danger. That is the relevance of my participation in this debate.

I will not be ungenerous in suggesting that we have not made some progress in the past 40 years. Let me tell the House about my experience with my brothers and sisters. I remember the grey bus arriving in front of our house in East Kilbride. On the bus were children with every disability one could think of—physical disabilities, physical and mental disabilities, or deaf-blindness. The amalgamation of challenges presented by those children with disabilities led to two things. First, it dumbed down education. At the school my brother and sisters went to, the education was carried out at the lowest common denominator instead of challenging the kids to do the best they could.

Secondly, there was the stigma. As you can imagine, children can be cruel. As the elder brother, I ended up with a few second prizes in the pugilism stakes. If your brother’s and sisters’ honour is criticised in some way, or they are taunted by other children, then you step in and defend them. Yes, children can be cruel, but we should remember that adults—the educationists of the time—created the system that enabled them to be so.

The inequality of 40 years ago was palpable. Profoundly deaf children were not allowed to sign. The right hon. Member for Gordon talked about British sign language. We made up our own sign language in the house, because there was no formal language to communicate in. Believe it or not, my brother was forced to sit with his hands behind his back in the classroom, unable to communicate, despite the fact that he was profoundly deaf. Forty years ago, deaf children had no access to the curriculum that I had as a hearing child. That meant that their ability to learn was stifled. Bright young deaf children were consigned to the dustbin on the day and hour they first entered their primary school.

I am glad that my brother and sisters have done very well in their adult lives, mainly because of my parents’ refusal to take no for an answer. They refused to take on board what the educationists of the time said was good for such children. The perceived wisdom of the day was that people listened to the educationists. Hearing parents who did not know about deafness would take the word of the people who were professional and allegedly knew more than they did. The less vigorous parents, who were not prepared to campaign like my parents, took the educationalists’ word and ultimately their children suffered and did not get anywhere near the aspirations achieved by my brother and sisters. However, they have fallen foul of many of the problems mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, including mental health issues and the inability to get employment. I often wonder what my brother and sisters could have achieved—even though they have achieved a lot—had they had access to the same education opportunities as me.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Thomasson Memorial school, an excellent primary school for deaf children and children with hearing difficulties, is located in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend agree that parents and children should be able to choose whether to attend a specialist school for children with disabilities or a mainstream school? The needs of the child should be paramount in any educationalist’s decision about the best education for them.

[Mr McCann]

I agree. Choice is important and I will discuss it later. If parents want their child to attend a hearing school, they must be supported in that choice. Moreover, if parents want their child to attend a specialist school, they should not just be lumped in a classroom with a bunch of other children, because that will drag them down.

Time is of the essence. I will cut a couple of pages of what I was going to say; the right hon. Member for Gordon has already mentioned the statistics on deaf people, so I need not rehearse them again. We should recognise that there are many shades between hearing and deafness: some have lost a little hearing while others lose it a little later in life, and on the other side of the spectrum are those who are profoundly death. With the greatest respect to the tribute paid to Jack Ashley earlier, we should remember that he became deaf and was not born deaf, and that there is a world of difference for people who have never heard the spoken word.

The key issue is British sign language, the officially recognised language for the deaf. As the right hon. Gentleman has said, it is diverse and colourful and as finessed as any other language in the world. In fact, Members may be interested to know that every person’s sign name is unique. I could not possibly show the House some of the signs that have been made for my relatives over the years, because they cannot be recorded in Hansard, but they would make Members chuckle.

In the world of education, the gatekeepers—the educationalists—know better, or so they think. Members may be surprised or even shocked to learn that teachers of the deaf are expected to have only BSL level 3 as a qualification. However, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, the fact that there is such a dearth of talent in this field means that some get jobs as teachers of the deaf and are labelled as such even though they have skills only at BSL level 2. It should be an aspiration, and I hope the Minister will address that issue in his response. We should raise the standards for teachers of the deaf and ensure that the right quality of individual is teaching our deaf children. I have thought about the best way to describe the situation. It is like asking someone who has just failed their driving test to become a driving instructor: they know a little, but they are not competent and should not be allowed to drive on their own.

That is a practical example by way of analogy, but I have another one. My brother Brian has five deaf children who all go to school. His eldest daughter, Monika, is 12 years old and has more advanced communication skills than her teachers. They have BSL level 2 and she is way above that at level 7 or 8, perhaps even higher. As she progresses through high school she will meet challenges and become a frustrated child unable to fulfil her potential, because her teachers are not able to communicate with her properly.

In primary education and at high school, the quality of the teacher must rise with the child. The teacher must always be ahead of the child and have far advanced communication skills so that the child does not feel frustrated. When they sign something to the teacher in British sign language, the teacher must understand what the problem is and how to communicate with them. Sadly, the children in my family have become frustrated on many occasions because they are bright, sparky kids who have not always had the opportunity to be educated properly.

The NDCS has uncovered some circumstantial evidence, but local authorities are reluctant to disclose information about deaf education. A hypothesis for that might be that they do not want the figures to be revealed. Outrageously, Ofsted does not inspect services for the deaf routinely, as the right hon. Member for Gordon said. Local authorities are damaging the life chances of young deaf people across the United Kingdom. This debate has provided the opportunity to expose that argument to a wider audience, not only in this House, but across the country.

If there are to be further cuts to local government services, there is a danger that deafness will once again take a back seat and that those who are already vulnerable will be affected. My father once described deafness as a Cinderella disability because nobody can see it. When a child is physically disabled, we do not shirk the responsibility of meeting the costs of the support that they need to participate in the education system. Why is there such a dearth of ambition and support for deaf children? Local government cannot be allowed to attack this Cinderella disability because it thinks that it can get away with it. We must stop paying lip service to equality of opportunity for every child and start providing it.

15:51

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

I support what the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) has said in this debate and, as a member of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness, I thank him for his dedicated work as its chair.

I am proud to have a deaf-aware nursery in my constituency, which is based at the New Life church in Congleton. It has been running for 25 years and caters for able children, as well as for children with needs, such as those with deafness or autism, and it will soon have a child with Down’s syndrome. For the past five years, it has been managed by Margaret Sanders, a special educational needs co-ordinator with a passion for inclusion who has worked hard to ensure that the nursery goes the extra mile to provide support for deaf children in an extra special way. However, such early-years provision should not only be available when one inspirational individual is backed by committed community support, such as that provided by New Life. The nursery also works closely with specialist organisations such as the teachers of the deaf.

Justine Heathcote, the mother of a profoundly deaf three-year-old girl who attends the nursery, has shared some of her experiences with me. Her daughter was diagnosed as deaf just after birth. It was a traumatic time for the family. Justine says generously that her family have received excellent support and care from the nursery and the local authority. Crucially, that included her daughter being given a teacher of the deaf immediately. I ask the Minister to do all that he can to ensure that that always happens. A family must be given the appropriate support straight away, either at birth or on diagnosis. I have heard that in some cases it takes 10 years from when hearing starts to deteriorate before a clear diagnosis is made.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend welcome the measures in the Children and Families Bill, as I do, to create care plans for people that go from nought to 24 years of age?

[Fiona Bruce]

I very much welcome that, because it is crucial that families can plan ahead from the earliest possible moment of childhood.

I was greatly encouraged to hear from Justine that her daughter got such excellent support, but I am aware that that is not universally available across the country. I ask the Minister to make an assessment of the varying standard of support across the country. One small example, which is important for Justine’s family, concerns her daughter’s hearing aids, which require four batteries a day. When they run out, Justine has a one-hour round trip to a hospital to collect them, yet in a neighbouring area, rechargeable batteries for hearing aids are available.

Another difficulty for some families concerns getting a statement of educational needs for their child. One highly experienced teacher of the deaf, Liz Gwynn, has spent many years liaising with local authorities. She told me—quite bluntly—that the reason for the delay or lack of statement is often that,

“local authorities don’t want to commit to the financial implications of a Statement.”

That cannot be right.

The one-to-one support provided by a teacher of the deaf in my council of Cheshire East is greatly appreciated, but it amounts to only one hour a week. Ideally, every deaf child and their family needs much more support and time. A teacher of the deaf plays a critical role in a child’s development because they advise on whether the child is accessing the curriculum properly and adequately, on that child’s language development and how they are hearing through hearing aids or cochlear implants, and on whether they need a radio aid to help them. Such teachers can act as an intermediary between the child or family and the school, in addition to helping set targets for development and providing strategies and ideas for accessing lessons. All hon. Members will agree that that cannot be done in one hour a week.

In Cheshire East there is a ratio of one teacher of the deaf to every 45 children—a phenomenal challenge for those teachers. I struggle to see how a teacher of the deaf can support that number of children and their families, let alone even more, yet I understand that in some parts of the country there is even less support for deaf children.

The availability of care for deaf children and young people should not be a postcode lottery. The National Deaf Children’s Society reports that some families with a deaf child are fighting that issue by moving to a different area, which is surely unacceptable. There are examples of good practice and expertise across the country, and better sharing of support across local authorities and support networks would be beneficial. I would be grateful if the Minister would tell the House whether there are any plans to share best practice across authorities and promote a more collaborative approach.

The exemplary nursery in my constituency, to which I referred, aims to maximise the individual potential of each child, but it is placed in a dilemma. When a child who has received that much-needed support—designed to raise their attainment levels in the early years to those of their non-deaf peers—moves to primary school, they are assessed. If they are assessed to be above a certain level, any one-to-one support that the child previously received, or which they may need in future, is withdrawn, and they begin primary school without it. What should the nursery do? Should it support the child to develop to the maximum level possible and risk that one-to-one support being withdrawn when they go to primary school? Withdrawal of such support would undoubtedly result in the child falling back and not continuing to flourish to the same degree that they need and for which the nursery has given them a head start. If we believe that every child should have the opportunity to develop to their fullest potential, surely that must be the case for the more vulnerable children in our society.

If a parent wants their child to go to a mainstream school in later years, it is crucial for support to be established at the start and to continue throughout the child’s early years. Liz Gwynn explains:

“In a big class with a ratio of 15 pupils to one staff member, or even thirty to one, it is very easy for a deaf child to be overlooked, especially if they aren’t a behavioural issue. They can appear to be understanding, but when questioned often haven’t a clue and get by by copying what others are doing.”

Such a situation can result in low self-esteem and lack of confidence. That is the “stolen future” that the National Deaf Children’s Society is raising awareness of, and I commend its work with local groups and parents around the country. I encourage the Minister to support those groups and ensure that all families have access to them. Will he review the assessment procedure for deaf children and young people, not just when they enter school, but when they move to another educational establishment for the first time, so as to determine appropriate individual provision for that child or young person? Sign language is critical, yet 81% of parents with deaf children never learn how to fully communicate with their child through that.

Justine, to whom I have referred, says she managed to get funding for level 1, but was unable to get funding for level 2, which she took at her own expense of £400. Level 3, at £1,000, is simply too expensive for the family. Will the Minister consider what duties can be placed on local authorities to provide sign language support for families?

As we have heard, deafness itself is not a learning disability, but we can do so much more to ensure that the attainment of deaf children and young people does not continue to fall worryingly behind that of their non-deaf peers.

16:00

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

I begin by apologising for the fact that I am seeking permission to leave before the end of the debate because I must attend an annual prize-giving in Baverstock school in my constituency tonight. May I take this opportunity, in my first outing in my new role, to pay tribute to the work of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy)?

I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for the work he has done over his years in the House for deaf children, and for securing this debate. I also thank the hon. Members who have supported him. I found his speech informative and illuminating. I was interested in his points about the use of technology and support for sign language.

This is a Backbench Business Committee debate. Consequently, I intend to be brief. I acknowledge the large number of people who signed the e-petition calling for the protection of specialist deaf services, and that 79 Members pledged support for a debate on the subject. I do not regard myself as an expert on the matter and see the debate as the start of a learning exercise. I have already learned a lot simply by listening to the right hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce).

When looking at the National Deaf Children’s Society material, I was struck by its point that, although deafness is not a learning disability, deaf children underachieve throughout their education. As has been mentioned, as many as 80% of deaf children are in mainstream schools where they might be the only deaf child in attendance, which suggests that we should perhaps look again at the balance between mainstream and specialist schooling. It also suggests that we need to recognise the important role of specialist speech and language services, whether the specialist works directly with the child or assists the school or parents.

I note that an amendment designed to maintain speech and language therapy as special educational provision is proposed to the Children and Families Bill in the other place. It would be good to know that the Government are giving the proposal favourable consideration.

I am a realist on the economic situation and the amount of money we have to spend on any service, so I recognise that there is no magic fund on which the Minister can call, but we need to focus on the available money and how it is spent. Local authorities are not obliged to passport to schools money for specialist education support service. It occurs to me that this is an area where decisions should be taken in conjunction with parents. It is not enough for a local authority to say, “We’ve given the money to the schools and we’re washing our hands of it.” There may be some circumstances where schools are the right people to hold the budget, but there may be others where the local authority, or some other partnership, should play a key part. This is one area where we should not be too quick to diminish the role of local education authorities, and where the case for partnership and collaboration rather than competition between schools is well made. Like others, I have noticed that so far 29% of local authorities have indicated an intention to cut specialist education services. The vast majority of local councils already do not have any specialist social care services for deaf children. This must be extremely worrying for parents of deaf children.

I hope the Minister is minded to look at the National Deaf Children’s Society’s proposals, particularly that Ofsted should inspect specialist education services for deaf children, that local authorities should be required to publish details of how much is spent on SEN provision and what services are actually available. We must have the data, otherwise we will never comprehend the scope of the issue and the best way to proceed. I would welcome improvements to the code of practice to make it easier for parents to hold local authorities to account. Parents have a tough enough job as it is. Our role should be to try to make it easier for them

I conclude by once again congratulating those who secured the debate and have taken part. I hope that this is an area where the Minister and I can find common ground, put the party politics aside and work together in the interests of deaf children and their parents.

16:07

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on securing the debate and for his contribution, over so many years, to this area of work. I have raised issues about the education of deaf children on many occasions, but this is the first time that I have spoken in a debate concentrated solely on this topic. This is a good opportunity to reinforce the many points raised by the National Deaf Children’s Society.

I continue to be saddened that deaf children experience an attainment gap, which is reflected so strongly in GCSE results. About a month ago, I had the pleasure of meeting at party conference a deaf young person called Adam, who was introduced to me by the NDCS. Adam is an extremely bright, confident and articulate deaf young man, and was quickly in charge of the whole meeting. He explained to me clearly that he would not be where he is today without the help of the specialist support services he had received to date. Even with deaf young people such as Adam, we can see the risks of what happens when support does not match their needs and is cut. Adam told me that the support he received in maths was variable because of staff turnover, and that the extra support had been reduced to just once a week. This meant that he was now struggling to pick up some of the complex new words and vocabulary being used and that he was no longer thriving but coping in maths.

Across the country there is too much wasted potential when it comes to deaf children, because too many are not getting the support they need. I share the concerns that the Department’s funding protection for vulnerable learners is not always being carried through locally. I also support the NDCS’s call for Ofsted to play a greater role in inspecting specialist support services for deaf children.

I hear really positive reports of my local services. Dorset, Bournemouth and Poole operate a long-standing joint arrangement through which specialist support is provided to children with hearing or vision impairment. Dorset is the lead authority, and the outcomes for deaf children locally have generally been good and the feedback from parents and the young people themselves about the work of the service is excellent. I am told that there are no plans to reduce the funding available for specialist provision, which sounds good, but there are concerns about the future. I was contacted by a specialist teacher who told me:

“At the present time we are not a traded service, this means that we can provide support, training, advice and teaching (depending on the child’s level of need) to any school in Dorset where there is a pupil attending the school who has a hearing impairment that requires them to wear a hearing aid, who has a cochlear implant or similar hearing device. The school does not have to pay for this directly, which means we can respond to the level of need appropriately. We of course have a set of protocols to follow to ensure that the time given to each individual is proportionate. However, often the pupils with a high level of need (those with a severe to profound hearing loss) have a great deal of support in school which along with appropriate direction and guidance from our service enables them to make good progress. It is more often (in my experience) those pupils with a mild to moderate hearing loss who are not entitled to additional support in school who find it more difficult to progress and overcome the barriers to their learning. At the present time our service is able to support these pupils also, enabling many of them to ‘narrow the gap’ and achieve age-related expectations. However, one of the fears for our service in Dorset is that due to financial constraints we may have to become a ‘traded service’ this would mean that schools may have to buy us in on an hourly rate.”

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady has hit the nail on the head. In this very important area—it is the same with speech therapy—people are reluctant to address some of these needs and concerns because of the lack of money available.

[Annette Brooke]

I accept the hon. Gentleman’s point, but I am flagging up fears about the future, not about what is happening now. If each school had to buy in the service, it would be more difficult to spread it over a larger number of pupils. I think we would still have excellent support in Dorset for those with a statement of educational need or an education health care plan, but many of those with not such severe conditions are not achieving their potential in speech, language and literacy skills. It is important, therefore, not only to consider what is happening now, but to look at what might happen in the future and to ensure that we maintain support for hearing impaired children.

Like other speakers, I want to emphasise the need for good, specialist communication support workers and teachers. It has been many years, but I remember being struck by the fact that many communication support workers—I still call them teaching assistants—had only level 2 qualifications in sign language. It must be difficult for somebody with just a level 2 qualification—an important qualification in its own right—to communicate the technical language of science and maths. I am really concerned about that.

In conclusion, we all want every child to achieve their full potential, and many improvements have been made for children with hearing impairments over the years, but there is more to be done, and we must protect what we are doing well at the moment.

16:14

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Mid Dorset and North Poole (Annette Brooke), who has made another thoughtful contribution.

I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing this debate and I congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on his leadership. He concluded his remarks with some self-deprecation and self-criticism for the lack of progress over 30 years. That is an indictment of Governments on both sides, not of his role, which has been an honourable one during his time in the House. Indeed, he has again demonstrated that today by securing this debate. We are all grateful to him for the opportunity to contribute. Let me also express appreciation for the National Deaf Children’s Society briefing and for constituents who have contacted me about this debate.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe), the shadow Minister, on his first speech in his new role. He showed a clear interest in the subject and a determination to help the Minister, who is highly regarded and comes with great credentials. He has already done a good job in other areas; no less will be expected of him in this one. We are keen to hear what he has to say in concluding, because I am here to seek reassurances from him on the matters that colleagues on both sides of the House have raised.

Many colleagues are aware that I wear two hearing aids. I have a little understanding of what hearing loss is about. I spend most of my time in the Chamber during Prime Minister’s questions standing near the Speaker’s Chair, because I find the loop system better there. However, using the loop, I miss lots of the witticisms that other colleagues contribute—I know that they are sometimes better than some of the speeches, although fortunately not in this debate—and the whispers, and sometimes people think I am being rude because I do not respond. Hearing aids are great—I thank the audiologists at the Royal London hospital—but they are not perfect.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and the right hon. Member for Gordon mentioned relatives and their personal experience. My experience—I suffered industrial injury in the London fire brigade, which caused damage to my hearing—is trivial compared with that of children who were born with hearing loss or born deaf. Given the powerful speeches that we have heard so far, and given the personal experience of those two families in particular, I cannot imagine how much more difficult it is for those children to come to terms with their predicament. I will come back to that point later, I hope briefly.

I am keen to hear what the Minister has to say, because we are seeking reassurances today. The two most disturbing stats I have read in the NDCS briefing, which have been mentioned by other hon. Members, concern exam passes and parental communication. As colleagues have said—including my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow and the right hon. Member for Gordon, who have personal family experience—we are not talking about kids who have not got ability, yet only 37% of deaf children achieve five GCSEs, which was down last year from 40% in 2011. That is an indictment of the education system and of all of us for allowing it to happen. The NDCS briefing also said:

“Research suggests that 40% of deaf children experience mental health problems compared to 25% of other children.”

That is a shocking statistic, but it is in no shape or form surprising, given what those children have to go through.

The other point from the NDCS briefing that I found shocking was that 81% of parents with deaf children never learn how to communicate fully with their child, which is mostly down to costs. The briefing says that it costs several hundred pounds to learn to sign—I learnt to sign the alphabet when I was young, but it is quite a long way from that to messaging by letter—but the right hon. Member for Gordon said that it now costs thousands of pounds. That is a real deterrent to ordinary families.

In my borough of Tower Hamlets, I have met children with hearing impairments and deaf children, along with their teachers, in a variety of schools. I commend all that they do in Tower Hamlets. It is clear from the NDCS briefing that it performs a little better than many local authorities. However, the NDCS report asks for three things—they have already been mentioned, so I will not labour them, because many colleagues still want to speak and obviously the Minister’s speech is important to us all. The first of the three recommendations is to

“Ask Ofsted to inspect specialist education services for deaf children.”

That does not happen, so it is key recommendation No. 1. The second is to improve the offer made by local councils by providing accurate data. If we are not measuring what is happening and do not have a proper understanding, how can we identify the nature of the problem and then put in place the remedies, which might be obvious in many instances? I should be most interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that. The third recommendation is that

“deaf children get the basic support they need”,

which several colleagues have mentioned.

I should have mentioned my appreciation for the House authorities and the technicians for what they do in the House through the loop service, which is of great assistance to all who use hearing aids. I am very pleased about this debate being called and I would like to congratulate the right hon. Member for Gordon again on securing and leading it. I have enjoyed the speeches so far and I very much look forward to hearing from the Minister how the Government intend to implement recommendations and policies to improve the situation for children and young people who are in this predicament.

16:20

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

It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who, by talking about his own personal experiences of hearing loss, brings an extra dimension to the debate. We have encountered that time and again when contributions deal with local examples as well as national issues.

I believe it is important to focus on children and young people with the disability of hearing loss. As vice-chair of the all-party group on speech and language difficulties, I know that there are wider issues relating to the development of those services, but it is important to remember that we are talking today about a particular cohort—a cohort about which my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) spoke so powerfully in his opening speech. I pay warm tribute to him for securing this debate. I was happy to support it as part of his bid to the Backbench Business Committee.

As has been rightly said, deafness is not a learning disability, but it can be a real barrier to learning for the thousands of children and young people who live with it every day. Let us not forget the families of those young people who are and should be involved in the planning of services.

What I thought was particularly interesting in the helpful briefing from the National Deaf Children’s Society was the issue of working out the numbers of children and young people with hearing loss. The estimate is over 45,000, but if we look at the official figures, the position becomes very confusing, to say the least. The school census records 16,000 children formally identified as having a hearing loss special educational need. The way that is categorised, however, can vary from school to school, so the figure is not reliable. There clearly needs to be far greater co-ordination of these numbers.

Some of the NDCS suggestions are worthy of consideration by the Minister—for example, whether schools and local authorities should be requested to record in the school census whether the child has a disability as well as a formally identified special educational need; and whether there is a better way of capturing whether a child has a sensory impairment by looking at the child’s unique health identifier or extending that to education and social care as well. That chimes very well with the education, health and care plan approach that is central to the welcome Children and Families Bill, currently proceeding in the other place. The Minister and I have enjoyed many debates in Committee on that and other issues, including on the strength and quality of the local offer that will form the heart of accountability for parents and children and young people with special educational needs. Clearly, more needs to be done properly to identify the need in the first place.

Let us look at a positive example of a local authority that is doing much to address some of the issues identified today. I refer to my own local authority of Swindon, which has two special resource provisions for primary and for secondary education. One commissioned body providing services is based at Red Oaks primary school, while the secondary provision is based at the Ridgeway school. I know that school very well from my days as a governor, and from my many visits to the special resource provision for hearing-impaired pupils. I pay warm tribute to the staff, pupils and parents who are involved in those two facilities, and also to the outreach work done by both facilities in the wider educational community in the borough. The budget in Swindon for special provision and outreach services is just over £900,000, which is spent on interventions that allow young people with hearing loss to integrate properly with others, and to have the opportunities that children who have hearing take for granted.

Over the last year, the local authority has been working with Isambard secondary and Red Oaks primary schools to plan for better British sign language provision at secondary level. With the help of the National Deaf Children’s Society—which provided a consultant for the local authority—and funds from the local schools forum, the steering group is now training two cohorts of school staff on a BSL level 1 course.

British sign language is proving very popular and successful in my area. It is being used not only by children with hearing difficulties, but by their peers who have hearing. What a great way of not just educating young people with hearing about the challenges faced by young people with hearing loss, but increasing the confidence of the latter and helping to ensure that they are, and are seen to be, equally valued by their peers. We hear a great deal about second languages. I am a Welshman, and Welsh is my second language: it was very much part of my upbringing. Why should BSL not be a second language for children with hearing?

The hearing support team in Swindon have an impressive and useful set of web-based support tools, which are being used regularly by schools and families in the area and are helping to improve educational outcomes. In the last year, £15,000 of additional funds have been provided for BSL training courses which are available not only to staff, but to family members and members of the wider community. What an excellent example of extending the reach of BSL.

[Mr McCann]

The concept of BSL as a second language is indeed a noble idea, but does the hon. Gentleman concede that we might as well ask for cars to run on water, given that deaf children—and profoundly deaf children in particular—are not being given the proper education in the classroom that is available to their hearing counterparts?

[Mr Buckland]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am trying to make the point that there are good local examples of integration which enables children and young people with hearing loss to gain access to the mainstream rather than being isolated. I think that the widespread use of BSL is a very good way of ensuring that they are valued, that their confidence increases, and that they become very much part of the mainstream. However, it does not stop there.

We have heard a little about radio and video-aided systems. The borough of Swindon is providing £20,000 for an extra 20 such systems, which will improve curriculum access from pre-school to key stage 4. I am particularly impressed by the work of a local partnership, the children and young people’s hearing services group. It contains not only professionals from education, health and social services but members of the voluntary sector, and it is led by parents. When organisations are led by parents and service users, services, rather than being developed in a way that is remote from users, are much more focused on the needs of users and their families. Moreover, keeping provision local is good for local authorities, for which out-of-borough provision can be significantly more costly. That is a good local example of money being spent wisely, in a way that helps to integrate services and maximises the advantages for young people with hearing loss.

There is much that I could say about the progress of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister and I continue to engage in a dialogue about the need to ensure that, when necessary, parents and families of young people with hearing loss and other special needs have a clear point of redress rather than ending up in a convoluted, labyrinthine system of appeal. I know that he is listening very carefully to those observations, and I hope that when the Bill comes back to this place both the Bill and the code of practice, which has already been improved from its original draft, will be truly a fresh start and a new dawn for children with hearing loss.

16:30

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I will be very brief so that the other Members trying to speak and the Minister replying to the debate can contribute.

First, I want to put on record my—and, I am sure, everybody else’s—thanks to the Backbench Business Committee for choosing the subject of today’s debate. This emphasises the importance of having a BBC that can enable a motion such as this to take place and I hope the House will approve of it. Under the old system it might have taken months and months of lobbying to get any debate in Government time on this kind of issue, apart from the lottery of trying to get an Adjournment debate.

I thank the right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for what he said, and I am sorry I missed the first few minutes of his contribution. I also want to put on record my thanks to the campaign group Disability Action in Islington for the work it does for deaf people and people with disabilities across the borough. It often campaigns on getting signers for sign language, and it can be very expensive to get someone in to do signed translation. That is an area that needs to be looked at. I do not have an easy answer, but it is a complication.

Other Members have mentioned the excellent campaign briefing from NDCS, which works for children with profound deafness and hearing issues. My constituent Jon Barnes works for that campaign and he has been extremely helpful in highlighting these issues.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) raised the problem of identifying children with hearing issues, and other Members talked about deaf children not being picked up in school by the teachers, with their parents either being unaware of the issue or not wanting to draw attention to it. Such children can gradually fall ever further behind their cohort group in school and eventually become educational under-achievers, and all sorts of other things follow from that. Ofsted inspections could look carefully at what is done in all schools to identify children with hearing difficulties. I know it sounds odd that we are even saying that, but it is actually perfectly possible for a child in a class of 30 children to be forgotten or ignored because they might be able to copy what others do where written answers are involved and have some minor level of hearing that enables them just about to cope. We need to ensure that all children are properly tested on their hearing abilities from the very beginning, and the Ofsted inspection could help to do that.

The figure that 75% of deaf children are not statemented is an interesting one, and the figure that 40% of those who suffer from profound deafness as children end up with mental health problems highlights how important it is to have the identification at a very early stage.

I know local authorities are up against it at the present time. I have just come from a meeting with the new leader of my local authority, Richard Watts, and he was explaining the horrendous problems it is facing in funding our current services. Islington is doing its very best to ensure that all children get a very good education, but in these circumstances it is very easy to see how in some local authorities the needs of a relatively small group of children will be forgotten or ignored, or the money will simply be spent on something else for which somebody is able to shout louder and push harder for the funding. Therefore, inspection and the protection and ring-fencing of the funds available for children with profound deafness are very important indeed.

The last point I wish to make is that if we ignore and do not provide sufficient support for children who suffer from this condition, their health will suffer and they will become increasingly dependent and less able to contribute to wider society. As a result, we all suffer, because we will spend money on children who ought to be able to achieve a great deal in school and on adults who ought to be able to achieve a great deal in life, but they end up unemployed and dependent when they could be making an enormous positive contribution to society. It is very wasteful not to identify the needs in the first place and to use all the available technology to improve communication and help people. Sign language and its teaching are very important vehicles for that.

We need to ensure that there is an acceptance that deafness is something that people can cope with if they have adequate support. If they are just ignored and forgotten as children, they end up having a much less fulfilling and less useful life than they could otherwise have. So I just hope that this motion is agreed, that the Government accept that it is important and that, in return, local authorities fulfil their basic obligation to ensure that every child gets the best possible education and the best possible treatment to deal with whatever condition they happen to be suffering from at the time they enter school.

16:35

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the thoughtful contribution of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). It is always a great pleasure to follow him, not least because he is my MP for four days a week. I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this important debate, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on securing it and on all the work he has done throughout his time as chair of the all-party group on deafness.

Earlier this year, I hosted a visit to Westminster by the National Deaf Children’s Society listening bus. Children from the Frank Barnes school for deaf children and others had the opportunity to meet a number of MPs to talk about their experiences of growing up deaf and the difference that extra specialist help has made to them. By all accounts, colleagues who attended were inspired by what they heard. As a former chair of governors at the school, I know that it has been a steadfast supporter of the NDCS’s “Stolen Futures” campaign, which has prompted today’s debate. I still have contact with the school, and I know that the teaching staff passionately believe that we should have high expectations of deaf children’s social, emotional and academic development, and that effective communication, praise, celebration of success, and quality teaching and learning enables children to reach their full potential. We have heard that message from a number of hon. Members today, and it is different from the one that deaf children were receiving some decades ago.

Ofsted has repeatedly identified Frank Barnes school as being outstanding, and I know that the head teacher, Karen Simpson, who is with us in the Gallery today, and her staff work tirelessly to ensure that deaf pupils receive the specialist support they need. We all know that local councils need to target funding at the most vulnerable children who require the most support, including deaf children. Correctly, local authorities have a statutory duty to identify children’s special educational needs and to provide the services to meet them. However, the NDCS’s report reveals that many deaf children—perhaps the majority of them—are not statemented. Not only is that a matter of regret, but it should cause grave concern to Members of this House because it means that the educational potential of those children is simply not being realised in the way it should.

The Government have, of course, taken action. They ensure that local authorities can retain funding for specialist education support services for deaf children as part of the high needs block. However, that does not prevent local authorities from reducing funding overall for those services and, as we now know from the NDCS report, many of them appear either to be doing that or threatening to do it. My own county council in Lincolnshire takes a much more satisfactory line. We are protecting and even increasing funding for services for deaf children, and I have to say that it is very disappointing that other local authorities are not demonstrating the same wisdom.

Any cuts take place in a context in which too many deaf children are already underachieving, as the House has heard, and are simply not getting the support they need. I know that many colleagues will agree with me that the Minister needs to send a strong signal to all local authorities that the money that is intended for special educational needs should be used for those needs.

One solution to the general problem might well be to see what more could be done on a regional basis, particularly given the current economic climate. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts on that. Deafness is a low-incidence disability and the complex needs of deaf children are not something that many local authorities, particularly smaller authorities, appear able to address on their own. The available research, to which the NDCS has drawn attention, is pretty damning. Many local authorities employ two or fewer visiting teachers of the deaf, and it is impossible to see how such small teams can provide the specialist support needed by all the deaf children and their families in those areas. We are, of course, as the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) mentioned, too often talking about families who cannot or who are not in a position to fight the system. Sometimes they come to us to do it for them, but they are often disadvantaged families and we should be doing everything we can to help their equally disadvantaged children.

I have spoken about Frank Barnes, which is one of the few schools in the country that provides a bilingual approach to teaching where deaf children learn sign language and English together. That is critical, because, as I pointed out in an intervention on my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon, all the research in this area tells us that communication in the early years, however it is achieved, is critical for life outcomes. Schools such as Frank Barnes therefore have an important role to play as centres of excellence and more should perhaps be done both to support them and to use the resources which they offer to other schools in their areas. Specialist schools across the country have the scope to innovate in teaching, but that is too often not the case in mainstream education, where there is so much focus on inclusion—inclusion that can too often, for deaf children, become exclusionary.

For my part, I think the Government could considerably improve provision by encouraging local authorities to work together to commission services on a regional basis and to work with centres of excellence such as Frank Barnes. Some authorities have perhaps already recognised that, but others have yet to do so, presumably because they lack the necessary expertise in dealing with the education of deaf children to realise that it is necessary. I want to hear from the Minister the Government’s views on whether any steps can be taken to encourage the regional commissioning of services for low-incidence special needs, and for deafness in particular.

The House has already heard something about the inspection regime and the recommendations of the NDCS. Teachers of the deaf play an important role in supporting deaf children and their families and I know that the Department for Education recognises that. Many parents, teachers and other professionals—I now add my voice to theirs—are concerned by the anomaly that schools are inspected by Ofsted but education services are not.

We must ask ourselves why, in 2013, a parent of a deaf child at a school such as Frank Barnes can be confident that their child is getting a good education because the school has been inspected, but a parent of a deaf child in a nearby mainstream school cannot? The Government must look at that anomaly and fix it, and I hope to hear from the Minister that the Government are considering requiring Ofsted to inspect all educational services for deaf children.

At the same time, schools also need more guidance on progression trajectories for deaf children and how they differ between mainstream and specialist schools. In the past, special schools for the deaf have requested comparative data reports, similar to reports that were previously produced under the performance and assessment—PANDA—system to support the benchmarking of pupil attainment and other measures. There is currently no way of comparing the performances of SEN schools, as the direct comparison of data has apparently stopped, and that cannot help special schools to make progress.

Ofsted says, as I understand it, that it is unable to provide the data because of the challenges of categorising pupils who are deaf or those with special educational needs, but it fails to suggest how, without reliable data, professionals can assess how well deaf children are doing or how, for that matter, local authorities can properly commission services.

Without proper data on deafness, as on all special needs, local authorities cannot plan ahead and cannot know what they have to commission for the future. The point has, I know, been stressed by the Department for Education in the draft special educational needs code of practice, recently published for consultation, but more can be done. For example, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said, the school census captures only about two thirds of deaf children, as they are only identified if they have been formally assessed as having a special educational need. I hope that the Department will wish to look into whether that can be improved by looking at what data are required from schools in the census.

Those who know more about these things than I do also tell me that part of the problem with getting accurate data is that even now there are no agreed definitions to help identify which children are deaf. I have to say to the Minister that that is not an acceptable state of affairs. The Government must work, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon said, with professional bodies to agree on suitable definitions to enable data to be collected more effectively.

In the time available, let me come to specialist teaching. I have already noted that the high needs block within the dedicated schools grant for local authorities will include funding for specialist support services, including peripatetic teachers of the deaf, and that is no doubt to be welcomed. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) noted in an intervention, around 80% of teachers of the deaf are now over the age of 50. This is at a time when the number of training departments appears to be reducing. The Minister and the Department therefore need to think now about succession planning for teachers of the deaf, because action must be taken to maintain specialism funding and to give more support for, for example, specialist masters degrees, including funding for schools to provide cover while teachers study.

Let me end by saying that, although there is still much to be done, the future is much rosier than it once looked. Lengthy battles like the one I had to fight to keep Frank Barnes open because the previous Government had formulated the law so that special schools closed, look as though they are now history. Good local authorities, like mine in Lincolnshire, understand much better the issues that surround deaf education and the need to deploy appropriate resources.

This debate and the NDCS report reveal, however, that although things are perhaps rosier, they are simply not perfect. So the Government need to act, and to act now. It is worth doing so not merely because deaf children are children just like any others—entitled to the best education and the best start in life that we can give them—but because the costs to other services in the long term are much reduced by good early intervention that improves life chances. Helping deaf children to learn and communicate makes their lives much easier; it means that they are more likely to find employment; it means that they are less likely to develop mental health problems due to feelings of alienation from a society of which they are, after all, part. The case made by the NDCS in its report, as reflected in the motion before the House, is unanswerable. It is one that I respectfully suggest that the Minister must listen to.

16:47

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) on securing this important and well-informed debate. I take this opportunity, as others have done, to thank him for his dedication and commitment as founder and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on deafness and for his assiduous campaigning for the recognition of British sign language. I know from attending and speaking at the Signature conference that he chaired last year how his inspiring work and unstinting efforts have led to a growing recognition of the support required to help deaf children and young people achieve their potential.

I would also like to recognise the tireless work that the National Deaf Children’s Society does to support deaf children and their families. It manages to balance working with my Department on projects such as I-Sign with powerful campaigning to hold Government both local and national to account. The 51,000 signatures received in support of holding this debate are testament to this campaigning, and to the importance of getting support for special educational needs right.

A whole number of pertinent points and issues have been raised by hon. Members from all parties about attainment, funding, access, support, data, inspection and the wider special educational need reforms. In the short time that I have, I will do my best to address as many of those points as possible, but where I fail to do so, I will endeavour to write to hon. Members to make sure that they have a full response to the questions and points that they have raised.

The Government are clear that the most important service for all children and young people is high-quality teaching. That is why we have ensured that funding is protected, maintaining the amount per pupil at the same cash level this year as last year. In this context, a number of hon. Members rightly raised concerns about the attainment gap between deaf children and their peers. That is a key indicator of whether deaf children are receiving high-quality teaching.

Although we must see further progress in this area, we should recognise the enormous progress that has been made so far. In 2011-12, 71% of deaf children achieved five or more A* to C grades at GCSE compared with just 43% in 2007-08. For non-SEN pupils, the figures are 90% and 75% respectively. Over that period, deaf pupils progressed at approximately twice the rate of their peers, closing the attainment gap significantly—a testament to the pupils themselves, as well as to the work of sensory support services across the country. Improvements in teaching practice and technological advances mean that deaf children are now far more likely to achieve their potential than five years ago.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly raised concerns about the slight decline in good GCSE passes over the past year. We must, of course, be alert to that, but it is important to note that progress in those subjects has also increased markedly over the past four years: 37% of deaf pupils now achieve that standard, compared to 28% in 2007-08. However, that is still not good enough. Clearly, we all want to see progress continue. We are committed to improving the training that teachers and school leaders receive to help them identify where pupils with hearing loss face barriers to learning and to offer appropriate support, an issued raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) and by the hon. Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann), who speaks with such authority, based on his own personal experiences.

The National Scholarship Fund provides funding of up to £3,500 for teachers’ postgraduate qualifications and training, including specialist training for teachers of the deaf. Funding of £2,000 is available to support teaching assistants and support staff to improve their skills in SEN. Some 600 teachers have achieved or are working towards a qualification related to SEN and a further 500 have applied for the current funding round. We have also worked with the NDCS to update and increase schools’ access to information on deaf-friendly teaching and on specific issues such as managing the transition to secondary school and teaching phonics for pupils with a hearing impairment. As we reform the SEN system we will work with the National Sensory Impairment Partnership—NatSIP—to provide advice and information to schools on effective support for deaf pupils.

As well as taking steps to improve the quality of education, we are taking significant steps to secure access to it for deaf children and others with disabilities and SEN. Under the Equalities Act 2010, schools and other education providers must make reasonable adjustments for disabled children and young people to alleviate any substantial disadvantage they experience because of their disability, and they must not discriminate against them. If, after those adjustments have been made, children and young people need special educational provision or specialist services, the duties that schools, local authorities and others have in relation to special educational needs come into play. The Children and Families Bill, which includes our reforms to this area, is currently being debated in the other place. I shall say more about those changes a little later.

The NDCS is concerned that, as things stand, services for deaf children risk being undermined by cuts. We have heard some examples of that this afternoon. I want to reassure the House that we have ensured that all local authorities have as much funding for SEN in 2013-14 as they had in 2012-13. The NDCS acknowledges that the Government have protected funding for vulnerable learners. Local authorities decide what SEN services to provide for children and young people, including services for deaf children, and how much to spend on them, from the funding that we supply.

The services that local authorities typically provide, either directly or by commissioning other providers, include services for visual, hearing and physical impairment; specific learning difficulties; speech, language and communication; profound and severe learning difficulties; and autism. Local authorities are reporting that they are spending no less on their SEN services this year than they spent last year. Through their local funding formula, they also include in delegated schools budgets a clear amount of funding intended to meet the needs of pupils with additional needs, including those with SEN or disabilities. Special schools and other schools with special units often use their budgets to develop particular specialist services, including those for pupils with hearing impairments. I have seen that for myself in Springfield special school in Crewe in my constituency. Where necessary, schools receive extra top-up funding from their local authority for the additional support costs of pupils with the greatest needs.

We are committed to ensuring that the needs of children with SEN are met. We have been clear with local authorities—I re-emphasis the point now—that they should prioritise vital front-line services for vulnerable children. However, we should not forget that the current financial climate, as Members have acknowledged today, means that everyone in Government, both local and national, has to make tough decisions to ensure that the limited resources are spent most effectively.

We know that it can be challenging for local authorities to provide services for young people whose needs are less common, so we are encouraging them to work together on such provision. I heard the point my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips) made about regional commissioning, and I will certainly look at that as part of the work we are doing and the reforms we are undertaking. Where services have to be changed, that should be done with a careful assessment of the impact on families, and those assessments should involve the families.

With regard to specialist support, local authorities support parents of deaf children to communicate with them through teachers of the deaf and sensory support services. The Department for Education is working with voluntary and community groups to enable local areas to benchmark the support they provide to deaf children and to access tools and information on the most effective approaches. That includes the £1.1 million we have given to NatSIP to carry out a benchmarking exercise.

My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) and others mentioned the importance of early support. I hope that they will be pleased to hear that we have also funded the development of an early support guide for parents of deaf children and the I-Sign project to develop a family sign language programme. We are continuing to fund the I-Sign consortium to build on the learning from that project and improve the availability of sign language support for parents and families.

As the NDCS has set out, most deaf children attend mainstream schools, some with additional specialist units offering support on site. Assessments on how well those schools perform will be made as part of Ofsted’s school inspection regime. The new Ofsted inspection frameworks, introduced in September 2012, place a clear emphasis on meeting the needs of disabled pupils and pupils with SEN and considering the quality of teaching and the progress made by those pupils.

I know that the NDCS and Members are calling for an alternative approach in which Ofsted would inspect the local authority services that work with schools to support deaf pupils, and there is some initial appeal in that, but the same argument could be made for pupils with autism, speech and language needs or dyslexia. However, I understand that this is part of a wider question about the inspection of the reformed SEN system, and I expect it to continue to be discussed as the Children and Families Bill progresses.

Aside from the role that Ofsted could play, I want to stress that the SEN reforms will preserve and enhance legal protections for families who want to challenge councils through their involvement in determining local provisions. The two deaf young people who are directly advising my Department on our SEN reforms have made it clear that they want to see reforms which provide legal protections; establish a better system for identifying need and commissioning services across education, health and social care; ensure that the services provided match local needs as accurately as possible; and ensure that families do not have to battle to get those services. That is what our reforms are intended to do.

I want to leave a few moments for my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon to close the debate. It is clear that this has been a thoughtful, sincere and passionate debate that has provided us all with an opportunity not only to celebrate excellence where it exists, including in Swindon, but to challenge and question what more could be done to ensure that deaf children and young people get the right support at the right time so that they can flourish and thrive. I will take away the many excellent points and suggestions made by hon. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend, and consider them carefully as our reforms move closer towards implementation. The Government’s message is clear: we share his ambition and desire to give deaf children the best possible start in life and will continue to work with him in that shared endeavour.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. If I am to put the Question before the motion lapses, I need to do so at 4.59 pm.

16:58

[Sir Malcolm Bruce]

I thank the Minister for his constructive and courteous response and for undertaking to follow up on those points in detail. I thank all Members who have contributed to this well-informed debate. The Minister has responded to the point about Ofsted, but there is a worry that although SEN might be maintained, switches could take place that disadvantage deaf people. We want there to be special attention to ensure that deaf children are not disadvantaged. I take the point about other categories, but I think that we are entitled at least to ask for a process by which that can be done.

On the regional issue, which was also a good point, I note that in Sweden schools for the deaf are provided in every region and parents have the right to choose whether they send their children to a special school or a mainstream one. I believe that is something we should address.

We have had a very good debate. The Minister is very engaged in the subject and we look forward to working with him. I also thank the hon. Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) for his constructive comments. This is something that we can do together, and with real commitment we can improve the quality of life for all deaf children.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the importance of services for deaf children and young people and acknowledges the wide attainment gap; further recognises that communications support for deaf children and their parents is vital for social development and educational progress; acknowledges that the Government has stated there is an expectation that funding for vulnerable learners is protected, but is concerned about recent evidence uncovered by the National Deaf Children’s Society which shows that in 2013-14 over a third of local authorities plan to cut education services for deaf children; urges the Government to take steps to hold local authorities to account and support parents in doing so, including by asking Ofsted to inspect these vital services, improving access to communication support including sign language, and strengthening the Children and Families Bill currently before Parliament; and further urges the Government to deliver and implement reform of special educational needs.

Daniel Pelka

Thursday 17th October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

17:00

[Mr Geoffrey Robinson (Coventry North West) (Lab)]

Let me say, Mr Speaker, how graced we are by your again being in the Chair for our debate.

This is a very important debate. I hope that one or two other Members who have an interest, apart from the Minister, to whom I spoke two weeks ago, will find it beneficial. I labelled it “The Lessons of Daniel Pelka in Coventry”, which happens to be my own constituency. It is a horrid shock to MPs who have never had anything like this happen in their constituency before but have to get to grips with it as part of the job. As so much is taking place at the moment around the discussion groups, this debate is a unique opportunity for us, as a small group in the House, to see what might be done and what might be improved. One thing is for sure: there has been report after report, study after study, and still we get these dreadful incidents from time to time, all too frequently.

Some people say to me, “It will always happen—don’t worry about it. It’s bound to happen and you can’t stop it.” I find that repugnant. I cannot believe that Daniel Pelka, whose home was visited 27 times following domestic violence incidents, who turned up at school getting thinner and thinner, who was showing bruises and was clearly being maltreated in every other respect, needed to die. I cannot accept it; it seems ludicrous to me. We have to find a much better way of dealing with the situation in an improved way, step by step; I am not saying that it can all be put right at once. I want to put forward four points for consideration, if not action.

I very much thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport (Ann Coffey), who is a great expert in this area, and has done a tremendous amount and mounted campaign after campaign on it, for suggesting that my focus in terms of the Coventry report—she had read before I did, typically—should be on the fact that nobody spoke to the child. The poor child was going to school starving, being beaten up, and in the end clubbed and killed, and nobody tried to speak to him. One of the answers given is that he was Polish. Well, there are Polish-speaking people we could draw on, as we saw the other night in Wembley—although they are not exactly the experts that we would want for that.

The first thing we have to do is to make it very clear that in any one of these cases where there is a failure to speak to the child, consequences should follow. Nobody wants witch hunts or people being sacked, but they clearly cannot follow the basic instructions for getting into a dialogue with the child, who admittedly may be too young.

[Ann Coffey (Stockport) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to do so.

[Ann Coffey]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this very important debate. We all want to see life made better for some of our most abused children. A few weeks ago I visited an organisation called Triangle in Brighton, which is strongly committed to helping children who have been harmed and abused to communicate their experiences, and I saw the extraordinary work that it does using drawings. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is very important that that kind of expertise is made available throughout the United Kingdom so that we can better help children to communicate their experiences and intervene in their lives before they are abused and killed?

[Mr Robinson]

I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, it might have been plagiarism—I hope that is not an inappropriate word—but that was another idea I was going to take from her. We should have not one huge centre but various centres in which creative means of communicating with difficult children are imaginatively developed and explored. The day before Daniel Pelka died, a teacher was found in another school in Coventry—there are loads of them—to talk to him. She happened to be Polish and was able to speak the language, but that is not good enough. It is pathetic that things got to that stage.

I agree with my hon. Friend, so let us make that our No.1 point: children must be talked to and we should develop a whole area of useful specialisations, as opposed to a load of paper that gets churned out continually. Children could tell us what their parents look like by using diagrams. We might start to learn something and it could tell quite a story.

[Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the need to talk to the child. The situation was even worse in this case, because I gather that they relied on another child in the family to communicate with him, which obviously is not appropriate.

There is a big issue of social workers being fobbed off at the door. When social workers are dealing with communities that are not naturally fluent in English, we need to make sure that they have people alongside them who can communicate in the relevant language so that they are not fobbed off by communication difficulties, let alone by all the problems involved in crossing the threshold and finding out exactly what is going on. This is a real problem for some of the incoming communities, particularly those from eastern Europe.

[Mr Robinson]

Yes, that is a problem. Let us think creatively and commonsensically about how we can deal with it. It will not be enough to train a whole load of interpreters to become experts in Polish, arts and crafts and other languages and grammars. We need the same sort of practical thinking as inventive mothers who work part time and know how to do things with their kids.

I do not want to be unkind to the Minister, because he inherited the situation and was gracious and courteous enough to agree to meet me on the afternoon the case review was published, but at that meeting he said, “I think we’re going to make a big difference now,” and produced a 74-page document full of all sorts of jargon. The Minister should not worry, because I will say something else to qualify my comments in a moment. The document was statutory guidance, which is an oxymoron—it is either statutory or it is guidance; it cannot be both. The Minister said, “Well, Geoffrey, if you think that’s feeble, it was 700 pages when I got it.” Think of all the time, effort, pen-pushing and talking that is going on, and yet we cannot find a means of getting through to a young kid because he speaks a different language. It does not make any sense at all.

Secondly—I owe a good deal to my hon. Friend the Member for Stockport for this point, too—the lines of responsibility have to be much clearer. Who is responsible? I thank the well meaning and extremely professional National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and half a dozen other agencies, as well as probably a dozen people from other constituencies who have been, or fear they will be, affected by this issue, for their response to tonight’s debate. The first recommendation in the NSPCC’s briefing paper is:

“Front-line agencies must see and listen to the child”.

That is sensible and we all agree with it, but it then states in a green box:

“All notifications of domestic abuse should be sent to a Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH)”.

What sort of line of communication is that? What it amounts to is a mishmash. We see that more and more.

It is not that the agencies are not talking to each other. They probably are not as good at communicating with each other as they should be and improvement is necessary, but the problem is that we do not know who is responsible. The NSPCC says that a lead is needed. It is not a lead that is needed, but somebody who is responsible for the case and who knows that he is responsible for it. I am sorry, I should have said “he or she”, because the only person who had the guts to put a foot in the door and leave it there was a female youth community officer, who did a fantastic job and found out that the abuse was going on.

MASH just about sums up what is wrong. What we need is clearer lines of communication.

[Tim Loughton]

I am loth to intervene again in case the hon. Gentleman does not get on to his other points, but I must say that the MASH is the way to go. It allows all the different agencies to communicate with each other better because they sit next to each other in the same room. In a relatively short period of time, all the relevant people can come together and swap information. Importantly, somebody then picks up the ball and acts on what has been said. That is the responsible person to whom the hon. Gentleman rightly refers. It is happening more effectively in MASHs than it has done before. That is why most London authorities and most other authorities in the country are going that way. It is the way to go.

[Mr Robinson]

I am delighted to hear that and I wish the hon. Gentleman well with it. I hope that it works. However, a MASH can work only if at the end of all the talking—I accept that that has to happen, because there is no other way of getting everybody to know what they need to know—there is a clear line of responsibility. Somebody has to write the minutes, somebody has to say what will be done and there must be a clearly identifiable responsible person or group of people who are charged with carrying it through. Otherwise, it will not happen.

The MASH is a committee and committees do not do anything. It serves the useful purpose of bringing people together so that they can talk and exchange the information that they need to know about. What is missing from the system is a clear way of saying at the end of the meeting what the conclusions and recommendations are. Those must be very short. A person or group of people—a lead, or whatever you want to call them—must then be responsible for carrying out those recommendations.

That was certainly what was missing in Coventry. There was meeting after meeting. Everybody was grouped together and the information was being exchanged. However, when the dreadful news broke, I asked who was actually responsible. The reply was that we were all responsible. If we are all responsible, no one is. We must not be afraid of allocating responsibilities and ensuring that they are carried out. If they are not, retraining is always a good option. People do not have to be sacked. We are not like that on this side of the House. However, people in the country cannot accept that the head of the department, Colin Green, resigned a few days or weeks before the report came out and was appointed to exactly the same position elsewhere. That was wrong. What sort of confidence does that provide?

That point reminds me of another Adjournment debate that I secured about a distinguished surgeon at Walsgrave who was almost sacked because he had reported somebody else. It turned out that the chief executive of the hospital was not up to the job—there were a whole series of these cases—and all six neighbouring MPs served by that hospital called for his resignation. He was sacked—well, that was what it was called, but within six months he was back in charge at Birmingham Heartlands hospital. It is unbelievable what such a network of controls can do.

My next point will, I am sure, again be contentious for the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and others who are a bit on the side of the establishment, because it concerns the compositions of serious case reviews. Each area has its own chairman—that is all it has, actually—and lay members. When it comes to the inquiry, the chairman or chairwoman brings in a rapporteur, a writer of the report, and both she and he know each other—I am not suggesting that is wrong; it could sometimes be very helpful—and have written many of these reports in the past, either together or separately. Already in my book that does not seem quite right. It is not independent, and the essence of the serious case review is that it must be seen to be independent.

My last point—I have left plenty of time for the Minister—concerns Ann Lucas, whom I begged to carry out an independent report. “Why should I be the only one to put Coventry through that when nobody else has ever done it?”—she did not say that, but that was what I felt she felt. That would have meant a completely new board, fresh blood, with people who did not know the situation in Coventry or the chair of the Coventry group, and who had a completely dispassionate view.

I do not think anybody would agree any longer with the police investigating the police. Why should the civil servants who had administered the case in question be those who were the team supporting the independent chair—she was independent—and the so-called appointed independent rapporteur, or reporter? He wrote the report and one could see he is a professional. Every perfect piece of civil service-ese was in it; it could not be faulted. However, out of that comes nothing so far, and so Ann Lucas wrote to me and asked whether I would relay this message to the House tonight. She is an outstanding council leader who has been in the job about six months. She was distraught to find that she had inherited this case, and she went along with a traditional conventional review. She said that

“we need a national debate around safeguarding issues—

that is obvious—

“with the setting up of a Commons Select Committee to take evidence from all concerned. From politicians, from front-line workers, from all agencies, social workers, the police, health agencies—including GPs, hospitals, health visitors and schools. And very importantly, from experts working with Domestic Violence”,

in which she is an expert.

I do not know whether that is a runner, but I am clear that I do not see it ever working—I have not left the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham time to add his comprehensive view. We need a more forensic direct attack. For example, there were four or five points at which Daniel Pelka could have been saved. That is clear. We need a mechanism so that when such a point is reached—I guess the people doing it did not know—or anything like that, the man at the top should be informed. We need a mechanism to intervene and bring things to a head, and in a way it is about management. I hope those points will have helped the Minister in his reply.

17:19

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) on securing this important, timely and serious debate. The tragic case of Daniel Pelka is a stark reminder to us that we can and must do more to ensure the safety and well-being of our children. It was helpful to meet the hon. Gentleman recently to discuss the findings of the serious case review in Coventry and its implications. I welcome the opportunity to set out the steps that are being taken to ensure that we fully understand what went wrong and why, and ensure that any individual and collective failures are identified and addressed.

National accountability for child protection rests squarely with the Department for Education, working closely with other Departments. However, all of us have a part to play in keeping our children safe. In March 2013, we published revised statutory guidance—“Working Together to Safeguard Children”. I was pleased the hon. Gentleman mentioned the scything of the original document from 700 pages to just over 70, which was quite a feat in anybody’s language. The guidance clearly states that anyone concerned about a child’s welfare should bring it to the attention of the relevant authorities.

It is also clear that the focus of our attention must be on the needs of individual children rather than on the interests of adults. The serious case review by the Coventry safeguarding children board showed that, although many professionals were concerned about Daniel, they did not speak to him or focus efficiently on either his experiences or his needs. Our statutory guidance is clear that, if someone is concerned about the safety of a child, they should refer them to the local authority children’s social care and ensure that they take into account the wishes and feelings of the child. That is abundantly clear and should happen in every case but, too often, Daniel was not at the heart of the assessment process. His needs were completely overshadowed by the perceived needs of his mother and her welfare.

I was pleased that the SCR was published swiftly and without redaction—my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) has argued for that practice for a long time. It is important that reports are published in full so that the lessons are transparent and can be learned. The report highlights a number of basic practice failures, across a range of agencies, to share information, keep accurate records, use those records appropriately, and carry out robust assessments of Daniel’s needs adequately. As the hon. Gentleman has said, there were numerous opportunities to intervene and examples of concerned professionals who wanted to do the right thing, but no decisive intervention was made.

The purpose of any serious case review is not only to provide a retrospective description of what happened in the case; nor is it simply to apportion blame to individuals. An SCR should provide a sound analysis of why the incident happened and identify the issues on which agencies need to act individually and collectively to improve services for children. The SCR in Daniel’s case begins that process, but I believe that Coventry needs to deepen the analysis to address why failings occurred.

[Mr Robinson]

I intervene on the Minister to pay him a compliment. There were five or six occasions when intervention should have happened, and he has asked in his letter why it did not. There is not a word on that in the SCR, so I hope he gets some satisfactory answers.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Without that type of analysis, we cannot be confident that the lessons have been learned. We need to be able to distinguish between errors of practice and errors of judgment, and identify where there are systemic weaknesses. That is why I have asked for that further work.

As he knows, on 16 September, I wrote to Amy Weir, the independent chair of the Coventry safeguarding children board—I should emphasise her independence and the fact that the writer of the serious case review is appointed independently from the local authority—to set out my concerns about the serious case review. I was clear that, unless we get to the bottom of why things happened, we will be unable to put the right solutions in place. I have asked her to provide a time scale for carrying out a deeper analysis of that appalling case; why basic information was not recorded properly both between and within agencies; why information needed to protect Daniel was not shared between the relevant agencies; why four separate assessments by children’s social care fail to identify the risk to Daniel; and what oversight there was of those decisions. I have also requested details of the actions that have already been taken to respond to the report’s findings, including the support and training put in place for professionals involved in the case and more widely

I met Ms Weir yesterday and she was able to provide me with an update on the work that is taking place in response to the report’s recommendations. I was very clear with her, and I can reassure the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that I will continue to pay close attention to the evidence emerging from Coventry. The lessons identified by the deeper analysis will be made publicly available, which should give to the people of Coventry the confidence that the right actions have been taken in response to Daniel’s death and ensure that everyone with a role in safeguarding children has the opportunity to reflect on their own practice.

We will also consider whether the lessons from the analysis have national implications, something touched on by the hon. Gentleman. The Government remain focused on driving through our programme of reform of the child protection system, building on recommendations from a wide range of reports and inquiries, including the Munro review, the Education Committee report and Lord Carlile’s report into the Edlington case. I remind the hon. Gentleman, in response to the point he made towards the end of his contribution, that there has been a recent inquiry by the Select Committee into child protection, which is being reopened to consider what progress has been made, and he might want to make his views known to it. The lessons from Daniel Pelka’s tragic death, and those of Keanu Williams and Hamzah Khan, will add to that body of evidence. The Government are requiring the publication of serious case reviews for the very reason that it enables national lessons to be learned. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children is helping to collate the analysis at a single point, so that social workers and other front-line practitioners can understand how they can benefit from it.

We want a child protection system where all children at risk of abuse or neglect are identified early, have timely and proportionate assessments of their individual needs, and receive the right services at the right time. That is why we are fundamentally reforming the system to put the needs of individual children at its heart. We want a system that fits the needs of children and not the other way around. We have strengthened the framework underpinning child protection by publishing the revised “Working Together to Safeguard Children” statutory guidance. It is clear that the needs of individual children, whatever their age, are paramount. That puts the needs of children back at the heart of assessment processes by removing the requirement to have separate initial and core assessments.

Good practice is out there. We have had a discussion about the merits of multi-agency safeguarding hubs. I have had the opportunity to visit some myself, and they are doing fantastic work in their co-location with different agencies. They are sitting in the same room talking to each other, rather than communicating via computer or at a greater distance. That helps to bring about joint responsibility. It is not a panacea, but it is one way of working more closely together to provide a better service.

We want social workers who are able to confidently identify, assess, decide and act on individual cases where children are at risk of abuse or neglect. We want social workers who have a commitment to self-improvement and are not afraid to challenge one another. We want managers who provide appropriate and timely support and supervision to their staff. That is why we are seeking a step change in the quality of the contribution that those entering the profession can make. The Frontline programme is providing an innovative route into the profession for top graduates, and the Step Up to Social Work programme is doing the same thing for high-calibre career changers. We are introducing reforms to support better local and national leadership, which in turn should help to create a more confident profession. The newly appointed first ever chief social worker for children and families, Isabelle Trowler, will provide leadership for the profession and help to drive improvement in front-line practice.

We want to see stronger leadership, accountability and learning in the system, and less variability in local authority safeguarding performance. From next month, Ofsted will be using a reformed inspection framework that will bring child protection services for looked-after children and care leavers, and local authority fostering and adoption services, into a single inspection. We are setting up an innovative arrangement in Doncaster to run social care services independently from the council. It is this kind of innovative approach that is needed to bring about a fundamental shift in the quality of our child protection services.

I am enormously grateful for the support and concern that the hon. Gentleman has given to this issue today. He knows as well as I the challenge we still face to prevent such tragedies. I take the deaths of Daniel Pelka, Keanu Williams and Hamzah Khan as stark reminders of the work we still have to do. As I said at the time of the publication of the serious case review, this is as important as anything the Government do.

17:30

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 17th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 17 October 2013

Defence

Thursday 17th October 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Lost Property

[Mrs Moon]

To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many items were lost at (a) COD Donnington and (b) COD Bicester since September 2012; and if he will make a statement;

(2) what the value of items lost at (a) COD Donnington and (b) COD Bicester was since September 2012; and if he will make a statement;

(3) if he will publish details of the auditing processes for (a) COD Donnington and (b) COD Bicester; and if he will make a statement.

[Official Report, 5 September 2013, Vol. 567, c. 483-84W.]

Letter of correction from Philip Dunne:

An error has been identified in the written answer given to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) on 5 September 2013.

The full answer given was as follows:

[Mr Dunne]

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) Annual Report and Accounts includes reportable materiel losses. Culpable losses include the result of proven or suspected fraud, theft, arson or sabotage, or any other deliberate act including repairable damage caused maliciously to buildings, stores or other equipment.

Non-culpable losses include the result of accidental damage or unavoidable and/or unforeseen circumstances. Non-culpable losses can also occur where the loss of materiel could be expected in the normal course of MOD business, e.g. inventory or equipment damaged or destroyed by enemy fire or due to authorised tests or practice firings. However, unless there is evidence of culpability, losses in these circumstances are not reportable in the Annual Report and Accounts.

The total value of stock issued from Logistic Commodities and Services (LCS) Bicester and LCS Donnington for the period 1 October 2012 to 30 June 2013 was £3.8 billion. The number and value of reportable materiel losses for the same period is contained in the following tables:

[Mr Dunne]

The Ministry of Defence (MOD) Annual Report and Accounts includes reportable materiel losses. Culpable losses include the result of proven or suspected fraud, theft, arson or sabotage, or any other deliberate act including repairable damage caused maliciously to buildings, stores or other equipment.

Non-culpable losses include the result of accidental damage or unavoidable and/or unforeseen circumstances. Non-culpable losses can also occur where the loss of materiel could be expected in the normal course of MOD business, e.g. inventory or equipment damaged or destroyed by enemy fire or due to authorised tests or practice firings. However, unless there is evidence of culpability, losses in these circumstances are not reportable in the Annual Report and Accounts.

The total value of stock issued from Logistic Commodities and Services (LCS) Bicester and LCS Donnington for the period 1 October 2012 to 30 June 2013 was £3.8 billion. The number and value of reportable materiel losses for the same period is contained in the following tables:

Westminster Hall

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 17 October 2013

[Mr Andrew Rosindell in the Chair]

Coastguard (Maritime Incident Response Group)

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Sixth report of the Transport Committee, Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group, HC 647, and the Government Response, HC 1018.]

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

13:30

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

I welcome the opportunity to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell, and to debate the Select Committee on Transport’s second report on the coastguard service since the 2010 election. I pay tribute to the nation’s coastguards—both professional staff and volunteers—who provide an essential emergency service, protecting life and limb at sea throughout the year in all weathers.

Last year, Her Majesty’s Coastguard dealt with 2,859 incidents—a 23% increase on the previous year— including rescuing swimmers, divers and people falling off cliffs, cut off by tides and endangered by boat failures. The changes are wide-ranging and involve the maritime rescue co-ordination centres, search and rescue and the maritime incident response group, which deals with firefighting and chemical hazards. I am concerned about all those aspects of the service, and I know that there are ongoing issues, in particular about arrangements for emergency towing vessels.

Today, however, I will focus on changes to the maritime rescue co-ordination centres, which handle calls for assistance and co-ordinate rescues. Reform has been discussed for several years, and the current proposals date back to 2010. The proposals raise major concerns, which is why the Transport Committee has paid close attention to them. We published our first report in 2011 and followed it up in 2012, and we are raising the issue again here today.

In 2010, there were 18 centres spread around the UK coastline, of which the Government proposed to close 10. Their work was to be taken over by the two new 24-hour maritime operations centres in Aberdeen and the Solent area. Five co-ordination centres would remain open during daylight hours only. Under those plans, the number of coastguards would fall from 596 to 370 by 2014, a reduction of 38%.

The main rationale for the changes was the claim that individual co-ordination centres were largely independent of each other and that, as a result, the system as a whole lacked resilience. If a centre was affected by a power cut or overwhelmed by work, we were told, other coastguard stations could do little to help. The proposed maritime operations centre would be able to deal with incidents all around the country and would be able to allocate work to remaining co-ordination centres to iron out peaks and troughs in work load.

The proposals unleashed a storm of protest. There was alarm about the potential loss of crucial local knowledge, particularly in parts of Wales and Scotland where local landmarks can have more than one name in different languages. Local knowledge includes awareness of place names, dialects, tides and currents, geography and the volunteer rescuers available in the area for which the coastguard is responsible. Claims that such local knowledge could be replaced by technology were met with incredulity.

There was alarm, too, about the concept of daylight-only coastguard stations. Would it really be safe to hand over co-ordination of a major incident to new staff, perhaps hundreds of miles away, because it was time to finish work for the day and nightfall had come? Redundancy plans unsettled staff, as did talk of redefining roles, grades and terms and conditions. Many coastguards faced a choice between accepting a new role at a new maritime operations centre in a different location or leaving the service.

In our original 2011 inquiry, we visited coastguards in Falmouth, the Clyde and Stornoway and spoke to coastguards from many other co-ordination centres. We shared many of their concerns about the original plans. In particular, we asked the Government to reconsider introducing daylight-only co-ordination centres, because of the difficulty of handing over rescues. We also highlighted concerns about the loss of local knowledge and the limitations of technological alternatives. I will return to that issue shortly.

The Government published a revised plan in July 2011, which took account of some of our concerns. That plan is now being implemented, but disquiet remains. There will be one maritime operations centre in Fareham, backed up by a co-ordination centre in Dover and eight other co-ordination centres. Eight centres will close; Clyde, Yarmouth and Forth have already shut down. The remaining centres will be open around the clock. The Government have abandoned the concept of daylight-only centres, and I welcome their change of mind.

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

The hon. Lady is making a good speech, highlighting the Government’s indecisive “suck it and see, make it up as you go along” approach to maritime coastguard stations in 2011. The same thing is happening to the emergency towing vessels. In the report’s conclusion, the Transport Committee asks the Government to explain how an emergency towing vessel stationed in the Northern Isles can serve the west coast effectively. Is that not a mirror image of what the hon. Lady outlined in respect of the coastguard stations?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He highlights a crucial issue causing major concerns that have not yet been resolved.

To return to coastguards and co-ordination centres, under the revised proposals, the number of professional coastguards will fall to 436. The new maritime operations centre was due to be operational by April 2014. That has now been delayed until September 2014. Co-ordination centres at Solent, Portland, Brixham, Liverpool, Swansea and Thames are due to close after that.

We published a second report on the revised proposals in December 2012, and we continue to receive deeply disturbing information from coastguards about staffing and morale in the service. It is to those issues that I now turn. The Committee accepted that there is a case for a national maritime operations centre to manage particularly large or difficult incidents, which could overwhelm an individual co-ordination centre or two centres working together. However, we remain unclear about what coastguards at the national centre would do at times when such an emergency was not taking place. Coastguards giving evidence to us said that they had no idea how the new maritime operations centre and the co-ordination centres would work together.

In their reply to our report, the Government spelled out in more detail what they saw as the main responsibilities of the maritime operations centre, particularly in co-ordinating the work of coastguards across the country. The recent agreement on the roles and responsibilities of coastguards under the new system might also bring greater clarity in this area. Will the Minister explain how the new system will work—not just during a major incident, but at quieter times?

We heard strong criticism of the decision to close three maritime resource co-ordination centres before the new system is in place. For example, Shetland coastguards explained that they had to use their own time to gain local knowledge of parts of the northern Scotland coastline for which they would be responsible after the closure of the Forth station. There have been continuing concerns that some co-ordination centres are now severely overstretched.

We were told in March this year that, already, staffing at Belfast co-ordination centre had been below the risk-assessed staffing level on 124 occasions out of 158 shifts. At the same time, Yarmouth co-ordination centre, which has since closed, was moved to daylight-only operations because of staff shortages. It is testament to the professionalism of the service that the closures have been accommodated without major incident.

It was widely believed that ministerial statements and Maritime and Coastguard Agency documents had given a commitment that the maritime rescue co-ordination centres would not be closed until the new system was put in place. This was denied, but the language used by the Minister’s predecessor in the House and some of the documents published by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency back in 2011 were at best ambiguous.

One key area of the dispute is the importance of local knowledge. Coastguards emphasise its importance in their work, and they are tested on their local situational knowledge. Knowing that a particular rock or headland has three names in two languages can help to ensure that assistance reaches people in distress as quickly as possible. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency discounted its significance, considering that local knowledge could be stored electronically, so that it could be used by any coastguard based anywhere. Indeed, when we heard evidence from the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, he seemed to disregard the importance of critical local knowledge, which is about geography, tides and currents, language and dialect, and the availability of additional volunteer sources for rescue in the area concerned.

Coastguards remain concerned about the issue. They challenge whether the knowledge built up over many years by experienced coastguards working in their areas can be replaced by databases. Coastguards taking on new areas of responsibility will still be assessed on their understanding of local factors, although it is hard to see how this will apply to the coastguards in the new marine operations centre. Perhaps the Minister will explain what importance he attaches to coastguards having local knowledge and how it will work under the new system and be tested.

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

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend—I sense that she might be concluding. Her Committee has obviously done another thorough job in monitoring the good work of the shipping Minister and his officials under her excellent leadership, but can she give us a sense of what progress she thinks has been made compared with where we were last year and the year before? Is her Committee more worried about the situation? Is there the same level of anxiety, or is she more reassured because of what she has heard in the various examinations that her Committee has undertaken?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and for the excellent work that he did in a previous capacity. It is good to hear from him. I remain concerned about the situation. There is now more clarity about what exactly is going to happen, but major questions remain. That is why I am pursuing them today. I hope the Minister will be able to give reassuring answers.

Staffing and morale were both raised with the Committee as significant problems. We heard concerns about the level of vacancies in the service, the proportion of coastguards on fixed-term contracts and the loss of experienced staff. The coastguard service’s vacancy rate doubled between December 2010 and November 2012, when it stood at 13.8%. In other words, nearly one in seven posts in the service was vacant. Can the Minister tell us what the current vacancy rate is?

Going back to my hon. Friend’s comments, I continue to receive representations from coastguards. These include allegations of stress caused by understaffing, lack of leave and unreliable communications equipment. The high level of vacancies puts strain on coastguards, who must work harder to fill the gaps. What assessment has the Minister made of the high level of vacancies? Has sickness absence increased? Does the Department even monitor coastguards’ morale? What actions are management taking to help staff get through what is obviously a difficult and unsettling period of change?

Low morale and disillusionment with management were reflected in all the evidence the Committee received from coastguards. We have received further correspondence that reinforces that since our report was published. For example, we were told that the new contract offered to the coastguard

“increases the number of days worked, reduces the number of days off, reduces the annual hours leave, reduces the opportunity for leave, and reduces the pay by regrading the majority of the older staff to a lower level of pay, capping the shift allowance at a low rate and removing allowances for shoes and telephone line rental—all in all, these changes are unworkable to existing staff and are surely a case for constructive dismissal”.

We have also heard complaints from volunteer coastguards about the operation of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Again, long-standing volunteer coastguards feel that they are no longer valued and are subsequently leaving the service. I have received representations from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (John Woodcock) that nine out of 13 volunteer staff at the Walney coastguard have resigned, claiming they have been bullied by MCA staff. Will there be an independent investigation into that? It is clearly a matter of grave concern.

Our report concluded that the loss of experienced coastguards was one of the most significant risks to the successful implementation of the Government’s modernisation programme. Everything we have heard since has confirmed that view. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency now has to manage another round of MRCC closures and find sufficient qualified staff to fill positions in the new maritime operations centre. This is a major challenge. Many experienced coastguards may prefer to leave the service than move to Fareham to take on new roles. Will the Minister tell us when recruitment of MOC staff will begin and what mix of skill and experience he will want staff working there to have? What assistance will be available to coastguards who wish to relocate to Fareham?

The coastguard reform programme will have been stretched over five years when it finally comes to an end in 2015. That is five years of uncertainty and worry for coastguards about their jobs, pay, and terms and conditions. My concern is that by the time the new system is operational, many experienced coastguards will have left, weakening an essential emergency service. I hope that the Minister can demonstrate today that he is actively trying to ensure that that does not happen.

The coastguard service is about saving lives. It is staffed by dedicated people. It deserves the unequivocal support of the Minister and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. I hope the Minister can assure us today that he is committed to securing the confidence of those who work in this essential service, so that the public’s safety can continue to be protected.

13:47

[Dr Thérèse Coffey (Suffolk Coastal) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). She knows that I grew up in Liverpool. I lived in Formby for a while, so I am familiar with Blundellsands, where the Liverpool station is based.

There is no specific co-ordination centre in my constituency, but the stations of Yarmouth and Thames both serve the Suffolk coast, stretching from Felixstowe up to beyond Southwold. However, I have excellent volunteer coastguards. I have met the Lowestoft and Southwold branch several times and I follow them on Twitter. They are very informative and they work closely with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Such brave volunteers deserve our praise and thanks for the difficult job that they do so willingly.

When the issue erupted, thanks to the Government’s proposals early on in the Parliament, MPs learned a lot about how such an important service works. Admittedly, it took a lot of explaining to understand it, but I am one of the MPs who, having learnt more about it and having made representations about aspects of concern in parts of the country, ended up supporting the revised changes that the Government came up with.

Sadly, even now, it seems that we have not been able to communicate exactly how the coastguard service works and the fact that the people who make the rescues locally are the volunteers—the people of the community—who have local knowledge, as opposed to the people in the centres, who of course use their local knowledge and other skills to deploy the right resources accordingly. When I learned that fact, it gave me more confidence. When I learned about the extra training that was to be given and the extra equipment that was to be provided, that gave me even more confidence that we were doing a lot more to support our volunteer coastguard rescue officers on the front line. And thus it has proved. I am confident in their abilities. I have met them at Southwold on various occasions. I did not meet them when they had been called into action, most notably earlier in the summer when they worked closely with the RNLI to rescue more than 50 people off the coast at Southwold, but they continue to have my full support.

I want to pick up a few specific points raised by the hon. Lady in her report, and to say more about local understanding and resilience. I understand that several people have transferred from the Yarmouth station to the Humber station, so the Government policy of keeping one of two pairing centres open, and encouraging and helping staff to move if they so wish, certainly appears to have happened in our case. That is useful because it not only keeps those people in employment, but builds greater knowledge about the wider area that the centres cover.

To step back and wear a non-constituency hat, there is a lot to be said for trying to increase the resilience of our national network of information, because it does not take much—someone being off ill or whatever—for there suddenly to be gaps in knowledge. That is not unique, dare I say it, to the coastguard system, but it is one reason why many of our emergency services, such as the NHS or the police, put as much information as possible into a common format or database that other people can draw on. That does not mean that people never speak to each other, but it is deliberately done to make services more resilient.

Will you allow me to stray slightly to illustrate the point, Mr Rosindell? An extreme example is that the Care Quality Commission often picks up issues about people relying on information being passed verbally in hospitals, instead of their documenting it to provide extra safety for the patient. That is a real parallel to the coastguard service. We should not get too hung up about local knowledge: of course it is important, but people do not need to know every metre or yard of the coastline to be aware of the key problems in a given area. The areas off Southwold and near Felixstowe ferry have particularly difficult currents, but that kind of knowledge should be assimilated by a broader range of people, so that we are not reliant on a relatively small group of coastguard co-ordinating officers in our Yarmouth and Thames centres.

I am reassured by the important point made by the Select Committee’s recommendation in paragraph 27, that

“any work to develop and foster local knowledge should be organised by…management, properly scheduled, and remunerated, not left to coastguards to organise themselves when they are off duty.”

I fully agree that we have to build up such knowledge. I am also reassured by paragraph 36 of the Government response, which mentions exercises, full pairing days, visits for staff, and visits and briefings as part of working with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Those are important parts of on-the-job training, and the Select Committee makes the very fair point that people should not be expected to pick up such knowledge by themselves or by chance.

Of course, the test will come with the big incident that, thank God, has not happened yet—we hope it never does—and I appreciate people’s concerns about wanting resources to be deployed as quickly as possible in such an incident. I am confident that more such centralisation, with a wider network of centres, but without going from the former situation to having only two centres open 24/7, will provide the kind of resilience in which people can have trust. It will also build knowledge to ensure that people are safe 24/7, not just when a coastguard co-ordinating centre happens to be open. I am pleased to have been able to review the report.

13:54

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Rosindell. I congratulate the Transport Committee on its report and on paying close attention to so important an issue, as well as on securing this debate. I join the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), in paying tribute to both professional and volunteer coastguards—the professional rescue services and the volunteer lifeboat crews, who devote a huge amount of time to rescuing people from the waters around our coasts.

The Scottish Affairs Committee, of which I am a member, has investigated the implications of the changes for the coastguard service in Scottish waters. The Forth and Clyde coastguard stations were the first to close, with their functions being transferred to Aberdeen, Belfast and Stornoway. During its inquiry, the Scottish Affairs Committee found that the Government had clearly failed to carry public opinion with them on changes to the coastguard service, and recommended that the Government

“do more to provide reassurance to seafarers who may need to contact the coastguard in an emergency.”

The lack of public confidence in the changes has not been helped by the fact that Belfast, Stornoway and Aberdeen have consistently been understaffed since the closure of the Forth and Clyde stations. In response to a question from the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), the Minister placed in the Library a table showing the number of coastguard watches that were staffed below risk levels during the year from May 2012 to May 2013. The table makes uncomfortable reading, particularly in relation to Belfast. From December 2012, when the Clyde station closed, to May 2013, Belfast was staffed below the risk assessed level 71% of the time, which is extremely worrying. During the same period, its partner station, Stornoway, was understaffed 17% of the time. The table does not tell us how often Belfast and Stornoway were both understaffed at the same time, but the figures show that that must inevitably have happened on several occasions.

For the east coast, the figures are slightly better, but they are still worrying. From the closure of the Forth station in September 2012 to May 2013, Aberdeen was understaffed 52% of the time. The only bright note is that its partner station at Shetland was hardly ever understaffed.

[Mr MacNeil]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting those figures, which are in the Library. The conclusion that I draw from them is that confidence in Maritime and Coastguard Agency management is not what it should be. I lack confidence in it, as I think do people in my community, due to the very figures that he mentions.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the community does not have confidence in the new system. The seafaring community was very nervous about the closure of the Clyde station, particularly because of the loss of local knowledge. When figures show that Belfast, which has become responsible for most of the Clyde area, was understaffed 71% of the time during the six months following the closure of the Clyde station, that clearly increases the seafaring community’s lack of confidence. I hope that the Government will address that point.

More positively, I am not aware of any incidents since the closure of the Forth or Clyde stations in which understaffing at coastguard co-ordination centres has caused a problem in responding to incidents. That is a tribute to the professionalism of the coastguard staff, but we cannot be complacent. As my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey) said, the system will be put to the test when there is a major incident. We all hope that there will not be one, but one will inevitably happen at some point, and that will test the system. I hope that the co-ordination centres are all fully staffed before that happens. The Government have undertaken recruitment programmes, and I hope that the Minister will report that they have been successful and that understaffed watches are a thing of the past.

Concern about the loss of local knowledge was one of the main reasons why seafarers were not convinced about the reorganisation of the coastguard. I hope that both new recruits and existing staff now covering a different area will have been trained and tested on their knowledge of the area for which they are responsible. I hope that the Minister will reassure the House on that.

I am pleased that the Government have listened to the concerns that were expressed and have arranged for two emergency towing vessels to be available in Scottish waters. However, there is concern on the west coast that both vessels are based in the northern isles, and that one is no longer based in Stornoway. I note from the Government’s response that in moderate sea conditions it will take approximately eight to nine hours for an emergency towing vessel to arrive at a position between North Minch and the Little Minch and, in heavier weather when an incident is more likely to occur, it will take about 11 to 12 hours. It will take even longer for the emergency towing vessel to get to the southern Hebrides in my constituency. I hope the Government will have another think about basing an emergency towing vessel in Stornoway and bear in mind the extreme environmental damage that an oil spill would cause. They should compare the costs of a clean-up with the costs of an emergency towing vessel based in Stornoway. After all, prevention is better than cure.

[Mr MacNeil]

Iceland, which has suffered major financial trauma in the past five years, has actually gone in the opposite direction from that taken by the UK Government in northern and western Scotland. Does the hon. Gentleman not feel that a huge error has been made here and that the calculation that should be done is the ongoing cost versus the cost of any incident that could occur? I have a terrible feeling that the Government are spoiling the ship for a ha’p’orth of tar and that we really should have that emergency towing vessel in Stornoway now.

[Mr Reid]

As I have said, prevention is definitely better than cure. It is important to stress that there are two emergency towing vessels in Scottish waters—the same number as there were before—so the Government clearly listened to the concerns that many of us expressed. None the less, the hon. Gentleman makes the important point that one of the vessels should be based in Stornoway to cover the west coast.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman says that there are two vessels, but it is their location and what they are actually doing that is the problem.

[Mr Reid]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is not the number of vessels that is the problem but the location. There is no vessel based in Stornoway to cover the west coast, and I hope that the Government will take that on board.

I also note that funding for the emergency towing vessels is only guaranteed until the end of the current spending review period in 2015, which is not far off, so I hope that the funding will be guaranteed on a permanent basis. The seas around the west coast and islands provide the basis for much of the local economic activity. Preserving lives and the environment is vital, as is reassuring seafarers that rescue will come quickly if they get into difficulties. Our coastguards, both professional and volunteer, and the professional rescue services and volunteer lifeboat crews do a tremendous job. They deserve to be backed up by a properly resourced system of co-ordination and emergency vessels. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us some assurances on the issues that I have raised today.

14:02

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for missing the start of the debate. Unfortunately, I had an unbreakable commitment, but I have read the excellent report and congratulate the Committee on its follow-up. I have three issues to raise. First, it remains a matter of profound regret in my constituency that the Brixham maritime rescue co-ordination centre will close. I pay tribute to the staff at the centre and to the dignified way in which they are assisting in the handover period. Listening to the accounts of staff, I hope that the Minister will pay particular attention to ensuring that we retain their valuable skills and support those who are able to continue within the service, so that we do not lose their local knowledge. I take the point, however, that the efforts that are being made to transfer some of that local knowledge into detailed databases will be helpful.

Secondly, much local knowledge is vested in the volunteer coastguards. Will the Minister look at a particular area in my constituency around Hope Cove? We have a Hope Cove rescue boat and a cliff rescue team, which is staffed by volunteer coastguards. Unfortunately, there has been an attitude of extreme intransigence on the part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the matter of dual manning. I represent a rural constituency and we are fortunate to have volunteers who are prepared to undertake dual manning. There has never been an issue over that. Unfortunately, volunteers are being pressured into a situation where they have to choose between one or other of the operations, and there simply is not the availability of staff in the area reliably to man both as completely separate teams.

Ian Pedrick, who heads up a team, is the third generation in this community that has manned the Hope Cove lifeboat. If pressed, the entire team would opt to stay with the Hope Cove rescue boat because there is such a long tradition within our community and it is such a highly valued resource. Will the Minister look at the matter and try to break the deadlock, so that we can continue an arrangement that has served our community well over generations?

The third issue is emergency towing vehicles. There are concerns in my constituency that we may find that there are no vessels capable of carrying out the duties of ETVs closer than Brest or Cherbourg. Evidence for that is supplied by the MCA head of pollution control. Both vessels are many hours away. They are under the control of the French Government and might be available if the French are not using them. It should be noted that the French are particularly unhappy about the UK’s unilateral withdrawal of ETV cover, as it has left their coastline also relatively unprotected. I do not need to spell out to the Minister the disastrous consequences if we had a spillage in the channel, which is a busy shipping area. The impact would be felt not only by our valued fishing industry but by our tourism industry. Will the Minister tell us exactly what facilities would be available on a commercial basis, and what assessment has been made of their reliability to provide the reassurance that my constituents seek should there be a shipping disaster in the future? Let me close now by paying tribute to our local coastguards for everything they do on our behalf.

14:07

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

It is a great pleasure and privilege, Mr Rosindell, to serve under your chairmanship and to speak for the first time as the Front-Bench spokesman with responsibility for this area. Like others, I pay tribute to the work of the coastguards. Both the regulars and the volunteers do a fantastic job, as do the other sea rescue agencies that they work with.

I am conscious of the fact that this area is both complex and difficult and one to which I am new. Having served as a Parliamentary Private Secretary in a range of Government Departments and sat on two Select Committees, I know that there are no easy answers, either political or administrative, in such issues. However, the business of Government can be improved by three things: evidence-driven policy, wide consultation with stakeholders and using Select Committees as a critical spur to challenge too many paper or computer-driven scenarios.

Evidence-driven policy has often been lacking, as the Select Committee discovered after much prodding and probing over the past two years. The deficiencies in the process are clear. As the Select Committee pointed out, there was no thorough public consultation and the original proposals were deeply flawed. To their credit, the Government responded to those points, but it is concerning none the less that, even at this stage, the Select Committee, two years on from the original proposal, still has some specific concerns about the direction of responsibility.

There are big issues around greater local interoperability and they seem to have been ignored or ducked. In many cases, the Government seem to have put the cart before the horse, closing MRCCs before the maritime operations centre is fully operative, and there are widespread woes, as we have already heard this afternoon, that local knowledge is being spurned and not transferred.

We know that the day-today co-operation between MOC and the centres is soon to be replaced by the coastguard operation centres. The Government say that coastguard officers will be trained more broadly and extensively, making them more flexible. We have already heard about how local knowledge can be shared between local coastguards. However, I have a question, which echoes what the Chair of the Transport Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), said—how can local knowledge be shared when so little time has been allowed for handover between the closing of MRCCs and the neighbouring centres? Also, how will staff in the MOC gain this information for all their areas? I understand that on one occasion the Department for Transport spokesperson said that they could use social media, but the Minister must be aware that there are very strict conventions within the maritime service about how social media are used, so perhaps he would like to examine that issue or comment on it.

The Government have also said that the MOC will oversee a range of services, including search and rescue, but do more resources need to be put aside for it also to manage the introduction of a newly privatised search and rescue service and to have the capacity to adapt to the longer term search and rescue solution? I ask the Minister, specifically, what confidence he has that Dover, as a back-up to the Fareham-based MOC, will be far enough away from Fareham to provide an effective back-up, so that a serious event could not result in both centres being incapacitated at the same time?

At the close of the second consultation, at the end of November 2011, the then Minister—the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning)—admitted that concerns had already been expressed about having both an unmanned centre and back-up in the south, when they should perhaps be more geographically separated.

Of course, there are also wider issues of collaboration here. If the Government boast that this change is a thorough overhaul of the service, why has there been no broader assessment at any stage of the relationship between the coastguard and the MOC, and the other traditional rescue services—the beach patrols and lifeguards that local councils run, the fire and rescue services, and crucially the relationship with the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, which is not only about central administration but local volunteers?

Recently, I have put a couple of written questions to the Minister on that issue. I will just quote from the reply to one of them:

“The RNLI, like coastguard rescue teams, independent lifeboats, rescue helicopters and other rescue facilities, are not affected by these changes.”—[Official Report, 15 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 661W.]

I submit that if anyone ever wanted to see an example of silo mentality in a Department, there it is. I invite the Minister to comment on why I received that written response.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to state whether he believes an emergency towing vessel should be based in Stornoway? Indeed, will he commit to such a vessel being based in Stornoway in the future?

[Mr Marsden]

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He and his colleague, the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), have already raised that issue and I will return to it later in my speech.

How do the Government expect fire and rescue services in particular to develop proposals for an at-sea presence without direct central funding, at a time when local budgets are more stretched than ever? I know that there is, of course, a piecemeal arrangement along the south coast, but so far as I am aware that does not extend elsewhere.

In response to the Select Committee, the Minister has produced positive scenarios about the interaction of MOC staff and MRCC staff, but the Committee has rightly pressed the Government on major incident scenarios. If we look at the Government response, we see that page 7 contains a list of actions that superficially seem impressive. I came to this brief from looking at further education funding. In that sector too, there are wonderful diagrams about the process of money and the process of communication, and I am sure that if the Minister got his officials to produce a complicated diagram of the various steps that are listed on page 7 it would be even more impressive. But the crucial question is how long it would take the complex chain of command detailed on page 7 to operate and respond. That will be the determination of how effective the MOC is, and raising that issue underlines the continued concerns and disquiet that members of the Committee and other hon. Members have expressed today about emergency vessels.

I turn now to the issue of staffing, because that has already been talked about in considerable detail. The demographic profile of coastguards is highly skewed towards older employees. The Minister’s own figures, from the Government response to the Committee, show that, for example, in Falmouth 14 of the 33 coastguards are over the age of 50 and in Humber 16 of the 27 coastguards are over 50. So those valued employees will probably be leaving the service during the next five to 10 years and taking their experience with them, at the same time as there is major upheaval in coastguard operations. In addition, there is currently a growing loss of valuable expertise in the service. For example, only one of the London coastguards has more than 20 years of experience. Therefore, the emerging picture is that no replacement generation of coastguards is coming through with the extensive service that is needed both to replace those who will soon leave and to oversee the introduction of the new system.

In 2011, the Government proposals estimated a total reduction in staffing numbers from 596 to 370, with coastguard numbers falling from 491 to 248. Therefore, there will be an increasing reliance on volunteers, with the number required rising from 80 to 105. We have already heard today about some of the problems with volunteers, so could the Minister give more up-to-date figures on the assessment of job losses as a result of this reorganisation?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I think that the hon. Gentleman is really confused at this point. There are no volunteers being used in the co-ordination centres, and the centres are what those figures were referring to. So he might just want to gently correct the record on that point.

[Mr Marsden]

I will correct the record as and when I have examined the details of what the Minister has said, and if it needs to be corrected.

Does the Minister accept, therefore, that frequent reports of low morale in the service are exacerbated by the Government’s inability to provide a clear picture of coastguards’ future? It seems to me that the closures at Forth and Clyde, what has been said in that area and the admirable work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) on the numbers involved have produced some really rather concerning statistics. The Public and Commercial Services Union has said that not only are 15% of all operational coastguard posts vacant but of the 416 posts that are filled 24% of them are filled by officers on fixed-term appointments; I gather that those are Maritime and Coastguard Agency statistics from 2012. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside, the Chair of the Select Committee, has already given the details showing the disillusionment and resignation among volunteer coastguards.

The Government have failed to offer a clear or finite timetable to coastguards, and they have explained that that was due to the assessment of ongoing operations and the success of transition. How that assessment would be made has never been made very clear. We have heard about the problems at Yarmouth, with it being designated as a daylight-only centre, and we have also heard about the changes in the closing dates for Solent, Portland and Brixham. These problems and changes breed confusion and can also lower morale. So can the Minister say what the current timetable is for the remaining closures at Liverpool, Swansea and Thames in 2014-15, and can he also say if that timetable is likely to change given that the original timetable for those closures was produced in 2011?

As I say, the Select Committee’s report talks quite a lot about local knowledge, but of course what has been very apparent in this whole process—my hon. Friend, the Chair of the Committee, has already referred to this—is the continuing concern, which has been expressed again today by hon. Members, both about those centres that have closed and those that are expected to close.

I will just touch on two or three of those centres. The closure of the Yarmouth centre is not just an example of local jobs and a proud tradition being lost; there are also some very specific local issues along that coastline. I know that they have been considerably aired in the local media, including the transfer of oil from one tanker to another along the coast from Lowestoft and Southwold. There have been issues about co-ordination, which have been exacerbated by the removal of the Yarmouth centre. There has been a particular incident at Caister in the recent past and the Caister lifeboat centre has expressed its concerns. My colleague in the European Parliament, Richard Howitt, said that the decision on Yarmouth could lead to a disaster.

[Dr Coffey]

rose—

[Mr Marsden]

I am just about to come on to what the hon. Lady said earlier. She told us that several people had transferred from Yarmouth to Humber, but of course what she did not tell us was how many people had not done so.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman just needs to be careful about that case, because I think it is still being investigated. I appreciate that Mr Howitt said what he did, but the risk is that when the full details come out he will understand that the process happened exactly as it should have done.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not making any particular comment on what the final incident report might be in that respect; I am merely reporting to her, as I am sure she is already aware, the concerns that were expressed by the Caister lifeboat crew.

There are also issues regarding the Clyde and Forth closures, which have been already referred to, including the fact that those services are now being operated out of Belfast. In my own neck of the woods, in Blackpool, we are concerned about the closure of the Liverpool centre. There is significant concern about all its work being done out of Holyhead. Mr Ken Harcombe, from the National Coastwatch Institution’s Rossall point observatory, just outside my constituency, said:

“Our concern would be if there was any delay dealing with someone 300 miles away, that could cost lives.”

We are keen to maintain some local community with Liverpool.

Blackpool attracts some 10 million visitors a year. We have a lot of problems with sea tragedies and, if such problems are exacerbated, that will make things far worse, not just in Blackpool, but along the whole coast. That is why the coroner for the area has expressed her concerns in the past and why the Blackpool annual patrol report for 2011 stated:

“The impending closure of Liverpool Coastguard Rescue Co-ordination Centre, is anticipated to have a significant effect on beach/sea safety at Blackpool.”

Before I leave local issues, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Martin Caton), who is unable to be with us today, tells me that in Swansea there remains considerable concern about the decision to close the centre there. There was a huge cross-party campaign against the closure. Questions still remain about why Milford Haven was chosen as the site, as opposed to Swansea.

We have heard about the situation regarding emergency towing vehicles in Scotland. What lessons have the Government learned from the experiences there about the need to maintain a Government-backed ETV in the interests of ensuring safety and protection from maritime pollution? I am not in a position to say what the extent of that provision should be, but surely in this situation we should consider those things. What is the state of the procurement process, to find emergency towing vehicles support in Scottish waters? What are the long-term plans to ensure the stable, reliable provision of ETV support in the rest of the UK’s waters?

The Government did not explain, in their response to the Select Committee’s critical question, how the ETV in the northern isles would effectively serve the west coast. We have heard concerns about that this afternoon.

[Mr Reid]

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting these concerns. He speaks as the Labour party spokesperson, so perhaps he will tell us whether the Labour party would, if it won the next election, propose to have an ETV on the west coast?

[Mr Marsden]

That is a nice try, but the hon. Gentleman knows that we cannot make commitments to future funding until we have seen the books, after the next election. He also knows that the first step in making decisions in this area is to do a proper analysis, which the Government have failed to do.

When the Government responded, initially—

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman explain the difference between his position and the Government’s? He seems to be talking about investigations tomorrow. There is no firm commitment whatever to looking into the real, pressing need, as identified in the Select Committee report. It is fluff we are hearing from the hon. Gentleman.

[Mr Marsden]

I regret to say that the hon. Gentleman would do better to stick up for his constituents, rather than play party political games. He knows perfectly well that the real issue is whether there will be support in the short term, and that is an issue for the UK Government, so perhaps he will turn his attention to that in future, rather than play political games.

[Mr MacNeil]

What is the difference?

[Mr Marsden]

I am not taking another intervention from the hon. Gentleman.

There was an airy response from the Department in October 2010, when it announced why the process would proceed as set out. It said:

“ship salvage should be a commercial matter between a ship’s operator and a salvor.”

In my view, that shows that the Government do not get it. What about the pollution issues, in respect of which ETVs have been proposed as a solution?

We were told in the original assessment that the removal of a commitment to ETVs would save £32.5 million over the spending review period, but, for example, we heard the hon. Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) mention her concerns about the length of time it might take for an ETV from the south coast to come and deal with an incident in her area. I have already talked about the problems and deep concerns on the east coast about tanker-to-tanker oil transfers. If a major pollution incident were to take place, how much of that alleged £32.5 million saving would be swallowed up in cleaning costs? This decision is based on an assumption that the private sector would pick up the tab. However, outside Scotland, where, I gather, specific commitments have been made recently, there is no evidence that it will do so. The Transport Committee was right to label this, in June 2011, as potentially a dangerous situation.

The Government’s response to this issue over the past two years has been a curious mix of detailed response to the Select Committee’s excellent report and prodding, and dangerous complacency. It is quite clear that, throughout the process, emotional intelligence and a sense of the need for co-operation from the work force has been severely lacking.

The end of the Department’s most recent response to the Committee’s report slipped back into a Maoist view of permanent revolution, which will do little to assuage the concerns of coastguards and coastal communities, about services that liaise with the general public. The Department dismissed the comments about the future, saying, “You can’t make decisions for a generation.” Of course, no Government can guarantee no further change, but it is important to respond in a considered, thoughtful way to a Select Committee report, rather than arrogantly.

Generations are normally considered as periods of 30 years. Earlier this year, I attended a moving unveiling ceremony in Blackpool on the 30th anniversary of three police officers losing their lives in a sea incident. That brought home to me the need for all emergency coastal services, whether voluntary or statutory, to co-operate and collaborate. That is what we should be looking for out of this process—as well as answers to the detailed questions that the Transport Committee has still to receive.

14:29

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I welcome the report and this debate, and the opportunity to update the House on some of the many developments in the modernisation of the coastguard, in the approach to emergency towing vessels and in the way fires at sea are now handled.

Let me start, as the Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), rightly did—and as almost every other hon. Member who contributed to the debate did—by praising the coastguard on its excellent work, including an outstanding summer of hard work that has seen our shores remain so safe.

The Government welcome the interest of, and the close scrutiny and challenge from, the Transport Committee over the past three years. The Committee Chair knows that we have not agreed with all the Committee’s conclusions and recommendations, yet there are a number of legitimate, important matters to discuss. In my response, I hope to tackle the four or five major points on which she challenged the Government.

I state at the outset—I have said this to the Scottish Affairs Committee and, twice, to the Transport Committee in respect of maritime matters—and reassure hon. Members that the Government will do nothing to endanger safety and they are not complacent.

The Transport Committee’s primary area of interest is the modernisation of the coastguard, which is of great interest to a number of hon. Members, not least because, as an island nation, more than 200 parliamentary constituencies have a coastline. There are more than 200 million individual visits to the coast each year and no one in the country is more than 72 miles from the sea. Even many hon. Members with inland constituencies have rightly shown an interest in this matter.

Before I address a number of the concerns raised by hon. Members today, it is important to put the proposals for change back into context and to explain why they were introduced in December 2010. At times, people have confused what the report is about; it is about the co-ordination of maritime search and rescue, not about the front line.

The proposals do not affect front-line services operated by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and independent lifeboats, nor do they affect the ability of search and rescue helicopters to perform their task, for which, of course, there is now greater investment. The proposals also do not affect mud and cliff rescue services provided by volunteers and the coastguard rescue service. I have reiterated this before, but there is no impact on safety or on those services.

[Mr Marsden]

I thank the Minister for clarifying, but does he not accept that there is a difference between the specific effects of the proposals? He is absolutely right to say that what is happening in the coastguard does not formally affect the RNLI or the various other services he mentions, but surely he would accept that, for good reasons or otherwise, when the area of coverage is widened, as under the proposals, there are implications for how the service is co-ordinated. The Department should be considering better ways—there are always better ways—of co-ordinating with the other services.

[Stephen Hammond]

As I have contested both before the Select Committee and in other debates, the impact will be that the co-ordination of the affected services will improve. The services will be more resilient and safety will increase. That is key, and we must ensure that we do not lose sight of it at the outset of this debate.

Historically, in the 1970s we had a coastguard co-ordination system fit for the 1970s. In 2010, however, that co-ordination system had not moved on. The system was still right for the 1970s, but it was certainly not appropriate for the 21st century. The fact that we had done so well was due to the excellent work of the superb men and women in the service.

The case for change was that it had become clear that the technical and physical infrastructure in place in 2010 had not kept pace with the maritime operating environment. The service was geared up for its role of dealing with localised, and only localised, maritime search and rescue, and to many extents it did that well. But since the last major reconfiguration of the coastguard in the late 1970s, when it was recognised that there was no longer a need to maintain a visual watch, the demands on officers operating the system, as it was pre-December 2010, had grown significantly.

Technology has clearly moved forward. As many hon. Members know, the introduction of the global distress and safety system in the 1990s changed how coastguards receive distress messages. The demise of the old coast radio stations led to coastguards taking on the role of broadcasting regular navigation warnings and maritime safety information. Coastguards were given new responsibilities for broadcasting information to the fishing community on submarine movements and military firing exercises. More recently, the world has acquired the ability to track ship movements and plot them in real time on electronic charts using the automatic identification system. All that has added to the marine picture available to coastguards.

The importance of maritime surveillance has increased the relevance of situational or maritime domain awareness, as it is known. That has added to the need for differing skills and growing responsibilities, so in 2010 we faced a significant disparity of work load among maritime rescue co-ordination centres. At the height of a busy summer season, some centres could find themselves dealing with multiple incidents and having to drop coastguard duties and broadcasts to focus, rightly, on life-or-death rescue situations.

Current technology has now allowed some pairing of resources between neighbouring centres to co-ordinate responses, but there is little capacity to provide support beyond that. Prior to 2010, if both centres in a pair found themselves busy, routine lower-priority work would be dropped so that, quite rightly, the immediate impact on safety was addressed. None the less, there was a significant gap in resilience. The case for a national, joined up approach that allows work to be better managed and distributed and exposes coastguards to the full range of work, thereby keeping their skills relevant and finely tuned, seemed clear in 2010.

Let us not be under any illusion: there was clear consensus across the House, which was highlighted during some of the consultation exercises, on the need to do something about coastguard pay, particularly at lower levels. Creating a national network, with the new national maritime operations centre at its heart, has put in place improved safety systems with fewer coastguards in fewer locations, but, importantly, it is helping to relocate the money to ensure that we have properly improved pay to reflect the increased responsibilities placed on coastguards in the new centres across the country. That is why it is right to propose the changes.

In her opening remarks, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside rightly said that there were concerns about the initial plans, and it is fair, as she rightly acknowledged, that the Government accepted those concerns and modified the plans. Following the Transport Committee’s report, changes were made and a second set of proposals were announced in July 2011. That set of proposals retained more centres, all operating on 24 hours and all with more coastguard operators.

Throughout the consultation process, there were considerable concerns about the loss of local knowledge, and several hon. Members have raised that point today. Concerns about the perceived loss of local knowledge are understandable. Over a number of years, the number of co-ordination centres has reduced from nearly 30, so the lack of local knowledge has been highlighted at every stage of the process.

As the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency and I explained to the Transport Committee, in the transitional phase, as the national network is being put in place, the MCA is ensuring that there is time for increasing coastguard familiarisation with their new areas. All coastguards in the new areas are being tested on their understanding of local rescue facilities, incident hotspots and communication systems. Equally, all coastguards will have access to, and will share, a common national system. We are also working with the Ordnance Survey on developing a database of vernacular place names, which will allow multiple names to be applied to any coastal feature or place, factoring in local as well as Gaelic and Welsh names.

[Mr Marsden]

I am pleased to hear what the Minister has said about the testing process, but is he in a position to elaborate slightly? How, specifically, will that work? If he is not in a position to elaborate, will he write to members of the Committee on that point?

[Stephen Hammond]

I do not need to write to members of the Select Committee about that because Sir Alan Massey, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, and I set out in some detail how those transitional arrangements will work. We set out the number of visits that each coastguard is expected to undertake and the time period for them to do so.

If the hon. Gentleman has the chance, I hope he will look at the evidence session, which I hope will reassure him. [Interruption.] If he is not happy with that, I will happily respond further, but I think he will find that our evidence sets out the arrangements.

[Mrs Ellman]

Will the Minister give us an absolute assurance that he is satisfied that there is an official programme to ensure that coastguards increase their familiarity with new areas? The issue arising in the evidence taken by the Select Committee is that coastguards are working on that in their spare time, rather than as an official part of business.

[Stephen Hammond]

I am aware that the Select Committee took some such evidence, but, equally, the chief executive of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency gave his assurance that time was being made available for coastguards to do that, so it need not be done in anyone’s spare time. He also said that local knowledge would be in place up to two months before any coastguard station closing.

We also discussed local knowledge in some depth when I was before the Scottish Affairs Committee, and I remember that one Committee member said—my hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) may also remember, if it was not his good self—that there were three places, all within a mile of each other, known by the same name, so that even the Member with his local knowledge could not be certain whether he directed people to the right place the first time.

Local knowledge is important—retaining it and having knowledge transfer—as is the new vernacular system. We must recognise, however, that at every stage local knowledge is only one part of what should be in place. With the new modern systems, it is incredibly important that we rely not only on local knowledge, but on modern mapping systems and vernacular place-name capture, which will undoubtedly be an improvement.

In November 2011, in response to the second debate, another set of decisions was announced, together with the timetable for the closures and for the transition to the national network. Since then, the MCA has managed the closures of Forth, Clyde and Great Yarmouth, the centres earmarked for closure ahead of establishing the new national Maritime Operations Centre—due to the building leasing arrangements for Clyde and Great Yarmouth, and to reflect the robustness of the existing technical infrastructure between Forth and the centre at Aberdeen.

Before each centre closed, the neighbouring centres increased familiarity with the new patch. Some officers transferred from the closing centres, and experts with local intelligence briefed officers in the receiving centres—a system known as pairing—so that local information was retained. A few weeks ahead of each closure, coastguards at the receiving centres took on full responsibility, while the closing centres went into shadow running mode. That gave everyone confidence that the systems would be and were working and that the receiving officers could manage the larger areas competently. I hope that the House will join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the coastguard officers involved in managing that process over the past 12 months, which has been a credit to those involved. The experience reaffirmed our belief that other closures can and will be managed safely and within the time set out, although we are not complacent.

To pick up some of the points made in the debate, I hope that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside heard my comments about local knowledge and, in particular, developments with Ordnance Survey. She also asked what MOC staff would be doing when not managing major incidents. They will of course be providing routine operational cover for areas of the UK coastline, so that there is even stronger and better resilience in coverage. That will include vessel traffic monitoring, safety information and maintaining an updated national risk picture.

There was some concern that coastguards had expressed the view that, overall, they would have to work longer hours. The new contract that has been agreed with the Public and Commercial Services Union increases the number of days, but reduces the number of nights. Therefore, staff will have more whole weekends off than under the current arrangements, while leave for existing staff remains as it has always been. I hope that the hon. Lady can accept my reassurance and see that we have taken on coastguards concerns.

We and the MCA in particular have made great progress in establishing the new national arrangements for infrastructure and technology. The new national MOC near Fareham is being equipped with the latest operational kit; it will be ready for training to start in January and for full operational running by next September. Acceptance checking of the refreshed emergency response systems is progressing well, and that will shortly allow the MCA to move into an extended period of operational testing.

A number of Members who have contributed today made the point, rightly, about the slower progress in settling the new package of terms and conditions for roles. That reflects the complications of agreeing a new package for coastguards, given the increased responsibilities, the commitment under the civil service reform plan to modernise the employment offer in the public sector and the consequent need for agreement. Without agreed terms and conditions, it would not be possible to start recruitment for the new roles and responsibilities.

The good news is that the MCA has agreed a new set of terms and conditions with the Treasury and a firm offer is on the table, which has the support of the PCS’s elected representatives in the MCA. I hope that the offer will be accepted. To be clear, the new jobs will have significantly increased responsibilities, which we have recognised with a significantly enhanced pay and grading structure. For example, the lowest entry level for coastguard officers is now one civil service grade higher, which means being paid 19% more than today. As I have said, there will be some revision of working patterns in the package, but the shift systems will match demand much better, according to the seasons and the time of day. Coastguards in all operational centres will therefore have a reduced number of night duties, with more full weekends off during a year. The offer also includes a commitment to at least 60 hours of continuous professional development each year.

Recruitment for the new roles will start in November, and that process has also been agreed with the PCS. I hope and expect that many existing coastguard officers will now opt to stay within the service and to apply for the new roles as they become available. Others may wish to leave, and we will support them if they wish to consider taking voluntary redundancy. In the interim, the coastguard service has been committed not to leave vacancies unfilled until the roles were agreed—there has been a continuing operation to recruit new officers. The MCA has now successfully recruited 59 new coastguards, providing some resilience. There was particular concern about the low number of shifts in places such as Belfast, but we have seen success in recruiting there, as well as in Falmouth, Solent and elsewhere. I am pleased that the recruitment process has continued and is continuing; a point was made about the recruitment of some new officers on fixed-term appointments, but, to be clear, such recruitment was explicitly agreed with the unions first, to avoid any perception of unfair competition for future jobs.

[Mr Marsden]

Notwithstanding the progress that the Minister has described in particular areas, which I will reflect on, does he accept that there is a systemic issue about the age profile and the number of people likely to retire in the next five to 10 years? The problem is not unique to the MCA, but will need further thought and addressing by it.

[Stephen Hammond]

The MCA has addressed that explicitly in the document. The ability to recruit new officers, particularly at the lower end, suffered because of the lack of a career path and opportunities. I hope the hon. Gentleman heard me say that we have agreed a new grading system with enhanced responsibilities and a clear career path, and that is reflected in a rise in civil service grading. I hope that that will make this a much more attractive and rewarding career to many people. I also hope that now that the new roles have been settled and there is an ongoing vacancy recruitment process, we will shortly be able to report a considerable reduction in the number of shifts below assessed risk level.

I turn to the implementation timetable, which we set out in November 2011. We now accept that some of it is no longer achievable because of the need to ensure a safe transition to the national system. We have made small but necessary and sensible adjustments to the planned closure dates. They have been communicated to staff and to search and rescue partners, and I have written to all hon. Members. The stations at Solent and Portland will close in September 2014 after the busy summer season, when the new NMO centre will be staffed and operational. The centre at Brixham will close in November 2014, followed by Liverpool in January 2015 and Swansea in March 2015. The final centre to close will be the Thames centre at Walton-on-the-Naze in June 2015. The full technical infrastructure for the new national, fully resilient system will be in place by the end of 2015.

Understandably, that final confirmation will disappoint several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston). Like her, I praise the coastguards at Brixham, but the new system will ensure safety round her shores. She raised a particular issue regarding Hope Cove and I understand that the MCA is working with the coastguards there to resolve that. I will ensure that my officials speak to the team at Hope Cove, and I will respond in writing to my hon. Friend to address her concern.

[Mr Reid]

I was pleased that the Minister announced the 59 extra staff. Does he have the figures to show how staffing at Belfast and Stornoway compares with what their establishment should be? If he does not have those figures, will he write to me?

[Stephen Hammond]

If the hon. Gentleman gives me a minute, I may be able to supply those figures. I can tell him what the current vacancy level is, but I will ensure that my officials give him the figures he asks for.

I turn to a couple of other points that the hon. Member for Blackpool South raised. He spoke about the volunteer arrangements and I intervened to make the point that they refer to volunteers on the front line and not to the co-ordination centres. I do not believe those arrangements need to change because they are excellent. The Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the other voluntary coastguard systems provide a magnificent service, and to suggest that we are trying to alter that in any way would cause much disquiet. I hope the hon. Gentleman agrees that they provide an excellent service.

The hon. Gentleman asked about handing over following the closure of MRCCs and I made a statement on that a moment ago. I reiterate that that has been done in a staged way with shadowing and a gradual handover. I hope he will be reassured that it was not a case of one station closing one day, and a new one opening the following morning. Far from it, there have been traditional pairing operations and the handovers have been based on those pairing operations. Indeed, there was significant time in-between to ensure that all the arrangements were in place.

I turn briefly to emergency towing vessels in Scotland, to which the hon. Member for Blackpool South (Mr Marsden) and the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, referred. The Government have undertaken the necessary analysis and assessment. We all accept that shipping is not risk-free, but the world has moved on considerably since the Government funded tugs. There have been improvements in technology, navigation and safety systems, with the advent of new ship routeing and reporting.

We continue to take the view that it is for the shipping industry to manage and to mitigate the risks that its activities present to the maritime environment and to make full use of the established arrangements for the provision of commercial towage and salvage. Those commercial arrangements are working well in some areas where the Government used to provide funded tugs, particularly in the south-west approaches and the Dover strait. Indeed, those commercial arrangements have now been the norm for almost two years, and have worked well.

The Government accept that there was an issue with the availability of commercial tugs in the waters off Scotland, which proved to be more problematic, so we gave a commitment to fund a single emergency tug based in Orkney. However, due to the excellent working across Government and with the oil and gas industry, we have been able to put in place arrangements that permit a vessel that is normally engaged in commercial operations to be released from its contracted duty to perform emergency towage in the waters off northern Scotland. That has been available at no extra cost. The Secretary of State led those discussions and the discussions on the future of emergency towing vehicles in Scotland. The Scottish Government were also involved. A solution has been found for the next two years with a vessel commercially funded by the offshore industry. That is welcome and provides the necessary resilience for the coast there.

The hon. Member for Blackpool South asked about the complement in Belfast. Shetland is six down but we are in the process of recruiting three officers, so it is only three below complement. Stornoway had been two officers down, but the recruitment process has resulted in two officers about to join, so it will be at full complement.

[Dr Wollaston]

Will the Minister write to me to reassure my constituents about the availability of commercial ETVs? We do not have an offshore oil industry that could provide such support.

[Stephen Hammond]

I will write to my hon. Friend to point out what arrangements are in place and why they have worked so well for the past two years. I am sure that if she wishes to raise other issues, she will, and I will be happy to respond.

I am grateful for the opportunity to have this debate this afternoon. It has enabled me to set out our position and, hopefully, to allay some fears of hon. Members about the progress of recruitment, the resilience of the transition process and the confirmation of the final dates of closure of a number of the MRCCs. I am also pleased that progress to get the national centre at Fareham ready on time is going well, and I think that a more cost-effective, safer arrangement for UK coastal co-ordination has been secured.

14:59

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the Minister for his remarks; his answers bring clarity to some important issues. He began by saying that safety would not be affected, but that, indeed, remains the challenge.

Food Contamination

Thursday 17th October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Sandra Osborne in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Eighth report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Contamination of Beef Products, HC 946, and the Government Response, HC 1085, and Fifth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Food Contamination, HC 141, and the Government Response, HC 707.]

15:00

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

I welcome you to the Chair, Mrs Osborne. Together with colleagues from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, I am delighted to have secured the debate. I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new position and congratulate the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) for retaining his as shadow Minister.

The Minister is new, but we look forward to hearing his remarks in summing up the debate. I take this opportunity to thank him, in his individual capacity, for the contribution he made and excellent work he did on the Select Committee. I remind the Chamber—and, perhaps, the Minister—that he contributed to and supported the conclusions of both the reports and the Government responses, which we received just as he was vacating his position. I hope that he will keep some of his enthusiasm and vigour in summing up today.

I would like to talk briefly about the history—a previous Committee report is also of interest. The United Kingdom decided to impose a moratorium on desinewed meat production in this country, which had huge implications—not only for my constituency, but for parts of Northern Ireland. Newby Foods was told that it could no longer produce desinewed meat, which led to a loss of 30 jobs near Thirsk.

Since we conducted our report and reviewed the UK Government moratorium, which was imposed as a short-term measure at the will of the European Commission in Brussels, the Government have clarified desinewed meat from poultry and pork as being from non-ruminants, so that that process may continue. However, will the Minister continue to make the case to the European Union for desinewed meat production from lamb and beef to be allowed to continue, as well as from pork and poultry?

That information is relevant to the debate, because we concluded, in, I believe, March 2012—this was based on an assertion in evidence from a predecessor of the Minister; it was perhaps two farming Ministers ago—that ceasing production of desinewed meat could lead to mislabelling and the contamination and adulteration of meat, with cheaper cuts of meat substituted for the meat that is on the label.

15:04

Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.

15:15

On resuming—

[Miss McIntosh]

Perhaps I could set the scene in terms of the food industry. As of last year, there were more than 490,000 food businesses in England. In 2011-12, spending to protect consumers from food incidents was £241 million, 75% of which was spent by local authorities to enforce food law.

One issue the Committee identified was that the Food Standards Agency reports to three key Departments with responsibility for aspects of food policy. Furthermore, there has been a marked fall since 2009-12 in the number of local authority food samples tested. In addition, there are 12 different national and European databases on food intelligence.

Let me record a little of the history. In November 2012, there was a routine meeting between the Food Safety Authority of Ireland and the UK’s FSA. At that meeting, the Irish FSA mentioned that it was developing a new methodology for checking the composition of meat products. The first question the Committee asked—we are asking it again today—was why it took two months for our own FSA to authorise and conduct any testing.

Tests then found that there had been contamination; it was small in the UK, but it was widespread in the EU. In the UK, horse and pig DNA were found in a variety of beef products, including samples of Findus lasagne, which contained more than 60% horsemeat; Aldi lasagne and spaghetti bolognese, which contained between 30% and 100% horsemeat; and beef products certified as halal and supplied to prisons in England and Wales that contained pork DNA.

Those findings emerged only after extensive testing of beef products across the EU and by local authorities and industry in the UK. The EU tests revealed that 4.66% of products contained more than 1% horse DNA. The UK incidence of contamination in products tested was less than 1%. Although the contamination was small, and the principle was that this was a labelling and a fraud issue, there could so easily have been a food safety scare and a food safety scandal.

Complacency is not the best word to use, but we have seen no sense of urgency among the Government, which is why we welcome my hon. Friend’s appointment as Minister. The Secretary of State or another Minister told us in evidence that the perpetrators of this crime—if it was a crime, and everyone generally understands it is a crime—would face the full force of the law. What arrests have therefore been made? What is the role of Europol and, possibly, Interpol? What charges and prosecutions have been brought by the City of London police to draw a line under this issue?

If we are to boost consumer confidence, which I think we all want to do, we must show there is no further contamination and no prospect of further contamination. We therefore need to know at what stage the contamination and adulteration entered the food supply chain. We talk a lot in the two reports about controls in the food chain, to protect consumers from contaminated and potentially unsafe food, which did not work in the case in question.

Perhaps the most worrying aspect of the matter, as something following on from the BSE crisis, is that every 10 years we have either a food scare or a food crisis. In the early 1990s, it was BSE; in 2001, it was foot and mouth disease; and in 2012—we know that it started in 2011—it was the scandal to do with horsemeat contamination and pork DNA being found in halal meat. That was completely unacceptable.

One worry is identifying the supply chain, and traceability, and we drew some clear conclusions from the evidence. The chief executive of the FSA told us the contamination and adulteration could have been going on for almost a year, from March 2012, when desinewed meat production in this country was banned—there was also a so-called ban in the EU, although we believe it was being produced in the EU.

We concluded that the system for food traceability, including the requirement that at every stage in the supply chain operators must keep records of the source and destination of each product, has been breached; that retailers and meat processors should have been more vigilant about the risk of deliberate adulteration; and that trust is not a sufficient guarantee in a system where meat is traded many times before reaching its final destination. We have also noted our concern about the length of supply chains for processed and frozen beef products. We welcome the efforts of some retailers to shorten those whenever possible.

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

I commend the hon. Lady for securing the debate. Perhaps I can bring together two strands of her thinking. There will be public discontent if only a relatively few small players are investigated and prosecuted and become scapegoats for the industry. If larger players—whether they are meat processors, retailers or others—can be proved not to have used due diligence, or to have been negligent, ignorant or downright culpable, the size of the operation or its importance to the European market should not preclude investigation, including by Governments working together, if necessary.

[Miss McIntosh]

I welcome that intervention. The hon. Gentleman’s Front-Bench colleague, the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner), led a line of questioning in that regard, and we met a brick wall. I agree that the action taken should not be symbolic, against small retailers. We must go through the supply chain. When a major supermarket takes a supply chain on trust year after year, without inspecting identities and its integrity, there is definitely something wrong. As to traceability and the so-called labelling issue, I confess to being disappointed with the Government response. We have identified a problem of traceability and labelling, and I urge the Minister to go a bit further, so that we have concrete suggestions.

I have mentioned the number of relevant businesses and the food industry’s importance to the economy. We must accept, with respect to testing, the need for a risk-based assessment, but when we are told that there is a risk in a particular country we need, for goodness’ sake, to wake up, liven up and respond, because of the potential for a problem in this country.

The people we need to go out and do testing—the first in line—are food analysts. We learned in evidence that most of those are in the Association of Public Analysts. I want to dwell on that point for a moment. We found out that insufficient testing has been done by local authorities since 2009. We need to accept that, although testing must be risk-based, there should be some random testing to ensure that nothing slips through the net.

We also identified an acute potential shortage of public analysts. I want to take issue with the Government response to our second report at point 13:

“Officials from both FSA and Defra meet regularly with representatives from the Association of Public Analysts and local authorities to ensure sufficient laboratory capacity exists and suitable methods are in place”.

I want to quiz the Minister on that. The Association of Public Analysts has meetings with FSA officials twice a year. That is not “regularly”—it is only every six months. One meeting was attended by a DEFRA official, the implication being that the other was not, and laboratory capacity is not discussed. Even if it were discussed, it is not within the gift of individual public analysts, or the association, to prevent laboratory closures or to ensure sufficient capacity.

The Government response is flawed because it does not deal with the Committee recommendation that they should ensure that there are sufficient properly trained public analysts. Why does that matter? It is not only the Committee, which heard powerful and compelling evidence about it, that concluded that it is important. The National Audit Office report, published earlier this month, leant heavily on—I would like to think—our work and on the report’s conclusions and recommendations. It stressed, as we did, that budget cuts coupled with a two thirds rise in reported food fraud have increased the risk of another horsemeat scandal. The NAO also said that the cuts in testing led to a loss of intelligence information, so that the Government

“failed to identify the potential risk of adulteration of beef with horsemeat, despite indications of heightened risk.”

The NAO report questions whether there will be sufficient capacity to respond to future incidents. I am mindful of what the previous Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said about DEFRA being the fourth emergency service, and of the possibility that, given the dramatic decline over recent years in the number of public analysts and laboratories, there will not be the capability for detecting food fraud. I urge the Minister to respond to that concern.

I have covered the question of Europol, Interpol and our police bringing people to book, and discussed traceability. I want to make a final point. There is a richesse before us, and I could dwell on every recommendation and conclusion; I am sure that the Minister will remember the passion with which the Committee adopted the recommendations. I want now to focus on what the FSA’s role should be.

In our first report, we conclude:

“Whilst Ministers are properly responsible for policy, the FSA’s diminished role has led to a lack of clarity about where responsibility lies, and this has weakened the UK’s ability to identify and respond to food standards concerns.”

We found that the FSA and Government reacted in a “flat-footed” way and were

“unable to respond effectively within structures designed primarily to respond to threats to human health.”

We did not much care for the Government response, but I am sure that the Minister will try to justify the rather disappointing response that the

“Machinery of Government changes in 2010 led to some changes”.

The response went on to tell us what they were.

In our more recent report, to which we have only recently received the Government response, we reiterate our previous conclusion and confirm that we need greater clarity about the role of the FSA in major incidents. The point is that we accept that this is primarily a food-labelling issue, but there is the suggestion of fraud, to which the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) referred, on a massive scale, and we need the reassurance that the FSA is, in my words, fit for purpose. However, the Government response does not fit the bill.

We are told:

“The Government is concerned that the Committee may have misunderstood”—

I say to the Minister that that is a very dangerous allegation to make—

“the status and constitution of the FSA.”

We know, as the response states, that the FSA,

“as a non-Ministerial government department, does not report to any other department. The FSA is accountable to Parliament and reports…through Health Ministers.”

The National Audit Office confirms our initial conclusion that the problem is that the FSA reports to three different Departments. That is a source of concern. It is compounded by the fact that we are having review after review after review. We came to conclusions quite early on—in March, I think—about our fundamental concerns. We are now hurrying towards the end of the year. We have the benefit of Professor Pat Troop’s response to the incident. Her conclusions back up entirely what we say.

The question for the Minister is why the Government are not responding to our conclusions, to the review by Professor Troop and to the National Audit Office findings, but have called for another review. This is something that we used to say in opposition; it is not unfamiliar to me. Under the last Administration, as I am sure the hon. Member for Ogmore will remember, if there was a problem, we would have a review, then another review and then another review. Now, we need to see some action, so the fact that the Elliott review has been set up, will make an interim conclusion and will report finally only in the spring of next year is very disappointing and missing the point.

I would like to draw the strands together and confirm that this is not the time for another review. We need a fundamental rethink on the infrastructure, composition and role of the Food Standards Agency, what its relationships with the Departments are and who goes out and gives explanations to the public and to the industry in the event of an incident.

We need to see some movement on reducing the likelihood of future contamination by improving the traceability provisions and ensuring the integrity of each supply chain. It is very pleasing that in local butchers’ shops in my constituency and, I understand, across the country and in farm shops and at farmers’ markets, the purchasing of food has gone up incrementally. Everyone is buying local, because they know what they are buying. They know that it is beef or whatever the label says. As I said, that is very pleasing, but we need to restore public confidence in what is a multi-million-pound industry through supermarkets. We also need to look at the vexatious issue of there being a shortage of analysts and insufficient testing to put the consumer mind at rest.

I commend our two reports to the House. I have dwelt on three issues, but I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister and the shadow Minister our main concerns, which are set out in all our recommendations. Those have been supported by Professor Pat Troop’s review. She does not disagree with them one iota. We have also had the very powerful—it uses very strong language—report from the National Audit Office on “Food safety and authenticity in the processed meat supply chain”. I therefore now say to the Minister that this is a call for action, rather than for another review.

15:35

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

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne, at this late hour on a Thursday afternoon. I should begin by declaring an interest. I am still involved in a farming business that produces red meat: beef and lamb. I commend the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and the members of the Committee for the work that they have done on this very important matter. I also commend the NAO report that has recently been published.

The sound and fury has gone out of this matter for now, but that does not mean that it is not extraordinarily important. It is extraordinarily important for our farming communities that their product should not be contaminated again in the future and extraordinarily important for consumers that they should have the ability to choose what they want to eat, knowing that it is as described on the label. Sadly, however, the history of food is full of examples of contamination and adulteration. The watering down of beer is a heinous crime, but it has been perpetrated everywhere. It is not the only one, unfortunately.

I would like to draw a distinction between contamination and adulteration. As far as I am concerned, contamination is when a small quantity of extraneous material finds its ways into foodstuffs. That usually occurs because of negligence or carelessness in the preparation or processing of food, in relation either to buildings or to equipment. Sometimes contamination may not be serious. It may involve inert material. But sometimes, of course, it can be very serious indeed. One example is the poisonous material ergot in rye bread; I can think of other examples. It is also very serious when infective material gets into foodstuffs. Sadly, there are outbreaks of E. coli from time to time in this country. Of course, the Chairman of the Select Committee mentioned the presence of pork in food that is supposed to have been processed to an halal standard, which is grossly offensive to the Muslim community. That is particularly serious as well.

I define contamination as something that does not take place deliberately, but it quickly became apparent to me during the so-called horsemeat scandal that what was happening was not happening through carelessness. In the main, it was a deliberate attempt to make money out of fraud, and we should see it in that light. People from time to time do see the opportunity to do that. If they can introduce something into a foodstuff that does not necessarily alter its appearance, taste or consistency, they can get away with it for a short time before more sophisticated tests can be done on that foodstuff. The Chairman of the Committee mentioned the changes in the way in which certain foodstuffs, including meat, could be included in other foodstuffs.

Adulteration also occurs when we have high commodity prices for meat or for any foodstuff, and of course the price of meat has risen quite considerably. If it rises quickly, there are opportunities for the less scrupulous to introduce a cheaper product into what is a fairly expensive product. My criticism of the supermarket and meat processors still stands: rather than accepting that the price of the commodity had gone up, they were scouring the European markets and probably the world markets to find a cheaper product. That gave an opportunity for less scrupulous people to get involved and make money.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good contribution. He has a great background in this area. Does he agree that a signal change of the past few decades has made good governance necessary, as the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said? Whereas a previous outbreak to do with either food providence or safety may have been relatively isolated in a region—I have had them in my area—nowadays the potential danger and risk are much greater, because they are transnational and affect the plates of far more consumers, potentially in many different countries? That is why governance is important.

[Roger Williams]

I agree. My hon. Friend—he is a Welsh MP with me, so I will call him that—reiterates the words of the Chair of the Select Committee. That was a conclusion the Committee came to.

I was going to say that part of the complexity with the process was that the contamination was not happening in only Britain or one region of Britain. Very long and complex food chains were undoubtedly involved, and part of the problem is that we do not know where some of the products originated. For me, one of the key things to come out of the NAO report is on page 5:

“Six months on, inquiries are still ongoing and the original source of the adulteration has not been identified.”

It goes on to say that some people have been arrested. For all that our Government have done and for all that Governments on the continent have done, we still do not know where the horsemeat entered the food chain. Until we can establish that, we will not have done a good job and we will not have deterred other people from trying to make opportunistic profits.

If we do not know where the meat came into the food chain, we have no idea what its provenance was. We do not know whether the animal was slaughtered in a registered slaughterhouse or the back shed of a farm somewhere. We have no idea about the safety of the meat. It appears to many of us that the crisis did not involve any human illness, but if we do not know the provenance of the meat, we do not know if that was by luck alone. It is key that we continue our work and work with our European partners on a governmental as well as a police level to identify where the horsemeat entered the food chain.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

What are the hon. Gentleman’s views on the need for deep intelligence across Departments in analysing what is going on? There could have been a moment when the contamination could have been picked up. It is all very well saying that in hindsight, but it could have been detected. We had massive shipments of horses from Ireland and Northern Ireland into Britain for transport out of the UK, but they were not transported. They were disappearing. There were numbers in, but no numbers out. At some point, a good intelligence operation would have spotted that and flagged up the fact that those horses were going somewhere.

[Roger Williams]

The hon. Gentleman raises another good point. We must use intelligence. When I was doing work on illegal imports of meat products from Africa, it became apparent that the people involved in that were also involved in other criminal activities, such as drug smuggling and people smuggling. The penalties for drug smuggling and smuggling individuals across borders were high, but the penalties for smuggling meat were low and yet profits were high. There was a huge incentive to get involved, because the smugglers would not end up in prison for very long, but would probably get a paltry little fine having made a lot of money. The hon. Gentleman gets the point: we must put pressure on our European partners to work with us to share intelligence, which is so important.

I believe that a single market is hugely important for British agriculture, but to have a single market, we must have the same standards in Europe that we expect in Britain. Only when we can rely on our European partners to deliver that famous level playing field can we have confidence in the single market. I want to say a few words about why a single market is important for British agriculture: 90% of Welsh lamb is consumed outside Wales and 40% of UK lamb is exported, mostly to continental Europe. Those of us in the farming business remember when that market could be open one day and shut another. We do not want things to be that way now; we want it to be as it is at the moment, with the market available to us every day of the year. We cannot be certain that we will have continuous access to the market if the conditions, processes and inspection regimes on the continent are not the same as those we have in Britain.

I call on the Minister to continue the work. The job of examining what went on is not finished. It has only just begun in terms of working with our European partners to ensure that processes are in place to ensure that such contamination does not happen in the future.

15:47

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

It is good to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Osborne. I welcome the new Minister to his place; we worked well together on the Select Committee and I look forward to him having views entirely consistent with those he had in Committee now he is a Minister. I am partly teasing him, but I look forward to working with him. I enjoyed his friendship on the Committee. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), the Chair of the Select Committee, on securing the debate, because it is necessary for us not to forget exactly what happened.

I want to concentrate on the consequences and on the many lessons that we need to learn. For many years, I have been saying that we have not had proper labelling of the origins of processed food, especially meat products, and the contamination has highlighted that hugely. Basically, the product was travelling all across Europe from the Republic of Ireland, Poland and Romania into Luxembourg and France—it was travelling all over the place. The trail—exporting from one country and importing to another—was almost impossible to follow.

As the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) highlighted, the value of the processed meat is key. If someone bought a joint of beef and a joint of horse—we cannot do that in this country, but in many European countries they can—they would immediately be able to tell the difference. If we minced them up and put them in a burger, however, I suspect that when we actually looked at it physically, we would not see a great deal of difference. If horse meat is trading at a quarter to a third of the price of beef, it is tempting to the unscrupulous in the food processing industry to substitute one for the other.

Not only the Government but the large retailers should keep a check on the situation. If retailers are buying beef burgers for less than the cost of the beef that should be in them, they should ask how on earth a company can produce that product for that price. That is a lesson for the industry and the big retailers to learn. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire probably shares my view that although the big retailers are necessary, they have used their muscle over the years to drive down prices for primary producers and farmers. They have spent their lives doing it. This time they drove the price down too far, and people came in who said, “Okay, these big retailers want cheap burgers; well, we’ll mix in a bit of horse meat, and it’ll be fine.” That is where questions need to be asked.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made the case that the Government need enough public analysts, but retailers also need to employ such people or franchise out the work to somebody else. When I go into a large supermarket, I expect to buy a product that is made of what it says on the label. That is the retailer’s responsibility; the Minister may well make that point later. Yes, it is the Government’s responsibility, but it is also very much the responsibility of the retailer.

I noticed that the Chair made a bit of a face when I said that one could tell the difference between a joint of horse meat and a joint of beef. Ethically, we in this country do not eat horse meat, but it is eaten in many countries across Europe, and it is legal. It is necessary to be able to slaughter horses for meat. There are so many horses in this country, some with huge welfare problems, that if we could not slaughter them, the welfare problems would be even larger. I would much rather those horses be slaughtered humanely in this country than taken on vast journeys across the continent in poor conditions to be slaughtered. We must remember that slaughtering and trading horse meat are not crimes in themselves.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good and cogent point. We must guard not only against inhumane transport but against the possibility that imports of horse meat from places that previously discarded the slaughter of horses, such as the United States—they are now slaughtered in other countries instead—might find their way back to us through Poland or the Czech Republic, with added ingredients such as phenylbutazone, known as bute.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. It leads me neatly on to the fact that, as I said, horse meat must be traceable. It is not only a case of what is imported into this country. In America, there are many racehorses and other sorts of horse that are more likely to have been treated with all sorts of drugs throughout their lives. We must be careful of that.

We in this country must also be careful to ensure that we know where the horses that we slaughter have come from. At the moment, under the passport system, many horses have one, two or several passports, one of which is clean and says that the horse has not been injected with anything, and another one of which may have been used when the horse has been injected with various drugs throughout its life. We need a better passport system and a central database, so that we know where horses come from, to ensure that when they are slaughtered, we know that they are healthy. Although we may not eat the meat, it will be exported for someone else to eat. It is essential.

I believe that some good things will come out of this situation. As other Members have said, it would have been terrible if the contamination had led to a public health issue, but fortunately it did not. One or two horses slaughtered were found to have levels of phenylbutazone, but not enough to hurt anybody eating the meat. We must learn to ensure that horse meat is traceable in future, not because it should be mixed with beef and sold fraudulently but because the meat should be safe.

The other great lesson to be learned concerns the traceability of our own meat. People like farm-assured schemes, such as the red tractor promoted by the National Farmers Union and many others. As soon as horsegate—the problem with horse meat in beef burgers—occurred, people wanted meat from this country. I do not wish to be churlish, but Tesco did not decide to source all its meat from the British Isles out of the goodness of its heart; it decided that that was a good way to make consumers buy at Tesco.

[Roger Williams]

Was my hon. Friend amazed, like me, to hear that Tesco has said that British lamb is now out of season? I find that extraordinary, given that the UK produces lamb in season all year round.

[Neil Parish]

The fact is that for most grass-fed lamb from Wales, the west country and other parts of the country, the height of the season is exactly now, from September onwards. When I used to produce lambs, I did not feed them a lot of concentrates; I fattened them on grass, and they came out in September, October and November. Whoever put out that particular press release probably got it slightly wrong.

That takes me back to the fact that although Tesco wants to source British meat, which I welcome, it does so from a commercial point of view. Therefore, having systems in place to ensure the traceability of that meat is important. However, there is also a knock-on effect. At a certain conference in Manchester—I will not mention which one it was—I was talking to the poultry industry. Again, Tesco has decided to source all its poultry meat from the UK, which is great, but the problem is that it is absorbing all the poultry meat that we produce, so we need to produce more. To produce more poultry meat, of course, we need more poultry units, and to build more poultry units we need planning permission. All those things have a knock-on effect.

It is the same with the pig industry. We need more pigs and pork so, again, we need planning permission. Those Members who represent rural constituents will find that when a piggery or a poultry house must be built next door, individuals do not always welcome it with open arms. I understand that the Minister is not responsible for planning, but the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs should make the case if we are to have more British meat. I am a great supporter of it; we are only 52% self-sufficient in meat, so there is much more that we could do. Production of poultry and pigs in particular can be built up quickly, but again, we must ensure that we have enough premises where they can be produced.

Many more people now ensure that they buy locally produced and British food, which is a great asset, but I also want them to be sure—again, this is a lesson to be learned—that when they go into a big retailer or other shop, they can pick up a product, especially a processed product, and be absolutely certain where it has come from. Sometimes my wife comes back with a product that she presents to me and says, “Where does that come from?” I read the label and it is more confusing than enlightening about where it has come from. I urge the Minister, newly in post, to realise that labelling of country of origin—knowing where a product is from—is fundamentally important. If it has been imported, so be it, but say so. If products are from all over the world, fine, but say so, so that people have a choice. I do not like the old system that states “product of the EU” and “processed in the UK”, and displays a Union Jack. Everybody picks it up, convinced that it is entirely a British product, when it is not. It is perfectly legal to do that, and that is what happens.

With the reports that we have had and what we have heard, we would all accept, to a degree, that we got away with it. It was not perfect, but we got away with it, despite the fact that it was a fraud and we were eating horse when we should have been eating beef. However, nobody was injured. We need to wake up to the fact that horse meat and slaughter need to be much more traceable. When people pick up products, particularly processed foods, they need to know exactly where they have come from. We want to ensure that the supermarkets that genuinely want to have British products are stocking them and that they have not come from somewhere else in the world. We expect our Minister, newly in post, to guarantee that all that will happen.

We can learn positive lessons. The fact that people now want to eat more home-produced meat is a good thing. Let us be absolutely certain in future that that is exactly what we are eating. Although Government have a responsibility, so do the large retailers and the processors that manufacture and process the products. They are the ones that acted illegally. Let us not forget that, whoever was at fault, it was illegal. It was fraud.

Finally, although I agree with the other hon. Members who have spoken, I fear that in the end we will find one or two small processors here and there who will be hung out to dry, and the rest of the larger processors and others will largely be left untouched. Certainly the Irish Government have been rather reticent about prosecuting anybody. I think that that is the tactful way of putting it. Also—the point was made earlier—when a member state of the European Union is having a problem, it should be brought to the notice of our authorities and others much more quickly, so that we can take action. There was definitely a slowness in the whole process. I look forward to the new Minister sorting it all out, and I again welcome him to his new post.

16:03

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

It is a delight to be here, as always. I congratulate the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and all her Committee members on securing this debate and on the sterling work that they have put in throughout this year. As a critical friend of the industry and of Government, they have scrutinised the causes and effects of and response to the food contamination scandal in a frank and honest way.

It is a great pleasure to follow the contributions from the hon. Members for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) and for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish). They have great experience in terms of their personal backgrounds and in terms of Select Committees. The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton made the point that we got away with it. That is the point that we want to focus on. It is not adequate to say that we got away with it. We need to ensure that, within the realms of all the identifiable risks that we can think of, we do not simply get away with it again. We need to put the right things in place to avoid it happening again. As has rightly been pointed out, fortunately there was not a major public safety scare, although there could have been. This was an issue of provenance. We need a fleet-footed response from all the agencies and Government and everybody else.

I also welcome to his new position as Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth—

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

indicated dissent.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

My apologies. I was expecting to see the other new Minister. I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Dan Rogerson). It is a great position and a great Department. I am sure he will do a wonderful job. I am beginning to think that DEFRA Ministers have taken against me as they keep disappearing in front of me. His previous role as a member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee stands him in good stead. As I draw on evidence and recommendations from the Committee’s two reports, I am conscious that he is a collective author of those words, findings and recommendations.

[Dan Rogerson]

One of the reports.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

The Minister is a collective author of one of the reports, and there is no way in which he would seek, for whatever reason—under pressure from officials or his Secretary of State, or the lure of the red box or the trappings of a Minister—to resile from the positions that he laid out so very recently. He is a good and honourable man and will stand by his words.

This is a timely debate to look back at the lessons learnt to try to avoid repeating the same mistakes and to return confidence to an industry that was shaken badly. To put it bluntly, consumers were tricked, deceived and defrauded by criminals operating within or alongside the food chain. It is the same food supply chain that we trust to supply safe, nutritious, affordable food and drink to our household tables, our schools and hospitals, and our care homes and cafeterias. That supply chain betrayed us—nothing less. It would be wrong, particularly while criminal investigations are ongoing, to delve too deeply into specific companies and individuals. I think the public and consumer organisations will be rightly outraged if the criminals who infiltrated the supply chain are not brought to book. If complicity or duplicity is identified within the supply chain itself, those companies and individuals should also be brought to book.

[Miss McIntosh]

It would be interesting to know what the hon. Gentleman’s potential future Administration would do to check the integrity of the supply chain. I am mindful of the fact that it was a Labour Government who set up the Food Standards Agency, and one of the difficulties that I highlighted is that it reports to at least two, potentially three, Departments. I take the hon. Gentleman’s point about the retailers, but we rely hugely on the work of the FSA to test the supply chain.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I welcome the hon. Lady’s intervention and the focus that she and the Select Committee have put on not only the FSA, but the overall issue of food governance and the integrity and coherence of it. We have repeatedly made it clear from the early days when its responsibilities were split up that we had concerns about what might happen. Her Committee’s report and the report of the National Audit Office have made it clear that those concerns did not cause the crisis, but contributed to a delayed reaction, which I will come to in a moment. There is confusion at national, local and intergovernmental level. I shall not call for a review today. I shall echo her call for action and for the Government to introduce proposals to change the structure of food governance.

Tesco, the UK’s market-leading supermarket, notably and admirably fessed up to its responsibilities. It said, “We get it.” It took out full-page advertisements coinciding—coincidentally, I am sure—with the NFU conference in February, and it is seeking to re-engineer its supply chains and get closer to primary producers. It has a way to go, as has already been mentioned. I visited Tesco’s headquarters and we went through this in detail. Although it has a journey to make, I do not doubt its sincerity and ambition to do so. It is consumer-focused; there is a reason why it is doing this. Other large retailers have already developed shorter supply chains or other methods of ensuring the provenance of their food.

In the early stages, many took a different approach and frankly said, “Not us, guvnor.” They pointed to abroad or to smaller suppliers, international criminals, other third parties and, frankly, anybody but themselves. It is clear that the criminal activities of some have damaged public confidence in the whole supply chain. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee spoke for many in the country, when it reported that it could only

“conclude that British consumers have been cynically and systematically duped in pursuit of profit by elements within the food industry.”

Whether that was criminality, negligence, complicity or failure of due diligence through the whole supply chain, from major processors and supermarkets down to the very small players, all were to varying degrees at fault in causing the failures, and all have responsibility in rectifying them and restoring trust and confidence.

I welcome the letter that I received yesterday from ABP, a dominant player in the UK and European beef processing market, which tells me that it supplies more than 20 countries and has a network of over 15,000 farmers. In the letter, the company acknowledges—it cannot deny—the presence of horsemeat in some of its frozen beef products over the past year, but states:

“It was certainly not an activity sanctioned by ABP in any way at any level”.

It goes on to make it clear that the company is not subject to any ongoing investigations.

In some ways, it is unfair to pick out ABP, because it was not alone in a complex and vulnerable supply chain that put beef adulterated with horsemeat and, for good measure, with trace elements—thank goodness, only trace elements—of phenylbutazone or bute into our homes, hospitals, schools and canteens, as well as, through food distribution companies, into Royal Ascot and the royal household. When it comes to food adulteration, we are genuinely—and right royally—all in it together.

As the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton said, those who came out well from the crisis were the butchers, local abattoirs, and those in local food networks and short supply chains, whose customers could prove where their food came from and what it was. The upside of the crisis is that it has reignited a major debate about our relationship with the food we eat, which I hope will lead to changes in how we produce and value our food.

Much of the modern supply chain is long, complex and international, with multiple handling and processing operations and multiple opportunities for adulteration. The lesson for those in wider supply chains, especially the major and dominant supermarkets, processors and distributors, is that no one can escape responsibility for the mess we got ourselves into or avoid responsibility for restoring trust in those supply chains. It is not good enough to say, “It wasn’t us, guvnor,” because as far as the consumer is concerned, it was.

I want to turn to the issues of food governance identified by the Select Committee’s two reports and highlighted in a timely report by the National Audit Office, on 10 October, entitled, “Food safety and authenticity in the processed meat supply chain”.

I tell the Minister that the Government must clearly now take responsibility: they are also in the dock and must fess up. They must answer criticisms of their role in failing to ensure effective governance of the food manufacturing sector. Although I commend the industry for working alongside UK, Irish and EU agencies to strengthen the testing and tracking of food products in response to the horsemeat crisis, I cannot yet commend the UK Government, whose response to the crisis was hampered by structural problems of their own making. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, of which the Minister was a member, put that succinctly in its first report, stating that

“the current contamination crisis has caught the FSA and Government flat-footed and unable to respond effectively within structures designed primarily to respond to threats to human health.”

The National Audit Office’s No. 1 key finding was:

“A split since 2010 in the responsibilities for food policy in England has led to confusion among stakeholders and no obvious benefit to those implementing controls.”

That split in responsibilities is, of course, the one that was devised and implemented in 2010 not by the Minister, who is only just in post, but by his coalition Government. They are the architect of their own misfortune, but more importantly, of what others have described as the flat-footed response to the food adulteration scandal. The food sector and the consumer deserve better. It is not the fault of the FSA, but of the Government who split its responsibilities.

[Neil Parish]

I accept, to some degree, the hon. Gentleman’s assertions about changes to the FSA, but there had been no testing of horsemeat for 10 years or more, and the situation arose only when we started testing horsemeat. What matters is not the structure, but the fact that we were just not testing. All through his watch and that of his Government, nobody was testing horsemeat. That is why I think that he is being a little disingenuous, if I may say so.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I utterly refute the idea of my being disingenuous, because I am citing the words, evidence and recommendations of the Select Committee and National Audit Office reports. The criticisms are not mine, although I entirely agree with them, because we said the same from the outset, after the FSA was split up. I am not being disingenuous, but frank: I am saying what I have consistently said month after month, and year after year, and that is what our position has been.

I understand what the hon. Gentleman says, but I am hammering the Government because governance is central to how we resolve the situation. We can ask the industry to do many things—we have done so, and the industry is getting on with them—and agencies are helping it, but unless we resolve the fundamental issue of how to bring together the entirety of the food industry coherently and not split it between Departments, we will be back here again. That is what his Committee concluded.

The Government response to the concerns is worryingly complacent. The document states, on page 7:

“The Government is concerned that the Committee may have misunderstood the status and constitution of the FSA”,

and it then defends the FSA in the following three paragraphs. If the Select Committee has misunderstood the FSA, so have the National Audit Office and many other well-informed, critical friends of the food industry who want the Government to look more fundamentally at the FSA and to review the cack-handed way in which its responsibilities were diced and sliced in 2010.

The Government should adopt the Tesco approach: fess up to this aspect of their responsibility, learn the lessons that they must learn and deal properly with the role of the FSA and food governance, instead of tinkering at the edges. It takes a big man or woman to accept that they were wrong, but I hope that the new Minister, in whom I have confidence, will be able to do so.

Let me ask the Minister some questions that stem from the Select Committee and National Audit Office reports. Coming new into the post, does he accept, from what he has looked at, that the Government’s and the FSA’s early response to the crisis was flat-footed and slow, as has been said, partly thanks to the Government’s machinery of government changes? Does he accept that the Government’s decision to split the FSA roles directly led to confusion and a lack of clarity about responsibilities at the outset of the crisis, both between Whitehall Departments and agencies and between local government enforcement and the FSA?

Does the Minister accept that, as highlighted by the National Audit Office, confusion at local and national level still exists today, despite the Government’s well-meaning reforms, which signifies that deeper reforms or the unwinding of some of the 2010 reforms might be needed? Does he accept that, despite strong Government rebuttals back in February and March, the introduction of the banned substance phenylbutazone or bute into the food chain via horsemeat, albeit in trace elements, might have turned the situation from a food provenance issue into a food safety crisis? If he does not accept that, I ask him to read the National Audit Office report.

How does the Minister respond to criticisms that intelligence sharing, especially between food authorities and Departments in Ireland and the UK, has been weakened by the coalition’s machinery of government changes? Does he believe that reducing food testing by local authorities by a quarter, linked to cuts in funding and budgetary stresses, contributed to a lack of deeper intelligence from local sources that might have picked up the risks earlier? To turn to the point made by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton in his intervention, one of the things that the National Audit Office picked up on was the lack of deep intelligence down on the ground. Although it applauds a risk-based approach, deep intelligence would have flagged up these sorts of incidents at an early stage.

How does the Minister respond to fears that the closure of four public control laboratories in the past three years combined with a reduction in public analysts from 40 to 29 since 2010 raises the potential risk that we will be unable to respond to any future incident of this type?

My final question echoes a concern of the Select Committee and of the wider public. Where are the prosecutions, the fines, the penalties, the custodial sentences, and the naming and shaming of the guilty parties? I realise that the Minister will not be able to go into detail about the ongoing investigations, but we need to know whether we are talking about one or two bad apples or a fundamental problem with a rotten barrel. The Select Committee asks whether this is

“a complex network of traders and processors acting fraudulently to deceive consumers and retailers.”

The longer we wait for conclusions to the investigations, the more the feeling grows that people are escaping justice and that the networks that caused this criminality are also delaying that justice. We cannot expect the Minister to comment in detail on investigations that are under way, but I hope that he can at least inform us of some progress.

At the outset, I reiterated the justified criticism by the Select Committee of the flat-footed response by the FSA and the Government. Its call for stronger powers for the FSA were re-emphasised by the head of the National Audit Office only last week. He stated:

“The January 2013 horsemeat incident has revealed a gap between what citizens expect of the controls over the authenticity of their food, and the effectiveness of those controls on reality. The division of responsibilities for food safety and authenticity has created confusion.”

In conclusion, while Labour rightly demands—I know the Minister will demand this as well—that the food sector step up and take responsibility for its failures and commends the sector for the work it has done so far in recent months, it also demands the same response from our Government. The sins of the father do not have to be visited on the son. The new Under-Secretary of State can acknowledge that the 2010 FSA machinery of government changes were wrong-headed, that they played a contributory factor in retarding the early response to the crisis, that they are a risk factor, as the NAO says, in any future large-scale food adulteration or contamination episodes, and that he should now step up and act for the good of consumers, the food sector and farmers and for his own peace of mind. Last week, the head of the National Audit Office said:

“The Government needs to remove this confusion, and improve its understanding of potential food fraud and how intelligence is brought together and shared.”

I look forward to the Under-Secretary of State doing just that, beginning with his response. I wish him well in taking forward the Government’s action on this matter.

[Sandra Osborne (in the Chair)]

The debate must end by 16.43, and it would be appreciated if the Minister would leave some time at the end for the Chair of the Select Committee to respond.

16:23

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

It is a pleasure, Mrs Osborne, to serve under your chairmanship and to stand here as both a Minister and a member of the Select Committee—at least in name, if not in application. The House will remove me from the Committee in due course.

Before I get on to substantive matters, let me say that it has been an absolute pleasure and an honour to serve on that Committee for more than eight years, under the excellent chairmanship of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh) and also of Michael Jack, who did fine work as Chair of the Committee in the previous Parliament. It is also a pleasure to follow all those who spoke in this debate; they spoke with passion and brought insight. I may not agree with all the conclusions that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has drawn, but I pay tribute none the less to his experience and the care that he has taken in preparing for this debate. As he knows, I have family roots in his constituency, so it is always a pleasure to hear from him.

I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee and colleagues for securing this debate, so that we can explore this issue in some depth. As highlighted, the incident has been the subject of a number of reviews and reports, which reflects the level of public concern and the fact that it is essential that consumers have confidence in the food that they buy or are served.

Food fraud is completely unacceptable, and that is what we are dealing with here. Consumers have every right to expect food to be correctly described. It is up to the whole food supply chain to ensure that such an incident does not happen again. As the Committee’s report says, industry’s assurance measures and the action that it takes to ensure the traceability of products are key to a sustainable food chain.

As the Committee is aware, the industry is taking its own steps to build consumer confidence. Although the Government should not be closely supervising the industry or limiting its ability to react to market signals, they do have a role in helping to restore consumer confidence and in enforcing EU law.

To help restore consumer confidence, the Government have encouraged industry to continue to give high priority to the testing of processed meat products and the sharing of information. More than 36,000 industry test results have been reported, covering manufacturing, processing, retail, catering and food service, which demonstrates the seriousness with which the industry is taking the need to remain vigilant and to restore consumer confidence in its food.

The Government agree that they have a role in working with businesses from across the food supply chain to identify ways to strengthen the industry and to enable it to respond to the challenges and opportunities that it faces. Regular meetings are being held, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to ensure that British food is recognised for its rigorous standards and traceability and that our farmers and producers do not get a bad reputation as a result of incidents such as the one involving horsemeat.

Research shows that in the wake of the horsemeat incident, UK consumers have a greater level of trust in British produce, and the industry must welcome and build on that. That point was made by my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), as well as my hon. Friend the Chair of the Select Committee in her opening remarks.

During the incident, the Government’s role focused on working with industry and local authorities to establish the scale of the problem, investigating and taking enforcement action against those responsible and prompting action at a European level to deal with some issues that have again been raised today. Our focus is now on learning and sharing the lessons from the incident and on improving the current approach to food authenticity and fraud.

The UK Government reacted quickly when they were alerted to the presence of horsemeat in beef products on sale in the UK by the Food Safety Authority of Ireland. That is backed up by the findings of the Troop review, mentioned by the Committee Chairman and others, into the FSA’s response to the incident.

The Committee has questioned whether the FSA should have done something sooner when the Food Safety Authority of Ireland mentioned that it was developing testing methods to detect horsemeat. I would like to clarify that a competent authority in another member state informing the UK that it is planning to develop a detection method is not the same as a member state informing the UK that it has found evidence of contamination or food fraud. We would hope and expect that any intelligence that another member state had would be shared with us at that juncture. Nothing was brought to the Government’s attention at that point; it was only that the FSAI was developing a test.

Just as we have a programme of work to develop testing to support our enforcement of EU food law, other member states develop methods for testing the authenticity of food. In its evidence to the Committee, the FSAI stated that it was “surprised” by the results and retested and reconfirmed the results before informing its Government officials and Ministers.

Once the presence of horsemeat in beef products had been identified as potential fraud, rather than unintended contamination, the UK’s response to the incident was rapid and extensive—more rapid and extensive than that of any other member state. An unprecedented level of testing was carried out quickly by industry and local authorities, the results of which were communicated to consumers and shared with the Commission and other European countries. It is to the credit of the industry and enforcement officers that that activity was carried out at pace and effectively, and to UK laboratories’ credit that they demonstrated the ability to up their capacity to meet demands.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

I commend the Minister for making a very good first stab at it; I know that he will be excellent in this role—I genuinely mean that. However, I want to clarify that he is now distancing himself firmly from the recommendations and findings of the Committee and the National Audit Office. He is turning 180°.

[Dan Rogerson]

I am seeking areas of common ground between the two—between the Committee and the NAO. Having had the opportunity to discuss this matter with officials in preparation for this debate, having looked at the report from the Committee of which I was a member, having looked at the other report that the hon. Gentleman mentioned and having sought the evidence, what is clear to me as a Minister is the important distinction between the notification that a test was being developed and the discovery that horsemeat had been found. That is an important distinction.

The Government share the Committee’s desire to see those responsible for the situation brought to justice. I note the Committee’s concerns about the pace of those investigations and the number of arrests. However, it is a criminal matter and so is being dealt with by the prosecuting authorities—not something in which the Government should intervene. However, the police Gold Group, chaired by the City of London police, is taking the matter very seriously and the necessary steps are being taken.

Another point to make is that if we wanted a faster response, we might well have ended up with lesser fines, of the sort that Members have been concerned about today. We would have had a local authority response at a lower level, which would have been swifter but would perhaps not have picked up on the issues. I want to reassure Members present here that these investigations are live, that—as we know—arrests have been made and that these matters are being taken very seriously. However, it would not be proper for me to seek to jump to conclusions ahead of the report on those investigations.

We will continue to share information from the UK with Europol and other enforcing authorities, and we are mindful that a number of businesses in the UK have been victims of this fraud and will also be keen to see action taken against those responsible. People along the chain could be said to have been victims of the fraud.

As I said, the Government’s focus is on learning from and sharing the lessons from the incident, both through formal reviews and internal discussions to strengthen current activities. Following the publication of Professor Pat Troop’s review of the FSA’s handling of the incident, the FSA and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are working together to address the issues raised. In particular, they are looking at ways to strengthen and improve intelligence sharing with relevant partners, and to clarify the responsibilities and roles of the two organisations.

Horsemeat fraud is unacceptable, but that does not mean that the Government were not effectively identifying food contamination and fraud. Meat fraud and product substitution are not new; as my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton pointed out, across the centuries and across the sector as a whole these are things that unscrupulous people have attempted to get away with. In 2012, local authorities carried out more than 18,000 tests for food authenticity, including tests for meat substitution. However, enforcement officers were not looking for the presence of horsemeat. Instead, the focus of testing was for product substitution with more widely available products, such as chicken and pork.

What the horsemeat incident has demonstrated is the widespread and international nature of food fraud, and the need to consider products that are more readily available beyond the UK, to protect consumer confidence. The Government agree that to understand and robustly assess the risks, we need better intelligence sharing. The FSA and DEFRA are jointly working to achieve better intelligence sharing between Government, industry and local authorities. Intelligence is not solely about testing, and given finite resources it is right that sampling and testing by enforcement bodies should remain targeted and risk-based.

The increase in the number of reported incidents of food fraud demonstrates the effectiveness of that targeting, as well as the successful development of detection methods and the priority given to authenticity. The Government also agree that it is unacceptable for any local authority not to carry out food standards sampling, and the FSA will continue to work with local authorities to ensure that all of them meet the standards set out in the framework agreement. Although we all understand the pressures on local government, the matter is very clear and the FSA has also been clear about working with partners in local government to ensure that those standards are delivered.

The Government recognise that they have a role in horizon-scanning for the unknown risks, but this should be done in a manner and on a scale that still represents good value to the taxpayer. That is something that we will need to consider further and it will still need to be based on intelligence for it to be justified. We are already strengthening information sharing between departments, by linking the emerging risks programme and the authenticity programme to improve our ability to horizon-scan the next unknown risk. The FSA has also reviewed its own operational structure to give greater direction and priority to identifying and combating food fraud in the future.

On the issue that a number of hon. Members raised about the report line for the FSA, we have to be absolutely clear that the FSA is a non-ministerial department of Government. It advises other Departments and shares information with them, as I have been saying, but it is not subject in any way either to my own Department or to the Department of Health. It is independent, and its independence is welcomed. Obviously, that it would be independent was the intention of the previous Government in constituting it.

Although we are looking to communicate better the roles and responsibilities of the FSA and DEFRA, the Government do not accept that machinery of government changes in 2010 impacted on the Government’s handling of the horsemeat incident or on the independent status of the FSA. The FSA led the response from day one, with DEFRA and the FSA working closely together throughout to deliver an effective response. It is right that Ministers were held to account for updating Parliament on the situation during the incident; it is right that Ministers took the lead in initiating action at a European level; and it is also right that the FSA led on investigating the incident and taking enforcement action. The FSA leads on enforcement, and it has in place the necessary framework and relationships with local authorities to instigate sampling and testing.

There will always be boundary issues for the Government’s interest in food, and it is our responsibility to ensure that these issues are understood and that we have the measures in place to make them work. The recent horsemeat incident has demonstrated that the FSA and DEFRA can work together to address issues such as food fraud, but we recognise that there is always more to be done to ensure that stakeholders understand where those boundaries lie and why, even if they do not agree with them.

As the Select Committee is aware, the Government’s independent review, “Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks”, will focus on consumer confidence in the authenticity of food products, identifying any weaknesses that could have implications for food safety and authenticity. The review will consider the efficiency of current frameworks and operations, and I am sure that stakeholders will have taken the opportunity to raise their concerns or highlight issues.

The Chair of the Select Committee raised the issue of reviews. It is important to point out that this is a separate review. The Troop review was into the incident itself; this review will now set out where we go from here. It is looking at what we need to do to ensure the integrity of the supply chain right the way across, and we look forward to the interim publication of its findings later in the year.

The “Integrity and Assurance of Food Supply Networks” review is not only focused on Government but will look at the roles, and responsibilities to consumers, of the industry, and at what businesses need to do to support consumer confidence. That is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton made when he was talking about the responsibility of the industry. As the Government, we are engaging with this issue and seeking to reassure people that the food chain is secure, but ultimately those involved in the food chain are responsible for it. They are the ones who are selling products to consumers, engaging with producers and taking part in that chain.

My hon. Friend was absolutely right to raise that issue; the Government have a role in this process, but we must ensure that it is those who are involved in the chain itself who guarantee its integrity. The food industry is ultimately responsible for making sure that food is authentic and meets the required standards expected not only by the Government but most importantly, as hon. Members have said, by consumers.

I am sure that, as I am, the Committee is looking forward to seeing Professor Chris Elliott’s interim report in December.

16:37

[Miss McIntosh]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his first outing as Minister. There is some common ground between us, but there are still areas of disagreement. Nevertheless, we have had a very good debate and exchange this afternoon.

It was remiss of me not to thank all those who participated in our inquiry, including the witnesses, who gave both oral and written evidence. I will momentarily point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that his name is recorded in the formal minutes of both reports and we were delighted to have his support.

[Dan Rogerson]

The hon. Lady is absolutely correct. When I was responding to the hon. Member for Ogmore earlier, I thought that he was referring to the NAO report when he talked about “two reports”, rather than the two phases of the work that the Committee did.

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Are you in the NAO report as well? [Laughter.]

[Dan Rogerson]

No—absolutely not.

[Miss McIntosh]

Anyway, a week is a long time in politics.

I will just go through some of the points that have been made. Regarding traceability and the supply chain, I think that the Minister has taken the point, and we need to process that.

On insufficient testing, we concluded—although none of us spelled it out, and it was remiss of me not to do so—that the FSA at the moment does not force the industry retailers to carry out testing. It would be good if we could agree that the Department should look into that and consider giving the FSA a steer on it. Perhaps the Elliott review will do that, and say that large retailers must carry out regular DNA testing of meat ingredients for frozen and processed meat products, with the cost being borne by themselves—the industry—and not by the consumers. That point has been echoed by hon. Members throughout the debate and I think that consumers will respond to it. We insisted, in our conclusions, that the results of the tests ordered by the FSA should be submitted to it and that a summary should be published on the retailer’s website.

There must be change in respect of issuing horse passports. There is a worrying increase in numbers of horses in my county, let alone between Northern Ireland and southern Ireland.

We need to deal with insufficient testing by retailers, including supermarkets, especially those who do not do it at all. I will be pleased if the Elliott review addresses the issue of analysts. I welcome what the Minister said about strengthening intelligence sharing.

[Dan Rogerson]

I should like to mention a couple of points that I did not talk about directly in my remarks. The issue of horse passports will be settled at European level, but the Government are keen to engage in that process and see what can be done, as long as it is proportionate, to ensure that we get it right.

The NAO considered capacity in terms of analysts, although it did not say that there was a lack of capacity. The FSA holds that under review, so we will keep a close eye on that.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am most grateful to the Minister. Although it would be hugely expensive to deal with, there is concern about abattoirs slaughtering both cattle and horses. We need to be aware of that.

There is a real issue about the governance and structural problems. I poked fun at the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ogmore, about how his Government set the structure up. However, it is possible that we have been seen to compound that situation. We will be able to draw a line under this matter only when we can say, hand on heart, where contamination, adulteration and lack of authenticity entered into the food chain. The sooner we can see prosecutions of the perpetrators from the big retailers, the more it will boost consumer confidence.

I endorse comments made about the processed foods that have been a cause of concern. At the heart of our report was concern about processed foods and frozen foods.

I am delighted that the Minister, and the shadow Minister, gave us a hearing today.

Question put and agreed to.

16:42

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 17 October 2013

Tax Policy Consultation and Draft Legislation

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

The Government’s approach to developing tax policy emphasises the benefits of policy consultation and legislative scrutiny.

Following Budget 2013, the Government have engaged with interested parties, seeking their views on more than 30 areas of tax policy. The next stage of consultation aims to ensure that the legislation works as intended.

Draft clauses to be included in Finance Bill 2013 will be published on 10 December 2013, together with responses to policy consultation, explanatory notes and tax information and impact notes. The consultation on the draft legislation will be open until 4 February 2014.

Low Pay Commission: National Minimum Wage

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

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

I am pleased to announce that the Government have written to the Low Pay Commission setting out what we would like the Commission to consider on the national minimum wage. The document contains the Government’s interim evidence on economic and non-economic issues, including the minimum wage rates and the youth labour market. An updated version of the evidence will be published later when the latest information on earnings and economic forecasts will be included.

A copy of the evidence will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available at: www.gov.uk.

Contingency Liability

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

In line with normal practice I would like to inform the House that while in the summer recess, my Department provided an indemnity to the Church Commissioners for England, in order to secure a lease arrangement on its site for CET primary school, Westminster, from September 2013 until 31 March 2017.

Such an indemnity would normally be notified in advance to Parliament but since the need was identified during recess, officials wrote to the right hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) as Chair of the Committee of Public Accounts, copied to my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart) as Chair of the Education Select Committee on 21 August 2013, informing them of the proposed indemnity.

I inform the House today of the indemnity provided and a departmental minute, which sets out the detail of the indemnity, has been laid in both Houses.

Child Poverty Commission (Annual Report)

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Schools (Mr David Laws)]

I, in collaboration with the Deputy Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, wish to inform the House of the publication of the annual report by the Social Mobility and Child Poverty Commission “State of the Nation: social mobility and child poverty in Great Britain”.

The report sets out the views of the Commission on the progress made toward the goals of improving social mobility and reducing child poverty in the United Kingdom. It also includes a description of the measures that have been taken by the devolved Administrations in Scotland and Wales.

The Government welcome the report and the Commission’s contribution to these important issues. We will consider their recommendations and our response in due course.

The report will be laid in Parliament and published later today. The report will be available at www.Gov.uk/SMCPC.

Agricultural and Fisheries Council

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

The next Agriculture and Fisheries Council is on Thursday 17 October in Luxembourg. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice), will be representing the UK. Richard Lochhead MSP may also attend.

The Council will concentrate on fisheries items. There are no agricultural items scheduled for this Council.

The agenda items are as follows:

Council regulation fixing the 2014 fishing opportunities for certain fish stocks and groups of fish stocks applicable in the Baltic sea

EU /Norway: annual consultation for 2014

International Commission for the Conservation of Atlantic Tunas (ICCAT) annual meeting— exchange of views

AOB item: north-east Atlantic mackerel management and coastal state negotiations

Bovine TB

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

This Government are committed to ensuring we have a comprehensive package of measures to tackle bovine TB (bTB), including a carefully managed and science-led policy of badger control in areas with high incidence of TB in cattle.

I am updating the House following the completion of the six-week control pilot in Gloucestershire on 15 October. This is further to my statement of 9 October, in which I informed the House that Natural England was considering, and has since granted, a short extension to the pilot in Somerset to improve the disease benefits already achieved.

As previously announced, the badger population in Gloucestershire immediately before the pilot began was estimated to have fallen to 2,350 compared with an estimated population of 3,400 last summer. In the six weeks of the pilot 708 badgers have been removed from this population. This represents just over 30% of the local badger population.

In view of this, the chief veterinary officer (CVO) has advised that the period of culling this year should be extended to achieve the earliest and greatest possible impact on bTB in Gloucestershire. Natural England is therefore considering an application for an extension from the cull company in Gloucestershire.

The pilots held this year are the first stage in a planned four-year cull. Three of the areas of the randomised badger culling trial also had a slow start. These areas saw an increase in the numbers of badgers removed in subsequent years and went on to contribute to overall disease benefits.

I have always been clear that both the Somerset and Gloucestershire culls are pilots. This has enabled us to test the safety, humaneness and effectiveness of controlled shooting as a means of reducing badger numbers and so reduce significantly disease in cattle. Having the two separate pilot areas has similarly enabled us to see how different environmental factors, field and other conditions affect the practical delivery of our objectives. Experience gained on the ground has been invaluable. I would like to pay tribute to the local farmers and landowners who are undertaking the cull, often in difficult terrain and weather, and often in the face of intimidation by a small minority who are determined to stop this disease control policy.

After the independent panel of experts has reported, we will consider all the information these pilots have generated and decide on next steps. The early indications are that, as in Somerset, the pilot in Gloucestershire has been safe and humane. Nevertheless, the Gloucestershire pilot has again demonstrated that the cull period may need to be longer than six weeks in future, enabling teams to adapt their approaches to suit local circumstances.

These pilots are another step towards halting the spread of bTB. We continue to make good progress on all aspects of our draft strategy to eradicate the disease in England within 25 years, including the development of workable badger and cattle vaccines and better biosecurity on farms. Collectively, we are putting in place the necessary measures for the successful long-term eradication of bTB in the UK.

“Adapting To Change: UK policy towards the Arctic”

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I would like to inform the House that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is today publishing the Government’s Arctic policy framework, “Adapting To Change: UK policy towards the Arctic”.

The framework sets out the detail of the UK’s interests in the Arctic, how we will work with Arctic states and the wider international community, and what expertise the UK can offer to help meet some of the long-term challenges facing the region.

In doing so, we will respect the sovereign rights of the Arctic states to exercise jurisdiction over their territory; the views and interests of people who live and work in the Arctic; and the Arctic environment, its fragility and its central importance to the global climate.

We will work towards an Arctic that is safe and secure; well-governed in conjunction with indigenous peoples and international law. We will promote Arctic policies that are developed on the basis of sound science and have full regard to the environment. We will promote an Arctic where only responsible development takes place.

We will support the Arctic Council as the pre-eminent regional forum for discussing Arctic issues and actively encourage wider dialogue on Arctic matters of global importance. We will promote UK Arctic science, encourage more international collaboration and continue to fund top-class research to increase understanding of the changes in the Arctic. We will play a leading role in diplomatic efforts to avoid dangerous climate change and support the principle of designating Marine Protected Areas in international waters where science supports it. We will facilitate responsible business activity in the region by UK companies and advocate for the highest environmental and drilling standards.

Fundamentally, leadership for Arctic stewardship rests with the eight Arctic states and the peoples within those states. However, where appropriate we will show leadership on Arctic matters of global importance, such as understanding the effects of Arctic climate change on global processes, and we will work co-operatively with Arctic states and other international partners on issues that affect UK interests in the fields of governance, environment and commerce.

I have placed copies of the Arctic policy framework in the Libraries of both Houses. It is also available on: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/adapting-to-change-uk-policy-towards-the-arctic.

EU-Ukraine Association Agreement

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I wish to inform the House that the Government have opted in to the following measures:

(i) the Council decision on the signing, on behalf of the EU, and provisional application of an association agreement between the EU and its member states, and Ukraine.

(ii) the Council decision on the conclusion of the association agreement between the EU and its member states, and Ukraine.

The EU-Ukraine association agreement, including a deep and comprehensive free trade area, will deepen and broaden the political and economic relationship between the EU, its member states, and Ukraine. The agreement process supports and encourages reform in Ukraine to bring it closer to EU norms, as well giving Ukraine gradual access to parts of the EU internal market.

UK Government policy is to support a closer relationship between the EU and Ukraine, while continuing to make clear to Ukraine that they need to deliver demonstrable improvements. We have not yet taken a decision on whether to recommend signature of the agreement which is dependent on sufficient progress on reform by Ukraine. I underlined all of these points during my September visit to Ukraine.

The Council decisions relate to an agreement which contains provisions relating to the temporary movement of natural persons for business purposes—known as “mode 4” trade in services—and the readmission of third country nationals, thus triggering the UK Justice and Home Affairs opt-in. I believe it is in the UK’s interest to opt in to these measures, which are an integral part of our wider approach on trade and support our other commitments in services and investment liberalisation.

EU Transport Council

Thursday 17th October 2013 Written Statements

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

I attended the first Transport Council of the Lithuanian presidency (the presidency) in Luxembourg on Thursday 10 October.

The Council held an orientation debate on the proposal amending regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The presidency invited responses to questions posed on compensation for missed connections and whether compensation should be time/distance-based or linked to the price of the ticket. I expressed concern that the inclusion of connecting flights in the text would impact negatively upon interlining agreements, reduce regional connectivity, increase capacity problems at airports and place the EU sector at a competitive disadvantage. I stated that the priority should be to agree the five, nine and 12-hour trigger points for when compensation is due. The time/distance-based approach to compensation should be maintained. I also took the opportunity to make some other points on the proposal—I stressed that extraordinary circumstances should not be limited to two flights, and that the provisions should not cover other transport modes.

The Council agreed to the proposed extension until 2024 on the regulation establishing a joint undertaking to develop the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR).

The Council agreed three general approaches on: railway safety; multi-annual funding in respect of the European Maritime Safety Agency; and the Galileo GNSS Agency.

On the proposal for a recast directive on railway safety (part of the 4th railway package), the Commission had originally proposed that the European Railway Agency should undertake all approvals, but the presidency’s compromise proposal included a similar model to the general approach on the recast directive on railway interoperability agreed at the June Transport Council for the issue of the single safety certificate. This included the UK’s proposal to give applicants a choice to use national safety authorities where operations would be restricted to one member state.

The proposal for a directive on multi-annual funding for the action of the European Maritime Safety Agency was agreed following the withdrawal of the remaining reservations.

The proposal for a regulation setting up the European GNSS Agency which will play a central role in improving the governance and management of the EU’s satellite navigations systems, Galileo and EGNOS, was also agreed.

Under any other business, the Commission reported on the outcome of the International Civil Aviation Organisation assembly in relation to the aviation emissions trading scheme. The Commission noted that the commitment to the development of a global market-based measure for agreement by 2016, to be implemented by 2020, was a major success for the EU. I strongly welcomed the commitment to a global market-based measure. However, I pointed out that the EU needed to consider next steps in light of the outcome of the ICAO Assembly, and in particular the need to avoid hostile reactions from third countries.

The Commission updated Ministers on a developing situation where Russia is likely to commence requesting passenger data from EU airlines from 1 December 2013, and reported on the system for monitoring, reporting and verification (MRV) of greenhouse gas emissions from international maritime transport.

Spain reported on the recent train accident at Santiago de Compostela and will be focusing on the overhaul of standards and technical improvements, as well as assistance to those affected by the accident. Investigation into the accident is currently ongoing.

House of Lords

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Thursday, 17 October 2013.

11:00

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Leicester.

Introduction: Lord Carrington of Fulham

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

11:08

Matthew Hadrian Marshall Carrington, Esquire, having been created Baron Carrington of Fulham, of Fulham in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Trefgarne and Lord Patten, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Introduction: Lord Leigh of Hurley

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

11:14

Howard Darryl Leigh, Esquire, having been created Baron Leigh of Hurley, of Hurley in the County of Berkshire, was introduced and took the oath, supported by Lord Feldman of Elstree and Lord Fink, and signed an undertaking to abide by the Code of Conduct.

Energy: Winter Supply

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:18

Asked by

[Lord Ezra]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they consider there will be adequate energy supplies to meet the demand if next winter is as cold as the last one.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, we expect the energy market to deliver over the winter of 2013-14 as it has always done. We have a range of options in place to meet any tightening of margins. National Grid has existing system-balancing tools to respond to any short-term demand or supply fluctuation, and it is consulting with Ofgem on extending the existing tools to manage any predicted risks mid-decade in electricity. For the medium to long term, in the Energy Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House we are ensuring that we get the levels of investment needed to deliver secure energy supplies through a diverse mix of energy sources.

[Lord Ezra (LD)]

My Lords, could my noble friend kindly elaborate on her reply? In the case of gas, bearing in mind that we are now importing more than 50% of our requirements and that storage is limited, is she satisfied that we will have enough to meet peak winter demand? In the case of electricity, bearing in mind that it is estimated that reserve capacity could be as low as 5%, instead of 15% or above as normal, is she equally satisfied that we will be able to meet peak winter demand?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is right to raise this important question, but I hope that he will be reassured to know that we still have a large percentage of our gas provided from the North Sea. We have greatly increased our import infrastructure over the past few years, so have a good diversity of supply sources and gas storage to meet our demands comfortably. For both gas and electricity, National Grid is confident that it has the right mix of tools to ensure that energy requirements are met reliably and safely without having to resort to contingency measures.

[Viscount Hanworth (Lab)]

The Minister is bound to acknowledge that since the Government came to power there has been an unprecedented hiatus in investment in the energy industry. This must be due in large measure to the mixed messages that the Government have given in regard to their energy policy. She is also surely aware that, among the big six energy companies, those that have reaped the largest profits have had the worst investment records. What measures, beyond those contained in the Energy Bill, are the Government taking to encourage investment in the power industry?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I remind the noble Viscount that under this Government, since 2010, £35 billion-worth of investment in the energy sector has come forward and there has been a 56% increase in the renewables sector. It is a fallacy to say that there is a hiatus when we are a very open and welcome country for investment. However, if we were to go by the plans that the noble Viscount’s party is trying to project, that investment would be driven away.

[Lord Lawson of Blaby (Con)]

My Lords, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, to his place. I recall well his being the chairman of the Coal Board when I was Energy Secretary. My noble friend the Minister referred to the Energy Bill but it has nothing to do with his Question. The Bill will do its damage in the future when it implements the targets of the Miliband Climate Change Act but there is a crisis in this coming winter, which is a result of the large combustion plant directive. That European directive requires us to close prematurely coal-fired power stations. Will she give an assurance that if it is a question of either implementing the directive straight away and the lights going out or saving the lights from going out, the Government will choose the latter course and not implement the directive?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I am always grateful for my noble friend’s very helpful questions and I reassure him that the Energy Bill is relevant to the Question because it brings forward all the measures we need for long-term security in energy at a competitive price. I think that I have already answered the Question: we have enough energy there and we have the measures in place to be able to respond to any short-term fluctuations, so I hope my noble friend will be reassured that his lights and our lights will stay on.

[Lord O'Neill of Clackmannan (Lab)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Energy Bill is still deficient in one respect at least—carbon targets? Were carbon targets to be included in the Bill, it would be a clear indication to investors of the Government’s intent in this area. At the moment, nobody really knows how green this Government want to be. The absence of these targets is the surest confirmation that their energy policy is a shambles.

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord really needs to look at our record. We have seen an increase of 56% in renewable energy, which will bring down carbon targets. We have committed ourselves, but we cannot see a target put in place against a global backdrop of what we do not yet know. We need to ensure that we are leaders, by having our carbon reductions at the forefront; we also need to ensure that our trading partners look at their carbon emissions. We need to do this collectively, not singularly as a country on our own.

[Lord Renton of Mount Harry (Con)]

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the Minister’s optimism, but is she aware of the implications of an amendment passed last week in the European Union Parliament that will prevent the EU from sharing in the cheap energy revolution created by fracking for shale gas? The effect of this is likely to be a doubling of our household energy costs. Will she study this very carefully to see if there is any way in which the amendment can be bypassed?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, I think I would prefer to write to my noble friend directly on the issues that he raises and put a copy in the Library. However, I reassure him that what we are trying to achieve through the Energy Bill is greater competition so that we see lower bills and a securer source of energy.

[Lord Tomlinson (Lab)]

Does the Minister accept that an important part of government energy policy is the energy company obligation? Designed to help poor consumers, it is in a shambles and failing. It appears that as much as 60% of the total cost of that could be going to wealthier consumers, and the cost is spiralling out of control.

[Baroness Verma]

No, my Lords. I reassure the noble Lord that 230,000 low-income and vulnerable households will benefit this year from the energy company obligation.

Elections: 16 and 17 Year-olds

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:25

Asked by

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Edinburgh Agreement of 15 October 2012, whether they plan to allow 16 and 17 year-olds in England, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote in future referenda, and all 16 and 17 year-olds in the United Kingdom to vote in general elections.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno (LD)]

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, and declare my interest as president of the youth organisation Bite the Ballot.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con)]

My Lords, it was for the Scottish Parliament to decide on the franchise for the referendum on Scottish independence. That decision does not affect the voting age for parliamentary and local government elections in the United Kingdom. That remains the responsibility of the UK Parliament. Reflecting the different views in society at large, there is no consensus within the Government on this issue, and there are no plans to lower the voting age in this Parliament.

[Lord Roberts of Llandudno]

I regret that Answer; I had hoped for a more positive one. The Minister must be as concerned as I am that at the most recent general election only one-quarter of those eligible to vote between the ages of 18 and 24 did so. People have lost their confidence in politicians and in politics. People are disengaged in so many ways. Does the Minister not agree on the importance of young people having a good citizenship course, possibly in every school in the United Kingdom? At the end of such a citizenship course, they should be able to register at the age of 16 to become voters and be put on the electoral register.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that democratic engagement is essential. That is why the Government are investing in the engagement programme to ensure that the levels of electoral registration and engagement in the democratic process improve. My noble friend has raised the particular issue of young people aged 16 to 24, but that also includes residents of social housing and all sorts of other initiatives such as Operation Black Vote and Bite the Ballot. This issue is very important and the Government are investing in that programme.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am proud to say that my party is in favour of votes at 16, but that must be in parallel with improved citizenship teaching. Lessons well taught including active citizenship, as at the Bethnal Green Academy, are crucial in the development of our young people. However, there is an alarming decline in an already low number of teachers trained to teach citizenship. Indeed, in too many schools, and in free schools, citizenship is not taught. Will the Minister say what the numbers of citizenship teachers are, and what the Government are doing to address the problem of the lack of them?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I should say straightaway that I do not have the precise details but I will write to the noble Baroness with those figures. However, citizenship education is clearly an important part of the national curriculum, as indeed it has been since 2002 since her party’s term of office. I applaud that. Ministers have agreed that citizenship education should be in the new national curriculum. It is very important, and I say again: even if some do not agree that 16 year-olds should have the vote, clearly they can enrol on the electoral roll at 16 and it is important that that is the beginning of the stage of age-related majority, which across the piece is a very interesting subject.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

This is about participation. Will the Minister start talking about maturity, judgment and experience and how they relate to the decision about when people should have the power to vote for the future of this country, to fight for it, and the age of consent? A broad range of decisions is based on calendar age. If the biological age of this country is changing, we need to know.

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, in preparation for this Question I asked about age-related legal thresholds for a number of issues. My noble friend mentioned fighting for our country. At 18 you can join the Armed Forces without the consent of a parent or guardian, be deployed, sit on a jury, buy alcohol and hold a licence to sell alcohol. There are many other sectors in which 18 is considered a suitable age-related threshold.

[The Earl of Listowel (CB)]

Does the Minister welcome the rapid development of school councils, which give young people important assistance to develop a sense of citizenship, and children in care councils so that young people in the care of local authorities can speak regularly about their concerns to those in charge? In relation to this Question, is he thinking about the need for children to be able to enjoy their childhood and the concern that sometimes children seem more and more to be accelerated through their childhood?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

I entirely agree that children should have a right to enjoy their childhood. What we have seen recently, and in the past, has shown that children have not been given the care that they should have been given to enjoy their childhood. The British Youth Council, for example, delivers the youth voice programme on behalf of the Government. Under the previous Government and this Government there has been a range of programmes as part of ensuring that young people engage in the democratic process and also enjoy their childhood.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as president of the Citizenship Foundation. Does the Minister accept that Parliament and successive Governments have failed young citizens in that we legislate madly and do not equip school leavers with the skills and knowledge necessary to be engaged in what is now a hugely complicated democracy? Will he review his reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, in which he spoke of citizenship education? Does he accept that the status of citizenship education is woefully inadequate for the demands put upon it, which is reflected in the fact that it is not part of the Ofsted inspection report? Is it not vital that we do something about it?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble]

My Lords, I will reflect on what my noble friend said. I have been hearing about the National Citizen Service, a personal social development programme for 16 and 17 year-olds. More than 460,000 hours of social action were completed by participants last year. Young people are increasingly doing an important role in the voluntary programme, and we need to ensure that that continues.

Energy: Long-term Supply

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:33

Asked by

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their estimate of the investment required over the next decade to ensure a competitive and secure energy supply for the United Kingdom.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change (Baroness Verma) (Con)]

My Lords, the Energy Bill is currently going through your Lordships’ House. I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have made detailed contributions to the proceedings thus far. The Bill will drive £110 billion-worth of investment that is required in our electricity market between now and 2020. Our investment will not only help provide the infrastructure we need but will bring real economic growth and help support as many as 250,000 jobs in the low-carbon electricity market by 2020.

[Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Con)]

Will my noble friend confirm that government policy and regulation costs will add 22% to the average energy bill by 2020? Will she ensure that all the highly regressive and secret levies are exposed by requiring the energy companies to itemise them on household electricity bills?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend is of course right to raise the greater transparency that energy companies need to demonstrate in showing where costs are. However, the main driver behind energy price rises has been wholesale energy costs. We want a secure energy market; we need a diverse mix. We also need to meet our legal obligations, which have been set through the Climate Change Act 2008 and our globally agreed targets. We are working hard to ensure that we press energy companies to be as transparent and as open as possible with what they are putting on their energy bills.

[Lord Wigley (PC)]

My Lords, as a keen supporter of having new reactors at the Wylfa nuclear power station in Anglesey, I press the Minister to clarify the Government’s policy on the decommissioning of nuclear power stations. Is she aware that the Trawsfynydd nuclear power station, which ceased electricity generation 20 years ago, still employs 700 people on the decommissioning? Will she give a guarantee that, first, the companies providing new reactors will have to internalise the costs of decommissioning and, secondly, in the event that that fails to happen, there will be a copper-bottomed government guarantee that the communities welcoming these new developments will not be left without cover for those costs?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, the noble Lord asks a very important question. Of course, the Government have pledged not to put any public subsidy in place for any costs of new nuclear, including decommissioning. As part of the acceptance of any agreement with a company wishing to site nuclear, it will need to show that decommissioning costs have already been included in its costings.

[Lord Tanlaw (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister’s estimate show that the forthcoming switch of clocks to winter time will reduce household and office consumption of energy? If the information is not available today from her department, the Energy Saving Trust or the Environmental Audit Committee, can she give an assurance that it will be available to noble Lords by March next year, when the clocks change to summer time and this question will be asked again?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, it is a very interesting question.

[Noble Lords]

Hear, hear!

[Baroness Verma]

I refer back to the measures that we are taking through the Energy Bill. One of those measures is about looking at demand in energy usage. We of course want to ensure that not only are we generating more energy but that we are encouraging businesses and people to reduce energy use.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

My Lords—

[Lord Spicer (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest listed in the parliamentary register, and ask this question.

[The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Lord Hill of Oareford) (Con)]

My Lords, forgive me. It is Labour’s turn for a question.

[Lord Grocott]

Given that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor have frequently expressed concern about the influence of the left and, as they describe it, “Marxist policies” in Britain, what would be their attitude of the involvement of a communist country in our energy supply industry?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, luckily, the UK is the most open economy in the world and therefore welcomes inward investment, including in the nuclear sector and renewable energy, from everyone in the world.

[Lord Spicer]

My Lords—

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that not enough determination has been shown by the official regulator, Ofgem, or by our competition authorities over the past decade to make sure that there is sufficient competition in the energy market, which would at last favour consumers? Would she nudge those organisations to grow some teeth and perhaps bare them, so that consumers get a fairer deal out of energy prices?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, my noble friend makes a very important point. We have seen the need for a robust regulator, which is why we have given Ofgem additional powers to investigate and penalise any market manipulation in the wholesale markets. We are also giving it extra powers to ensure that there is greater competition in the marketplace. I reassure my noble friend that under this Government there has been an increase in smaller generators being able to partake in the energy market, from three to seven. We want to see greater competition because we think that competition, not freezing energy prices, is the way to encourage lower prices.

[Lord Grantchester (Lab)]

My Lords, while estimates of the investment required may vary, according to the energy mix in the future, would the Minister like to see energy companies put more emphasis on investment and keeping prices for the consumer down rather than on executive pay packages and dividends to shareholders?

[Baroness Verma]

My Lords, of course the noble Lord is right that we want to see greater investment, and that is what the Government are doing. This Government are working hard to get the £110 billion-worth of investment that is needed. Twenty per cent of our capacity is coming off-grid. We need that investment, we needed it earlier and, sadly, we are having to work very hard to catch up. However, rest assured that we are working very hard to ensure that energy companies are more transparent and are responding to the competition. However, if consumers need to change their energy companies because they are charging too much, they must be encouraged to switch, which is what we are trying to do.

Golden Rice

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

11:41

Asked by

[Baroness Hayman]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what measures they are taking to support the introduction of “golden rice” to help alleviate childhood blindness caused by vitamin A deficiency.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord De Mauley) (Con)]

My Lords, golden rice is being developed by the independent, non-profit, International Rice Research Institute. The UK is providing £120 million of core funding over three years to the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research, of which IRRI is a member. The Government are also providing up to £30 million of support for the CGIAR’s Harvest Plus programme, which researches nutritionally improved or bio-fortified food crops.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply and for the robust and principled attitude that I believe Her Majesty’s Government are taking in this matter. The World Health Organisation estimates that half a million of the world’s poorest children go blind every year, and half of those children die every year because of vitamin A deficiency. Against that background, should we not all agree that we should welcome the philanthropic and scientific work that has gone into the development of golden rice, enriched by vitamin A? Should we not be prepared to challenge the opposition of those who fight its introduction on a basis of ideology and zero tolerance to anything that has the initials GM against it, regardless of the cost in children’s lives?

[Lord De Mauley]

I so agree with the noble Baroness. It is worth quoting from Professor Tom Sanders, who is Professor of Nutrition & Dietetics at King’s College London, who said:

“Vitamin A deficiency remains a major problem in South Asia contributing to increased childhood mortality from infectious diseases such as measles as well as being a major cause of blindness. Rice is the staple cereal in most of those countries and golden rice, which contains the precursor of vitamin A, beta-carotene, has been shown to be effective at improving nutritional status with regard to vitamin A”.

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, will my noble friend warmly congratulate the Secretary of State on his remarks? As for the NGOs, Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth do much good work and have noble aims. However, their total disregard of the overwhelming evidence in favour of genetically modified crops, which has been available for more than 15 years, means that, on balance, they have probably done more harm than good. Will he ask the Secretary of State to show the same robust approach and transfer the millions of pounds that are available for conversion to organic farming, whose claims are also unfounded, and perhaps make those funds available to our first-class research institutes such as Rothamsted and the John Innes Centre for their excellent work on genetic modification?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, there is quite a lot in that question. There is increasing evidence that the development of golden rice is being blocked by anti-GM NGOs, perhaps because they fear that its successful deployment might generate broader public acceptance of a technology against which they actively campaign. As my noble friend said, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State recently drew attention to the damaging impact that such opposition can have, particularly in those parts of the world where its benefits would be most keenly felt. On my noble friend’s point about funding, our recently announced agrotech strategy will go a long way towards achieving the objectives that he desires.

[Lord Walton of Detchant (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that the lengthy, mischievous and misconceived opposition in this country to GM modification of foods has done considerable harm? Does he also accept that there is no conceivable scientific evidence to suggest that the current techniques used in genetic modification have any damaging effect on human health, and that in fact GM modification improves many foods and therefore should be pursued? Finally, will he try to persuade his colleagues in the European Union to reverse and abolish the ban that they imposed on GM modification in the Union?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I say a very strong yes to every aspect of the noble Lord’s question. I will also say that what the opponents of this technology have done and are doing is a cause of huge disappointment. We have consistently said that we will need all the tools in the box to feed the global population as it grows to 2050. To deny this will be to deny desperately poor people in developing countries a nourishing diet, and potentially life itself.

[Lord Skelmersdale (Con)]

My Lords, does my noble friend accept that there is no real difference between genetically modified crops and F1 hybrids, which have been with us for decades?

[Lord De Mauley]

My noble friend is entirely right that there are a large number of technologies, of which GM is but one, all of which are what I describe as tools in the box.

[The Countess of Mar (CB)]

My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that vitamin A rarely occurs in isolation, and that it is necessary to have a substantial amount of fat in the diet for it to be absorbed? What are Her Majesty’s Government doing to promote a good, all-round diet for these children, in order for the vitamin A to be made useful?

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, of course the noble Countess makes a really important point. However, we have to say that developing countries are capable, and are proceeding and doing a lot of work themselves to feed their populations. We are talking specifically about how we can help them in the area of genetically modified food, which will increase the vitamin A that is so necessary, in particular to reduce blindness.

[The Earl of Selborne (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that the exciting new technologies owe much to research in this country, and does he therefore accept that funding research here is a very effective way for us to tackle the urgent issue of food security around the globe?

[Lord De Mauley]

Yes, my Lords.

[Lord May of Oxford (CB)]

Does the Minister agree that golden rice is part of a much larger problem? Climate change will exacerbate the difficulties that we already have in supplying food to the growing number of people we will have to deal with. This is best addressed by creating drought-resistant and other kinds of crops into which, with surgical precision, we can put the relevant genes, as distinct from what are regarded by the opponents of GM as natural crops, which have been produced by irradiation and picking things out in a much more Frankensteinian process? Does this topic not stand for a much larger issue?

[Lord De Mauley]

I absolutely agree with the noble Lord. I focused on golden rice because the Question encapsulated it. Of course, the noble Lord is absolutely right.

Al-Madinah Free School

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

11:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer to an Urgent Question given in another place this morning by my right honourable friend the Minister for Schools on behalf of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education. The Statement is as follows:

“I welcome this opportunity to make a Statement on Al-Madinah Free School. This school serves children and young people between the ages of four and 16 in the Derby community and has been open for just a year. After a steady start by the school, we became aware of potential breaches of the conditions in its funding agreement late this summer and at the end of July we began a wide-ranging investigation into the financial management and governance of the school. We investigated whether the school was delivering on its commitment to be inclusive, and some allegations about the imposition of a dress requirement on female members of staff. Our investigations did indeed find significant and numerous breaches of the conditions in its funding agreement. Our concerns were such that we requested Ofsted to bring forward its planned inspection. The Ofsted report is published this morning. It has found that the school is dysfunctional and is inadequate across every category of inspection: achievement of pupils; quality of teaching; behaviour and safety of pupils; and leadership and management.

We were already taking decisive action before we received the Ofsted report. I wrote to the chair of the trust on 8 October, following the previous investigations, and set out all the requirements of the trust to take swift and decisive actions to deal with the serious concerns. We have been very clear with the trust that failure to do so promptly will result in the school’s funding being terminated. We have also been very clear with the trust that it must address the breaches identified. We will not let any school, whether a free school, an academy school or a local authority school, languish in failure. The Ofsted report confirms that we are taking the right actions. We are not prepared to allow a school to fails its parents, its children and its community. We said that we will take swift action in these cases, and we are”.

11:51

[Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement, but does he recognise that the damning failure of Al-Madinah school all too starkly illustrates that, in the rush to launch an ideological experiment, the Secretary of State has lost control of the free schools programme, and that it has, in fact, become a dangerous free-for-all? Does he now accept that alarm bells should have rung in the department when Ofsted deemed the school to be failing to meet basic child protection standards back in 2012, before the funding agreement was signed? Does not Ofsted’s conclusion that the school has not been adequately monitored and supported expose the dangerous lack of oversight of the current free schools programme, which has a complete absence of accountability and transparency? The truth is that parents will be wondering who will guarantee the standards in their local free school, and the Secretary of State does not have an answer for them.

11:52

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, after the gymnastics performed by the shadow Secretary of State for Education in the other place this morning, I was rather hoping that the noble Baroness’s answer might enlighten us as to the Labour Party’s policy on free schools—indeed, whether it has an education policy at all. Sadly, I am none the wiser. The school was cleared by Ofsted to open if it satisfied the department on a number of points, and it did satisfy us on those points. An education adviser visited the school in November last year and reported that it was making good progress. In late July, we and Ofsted received various complaints just before the head teacher resigned. We sent the EFA in and Ofsted went in on 1 and 2 October. I have taken swift and decisive action in this case. I will not allow the school to continue unless it satisfies me on the points set out in my letter of 8 October, and any other points we deem appropriate. We should not let the performance of this school affect the excellent work that is being done in our free schools, the first batch of which were good and outstanding in 75% of cases, as opposed to 63% of all other schools.

11:54

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that the Government acted decisively and promptly to ensure that this action was taken? However, will he also reflect on the need to ensure that teachers and the leadership of our free schools should be fully qualified so that occurrences such as this are least likely to happen?

[Lord Nash]

My Lords, there are plenty of teachers in schools up and down the country who do not have formal qualifications and are doing an excellent job, but we ensure through Ofsted that teaching in these schools is good, and we will ensure that the governance and leadership of these schools is appropriate.

[Baroness Blackstone (Lab)]

The noble Lord’s answer to that question was somewhat complacent. For many years we have struggled in this country to ensure that teachers in primary and secondary schools that are state funded have proper qualifications. To allow these schools to be set up with teachers who do not have such qualifications is an invitation to problems. Will he not give a guarantee that he and his Secretary of State will reconsider their policy of allowing these schools to be established and continue in operation without qualified teachers in every case?

[Lord Nash]

I am afraid that I cannot give that guarantee. We will guarantee to ensure that the leadership and management of these schools, and teachers teaching within them, are appropriate. But I am afraid, given the state of our school system that we inherited—

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord Nash]

We have to bring innovation into the school system and will not let a dogmatic approach resist such innovation.

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I declare an interest as the Bishop of Derby and congratulate the Minister and his colleagues on the monitoring and firm action that is being taken. As I understand it, this is a very local initiative. What lessons can be learnt because if we do not have the local authority playing a key role, how are we providing the right kind of framework and guidance for local initiatives so that the right kind of standards, structures and expectations are put in place and met? What are we learning and how are we going to deal with that?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his question. This is a local initiative, it is quite a complicated situation and I do not have time to go into all the details now, but I can assure the House that we are all over this and will not allow this situation to continue.

[Baroness Taylor of Bolton (Lab)]

Will the Minister confirm that the pre-registration report actually flagged up many significant concerns, which we are now seeing in practice following what happened recently? Does he intend, as one of the lessons learnt, to ensure that such concerns are properly monitored when they are flagged up? Clearly, this was not the case in this situation, including on the vital issue of properly trained teachers. Will he also confirm that there is no place in our education system—in free schools, faith schools, home tuition or anywhere—for any practices that discriminate against the education of girls?

[Lord Nash]

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness on the last point. There is no place in our school system for such practices and we have made that absolutely clear to this school. As regards the monitoring of schools, our procedures are extremely tight. This situation developed quite rapidly over the summer, leading up to the head teacher’s resignation.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

Does my noble friend accept that dogmatism is not normally compatible with common sense? Does he accept that there are many teachers in some of the finest schools in this country, which produce some of the best results, who do not have a formal qualification, just as there are many schools where all the teachers have a formal qualification but where the results are less than satisfactory? We have to preserve a sense of balance in all these things.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to my noble friend for his question. I agree with him entirely on both points.

[Lord Winston (Lab)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lady Blackstone makes an important point. Is the Minister aware that only recently I gave a class to 17 primary school teachers teaching science for professional career development? Only one had done science at university and most of them did not have even an A-level in science? That is a very real problem when you are dealing with children under the age of 10.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his question. I was not aware of the lesson he referred to, although I have heard him speak on a number of occasions. I entirely agree. The state of our primary schools in many cases is not satisfactory and we have an active programme in place to improve this. I would be happy to talk to him in more detail about it privately.

Business of the House

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Timing of Debates

11:59

Moved by

[Lord Hill of Oareford]

That the debates on the motions in the names of Baroness Meacher and Lord Luce set down for today shall each be limited to 2½ hours.

Motion agreed.

European Union Committee

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

11:59

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That Lord Wilson of Tillyorn be appointed a member of the Select Committee in place of Baroness Young of Hornsey, resigned.

Motion agreed.

Select Committees

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Membership Motion

Moved by

[Chairman of Committees]

The

That Lord Wallace of Tankerness be appointed a member of the following Committees, in the place of Lord McNally: House, Liaison, Privileges and Conduct, Procedure and Selection.

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel) (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, with deep commiseration, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.

Motion agreed.

Drugs

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

Moved by

[Baroness Meacher]

That this House takes note of the report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Select Committee Drugs: Breaking the Cycle (HC 184, 9th Report, Session 2012–13) and the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform, published in January.

[Baroness Meacher (CB)]

My Lords, I rise to propose that the House take note of the above two reports, the second of which is entitled Towards a Safer Drug Policy. Both raise serious concerns about the current legislative framework for drug policy in the UK. However, two other significant reports were issued at about the same time: the report of the Home Affairs, Health and Education Sub-Committee of our EU Committee and the BMA report, both weighty and well argued documents.

Why this flurry of reports on drug policy? I want to spend a few minutes describing the remarkable events of the past two years in the drug policy field globally. For 52 years since the single convention of 1961, the world’s drug policies have been driven by the UN conventions interpreted—and I emphasise “interpreted”—to mean that every use of illicit drugs must be treated as a crime and that every user of illicit drugs and every dealer must be treated as a criminal. The conventions were not drafted on the basis of evidence about how best to reduce addiction. No; they were drafted in response to a moral belief that taking drugs is wrong and that therefore everyone involved should be punished. No thought appears to have been given to the consequences of such a policy. Whatever our personal views about the morality of taking drugs—and people’s views differ—we all surely agree that good policy is that which reduces the level of drug addiction and harm to the individual and to others. Criminalising young people is contrary to that aim.

The Global Commission on Drug Policy deserves great credit. That august body, which includes former presidents, the former Secretary-General of the UN, Kofi Annan, and many other very senior people across the globe, was the first to call a halt to the obsession with punitive drugs policies. I quote from the first paragraph of its report:

“The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world … fundamental reforms in national and global drug control policies are urgently needed”.

That comes from top global people.

In the two years since the publication of the global commission report, activity on drug policy reform has developed apace. Presidents of American states, including President Obama, initiated a one-year study of the implications of current drug policy for the Americas, including the impact on the central American states ravaged by drug trafficking, as well as the impact on the Andean countries involved in the growing of the coca leaf. At the general assembly of the Organization of American States in June this year, which two of us from the APPG were privileged to attend as guests of the President of Guatemala, the two reports of that study were debated. This process continues and further discussions are planned over the next 12 months in the search for reform. Uruguay has just passed a law to regulate the supply of cannabis—in other words, to disregard the requirement of the UN conventions that the possession, use, production and trade in cannabis must be treated as a criminal offence. This is the first country directly to contravene the UN conventions.

The Netherlands, of course, has for many years made cannabis available legally to users in its coffee shops. Interestingly, the Netherlands has virtually eliminated its heroin problem. It just looks at the relationship between those two, and we need to do the same. Spain has its own system of lawful or semi-lawful cannabis supply through cannabis-growing organisations. In the US, 20 states have now legalised cannabis for medical use—de facto legalisation of cannabis. Colorado and Washington have gone a step further and legalised cannabis for social use. The Department of Justice has agreed that it will not take any action with respect to those states; this is highly significant. President Obama’s drug tsar told me personally that these states will not get away with it, but President Obama appears to have a different view.

The importance of Uruguay, Colorado and Washington is that, for the first time in more than 50 years, evaluation of a regulated system has become possible. Many people believe that regulated herbal cannabis—and I emphasise “herbal”—properly labelled, with the THC level controlled, side effects and risks clearly shown, would be a great deal safer for young people than the illegal market that we have today. Regulation could, crucially, break the supply gateway to illegal skunk and other dangerous drugs. Young people who simply want a spliff would buy herbal cannabis from a lawful supplier and would not therefore have the need to approach a drug dealer, who will do their very best to sell them something far stronger—skunk, or worse. Now research can show whether such a policy really is safer than the illegal market. Can the Minister welcome that?

European countries are quietly moving away from criminalising addicts, providing heroin legally in a treatment setting, and establishing consumption rooms, where the police do not arrest people—the first step for many addicts in engaging with health and social services. In most European countries, the health department rather than the internal affairs department is the lead ministry, and drug addiction is accepted as a health problem rather than a crime. Can the Minister agree to look into the experiences of our European neighbours?

The EU has prepared a draft regulation of the European Parliament and the Council on new psychoactive substances. It was sent to me for comment, which I found interesting. It proposes that possession and use of NPS should be decriminalised. Does the Minister agree with the draft EU regulation?

This, then, is the context of the Home Affairs Select Committee and APPG reports and of today’s debate. The Select Committee visited Colombia, where the words “war on drugs” really mean what they say—and I was there to see it. Policies in the consumer countries supply billions of dollars to the drug barons to enable them to fight their Governments. The Select Committee concluded that there is now, more than ever, a case for a fundamental review of all UK drug policy in the international context; it calls for a royal commission on drug policy to report in 2015.

The Minister will no doubt point to the recent modest fall in traditional drug use, but it needs to be set against the explosion in the use of new psychoactive substances. But the Government also need to take note of a few other facts. Despite any recent modest fall in the use of cannabis—and it is, mainly, cannabis—the UK still has one of the highest levels of drug use in Europe. In 2011, it was one of only three countries in Europe where more than 30% of the population had taken cannabis. Are 30% of our population criminals? This is crazy. Despite our tough drug laws, England and Wales has the highest percentage in Europe of the population admitting to taking cocaine, at 9.6%, amphetamines, at 11.5%, and ecstasy, at 8.6%. The growth in the number of young adults who have ever used drugs has exploded under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 from 10% in the 1970s to 35% in 2009-10. There is a modest fall from 1996, but it is still a very serious problem. The cost to the Exchequer of drug-related harm is £15 billion.

The Select Committee also visited Portugal, where for 12 years the possession and use of all drugs has been decriminalised. Originally the policy was resisted by the right-wing parties; today all Portuguese political parties support that policy. I wonder why. The Select Committee believed the Portuguese model to merit significantly closer consideration by the UK. Does the Minister agree?

Our All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform spent a year receiving written and oral evidence from witnesses in producing our report towards a safer drug policy. Our focus was legal highs—or new psychoactive substances, as they are generally called. But our witnesses repeatedly told us that it was not possible to consider legal highs in isolation. Most young people use a legal high as a direct response to the contamination of traditional drugs in the illicit drug market. If we sort out the illicit drug market we would go a long way towards eliminating so-called legal highs.

Legal highs, of course, present a very serious risk to young people. As one is found, the Chinese scientists set to work with their test tubes in their laboratories; they change the molecules and produce a new substance. Young people have no idea what that substance is, or what it contains. The UK is apparently the European hub for such drugs; I wonder why. They come here from China or India and are then distributed across Europe. Twice as many young people in this country have used legal highs as the average for the rest of Europe.

Witnesses from ACPO and the UK Border Agency who gave evidence to us were very clear that the current drug control systems are unable to deal with the web-based selling of these drugs from overseas; the system simply cannot do it. I have already referred to the EU regulation recommending decriminalising possession and use of these drugs—not only for one year, as this Government courageously introduced some time ago, but permanently.

On the supply side, we point to the New Zealand model, which places the responsibility on the supplier to show that their product is of limited harm. The supplier, not the state, has to do the research, which seems eminently sensible. The New Zealand policy is in its early stages, and I hope that the Government will be monitoring its effectiveness. The APPG report recommends an independent drug classification body, which would classify drugs according to the level of risk identified on a scientific basis, rather than on a political whim. All political parties find these issues impossible to deal with rationally. This is not a party political issue. The reality, though, is that young people know that our drug law is an ass and disregard it; that cannot be helpful. An independent body with responsibility for research, information and classification would help a lot. We could then more easily move gradually to more evidence-based policies. We should not do these things in a hurry but we are an awful long way from where we really need to be.

Of course, politicians will be responsible for the strategic direction of policy, and we have excellent examples of this model with the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, and with NICE in the National Health Service—difficult decisions delegated to independent bodies that can act rationally. We also want the lead department for drugs to be reviewed, and we share the views of the Home Affairs Select Committee and the other reports. The ideal would be to have a cross-party review of drug policy and cross-party policies emerging from that review. In the mean time, I hope that the Minister will recognise that this debate is a genuine attempt to respond to the plea of the current Secretary-General of the United Nations who, on 26 June, called for every member state to have an open review of drug policy and to consider all options. That is quite something from the Secretary-General of the United Nations. Can the Minister assure the House that the UK Government will join other Governments in Europe who are working with us on that review in response to the plea of the UN Secretary-General?

12:13

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

My Lords, first, I congratulate the noble Baroness on her speech, which was extremely effective. I agree with her that the acid test is not about criminalising drug users but how we deal effectively and properly with the problem. I also congratulate her on her report and the other report that we are considering today.

I made my maiden speech on drugs policy in the other place 43 years ago in 1970, and I am tempted to say that the debate has not changed very much in the interim. It strikes me how much of the debate is put in military terms, or semi-military terms. I still have a T-shirt given to me by the Drug Enforcement Administration in the United States with the slogan, “It is not over until we win”. That was 20 years ago and I do not think that we have won in the interim. As I have been going around the world over the past 18 months looking at the issue of HIV and AIDS, I find Ministers still talking about the war on drugs. Indeed, when I was in Russia a few months ago, a political leader said, “It is not just the war on drugs, it is total war”. In fact, Russia has probably the worst drugs position in the whole world; it has a disastrous policy.

These words may give great comfort to some politicians and increase their sense of self-righteousness, but they do not do very much to solve the problem. The truth is that this one-dimensional approach has never worked in the past and is unlikely to work in the future. We all know what we want to achieve: we want to stop the pushers; we want to persuade people not to take up the habit; and we want to deal decently and humanely with those who have become dependent. However, we are not going to deal with all those goals by saying that all you need to do is to enforce the law. That is precisely what we have been doing over the past 50 years and it is precisely the reason why we have not been successful. We need to be frank about that failure.

Before this debate, someone asked me whether I was in favour of liberalising drugs policy. My answer to that, in principle, is yes, but the real answer is that we have already liberalised our drugs policy. When the Government were seeking to deal with the HIV and AIDS crisis in 1986-87, we faced precisely that problem of how to deal with drug users who shared needles and syringes. The result, obviously, of shared needles was devastating. We had no treatment to offer—it was a death sentence—and someone with HIV simply spread it to others.

We could have taken the view that upholding the criminal law was the only policy—the only way to go—and that those who injected should be prosecuted. There were many who urged us to take that way. In fact, we decided to institute a policy of clean needles. Our advice was, obviously, not to inject at all but if, in spite of the advice, people still injected, then we would supply clean needles. In other words, we put public health in front of the strict interpretation of the law.

This policy was not decided by some way-out left-wing Government or by implementing a resolution of the Liberal Democrat annual conference—I am sorry about that; it was meant to be a joke—but by the Government of Margaret Thatcher, who, for all her great qualities, did not have a reputation as a radical reformer in this area. The policy has been spectacularly successful. For the past 25 years, the spread of HIV through injecting drugs has been only 1% or 2%. It has not led to an increase in crime and drug use, and the policy has been followed by many other countries.

I agree that it has not been followed universally. It has not been followed in Russia and the result is that drug users are abandoned to their fate and an appalling tragedy is taking place before our eyes. Saddest of all, the United States has just gone back on the policy. The House will not be surprised to know that this was because of the disagreement on the budget between the Administration and the House of Representatives.

I do not pretend to have instant solutions. There were warnings—the needle park in Zurich being one, where a park was given over officially to drug users. However, we need to open a new dialogue and try for new solutions in this area. The old policies have failed and we must try, perhaps by pilot schemes, to find new and better ways forward. Some of the ideas put forward in these reports are excellent and should be carried forward. I congratulate the authors of both reports on what they have done.

12:19

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher. She is one of the leading voices in the quest for a more rational, proportionate and humane policy on drugs. The Home Secretary, in her foreword to the Government’s response to the Home Affairs Select Committee, stated:

“This Government does not believe there is a case for fundamentally re-thinking the UK’s approach to drugs”.

The document went on to say that,

“our new approach is working”.

It is pleasing that the Crime Survey for England and Wales has recorded a declining trend in the use of controlled drugs; that the numbers in treatment are rising; that the incidence of drug-related HIV infection has fallen so far, about which the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, spoke with justified satisfaction; that there is now faster access to treatment; and that more people are recovering from their dependence on drugs. However, the improvement in the figures for usage is, I fear, more apparent than real. The previous Minister, Jeremy Browne, told the House of Commons candidly on 6 June:

“In this country, consumption of illegal drugs has reduced, but consumption of legal drugs has increased”.—[Official Report, Commons, 6/6/13; col. 285WH.]

The United Kingdom is in the upper range of consumption of traditional drugs. There has been a large increase in addiction to prescription drugs and an even larger increase in the consumption of new psychoactive substances, of which it is thought that 73 entered the United Kingdom market in 2012. The internet has transformed the marketing and distribution of drugs. The Silk Road website may have been closed, but there are numerous others, and Postman Pat continues to bring the packages up the garden path. The drug scene continuously mutates. We know that the charge on the health and justice budgets of this country is £15.3 billion. The illicit market fuels vast amounts of crime. Some 78% of people who have used drugs in the past year in this country say that drugs are easy to get. Indeed, 24% of prisoners, unbelievably, say the same thing. If we are honest, we know that the horrors experienced in the producer and transit countries of Latin America, Africa and Asia would not occur were it not for the self-indulgence of consumers of drugs in western societies such as our own.

This is not the success story that the Home Secretary wants us to believe, but policy in this area is exceedingly difficult. There is no excuse for our failure to ensure that we have a comprehensive evidence base and that we sustain an adequate research infrastructure. The UK Drugs Policy Commission, the Home Affairs Select Committee and the report of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Drug Policy Reform, Towards a Safer Drug Policy, have all pointed to the deficiencies in this regard. These include the discontinuation of programmes, gaps, inefficiencies and underfunding. At the very least, we need to know as best we can what is going on in the United Kingdom. We also need a division of labour in research across Europe and indeed the globe so that we can quickly analyse what these new psychoactive substances are. The Select Committee recommended ring-fenced funding for drug research and a co-ordinating role for the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, but the Government’s response was:

“We do not … accept the need for allocated ring-fenced funding to drugs policy research … the ACMD is not, nor is expected to be, a research commissioning body”.

This will not do. Stephen Pudney and his colleagues at the University of Essex, supported by the Beckley Foundation, have published a model study entitled, Licensing and Regulation of the Cannabis Market in England and Wales: Towards a Cost-Benefit Analysis. They have identified 17 distinct factors of cost and benefit. They have demonstrated how very difficult it is to arrive at a cost-benefit analysis in this area, and that it is impossible to do so with the present lack of basic information. No policy should be dogmatically ruled out and alternatives should be considered seriously. All decisions in this field are hard politically, but they will be less hard if they are evidence-based.

Another model study is the report of the New Zealand Law Commission, Controlling and Regulating Drugs. It recognises that the existing New Zealand legislation is unfit for the new drugs landscape, inconsistent with aspects of government policy, hugely expensive and that a punitive approach to low-level offending has adverse social consequences. It is a rational and practical report, which recommends that the manufacturers and would-be importers of new psychoactive substances should have the opportunity to seek approval by an independent regulatory authority before the substance is released on the market. It provides a detailed model for regulation, including particular protection for people under the age of 18.

There are no easy solutions. Those war-worn Latin American presidents and the hugely distinguished and experienced members of the global commission, including Kofi Annan and Paul Volcker, have taken the lead in the international debate and advocated decriminalisation of possession and use. The Secretary-General of the United Nations has issued his challenge to all of us to debate all the options that there may be in the lead-up to the United Nations General Assembly special session in 2016, in the quest to achieve a better international consensus on how we can reduce consumption and mitigate the harm that drug use brings with it. Our Government and our Parliament ought to respond constructively to that challenge.

12:25

[Lord Teverson (LD)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and the all-party group on this excellent report and on bringing this debate before the House today. When I was doing some research in this area, the thing that really encapsulated the problem for me was a United Nations report saying that, in 1998, the decision was taken to work towards the “elimination or significant reduction” of illicit drug production and abuse by 2008. We are, of course, five years on from that. The United Nations decided to extend that programme for 10 years but I guess it had no confidence whatever that there would be any greater success over that following decade either.

One of the things that strikes me about this debate is that there is a psychology in the back of people’s minds that the drugs problem, and drugs themselves, can somehow be uninvented—that we can hide them away and they will disappear. However, the reality is, as the report says so well, that we now have multiplying types of drugs and that these products will not go away. There is also the fact that any debate seems to forget that where there is a demand, there will be a market and there will be supply. That is the way that human beings, human society and global society work.

I spent most of my professional life in the freight industry, where I was very much involved in supply chains. One of the things on which I want to concentrate is the even more difficult area of the international global supply chain for illicit drugs. It is different for different drugs categories. Cannabis is now the most consumed drug but is often produced within the nations where it is consumed. Synthetic drugs, as the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, has said, often come through the post or through the internet. However, there is still, regrettably, huge international global traffic in cocaine and opiates. We do not know the exact figure of course, but that market is worth something like $500 billion per annum—1% of global trade. We are handing that 1% of global trade to organised crime; to people who are out there to make money and are not worried about the consequences. We have to find a way of making that supply chain part of an established route, which is far more difficult than legalising or regulating the consumption side.

Why is that important? It is important because of the countries, nations, peoples and communities that are destroyed by the 90% of the drugs market that is driven by North America and Europe. In Mexico, there have been some 60,000 deaths and murders directly related to the drugs trade, a number of them mass killings. In Venezuela, between 1990 and 2008, the murder rate per annum increased from 2,000 to 16,000. In the United Kingdom, we have roughly 500 homicides a year, which puts that somewhere in context. In Colombia, 300,000 refugees moved from that country to Ecuador. The whole problem here is that this illicit trade is undermining developing countries and even some countries that are moving up towards developed status.

I have the privilege of being chair of the All-Party Group for Guinea-Bissau, a west African state which used to be a Portuguese colony. I shall conclude by quoting two passages from a recent publication, Guinea-Bissau: Lessons from Africa’s first Narco-State. It states that,

“trafficking networks have coopted key political and military leaders and transformed Guinea-Bissau into a hub for illicit commerce, particularly the multibillion dollar international trade in cocaine. This has directly contributed to instability in Senegal, Guinea, Liberia, Mali, Mauritania, Nigeria, and elsewhere in Africa … Drawn by the lucrative revenues, al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other militant groups in West Africa have also been linked to Guinea-Bissau trafficking … While narcotics traffickers initially targeted Guinea-Bissau because of its weak oversight and governance capacity, the drug trade has dramatically compounded these drivers of instability while spawning others”.

It further states:

“Meanwhile, economic growth has been episodic, human development indicators have been stagnant, and a humanitarian emergency imperilling 300,000 people looms”.

That number of people represents a major proportion of the country’s population.

The result of our not tackling that trade is the wasting of a number of developing countries. If we solve the problem in one country, it moves to another. We have to make that trade part of the establishment. It is difficult, but we have to take that challenge forward.

12:31

[Baroness Hollins (CB)]

My Lords, as my noble friend mentioned in her excellent opening speech, a report entitled Drugs of Dependence was published by the BMA’s Board of Science earlier this year. I declare an interest as the current chair of the Board of Science. The report sought to contribute to the debate on drug treatment and drugs policy through the eyes of the medical profession, and I wish to draw special attention to the role of doctors in our debate today.

The Chief Medical Officer, Dame Sally Davies, agrees that drug abuse should be treated more as a public health problem than as a criminal justice concern. She has said:

“We have a health problem, and we would do well as a nation to look at it as a health problem”.

But the lead for drugs and alcohol policy is the Home Office, and this Government are choosing to continue to treat it in that way. Can the Minister comment on this?

Professor David Nutt, the former chairman of the ACMD, told the Home Affairs Select Committee that drugs should be decriminalised and compared the harm caused by illicit drugs to that of alcohol. He said that,

“what we see now is a rising, rising, rising tide of damage from alcohol. There is no doubt a lot of people drink because it is legal and if there was an opportunity to use cannabis in a coffee shop-like model, they would not drink”.

However, Dr Clare Gerada, giving evidence to the committee as chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners and a former member of the ACMD, said that, in the case of cannabis, there would be significant direct health harm from decriminalisation, and that:

“Cannabis is not a … good drug to be on. It causes lung cancer. It causes oesophageal cancer. It causes failure at school”.

She reminded the committee that cannabis is very addictive and said that she would not advocate any person using it. She went on:

“We have just spent the last 60 years sorting out tobacco, let us not drop in the same problem now with cannabis”.

Clinicians all encounter the effects of drugs on their patients, whether they work in a hospital as a cardiologist, as a GP, a psychiatrist or as a public health doctor. There is consistent evidence that, in primary care settings, in hospitals and in mental health settings, doctors frequently do not address drug use. For example, a history of drug use is seldom documented, even when a patient presents with symptoms which suggest that drugs may have been used. What could be the reason for such a lack of documentation? One possible explanation for the reluctance of some doctors to explore drugs use is pessimism about being able to do anything.

The medical frame of reference is a useful one in which to approach drug use. Doctors are trained to be non-judgmental, factual and professional, and should be well positioned to provide information and advice and monitor progress. We have heard already today, and read in the BMA’s own report, that health should be at the centre of drug policy. Let us consider then how the medical profession could take a greater role in tackling the UK’s problem with drugs, recognising of course that the number of drug-related deaths has been falling steadily during the past few years.

The health and social impact of drug use is multifaceted, but I want today to highlight one area of impact: the mental health of drug users. A report from the UK Drug Policy Commission in 2012, A Fresh Approach to Drugs, highlighted that people who use illicit drugs have an increased likelihood of mental health problems, and vice versa. A study of people attending community mental health and substance misuse services found that 30% of those attending reported using drugs in the previous year and that 75% of those attending a drug service had had a psychiatric disorder in the previous year. These figures are very concerning, but the nature of the relationship is still unclear and varies between different drugs.

There is substantial research evidence that heavy cannabis use by adolescents increases the risk of depression and schizophrenia in later life, especially for those who already have a vulnerability to develop a psychiatric syndrome. This is compounded by concerns about the increased availability of stronger strength cannabis and synthetic cannabinoids, which are more harmful to health and more likely to cause psychosis.

Two of my children have been seriously assaulted by men who had been using cannabis. The man accused of stabbing my daughter had reputedly taken large quantities of stronger strength cannabis, with alcohol and ketamine—a cocktail—with devastating consequences for my daughter and for himself: he later committed suicide.

I have spoken about mental health, but I return to a key point that I mentioned earlier on how we can reduce drug-related harm: all doctors have an essential role to play in tackling the use of illicit drugs. Doctors from every part of the health system can improve their rates of intervention by opportunistically screening patients and identifying those with drug misuse. Commissioning the right services will be key to ensuring that adequate clinical pathways are available to patients. Education and training will be vital. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, with the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, has reviewed the competencies required for doctors in relation to alcohol and other drugs to ensure that medical training gives adequate weight to every doctor’s role in this area. All royal colleges have committed to including these competencies in their curriculum, which is an important step.

Debate on the most effective approach to preventing and reducing the harms associated with illegal drug use must be based on sound evidence. Health impact is integral to that debate.

12:37

[Baroness Manzoor (LD)]

My Lords, it is a real honour and a privilege to take my place on these distinguished red Benches. I have been overwhelmed by the sincerity of the welcome and the warmth and generosity of spirit shown to me by noble Lords from all sides of your Lordships’ House. I thank you.

I also want to thank all the staff here for their dedicated service, and friendly and much valued support. My thanks go also to my two supporters, my noble friends Lord Lester and Lady Jolly, for all their help, encouragement and wise words. They have attempted to ensure that I have at least a basic grasp of the workings of your Lordships’ House—no mean feat.

I understand that a maiden speech should not be controversial, so you can imagine the look on the faces in my Whips’ office when told them that I intended to speak in this debate—start as you mean to go on, I say. I shall be brief, as I have only five minutes, but I hope that I can make further contributions at another time.

Today’s topic is of immense importance and presents our society and institutions with huge challenges, so I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this debate and thus enabling me to make my first contribution in your Lordships’ House.

Through my working life, and in particular nearly 20 years of work experience in the NHS, I have gained some knowledge of the impact and effects of illegal drug abuse on health services and witnessed the horrific cost, despair and misery that drugs can bring to the lives of individuals and their families.

The link between drug abuse or misuse and the negative impact on individuals and communities is clear. Also well documented are the links between illicit drug use and crime. The Government’s Drug Strategy 2010: Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery was important and I welcome it.

However, despite the fact that the usage of illegal drugs in the UK is falling, it is clear that in some areas, such as cannabis, the rates of use among young people in the UK are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, stated, among the highest in Europe. I am pleased to note, however, that greater clarity appears to be emerging on how we tackle this in the UK. I am particularly pleased by the recent comments of the leader of my party, the Liberal Democrats, that we need a more imaginative, open and, crucially, evidence-based approach to drug policy.

For my part, I wish to make three points in this debate: first, the importance of prevention and education; secondly, the issue of decriminalisation of drugs; and, thirdly, the importance of helping families and individuals. First, education is key, particularly education of the young. As a mother of two daughters, I understand the importance of that. Having a clear drugs strategy which is effectively monitored and evaluated is fundamental in all our schools, including fee-paying schools and academies. Early intervention is key, as is a cohesive implementation programme and a co-ordinated strategy between the new body, Public Health England, and the Department for Education. Indeed, I would go as far as to say that PHE must be the lead body in monitoring and evaluating the success of the education programme, and not merely a provider of centralised funds, if we are to make real progress on drugs education in our schools and in higher education. As a former governor of a number of higher education institutions, I know the importance of that.

Secondly, if the case for the decriminalisation of drugs or the retention of effective legislation to control their use was clear, there would be no merit in my address today. There is no such clarity, and the scourge of our times remains hotly disputed by those on both sides of the argument. Decriminalisation, when viewed against the vagueness of alcohol control on our streets, is not an obvious solution to the problem. Since the problem was recognised, we have appealed for a policy that is both firm and resolute. We have sought to use legislation to control and suppress those who use and abuse drugs, without much success. We have attacked the supply of drugs and the associated organised crime that supports it—again, without definable progress. That is not a condemnation of the paths that we have taken but recognition of the enormity of the problem.

Will decriminalisation solve anything? It seems that one effect would be to produce cheaper drugs with wider availability. That deregulation would introduce a massive problem of control of the drugs themselves. That would make them more accessible to criminals in countries with equally enthusiastic criminal resources, leaving the problem immune and further away from proper control.

I offer no clear solution, although I have drawn the view that continued control allows us to focus on related crime and criminals. Money-laundering, illegal alcohol, prostitution, gang warfare and even armaments are intrinsically linked to and caught up with the use and marketing of drugs. To remove the drug issue would in no way reduce the horrifying effects of serious crime, but would have the effect of drawing our attention, even partially, away from those involved in such crime. I cannot find it in my heart to support such a step.

However, there are other things that we can do here and now. This brings me to my third point: how we support those whose lives are affected by drugs. I believe that we must direct resources to help those suffering the consequences of the use of drugs and build a stronger, more cohesive society: one that helps the sick and disadvantaged and which values the importance of prevention and education in this complex and challenging area. That is why I support the view that responsibility for drugs policy should be moved from the Home Office, which rightly focuses on policing and law enforcement, to the Department of Health. That would allow a greater focus on the care and support we need to give people for them to get off drugs, into treatment and back into society.

I thank your Lordships for your patience during my first contribution to your Lordships’ House.

12:44

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure and privilege to be able to congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, on her maiden speech in this House. Having heard the content of what she said, we look forward to other contributions that she will make to the work of this House. Although she mentioned that she had 20 years of experience in the NHS, she did not mention that in addition she has been a member of the Commission for Racial Equality, a trustee of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and has served as the Legal Services Ombudsman. I think that I can safely say on behalf of all Members of the House who have been privileged to hear her that we look forward to her contributions in many areas. I am sure that if they are of the quality of what we have just heard, they will be a huge enhancement to the work of the House.

I congratulate my noble friend Lady Meacher not only on securing the debate but on the exemplary way in which she introduced it. I entirely share her views on criminalisation and the need for both national and international reform of current drugs policy. I declare two interests: one as a member of her All-Party Group on Drug Policy Reform; and another as chairman of the cross-party group on justice, drugs and alcohol, which aims to link practitioners in the field with Members of this House.

I listened with interest as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, introduced the word “military”, because the one thing that I have always thought was utterly inappropriate in talking about drugs is the word “war”. It introduces entirely the wrong perception of what people are meant to be doing. Yes, of course drugs are an evil and need to be tackled, but war is something entirely different. As for “military”, as was touched on by my noble friend Lady Meacher, I add that when I was serving in the Army, every time we went off to do something somewhere we felt that we had the country behind us and, in particular, that we had cross-party support behind us. That was broken, of course, in Iraq in 2003 and has been a matter of great concern ever since. On this issue, it has always seemed to me that cross-party agreement is essential, because the inevitable result of cross-party wrangling is inertia. In tackling something as urgent as this, with all the social and financial penalties for the life of this great country that it brings, the last thing we need is inertia caused by unnecessary wrangling on what should be a centralised policy.

I go back to my experience as Chief Inspector of Prisons. I have always thought that if anything encapsulates the nonsense of the present position, it is the way that drugs are treated in prisons. There is something called the mandatory drug test, which is meant to give a picture of drug use in prisons. It is absolute nonsense. Five per cent of people in prison are tested. I always remember going into a cell and finding nine pieces of paper on the wall. I said to the person, “What are those?”. He said, “They are my certificates for being drug-free. If you come next week, there will be a 10th. They always test me because they know I am drug-free and it makes the figures look good”. That is absolute nonsense. The only way to find out the actual size and shape of the problem is to test every person when they come in and decide from that what needs to be done with them.

The second thing that I found was that when the drug treatment and assessment programme started, it ended up with a lot of assessment but no treatment, because prisoners were moved around the country, away from the people who might have worked with them in prison and carried on doing so when they were released. Prison policy was totally against consistent assessment and treatment. I then found that there were masses of dealers in every prison. They were causing not only misery in prison by what they were doing to the prisoners who failed to pay them their dues for illegal substances, but terrible problems for their families outside. The misery was widespread, not helped by the fact that there did not seem to be proper liaison between the drug treatment organisations outside the prison and those people who were responsible for it.

Last week, those of your Lordships who saw the prison inspection report on HMP Oakwood would have seen that drugs were easier to obtain there than soap. It seems to me that our prisons, where we have people who cannot leave and could be treated, are the very place where we ought to have proper policies. You can do the assessment; you can start the treatment and make certain that it carries on. The whole situation shows the lunacy of the prohibition that seems to dominate our policy.

However, I do not want to end on a doom and gloom moment because I am very glad to see that while prison healthcare was not part of the NHS when I started as chief inspector, it is now. I am very glad to see that the prisons have put the responsibility for drug treatment in the hands of the NHS. That is an absolute endorsement of the way that we ought to go, and which my noble friend has so clearly recommended in her excellent report.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

My Lords, I remind all noble Lords that this is a time-limited debate. Contributions from the Back Benches are of five minutes, which means that when the clock strikes five noble Lords should be looking to conclude their speeches.

12:51

[Baroness Stern (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and declare my interest as the vice-chair of the All-Party Group on Drug Policy Reform, which she chairs so ably and energetically and which she has ensured is well known in many corners of the world. I shall concentrate in my remarks on human rights matters concerned with the international aspects of global drugs policies and the involvement of the Government in these.

I begin by congratulating the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on its human rights policy and the actions taken to pursue it, which are admired worldwide. They are very effective and send a message to the world about British values.

The Home Affairs Select Committee said in its report at recommendation 61:

“The Government should not turn a blind eye to capital punishment and other human rights abuses affecting those involved in the drugs trade. In particular, we recommend that the Government ensure that no British or European funding is used to support practices that could lead to capital punishment, torture, or other violations”.

It is this recommendation which I would like to pursue. There are many ways in which the international drug enforcement regime can lead to human rights abuses. There are drug detention centres where addicted people are held against their will; rigid and draconian laws that impose long, mandatory prison sentences on small-scale impoverished participants in the drugs trade; sentences to be served in overcrowded, inhuman and degrading prison conditions; and prison conditions that can lead to the transmission of deadly diseases related to injecting drug use with inadequate or non-existent healthcare and no respect for the right to life or the duty of care.

Of all these, the death penalty is the most extreme. I declare an interest as I chair the All-Party Group for the Abolition of the Death Penalty. Six countries currently execute drug traffickers: China, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Malaysia, Singapore and, of course, Iran. Accurate figures are hard to come by but it is clear that Iran has executed hundreds of people for drug trafficking. Figures from the Iran Human Rights Documentation Center suggest that in 2012 there were 552 executions, 346 of which were for drug trafficking. Pakistan also imposes death sentences on those convicted of drug trafficking and almost restarted executions earlier this year.

It is very important to know what the Government’s approach is to giving financial support to anti-narcotics activities or to contributing via the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, or the European Union, to anti-narcotics work in any state that uses the death sentence for drug trafficking. In response to the Home Affairs Select Committee, the Government said that they have a guidance document, Overseas Security and Justice Assistance, which I have read. It is an excellent document. If followed, it should ensure that no aid is given to programmes which lead to human rights abuses. The Government also say that they have lobbied the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime to ensure that human rights are respected when undertaking these programmes, yet we read reports that the Government support the work of the Pakistan anti-narcotics force and have supported anti-narcotics work in Iran.

Can the Minister say first whether, directly or indirectly, British government money goes to counternarcotics work in Iran, Pakistan or any other country that imposes the death penalty? If it does, how do the Government ensure that that money is so ring-fenced that it does not lead to the arrest and subsequent sentencing to death of any individual? Secondly, in the light of what is known about prison conditions in many parts of the world, is the Minister satisfied that the Government do not support drug enforcement activity anywhere that would lead to torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment?

12:56

[Lord Mancroft (Con)]

My Lords, I add my thanks to those of other noble Lords to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for tabling this debate. Of course, 50 years ago we could not have had this debate because Governments did not have drugs policies in those days. However, it became apparent during the 1960s that we were going to need one. Very little was known about drugs or drug use in those days but it was quite clear that they were damaging to an individual’s health. They hurt families and the wider communities, and there was potential damage to society itself. That is how it was perceived and, from where we are now, it probably was not entirely wrong. However, we need to look at the context of those days.

Drugs in 1971 meant cannabis, a little amphetamine, heroin—that was probably the most serious one—and some hallucinogenic drugs such as LSD. Although cocaine existed, it was not really available in the United Kingdom then. All the new NPDs such as ecstasy, methedrone and ketamine really did not exist. Crack had not been invented and prescriptions for drugs such as valium and librium were really new, and their long-term effects not known at all. In 1974, there were 14,000 heroin addicts registered with the Home Office.

There are only two things you can do about drugs, then or now. You can put in place measures to restrict or reduce the supply of drugs or try to reduce the demand for them. You can restrict the supply by use of the criminal law. Unfortunately, in the 1970s there was no recognised way of treating drug addicts, so there was nothing much that you could do about reducing demand. We introduced something called the British system, whereby addicts were prescribed heroin every single day as a way of keeping them level and out of the black market. That in fact continued in this country until the 1980s and it is the forerunner of much of the state provision of treatment today.

The central plank was to try to control or reduce supply, which was done through the passage of the Misuse of Drugs Act, supported internationally by the United Nations conventions. While those and the law may not have changed over 40 years, quite a lot of other things have. We now have 300,000 addicts, mostly of heroin and cocaine. We have crack, NPDs, ecstasy, methedrone and ketamine, with two new drugs appearing every week. In 1992—but not until then—the Home Office decided that there was after all a link between drugs and crime. That led to the first ever drugs strategy, while my noble friend Lord Howard was in the Home Office. We learnt then that the cost of drug-related crime and the policing of drugs was about £12 billion a year.

The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, talked about the international side of the drug industry. He mentioned a lot of countries but missed out Afghanistan. The second reason why we went into Afghanistan eight years ago was to suppress the opium business, of which we are the largest consumer; 80% of the heroin on British streets comes from Afghanistan. Now we are leaving Afghanistan, though, and the poppy harvest has in fact quadrupled. I am not really sure that you could describe that as a policy success.

Whichever way you look at it—internationally, nationally or locally—I cannot see that our attempt to restrict the supply of drugs has been anything but a disastrous and incredibly expensive failure. In 1971 we did not have options but today we do. If we cannot restrict the supply, as we clearly cannot, we can reduce demand. The United Nations, the World Health Organisation and the NHS all accept that drug addiction is a primary illness; it is not curable but it is treatable. The previous Government recognised this and over 10 years put an enormous amount of time and effort into treatment, and formed the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse.

The present Government have taken that forward by ring-fencing the funding and by moving the National Treatment Agency into Public Health England, but there is a structural fault in drug treatment in Britain. The officials at both the Department of Health and the Home Office fundamentally do not believe in drug treatment; they believe that drugs are a symptom of social deprivation. They are backed in this feeling by the medical profession; because there is no medical treatment for drug addiction, which there is not and never has been, there is therefore presumed to be no treatment at all. Therefore the only treatment for drug addiction, in the view that is held, is substitute prescribing, which means that 150,000 out of 300,000 addicts in this country live on prescription drugs. To look at it another way, it is like taking an alcoholic off whisky, putting him on vodka and saying, “There we are, job done”. However, there is a vast amount of other treatment available such as abstinence-based treatment, which has been in existence in this country for 40 years but which virtually no one has access to because they cannot get it through the health authorities.

We started this debate 40 years ago with a degree of consensus; we need to find that consensus now. No responsible politician wants to do anything other than to reduce the demand for drugs and the harms caused by them, so there is quite a lot of agreement about the way forward. The consensus is growing among politicians, internationally and now in the media. All that we need now is for the Government to join that consensus.

13:02

[Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for proposing this debate and particularly for being so encouraging about participating in it. I have two areas of experience that I hope may be relevant. I have been a funder and trustee of several charities that deal with the fall-out from drugs, including Reprieve, IntoUniversity and Storybook Dads. My involvement has also made me think about the impact of the internet on this issue, which, as some noble Lords may know, is my particular interest.

One charity that I know well, Just for Kids Law, provides invaluable support for children and young people, many of whom are in care, looked after or at risk of exclusion from school. As well as legal help, it offers services ranging from securing housing to finding work. The organisation is a vital resource for the most vulnerable in our society. One of the most distressing and relentless aspects of the lives of the children that JFK helps is being stopped and searched by police. We know from police statistics that 50% of all searches are to look for drugs. We also know from police data that the searches take place disproportionately among the BME population. Some JFK clients talk of being stopped more than three times a day. Not only is this hugely destructive to the lives of the children but it is expensive. JFK worked with another not-for-profit organisation, StopWatch, to produce a smartphone app that allowed the kids to register every time they were stopped, whether there was an arrest and how the police treated them. The stop-and-search app allowed young people to get some control over what they felt was persecution. It also showed the high number of searches that did not result in any substances found, data that could be very useful to the police when prioritising work.

It is interesting to reflect on that development. Technology is changing with great speed the relationship between the supposed criminal and the authorities. But could we not be even bolder in thinking about how the internet could inform some of the solutions for the enormity of the challenges facing drugs policymakers? It feels as though those currently illegally controlling the drugs industry certainly already are. Only yesterday on the Radio 4 “Today” programme there was a discussion on the increasingly high level of digital capability. Marc Goodman, an ex-officer who now studies crime and terrorism, said in his TED talk in 2012,

“all the drug dealers and gang members with whom I dealt had”,

a cell phone,

“long before any police officer I knew did”.

He also talked about how hard it is for the police to stay ahead of drug cartels. For example, in Mexico there is a national encrypted radio station and telecoms network run by a group of dealers that is completely out of the reach of any state. I think it might be even harder to access remotely than the parliamentary e-mail system.

The internet is rapidly changing consumer behaviour, and this brings me to the Silk Road. This is not the beautiful route stretching through central Asia, well trodden by Marco Polo, but the website of the same name, mentioned earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, sometimes called the Amazon.com of drugs. Launched in 2011, the site was operated on Tor, a “dark web” service that anonymises users, making it much more difficult for them to be tracked. The site allowed users to buy a huge range of semi-legal and illegal substances using the digital currency Bitcoin. The FBI closed it down last month.

Rather than a terrible crime, using Silk Road could be seen as a better approach to drug sales—a more peaceful alternative to the deadly violence that street deals have led to for decades and which, as the APPG report’s notes show, has led to many thousands of deaths at unbelievable cost. As many of commentators have written, the site was credited by its creators and users as mitigating gangs and cartels, providing quality drugs and going some way to breaking dependency cycles. It did this by breaking people’s relationships with dealers on the street and with the police—all objectives of the unsuccessful so-called war on drugs that, as has been documented today, has cost Governments around the world trillions of pounds.

I very much respect the work of the APPG, but in future work might it be possible to take the different but linked experiences of Just for Kids Law and the Silk Road to think boldly about how technology might help facilitate a different, more successful global drugs policy?

13:07

[Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)]

My Lords, I warmly congratulate my new noble friend Lady Manzoor on her excellent maiden speech. I was grateful to her for sharing with us her experiences in the health service over so many years and for her strong support for moving drugs policy and government efforts from the Home Office to the health department. It is that sort of experience that supports my gut feeling that that is the right thing to do.

I add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not just on introducing the debate today but on all her hard work over recent months and indeed years over this issue. I know that she has tirelessly visited many different countries, not only all the EU countries but a great number of South American ones. She has put before us a lot of evidence and reports on this issue that have really helped to inform us. I shall refer slightly later to one of those in particular. I am extremely grateful to her. I think that she has really encouraged us in this House to address the issue in a far more in-depth way.

If we look at the 2010 drugs strategy and the government response to the Home Affairs Select Committee report, we can see that the Government are still hoping against hope that the “war on drugs” posture will continue to be credible. However, as we have heard from so many speakers, it simply is not. Many speakers, although I shall not repeat what they have said, have given examples of how it is not helping those on harder drugs to deal with their health problem or indeed helping young people wend their precarious way through the world of recreational drugs.

I particularly want to home in on the failure of the current posture of the Government as a world leader. We like to think of the UK engaging in international dialogue and acting as a world power in a responsible way. Unfortunately, the Government’s 2010 drugs strategy states:

“We must make the UK an unattractive destination for drug traffickers”.

On the face of it, that is a reasonable statement, but where does the UK suggest would be a better destination? On to which of our friends and allies are we wishing the problem? It is a global problem, and even if we could make the UK so unattractive that no hard drug crossed our borders, the rest of the world would still be suffering from serious, ruthless criminals who have an easy route to vast profits. We would not be immune to the effects of that, so let us not make that sort of statement.

I want to talk for a moment about the visit that I was privileged to make to Colombia with the IPU and about one of the insights that gave me. It has since been underpinned by the excellent report on the coca leaf by Sophia Ostler of the UK IPU. In Colombia, I saw first hand some of the realities for the police in trying to deal with narco trafficking and I saw the UK supporting them in that. I think we still have 40 officers out there helping, and the Colombians are very grateful for that effort. One of the unforeseen effects of that support is the shift of the coca-growing effort to Peru and Bolivia. The question is: what else can small-scale peasant farmers high in the mountains grow and are there alternatives to that or to the coca leaf? That is where the report is so valuable. It shows all the current alternatives, from Coca-Cola to Red Bull. It states that companies are extremely reticent about where their coca leaf comes from and that a helpful start would be more openness and accountability from international companies already engaged in legitimate trade in the coca leaf. There are lots of other uses. It is depressing that countries in the Andean region have had to suppress their cultural use of coca tea and so on because of the UN’s attitude to their traditional use. Everything I have said about coca and the Andean region could be said about Afghanistan and opium growing.

13:19

[Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood (Non-Afl)]

I thank my noble friend Lady Meacher for securing and so brilliantly introducing this debate on a subject that is always topical and always of the first importance. It is trite but true to say, first, that illicit drugs and the problems they create have for decades been a scourge around the world and, secondly, that the so-called war on drugs has conspicuously failed. I do not pretend to any particular expertise in this area, although a lifetime in the law has inevitably exposed me to many of the problems, and still less do I pretend to any easy solution. There are no quick fixes available here. Some would say that, like democracy, unsatisfactory though the present law is, it is better than any alternative and is the least worst option, but I respectfully question that. There must be better policies and better ways of control available. My main reason for participating in this debate is to encourage government to engage internationally with all those striving to reach such better solutions and to urge government to be imaginative and to recognise, as my noble friend Lady Meacher described that a number of other countries have, that policies concentrating essentially on criminalising all aspects of the drug trade are counterproductive. Better health must be the ultimate goal.

I respectfully suggest that the central objectives of those seeking a better control system should be twofold: first, to reduce the level of harmful drug-taking, and secondly to reduce the level of criminality resulting from present systems of control. As to reducing the level of harmful drug-taking, while recognising that most drugs are harmful or at least have the potential for harm, in certain circumstances some are not, or at any rate are no more so than alcohol or smoking. Putting aside the fact that sometimes drugs such as cannabis or even ecstasy can have medicinal value, it should be possible, as presently it is not, at least to carry out studies to see at what level the consumption of various substances becomes really harmful. We should not strive to criminalise substances not shown to be significantly harmful and thereby risk alienating many consumers, particularly the young. Government should also bear in mind that new psychoactive substances —chemical highs—not yet made illegal are increasingly being introduced into the market. A sound overall drugs policy should seek to combat the temptation to devise and resort to them too. The less the criminalisation involved, the better the chance of moving to a system by which drug-taking can be lawfully licensed and controlled and damage to health thereby reduced.

I turn to the second objective: changing the existing control system and reducing so far as possible the level of resulting criminality. Associated crime is essentially of the following kinds—of course I discount the actual offences of supply and use that one is contemplating perhaps in part, at least, decriminalising. First, there are crimes such as robberies, burglaries, theft and so forth which are committed for gain by those needing cash to fund their addiction. Many addicts’ lives are dominated by their addiction and they will do anything to satisfy their craving. Secondly, there are crimes committed in the course of turf wars between rival dealers protecting their trade and internationally between drug cartels and law enforcement agencies. These crimes regularly involve murder, extortion, corruption and so forth. Thirdly, there are crimes committed by those under the influence of drugs, who are disinhibited often to a considerably greater degree even than by excessive drinking. By the same token that the nation’s health might be improved by licensing rather than criminalising drug supply and use, so too might associated criminality be reduced. What a prize that would be. Perhaps liberalising—further liberalising as the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, would have it—the drugs regime would involve some short-term political cost, but the longer-term benefits would be colossal indeed. I hope that government will actively participate in the search for these benefits.

13:19

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, I join those who pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, not only for the way she introduced this debate but for the consistent and effective work she does on this subject. She is becoming a leading figure internationally in her commitment. I was sorry to miss the first sentence of her speech because I totally misunderstood that the previous business would wrap up as quickly as it did.

I am always impressed by those working on the front line on the drugs issue, and I wish we in Parliament could find ways of listening to such people more directly. I certainly learnt a great deal when I was serving under the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, on Sub-Committee F which a couple of years ago did a report on this subject. It is worth reading, not least for the evidence in the report which comes from those on the front line. I thank those in the front line for the tremendous help they have given me in clearing my thoughts and focusing for this debate.

I understand that there are moves among the Liberal Democrats to shift the drugs lead from the Home Office to the Department of Health. If so, that is immensely encouraging. I think we should all cheer that, if it is happening. I hope that other parties will be able to follow suit. The same call should be made to move the brief internationally from the UN Office for Drugs and Crime to the World Health Organisation.

This is no longer a theoretical debate. Regulation is happening now. Cannabis has been legalised in Washington state, Colorado and Uruguay. Each year that the war on drugs continues, we spend £60 billion to create an illegal drugs market with a turnover of £200 billion.

Senator John McCain, not well known for his liberal views, now supports legalising cannabis. The most recent national convert to legalise cannabis for medical use is Romania—again, not known for its liberal positions as a whole. Half the world’s opium is grown for the legal opiates market; 3,500 acres is grown in the UK. None of it attracts the attention of organised crime or the Taliban. No drug is made safer left in the hands of organised criminals and unregulated dealers. Mike Barton, chief constable of Durham and lead on intelligence for ACPO, recently called for the drug supply to be taken over by the NHS. We cannot continue to allow the world’s drug policy to be determined by our special relationship. It must be determined by UN principles, health, security, development and human rights. These are not supported by prohibition.

There are in fact two wars on drugs. The first is the misguided overconcentration on attempting to rid the world of certain drugs—not, incidentally, the biggest killers; those are overwhelmingly tobacco and alcohol. The second is the war against the organised criminals who profit from the unintended consequence of prohibition, namely the creation of the second largest income stream for organised criminals: illegal drugs.

There is a significant point in Sub-Committee F’s report. Part of this war results often in the trade being displaced, and previously unaffected countries and communities being drawn in, sometimes with the most appalling human rights consequences. We need to take that seriously.

As with alcohol prohibition in the US, there is only one way to end this madness: ending the prohibition and replacing it with a system of responsible regulation. This must mean placing drugs under the control of doctors, pharmacists and strictly licensed retailers. Successive Administrations have continued to spend taxpayers’ money on a system of criminalisation that has never been subject to evaluation. Despite being promised an evaluation in 2010, we have still not seen one from the Government.

I am personally highly dubious about whether the Home Office has any real idea of what has resulted, positively, from the £100 billion expenditure. Legalising and regulating heroin would mean that Afghanistan no longer produced heroin for the non-medical market. What we are talking about here is the potential transformation of international relations, enabling developing countries, especially those involved in drug production and supply, to extricate themselves from the nightmare of prohibition and aspire to the same goals that we all do. Imagine reallocating £60 billion annually to development, rather than spreading crime, misery, stigma and blood-borne viruses.

13:23

[Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)]

My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Meacher, not just for the debate but particularly for her tireless work on drugs. With any luck, she will make some progress.

I will highlight a matter which has not so far been raised by this House: the connection between drug dealing and human trafficking. There is a clear example in the report Drugs: Breaking the Cycle, at paragraph 52 on page 21:

“In 2011, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre published a report on people trafficking in which the largest identified trend was the trafficking of Vietnamese children into the UK—37 of the 58 children identified were trafficked into the UK to work in cannabis farms”.

I have said in the Chamber on several occasions how many cannabis farms there are in this country: something in excess of 7,500, of which about 4,000 are in London. They are in rented accommodation. I warn noble Lords who happen to own rented accommodation to be very careful to whom they let it. The traffickers are taking rented houses, pulling them to pieces, subverting the electricity and the water and creating large, successful cannabis farms which are in fact almost entirely run by Vietnamese children. Until recently, those children were treated as offenders when the police raided these farms, and not as victims. It is hugely to the credit of the Court of Appeal criminal division that in a decision in July it was seen and made clear that these Vietnamese children were to be treated as victims and no longer prosecuted. Indeed, the judge who presided over that court was the noble and learned Lord, Lord Judge, who is in his place today.

Something good has happened there but, of course, if we had a rethink of cannabis it might not be necessary to have all these cannabis farms. I wonder how much cannabis is being imported into this country now, because so much is being grown here. I was interested to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was saying about the really horrifying way in which drugs are successful in prisons, and how those who are taking drugs are really not tested on this system. It was an appalling story, and I have no doubt that it was accurate. I wonder whether the Home Office should not think again and much more carefully about looking at addicts who commit relatively minor crimes, but which are of sufficient importance to send them to prison. Should they not be going to residential clinics, which have a short-term cost but a long-term benefit? If they are weaned off drugs they will not be reoffending to fund their drug addiction. It would save a huge amount of money on the costs of keeping individual prisoners.

I finish my brief comments by saying that it is perfectly obvious that there has to be a rethink on drugs in this country. It clearly is not working and the Government should be brave enough to think about how it could be improved.

13:27

[Lord Taverne (LD)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the Independent Scientific Committee on Drugs. The debate was not necessarily promising because of the five-minute time limit for such an important and complex subject. In fact, however, the contributions have been invaluable, starting with the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, and also with the maiden speech of my noble friend Lady Manzoor.

There is one area on which nearly everyone is agreed: we should transfer the primary leadership on this issue from the Home Office to the Department of Health. It should be treated as a medical rather than criminal problem. There was also, not total agreement, but a majority of recommendations that possession of drugs should not be treated as a crime. Some 42,000 people a year are sentenced for drug offences, and 12,000 are given jail sentences for drug possession. There is no evidence whatever that this deters drug abuse. Indeed, it discourages going for treatment because, as many speakers have pointed out, of the stigma involved in such a conviction. The last thing that those who are addicted want to do is to acquire a criminal record, which would have all sorts of disadvantages. Nor is there any evidence that longer sentences help. There has been a gradual drift towards longer sentences for all drug offences, and there is no evidence that this has helped at all.

Apart from the bodies that have been referred to, a recent report was issued by the UK Drug Policy Commission, which is headed by Dame Ruth Runciman. It is an expert commission and a very important report, but the Government do not seem to have commented on it. The Government’s approach to evidence-based policy has often shown considerable shortcomings. Take, for example, the classification of drugs, to which many noble Lords have referred. The way the Home Office has neglected evidence is appalling. There is no particular evidence that the present classification is any good, but it is absurd to classify cannabis together with drugs such as heroin, cocaine and crack.

That is not the only unsatisfactory aspect. Several noble Lords have referred to the dangers of addiction to prescribed drugs. A number of bodies have warned about the excessive reliance in treatment on methadone tablets, which can easily be sold on the illicit drug market and can often lead to a relapse in people who have been trying to come off the drug. However, when they find that they can sell what has been officially prescribed, and that the methadone is easily sold, that is an incentive to relapse from treatment. As many noble Lords have pointed out, buprenorphine is a better alternative, especially when it is combined with naloxone. It is in common use in other countries, but has been neglected in this country.

All these contributions come to one conclusion, which is that the Misuse of Drugs Act is now 40 years old, the drug scene has changed dramatically since 1971, and it is high time that it was fundamentally re-examined.

13:31

[Lord Birt (CB)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for her relentless focus on drugs policy—a matter I spent 18 months of my life studying when I led the Cabinet Office review 10 years ago.

Serious drugs have been with us for hundreds of years. Heroin was sold over the counter in the UK in the mid-19th century, although it was not until the mid-20th century that diverse drug use began to rise exponentially and to involve many millions of users. Those of us who were young in the 1960s can understand this well. Drug use was part of revolutionary social and cultural change. We read about hallucinogens in our Aldous Huxley. My next-door neighbour at college, a biochemist, kept a test tube on his bookshelf that was openly labelled LSD. Marijuana appeared exotic and bohemian. Jazz musicians took heroin, we were told, and that seemed cool—and no one talked about the dangers. We know better now. Which of us would not be horrified to learn that our children, or in my case my grandchildren, were using a class A, B or C drug, or one of their legal high near-equivalents?

There are, however, modest grounds for hope. A combination of better public education and the street-smart insights of a new Trainspotting generation have reduced the allure of drugs. Overall numbers appear to be in gradual decline. It may take another 50 years, however, before we return once again to mid-20th century norms. In the mean time, unlike many of your Lordships, I continue to support the notion that the state needs to do all it can to stigmatise—and not to legalise or in any way legitimise—the use of classified drugs, for they are all harmful in their different ways.

We should focus on one category of drug user above all others: the 300,000 consumers of heroin and crack cocaine. They do terrible harm to themselves and to their families but cause grievous harm to the rest of us, too. They commit the majority of all crime—more than half of all burglaries and muggings—to fund their habits. The consequence is huge trauma for their victims and a vast economic cost that is borne by us all.

Problem drug users do wicked things, but for the most part, as other noble Lords have suggested, they are troubled individuals, many with mental health problems. They are rootless and chaotic, caught in the whirligig of short sentences, routinely switching in and out of prison. They merit our compassion and they need our help. We offer well intended help, but the system is itself chaotic. The problem drug user is passed between different health and justice institutions and slips between the cracks again and again. I have long believed that our present approach is not fit for purpose.

The notion that treatment will invariably lead to abstinence is a chimera. At best, 20% may become abstinent for more than five years, for heroin is the most pernicious and unshakeable of all addictions. Treatment, none the less, is worthwhile. A broad-based regime with a battery of approaches from heroin substitution to heroin prescription, from counselling to coaching, from help with accommodation to workplace training, will not bring a cure but will bring substantial harm reduction, including a significant cut in acquisitive crime. However, help must be available consistently and continuously.

To protect society, we need something that we do not have now: a legal framework—not necessarily a criminal framework—that would enable us to grip problem drug users to ensure that they do not slip through the cracks, and an agency that is part of the criminal justice system to keep them under what may well be a lifetime of humane and compassionate supervision. Only a step change in our approach will reduce the impact of what will be a very long-lasting epidemic.

13:37

[Lord Condon (CB)]

My Lords, I declare my registered interest in policing. I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for initiating this very important debate. I also add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, for her very stimulating maiden speech.

I will set out my position on drugs policy straightaway. I am not against the prospect of reform; I would also support a royal commission. However, based on my experience as a police officer and after, and taking account of all the most recent developments around the world, including in Portugal and Uruguay, I find myself still broadly supporting the Government’s evidence-based approach to reform and drugs policy. I am also encouraged by and support the most recent European Union drugs strategy statement, which for the very first time in the 2013 to 2020 policy statement incorporates the reduction of,

“health and social risks and harms caused by drugs”,

as a policy objective, alongside the more traditional reducing of supply and demand.

Those who use language such as, “The war on drugs has failed”, or who seek to polarise policy choices into a simplistic “criminalise or decriminalise” debate, undermine our ability to make informed, evidence-based strategic decisions. In the early 1970s, President Nixon and other world leaders spoke about the war on drugs and a drugs-free world. The reality is that a war in those terms has always been doomed to failure, as would a war against theft or burglary, if making progress was defined only by the total absence of illicit drugs.

As other noble Lords have said, the truth is that illegal drug use in this country is falling, and deaths from drug abuse are falling. Although, as other noble Lords have clearly articulated, there are absolutely no grounds for complacency or for ignoring the powerful calls for reform, current policies have made and make a significant impact on the drugs problem.

I respect the views of those who have argued today for change, and of others beyond this Chamber. I read with interest the views of Mike Barton, the chief constable of Durham Police, who argued that prohibition had failed and called for decriminalisation. However, I will briefly set out some concerns that still nag at me and stop me fully embracing the radical reform agenda. The current policy on illicit drugs enables parents, teachers and others to give very clear guidance to youngsters about the health risks and—yes—the criminal consequences of illicit drug use. Based on my experience with youngsters, and as a police officer, I believe that the social stigma and lifestyle impact of the criminal consequences of illicit drug activity remain a very powerful deterrent to many young people, and prevent them experimenting with drugs—which they might well do in a decriminalised regime.

Even though I welcome debate and have an open mind about many of the possible reforms, my major concern remains how any decriminalising regime could be pragmatically implemented. The experience of Portugal and other countries may not be replicated here, against the background of our very different scale, of our cultural differences and of the problems that we face.

If only so-called soft drugs are legalised—which some have argued for—the criminal suppliers will focus more intently on the supply of so-called harder drugs. Softer-drug supply may become a gateway, a loss leader and a route to addiction in the criminal market of harder drugs. Your Lordships’ House has heard in previous debates about the devastating potential brain damage from some of the stronger cannabis derivatives. A caring, responsible society should set criminal parameters to protect people from some of these so-called soft drugs.

If all drugs are decriminalised, criminals will still seek to make a market. Only a laissez-faire, total free-for-all, regardless of the consequences, will limit the link between criminality and drugs. I assume that we would want to have minimum age limits, and that we would not allow our youngest people to be involved in drugs. Perhaps there would be limits on quantities and impact. Anything other than a total free-for-all would allow an illegal market to continue.

In conclusion, by all means, as so many in your Lordships’ House have articulated today, let us explore reform and change to our drugs policy. However, in doing so, we must not demotivate or devalue the work of so many professionals in a variety of agencies who, day in, day out, combat and treat all aspects of drug abuse. They have not lost the so-called war on drugs. They may be coping with inadequate resources and facing real challenges, but they are making a difference.

[Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)]

Perhaps I may remind the noble Lord that we are time-limited.

[Lord Condon]

My Lords, I do apologise; I am about to finish.

Nor must we, without hard evidence, dilute and damage the powerful deterrent effect of the stigma associated with the current criminal consequences of drug use or supply, which deters so many young people from experimenting. For these reasons, I support the Government’s evidence-based approach to reform.

13:44

[Baroness Hamwee (LD)]

My Lords, it is no surprise that this has been a very intelligent debate on a multifaceted issue. I congratulate my noble friend on packing so much into a scarily short time. I attended a seminar a little while ago. During the first session, the politicians blamed the media for blocking debate through overdramatic reporting. The second session was led by a journalist, who blamed the politicians for being risk averse. We say something about this in the report of the APPG, which is led so energetically by the noble Baroness. I add my thanks, too, to Frank Warburton and Jonathan Hurlow, who did a huge amount of work on it.

We said that we recognised that politicians were apprehensive about proposing change because they might be perceived as irresponsible or soft, so they shy away from rational decisions. The report states:

“Our current drug policy suggests a preference for a flawed policy rather than appear soft on a contentious issue”.

That was addressed to all politicians. However, changes are afoot. Like others, I am attracted by the Portuguese approach of—the description is perhaps more accurate than “decriminalisation”—depenalisation. It is not a soft option, nor is it regulation. There, the number of young people becoming addicted is falling, and so are drug-related deaths.

I will focus on one part of the all-party group’s work. We realised that the world had changed. As others said, drugs are traded on the internet. If we close a site here, another will pop up there. We may ban a new drug, but already there will be several in the pipeline, because scientists in China are poring over published research—using the detail of what is in the public domain—to make small changes in the composition of the drug so that it does not fall within the current classification. It is simply not possible to keep up under the system that we have now.

They are called “legal highs”. Well, yes, they are not illegal—but how do you get over the message that not being illegal does not mean that the drugs are not unsafe? As for cigarettes and alcohol, I cannot defend the fact that some drugs are taxed and some are banned.

The all-party group welcomed the fact that temporary class drug orders do not criminalise the user—not least because a criminal record carries so many problems with employment, relationships and so on, but does not necessarily involve treatment. We heard that some young people use new psychoactive substances—legal highs—because they do not want to break the law. I do not discount that. However, the orders seem to feed a drive for the development of alternatives that are subject neither to the orders nor to the Misuse of Drugs Act. Those alternatives may be very dangerous because their contents are unknown and change from week to week, and because young people make their own risk assessments without reliable information. A harm-based policy, which must be the logical approach, suggests that temporary orders should be in place long enough for a comprehensive risk assessment, with the benefit of avoiding criminalising young people.

The Misuse of Drugs Act is clunky. A witness told us that the system was designed to cope with alcohol, heroin and cocaine, one at a time. It focuses on criminal activity, with the obvious difficulty that if neither users nor police know the content of a substance, in the absence of accurate field-testing devices, what do you do? This and more led to our recommendation that the ACMD should become an independent decision-making body,

“to oversee risk analyses; coordinate the research they need; and make decisions on a scientific basis as to the correct classification for each drug, beginning with new psychoactive substances”,

leaving the politicians to focus on political decisions.

Of course, we need to be as imaginative as the suppliers and to look at all possible responses and tools, such as the use of the internet for good and using trading standards personnel. At the moment they are constrained in what they can do and frustrated by knowing that there has not been any deception of a buyer, who knows that they are not buying plant food or bath salts. It is a very odd collusion.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I was around in the 1960s. I do not know whether that qualifies or disqualifies me, but life was simpler then. The “war on drugs” is indeed too simplistic, and I have been greatly cheered by a lot of the views that I have heard today.

13:49

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, when the EU Committee’s sub-committee on home affairs, which I have the honour to chair, reported 18 months ago on the European Union’s future drugs strategy, one of our most important findings was to note the paucity and the poverty of the public debate on drugs issues, including the way that such debate as there was tended to be dominated by raucous tabloid press scare stories and governmental knee-jerk reactions. One of our central recommendations was that the Government and the EU institutions should aim to stimulate an EU-wide debate on drugs policies. That finding remains as valid today as the day we made it and that recommendation remains largely ignored by both the Government and the EU’s institutions. It is in that context that I warmly welcome today’s debate and the tireless efforts of my noble friend Lady Meacher to fill that lacuna. I hope that the Government’s contribution to this debate, and other statements to be made by the Government in the months ahead, will help to serve the same purpose.

One striking consequence of this lack of informed debate is the astonishingly confused and confusing public terminology for some of the main issues at stake. It is not uncommon to read newspaper articles which actually equate decriminalisation of a limited number of drugs offences with the legalisation of trade in drugs as if the two terms were synonymous, yet there is a world of difference between them. To decriminalise the possession and use of small quantities of drugs but not their trafficking, as Portugal has done, is a completely different approach from that being followed in Uruguay, and possibly being prepared in two American states, where these commodities are being legalised. That, in turn, is quite different from the attempt being made in New Zealand to regulate legally what are called “legal highs”. If we are to have a sensible debate in this country about these matters we need to pay greater heed to these distinctions, and we need to be a lot better informed about the successes or failures of these policies in the increasing number of countries where they are being tried.

It is not surprising that such innovations are being tried since the not very wisely named “war on drugs” has fallen a long way short of being a complete success. Not only are our already overcrowded prisons, particularly in this country and the US, being filled with drug offenders, but many countries in Latin America, west Africa and Asia are being devastated by the collateral effects of that war, and of the trade in drugs, which our inability to control the demand for in our developed economies is continuing to stimulate. That certainly does not prove that all those policy innovations make good sense or should be replicated here, but it does show why a policy of simply standing pat on existing measures and refusing even to contemplate or to discuss any changes is such an inadequate one and so unlikely to be successful.

One remedy which seems to be gaining wider support and acceptance here and elsewhere in Europe is to put greater emphasis on harm reduction and on trying to treat drug users in the community rather than in prison. When we conducted our inquiry into the EU drugs strategy we came across small but encouraging signs that in this country such an approach was gaining ground, often encouraged by the devoted work of voluntary organisations. However, it is still desperately underresourced and, in terms of government policy, this seems to be something that does not dare to speak its name. Perhaps the Minister will address that concern when he replies to the debate.

I am not sufficiently expert, or perhaps sufficiently foolhardy, to put forward any ideas for specific changes in policy or the law. I am sure that all of them bristle with difficulties and drawbacks, but one of those difficulties, surely, is the political toxicity for any party or coalition of parties of changing even the smallest measure. Yet, if you come to think of it, this should not be an issue where party politics are involved at all. We should not allow such debate as there is to be dominated by a competition in demonstrating toughness towards anything to do with drugs. There is surely a good case for doing as the Government have done over airport capacity and setting up a non-political body to assess the whole field of drugs policy, including particularly the innovations taking place elsewhere in Europe and in the wider world, with a remit to report back early in the next Parliament in the hope—even the expectation—that such an approach could lead to cross-party policy-making and a shift away from the very unsatisfactory status quo. I would very much welcome the views of the Minister on this suggestion.

13:55

[Baroness Greenfield (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on bringing attention to these important reports. I declare an interest as an ambassador of the Angelus Foundation, which aims:

“To help society understand the dangers of ‘legal highs’”.

As a neuropharmacologist researching the cellular mechanisms underlying various neurological and mental disorders, I have a particular interest in the impact of recreational drugs on the brain. After so many eloquent and informed speeches, I would like to make just two points.

The first is to question the actual meaning of the phrase “relatively less harmful”. Much is often made of the fact that, in a 2007 paper, cannabis came in with a final net score lower overall than that for tobacco or alcohol, suggesting that it might be safer, but then again, in the same paper, cannabis scored higher than LSD, which is widely regarded as a model for psychoses such as schizophrenia. Is having hallucinations really more welcome than, say, the relaxing effects of moderate amounts of alcohol? Similarly, on the same scale, cannabis also had a higher score than ecstasy, a drug for which in the past five to six years more than 60 papers have documented adverse short and long-term effects on the brain. Therefore, on that comparison, cannabis should be more harmful. Moreover, smoking cigarette after cigarette in one sitting is unlikely to achieve an “overdose” akin to a single session of marijuana that can send smokers to A&E with acute panic attacks.

These drugs all have detrimental effects, but they are qualitatively different. Surely any direct comparison is like benchmarking apples against pears. Further factors might come into play, such as the differential effects of certain drugs on the still developing adolescent brain. In teenagers a certain region, the prefrontal cortex, is still not fully operational, accounting perhaps for the tendency of young people to take more risks and seek sensation. This, in turn, may be reflected in the differential statistics, where the risk of cannabis addiction has been estimated for adults to be about one in 10, but almost doubles for teenagers to one in six. A recent report in the Lancet has documented cannabis as having a dependence syndrome in the young, including,

“increased risk of motor vehicle crashes, impaired respiratory function, cardiovascular disease and adverse effects on adolescent mental health”.

Subsequently, a paper published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences has shown that persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological impairment among adolescent-onset users, for whom cessation did not fully restore neuropsychological functioning. Confounding factors such as socioeconomic status or personality differences were subsequently eliminated: the link appears direct between cannabis use and an irreversibly lowered IQ. No similar claims have been made for nicotine. Even if such qualitatively different drugs could be compared on a quantitatively single scale, the crucial question is then: just how harmful is a “less harmful” drug? The phrase lacks any precise definition, and cannot therefore really be used as a valid justification or a starting premise.

My second point relates to the paradoxical signals sent out that, although the laws may be relaxed on a drug, it is still to be avoided. Already the possibility of cannabis legalisation is all too readily glamorised as a cool and trendy campaign to support, with little negative publicity offsetting that image, in contrast, for example, with tobacco. It would be helpful to know how the preventive programmes mentioned in the reports—we have heard too little about those this afternoon—will be funded and rolled out. The reports paint a rather gloomy picture of the preventive programmes, yet one initiative they did not explore, which has proved successful, is a community-wide approach, such as the one in the US, where community anti-drug coalitions have shown positive impacts when a community-wide response is taken up.

Another possibility has been prompted by my own experience of speaking in schools and penal institutions on drugs and the brain. Adults and teenagers alike get fascinated by basic neuroscience that can give insights into drug action: the “plasticity” of the brain whereby dynamic, endless reorganising of individual neuronal connectivity is driven by individual experience through chemical messengers signalling between different brain cells. It is this chemical transmission, this plasticity, that is modified in various ways by different recreational drugs. If this personalisation of the brain could be the individual mind, then “blowing your mind” might be an unintentionally accurate description. I have found from experience that this carries weight with young audiences.

Other noble Lords have spoken on the legislative and political merits of the recommendations of these reports. I would urge that such considerations be placed in the wider context of a thought-through programme of prevention that should first be in place and proven to be effective.

14:00

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, I very much welcome this debate and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, for giving us the opportunity to fully explore the important issues raised by the reports of the all-party parliamentary group and the Home Affairs Select Committee. I take this opportunity to add my warm welcome to the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, and congratulate her on her maiden speech. I look forward to her further contributions in the House. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, the debate has, not surprisingly, been excellent and full of expertise. It has posed many interesting and challenging issues. It has not only given us a variety of views but shown the breadth of expertise and experience that we have in the House on this subject.

As noble Lords may be aware, I, too, have had a long-term interest in drugs policy and service provision, from setting up and managing day care and rehabilitation services in the late 1980s, which the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, mentioned, to serving on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs and the board of the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. More recently, my work on a cross-departmental review of drug treatment in prisons resulted in the publication of the Patel report.

From my experience of carrying out this national review, I believe that our overriding concern must be to have a drugs policy that supports some of the most vulnerable people in our communities and their families—a policy that is evidence based and listens to the views of users and carers; a policy that is adaptable and able to meet new challenges, including new drugs as they emerge; and a policy that is sustainable in the long term. To do this, we clearly need to learn from quality research, including the experiences and evaluations of different approaches from other countries. In fact, in their response to the report of the all-party parliamentary group, the Government state this explicitly. They say that,

“we must continue to listen and learn from emerging trends, new evidence and international comparators”.

However, I ask the Minister what steps the Government are actually taking to ensure that we do not spend several years doing this when there is enough clear evidence to act now, such as that from Portugal’s alternative community-based treatment and diversion approach.

Of course, there are new risks to which we must urgently attend, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, mentioned. I am speaking about risks posed by the rapid changes in drug manufacture, the new psychoactive substances and so-called club drugs. While temporary drug control orders are to be welcomed as a helpful step in dealing with these new threats, they are not sufficient. As I understand it, the Government have used three temporary banning orders in total, despite the fact that there are well over 100 legal highs out there and they are coming in at a rate of more than 70 a year. In fact, in the last year alone, 73 new substances came on to the British market and are now freely available from 690 online shops. The noble Baroness, Lady Lane-Fox, highlighted the pros and cons of the internet market. In addition, the Angelus Foundation thinks that there could be up to 300 head shops selling these substances on UK high streets. The European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction is monitoring 280 new substances across Europe.

Against this disturbing background, Les Iversen, chair of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, has said that the ACMD has the capacity to review only about four legal highs a year. I believe that it has to carry out a review even for a temporary banning order. I would therefore like to understand more about the Government’s rejection of the all-party parliamentary group’s key recommendation regarding these orders. Perhaps the Minister can explain the thinking behind not making these orders permanent in a way that does not, as the all-party group recommends, add to the criminalisation of young people.

On the question of decriminalisation, which many noble Lords have mentioned, and the issue of whether we have a punishment-led or treatment-led approach to drug problems, I have to say that all Governments, my own included, sometimes fail to make the right decisions based on evidence. This is due to the pressures that build up from public debate, which is itself often ill informed as a result of exaggeration in the media and cries that the Government of the day are somehow being soft on drugs if they give way to the advice of the experts. Let us be clear about this: the evidence supports treatment rather than criminalisation and punishment. The recent experience in Portugal on using drug treatment panels rather than the traditional criminal justice system supports this. We have also recently seen a complete reversal of direction in some US states, which have legislated to legalise marijuana use, as my noble friend Lord Judd said.

It is therefore disappointing that the Government,

“does not believe there is a case for fundamentally re-thinking the UK’s approach to drugs”.

My noble friend Lord Howarth also used that quote. I strongly urge the Government to ensure that our current drug policy is based on research and evidence, rather than the ideological and moral opinions of media commentators. It is not appropriate in such a dynamic and ever changing situation as that presented by drugs issues to have a blanket ban on fundamentally reviewing any policy. Surely our policy development and implementation must respond to change and, in particular, the evidence.

The first treatment that a drug user receives must be about stabilising the chaos in their lives; if that means something other than abstinence, so be it. Arguments around whether there should be harm minimisation or an abstinence-based approach are, at best, divisive or completely miss the point. The noble Lord, Lord Fowler, highlighted that issue in relation to needle exchange schemes. Abstinence is not about telling all addicts that the only way to move forward is to stop suddenly; it is about providing the right range of treatment options at the right time.

The previous Labour Government invested significantly in drug treatment and revolutionised its provision, with significant results. For example, the waiting time for treatment was cut by more than half, far fewer people dropped out of treatment and outcomes were greatly improved. Recent government rhetoric appears to have moved away from creating a constructive approach and providing a choice of treatments to drug users, to focusing on and ensuring that offenders are punished and drug users are effectively pressured to become abstinent.

At the same time we are seeing major changes in the way that the finances for drug treatment are being distributed and managed. The previous Labour Government had ring-fenced these moneys, but this is no longer the case after the system has been devolved to health and well-being boards, which gives me some cause for concern. I ask the Minister to provide some reassurance that the policy is not being driven by a concern to command public confidence, rather than providing appropriate and evidence-based treatment options with a robust mechanism for protecting the funds for this treatment.

What I find frustrating is that, although we in the drugs sector are fortunate to have a relatively good evidence base on what works and what is cost-effective—research has concluded that for every £1 spent on young people’s treatment services, there is a return of up to almost £2 over a two-year period and £8 over the longer term—young people’s programmes are generally not supported by evidence, and programmes such as DARE, which have been shown to be ineffective, are still being used.

The UK Drug Policy Commission noted that UK Governments have invested little in independent evaluations of the impact of their drug reforms and policies, particularly around the criminal justice system. A number of well evidenced programmes, such as those involving the use of naloxone, have not been implemented, as the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, said. Can the Minister provide an explanation as to why these programmes have not been implemented?

Perhaps I may make a plea that we do not forget the voices of users and carers in this debate. After all, it is those people most affected not only by drug problems but by our national policies and treatment approaches who suffer the most. When I was taking part in the review of prison drug treatment services, all 22 of us on the committee were anxious to hear the voices of users, but no one thought that it would happen. In a five-week period, we consulted user groups across the country who had talked to offenders, ex-offenders and drug users to get feedback for the report. We expected 50 people to respond in that time; 500 users, including current and ex-offenders, came forward and gave us some amazing evidence. It is really important that we do not put that evidence to one side.

Finally, after listening to all the many excellent contributions, I suggest that the way forward on these complex and challenging issues is to establish a cross-party group to review drug policy—a group that examines all the evidence carefully, listens to the voices of users and carers, and carefully develops an effective drug policy. Maybe the Minister and I could set this in motion today. I am sure that there are a number of people here in the Chamber who would be prepared to contribute their time and expertise to it. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and, again, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on pursuing these critical issues.

14:09

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Taylor of Holbeach) (Con)]

My Lords, I am sure that I join all speakers in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, on securing this debate. I see her as a great asset to this House. The combination of expertise and experience, which I think we all expected, has produced an excellent debate, and I thank all noble Lords who have contributed to it.

As I doubt that I shall cover all the points raised, I hope that noble Lords will allow me to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Meacher, with a commentary on the debate and circulate it to all noble Lords who have spoken, as I think that that will do justice to the value of the contributions and the seriousness with which the Government also view this issue.

I also join in the welcome to my new noble friend Lady Manzoor and congratulate her on her maiden speech. We will all look forward to her contributions in the future, given the excellence of her speech today.

As the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, pointed out, drugs ruin lives and cause misery to families and communities. For this reason, the Government have published the most ambitious drug strategy to date, Reducing Demand, Restricting Supply, Building Recovery: Supporting People to Live a Drug Free Life. That title is important; it sums up the strategy that we are seeking to pursue. Launched in 2010, it is highly ambitious in its aims and it balances activity across three strands: preventing drug use in our communities; supporting individuals in recovering from dependence; and cracking down on the illegal drugs trade.

This Government are committed to breaking the vicious cycle of drug and alcohol dependency. However, as many noble Lords have pointed out, there are no quick fixes. Simply focusing on reducing the harms caused by illicit drug use is not enough. This is why we are leading the way as one of only a few EU member states that have raised the level of ambition to take recovery beyond the treatment system and enable people to sustain their recovery. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is encouraged by that and by the role that we see ourselves playing in Europe.

While the strategy has recovery at its heart—helping individuals to be free from dependence on drugs and alcohol and to rebuild their lives—it balances this with a focus on education and support, which are needed alongside law enforcement. Since its publication, this Government have continued to focus on all three strands of the drug strategy to continue making a difference. We have removed unnecessary layers of bureaucracy, introduced streamlined processes and improved the accountability of decision-makers across a number of key areas. It is a policy in which all government departments work together. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and indeed all noble Lords, that the Home Office and the Department of Health have a shared approach to this issue.

Local communities are now at the heart of the public health agenda. We have scrapped expensive police authorities and introduced a single accountable person to make decisions on local crime, disorder and policing; we have established the National Crime Agency to lead the fight against serious, organised and complex crime; we have published the Transforming Rehabilitation plans to change the way we manage and rehabilitate offenders in the community; and new community budget areas will be able to combine resources from various local sources into a single pot with greater local control to improve services for local people.

There are some promising signs that our approach is working, with continuing positive trends in a number of key areas. Drug use is at its lowest since measurement began in 1996, with the use of any drug in the past year falling from 11.9% to 8.2% in 2012-13. In 1996, this figure was 11.1%.

[Baroness Meacher]

Does the Minister accept that that recent drop has mainly been in the use of cannabis and that it has been substantially offset by the explosion in the use of legal highs?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I do not want to sound complacent in giving these figures. I understand exactly what the noble Baroness is saying but the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, told us why it was very important to suppress the use of cannabis and how dangerous it can be as a drug. However, the figures show that there has been a considerable reduction in drug use. I think that we should acknowledge that and take some encouragement from it. We are going to need some encouragement because this is a difficult issue with which to deal.

I was going on to say that school pupils tell us that they are taking fewer drugs too. That is really important because these habits can be dealt with when people are young. In 2012, 12% of 11 to 15 year-olds reported having taken any drug in the past year, the latest in a downward trend from 20% in 2001.

The number of heroin and crack cocaine users—not just cannabis users—in England has fallen below 300,000 for the first time since records began in 2004-05, according to figures published by what was then the National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, now Public Health England, in March.

I agree with my noble friends Lady Miller and Lord Teverson and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, about targeting the supply side of this issue. To restrict the supply of drugs, the police, SOCA—now, the NCA—and other enforcement agencies are seizing significant quantities of drugs off the streets. In 2012-13, more than 109 tonnes of class A drugs were seized at home and abroad as a result of SOCA’s activity. The police and the UK Border Force made 216,296 drug seizures in England and Wales in 2011-12.

Local criminal justice partners across England and Wales managed the transfer of 88,000 class A drug-misusing offenders into treatment and recovery services in 2011-12 through the drug interventions programme, or DIP. The DIP is estimated to help to prevent around 680,000 crimes per year. This is the approach of intervening and not seeking to drive drug users into criminality. Moreover, well over 250 new psychoactive substances, also known as legal highs, have been banned to date. In June, we legislated to make 10 more legal highs temporary class drugs within a matter of days.

I agree with my noble friend Lady Manzoor that enabling addicts to recover is the right way forward. That is why we are supporting individuals in recovering from dependence. The strategy has maintained quick access to treatment, with average waiting times being only five days. Record numbers are recovering from dependence, with nearly 30,000 people successfully completing their treatment in 2011-12, up from 27,900 the previous year and almost three times the level seven years ago, at 11,200. Drug-related deaths in England have fallen over the past three years.

I should like to comment on the review and report of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford—and this applies, too, to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham. The Government are very grateful for the report in this important area. A number of recommendations from his report are being implemented as part of the Government’s health and justice reforms. I know that the Patel report proposed pooling all government drugs funds under a single, central governmental structure; this has been implemented, with the Department of Health funding all substance misuse work in prisons. I hope that that is carrying forward the noble Lord’s ideas, and the expertise that he brought to his report.

Given that we are making progress, the Government are not currently persuaded that there is a case for fundamentally rethinking the UK’s approach to drugs. However, we are not complacent and must continue, as we have been doing with today’s debate, to listen and learn from emerging trends, new evidence and international comparators. In particular, we are building on the commitment in the drug strategy to,

“review new evidence on what works in other countries and what we can learn from it”.

We are conducting a study on international comparators to learn more from the approach in other countries. We continue to develop our approach to evaluating the effectiveness and value for money of the drug strategy. This includes publishing an update on our approach to evaluation alongside the next annual review. The update will set out, at a high level, the approach to evaluation; it is not the evaluation itself.

I turn to some points raised in the debate. If I say that we are confident in our current approach to tackling drugs, it is not to be complacent. Drug usage has fallen to its lowest level since records began and people going into treatment today are far more likely to free themselves from dependency than ever before. However, as the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Condon, pointed out, it is a very long haul. We are continually looking at new ways to reduce demand, restrict supply and promote recovery. The Government are undertaking an international study that will examine approaches in other countries, and we will seek to engage with the United Nations on this matter.

Given the complexity of the issue, the economic and social costs of class A drug use, and noting that the vast majority of this is attributed to crimes committed to fuel problem drug use, the Home Secretary will continue to be accountable for the overall drug strategy. However, as I have explained, all government departments work together on that strategy. Of course, there are other societal harms, including family breakdown, poverty, crime and anti-social behaviour. That is why drugs policy has to be a cross-government issue.

The Government are committed to an evidence-based approach. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Howarth of Newport, and my noble friend Lord Taverne, hoped that we would pursue an evidence-based approach. Our approach is informed by the expert advice of the ACMD.

[Lord Howarth of Newport]

I am grateful to the Minister. He talks, rightly, about the need for a cross-departmental strategy and an evidence-based approach. Is he satisfied with the contribution of the Department for Education to the demand reduction aspect of his strategy? He will, perhaps, be aware of the observation by the charity, Mentor:

“We are spending the vast majority of the money we do spend on drug education on programmes that don’t work”.

He will be aware of the comment by the Department for Education that they,

“do not monitor the programmes or resources that schools use to support their teaching”.

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can only point to the fact, which I have already quoted, of the reduction of drug use among school children. When I talk about cross-governmental co-operation, I am demonstrating that it is one of the areas that is very important. Schools can be very important in this, and I am satisfied that the Department for Education is playing its full part.

We are also committed to undertaking an evaluation to assess the effectiveness and value for money of the current drug strategy as well as reviewing the drug strategy on an annual basis. The second annual review will be published shortly.

I agree with my noble friends Lord Fowler and Lady Hamwee that the “war on drugs” is an unhelpful term and does not reflect the complexity of the issue. However, I believe that the legalisation of drugs would not eliminate the crime committed by organised career criminals; such criminals would simply seek new sources of illicit revenue through crime. Neither would a regulated market eliminate illicit supplies, as alcohol and tobacco smuggling clearly demonstrate. Regulation also carries its own administrative and enforcement costs and could cause increases in drug use and availability. I do not believe that it is a risk worth taking.

[Lord Fowler]

I apologise for intervening, but could my noble friend be absolutely clear on the clean needles policy? I have been listening to what he says very carefully. All the international experience to which he refers suggests that when countries do not follow that policy, it has a disastrous effect with regard to HIV. Do the Government in the United Kingdom remain absolutely committed to the clean needles policy?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

Yes, I can give my noble friend that commitment.

It may help if I go on and stick to my notes in order. We talked about the medical evidence; the recent British Medical Journal report stated that global drug prices are falling and purity is increasing. However, this focused on international drug supply indicators. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who always makes a valuable contribution to our debates. In the UK, we are seeing low purity levels and high wholesale prices for both cocaine and heroin, alongside some very large seizures and the lowest drug usage levels since records began. We should acknowledge the work being done by those individuals working to achieve this.

We have a cross-government action plan, which is already delivering successful outcomes. We continue to work with the ACMD to monitor closely this market, and our evidence-based approach continues to support UK law enforcement to disrupt supply and communications activity to reduce demand. Hundreds of new psychoactive substances identified in the EU are already controlled drugs in the UK, and we are leading the international response through the G8 and with the EU to tackle the threat from NPS. However, we are not complacent—I use that word again. We are conducting an international comparators study of alternative approaches adopted abroad to address drug issues, including legislative responses to the legal-high market. We want to understand the opportunities and drawbacks of the alternative approaches to help inform any further necessary steps to protect the public. We welcome the contributions that this debate has made in that field. But the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield, brought us up sharp with her informed comments on cannabis.

We are committed to explore the full use of existing drug, medicines and consumer protection legislation, as well as the Intoxicating Substances (Supply) Act 1985, to disrupt the NPS market.

I also point to the work done by my honourable friend, the former Minister Jeremy Browne. He visited Portugal, which has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords, Denmark, Sweden, Japan, South Korea, Canada and the USA, and has spoken to the New Zealand representative responsible for drug policy. Visits to the Czech Republic and Switzerland are planned for November. We recognise the global nature of this issue and we are determined to learn from other countries.

I have been taken short by a couple of interventions on these issues which rather threw me, but I confirm to my noble friend Lord Fowler my remarks on needle use. I thank all noble Lords for speaking. The Government are committed to a balanced approach, focusing on reducing demand, restricting supply and building recovery. Drug use is at its lowest level since measurement began in 1996. We are not complacent and we will continue to increase the resilience of young people to enable us to make a good choice on a range of issues, not just drugs but alcohol, sexual health and obesity. I thank the noble Baroness for presenting us with this chance to talk about that.

14:31

[Baroness Meacher]

My Lords, I rise, first, to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Manzoor, for using this debate for her maiden speech. It was charming of her to do so. I give special thanks to my two vice-chairs who are here today, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, and my noble friend Lady Stern, not only for their valuable contributions today but for their ongoing work for the APPG which has made all the difference. I also thank Frank Warburton our research officer, without whom none of our reports would be produced at all.

I have to reply to just one point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Greenfield. The word “cannabis” applies to many different compounds; the whole point of regulation is to split the market for the low THC/high CBD relatively safe herbal cannabis from the illegal market for the much more dangerous high THC cannabis. That is the point. The scientists who gave evidence to our committee made that point very strongly.

It has been an extraordinarily rich, well informed and wide-ranging debate. I say a special thank you to the noble Lord, Lord Patel, for his challenge to all parties. I say thank you very much to all noble Lords who have spoken today.

Motion agreed.

Commonwealth

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

14:33

Moved by

[Lord Luce]

That this House takes note of the future of the Commonwealth, in the light of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November.

[Earl Attlee (Con)]

My Lords, the timings on this debate are very short indeed. Noble Lords have only four minutes, and I remind them that when the clock says,“4” their time is up.

[Lord Luce (CB)]

In just a month’s time the leaders of 53 Commonwealth countries will meet in Sri Lanka. It is an opportunity which Commonwealth Governments must take to add value and momentum to this very special group of nations. It is a British interest to strengthen ties with the Commonwealth and an opportunity for this Parliament to influence progress. I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in this debate and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

Despite centuries of human achievement, we still see endless conflict, death and cruelty, starvation and poverty in so many parts of the world. Yet we in Britain are fortunate to be equal members of a unique group of nations which covers one-fifth of the land of this world and includes more than 2 billion people. It embraces a complete cross-section of the globe, from the Pacific to Africa to the Caribbean, big states such as India and small states such as Trinidad, rich and poor, following many religions and beliefs. We share a common history stemming from our empire, a common language and shared aspirations for good governance, the rule of law, respect for human rights and increased prosperity. Many of us in this Chamber have witnessed in our lifetime the transition from empire to this Commonwealth of equal nations.

Throughout the Commonwealth’s history the Queen has given us the inspiration and the ability to stick together through numerous crises, from apartheid to Rhodesia. During her reign she has made 150 Commonwealth visits. Indeed, she has been the unifying figure of the Commonwealth. The new Diamond Jubilee Trust recognises her special role. We could not invent the Commonwealth today. It stems from our shared history and experience. At its heart is contact between people as much as contact between Governments—links which cover every facet of our lives. The 750,000 Commonwealth immigrants who arrived in this country between 1950 and 1960 symbolised the end of empire and are now an integrated part of our lives in Britain. This Commonwealth migration applies to many other countries as well. Furthermore, the links that have been forged by more than 90 Commonwealth professional bodies cover every aspect of life, from medicine and universities to forestry and the media. Many other noble Lords will demonstrate today as wide a range of Commonwealth links and interests as I have.

All this gives us an opportunity which we either discard or seize—the opportunity to use this organisation to improve the quality of life for all of us, if it is grasped more fully by people and Governments. The British Empire has long since gone but we can still punch above our weight. For example, soft diplomacy is becoming increasingly important. Modern technology gives us the means to use this vast network to our mutual benefit. The Commonwealth is unique. Membership is not a substitute, but complements our membership of NATO, the European Union, or our natural relationship with the United States. Because it is so comprehensive in its range, the Commonwealth does not create a day-to-day impact on people’s lives or headlines in the media, unless there is a crisis, but its significance should not be underestimated.

The main purpose of this debate is to explore how we can all achieve added value from our membership and strengthen the Commonwealth to benefit all members. Let me comment first on intergovernmental co-operation and then people-to-people contact. First, we need to face up to the significance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka in November. Together with Gambia’s recent withdrawal, the spotlight is indeed on the core values, highlighted in the new charter of the Commonwealth. Sri Lanka’s human rights record in recent times has been disappointing. Our Government have made it clear that we expect to see at CHOGM concrete progress on human rights, judicial independence, free and fair regional elections and proper access and freedom of movement for civil society and the media. The Prime Minister has decided to participate in this conference, while Canada’s Prime Minister will not attend and is reviewing Canada’s funding programme for the Commonwealth. I understand that the Commonwealth has been active in working for reconciliation and improvements in human rights in Sri Lanka. Is there a lesson to be learnt here from South Africa’s successful Truth and Reconciliation Commission? Can the Minister report to the House on the progress that is being made? The reputation of the Commonwealth is at stake.

While on human rights, I ask the Minister to accept that our arguments are likely to be more persuasive if we demonstrate that we are making our own improvements. For example, it would be helpful for our Government to state at CHOGM that we plan to restore the right of return to the British Indian Ocean Territory to those Chagossians who, in the late 1960s, were expelled by us from their homeland to make way for Diego Garcia. This remains a blot on our copybook which we must rectify.

The most important aspect of CHOGM is to pursue the implementation of a series of recommendations from the previous meeting in Perth. These ranged from ways to improve governance, human rights and the rule of law to economic and commercial development and cultural collaboration. If Governments are to get more advantage from this, it is worth stressing how important it is for Ministers in virtually every department to think in Commonwealth terms and to work collectively to that end. One of the agreed recommendations was to strengthen the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group to deal with a full range of serious or persistent violations of Commonwealth values. The Commonwealth’s ability to deal effectively with conflict resolution could act as a model to the rest of the world. Intervention in the past with countries that have flouted Commonwealth standards, such as Fiji, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Pakistan, demonstrate its value. Other areas include strengthening democracy through the newly-established Commonwealth Network of Election Management Bodies and the monitoring of elections.

The other side of the coin is what we are doing to strengthen development and to help small states with their economies. We need to know, for example, what progress is being made to implement the millennium development goals, universal access to healthcare, plans to eradicate polio and to address malaria, malnutrition, diarrhoea and respiratory infections. More widely, there is the question of the empowerment of women, who are vital to economic development, and broad issues such as smuggling, human trafficking, piracy and climate change, which we are all committed to tackle. The Commonwealth ought also to be removing remittance transfer barriers and encouraging the skilled diaspora living in the West to contribute to their countries of origin. In all this, what contribution is DfID making to Commonwealth countries and what form does it take?

Of course, trade and investment is a crucial aspect of development and this year’s theme is “opportunity through enterprise”. The combined GDP of the Commonwealth is more than £6 trillion and it contributes more than 20% of the world’s trade and investment. We have the advantage of common language and some regulatory frameworks which should facilitate trade. However, we could be doing far more in the Commonwealth. Growth rates in many African and Asian countries are improving. Trade opportunities are there to take.

There is of course overlap between the government and non-governmental sectors. I must highlight the role of the Commonwealth Foundation, which deals with the private side of the Commonwealth, of which I had the privilege of being the chair in the 1990s. The purpose of this organisation is to stimulate the role of non-governmental bodies in development. It has embarked on a strategy to facilitate a dialogue between civil society and government. Civil society becomes more robust as the newly educated and professional middle classes emerge and aspire to play a part in the development of their countries. At the same time, there are citizens that remain outside the realm of the policy-making processes. The foundation is there to help strengthen the capacity of organisations that work in these diverse contexts to support Commonwealth principles and values.

Beyond all this there is a whole kaleidoscope of connections between individuals and organisations in the Commonwealth. Much of it is known only to those involved. The Royal Over-Seas League, of which I am president, supports educational projects in Namibia, Botswana and Kenya. The Association of Commonwealth Universities is shortly to mark its centenary. As a former university vice-chancellor, I know the value of meeting with academics in the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth Press Union meets to exchange views about how to maintain and build a free press. The Council for Education in the Commonwealth, of which I am a vice-patron, meets to stimulate discussion on furthering educational collaboration. The new Commonwealth Youth Orchestra is beginning to unite people through music.

Education is one of the most important areas. The Commonwealth of Learning, 25 years old and based in Vancouver, uses distance learning to promote education and training. For example, it has a Lifelong Learning for Farmers programme and a Virtual University for Small States.

Another remarkable project has been the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Scheme. In 53 years, some 27,000 people have benefited from this. Many Commonwealth leaders in all spheres were Commonwealth scholars. Mr Carney, the Governor of the Bank of England, is one such example. I am glad that the Government have invested £87 million in the scheme over four years to 2015. It is good that there is now an additional Commonwealth-wide endowment scheme, to which we have contributed and which marked Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee. Moreover, in 2012, there were 117,000 Commonwealth students in higher education in the United Kingdom.

The important thing is the future. Fifty per cent of Commonwealth citizens are under the age of 25. The Commonwealth will mean something to them only if they have a knowledge and understanding of its value. If our young people are taught about our history and our contemporary Commonwealth, and if it is made a reality for them, then the opportunities are enormous and the benefits immeasurable. Much can be done in a practical way to twin schools and to arrange youth exchanges. I welcome the fact that the Royal Commonwealth Society is this month launching a Commonwealth youth leadership scheme. It is exciting that the BBC and the British Council are playing a leading part in the Commonwealth class project, where Commonwealth identity will be promoted to seven to 14 year-olds by linking no fewer than 100,000 Commonwealth schools online.

The Perth summit also agreed to give priority to youth unemployment, to encourage new entrepreneurial business and adequate vocational training. Will the Minister tell us what action has been taken to encourage and support young people, and what is being done in schools to make the Commonwealth alive for them?

Last week the Queen launched the Commonwealth Games relay baton, which will tour every Commonwealth country before arriving at the Games in Glasgow next summer. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association has more than 16,000 members, who exchange visits and meet regularly to discuss global issues or to give practical advice about their parliamentary experiences. It is heart-warming to learn, too, that every local authority in the UK is committed to fly the Commonwealth flag between Commonwealth Observance Day next March and the Commonwealth Games in the summer.

Recently, the Royal Commonwealth Society carried out a Commonwealth conversation which demonstrated that the level of interest and knowledge of the Commonwealth is stronger in small as opposed to larger states. It concludes that by 2050 the Commonwealth might either be a total irrelevance or a vibrant global entity. At the moment, the Commonwealth profile is too low. We need all those who believe in the Commonwealth, from the secretary-general to other leaders, to speak up for the Commonwealth.

Next year we will mark the beginning of the catastrophic First World War. It would be right to remind ourselves that there were 1.5 million Indian volunteers and thousands of servicemen from West and East Africa, the West Indies, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa who fought alongside us, sacrificing their lives in defence of the free world. The tradition continues, for today we have many Commonwealth citizens in our Armed Forces.

The Indian leader Nehru said that the Commonwealth can deal with problems “with a touch of feeling”. Is that not exactly what this world needs? In an exchange with President Nasser of Egypt, Nasser said, “I put my extremists in prison. What do you do with yours?”. Nehru said, “I put mine in Parliament”. This surely is what the Commonwealth is all about.

However, as Don McKinnon, the former secretary-general, said in his recent book, In the Ring:

“The true role of the Commonwealth is to create more and better democracies”—

not modelled on some liberal western template but where all adult people have a say about who governs them and are able to exercise influence over policies of the governing body. The Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, has stressed the link between democracy and development. He said:

“The more democracy you have the more development you’ll get”.

I regard the future of the Commonwealth as one of the most exciting challenges of our time. We have an instrument to hand to make the quality of life better for us all. To take up the challenge requires leadership, inspiration, a strategy from Governments and active participation by our citizens. It is all about people. This Parliament must now give a lead. I look forward to the Minister’s assessment of the strategy. I beg to move.

00:00

[Lord Selsdon (Con)]

My Lords, I am honoured to follow in the steps of the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and also of my noble friend Lord Howell, who lead on these matters.

I am a by-product of the Commonwealth. I was brought up in Canada; my family were Australian-Scots; my great-uncle was Stafford Cripps and then Ghana came into it. I feel rather homeless. While I was pro the EU, I am now rather anti the EU and becoming more and more pro the Commonwealth.

In my office I have a large map, a chart, which I look at every day. Most of it is covered in red and it shows the position of His Majesty’s ships at sea and in harbour on the date of my birth. I will not say when that was. That chart reminds me that the Empire, if I may dare call it that, was based upon trade and created added value. I looked at the chart this morning and saw that in those days we were out there not for political reasons but to buy. We took 60% of the tea crop of India; 30% of the tea crop of Ceylon; 27% of the Caribbean coffee production; 42% of Africa’s; 32% of New Zealand’s butter and 60% of its cheese. It went on and on, with wheat, flax, aluminium, zinc, copper and lead from Australia. All these things were creating added value, and that was trade.

As development in the economies grew, so people went out to them to find work. My Scottish family had the opportunity to ship masses of people out to Australia, but they had no back cargo. Then they found that there was meat. British technology developed the chilling machinery so that lamb and other meat could come back from Australia. To me, the Commonwealth should be more about trade and less about politics. But when looking at the world I conclude irrevocably, partly from being a navigator and recognising that Greenwich is the centre of the earth, that the United Kingdom is now in effect the centre of the earth in terms of politics, trade, intellectual property and people.

Having been brought up in Canada, I have wondered whether I am a Commonwealth citizen. If I am a member of the Commonwealth, why can I not have a little tampon or stamp for my passport saying, “Commonwealth citizen”? In the early days of immigration and migration, people wondered why we could not give precedence to people who were from the Commonwealth nations, but as time moves on, I realise that politics comes into this. For example, we seem to be a bit worried about the Gambia at the moment.

In my days in the banking world, I thought it would be a good idea to look at all countries, not just the Commonwealth countries which seemed to have run out of money. I wanted to get back as much money as possible from Claude Cheysson at the Commission, who was spending it on French projects around the world rather than on British ones. I went on a trip. My noble friend Lord Moynihan will recall that we had a great mentor in the person of Lord Jellicoe. I went to west Africa with Lord Jellicoe and the Duke of Kent to visit the French territories and I found myself being adopted by Société Commerciale de l’Ouest Africain. The society asked me to help it in Senegal, saying that there was a problem with the British territory over on the other side of the water. I went on holiday to Senegal with my wife and small son because people are kind to children when you are travelling abroad and not being too commercial. Later, back at my bank, I looked into the possibility of creating a “Senegambia”. That was because the Frenchman I met wore a rather smart khaki bomber jacket-type uniform, while the other one was dressed in what was in effect British gear. I use that just as an aside, but the idea behind it is that we should co-operate with France as well.

14:52

[Baroness Scotland of Asthal (Lab)]

My Lords, I commend the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on bringing forward this important and timely debate. I am also pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon, in admitting that I, too, am a child of the Commonwealth. I am of mixed heritage, having been born on a tiny island in the Caribbean sea between Guadeloupe and Martinique—the island of Dominica. That mixed heritage very much reflects the heritage of the Commonwealth. I, too, believe that if the Commonwealth did not exist, we would have to create it because it provides an opportunity for people of disparate beliefs, from different backgrounds and with different histories to come together.

Traditionally, the link of the Commonwealth was the fact that many of the islands and countries that formed it were British in character. Our union was a very valuable, attractive and compelling one. It was a loose but supportive Commonwealth family although, as with any family, disagreements would arise. There were robust challenges, questions and arguments, as well as solutions. What is unusual about the Commonwealth family is that new people are constantly trying to join it. We had Mozambique in 1995 and Rwanda in 2009. Many noble Lords will know that I am part French because I have a French grandfather. I cannot stress enough to your Lordships how much ire has been aroused in my French cousins by the fact that Rwanda has adopted English as its official language since joining the Commonwealth.

What binds the Commonwealth together is not just a shared historical connection with Great Britain, but a shared commitment to the rule of law, human rights, the protection of freedom of expression and minority rights. In 1991, the Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth met in Harare and signed the Harare Commonwealth Declaration. As we all remember, that declaration was signed in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet Union. I think that it is actually a very beautiful document. If we had had more time, I would have liked to have read into the record its principles, because they are the principles to which we should all adhere. They renewed international optimism about the spread of democracy and human rights. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has said, this year, for the first time in the Commonwealth’s 64-year history, these values have been set out in one document, the Commonwealth Charter, which was signed by Her Majesty the Queen on 11 March, which is Commonwealth Day. From that eclectic mix and through its shared experience of heritage and aspiration, the Commonwealth has an extraordinary ability to meld together diverse and challenging histories into something that is capable of delivering unity, peace, tranquillity and productivity.

That productivity has been profound. Commonwealth countries make up 26% of the world’s population and account for 15% of global gross national income. The total gross domestic product of the Commonwealth is greater than that of the European Union and is predicted to grow by 7.3% between 2012 and 2017. Trade in goods within the Commonwealth is now worth about £250 billion each year to its members. There are huge positives to be gained from being a member of the Commonwealth. As we have heard, our exports to India are increasing, as they are to Canada and Australia. As the trade envoy to South Africa, I want to mention that we are hoping to double trade with that country by 2015. Within the Commonwealth itself, trade between other Commonwealth members is up by 50%.

Before I close, I want to mention the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Trust. We hope that, through the trust, great benefits in the Queen’s name will be able to be given to the whole of the Commonwealth. We will make a decisive contribution to the global efforts now under way to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020. We seek to build up a new cadre of young leaders. I believe that the Commonwealth is healthy, but it will need all of us to ensure that it does that which it can do so as to heal many of the ills that are afflicting us. To borrow from Martin Carter, one of the greatest Caribbean and Commonwealth poets:

“I do not sleep to dream, but dream to change the world”.

The strength of the Commonwealth family is in the depth of the talents of its members. I hope that this House will dare to plan a future for the Commonwealth that will make all those dreams come true.

14:58

[Lord Chidgey (LD)]

My Lords, I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on bringing this debate to the Chamber. He has an unblemished record of many years of service not just to this House but to the Commonwealth as well. Wherever you go in the Commonwealth, his name comes up—always favourably, which is not the case for everyone.

Over many years, the Commonwealth has brought together in a constructive way the diverse perspectives held by its membership on global economic, financial, social and environmental developments. There have been significant collective Commonwealth actions to identify and raise interest in global issues. These include climate change, multilateral debt, migration and skills, the unique disadvantages of small states, aid effectiveness, poverty reduction, transforming economies and achieving sustainable development. Since 2009, the Commonwealth Heads of Government and Finance Ministers’ meetings have all highlighted the potential of the Commonwealth to play an important role as a forum in which members and non-members of the G20 can work together on global economic policy issues. The 2009 London summit announced fiscal stimulus packages which have indirectly helped poorer countries, injected more liquidity into financial systems with guarantees for poorer countries, and have agreed with some success not to increase protectionism.

The 2010 Toronto summit established a working group on development with a mandate to create a development agenda and multiyear action plans, to be adopted at the Seoul summit. The Commonwealth has been actively encouraging G20 leaders to think beyond national concerns to the needs of those not present at their G20 table. Canadian Prime Minister Harper took the significant step of starting a dialogue between himself, as the 2010 G20 chair, and the secretaries-general of the Commonwealth and La Francophonie.

In 2013, the Commonwealth charter was adopted, setting out the core principles of the Commonwealth, including democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance. It formalised the advantages shared by member states: a common language, a common rule of law and—not to be undervalued—a common system of accountancy. Despite the charter’s intention to strengthen the Commonwealth, the controversy over Sri Lanka hosting this year’s CHOGM while claims of war crimes committed against the Tamil Tigers remain unresolved threatens to undermine the Commonwealth’s fundamental values. The Prime Minister of Canada, with a nod to the large Tamil community in his country, has withdrawn from the CHOGM, as we have heard. However, there is a much larger Tamil population in southern India, and should India choose to respond to the general concerns, it could have a far greater influence.

The relationship between the Commonwealth and the G20 can potentially grow further and deepen, building on a unique set of Commonwealth advantages and promoting the Commonwealth’s wider impact. The Commonwealth can advocate globally for the inclusion of resilience and vulnerability aspects in the G20 development plans: asking for trade liberalisation from G20 members towards all developing countries; ensuring the proposed financial safety net covers small states and, potentially, all external shocks; promoting additional debt relief for small states who have large debts; promoting aid for trade, as this is especially effective in small states; and linking small states’ networks to a G20-supported knowledge-sharing network.

The Commonwealth has a long record of building consensus around global challenges and is well placed to provide both analytical and practical insight into the debate, based on the extensive experience of growth and development within the unmatched variety of its membership. In the governance of the Commonwealth, whether you are a small island nation, a huge landmass or a leading industrial nation, you have one thing in common—just one vote.

15:02

[Lord Ramsbotham (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Luce on obtaining this debate. I am very glad that he mentioned the Commonwealth charter, because it seems to me that one of the great values of that charter is that it sets out very clearly the core values that unite the member nations. Two of them sprung to mind when preparing for the debate. The first is where it says:

“We will be guided by our commitment to the security, development and prosperity of every member state”.

Then, there is the second:

“We support international efforts for peace and disarmament”.

Early in my military career, I had the great privilege and pleasure of serving in the King’s African Rifles, which used to have battalions in every colonial territory in east Africa and served in both world wars, but which at that time was confined to Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, which we were helping to independence. Thanks to the initiative of my noble friend Lady Flather, every year on Commonwealth Day, a number of us are able to assemble at the Commonwealth Gates and lay wreaths in honour of regiments such as the King’s African Rifles. I am always very moved that one of the things that happens is that the guard that is on its way from Knightsbridge to Horse Guards always salutes those assembled at those gates.

I say that because, since serving, I have had the great pleasure and privilege of seeing Commonwealth troops deployed in various conflict resolution positions around the world, for example in United Nations operations. I have always been struck by the particular way in which the corps of values that unites them has influenced the contributions to conflict prevention, post-conflict reconstruction and the other aspects of conflict resolution. I well remember talking with Admiral Howe, the American commander in Somalia, and asking him if he had any wishes. After saying he wanted a British officer in his headquarters, he said that the contingents trained by us had a very much better approach to the task in hand than others, citing Malawi and Botswana.

I mention the corps of values also because, currently, I am a member of the Committee on Soft Power, which is looking at how British influence in the world might be spread by the soft diplomacy that my noble friend mentioned. Earlier this week, we had the great pleasure of taking evidence from the high commissioner from Mozambique, one of the most recently joined members of the Commonwealth. What I found very revealing was his description of what membership of the Commonwealth meant for Mozambique. He mentioned, of course, the help that it had received from the United Kingdom but also made the very pointed suggestion that it was membership of the partnership of all the other nations in different parts of the world—the Commonwealth is represented on every continent and subcontinent—that made the most difference for Mozambique and encouraged them the most.

If I may end on a slightly depressing note, I thoroughly echo the remarks made by my noble friend about the Chagos Islands. I declare an interest as one of the vice-chairman of the all-party group. Expulsion of people from their homeland is not only a contradiction of just about every human rights document that there is, from Magna Carta to the United Nations charter, but is contrary to the core values that we have mentioned and which are contained in the Commonwealth charter. Our continued procrastination over this issue is nothing less than a national disgrace and something that we really should move very quickly to deal with, if it is not to undermine our reputation among the very people with whom we wish to promote it. Can the Minister give an assurance that this issue will be tackled with urgency?

15:07

[Lord Black of Brentwood (Con)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the Commonwealth Press Union Media Trust, one of the venerable professional institutions that the noble Lord, Lord Luce, mentioned in his compelling speech. I join other noble Lords in thanking him for securing this debate at this time.

Born in its modern form on 28 April 1949, the Commonwealth next year reaches pensionable age, and 65 is a good opportunity for reflection. In so reflecting, we can point to important accomplishments: giving, as we have heard, a united voice to countries that share a common history and language and working hard to make progress in areas ranging from encouraging the leadership of women to strategic thinking on ocean governance. However, any reflection must lead us also to the conclusion that, unlike some younger institutions, such as the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation and the African Union, which are relevant to members because of their heavy focus on economic development, the Commonwealth suffers from one great defect: its failure ever to establish a central mission. In an overcrowded market of international organisations, you need a unique selling point. The Commonwealth does not possess one.

The central reason for that is the diversity of its membership. Building a core mission that is as relevant to the people of Canada and New Zealand as it is to the people of Zambia and the Solomon Islands is exceptionally difficult. However, if the Commonwealth is to have a future in a rapidly changing world, then it must develop clarity about its aims and its mission.

The Commonwealth charter, as the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, said, is an admirable attempt to do that. It is a statement of rights and responsibilities broad in scope and noble in ambition. However, the problem with it, of course, is that it is worthless if members simply pay lip service to it and no one—through persuasion, leadership or even disciplinary action—tries to ensure it has force.

I will outline two pertinent examples. First, Article V of the charter states clearly that the Commonwealth is,

“committed to peaceful, open dialogue and the free flow of information, including through a free and responsible media”.

However, Commonwealth countries are littered with colonial laws that stifle the free flow of information and muzzle the media, including criminal libel and state licensing of journalists—although none of them yet has a royal charter. In Uganda, Cameroon, Bangladesh and Rwanda, to name just a few, the state of press freedom is parlous and punitive laws are deployed to stop the development of an independent media and to punish journalists. Sri Lanka, Singapore and Rwanda languish near the bottom of the Reporters Without Borders 2013 World Press Freedom Index. Although there have been improvements, there is still a tragic problem with the safety of journalists, six of whom have been killed this year in Pakistan, India and Bangladesh. Media freedom is fundamental to the charter, because the right of free expression is one on which all others rest, yet the record of the Commonwealth here is lamentable.

My second example is Article II, which states that the Commonwealth is,

“implacably opposed to all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed [or] political belief”.

But how can the Commonwealth be “implacably opposed” to discrimination when a disgraceful 80% of Commonwealth countries have laws criminalising consensual sexual conduct between adults of the same sex, punishable by imprisonment or even death? Is it so “implacably opposed” that, only a few years ago, CHOGM was hosted in Uganda, one of the most brutal regimes for gay men and women on the planet? No, for “implacably opposed”, read “turn a blind eye”.

We are discussing the future of the Commonwealth. That future must be established on the rock of a core set of beliefs and a zeal to uphold them. The charter is an admirable attempt to do that, but at the moment is sadly no more than empty words, as the journalists who die, the gay men who are persecuted, the women who are denied life-saving HIV drugs and others testify. If the Commonwealth is to have a future—everyone speaking in today’s debate will passionately believe that it must—it must show the leadership, courage and determination to begin the process of turning the charter into reality. Let that please be the message to CHOGM from today’s debate.

15:11

[Lord Kakkar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, join other noble Lords in thanking my noble friend Lord Luce for having secured this important debate and, in so doing, declare my own interest in the register with regard to healthcare but particularly as a serving officer of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Global Health and the UK business ambassador for healthcare and life sciences.

We have heard that the Commonwealth is uniquely diverse in geography, ethnicity and stages of economic development. That represents an important challenge in terms of the delivery of universal healthcare, an objective which must be attuned ideally with the objectives or one of the themes of this year’s Heads of Government meeting, with growth and equality defined in terms of equality of development.

It is clear that the 54 current member states of the Commonwealth are diverse also in access to healthcare, the burden of disease that the populations of those nations experience and the outcomes. It is quite striking, for instance, that although 40% of the world’s population lives in Commonwealth nations, the Commonwealth carries 60% of the burden of HIV and AIDS.

In terms of access to healthcare, there is a 300-fold difference between Malta and Tanzania, for instance, in the figure for doctors per 100,000 of population. In terms of outcomes, a woman is 300 times more likely to die from complications during childbirth in Sierra Leone than in Singapore. There is therefore much to do. Focusing on the delivery of healthcare is an important opportunity for the Commonwealth to demonstrate to each individual citizen the real benefits of being part of an organisation and entity as diverse as the Commonwealth.

A focus on healthcare, in terms of education, innovation, research and the delivery of high-quality care, is nothing new for Commonwealth nations; indeed, throughout its 64-year history there have been important exchanges of medical practitioners and other healthcare professionals between Commonwealth countries. So many citizens, doctors and nurses of Commonwealth countries have come to serve in our own NHS and have returned to their own home countries, having learnt much and applied it, and taken on leadership roles to develop healthcare in those nations. Our own practitioners and doctors have gone to other Commonwealth countries and been able to learn much and bring it back to improve the delivery of healthcare in our own country.

How do we take these opportunities forward? How do we ensure that, with modern technology, and a focus on high-quality education, innovation and reverse innovation, healthcare is better for all Commonwealth citizens? I had the privilege of addressing the Health Ministers of the Commonwealth earlier this year at their annual meeting and was able to propose the creation of something known as Common Health—a hub for exchange of educational materials, best innovative practice and life-saving information, made available at the fingertips of every healthcare practitioner across the Commonwealth through modern communications technology. If this initiative were able to go forward—indeed, it was endorsed to do so—it would provide an opportunity to ensure that everything that we have learnt and that has been validated in each Commonwealth country, having been shared among the learned societies and professional organisations for healthcare practitioners in those countries, could be shared broadly across a community of practitioners, numbering possibly some 2 million doctors and some 15 million other healthcare professionals. That would be unique and it could provide the opportunity to change in a material way the lives of every Commonwealth citizen. Will Her Majesty’s Government’s consider such initiatives, focusing on the provision of improved healthcare, as an important objective of our contribution to the activities and work of the Commonwealth?

15:15

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord whom I follow on his choice of subject today and of course issue the same congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, who comes from a long tradition of family service to the Crown and to the Commonwealth overseas. I think that he is himself the last member of the Overseas Civil Service to sit in Parliament—I notice him nodding—and he was exactly the right person to open this debate.

Four years ago, I closed my speech in a debate on the Commonwealth initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Sheikh, with reference to the career of a Mancunian non-conformist missionary who had devoted his career to teaching the Admiralty Islanders the commandments of God and the laws of cricket. I do not propose to repeat that today, but his sporting avocation is a key to the Commonwealth. I offer a coincidence of a startling and anticipatory kind. Our Library’s well balanced brief tells us that Lord Rosebery, in 1884, made the first allusion to the Commonwealth of Nations. Simultaneously, at the Oval Test in 1884, the English wicket-keeper, Alfred Lyttelton, achieved what remains the greatest bowling feat by a wicket-keeper in Test cricket. With Australia at 532 for four, he took off his pads and took four for 19, bowling underarm. Lyttelton’s relevance does not end there. He was Secretary for the Colonies—note the portfolio—in Arthur Balfour’s Administration and remains the only British Cabinet Minister ever to have played in an Ashes Test. Cricket remains a good bond and omen. I shall return to cricket in my fourth minute.

This debate has been overshadowed by the dilemma of the location for CHOGM when the host country is still being investigated for the origins of past tragedies. I imagine that most of those taking part in this debate will want to declare where they stand on the dilemma. I ought, in that context, to declare an historical interest in that my brother is a former executive vice-president of the Commonwealth Magistrates’ and Judges’ Association. There is something Shakespearean, not to say Sophoclean, about the location dilemma, and my interest is in damage limitation, perhaps leading to the ground hills of a solution, the die seemingly having been cast as to the location. The Canadian leadership will still be metaphysically present because of its financial conditions, but how the Sri Lankans play their hand matters more than the views of the rest of the Commonwealth, although we have clues as to the sensible way that our hand will be played.

My personal particular hope is derived from my experience when the late, great Sir Keith Joseph delegated to me the responsibility of representing the United Kingdom Government at the Commonwealth Education Ministers’ Conference in Nicosia in 1984 and at the subsequent meeting in Sofia in 1985, which Sonny Ramphal sandwiched into the margins of the UNESCO meetings in Bulgaria that year. The agenda was dominated by the United Kingdom having imposed full cost charges on overseas students. It was effectively a rerun of the battle of Rorke’s Drift, with us cast as the garrison and everyone else except the Canadians and the New Zealanders playing the Zulus.

What was striking, and what I hope can be repeated in Colombo, was the astonishingly good humour with which the action was played out. The British ambassador in Sofia, who joined our delegation there, said that it was his first experience of a Commonwealth occasion and that it was unique in its friendliness. As to the verdict on the dilemma, I revert to the spirit of the time-honoured mantra of all cricket umpires that, at this stage, we should give the batsman at the wicket the benefit of the doubt and thus that, in that spirit, the match should go on.

15:19

[Lord Wills (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on securing this timely debate on the future of the Commonwealth and on his excellent opening speech, which so well set out all its merits and the issues confronting it.

It is the Commonwealth charter, adopted this year, as we have heard, which, in the words of the Commonwealth Secretariat,

“brings together the values and aspirations which unite the Commonwealth—democracy, human rights and the rule of law”.

As the Foreign Secretary said in welcoming it:

“Strong, clear values are crucial to the future credibility and success of the Commonwealth”.—[Official Report, Commons, 4/3/13; col. 56WS.]

On the eve of its Heads of Government meeting, how is the Commonwealth measuring up to its new charter and entrenching those strong, clear values? It is clearly a work in progress for many members.

Human Rights Watch, for example, has concluded that in Pakistan last year, the human rights crisis has continued to worsen in Balochistan and that in Bangladesh, the overall human rights record worsened in 2012. Amnesty has criticised the use of torture by security forces in the Maldives and serious failings in the justice system after what seems to have amounted to a coup against the democratically elected president. We have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Black, about the appalling record of many member countries towards gay men and women. Of course, our record is not unblemished. We have heard from the noble Lords, Lord Luce and Lord Ramsbotham, and I associate myself with their remarks about the position of the Chagos islanders.

Of course, the Commonwealth has not always vigorously enforced those strong, clear values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. There is always a case for constructive engagement, which the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, has just set out very well, and encouraging those who transgress gently and gradually towards redemption.

However, too much constructive engagement can be misread as validating breaches of those strong, clear values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law. In my view, that is the case when Sri Lanka, which has shown contempt for those values consistently, despite many international representations to it about its conduct, is still being allowed to host this Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting and so shortly become the Commonwealth chair-in-office, voicing in international forums the Commonwealth position, including, presumably, the articulation of those core values.

The Sri Lankan Government host this meeting having made scant effort to secure accountability for the appalling atrocities committed by their forces in the brutal civil war, graphically documented by the UN and by the Channel 4 film which showed the deliberate targeting of hospitals by heavy artillery, deliberate denial of food and medicine to civilians in the no-fire zone and summary executions of civilians. Despite considerable international pressure on them to mend their ways, the Sri Lanka Government continue to target journalists and human rights activists. There are well substantiated reports of enforced disappearances, and the Government orchestrated the impeachment of the Chief Justice after she ruled against the Government in a key case.

No doubt the Minister will say that she deplores all that and that the Government will continue to make representations to the Sri Lankan Government about their concerns— at least, I hope that she will say that— but I hope that she is in no doubt about how that Government will present this Government’s decision to attend the Colombo meeting. When the then Culture Secretary decided to spend his Christmas holiday in Sri Lanka, just six months after the end of the civil war and all those atrocities, the state-run broadcaster in Sri Lanka claimed that “his arrival despite the accusations made by the British government on the human rights record of Sri Lanka is an indication that the charges have not been authenticated”. What does the Minister think the reaction in Sri Lanka will be when the visitor is not just the Culture Secretary but the Prime Minister and the heir to the Throne as well?

As we have heard, the Canadian Prime Minister has understood the significance of attending this meeting. He is not going because, he says, “It is clear that the Sri Lankan government has failed to uphold the Commonwealth’s core values”'. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain exactly why the Government have not adopted the principled stand of the Canadian Prime Minister. If the Sri Lankan Government continue to refuse to show greater commitment to these Commonwealth values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, how long are the Government going to continue to make representations before they conclude that they have failed to make any progress, and then what will they do? What damage does the Minister think will be done to the credibility of the Commonwealth when those strong, clear values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law are being flouted in the country which is the next Commonwealth chair-in-office?

15:24

[Lord Hannay of Chiswick (CB)]

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Luce’s initiative in holding this debate could not be better timed in that it enables this House to look at the wider issues and future development of the Commonwealth, as well as addressing some of the short-term matters arising in connection with next month’s Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. Too often in the past, those short-term issues have obscured the need for us to take a clear-eyed view of the role that the Commonwealth should play in the overall picture of Britain’s external relations. Too often also, successive British Governments have approached a heads of government meeting with either a spirit of damage limitation or excessive expectations. Neither of those approaches is a good guide to long-term policy-making.

The first step in taking that wider view is to rid ourselves of two misconceptions. The first is that the Commonwealth is in some way an alternative for this country to its membership of the European Union. It is no more that now than it was when the Macmillan and Wilson Governments concluded in the 1960s that it was not a viable alternative. Indeed, it is even less so than then. So far as I can see, not one Commonwealth Government wants Britain to leave the European Union and most would deeply deplore it, as the Australian Government—not the most enthusiastic supporter of Britain’s original membership back in the 1960s—made clear in a recent submission to the Government’s balance of competences review. Looking ahead, we should surely conclude, just as the French have done over the Francophonie, that this is not an either/or choice but a both/and one.

The second misconception is the tendency for Britain to take a proprietorial view of the Commonwealth. We may have founded the organisation but it does not belong to us, any more than it does to its other members. When we talk about the Commonwealth as being a soft-power asset for Britain, which I believe it is—and which I am sure the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, will find it to be—it can only be so to the extent that it is a soft-power asset for all its members.

Has the Commonwealth expanded too far? I do not believe so. It was right to respond positively to the membership bids by Mozambique and Rwanda. The Commonwealth of the future should not be regarded simply as a prolongation of an imperial colonial past. If one day in the future a democratic, human-rights observant Myanmar were to wish to join, I hope we would welcome it with open arms. We must certainly not abandon the hope that one day Zimbabwe, too, will want to—and will be able to—rejoin.

In what way should we be trying to strengthen the Commonwealth? I certainly do not believe that we should give up the aim of making the Commonwealth a more effective guarantor of the human rights of its citizens. That aim was checked at the last CHOGM meeting in Perth. The holding of the next meeting in Sri Lanka will certainly not strengthen its credibility, but we should persevere in the effort in the medium and long term. We need to build up that network of professional cultural links, which are such an important part of the Commonwealth’s value to its members.

In that context, the Government’s immigration policy, which seems to be having a disproportionately discouraging effect on the movement of professionals—it is certainly doing so in the field of higher education, where large drops are occurring in the intake of students from a number of the larger Commonwealth countries—surely needs to be reviewed. There is a contradiction between the Government’s support for the Commonwealth and the effect of their immigration policies. Surely, too, we should be expanding further the grant of Commonwealth scholarships in this country and not limiting them to its developing members.

The Commonwealth has many achievements behind it, not least the remarkably effective stand that it took against apartheid in sport. I would be confident that it has many more ahead of it, so long as it does not compromise its values, and that it will remain for the foreseeable future an indispensable part of Britain's international relationships.

15:29

[Lord Moynihan (Con)]

My Lords, I am indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing this debate. He was critically influential in providing guidance and assistance to me exactly 30 years ago when I was elected Member of Parliament for Lewisham East, for which I thank him. His wise counsel continues to illuminate subjects dear to his heart and his family history, notably in the context of the Commonwealth.

While this House focuses primarily on legislation in its capacity as a revising body, it occasionally takes on the important role of offering advice and steering policy, particularly when the timing of debates is fortuitous. The Foreign Secretary was right to say,

“From our very first day in office I pledged to put the ‘C’ back into the FCO”.

For it is a striking fact that even though the Commonwealth has its historical roots in the 19th century, it is perhaps one of the international organisations or platforms that is most suited to the world of the 21st. One great characteristic of CHOGM is that, similar to the hosting of the Olympic Games, the spotlight of the world’s media comes to shine into the recesses of that country. In the run-up to the Beijing 2008 Olympic Games, it focused on Tibet. Now, increasingly, it is focusing on the question of why the Sri Lankan Government have not yet independently or credibly investigated the allegations of war crimes; why there continues regrettably to be a lack of accountability for human rights violations; why the concerns of UN human rights chief Navi Pillay have not been addressed in full; and why political intervention with the media and judiciary go, as my noble friend Lord Black stated, far beyond the norms of acceptability.

As a number of noble Lords have commented, this year marked the adoption by all member countries of the Commonwealth charter, which sets out for the first time in a single document the Commonwealth’s core values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law, and commits its leaders to upholding these values. If, in year one of the existence of the charter, Sri Lanka does not recognise that the brick that has been removed from the base of the Commonwealth edifice by the decision of the Canadian Prime Minister may not be the last one, as my noble friend Lord Chidgey hinted, and that the organisation is structured on values, any further “tinkering” or “inconsistency” by Commonwealth leaders—I quote the Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee report—will not number among the last steps taken. If Sri Lanka does not recognise these realities, it is blind to its own destiny.

It is critical that the values of the Commonwealth, which are under scrutiny, are brought under the international spotlight and that the Government of Sri Lanka are encouraged to respond positively. When the current emphasis of the Commonwealth is, rightly, on young people, we must convey to them the values of, and describe the institutions that underpin, the Commonwealth. Now is the time for stronger diplomatic intervention by Commonwealth leaders and a determined response by the Sri Lankan Government.

We should not turn a blind eye to the dogmatic reaction from Keheliya Rambukwella that Prime Minister Harper’s decision not to go to CHOGM in Sri Lanka is “a lone battle”. In fact, the lone battle is that being waged by the Sri Lankan Government. At this stage, the answer for me is a protracted and absolutely necessary process of diplomacy and engagement, not isolation. Now more than ever, the Commonwealth must stand in defence of freedom and respect for human dignity. Brad Adams, Asia director of Human Rights Watch, was right when he stated that:

“The meeting … is a chance for the Commonwealth to show that its stated principles actually mean something”.

We owe that to the wider world of the Commonwealth, and we owe it to the young people and the athletes of the Commonwealth, including those from Sri Lanka, who will be gathering in Glasgow for the Commonwealth Games next year. These issues must be resolved by politicians and diplomats, and must not lead to the easy resort of some politicians to call for sporting boycotts.

15:33

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, in this debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, and congratulate him on securing this timely debate. I agree with him that for the Heads of Government convening in Colombo in November there is a significant history to be celebrated and a narrative that is redolent with optimistic potential, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Black of Brentwood, reminded us, as did my noble friend Lord Wills, there is also a narrative of challenge.

The latter is a familiar narrative for this part of the 21st century for organisations such as the Commonwealth. It is a narrative of challenge of reform and renewal, particularly a narrative of re-establishing trust among current Commonwealth countries and Governments in the credibility of the organisation, as well as rebuilding confidence in the delivery mechanisms of the secretariat, which involves dealing with institutional reform, developing leadership and showing a degree of resolve. The nature and scale of this challenge should not be underestimated despite the obvious achievement. For example, 70% of the Commonwealth secretariat’s budget is contributed by only three, possibly now only two, countries, and 30 out of 54 countries—or 53 as it is now—in the Commonwealth are in arrears in their contributions to it. There is a manifest north/south divide in the narratives of the Commonwealth. It was exemplified most recently by the differential narratives of the Canadian Government’s decision and the Gambian Government’s decision. This narrative is blocking relationships between countries. It is being exploited by others outside the Commonwealth, as the Library note makes clear in relation to China, and involves a significant deterioration in relationships. Polling shows that there is a lack of knowledge about the Commonwealth among the public of its member countries, and why would there not be when a majority of Governments do nothing to explain, promote or support the Commonwealth? None of this is new, and these challenges are not even comprehensive.

What is new is that part of the process of reform and renewal was to be the relaunch of the Commonwealth as a partnership of nations committed to upholding the Commonwealth values as set out in the new charter signed by Her Majesty in March. These values of democracy, human rights, the rule of law and good governance are all to be seen in a shared vision of bringing together better opportunities for people around the world. This is a challenging ambition in itself. Just how challenging has been exemplified by some of the references that have already been made to the varying views about the rights of citizens in the Commonwealth and by the evidence in pages 8 to 12 of the Library note, which make shocking reading, about the behaviour of some Governments in Commonwealth countries. The issues that frame this challenge for the Commonwealth are identified in the EPG’s report and recommendations. If we were to look for an agenda for the future of the Commonwealth, we could do worse than just to take that report and its recommendations as the agenda for the CHOGM.

How is that consistent with the question that has already been asked by convening this important relaunching of CHOGM in Sri Lanka at this time? How can we not be appalled by the idea of doing that, as the Canadian Government were? There is only one justification in being present there, and that is encapsulated in the Answer that the Prime Minister gave to a Question at Prime Minister’s Questions on 9 October. In response to a Question about attendance, he said:

“I think it is right for the British Prime Minister to go to the Commonwealth conference because we are big believers in the Commonwealth … but … we should not hold back from being very clear about those aspects of the human rights record in Sri Lanka that we are not happy with”.—[Official Report, Commons, 9/10/13; col. 160.]

The Prime Minister has set a challenging ambition for our attendance at that conference, and I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Warsi, for whom I have enormous respect, to spell out in more detail exactly what our Government will do during the time that our senior representative, our Prime Minister, is there to live up to the challenge that he has set for himself.

15:38

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, I wanted to take part in this debate more to listen than to speak, and I have been wonderfully rewarded so far. I come at this as rather a newcomer to the Commonwealth, or to the issues of the Commonwealth, although, of course, I was born a Commonwealth citizen. A lot of people in this country do not pay a great deal of attention to the Commonwealth. I have been paying attention to it only since I started working in health in Africa in the past few years. I shall say a few words about health, following my noble friend Lord Kakkar.

My first point is about links. As the noble Lord, Lord Luce, said in his excellent speech, there is a kaleidoscope of links between our country and all the Commonwealth countries. I was in Uganda yesterday for the launch of the Uganda UK health alliance, which brings together about 200 British organisations working in health in Uganda. The speech given by the Minister of Health there was very much about our shared legacy, our friendship and what we can do together and the future. Anyone who works in health in Africa will be aware of the painful legacy of colonialism that is still there, but the mood music is very much about the shared future that we have together.

If, in Uganda, there are 300-plus links between hospitals, schools and churches, all working on the desperate health problems of countries like Uganda, we can see how many links there are around the world and how important they are. I chair Sightsavers—its proper name is the Royal Commonwealth Society for the Blind—so am involved with a great deal of other links around the world. I was delighted to hear what the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, said about the Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Trust and its approach to eliminating some of the avoidable blindness in the Commonwealth. That would be a most remarkable impact.

In addition to the wealth of links that bind us all together, the Commonwealth is a truly remarkable organisation because it brings together rich countries, poor countries and fast-growing countries, and it is not geographically bounded. It is important to Africa. As my noble friend Lord Kakkar has already mentioned, the Commonwealth Health Ministers Meeting is one of the great meetings for Health Ministers in Africa. They see it as an opportunity to influence the agenda because they are sitting down together with rich countries and having a major impact. In parenthesis, I very much support the noble Lord’s proposal which was made there, and would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about that.

The Commonwealth is also important to us on health. It gives us access to learning and development of all kinds of approaches to health around the world. It is based on a shared history and largely shared values. I say “largely shared values” because I am very conscious of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Black, and others about, for example, the attitudes in some countries towards gay men and women, and to women in some others.

The single point I really want to make on this is that it is a rapidly changing world. We in the UK have our traditional ways of doing things, but we can learn from people without our resources—particularly in health—about how to do things differently, and how you use the community, to take that example from Africa, in things such as health and education in ways which we simply do not do in this country. It is in our interest to promote these links and the Commonwealth more generally, both for that self-interest and for our co-development with our partners in the Commonwealth.

Finally, I come back to the people-to-people aspects which the noble Lord, Lord Luce, mentioned right at the beginning of the debate. We underplay the Commonwealth. I am not at all unusual in not having thought much about the Commonwealth at all beyond, perhaps, the Commonwealth Games and a few other things like that. It has been, to put it slightly rudely, something that the enthusiasts have understood, and if you know about the Commonwealth you know about the Commonwealth. The profile needs to be raised in many different ways, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, again said. With that comes the scope for greater shared growth and development in a wide range of different countries.

15:42

[Baroness Gardner of Parkes (Con)]

My Lords, I spoke in my noble friend Lord Sheikh’s debate of December 2009, and I will repeat a bit of that today. It is important to know the history of how the Commonwealth Members are entitled to sit in the House of Lords. Things seemed to have gone desperately wrong in 2009, when it looked as if we had been barred from sitting. Inadvertently, the Labour Government claimed, and I am sure that that is right, they had forgotten to renew the clause giving Commonwealth citizens the right to sit in the House. This was all printed in the Hansard of 10 December 2009.

I had telephoned the Clerk of Parliaments, because I was speaking in that Commonwealth debate, as always, and said that I would like to know which Act I was sitting under. He said, “It was always the 1981 Act. Unfortunately, that has gone and been replaced by the 2006 Act”. I could give noble Lords the names of these Acts but there is no time. “As a result,” he continued, “your position is anomalous, to say the least”. Anyway, I mentioned it in the debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, replied to say that they had a few months previously discovered, three years after the Act, that Commonwealth Members were not listed and had no rights. However, she confirmed that they would correct this error before the next election and that I should keep coming, which of course I did.

However, after that, time passed by, and the issue was to be brought back in the Constitutional Reform Act. We got the agreement through in the last hour of the last day of the previous Parliament. Many noble Lords will remember what a day it was. Everyone was arguing about whether we should touch the Bill at all, having brought such a major constitutional Bill to the House, and how we could be expected to deal with all the stages on one day, when everyone thought that it was about three weeks’ work. It looked as if we would not get anywhere. However, the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, spoke up for the Civil Service, I spoke up for the noble Lords who would lose their right to sit here, and another noble Lord spoke up in favour of standards. A number of noble Lords spoke.

I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, who managed to persuade noble Lords to put the matter aside and bring in Jack Straw, who was the Lord Chancellor, and the noble Lord, Lord Bach, who were both marvellous throughout this whole procedure. They came with all the members of the various parties and we returned to the Sitting at 12.05 am on the last day, which was the day of Prorogation. It was almost the very last thing that went through, and I am very glad that it did. Looking around the Chamber today, I could not tell you who is Commonwealth-only, as I am, and who is Commonwealth but also has British citizenship. It is good that we have that variation.

Time is short, but I must also say that the Commonwealth as a whole has a huge regard for the Queen and there is a great deal of affection there. The Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, whose past three conferences I have attended, is in a worrying position. The rest of the world and all the Commonwealth believe that you must have internal audit, and there has been a resistance to that. However, Alan Haselhurst has now persuaded the CPA executive committee to accept that a formal internal audit is required. As noble Lords will know, Australia has withdrawn from the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association but is still completely devoted to the Commonwealth. However, it has withdrawn. I am told that it was bipartisan and that it withdrew because of this lack of efficiency and proper administration, and that the internal audit is so essential, worldwide, in everything—giving transparency and clarity on these matters—and so that had to be resolved. Until that is resolved, I see no prospect of Australia returning, which would be a great pity, as it can be a very good organisation. I have attended the past three conferences, including one in Sri Lanka. There is no time to say more, but I am very hopeful that CHOGM will go well.

15:47

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, we have had many valuable contributions to this debate. I am sure that we are all delighted that the noble Baroness was made constitutionally legitimate by a Labour Government.

I pose the question: what is the Commonwealth for? What, according to the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Black, is the central mission? That question is not asked of other international organisations—NATO or the UN, for example—but a substantial answer was given by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, in his excellent opening. There are real problems of definition, which become more acute at the time of CHOGMs. Of course, there is no lack of aspiration, grand declarations or inquiries, such as the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group, and now, of course, we have the charter.

I pose the question: what are the tangible benefits for us and for other members of the Commonwealth relationship? Is it to be seen in political solidarity—one for all and all for one? We would expect that, for example, on controversial matters such as, for us, the Falklands and Gibraltar. Alas, I do not see such solidarity among Commonwealth members because, understandably, they give a higher priority to other organisations of which they are members, such as regional organisations.

We should ask whether there should, as a matter of course, be meetings of Commonwealth members at all—or at all relevant—international fora before and when those meetings are held. Equally, the fact of the exchange of views between finance Ministers and others has the effect of influencing both us and our Commonwealth partners. Do we see strong advantages to members in trade and economics? There is some evidence of trade co-operation, but there is no Commonwealth preference and, as we saw over the recent order for aircraft by India, where, oddly, the French aircraft was chosen over the Typhoon, Commonwealth countries take hard-nosed decisions over such purchases. Currently, President Hollande is in South Africa, and there have been major French trade missions to India. On aid, DfID’s multilateral aid review concluded that the Commonwealth was poor value as a mechanism for the distribution of aid.

What of human rights, which has been the core function of the Commonwealth? I recall that the report of the Foreign Affairs Committee in 2012 concluded that it was disturbed to note the ineffectiveness of the mechanisms for upholding Commonwealth values. The Maldives is a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, yet it has an appalling record on women’s rights—and, of course, 60% of Commonwealth countries still have the death penalty. The major recommendation of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group relating to a human rights commissioner was rejected. Clearly, it is the view of the majority that the Commonwealth is a loose club from which they benefit.

Next month’s CHOGM is in Sri Lanka. In my judgment, it was sad that that venue was chosen, and a mistake on the part of the Government to be represented by the Prime Minister. If we are to be represented at all, perhaps it should be by a junior Minister. It is absurd also that Sri Lanka will now be the chairman in office, and, equally, will be a member of the Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group, when the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka has made it clear that the country wants no interference from outsiders.

Where, then, is the purpose of the Commonwealth? We should be realistic. We should see the overall potential. It is not our principal international organisation, but it is unique. With all its problems, other countries still want to join. Perhaps it is in the Commonwealth network—often technical, often professional, as was mentioned by my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland, and the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Crisp, and often enabling relations between professionals—that the value of the Commonwealth is best seen. Surely our message should be: be realistic, do not exaggerate the potential of the Commonwealth, but acknowledge that, for all countries, extra value and an extra dimension is provided by membership of the Commonwealth club.

15:52

[Baroness Flather (CB)]

My Lords, I have always associated the noble Lord, Lord Luce, with the Commonwealth. I know that his father, too, was involved in it—although probably it was not called that at the time. I am from the Commonwealth. I have kept my links with my country of origin, India, and I also visit Africa frequently.

Many speeches this afternoon were in praise of the Commonwealth: in praise of what is going on and in praise of what is possible. I am sorry that my speech may not be quite in that vein. I have in my hand the 16 items of the charter. They are like apple pie and motherhood. Anybody could use the charter, in any country, as a model. There is nothing in it with which you could possibly disagree. However, words do not make reality, and I fear that that is what the charter will be: no reality, only words.

I will tell the House why I say that. Noble Lords may have read recently that the Indian Government had decided to give a lot of money for food for the poorest. The view is that it is not getting to the poorest, and that either the money or the food is disappearing to the middlemen. That is one thing. The second thing is that, if the food does get to the poorest, everybody assures me that it will not get to the women and girls; it will go to the men and boys. This is the reality of the Commonwealth. India has the largest number of undernourished people in the whole world, but look at the money that has come into that country and its economic prosperity. However, that money has gone mostly to Switzerland. There are trillions of dollars in Switzerland belonging to Indian businessmen, which is very depressing.

As regards Africa, I was in Uganda last year. Every time I saw a good farm or a good building, I discovered that it belonged to the president’s wife. I think that she owns about a third of the best assets in Uganda. That, again, is very depressing. Who is carrying the loads? It is the women. Where are the men? They are in the shops. Nothing has changed and I fear it is very likely that nothing will change. We cannot influence that. The saddest thing is that there is no desire to improve the situation of women because clearly that does not suit the men. If the women slave all day and ask for nothing, is that not the best thing for the men?

Somebody referred to women’s economic contribution. Indeed, without them, these countries would not function. When I was in Jamaica, I suggested to the women that they should go on strike for a day and the whole country would come to a standstill. Women make an economic contribution but it is not recognised. They are not entitled to anything and they are not given anything. People need education and food. An item in the charter refers to food, shelter and education. Instead of having 16 items in the charter, we should have two very important ones and try to put them in place.

I am a great admirer of all the links we have with the Commonwealth. I hope that that will continue and grow. I belong to two organisations. One educates very poor girls in the Commonwealth—girls only, please note—and the other supports a disabled children’s centre: the only one in India which trains women and men from other south-east Asian countries. We should continue with all the things that we can do as individuals or groups. However, I am not sure that the Commonwealth will do much for the people who need its help.

15:57

[Baroness Hooper (Con)]

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has done us a great service in securing this debate at this critical time. I fully support the sentiments and hopes for the future of the Commonwealth which he expressed so clearly today.

My focus is on education. I echo much of what has already been said on that, especially by the noble Lord, Lord Luce, in his splendid opening speech. I hope that when the Commonwealth Heads of State meet in Sri Lanka, they will find time to consider and acknowledge the role that co-operation in this field has to play. The shared language, values, standards and heritage that bring the Commonwealth nations together need to be nurtured and future generations have to be helped to recognise that it is these factors that mark out the Commonwealth as a relevant and unique institution today which continues to evolve and change to meet new challenges.

The UK Government clearly acknowledge the importance of education, and of international co-operation in this field. We are all aware of Ministers who go on overseas visits and seek to recruit students from all over the world to come to attend our universities and other institutions. As 33% of the world’s population lives in the Commonwealth, and 50% of those are aged under 25, there is plenty of scope in that regard. I hope and trust that priority is given to Commonwealth students and, indeed, to Commonwealth teachers. However, we should not forget the overseas territories. Students from those tiny territories were at one stage expected to pay full overseas student fees until our campaign happily succeeded in putting them on the same basis as our home students.

I know that my own University of Southampton has welcomed Commonwealth students over the years and that it currently has 1,607 students enrolled from Commonwealth countries. I mention this simply as an example. However, that university is eager to do more. This is where the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Plan, already referred to, comes in. It was established in 1959, is funded by member Governments to provide an international programme of exchanges and scholarships for Commonwealth citizens, and has been a huge success. Like, I am sure, many others here, I have had the same opportunity to meet some of the students who are over here to benefit from this programme. Their enthusiasm for and commitment to the Commonwealth cannot be in doubt. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that many girls have figured in that programme. I hope that the Minister can assure us that UK funding via the Department for International Development and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will be fully maintained and, if possible, increased to build on this programme.

Other organisations and networks make important contributions, of course. For example, the Association of Commonwealth Universities, which is currently celebrating its centenary, is due to meet later today in London, and some of us may be there. The Commonwealth of Learning in Canada celebrates its 25th anniversary this year, as the noble Lord, Lord Luce, has said. I should also mention my special interest because, as the then Education Minister in the Lords, I followed in the footsteps of my noble friend Lord Brooke and attended the Commonwealth Education Ministers’ conference when the Commonwealth of Learning was conceived.

I cannot conclude my remarks without paying tribute to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, of which I am an active member and which continues to play a vital role in the development of the Commonwealth and the wider field of education by ensuring that the democratic values and traditions that we all share as member countries are kept alive in the hearts and minds of successive generations of elected politicians and the officials who serve and preserve democratic institutions. In that, the UK branch of the CPA plays a very important role.

16:02

[Lord Paul (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Luce, on introducing this very timely debate.

I have shared my life almost equally between two member states of the Commonwealth and have been an ardent supporter of it. At the outset, I want to express my admiration for both the concept and the institutions of the Commonwealth. Conceptually it is unique—a voluntary association embracing a diversity and fraternity unusual in today’s world. This outreach, extending to every region of the globe and including the largest spectrum of nationalities and faiths, gives the Commonwealth a rare stature. It is an invaluable asset that can and should be more vigorously employed in contributing to the resolution of international issues.

Nowadays, international opinion is at long last beginning to have a serious influence on the behaviour of states. This is evident in the situation that prevails in the host country of next month’s meeting, Sri Lanka. That is also true of other countries hitherto impervious to world sentiment. It is now timely and appropriate for the Commonwealth as a collective to be more assertive in its diplomatic endeavours. The Commonwealth would become even more persuasive if it were to mobilise and utilise the services of its many elder statesmen whose credentials carry significant authority. I therefore urge the Government’s delegation to CHOGM to think along these lines and seek the collaboration of other nations in making the Commonwealth more effective in contributing to peace, justice and freedom.

As members of a freedom-fighting family, we were surprised and delighted when, at the time of Indian independence in 1947, India’s Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru took the decision for India to stay in the Commonwealth. This encouraged the notion of a multidimensional organisation, diverse in its activities and membership. Institutionally, the Commonwealth has accomplished much through its secretariat and associated groups. I am particularly encouraged by its activities in the education sector. Being actively engaged in the work of several schools and universities in India and this country, I can testify to the value of such initiatives as the Commonwealth of Learning and the Commonwealth scholarships.

However, institutions are most successful when they engage the broadest constituencies. The Commonwealth draws its life-blood from the Governments of its members, but it has been sadly lacking in connecting with ordinary citizens—in establishing wide popular support. Therefore, I hope that the institutional structure will increasingly involve the public of the member states—for instance, in supplementing English as the official language of Commonwealth communications. This can only enrich and strengthen interactions.

The Commonwealth is at an interesting moment in its evolution. To continue its mission, it must change, adapt and grow. If it does not, it will become less relevant and marginalised. That is a fate that its distinguished record does not deserve and to which I hope next month’s gathering will give some serious consideration.

To date, the position of head of the Commonwealth has been vested in the monarch of the United Kingdom. It has been admirably filled by Her Majesty the Queen, to whom we are all indebted for her wholehearted commitment and genuine interest in the Commonwealth. She has set an extraordinary precedent. Looking to the future, I think that what needs to be considered is a clear succession protocol or procedure.

16:06

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, in this debate, kindly made possible by the noble Lord, Lord Luce—I join others in thanking him for it—I should like to return briefly to an issue which I raised in a debate that I initiated a year ago. It is an issue that should trouble us profoundly. Allusion has already been made to it by my noble friend Lord Black and the noble Lord, Lord Wills. Millions of our fellow Commonwealth citizens live under laws that brand them as criminals because of their sexual orientation alone. Their offence is the homosexuality with which they are imbued and by which their lives are inevitably shaped. The numbers criminalised in this cruel fashion are very large because so many Commonwealth countries defy the obligations placed on them by international law.

People in Britain rarely guess the proportion that adhere to these obligations correctly. They are reluctant to believe that more than a small minority of Commonwealth states could behave with such inhumanity in the early 21st century, when the need to respect human rights is so widely accepted. The shocking truth is that more than three-quarters of our Commonwealth partners—41 states out of 52—put homosexuals outside the law. In some of them, the punishments that can be imposed are almost unimaginably harsh. Life imprisonment is the penalty in Sierra Leone; in Malaysia, it is 20 years in prison with flogging. One’s heart goes out in particular to the young people, who, as we have heard, are so numerous in today’s Commonwealth.

The number of lives wrecked by these inhumane laws is not to be measured simply by sentences imposed on, or by unchecked persecution endured by, homosexuals. The widespread criminalisation of homosexuality has been a great driving force in the spread of HIV/AIDS, the worst pandemic of our times. A single appalling statistic underlines the extent of the suffering that has been inflicted on so many of our Commonwealth partners as a result. While the Commonwealth accounts for nearly 30% of the world’s population, it also contains more than 60% of the people living with HIV across the globe.

How is a route out of this suffering and oppression to be found? In a number of countries, including Belize, Jamaica and Singapore, brave individuals are challenging the violation of their human rights in the courts. Powerful legal assistance is being provided to them without charge through the International Commission of Jurists, the Human Dignity Trust and the Commonwealth Lawyers’ Association. There could be no finer example of a Commonwealth partnership in the cause of human progress. Success in one state could embolden the judges in other jurisdictions because of the similarity of their laws inherited from the British Empire. However, this is the moment when the central institutions of the Commonwealth should assert themselves with vigour and authority.

It is now two years since the report of the Eminent Persons Group recommended that Heads of Government should take steps to encourage the repeal of discriminatory laws. An appropriate form of words was included in the Commonwealth charter, although it contains no specific reference to the decriminalisation of homosexuality. But it has been decided that:

“Member governments have the discretion to identify which, if any, laws are considered discriminatory, and the steps deemed appropriate to address these”.

This is a formula for inaction, and it must be overturned. Do the Government intend to make a statement on homosexual equality before next month’s meeting? Millions of criminalised homosexuals look to the Heads of Government for an unequivocal commitment to their basic human rights, and to the Commonwealth Secretariat for an effective strategy to secure them—a strategy devised in close consultation with LGBT organisations throughout the Commonwealth who are increasingly working together for the common good.

16:10

[Baroness Prashar (CB)]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing this timely debate. At present, the future of the Commonwealth looks precarious and its moral authority appears to be under siege. Some of this is exaggerated—for example, the suggestion that the Commonwealth may well disintegrate. The Commonwealth’s current situation should not be seen as a reason for its disintegration but as an urgent signal for the people and Governments of the Commonwealth to strengthen their resolve to reassert its unique features, rigorously implement the reforms recommended by the EPG in its report, A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform, and consider further radical changes to enable the Commonwealth to realise its full potential, which it has in abundance.

The strengths of the Commonwealth have been eloquently expressed. They include its reach. It is guided by values and principles, which were reasserted and enshrined in the charter of the Commonwealth and endorsed by all 54 Governments in March this year. These values are the hallmark, strength and anchor of the Commonwealth. It is not just an intergovernmental association but a people’s Commonwealth, with myriad professional organisations and civil society bodies doing excellent work. The noble Lord, Lord Luce, listed them, and we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, about the mutual learning that can take place.

I shall mention a couple more examples. There is the Commonwealth Environmental Investment Platform, launched earlier this year, which connects entrepreneurs, investors, innovative technology and business across the Commonwealth. Secondly, as we have heard, there is the Commonwealth Class, a joint project with the Secretariat, the BBC and the British Council in the run-up to the Commonwealth Games. The Commonwealth is an organisation of networks which moves freely at various levels, recognising that delivering sustainable change belongs to the whole society and not simply to Governments. However, these strengths must be built upon; we cannot just live on affection for the Commonwealth.

What is needed is hard-headed action and a rigorous enforcement of the charter and its values. We need radical reform of the institutions of the Commonwealth. In the last debate in this House on 7 March, I suggested:

“Now that we have a charter that provides a strong framework of core values, should we not be thinking of creating regional Commonwealth hubs, or at least offices, in three regions … with a slimmed-down secretariat in London? This may seem a bold suggestion but it would enable the secretariat to respond to the relevant needs and priorities of countries in those regions within the framework of the charter”.—[Official Report, 7/3/2013; col. 1696.]

It would develop a very meaningful relationship with civil society organisations. In response to my suggestion, the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, said that,

“Her Majesty’s Government would welcome such a development if viable proposals were put forward”.—[Official Report, 7/3/2013; col. 1705.]

I would like to hear from the Minister whether any action has been taken.

The Commonwealth Secretariat, civil society and professional organisations need adequate resources. We have heard about the level of expectation that is put on the Commonwealth; the current budget of the secretariat is tiny and civil society and professional associations are not well supported. Some are even having their grants withdrawn. The Eminent Persons Group report’s recommendations which were not accepted should be accepted, because it was an impressive report.

In a lecture this week, Sir Ron Sanders, a member of the EPG said,

“with regard to the Commonwealth Chair-in-Office ... the EPG ... recommended to the last Summit in 2011 that ... the position of the two-year Chair-in-Office and the Troika of the past, present and future Chairs of Commonwealth meetings be abolished”.

That was rejected, but he said that

“had it been accepted, the Commonwealth would not now be subjected to the criticism of the President of Sri Lanka being Chair-in-Office of the Commonwealth while he and his government defend themselves in the United Nations Human Rights Commission”.

The fact that the President of Sri Lanka will become the chair-in-office after CHOGM for two years is a matter of grave concern. CHOGM is an opportunity to rethink. It is an opportunity to set in motion changes and reforms which will reassert its moral authority and make it more responsive. I would very much like to hear from the Minister what steps Her Majesty’s Government are taking to urge and influence the reform agenda.

16:15

[Lord Naseby (Con)]

My Lords, as the House may know I am chairman of the All Party Sri Lanka Group, which I started in 1975. I try to go to Sri Lanka once a year. My very best friend is an active Tamil living in the south of the country, leading the campaign for the rebuilding of Jaffna hospital, so I do not take all my information from the high commission in London.

Let me say at the start that Sri Lanka is a founder member of the Commonwealth and a very proud member. It is even more proud to hold this CHOGM convention. There are four core values: democracy, freedom of the media, human rights and trade. Let us start with democracy. There always have been elections in Sri Lanka. Only once, under JR Jayewardene did the then president decide that, because he had done so well in the provincial elections, he did not need to rerun to be president. Nevertheless, the turnout embarrasses us. It is more than 80%, nearly 90% quite often. Its register embarrasses us—it is better than ours. No one, so far, in Sri Lanka has been prevented from voting, as happened in parts of the United Kingdom in our last general election. In addition, it has had two female presidents. So far, we have had only one female leader.

On the media, there was censorship during the war; of course, there was. We had censorship in the United Kingdom during the war. When I went there just over a year ago, I saw every leading editor in the English language press, including from the Sunday Leader, which is every bit as strong as Private Eye, the New Statesman, or any other publication. When asked, individually, in a room that was not bugged, not one said that they suffered from censorship. There is no censorship. Yesterday I telephoned the Sri Lankan Government and asked about CHOGM. The statement that I was given was that all accredited media will be given access to CHOGM. I believe that that is absolutely fundamental, and I hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench makes a note of that.

Human rights are a challenge; of course they are. After 26 years of war that decimated the top half of Sri Lanka, it is as bad as Germany was in 1945. There are huge problems of infrastructure that are now being addressed. I hope that everybody who goes there will look at the way in which it is being rebuilt. There are new homes, new schools, the reopened railway line, and so on. We can travel up and down Sri Lanka, as the cook of another friend of mine did all the way from Jaffna by bus, without being stopped once or needing papers. People can go where they like and every member of CHOGM can go wherever they like or see whoever they wish. There are still challenges. The LLRC, which was boycotted by the human rights groups, has gone quite a long way and makes further progress each month.

Of course, other areas have still to be addressed. There are two outstanding: one is alleged war crimes. We are beginning to get the answers from the census—the first census done by Tamil teachers in the Tamil area showing that in the last days of the war somewhere between 7,000 and 9,000 people were killed. That confirms what the in-country UN report says—not the external report that is being advised by the Global Tamil Forum and other parties; it is what the in-country report says about the same figures. So we are beginning to get somewhere there.

As to the Chief Justice, all I can say to my noble friend is that I am not a lawyer. However, I have now checked the constitution and there is provision in it for the Chief Justice to be removed, and that provision has been followed. We should remember that the Motion to remove her was initially moved by the Opposition.

There are problems still but they are being worked on. Trade will provide a wonderful opportunity.

The members of CHOGM will be very welcome in this beautiful country where, thankfully, they nearly all speak English and foreigners will find it much easier. The delegates will be able to go anywhere and see anyone they like and they will be greeted by just one word, “ayubowan”, which means “welcome” in Sinhalese.

16:20

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

My Lords, if ever the Commonwealth needed a champion, the noble Lord, Lord Luce, would be exemplary as such a person. He constantly holds the flag high.

We live in a great paradox. The processes and institutions of globalisation have made individual people feel less and less significant, more and more marginalised and, indeed, alienated. There is a tremendous need to build up a sense of confidence among people. In the face of this reality I have described, there is a tendency to take resort in nationalism and ethnic groupings. We should not condemn that because if it enables people to find a place in which to feel personal significance it can be a good thing. However, the paradox is that we have never lived in an age in which interdependence globally was more real. This is true in economic terms, in migration terms, in climate change terms and the consequences of the movement of peoples, in security terms—it is true in almost any dimension you may wish to consider. In fact, there are very few major problems facing our children that can be solved in any way other than by effective international co-operation at the global level.

It is a mistake to see the Commonwealth as a rival or a potential alternative to existing institutions. That does no one any good whatever. Regional groupings such as Europe are crucially important, as are regional groupings in other parts of the world. There are the ad hoc groupings on issues such as defence and so on, and NATO has been mentioned already in this debate. However, the Commonwealth can bring a free association of diverse nations and people who have decided, for one reason or another, that they want to belong to each other in a closer relationship. That can be tremendously important in the deliberations of these other institutions. It is not a substitute for them—it cannot be a substitute for them—but it can be a way in which you can strengthen a spirit of co-operation and mutual understanding.

That is why the work with youth is so important; that is why the work that goes on in the exchanges of communities, professionals and different elements of public services and so on is very important. The building of this sense of mutuality and understanding can be the spirit surrounding the formal negotiations that go on in the other crucial institutions I have mentioned.

Of course, if we want to make that contribution as a Commonwealth club, if I may use the phrase, we should try from time to time, as long as we do not become over-introspective, to ask ourselves what we feel as a group are the things that matter. We attempted that in the Harare declaration in 1991 and it proved a sad experience. I could not have put it better myself, if I am allowed to be so arrogant, than Hugo Swire, the Minister of State, writing in the Parliamentarian recently, who said:

“We have been all too aware that if the Commonwealth cannot protect democracy and stand up for human rights, then it is losing credibility and becoming untenable”.

That is a sobering but very accurate observation.

We have now had a chance to revamp all that with the charter, which again emphasises the principles and values that we are trying to work on together. Human rights, as has been mentioned, are crucial, but they are not something on which one nation should lecture another. They are a struggle for us all. There is not a single member of the Commonwealth or, I would dare to say, a single member of the international community who does not have to face issues of human rights. We are in a mutual struggle to enhance the human condition and build the stability and confidence that comes when human rights are being fulfilled. We all know that the absence of human rights leads to insecurity, danger and extremism. The Commonwealth, as a resource of human co-operation within the crucial but essentially more formal international institutions, has a big role to play. I do not believe that we have begun to realise that potential.

16:25

[Lord St John of Bletso (CB)]

My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend for introducing this topical debate ahead of the CHOGM meeting next month. While clearly there is enormous support throughout the House for the role and importance of the Commonwealth, some noble Lords have rightly pointed out the questionable human rights record in Sri Lanka. However, I listened with great interest to the glowing account given by the noble Lord, Lord Naseby.

A theme which has been taken up is that there is certainly scope for improvement in the Commonwealth so that it can be more effective, and that it is in need of some reform. Some have referred to the Commonwealth as a social club, but almost everyone agrees that it has been extremely effective in its soft power and diplomacy. I am a firm supporter of the Commonwealth and I agreed with my noble friend Lord Luce when he said that we could not invent the Commonwealth today. With a membership of more than 2.2 billion people worldwide, my specific interest relates to the role and value of the Commonwealth in improving the lives of its 18 member states in Africa, now that the Gambia has recently left.

Somewhat controversially, and despite the questionable recent election in Zimbabwe, I share the views of my noble friend Lord Hannay, in that I hope the time will come when Zimbabwe will rejoin the Commonwealth family. With the theme of this year’s CHOGM conference focused on growth, equity and inclusive development, this is a particularly important priority for the people of Zimbabwe where the unemployment rate is estimated to be running at 85%, with the majority trying to work in the informal sector. The country is possibly facing another economic disaster, so there is a desperate need for more international investment and support. Rising food prices in many Commonwealth countries threatens disaster and, with that, unrest. I hope that the challenge of food security will be addressed at this year’s meeting. There also needs to be more consensus on measures to reduce levels of national debt, especially in some of the smaller Commonwealth states, which continue to be a major impediment to sustainable economic development.

The digital revolution has promoted huge improvements in communications and has increased business between Commonwealth networks, yet youth unemployment remains a major challenge for most Commonwealth members. It is on the subject of digital inclusion that I wish to address my remarks in the limited time available. It is extremely encouraging to note that up to 80% of all Africans have access to a mobile telephone. The digital economy provides huge scope for improvements in access to education, better healthcare, business information and other benefits. However, all this depends to a large degree on access to reliable and affordable broadband. While the CDC Group has achieved a lot in making infrastructure improvements in many Commonwealth states, access to broadband, particularly in Africa, remains extremely poor. Despite the fact that several large fibre optic cables now service the African coastline, fewer than 5% of the population of Africa have access to broadband.

In conclusion, although there is scope to reform and improve the effectiveness of the Commonwealth, this year’s CHOGM meeting is not just an opportunity for leaders to hold discussions, exchange views and build consensus on topical and challenging issues, it is a pivotally important meeting to establish and consolidate the credibility of the Commonwealth family for the future.

16:30

[Lord Triesman (Lab)]

My Lords, there could hardly be a better time for this debate, just a few weeks before CHOGM. I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing it, not least for his magisterial summary, inevitably repeated in part by other noble Lords, precisely because it was so comprehensive.

We live in an increasingly multipolar world, which makes it of greater importance all the time to understand multinational organisations, including the Commonwealth. I must say at this point that I share the points made by noble Lords, Lord Hannay and Lord Judd, about other regional organisations. It is not a competition and there are perfectly good roles for each of them. There are other kinds of network as well, which are having a growing impact. The world is highly connected and networked—the Commonwealth has become, as the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, described it, a people’s Commonwealth, not least because of that.

The Commonwealth’s strength is a history of shared experience. The commitment in the modern period, at least for the most part, is to shared governmental standards, economic development and the rule of law. There is a sense that, together, we are stronger and that we gain great strength through co-operation. All of this is cemented together not just by elements of common language but if, and only if, we have a common commitment to exacting standards of conduct in each individual—and equal—nation.

I am wholly with the noble Lords, Lord Luce, Lord Crisp and Lord St John of Bletso, when they make the point—which I share enthusiastically—that nobody starting today could create the Commonwealth or, indeed, probably the Francophonie; or the curious circumstances in which some nations are members of both. History has dealt a particular hand, which has a new modern life. Nowhere could you achieve this blend: large and small nations, some as small as Tuvalu; some of the largest economies and some of the most modest; developed and developing countries; and predominantly Hindu, Muslim and Christian countries—some deeply religious and some essentially secular. The common ground for all 53 is in the values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law; themselves the building blocks of peace and current and future prosperity. I wholly endorse the point made by my noble and learned friend Lady Scotland that they were summed up, in words at least, in the Harare principles, even if people have not wholly lived by those principles.

It is easy to understand why anyone who has served as Minister for the Commonwealth feels the honour of that role. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that I do not recall in the Foreign Office ever leaving the “C” bit out. The Commonwealth had that importance for all of us. There are many examples of why we should feel proud, such as the scholarships and the involvement in higher education. There are many examples of positive co-operation programmes, such as the 2008 secretariat initiative, which assisted many countries to innovate in order to enhance healthcare provision, promoting e-health. I was very intrigued by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about the imperatives for life-saving information and the possibilities of sharing them. Assisting the Seychelles in its path to WTO accession demonstrated what can be offered in the financial sector.

Centrally, the work of the Commonwealth and its Eminent Persons Group in sustaining the core values is critical. Where nations, for whatever reason, resile from these values, reform and reinstatement of the values is a key Commonwealth function, and the noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, was quite right to mention the influence of the charter in this.

The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, mentioned the exacting standards of solidarity and trade and asked whether these are key functions of the Commonwealth. Well, maybe not enough, but the Foreign Affairs Committee in another place has rightly described what may be a key function of Commonwealth membership; that is, as a badge of honour and,

“implying a guarantee that a country is upholding high standards in democracy and human rights”.

Membership is voluntary; members choose of their volition whether they intend to uphold those values.

However, I also feel, as do some noble Lords, that because we see so much that is positive—and this debate has proved it—we may be too relaxed, a little too complacent, about some of the new thinking needed to sustain the health of this key multinational organisation. Having a critical and friendly edge generates renewal, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, said—I think that he was also looking for a slightly deeper review. If we took any other view of the Commonwealth, it would soon be portrayed as not much different from some of the other multinational organisations that do not succeed.

As my noble friend Lord Browne, said, there are fundamental financial issues and contributions to be dealt with. There are fundamental issues with some of the countries. I do not accept the Gambian president’s allegation that the Commonwealth remains colonialist—the evidence does not support it. There is an increasingly authoritarian regime there with a history of human rights violations which fears that it may be judged to fall outside the standards of the charter which were adopted in 2012 and signed off by Her Majesty on 11 March this year. The president claims that he—and I mean he—can cure AIDS and infertility with herbal concoctions, and that homosexuality is one of the three biggest threats to human existence. Perhaps he decided to jump before he was pushed. Let me be clear from these Benches that I am wholly in sympathy with the noble Lords, Lord Black and Lord Lexden, in what they said about the necessity to address these issues squarely.

However, it is right, given the history of the Commonwealth, to continue to review whether there are colonial frames of mind, patronisation and condescension. It is essential to listen to a diverse membership, not to be paralysed by anxieties but ready to hear the perceptions of those who may be critical. We have to be attentive to the continuing stress lines between members. We must use our best endeavours to assist. We are familiar with tensions between India and Pakistan and must continue to be. There are other tensions; for example, economic rivalry between the economic powers of Africa. South Africa and Nigeria reflect on occasions rather more tension than is perhaps normal in commercial competition.

There have been some prized initiatives. The Maltese CHOGM emphasised e-networks—the noble Lord, Lord St John, also talked about digital inclusion. That initiative was launched with great élan and then more or less vanished. We could look at a number of programmes across the Commonwealth and say with an element of regret that the infrastructure around them has not been capable of sustaining them. That has been true in the case of youth development, on which there was a report on 17 September; on education, which the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, drew to our attention; on health, employment, civic and political participation; and on the subject of press freedom, where I again find myself in strong agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Black. I would be grateful for the Minister’s views on all this. The upcoming CHOGM will bring some very important difficulties to the surface and we had better face them squarely.

I have a lot of time and respect for the current Secretary-General, but he and others must recognise a growing sense that the Commonwealth is not as fully committed to its core values as it should be. In a number of areas, I hear a discussion where the view is expressed that we overlook, or respond too weakly to, human rights abuses by members. Key recommendations of the Eminent Persons Group on reform have either not been implemented or been implemented very slowly. My noble friends Lord Wills and Lord Browne have rightly focused on this, as did my noble friend Lord Paul when he argued that the Commonwealth should be more assertive. That is absolutely right.

It is fundamental to the role of the Commonwealth that it addresses human rights violations and does not ignore them. The apartheid Government of South Africa negotiated their own departure not least because of the terminal international isolation that they faced. The Commonwealth was among the leading forces that produced that isolation, and that is greatly to its credit.

Let us be frank about Sri Lanka and the confounding decision to hold CHOGM in Colombo. The regime stands credibly accused of crimes against humanity and war crimes, of ongoing perpetration of the most serious human rights violations, suppression of opposition, media comment and the rights of free assembly. Those will increase during CHOGM as it tries to ensure that it is not disrupted in any sense. That is obviously what led to Canada’s decision, and I do not want to comment further on that.

My right honourable friend Douglas Alexander summed it up in clear terms up in March when he said:

“I have called previously on the British Government to use the prospect of the summit to encourage Sri Lanka to meet its international obligations and to address concerns about on-going human rights violations”.

He repeated that six weeks later. I fear that, although there has been a response to Questions in the other place, it is at best muted. It needs to go far further.

Surely, the response to date cannot be regarded as adequate to the circumstances pertaining in Sri Lanka. First, the United Kingdom delegation could not be more heavyweight: it includes the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister of State. In my view, the Government took the decision too early, before they could have taken effective soundings, six months ahead of the summit. Why was the decision taken before the facts were known?

Secondly, the Government have said nothing so far about the Sri Lankan President becoming the Chairman-in-Office of the Commonwealth for the next two years. From a Commonwealth point of view, I believe that that is simply unacceptable and I am eager to hear what is the Government’s position on that. Thirdly, what will the Government say to Sri Lanka about civil rights abuses, the restrictions being imposed during CHOGM and the planned restrictions on the international media? Just getting the licence to go there is not the issue; it is whether you can then perform the functions of a journalist. Let us be clear: journalists can often get permission to go somewhere; it is whether they can perform the functions of a journalist that matters.

Those are the issues. If we want renewal, if we want bolstered trade, if we want to ensure that trade reduces or eliminates poverty, if we want to make health and education policies a reality, the Commonwealth is a great forum to do that. These are the areas in which our judgments will have to be made.

16:42

[The Senior Minister of State, Department for Communities and Local Government & Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Warsi) (Con)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Luce, for introducing this timely debate and all noble Lords for their thoughtful contributions, especially my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes. I particularly enjoyed listening to my noble friend Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. I am not sure that any Cabinet Minister can live up to the reputation of playing in the Ashes, but I once umpired a UK-Bangladesh parliamentarians one-day match. Perhaps that is my contribution.

At the outset I echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Paul, and use this opportunity to put on record our appreciation for the tremendous role that Her Majesty plays in leading the Commonwealth. Her role as an example to us all and we hope that she continues to lead the organisation for many years to come.

The Government are a strong supporter of the Commonwealth, and the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka is an opportunity both to reaffirm the importance of the Commonwealth to member states and to maintain efforts to strengthen and reform the organisation to ensure that it retains its relevance and impact in future. This Government have strengthened the UK’s engagement with the Commonwealth. We firmly believe that it is in our interests that we have a strong Commonwealth. The Commonwealth bridges all of the continents, embraces 2 billion people and represents all of the world’s faiths. Its membership includes many of the fastest-growing and increasingly technologically advanced economies in the world. I endorse the description of the Commonwealth of the noble Lord, Lord Triesman.

However, to remain relevant to its people today and to continue to have a real impact on the international stage, it must respond to the changing world that it inhabits. That is why the UK has played a leading role in efforts to reform the Commonwealth. Since Commonwealth heads last met in Perth in 2011, the Commonwealth has embarked on an ambitious but necessary programme of reform. Member states have been implementing a series of important recommendations made by the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group in its report, A Commonwealth of the People: Time for Urgent Reform, which was agreed following the Perth CHOGM. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford who, as Minister for the Commonwealth, made an essential contribution to that process, but I accept the strong words of my noble friend Lord Lexden that we need to go much further.

We have seen some important milestones for the Commonwealth during the past two years. Perhaps the most significant has been the agreement of the Commonwealth Charter which gives the organisation, for the first time, a single document setting out its core values. This was referred to by the noble and learned Baroness, Lady Scotland, the noble Baroness, Lady Prashar, and others. The Government want the charter to become an established, recognisable statement of what the Commonwealth stands for. The charter should be accessible to all Commonwealth citizens and used as a means to protect and promote the core democratic values which underpin the organisation. It is an indispensable tool for reform both now and in the future but we recognise, as the noble Lord, Lord Browne, detailed in his speech, that the charter remains an aspirational document to many Commonwealth member states. Its signature is therefore only the start of a longer process of reform. It remains crucial, as we lead up to CHOGM, for the Commonwealth to ensure that human rights and values are at the forefront of its work.

As we have heard today and previously, given the human rights situation in some Commonwealth member states, some question the credibility of the Commonwealth as an organisation founded on values. We recognise these concerns but we should recognise, too, that there are also mechanisms at the Commonwealth’s disposal such as the charter which can be used to help challenge, influence and, ultimately, effect reform. The noble Lord, Lord Judd, clearly put that view. Through signing the charter, for example, all member states have agreed to oppose,

“all forms of discrimination, whether rooted in gender, race, colour, creed, political belief or other grounds”.

However, my noble friend Lord Black was right to say that the charter now needs to be put into practice, so it is for the UK and countries with similar views to keep making the case for acceptance and integration. We will continue to press other states to recognise that the LGBT community, which has come under particular pressure in some Commonwealth countries, deserves the same protection as all others.

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group is a further mechanism at the Commonwealth’s disposal. The Government strongly supported the recent reform of CMAG, which enhanced its mandate as the custodian of Commonwealth values. The UK is not currently a member of CMAG. However, the Government have consistently called for CMAG to exercise its strengthened mandate. I have raised these issues personally with the current chair of CMAG, Dipu Moni, as has my right honourable friend the Minister of State for the Commonwealth. We have also raised our concerns with the Commonwealth Secretary-General. We want to see CMAG demonstrate that it plays a valuable and effective role in addressing situations of concern.

The noble Lord, Lord Luce, my noble friends Lord Chidgey and Lord Brooke, the noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Hannay, and my noble friend Lord Moynihan all raised the forthcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka. At this year’s meeting, we will look to the Commonwealth to assess the progress it has made since Perth, to identify areas where further work is needed and to be ambitious in what it hopes to achieve in future. In particular, CHOGM is an opportunity for the Commonwealth to work collectively to influence a number of crucial issues unfolding on the global stage. One, which this CHOGM will discuss, is the post-2015 development agenda following the publication of the report of the UN high-level panel, co-chaired by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Commonwealth member states should take this opportunity to ensure that the views of the Commonwealth on this vital subject are reflected in the final framework. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers have regularly raised our priorities with the secretary-general and fellow Commonwealth Ministers, and my department’s officials have co-ordinated a cross-Whitehall approach to the meeting. We will continue to work with key stakeholders up to and beyond CHOGM.

Given the considerable importance that the Government place on the promotion and protection of human rights in the Commonwealth, some have quite rightly questioned why my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary will attend this year’s meeting in Sri Lanka. We will attend CHOGM because it is the right thing to do for the Commonwealth, but in doing so we will take a very clear message. It is a message that the British Government have given consistently in this Parliament and in our contacts with the Sri Lankan Government at every level: that Sri Lanka must make progress on human rights, reconciliation and a political settlement. It is also vital that the media are able to travel to Sri Lanka and report freely. I hear what my noble friend Lord Naseby said, but we will continue to press the Sri Lankan Government to honour their public assurances on this matter. CHOGM will highlight the work yet to be done to achieve the aims to which the Sri Lankan Government have agreed, in follow-up to their own Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission’s report. The Commonwealth should look closely at what it can do to help to support Sri Lanka in making the progress that we all expect.

The noble Lords, Lord Wills and Lord Browne, specifically raised the question of our approach to CHOGM. Our approach can be reflected in the way in which we have handled the situation in other fora. At the Human Rights Council in March this year we co-sponsored the resolution on Sri Lanka. It is important to recognise the progress that has been made—for example, on reconstruction and de-mining—but I accept that much more needs to be done. The Foreign Secretary, the Prime Minister and others will deliver a strong message to the Sri Lankan Government on our concerns and the need for progress, but we feel that engagement is the right way forward.

Noble Lords have also raised the Gambia’s decision to withdraw from the Commonwealth, a decision noted by this Government. It is too soon to say what the Gambia’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth will mean for the organisation or for the Gambia and for its people. The Commonwealth is of course a voluntary organisation, so any decisions on membership are a matter for each member Government. However, we should not let this detract from the simple fact that membership of the Commonwealth remains a genuine aspiration for many countries. The Commonwealth continues to attract interest from potential new members. Indeed, we understand that applications for membership from South Sudan and Burundi are currently being considered by the Commonwealth Secretariat.

The noble Lord, Lord Luce, raised the issue of the UK’s funding to the Commonwealth. The UK remains the largest single donor to Commonwealth organisations. During the financial year 2013-14, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Development expect to contribute around £45 million to Commonwealth organisations and programmes. That includes around £8 million of support for the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation, around £1 million for the Commonwealth Youth Programme, which helps young people across the Commonwealth contribute to development, and another £1 million to the Commonwealth of Learning, to enable poor people across the Commonwealth to access open and distance learning opportunities in formal education. Of course, we also make large payments in bilateral programmes in many of the individual Commonwealth countries. These are significant commitments, so we continue to encourage Commonwealth organisations to look to make more effective and efficient use of the resources that they are given, and to focus on reforms that affect core strength and comparative advantage.

My noble friend Lord Selsdon raised the issue of trade. There is great potential within the Commonwealth to promote the long-term prosperity of its members. The Commonwealth is a natural place for the UK and other member states to do business. Our shared principles of democracy, the rule of law and good governance, combined with our similar legal systems, provide a solid foundation for doing business—a platform for trade, investment, development and prosperity. Among its members are some of the world’s most dynamic and fast-growing economies such as India, Nigeria and Malaysia. As a whole, the Commonwealth accounts for one-third of the world’s population and its economies export more than $3 trillion in goods and services each year. The organisation has a strong presence in groupings such as the G20, leaving the Commonwealth well placed to influence key decisions across the global economy.

The noble Lord, Lord Luce, also raised the issue of education about the Commonwealth within the UK. The new history curriculum is less prescriptive than before and gives teachers more freedom over the content that should be taught. While it does not make explicit reference to teaching about the Commonwealth, there is nothing that precludes schools from teaching about it if they choose to do so. At key stage 3, for example, pupils should be taught about the challenges for Britain, Europe and the wider world from 1901 to the present day, and we think therefore that that will include the study of the Commonwealth. I take the point that noble Lords made about reflecting the Commonwealth contribution during the First World War as we approach the centenary commemoration next year, something that I personally been involved with.

The noble Lord, Lord Ramsbotham, and my noble friend Lord Chidgey raised the issue of the British Indian Ocean Territory. On 18 December 2012 the Foreign Secretary said that he was going to review policy towards the resettlement of the British Indian Ocean Territory. This review has been under way since then and we have been in touch with all those with an interest, especially the Chagossian community here in the UK, in Mauritius and in the Seychelles. Ministers have agreed that we should have an independent study that will, with as much transparency as possible, properly explore what might be possible, what is realistic and what it would cost. I am sure that I will report back to the House when that is concluded.

I thank the noble Lords, Lord Kakkar and Lord Crisp, for their contribution on healthcare. The UK Government have put improving health, especially the health of women and girls, at the heart of their work, especially the work within DfID. DfID is providing direct support to countries to enable them to move more rapidly towards universal health coverage. This includes technical assistance and financial support and is focused on helping countries to strengthen their health financing systems and their service delivery. We continue to see an important role for the Commonwealth Secretariat in advocating the recommendations in the high-level panel report on health in a post-2015 framework, which is where we think this can be brought to the fore.

My noble friend Lady Hooper and the noble Lords, Lord Hannay of Chiswick and Lord Paul, asked about Commonwealth scholarships. The UK supports two scholarship programmes open to Commonwealth students: the Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan and the Chevening scholarships. DfID has increased funding, providing a total of £87 million for Commonwealth scholarships for developing countries over a four-year period until 2015. This corresponds to some 800 new scholarships per year. Her Majesty’s Government have been keen to ensure that the wider Commonwealth scholarship and fellowship plan is genuinely Commonwealth-wide in nature. More than 150 Chevening scholarships have been awarded to citizens of Commonwealth countries during the year 2013-14.

The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, asked about immigration policy and the impact on travel from the Commonwealth. The Government take every opportunity to make clear that Britain remains open for business. As the Prime Minister said, we want the brightest and the best to help create the jobs and growth that will enable Britain to compete in the global race, and that of course includes students.

The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked about Zimbabwe. The Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Perth in 2011 agreed to look forward to the conditions being created for the return of Zimbabwe to the Commonwealth and continue to encourage the parties to implement the global political agreement faithfully and effectively. Any application from Zimbabwe to reapply for membership of the Commonwealth would be a matter for all 53 countries to decide. It would be reviewed in the light of the Government of Zimbabwe addressing the issues of concern and the breaches of Commonwealth fundamental values which led to Zimbabwe’s suspension and withdrawal, including the removal of repressive legislation and guarantees on the freedom of the press.

The debate today has been wide-ranging and balanced. I value the injection of realism in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. The UK remains fully committed to the Commonwealth. We believe it is an organisation that makes a positive and tangible impact on the world stage and that it has an important role to play in advancing democracy, human rights and sustainable development across the globe. As a network, the Commonwealth continues to provide an established forum that cuts across the traditional UN voting blocks and the developing/developed country divide, but we need to ensure that, through this year’s CHOGM and beyond, member states work together to make the Commonwealth more efficient, more focused and more relevant in today’s world.

16:58

[Lord Luce]

My Lords, it remains for me to thank noble Lords enormously for their contributions to the comprehensive debate about the Commonwealth today which shows what a comprehensive association of nations it is. I am very grateful to the Minister for her long and full reply to the debate and for showing her commitment and the Government’s commitment to the Commonwealth.

Motion agreed.

Ageing: Public Services and Demographic Change Committee Report

Thursday 17th October 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Take Note

16:59

Moved by

[Lord Filkin]

That this House takes note of the Report of the Public Service and Demographic Change Committee Ready for Ageing? (Session 2012–13, HL Paper 140).

[Lord Popat (Con)]

My Lords, there are 21 speakers for the debate this evening. If the Back-Benchers stick to five minutes for each speaker, that should enable the House to adjourn by 7.15 pm.

[Lord Filkin (Lab)]

My Lords, our ageing society is by far our biggest social change, bringing great benefits. Many people will live longer, much longer than might have been expected, and in doing so will contribute much to our society and economy, and will benefit personally from this longer life. This change is happening now. There will be 24% more people aged 65-plus in our present decade, and the change will persist for decades to come. By 2030, there will be over 100% more people aged 85-plus compared to 2010. Our report explored what we all need to do to maximise the benefits of this great social change. The House will be relieved to hear that I will be assuming that all Members have read it, given that it was only 10 pages long; I will pick out a few of the highlights.

First, I offer warm thanks to a talented and challenging committee. You could not get a better committee of Members to work with than we had. They were superb and their commitment and contribution was very great indeed. I also thank our two special advisers, Howard Glennerster and Jonathan Portes; it is particularly good to see Professor Glennerster with us today. I also thank our excellent staff, Bina Sudra, Tristan Stubbs, Tansy Hutchinson and our quite remarkable clerk, Susannah Street. I thank Philippa Tudor for the quiet support she gave in the background to this process. We had a remarkably pressured timetable, trying to deal with 70 witnesses in about three months, and she was very helpful indeed. Lastly, I thank the House itself for agreeing to the suggestion for this ad hoc Select Committee.

How, then, do all of us need to change to be ready for this ageing society? Clearly, first, as individuals, our prime responsibility is always to try to manage our own lives ourselves rather than to expect others to do it for us. Clearly, people need to understand the probabilities and risks consequent on ageing—that they may need to save more, to work for longer, to at least make provision for their social care and to think about how they care for others. Individuals also need to engage with the choices and behaviours that are likely to make for a healthier and happier longer life. We have control over quite a lot of things—at least, some of us do.

It may well be that many people need trusted, accessible, person-centred information and evidence to make these informed choices and, hopefully, the behaviour shifts that might go with them. Clearly, civil society itself will have to make changes in how it will need to engage with ageing and how it can better work to support the many more older people in our society. It would be naive to think that the state, either central or local government, was able to support all the increased numbers of people in our society. Yet there is enormous potential if civil society itself engages positively in this and the question, of course, is how we stimulate such a growth of civil action.

Clearly, civil society also needs to understand the choices that we all have to make collectively as a nation to address the changes and some of the pressures and choices consequent on them. Finally, we need to use the assets of many more older people as a resource that is able to contribute to meeting the needs of other older people. That is obvious to many of us and axiomatic. Again, we need to think about how we make it happen in practice.

There needs to be much greater engagement with ageing from businesses generally, large and small. Ageing affects our economic growth, our fiscal position and the supply of labour to businesses, which others may speak on later. Business needs to become much more positive about flexible working for older people, otherwise we will have labour supply problems, less economic growth and less fiscal contribution than we otherwise would. In other countries, particularly Germany, business is actively engaged in these debates. I look forward to hearing invitations to discuss these issues from some of our business leadership figures, not least the CBI.

Local government will clearly be at the fulcrum of ageing at local level. In some local authorities, the scale of the changes in their older population is quite remarkably greater even than the dramatic figures I have given already. Clearly, local government’s role has to go way beyond just the management of social care, although that is already an enormously taxing role for it. It has to address the failures of planning and housing supply for older people at a local level, which clearly cause greater problems for many people and clog up family housing that could be released. Local authorities will need to work with, and generate greater engagement from, the voluntary sector and civil society to increase volunteering, to support attempts to reduce loneliness and isolation, and to contribute towards informal social care. We will need a quite remarkable scale of increase in informal social care. Again, it would be naive to think that the state will deal with all those things by itself. There is, therefore, a very large range of roles for local authorities over and above their new public health role. One would expect to see thoughtful local authorities making estimates of the scale of demand that they will face, and starting to have dialogues with their communities about how they will plan for and address those great opportunities and pressures.

The voluntary sector—which I recognise does enormously good work—will itself want to consider, individually and collectively, how it will need to change to make a greater contribution to meeting the needs of an ageing society. I doubt that doing what it has done in the past, or even doing more of what it has done in the past, would be adequate or sufficient. Therefore, we have already started discussions with some of the key voluntary sector organisations about how they need to assess the scale of future need and how they will raise their game to meet the future needs that will be required of our society.

Public health at national and local level is, I think it is obvious to all of us, a central issue in how we address ageing. I will give one simple illustration. If, over the next 15 years, we were able to shift the behaviours of many people in our society so that they made healthier lifestyle choices about diet, weight, exercise, smoking and drugs—and we all know ourselves how difficult some of those resistances are—the personal, fiscal and economic benefits would be remarkable. I argue, both to government and to civil society: think of what we have done on smoking, but also think of how we make these changes. They start to make coping for an ageing society more bearable in public policy terms, but they also make individuals’ lives that much happier and more fulfilled if they are able to enjoy them in that way.

On the NHS, I think we would all acknowledge that the fact that we are living longer is due in part to the great success of medical science and of the NHS itself, combined with many people making better lifestyle choices. That, therefore, is to be celebrated. Nevertheless, an ageing society is by far the biggest challenge that the NHS has faced since its foundation. I will give three reasons why that is the case. First, there will be an enormous increase in the number of long-term conditions in our society, consequent on many more older people, many more much older, older people, and the propensity that that causes to generate long-term conditions. In the past you died of certain conditions; now you live many years longer with those long-term conditions. That is a wonder, but it has challenges.

Secondly, there will obviously be very great increases in cost for the NHS and for social care, consequent on that increase in long-term conditions and social care needs itself, so we will see remarkable increases in cost hitting the system as well. Thirdly, every bit of evidence we received, and all the expert opinion—including the briefing noble Lords have received from the NHS Confederation—is of one mind that the system needs to go through quite a remarkable change so that it moves to the better management of long-term conditions in the community and away from what is essentially an acute and hospital-centric focus. Everybody broadly agrees with that diagnosis; the challenge is how it is going to be made to happen.

The problem—without wishing to be party-political for a second—is that politicians do not always give the impression that they are facing up to the scale of those three issues: the scale of increased demand, increased cost and how to bring about that system change. We all hope that NHS England, when it produces its strategy in the autumn, will set out a clear vision as to how that should be addressed, both assessing the demand and setting out how it thinks the system should change to do so. However, even if it does that well, it will not be able to do it without clear, strong, consistent political leadership, preferably supported by all political parties.

How has central government responded to our call for action? First, we all recognise that central government is not responsible for all these challenges. They are issues for all of us. However, many of us consider that central government is responsible for leading the debate and setting out the issues so that we as a society can face them rather than hide from them. It is also remarkable that there was no rebuttal in the Government’s response of the fundamental evidence and analysis that the committee set out in its paper. They did not say that we got it wrong; they were almost totally silent on that. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the diagnosis we presented was reasonably accurate. That has been the view of many experts, as well.

We were disappointed not to see from the Government a vision statement, or a commitment to produce some sort of vision, about what they think we should do for our older society in future, and some sort of outline of how, as a society collectively—central government and civil society—we should go about making that vision a reality. They have also resisted our request to set out an honest debate with the public about the opportunities, challenges and changes. We argued for a White Paper and a Green Paper to set out the issues so that we could all engage with them seriously. They did not respond to that. In part I know why, but it is a great shame, because that is what we all need.

In my final few minutes, I will say a little about what we have done to maximise engagement with the Government on this report. Our committee ceased to exist in March, but we chose to ignore that and to continue having very vigorous discussions among ourselves, and excellent meetings with Ministers and senior civil servants. We tended to go in twos, as is our way, whenever we could. I met five or six Ministers, virtually all the top civil servants relevant to this, and special advisers, and I thank them all. Without exception, the conversations were thoughtful, and with many officials we could discuss both policy and politics—realities—at the same time, because those things are real.

Next we should acknowledge that the Government have done some very good things in a difficult environment. They have made remarkable progress on pensions reform and on putting into practice the fundamentals of Turner. Steve Webb is to be commended on that, in an incredibly difficult fiscal context. That is good progress, but, as we said, it is the start, not the end of the story.

The situation is similar with Norman Lamb and social care. It is not the thing to mention this week, but we should recognise that Dilnot, even if you did not think that it was the perfect answer, was a brave and difficult thing to do, and was not always welcomed by the Treasury. Again, that is to be commended; it gives us a basis to move forward. We will have to get the details right as we work on it.

We have had discussions with Mark Prisk, the Housing Minister, as well as with Norman Lamb. We had excellent discussions in closed seminars about what the report said, and there was a recognition in the Government’s response that there were significant failures in current policy and practice. The market in specialist housing for older people does not appear to be working, and there is a need to do something about that. Again, I commend the honesty and engagement that we have had there.

I wish I could be as positive everywhere, but, as noble Lords will sense, I am not going to be. What still amazes us as a committee is that we have not seen from the Department of Health any published data of its estimation of the increasing demand consequent on the absolutely certain increase in the number of older people. Perhaps we will get that from NHS England; let us hope so. It is fundamental to the situation. When you know that you will face massive increases in demand, you make some assessment of what that will look like and you then think about what it implies.

Secondly, there is still a doubt over the Government’s narrative that the massive systems changes that we all recognise need to happen will just come about organically in a bottom-up process. Clearly, the leadership of the NHS and the health service generally looks for clear, solid, consistent ministerial support for these changes. That is difficult, but they will not happen without it. Lastly, we need an honest conversation between politicians—hopefully of all parties—and the public about the changes that our NHS will face.

I am coming towards the end. I will now deal with the fiscal implications of this. As noble Lords will know, the dependency ratio is obviously worsening as a consequence of these demographics, and I will not go into detail on that. Many more older people, and older old people, will mean much more spending on pensions, health and social care. It is axiomatic that that will happen. The debate is about how much of that extra expenditure should be paid for by the state out of taxation and how much of it should be paid for by individuals themselves. However, it will have to be paid for one way or the other because our society will demand a level of care and healthcare befitting a civilised society. Therefore, we must face up to a discussion on that.

Apart from what the Nuffield Foundation and the IFS have produced, to date we have not seen much indication of the scale of that future cost. However, the material that has been produced is frightening enough. It signals a gap of at least £35 billion, and probably £54 billion, by 2021-22. The IFS told me that those figures had been reached just by looking at the 4% per annum historical trends; not by assessing the elemental increase in demand consequent on having more older people with long-term conditions, so I think the figures, are, if anything, likely to be an underestimate. We have to discuss as a society the implications of how we fund these increased public service costs. There are no right or simple answers to that, but thoughtful discussion, preferably across the party divide, would be helpful. Ideally, I think that some Turner-style process that commanded cross-party support would be a healthy approach.

We have not seen what we hoped for from the Government in terms of a Green Paper or even a ministerial subgroup to look at these issues. However, I hope that all is not lost. We are 18 months away from an election. Although I have been putting these questions to the Government, it seems to me they are equally questions for all three political parties. We hope that all three political parties engage seriously with these questions over the next 18 months, and, we hope, do so in a more transparent way so that there is a proper engagement by experts in their thinking about how we as a society address these challenges.

I am pleased to say that one of the consequences of our work is that eight major charities came together into the Ready for Ageing Alliance. They will work with our committee and maintain a constant dialogue with experts and politicians about these issues over the next 18 months. No doubt they will inspect the election manifestos, and the work behind them, of all the major parties.

As noble Lords sense, my committee members and I think that these are important issues. We will not let them go. We look forward to further discussions in the House and with wider and civil society about them. The benefits of getting this right are enormous, but if we are in denial on these issues we will massively underestimate those benefits.

17:17

[Lord Mawhinney (Con)]

My Lords, I presume to speak on behalf of all the committee colleagues of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, by thanking him for the leadership which he gave the Select Committee and for his own knowledge and enthusiasm which drove that leadership. The five-minute advisory length of speeches will constrain committee members from dealing in any depth with the multitude of issues that we raised. No doubt that was part of the Government’s thinking when they scheduled this debate at this time.

I will restrict myself to one issue only, which came through regularly and strongly in the evidence that we were given. The report states:

“To meet the needs of our ageing population … the health and social care system needs to work well 24 hours a day, seven days a week”.

The Secretary of State told us that,

“we have to have a 24/7 NHS”.

That is good. Actually, it is vital that we have such a service, but when will we have it? We called on the Secretary of State in our report to,

“within 12 months … set out how this will be made real”.

To date, we have heard nothing. The clock is ticking in an otherwise silent room and we look to my noble friend the Minister to inject a degree of urgency in his colleagues—for I suspect that my noble friend senses that urgency even if at times he, too, is constrained from being as explicit about the issue as some of the rest of us wish to be.

Because there was no indication of timing, I put down a Parliamentary Question in July asking the Government what was the percentage of GPs providing a full weekend service. My noble friend will remember his Answer. He told me that it is all being looked at by NHS England. My heart sank because, first, I was a Minister long enough to know that when Ministers are trying to distance themselves from something difficult, they pass it on to someone else. Secondly, as my noble friend knows, I am not a great admirer of NHS England, particularly of its chief executive Sir David Nicholson—he with the wildly chequered career. He is the one who the previous Secretary of State, Mr Lansley, wanted to be wholly in charge of the NHS, rather than the Secretary of State. I know what the department thinks of Sir David. I know what the health professions and the public think of him. I maintain hope that my noble friend will be persuaded to join me and the majority, and put Sir David on a bicycle as quickly as possible.

On the other hand, the Prime Minister announced just recently that he was going to initiate a pilot study in nine areas about GP surgeries running through the weekend and providing a full service. This is very good. Well done, Prime Minister. I am not sure why there are nine areas. To be honest, as a former health Minister, I am not sure whether this policy needs to be piloted at all, but it is a step in the right direction. On the other hand, after 11 and a half years as a Minister, I have developed a marginally healthy scepticism. I was immediately reminded of that old Chinese proverb that states:

“A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step”.

I have to say to my noble friend that I think we still have 999 miles and 1,750 yards to go. We need a full-week service.

I tabled another Parliamentary Question to my noble friend. I asked him to tell me what percentage of full social care was available at weekends. My noble friend—perhaps above all of his colleagues on the Front Bench—is too courteous and sophisticated to have given me the Answer that the words yelled out: “Nothing to do with me, guv”. We all know who has the primary responsibility for delivering social care. However, we all also know that it is to do with the Government. It is to do with providing what the Government believe people need. If it is not a matter for the Government, who is it for? While we dicker, duck and dive, there are more elderly people with frailties in mind and body, needs, deprivation, suffering and pain. All are made worse by the absence of a full seven-day-a-week service. Only government can ensure that care, support and treatment are administered effectively—I repeat, effectively—24 hours a day, seven days a week.

I have no vested interest but I have hard-won, emotionally draining experience about the importance of that to which I make reference. Near the end of her life, my mother had to spend two weekends in a local hospital because she had contracted pneumonia. Her care and treatment adversely affected her condition, even though the infection was cured. The hospital wrote a self-satisfied letter telling me how good the standard of care that it provided had been. We, the family, could not wait to get her out of the hospital and back to the residential home. In this day and age, that may sound strange because residential and nursing homes have not always had a very good reputation or appreciation—and some of them should not have, because some of the things that have happened have been horrendous. However, I want to say how grateful I am to Abbott House in Oundle for its professional, sympathetic and focused care for my mother and her well-being, despite the pressures that people are facing and the inadequacies of what the NHS made available at weekends.

Our report’s conclusion was that a radical change and an improvement in health and social care were badly needed to provide a full service. I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin: radical change will take time, and time in politics means cross-party support or radical change will never happen. Without it, the present scandal of the treatment of our elderly will grow to a point where it is not handleable by politicians who wish to act humanely. That is the size of the challenge and the size of the problem that this Government face.

17:26

[Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)]

My Lords, it is always a great pleasure to follow a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, as indeed it was for me to serve under the leadership of my noble friend Lord Filkin on the Select Committee. I am grateful to the House for giving me the opportunity to serve in that capacity.

I should start my remarks by drawing the attention of the House to the interests that I have declared in the Register of Lords’ Interests.

It will probably not be a surprise to any of your Lordships that a Select Committee of this House took the unanimous view very early on in its deliberations that the fact that Britain was becoming an ageing society did not mean the end of the world as we know it. Far from it—it is going to be a blessing, not a curse. However, one thing was very clear to all of us: that if we are to respond to the quite significant challenges that the ageing nature of our society is going to present, then we expect—and we are right to demand—vision, leadership and a coherent strategy from government. So, too, are we right to expect that from all those parties that aspire to government. Nowhere is that more obvious and clear than in the area of pensions, and that is where I want to concentrate my remarks this evening.

We tried to draw attention to two very significant problems that we face. We all know that not enough people in Britain are saving for their retirement and that those who are generally tend not to be saving enough. That led us to conclude that nearly 11 million people of working age are, on current trends, likely to be heading towards inadequate retirement incomes. That will be a significant social and economic problem for our country and we need to address it with urgency.

As my noble friend said, there are plenty of positive signs that the Government are now beginning to address this problem. The previous Government set in train the implementation of the important recommendations of the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and the present Government have taken those forward. That is to be welcomed. However, we also took the view that, in their present guise and format, defined contribution pension schemes are unlikely to be able to discharge the very heavy responsibility that we are about to place on them. In the future, millions more people will be saving not in final salary or career average defined benefit schemes but in defined contribution schemes. Of course, the one characteristic of those schemes is that there is no guaranteed level of retirement income.

We all know the history of the demise of defined benefit. We will not be able to recreate new defined benefit schemes in the UK or, for that matter, in any other developed nation. That is part of the pensions past. I hope that we can sustain defined benefit pensions in the public sector for as long as possible. We know that the millions of people who will be enrolled automatically into new workplace pension schemes will be saving in defined contribution schemes. It was the committee’s view that they are not fit for purpose; they are not going to be adequate in their current form to address the expectations that millions of people have for the level of income that they can aspire to in retirement. How we respond to that is the crucial challenge in the pensions world today. We have obsessed in this House and elsewhere about how we can prolong defined benefit schemes. That debate is concluded—we will not be able to do that in the private sector. But there has been insufficient attention until recently about the inadequacies of defined contribution schemes. I, and I am sure all members of the committee, would welcome the Government’s new focus on addressing the shortcomings in defined contribution schemes. That is the big challenge that we face.

The Government’s response to date in its defined ambition pension plans and proposals have some promise and potential, but there is a warning to the Government that I would like to give tonight—to avoid the gimmicks and expensive flummery, as well as the false promises of guarantees and other devices that have been floated. In the world of defined contributions, it is unlikely to be possible to construct anything that looks like a defined benefit-style guarantee of retirement income. That is simply not a possibility, and we should not mislead people somehow into thinking that it is possible.

What we felt was possible was that the Government could convene on a much more urgent basis the attention of the industry and employers on how the current structure of defined contribution pensions could be improved—and I think that they can. From my experience, I believe that we have to focus in future on outcomes from defined contribution schemes and work to ensure that there is greater confidence in those outcomes. That is a challenge primarily to the pensions and investment industry as to how those improvements could be brought about. I personally do not believe that there is a case for some legislative solution or some magic wand to be waved over this problem by government. That is simply not a possibility; it is not the world that we live in. But there is an urgent case for more focused action and intention, led by government, as to how the current failing platform of defined contribution could be improved for millions of people going forward. We have a special responsibility now that we have decided, as successive Parliaments, to automatically enrol people into defined contributions, as to how we can improve the way in which those schemes work for future generations. This is a pressing problem, and it is incumbent on government and others to address it as a matter of urgency. I welcome what the committee had to say about that matter.

I want to finish with a quote, not a quote from your Lordships’ Select Committee but a comment from the National Audit Office, in a report that it made in July 2013, when it said:

“Measures to encourage people to save for retirement are not being managed by Departments with enough coherence or accountability”.

Sadly, I think that that is true, but the Government have time to put that right. I hope that they pay attention to our report as well as the work of others, and begin to address with more urgency this chronic problem of how to improve the performance of defined contribution schemes. If they can do that, I hope that a beginning of a stronger coherence and consensus around pensions policy will emerge as a result.

17:33

[Baroness Tyler of Enfield (LD)]

My Lords, in the short time available, I should like to do two things—to give my reactions to the government response to the report and to focus on one key issue raised in the report.

I was at least pleased that the government response said that the Government shared the ambitions of the Select Committee report of making the country,

“one of the best places to grow old”.

The response is certainly detailed and offers a good overview of current policy on issues related to ageing. I very much applaud the very important measures that the coalition Government have taken in very difficult financial times. I mention in particular the Pensions Bill and the Care Bill, which is currently before this House, which I consider to be a landmark piece of legislation. But—and, of course, there has to be a but—while the government response is long on past achievements and current policy commitments up to 2015, it is short on the long term and the need for a long-term strategic joined-up understanding of the big choices facing the country over the next 10 to 20 years, particularly the need to stimulate a national debate so that people understand the implications, the choices ahead and difficult decisions that will have to be taken about the balance of responsibilities between the individual and the state. Asking the chief scientist to lead an analysis of the challenges of an ageing society is a welcome step forward, but it would have been so much more effective if the chief scientist had been asked to report to Parliament every year on both progress made and the challenges ahead and, indeed, if the Government had produced an action plan with specific goals and milestones that this House could monitor.

Will the Minister consider those suggestions and respond in due course? I recognise that that will require consideration across government. There was no response on the call for a White Paper setting out a long-term vision from Government, their role in stimulating a national conversation, the two cross-party commissions after the next election, or indeed that party political manifestos should address those issues. In retrospect, perhaps it was a little unrealistic to expect the Government to respond to something about party political manifestos. From these Benches, I am pleased to report that the Deputy Prime Minister has now established a new Liberal Democrat policy working group, to be chaired by my right honourable friend Paul Burstow, to consider how public policy can address the broad issues of an ageing society. I am pleased to be able to serve as a member of that group.

In the rest of my contribution I want to focus briefly on attitudes to ageing and the issue of loneliness and social isolation. Ready for Ageing? addressed these issues but, perhaps inevitably it did not attract the headlines in the same way as issues around retirement pensions, health and social care, and so on did. I would argue that not enough focus has been given to the importance of social isolation and loneliness, which are so often both the root cause and consequence of issues that were discussed at length in the report and which no doubt will be discussed in the debate.

A big barrier to making the UK ready for ageing is the denial of most younger people of the likelihood of becoming older themselves, with all its perceived negative connotations. It is human nature to put off thinking about becoming old, until the day it happens, but the problem is that by then it is usually too late to do the financial and other planning necessary to ensure a happy and comfortable retirement. If we could take away some of the fear, perhaps more younger people would be more willing to face up to the fact that, barring ill fortune, such as accidents and grave illness earlier in life, the chances are that they will live longer than they currently expect—certainly longer than most previous generations thought likely or even possible. That is a fact.

I do not have time to go into all the life expectancy details here, but it is so important to understand the issues of why younger people, or those in middle age, do not do the thinking and preparation that they need to do. We also need to address a key social trend that has not had enough attention. A lot of people who will be moving into old age over the next 20 or 30 years will be childless and will not have adult children to provide some of the care and support that so many do today. The issue of loneliness and isolation is significant. We need to be realistic. It would not be true to say that the majority of older people are lonely; the majority live happy and non-lonely lives. However, some of the statistics are very stark. Do noble Lords know that some 5% of people aged 65 plus in the UK said that they spent Christmas Day 2010 alone? How should we feel about that? It has also been said that loneliness is very bad for our health. Something that brings that home starkly is the estimate that loneliness is as harmful to health as smoking 15 cigarettes a day. There is much that can be done about this.

I am very pleased to be involved with a project that is being taken forward by the think tank, CentreForum, which is looking specifically at what can be done for old people to help them to avoid loneliness and isolation. I am pleased that the charity Age UK is involved because I believe that the answer to many of these issues lies with voluntary organisations, charities and faith groups, but it is for the Government to create the climate in which these things happen.

I shall finish by saying something that may sound a little trite. In later life, he or she who is rich is he or she who has a strong network of family and friends around them. We must do all we can to encourage that.

17:39

[Lord Livingston of Parkhead (Con)]

My Lords, I speak here today with some amount of nervousness and a large dollop of disbelief. First, I thank the House for the warmth of its welcome, and particularly my two supporters, the noble Lord, Lord Reid, and my noble friend Lord Green, whom I will be honoured to succeed as Minister of State for Trade and Investment in December. I also thank my mentors and the people who are huddled on the Second Floor West, somewhere near the fire escape, for all their guidance; my roommates have been very helpful. Most of all, I thank the staff of the House. They have been unfailingly pleasant and smiling and I thank them for all their help, particularly for their directions. This is not a House for those who are geographically challenged like me. I think it was designed along the line of Hogwarts: there are some staircases that do not lead to the same place today as they did yesterday.

I used the word “disbelief” about speaking in this august Chamber. That, in part, reflects my background. My family came to this country over a century ago. They were penniless when they arrived. When my great-grandfather became prosperous he moved into a two-bedroom flat, with just 12 of the family. My father was the first person in our family to go to university. He became a doctor, a GP in the east end of Glasgow near Parkhead. His 30 years of service to one of the most deprived communities in the whole of Britain is one of the reasons I took the title “of Parkhead”. The other reason is because I am a lifelong supporter of Glasgow Celtic. Its home is at Parkhead and I thought a recognition of the first British team to win the European Cup was appropriate.

I chose to make my maiden speech today for the simple reason that this debate is about one of the most important issues facing society today. In tackling this subject the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has shown many of the great attributes of this House: it is considered, long-term, bipartisan and constructive

I should like to expand on a few of the points raised in this excellent report. First, too many people are still facing a cliff edge on retirement. They need help going into retirement but do not want to completely give up doing things because they still have a contribution to make to society. That contribution may take place through voluntary work and it is highly appropriate to have an organisation to help with that.

However, as an ex-businessman, I want to raise the issue of what business can do. Businesses already have to meet an increasing demand 24/7. There are peaks in demand, with customers wanting things very quickly seven days a week. These workers present a real opportunity. They are well trained, reliable and want to work part-time. They can help to meet some of the peaks in demand and be great mentors for newer workers. They provide a real opportunity for business. However, business needs to change its attitude to grab it but it will need help. Flexibility of pensions would assist it.

Businesses can benefit from this demographic shift in other ways and it can contribute to its solution. Most products today are designed for youth—it is the hot thing to do. However, there are more and more affluent older people—it is a growing market—and businesses need to put more effort into designing inclusive products that can not only assist people as they get older but can also provide real solutions, particularly for those who are housebound, to give them an outlook on society and to help them stay independent for longer.

Indeed, the emotional and financial case for independence is absolutely overwhelming. It costs something around £3,000 a month to keep someone in a care home; to keep them in a hospital bed is a multiple of that. To help them live on their own usually is a fraction of it. We need to look at what kind of levers we can introduce to allow people to live for longer independently. I will refer to two of them—carers and housing.

I turn first to carers. Carers already play a vital role, but it is a very tough one. Too often the stress and physical demands are too much, so that they themselves also become ill, and society ends up looking after two people rather than none. A little bit of help, such a small amount of respite care, can make a world of difference. Also, there should be grants to assist in the provision of a washing machine, given the amount of laundry that a caring situation can often create. A little money and effort can yield multiple returns.

We also have to recognise the need for the right type of housing. It should be designed to be more inclusive from the start. This will help people to stay in their homes for longer, but as their needs become greater, it is vital to provide them with the right sort of housing with the right sort of monitoring and care. That will help not only the ageing population, it will free up family homes for younger people and make the whole housing ladder more flexible. This area has to be looked at with the same urgency with which the issue of starter homes and social housing is being considered.

The UK is not unique. We face the same demographic challenges as many other countries. In fact, there are other countries in Europe with far worse challenges, while the position in Japan is more urgent still. We should look to them to learn about some of the things that they are doing, both on the micro and the macro basis. We do not have a monopoly on this problem, and I am absolutely sure that we do not have a monopoly on the solutions. If we take the right measures, we can make a big difference. As was said earlier, longevity and longer good health are a blessing. If we do not take these measures, we will have a crisis. We owe it not only to those who are now ageing but even more to our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren to take action sooner rather than later.

17:46

[Lord Wei (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great honour and pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Livingston of Parkhead’s insightful, witty and passionate maiden speech. We all welcome his contribution to the House, and indeed to the whole country and beyond. As a businessman, he distinguished himself when running BT, not merely by driving it forward to growth commercially inside and especially outside the UK, but also in helping to spearhead many corporate social initiatives, including those that have helped to create suitable employment for those in later life, initiatives which I know are dear to his heart.

From an early age he has shown tremendous commercial acumen and has had a stellar rise from his start as an accountant to becoming a chief accountant, then a banker and venture capitalist, before becoming the youngest ever FTSE CEO in 1991, of the Dixons Group, at the age of 32. Subsequently, he became the BT Group finance director, head of retail and group CEO. It has been an amazing rise. As a Scot from humble beginnings and originally from overseas, I am sure that he will bring additional experience to your Lordships’ House, not least from his being a non-executive director at Celtic. What better representative could we have as our soon to be installed Trade Minister, promoting the country, bringing commercial expertise to our trade promotion bodies, and insight and common sense to our deliberations in this House? I know that fellow Peers will join me in congratulating him on his appointment and once again on his wonderful maiden speech.

Turning to today’s debate, I declare an interest as co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Life Transitions. I want to thank the Select Committee, chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for its tremendous work and the Government for their response. It is just over a year since I had the privilege of co-authoring a report on life transitions that touches on many of the areas highlighted in the Select Committee’s report. It is encouraging to see how the report I wrote, supported by the Gulbenkian Foundation and entitled, Next Steps: Life Transitions and Retirement in the 21st Century, finds echoes in much of the tone and language of the work of the Select Committee, and indeed that we are able to think about life transitions, in this case those of ageing and retirement, in terms of presenting significant challenges and opportunities for public policy and public services. It is no longer enough to stick to our silos and care about the services on either side of a particular life transition; we now need to integrate and consider the impact of transitions both on service provision and on the individuals, families and communities who are affected by them.

I agree with many of the recommendations made in the Select Committee report. They are generally balanced, thoughtful and sensible, but I want to highlight one area where I feel that more research could be carried out, which is how the efforts of public and social entrepreneurs can contribute to enabling a smoother transition in later life, particularly when it comes to planning for retirement and ageing, and in building the support networks to cope better with and combat isolation. We tend to see retirement in the public policy arena in terms of hard fiscal, and non-fiscal, measures: pensions, saving, housing, social and healthcare implications and so on. However, in Life Transitions and Retirement in the 21st Century, we found that a major challenge for people was also the softer side and that better consideration is needed to enable people to feel positively about ageing and to see it as a journey, rather than as a disparate set of choices which can be confusing, easy to ignore when you are busy and sometimes daunting given the prospect of ill health and the end of life itself.

Specifically, we argued for a framework to provide a national retirement service that could mobilise charities, private organisations and government bodies to better signpost and draw in the ageing population. It would start when people are healthy and still in work and be designed to connect people locally and across generations, while giving them the information and training needed to make the right choices for them as they enter later life. A pilot to explore this has been initiated, which starts this weekend in Stoke with sponsorship, again, from Gulbenkian under the banner of the Retirement Transitions Initiative, using the incubation capabilities of the Shaftesbury Partnership—in which I declare a former interest as a founder. The scheme will work with employers, community organisations such as football clubs, charities, government agencies and faith groups, and local champions to encourage people to attend pre-retirement courses in a relaxed, down-to-earth and friendly local environment. By knitting people together and giving them the right information, the aim is to empower them and help them build resilience and networks of support from a cross-section of society. The aim is both to help prevent costs to the NHS and other statutory bodies further down the line and for us to learn what works and explore what blockages exist that might affect policy.

I would have liked to see a bit more in the Select Committee report about these aspects of ageing and how we can provide a cross-party consensus around significantly expanding holistic retirement planning courses under a national campaign, before it is too late. I would also have liked to see a bit more on how older people themselves can be a source of wisdom and ideas about how to improve the relationship between social care and health services and on how best to release equity and financial assets to pay for retirement or to incentivise continuing to work and a shift into portfolio part-time work. Those going through the process of retiring from the corporate world, as well as those who are unemployed or dealing with chronic illness, can often see more clearly than even some experts what the challenges are and what can be done. The APPG on Life Transitions aims to provide a forum to hear from the public and actors in the community such as social entrepreneurs about these challenges and the possible innovations in this area. I would like, in this regard, to ask the Minister whether the Chief Scientific Adviser’s research will be able to go further and gather or even crowdsource innovation and ideas from a wider audience than purely professionals and experts alone.

Clearly, the challenges and opportunities of an ageing society are mammoth and will require contributions from all quarters. How will we facilitate new kinds of start-up businesses, for example, that explicitly incorporate the wisdom and experience of part-time or non-executive semi-retirees along with young unemployed graduates and apprentices? How do we enable even more brokering of non-monetary means of bartering and support between those in later life and the wider population so that even those with limited means can still have a decent life? What role might housing design and building play in enabling young and old to live near each other and to support each other in their respective challenges, along Shared Lives and Homeshare lines, or is policy to lead inadvertently to a dangerous ghettoisation of different generations? These and many more questions and ideas need exploring if we are to have a step change in our understanding of later life and what is possible from both a wider public and public policy perspective.

17:53

[Lord Bichard (CB)]

My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on the way in which he has led the work of this committee, which has been quite exceptional. I also want to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, on a quite outstanding maiden speech. I cannot share the noble Lord’s passion for Glasgow Celtic but I agreed with every other word. The greatest compliment that I can pay is that the noble Lord would have made a quite exceptional member of this Select Committee. I look forward to hearing more from him in the future.

The Select Committee inquiry was not just about ageing but about our public services and how well equipped they are to cope with the major social challenges that we face. I am afraid that I came to the conclusion that they are not well equipped: not because they do not have the resources—although clearly there are problems at the moment—but because somehow we have still not been able to design, build and shape our public services around citizens and clients. Whatever the rhetoric and whatever the good intentions, our focus has continued to be on the providers and their convenience rather than on the needs of clients and citizens.

The evidence for that is very clear. For many years, we have encouraged different agencies to develop plans and objectives in isolation. We have set separate targets for each of them, which have sometimes been in conflict. We have developed different and sometimes contradictory regimes. We have failed to provide support for users seeking to find a way through this increasingly complex system. We have failed to encourage and incentivise collaboration between different agencies.

That has been the case especially in Whitehall, where departments have fought, mostly successfully, to maintain their independence, sometimes reinforcing their empires by building their own inspection and regulation regimes which have made it very difficult, sometimes impossible, for local agencies to work together for the benefit of clients. In addition, we have designed measures of success which have had more to do with bureaucracy and budgets than the needs of clients. We have responded to problems by reorganising structures, not redesigning services. Perhaps most of all, we have consistently failed to involve clients in the design of our public services.

The work of the Select Committee exposed four consequences of these fault lines. First, the failure of departments to work together means that there is still no coherent strategy for ageing in this country, because to have one would need housing through the DCLG and finance through the Treasury, and for health, social care, planning, education and DWP to get together meaningfully to produce a coherent strategy. They have not done it.

Secondly, the fragmentation of the system means that it copes particularly badly with people who have complex problems. Most older people now have what is known as comorbidity—they have complex problems. I am afraid to say that they often find themselves having to go to different providers or agencies to deal with each of their conditions.

The third consequence is that when those on the front line trying to provide joined-up care have succeeded it has been in spite of the system that we have designed and not because of it—they told us that very clearly. Fourthly and worst of all, vulnerable old people, often with long-standing and debilitating conditions, find their final days consumed with stress and bureaucracy. I was hearing yesterday of an old lady—let us call her Mrs Jones—who was in hospital when she was given the news that she was reaching the end of her life. Mrs Jones wanted to end her life, like most people do, at home. The hospital staff, to their credit, wanted to support her in that ambition. In order to realise that single, simple wish required the involvement of 23 different teams, the completion of 25 assessment forms and the convening of two separate funding panels. It took three agonising months and she finally got home two weeks before she died.

I have been speaking about the need for designing around clients and collaboration in our public services for many years. Many people think that you are talking about something dry: the reorganisation of Whitehall or whatever. But you are not. You are talking about the implications for Mrs Jones and the countless people like her for whom this system does not work.

The Minister, who I know shares many of these thoughts, will point to many very good initiatives which are under way. The integration pioneer programme is fantastic and, similarly, much in the care plan. I applaud that; I wish him well with it. But we need even more. We need a crusade to ensure that in future we never design public services for the benefit of providers; we design them for the benefit of clients.

18:00

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and his colleagues on the Select Committee for introducing such a comprehensive and expert report. I shall pursue the theme mentioned of the contribution of civil society.

My first point is about the language that we use and the signals that we give out. The noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, talked about the importance of a public debate. It is easy to use language such as “retirement”, which indicates something negative, about stopping and ceasing to contribute. In the diocese where I work, we have 200 clergy who are retired; 80% of them make an enormous contribution, not just filling in but front-line, active contribution to the life of the church. Some cultures use the word senior rather than the word ageing. We must be very careful how we frame the debate. I invite the Minister to comment on the language that we use and the signals that we give out, so that it is not about a problem of decline and desperation but celebrating life at different stages and in different ways.

My second point is about the breadth of health issues that need to be considered. In the city of Derby last year, I organised something that was called the Redfern Commission. A number of us as commissioners invited people to come into a space and talk about the challenges facing citizens in the present context: the lack of investment, declining local authority resources and such things.

People from Age Concern raised two things that had not occurred to any of us on the commission. One was the lack of sexual health advice for older people; it is all targeted at younger people; but with changing lifestyles and changing relationships, there is an urgent need for people to have access to information about sexually transmitted diseases and sexual health. The second area that was brought to our attention was the importance of recognising depression as people face loss at various stages and the need to set targets, as in other areas of health, for depression as people get older. Those were two things that came out from the commission that surprised me. I invite the Minister to comment on the breadth of how we look at health issues. Some big things, such as dementia, take all the space, but we may need to be more refined in talking about what health involves.

My third point is to talk about care with a small ‘c’ in the Government's response, the civil society contribution. In the Church of England, more than 8,000 of our parishes are actively engaged with work with people who are growing older—seniors. The great thing is that you have more than 8,000 intergenerational resource centres, where people of all ages are engaged in home visiting, meeting loneliness and prolonging a quality of life and conversation that gives health and vitality to people. The committee proposes a commission about the care system. I endorse that proposal, because I think that there is an urgent need to look at how all that informal, civil society caring, which is intergenerational, with a lot of energy put into it and which is making an enormous difference. How can we more systematically embrace what is a highly organised effort in all those 8,000-plus parishes across the country into a system that is also trying to best target the use of financial resources and professional expertise?

I have two final points. I remind your Lordships of the fragility of values. When I am in London, I stay in Putney. As I was walking in Putney this morning, I passed a huge office block. Over the door a sign says, “Volunteers overcoming poverty”. I looked closely; the block is empty, virtually derelict. We have these aspirations but then they drift away. We must recognise something that the church is passionate about: in an age where people approach things from the point of view of, “I want to safeguard my rights”, we must be bold enough to talk about the discourse of duty to neighbour. That is vital to turn around the social atmosphere and sense of commitment in an age that, for understandable reasons, is obsessed with the rights of the individual as a person.

Finally, a great friend, colleague and scholar who was a professor at King’s College London, Christopher Evans, lived to be well over 100 and died fairly recently. People kept asking him, as he went through the journey and had various health issues, what it was like getting older. He said that the key is perspective: “You have to understand that whatever happens to you as you get older, you’re simply waiting in the departure lounge”. There is a much richer and more exciting journey for all of us, whatever age we live to, and that needs to frame the debate too.

18:05

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords,

“Old age ain’t no place for sissies”,

as the late, great Bette Davis once said. This excellent report underscores the importance of that statement, and in markedly better English too. I am grateful for the opportunity to deliver my maiden speech on a subject so vitally important.

I took my oath on 29 July, after the whole House so generously elected me as a hereditary Peer to the Conservative Benches. I noticed that your Lordships considered my arrival and immediately went on Recess. This allowed me, though, to wander the temporarily lonely corridors of this fine building and to consume the time so unselfishly given by so many of the senior staff to bemused new Members such as me—and what an extraordinarily talented group of directors and senior staff I have met. My thanks are due to all of them, and particularly to my whip and mentor, my noble friend Lady Perry of Southwark.

My previous career has been in the automotive, housing and finance industries, but with a constant thread of disability. The reason may be that our two eldest sons had very bad heart defects when they were born. Our eldest son had to spend his entire first year of life in the intensive care ward at the great Royal Brompton Hospital, leaving him with some permanent disabilities. However, my wife Victoria and I are great believers in the American maxim, “When life gives you lemons, make lemonade”. Perhaps this is why I worked to make the London taxi wheelchair accessible. The secret was to make the accessibility ordinary rather than extraordinary; to make it normal and not mark it with wheelchair signs.

Disability will be ordinary in the future of our ageing society, as ordinary as hearing aids and glasses are today. The truth is that every one of us spends time in a wheelchair. That wheelchair is called a pram, or maybe I should say a baby buggy now, and we are very lucky if it is only at the beginning of our lives that we need such a wheelchair. If our physical environment must change to become even more accessible, our younger citizens had better start demanding it now so that it is ready when they need it for themselves. And yet our young people ignore their longevity—a point made in this remarkable report.

As the report says, arbitrary age triggers are out of date now, such as getting a free BBC TV licence at the age of 75 or being compelled to retire at any particular age whatever. Age-based benefits become increasingly absurd as the population grows older. Nobody knows better than the individual how well he or she is ageing. Many people will be able to start whole new careers when they are retired. In America, the Prudential advertises pension savings plans with the strap-line, “If you could pay yourself to do what you love in retirement, what would you do? Would you be a teacher? Would you be a musician or a painter?”. That is the optimist’s point of view. For many people who have saved wisely, the freedom to take risks and learn new skills will be very attractive. Many of us here in the House certainly are lucky to have started whole new careers as parliamentarians. The point is that arbitrary regulation by age is flawed.

Two differences stand out about the current cohort of young people who will eventually become Britain’s ageing population. The first is that they are definitely more computer literate than today’s average pensioner. They will expect information to arrive via the internet, not through newspapers or TV. Monitoring their health, happiness and well-being will be so much easier and cheaper in the future. We also need new ways to reduce their loneliness.

The second difference is that the level of debt they will bear will become heavier than anyone imagines, both as their share of our national debt but also through their own personal debts. I do not know what brouhaha will erupt when it finally dawns on people how much their predecessors have spent, leaving the bills to be financed later. The cost of servicing debt will inevitably claw into the cash available to look after our older citizens.

Next month Britons will remember fondly the veterans who gave their lives to protect our nation from destruction in two world wars. I hope that in decades to come Britons as yet unborn will look back in gratitude at what today’s leaders did to bequeath them a financially sound economy with debts at lower and more manageable levels.

There is nobody more aware of the value of experience than a brand new Member of your Lordships’ House, surrounded by the experienced people who constitute his new colleagues. I look forward to learning from all of you.

18:11

[Viscount Ridley (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great privilege to speak after my noble friend Lord Borwick and to congratulate him on an eloquent and perceptive speech. I have known him for a little over a year but in that time we have become firm friends, despite the fact that we were briefly rivals on the hustings. He is, I venture to suggest, exactly the sort of successful and independent mind that the House of Lords most values. Indeed, I hope I do not cause offence if I say that there are probably not enough of us here who have such direct experience of manufacturing industry. He has developed batteries, reinvented electric vehicles, traded with China, run a foundry and metal powder group, employed thousands of people and, of course, was for over 20 years the man behind the famous London black cab.

I am sorry to trump my noble friend Lord Wei but, although my noble friend Lord Livingston became chief executive of a plc at the age of 32, my noble friend Lord Borwick did so at 31, albeit that the company was a slightly smaller one. It is curious that we should be trumping each other on youth in a debate about ageing. It was in that role, as he has said, that my noble friend Lord Borwick championed the idea of making the London taxi the first wheelchair-accessible public transport in the UK. This precedent enabled him to make the door ramps that transformed the London buses to become wheelchair-accessible too.

Successful as my noble friend has been, though, he has had his share of worries and challenges. He has mentioned today his two sons who needed complex heart surgery, and I know that he and his wife Victoria have thrown themselves into various medical and disability charities to enable others to cope with what life throws at them. I congratulate him on a fine maiden speech, and we look forward to many more contributions from him.

Turning to the topic of the debate today, and not wishing to take up too much of your Lordships’ time, I begin by saying that it is hard to remain an optimist after reading some of the things at the beginning of this report. We read phrases like “woefully underprepared”, see references to an inappropriate health model for England and are told that the current system is in trouble now. So, before making a more serious point, I would like to offer a tiny crumb of demographic good news—at least, I think it is good.

Although the number of 85 year-olds is going to double by 2030, as the report says, and although the number of people over 100 is increasing at the rate of about 7% a year globally so that there are now 500,000 people in the world over the age of 100, none the less there are just 60 people in the world over 110 and that number, if anything, seems to be going down. When the party opposite came to power in 1997 there were four people in the world over 115; today there is one. I am not sure who that reflects badly on.

The last time the global longevity record was beaten was in 1997 when Jeanne Calment died at the age of 122, and it will be at least 23 years until it is beaten again. The last time Britain’s longevity record was broken was in 1993—20 years ago—when Charlotte Hughes died at the age of 115. So something slightly odd is happening. Average lifespan is going up dramatically all the time, but maximum lifespan seems not to be changing much at all. As I said, it is a very small crumb of comfort as far as the issues discussed in this report are concerned.

I turn briefly to three of the report’s conclusions that I found most interesting and vital. The emphasis on a new model of healthcare to cope with this problem is crucial. We had a debate in this House a few months ago, which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on models of healthcare. I was very struck by how bipartisan the support was for fresh thinking on how we tackle healthcare. We have to be able to get beyond the sterile debate about whether it should be public or private and realise that it is bound to be a mixture of both.

The second, which the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, mentioned in his speech, is the importance of drawing on the assets of the elderly to support their care. This is not an easy subject, and it is one that many people have struggled with. I do not pretend to have the answer, but it is vital to have raised this matter and to be able to discuss it again, I hope in a bipartisan way.

The final thing is the vital importance of economic growth, because if we redoubled our efforts to increase the growth rate of this country, some of these problems would suddenly look a lot less insoluble. Nothing does more to make debts affordable than economic growth. If this country were suddenly to find a way of growing at 5% a year, it would double its economy in 14 years. On that note, I draw the attention of the House to the possibility that what we need to be doing is looking at the wider economy as a whole as a way to solve this problem.

18:17

[Lord Warner (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, compliment the two maiden speakers on excellent, thoughtful and entertaining speeches. I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, that a Labour Cabinet Minister, Emanuel Shinwell, lived to 109, and I challenge him to find a Conservative better in that area.

I congratulate my noble friend Lord Filkin and his committee on securing this debate and on their excellent report. This document is theoretically a wake-up call, but like so many alarm clocks, it runs the risk that people may turn over and hide themselves under the duvet rather than respond to it, so I propose to talk in more apocalyptic terms today about a national icon: the NHS, the star of Danny Boyle’s Olympic nostalgia-fest last year.

Let us forget the schmaltz for a moment and remember that the NHS is a £100 billion-plus a year business and its budget will account for nearly one-third of public service spending in 2015-16, up from just over one-quarter in 2010. By 2015, the NHS will still be spending every pound that it had in real terms in 2010, but most other public services, such as local government, will have only 70p of their 2010 pound. Those are not my figures; they are from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The NHS is a 65 year-old pensioner that has adopted a lifestyle that is well beyond its current and future means. It now faces—and I do not think this is too apocalyptic—bankruptcy. If noble Lords do not believe me, they should read the chief executive—of whom the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, is so fond—of the NHS in this week’s Health Service Journal. The NHS is in very difficult financial trouble. It faces not only the demographic time bomb well described in the committee’s report, but rising public expectations and the costs of scientific advances, many of which may produce cost savings, but usually involve extra cost at the point of introduction. However, it is doing this not at a time of economic growth but at a time of fiscal constraint, probably low economic growth and serious limits on the tax ability of the electorate or the capacity to transfer resources from other public services.

Forget 2030—a huge back hole in the NHS’s finances is opening up by the end of this decade if it carries on as it is. The outgoing NHS chief executive thinks that it is £30 billion. The respected Nuffield Trust puts it at upwards of £40 billion and possibly more than £50 billion. These are serious financial problems to be tackled. As my noble friend Lord Filkin has indicated, the NHS’s core business has changed to coping with and treating long-term conditions, and often multiple long-term conditions in a single individual. However, we have simply not changed the service delivery model accordingly.

It is increasingly apparent that we are spending our highly valued NHS pounds on the wrong business model. The customer base has changed and needs something radically different. The NHS is seriously on the way to becoming like British Leyland in the 1970s. I do not have time today to describe how we need to reshape these services but—and this is my final point—if we do not change them and increase the efficiency of staff on NHS plant, we face a real problem. Even if we make all those changes, that will remain a problem. If the NHS is to remain largely a tax-funded healthcare system universally available in this country, it has to find new sources of revenue streams and new ways of adding money to that provided by the taxpayer. We need to look at the possibility of changing the boundary of what the NHS covers. We need to look at co-payments. We need to look at the NHS undertaking more commercial activities. There are many more possibilities.

I recognise that I am trespassing on holy ground here, but we have to start facing up to these issues if we are going to make the kind of responses that my noble friend’s committee’s report suggests that we should be making.

18:22

[Baroness Thomas of Winchester (LD)]

My Lords, I cannot remember when I last enjoyed two maiden speeches so much as those which we have heard today.

I, too, congratulate the committee on what must be one of the most important reports ever produced by a Select Committee of this House. Why has this whole question of our ageing population not been at the top of the agenda for successive Governments in the recent past? After all, we have known about the figures for many years. I am glad that at last we are having a proper debate about the whole subject of our ageing society. This report gives us a most welcome route map, and must be seen in conjunction with some of the health reforms and, of course, the Care Bill which simply would not have happened without the former Minister, Paul Burstow, whom I salute today.

Paragraphs 37 and 54 of the report both state:

“Central and local government, housing associations and house builders need urgently to plan how to ensure that the housing needs of the older population are better addressed”,

because the housing market is delivering much less specialist housing for older people than is needed. The Government’s response is encouraging. They acknowledge that more designated specialised housing for older people and disabled adults is needed, and highlight the capital grant of up to £300 million for the care and support specialised housing fund. Perhaps my noble friend could tell us more about how that money is being allocated.

However, many older people want to keep their independence by staying in their own home. Although I acknowledge that the Government have increased their funding of the disabled facilities grant over the past two years, I worry about the bureaucracy involved. In his oral evidence, the managing director of Care and Repair Cymru in Wales says that the first thing they try to do is to make sure that people do not have to use that system for smaller things such as handrails, grab rails or even a stairlift. That plea is echoed by occupational therapists because, they say, the DFG process is long and bureaucratic. That sounds ridiculous. Is my noble friend convinced that the DFG process is working as well as it should? Surely it should be simplified because a long bureaucratic process must cost a lot of money to administer—if for no other reason.

This brings me to the role of the social services departments of local authorities. The spotlight is often thrown on to social workers when tragedies occur involving the death of young children, but the other vital professional group we hardly ever hear about are the occupational therapists, who are the first port of call when an elderly person rings their local authority to say that they can no longer get out of their bath safely or climb the stairs. What may not be so well known is that local authority OTs advise people in all forms of housing on how to stay independent as they age. They manage the long waiting lists of assessments and are the key workers in providing early interventions, preventive approaches and reablement. That assesses what people can do for themselves with their existing support, helping them to set weekly goals, and reablement workers support the person in meeting those goals.

However, the occupational therapists’ workload grows ever heavier, while local authority budgets are shrinking. OTs deal with between 35% and 45% of local authority referrals yet make up only 2% of the workforce. The importance of their intervention is illustrated if one looks at what happens when an elderly person has a fall which leads to a hip fracture. That costs the public purse around £28,665, which is more than four and a half times the average cost of a major housing adaptation and more than 100 times the cost of fitting hand and grab rails to prevent falls. There are many other savings to be made when OTs become involved at an early stage, and I urge the Government to do all they can to make sure that guidance is given to the relevant authorities to involve occupational therapists in designing and commissioning services.

The two other functions these invaluable people undertake are also getting busier. These are advice for people with dementia on strategies and techniques for managing problems, and in the public health field, advising people with long-term conditions on how to manage their health and well-being. The more OTs are employed in the public service, the more money will be saved.

18:27

[Lord Crisp (CB)]

My Lords, this is an excellent report. I very much agree with the recommendations and with the disappointment of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, at the Government’s response. I add that I am not a member of the committee that produced the report. I also agree with many noble Lords who said that this issue cannot be avoided or just left to muddle through. I congratulate the committee on not letting it go, and on continuing life after its committee proceedings.

I speak as a former permanent secretary of the Department of Health and chief executive of the NHS, and declare that I work in health, although globally, not in the UK. This is, of course, a global issue, as the noble Lord, Lord Livingston, said in his excellent maiden speech. I agree with the analysis that the committee has made of the problem. Very simply, we are using a 20th century model of health and social care to deal with 21st century problems of health and social care. It does not work, and we see that every day in the newspapers and will continue to see it in the newspapers, in our A&E departments, in the number of elderly people who are stuck in hospital—and in everything that we all know.

As noble Lords have said, and as the report says, we still do not have a clear strategic vision for the future of health and social care, and that is fundamental. I will mention two areas where the report could go even further—and I hope that the Government will. There is a lot of agreement, as has been said already in the House, about the nature of the problem. People are all aware that we need a much more community-based system that is much more focused on prevention. We also seem to accept a lot of the implications of that, which will involve bringing together health and social care much more closely, closing some acute hospitals, and investing in technology and in the community. However, agreement falls apart when we get to some of the detail, and the issues of winners and losers. Because we do not have a strategic vision that spells out all the implications, we have too many initiatives that are piecemeal and that often tackle symptoms rather than causes. Camilla Cavendish’s review of healthcare assistants, which was mentioned in the government response, is a good case in point. It was a good review, but it would have been even better if it had been in the context of a genuine, strategic vision for the workforce. Healthcare assistants do not operate in a vacuum.

This is the biggest failure at the moment. The biggest factor to take into account is the workforce. I do not think that it is mentioned in the report or in the Government’s response. I may have got that wrong, but clearly it is not in any of the headlines. Of course, the workforce never is. If you are going to have radical change in the service that is provided, you will have to have radical change in the workforce, as well. I will give some radical examples, although I am not necessarily advocating them. Are we going to be talking about having far fewer specialist doctors and more generalists? Are we talking about nurses doing many more of the things that doctors do now, and other people doing things that nurses have done in the past? We need graduate nurses, but do all nurses need to be graduates? What about the links between health and social care and the workforce? How radical are we going to be in taking this on? I am a member of the Lancet commission on the future of professional education. That has produced some radical notions about the role of senior professionals and team leaders as agents of change who are constantly searching for quality and cost improvements. Are we going to be that radical?

Of course, this is the biggest cost in the NHS; around two-thirds of the cost is in the workforce. In Africa, where I work, we have long recognised that the scarcest commodity is not money but skilled health-worker time. Do we in the UK use skilled health-worker time to best effect? Do we always make sure that people are working, as the Americans say, at the top of their licence, as opposed to doing things that other people in the system can do? This is not just about getting rid of paperwork for professionals; it is about making much more radical changes.

While Africa leads the way in changing health roles globally, the UK leads the way in developed countries—for example, with the expanded role of nurse prescribers and of nurses more generally. As I said, this is the highest cost, which is one reason why it is the most difficult area to tackle, and why people never tackle it. I understand the political traps of taking on the doctors or nurses to make some of these changes, and I understand that it would create winners and losers. However, it is not good enough to leave this to the local level. First, they cannot do it; you cannot make the changes necessary at local level. The headquarters has the responsibility of ensuring the capacity and capability of an organisation, and it is not doing so at all at the moment. Of course, this need not be top-down; it should be developed with practitioners and people at local level. However, as many people have said, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that there is an appropriate framework here for the future. Of course, if it is not sorted out, we will not see change.

My point is that this is not just about economic costs. The other question that needs to be looked at alongside it is: who will give the care? I will take 30 seconds more to refer to the fact that this is not just about professionals. We must not slip into the lazy assumption that the NHS is like a commercial insurance system, and that patients are simply customers. Care is not given just by professionals but by many carers. It is given by neighbours and voluntary organisations; it is given in a wide range of different ways. The NHS and social care form a social system rather than an insurance system. There are roles for carers, patients and families, and we need to redefine those as well. People can do more for themselves. We see examples in other countries of people doing much more in the way of monitoring. We see them delivering dialysis for themselves. Of course, these examples also produce improvements in quality and in cost.

In conclusion, I would be very interested to hear what both the Government and the Opposition say about the challenges that the report sets them in setting out the position for the future and a long-term vision. I will also ask the Minister a specific point, as a first step towards that. Does he accept that a changed, new NHS of the type described here will require a new, radically different workforce strategy, with changed roles for doctors and nurses, and changes in professional education? If he says that that is the responsibility of NHS England, as I suspect he will, will he then ensure from the Government that NHS England, in developing its strategy, will take proper account of the 60% of the NHS budget and of the changes that need to be made there as well as elsewhere?

18:34

[Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach (Con)]

My Lords, it was a great pleasure to be a member of the committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, on his chairmanship of it as this subject is potentially politically divisive. He chaired the committee brilliantly. He listened carefully to everyone’s arguments and was very balanced in his judgment. We have heard two outstanding maiden speeches this afternoon. I am delighted to see two more noble Lords with a business background on the Benches of our House and look forward to hearing many more outstanding contributions from them.

I wish to make four points. First, I draw noble Lords’ attention to the strong language in the report and to the strong language of the chairman. The noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, pointed out that the report says that the Government are woefully underprepared to tackle this problem. It also refers to “a collective failure” to address the problem. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, has said that the Government’s response to the committee’s report was weak and failed to give leadership. He also said:

“Government and all political parties prefer to keep the public in the dark”.

In opening this debate, he said that there was no rebuttal by the Government of the committee’s evidence and that the Government lacked vision, which was a great shame. As I say, the noble Lord is a man of balanced judgment and moderate temperament. However, I suggest that the strength of his language and the stringency of his argument fairly reflect the views of the committee regarding the sheer scale of this problem—it is enormous—and the fact that we are simply not grappling with it.

Secondly, one thing which came out very clearly is that many people in our society are not financially prepared for retirement. People are living longer. Many surveys have been done—for example, by HSBC, Scottish Widows and the department itself—which have tried to figure out what people’s position really is. I shall not bore noble Lords with the details, but, frankly, they are horrendous. A section of our society, the members of which unfortunately fall in the lower income groups, is not at all prepared for retirement. If we as a society do nothing, we face the spectre of a much more unequal and less inclusive society. In the future, no Government will be able to stand by and be indifferent to pensioner poverty, which will create a serious problem for the public finances. We need to grasp this problem now; it cannot be deferred.

Thirdly, something in our report that struck me forcefully was that many people will have no option but to work longer if they want to have a decent standard of living in retirement. We made it very clear that no one will be forced to work against their will. The decision of when to retire must be made freely by the individuals concerned and not be imposed by society as a whole, least of all by government. On the other hand, if people have to work longer through necessity, the committee’s view was that we should make a virtue of this.

In any case, as I know myself, work brings positive benefits. Apart from providing some extra income, it keeps your mind active and means that you are involved in a community of much younger people. I find it extremely stimulating. The good news from surveys that have been carried out is that many people would like to work into retirement, whether part-time, part-year, job-sharing, working reduced hours, doing term-only work or home working, and perhaps taking unpaid leave. Business is already rising to the challenge of this extra work. The department has published a list of companies and local authorities which have been very innovative. We also know from maternity leave and from the arrangements made for pregnant women while at work that business can be very flexible. Therefore, there is evidence of this.

Finally, I very much chimed with the closing remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, when he said that the Government need to set a framework encompassing retirement age, state pension, housing equity release and developing a savings culture and so on. On the other hand, could not the political parties make a commitment in the manifestos that they will be preparing for the next election regarding the immediate challenge that we face? I should like to ask the Minister what he would suggest in this regard. Could they not make a commitment saying, “We will address this problem in our manifesto.”? Such is the scale and seriousness of the problem, as I think our report shows.

18:41

[Baroness Wilkins (Lab)]

My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lord Filkin on securing this debate and on his committee’s excellent report warning us that the Government and society are woefully unprepared for the ageing of the UK population.

Like many fellow noble Lords, I am one of that cohort known as the baby boomers. However, we have not just arrived; we have been around a long time—long enough for successive Governments to prepare for. By 2031, I shall be 85, when there will be twice the number of people of that age than in 2010. Yet, as the report says,

“no government so far has had a vision and coherent strategy”,

to ensure that our society is ready for ageing. Government, central and local, can no longer keep their heads buried in the sand.

It is the report’s reflections on loneliness and isolation on which I want to concentrate today. Citing the deleterious impact of loneliness on the quality of life and the health and well-being of the old, the report sees this as,

“one of the biggest risk factors for people needing care and support”,

and the group most affected is older women who mostly live alone.

In their response to Ready for Ageing?, the Government acknowledge the huge impact of social isolation and persistent loneliness on people’s health and well-being in later life. However, they then go on to suggest technology, touch-screen tablets, e-mails and video conferencing as a remedy. This surely was dreamed up by a 25 year-old, totally unaware of the realities of being an 85 year-old woman living on her own in frail health in 2030. Loneliness requires human contact, touch and empathy, and the everyday stimulus of news and gossip. It requires people whose presence does not depend on the state of a local authority’s budget.

I have spoken a number of times in this Chamber about cohousing—a way of living that combines today’s aspiration for the autonomy of our own home with being within a supportive community. It is a model well established in continental Europe, where senior cohousing communities are encouraged by various Governments also faced with rapidly ageing societies. They are based on a range of ages over 50 and are a self-help model—fundamentally a means of prevention, harnessing the energies of younger cohorts of older people to address their own futures and help others.

I declare an interest in that I am a member of Cohousing Woodside, a group working with Hanover Housing Association to develop a senior cohousing community in Muswell Hill. I am also partner to one of senior cohousing’s main advocates in the UK.

I first spoke of the struggle to establish senior cohousing in the UK in the debate on the Queen’s Speech in 2003, mentioning OWCH, the Older Women’s Cohousing project, a low-income group of women Londoners aged between 50 and 80, all living alone. For five years they had been meeting regularly, building the social capital which is the essence of cohousing. They aimed to be, and are, a living demonstration of how older people can band together to address the challenges of ageing. My noble friend Lord Warner, then the Minister, was very encouraging in his reply to the debate. But that was 10 years ago, and those people are still waiting for their homes to be built. One of the founder members is now 84, and living up a flight of 27 steps. Thankfully, Hanover Housing Association has seen the benefits of cohousing and taken action. It is now about to build the OWCH community in Barnet, the first senior cohousing community in the country, due for completion in 2015. In what will be an age-proofed, low-energy, lifetime homes standard environment, which they will manage themselves, they will operate as friendly, supportive neighbours. This insightful initiative by Hanover sets an example that others should follow.

This model of cohousing deserves much greater official support and encouragement in a housing and planning system where the cards are totally stacked against it. Hanover’s enterprise in promoting it is to be applauded and lessons need to be learnt from the 14 groups around the country struggling to develop senior cohousing. The authorities must be shaken out of their torpor by the report of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and start to take radical action. So much could and should be done. The Government could do much to offer incentives to developers and local authorities. For instance, they could provide public land from public housing sites.

Cohousing is obviously not the answer to societal ageing, but it is one answer, and one that makes full use of the assets of our older population.

18:47

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, it was an enormous privilege to serve on this Select Committee, which was led so elegantly and chaired so well by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin. The report should be a wake-up call to everyone, but we must be careful that the language does not disguise what we are facing. Talk of a demographic time bomb makes it sound as if everybody growing old is a problem, when actually we must harness this fantastic cohort in our population, who are well and living well, but who are not encouraged to contribute adequately back into society, as many want to. We know that 30% of those over 60 volunteer through formal organisations but, sadly, their real skills are often not adequately harnessed. I have just met a group of people, many of whom are retired, who provide accompanying people—doulas—for people at the end of their life, to sit with them and stay with them. They are provided with training and many of them work as volunteers, giving of their own experience, their ability to be calm and the wisdom that comes with age to those who are frightened and to support families. That is just one example.

At a personal level, I also experienced over the summer how well some of the services can work to enable and re-enable the elderly. My 95 year-old uncle, adamant that he was not going into hospital, looked as if he was dying. The sensitivity and compassion with which Westminster social services dealt with him when he was in need has re-enabled him. He is now back using his iPad, working, in a voluntary capacity of course, and lending a listening ear to other people who are lonely and want someone to talk to. He has a great network that he is supporting, and he is contributing back into that society. Sometimes it can be done, but the elderly population themselves need to be encouraged and harnessed, and our policies need to recognise that.

In healthcare we view the elderly potentially as a problem. I had the privilege of being asked by Mark Drakeford, the Minister for Health and Social Services, following my time on this committee, to lead a national conversation in Wales about the unscheduled care of the elderly. There the problems are exactly the same, with emergency departments that seem to be full of elderly people. Indeed, there has been a 26% rise in the past four years of elderly people attending emergency departments but they do that by default. They go to hospital because it is the only part of the system that is open 24/7. Like other noble Lords, I fully support the need for a seven-day service. We cannot have a service that admits on seven days and discharges people on four and a half days. That does not add up.

We need to change attitudes, too, across the whole piece to stop being risk-averse, so that the kind of delays we heard about of people getting home will go, and that people will be respected for their own ideas and for what they want to do. Care homes are a place that many people fear going into. In our inquiry, we found that things are not always as good as they should be. It is a tragedy that one in 20 people report that they do not always get adequate or timely food and drink. Even though 71% are very or extremely satisfied with their care, that drops to only 55% for home care. So the attitude within all aspects of the services has to change to say that the older person is of worth. Cicely Saunders said that dignity was having a sense of personal worth. We need to value that wisdom and that cohort and harness them.

I hope that the Government and all future Governments will proofread every policy that they produce against the needs of the elderly to make sure that they are maximising the ability of the elderly—the older population—to live well and to contribute their resources back into the society in which they have lived and to which they have contributed previously.

18:52

[Baroness Greengross (CB)]

My Lords, I begin by thanking and congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and the Committee for their excellent report.

I want to point out a few things that I have been thinking while listening to the excellent contributions today. First, we are living in an unprecedented situation—unprecedented in the history of mankind’s existence on this planet, which in the history of the planet is perhaps not very long, but which in our minds is a long time. It is a long time since people died before the age of 25 because they were starving, were attacked by wild animals or caught an infection that they had no possible means of correcting.

We know now that most of us are not as certain as we used to be about what happens when we depart this world, so we want to hang around for as long as possible. For that to happen, we want to be in good enough health to enjoy living and be recognised by other people as part of society—not an add-on to be cared for or looked after, but a real part of the total society in which we live. We have to plan, which is what the committee’s report emphasised, across the board to cope positively and to enable us to celebrate in the appropriate way this incredible change in the longevity that each of us can expect to enjoy—real planning for today’s society, and not, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, pointed out, planning the future on the basis of what we did in the past. That would be a bit like planning for a war on the basis of yesterday’s war technology and weapons. If we do not, as the report points out, needs will remain unmet, cost pressures will rise inexorably and the balance of responsibilities between individuals and the Government will not change in the way that is absolutely essential. Again, the report points this out.

We need radical reforms across the board but this will be very difficult to achieve because there are many pressures not to change. The report points to the essential fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Warner, said, we have to look at everything in the light of what we need to keep as it is and what we must change.

In the world of work, we need employers and government to work together because people cannot save in the way that they need to unless they work for longer. We know people have to save more, so they have to work more. In order to do that, employers need help in creating the kind of workplace in which older people can work. There are some brilliant examples in other countries and there are a few in this country. We have to change.

We have to look at how we pay for the kind of care and pensions that we will need in the future if we are to live decently. The move to support old age must take place. If not, age-related spending is projected to rise from an annual cost of 21.3% of GDP in 2016 to 26.3% of GDP in 2061, which is a rise of £79 billion in today’s money. We must therefore consider at all options. We must look at pensions and benefits, and look again at property values, and consider how we will pay for our needs in old age with an open mind.

The support ratio is projected to fall. The Pensions Bill was a laudable attempt by the Government to begin to get this right, on which I congratulate them, but the support ratio—which, by 2051, will be only 2.9 workers to every person of pensionable age—means that this is even more necessary that we thought previously. To make employment realistically possible for our ageing population, flexible work must improve. However, many other changes are needed in work patterns and employers need to be supported in that.

Our built environment must be designed for the real society of tomorrow—not only in terms of housing, critical as that is, but our parks, our open spaces, our roads, our pavements, our transport. The design for the ageing of our population will benefit all of us but it must be taken into consideration. On education, we must look more closely at mixed-age learning centres and open up to the new technology and what it can do.

This is not a party issue or an issue only for the Government, employers, unions and the voluntary sector; this is a whole-society challenge. Major works are going on, in which I am grateful I can play a part, and I wish to mention two or three. The King’s Fund has set up a commission looking at the future of health and social care, of which I am delighted to be a part; the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales is looking at a strategy for the ageing society; Business in the Community is looking at responsible business practice going forward; and the current and future work of the ILC is part of the Commission on Ageing and the Voluntary Sector. These organisations are trying to address these issues so that we can truly celebrate the ageing of our society in the future. It is a triumph. We must therefore ensure that both our older and our younger future populations together create a society where age does not mean stigmatising labels, but rather that we are all valued for what we are, what we do and what we contribute, so that we can forget about the number of birthdays we have celebrated.

18:59

[Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to wind up for the Opposition and to congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Livingston and Lord Borwick, on their excellent maiden speeches. I also congratulate my noble friend Lord Filkin and the members of his committee on producing such a good report. We have had a good debate and many issues have been raised, but for me one of the most important was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Hutton. He was surely right to point to the impact of defined contribution schemes on pensions and whether the well known shortcomings of those schemes really are going to be dealt with. The noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, talked about literacy in terms of the financial issues facing pensioners. We have been discussing in the Care Bill the whole issue of whether vulnerable older people are able to make the big decisions that often have to be taken on their finances without access to proper information and advice. The recent ABI report on annuities makes for sobering reading in relation to the differences between the best and the worst annuity schemes, and the seeming inability of very many people to understand that they can shop around when the time comes to make a decision.

We also heard about the cliff edge of retirement and the need for businesses to be flexible. The positive point which has come through that I would stress to the Minister is that it can be a key advantage to businesses if they are flexible with their workforce in terms of the contribution that older people can make to the working environment. My noble friend Lady Wilkins talked about housing and the need for a much more cohesive approach to meeting the housing needs of older people. I refer also, of course, to the pressures on our health and social care system.

Above all, the message has come through to the Government and indeed to the Opposition that there is the need for a vision. We are facing a tremendous challenge, and at this point none of us is confident that we know how to meet it. I hope to hear from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that there will be a greater recognition on the part of the Government of the kind of challenge we face and the vision that is needed. Certainly the initial Government response to the report is what I would call a worthy one, where each department has put forward a number of points, but at the moment it does not read like a cohesive whole. That, I think, is what the clear message of this debate is all about. Certainly from the point of view of the Opposition, the Leader of my party is very well aware of these issues and we will be assessing how we can take the lessons of this report forward into the next election.

The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, raised a very important point when he talked about the failure of different government departments to work together. That leads to different performance and management processes at the local level and different regulatory systems. The result is that when people at the local level are planning and delivering services, there are often perverse incentives in the way of them working together. I would be grateful if the noble Earl could say a little about how the Government can encourage local organisations to work more together effectively by blowing away some of the bureaucracy that often gets in the way.

We have to talk about health and social care, as did my noble friend Lord Filkin. There are huge pressures in these areas. Now, in mid October, many hospitals are facing an A&E crisis. If we are facing a crisis in October, the winter is going to be bloody. It is very simple: primary care is inaccessible and therefore 24/7 A&E is often the only place where people can go. Discharge has become much more difficult, and so hospitals are getting fuller and fuller. At the same time, the pressures that have come, quite rightly, from the Francis report, the Berwick report and the Keogh report, have been particularly around the need for hospitals to increase their staff. But money has got much tighter and something is going to have to give. That is a serious issue which underpins what my noble friend Lord Warner said. We are marching towards a real crisis in health and social care, and at the moment, I do not think that any of us are confident that we really know the way through. Clearly, we have to integrate services and find answers to the funding issues. We must not only meet the demographic challenge but engage the huge technological advances, which can do much for older people but will cost more money, particularly in the short term.

The noble Lord, Lord Crisp, talked about the workforce in health and social care. How right he was. I would just say to him that the recent Royal College of Physicians’ report on the future hospital did not just look at new ways of running hospitals, reflecting that most people in hospital will be older, but said that we should move away from specialisation and that the way forward was for general physicians to treat the patient as a whole, with many comorbidities. It is really exciting that a royal college is leading that kind of movement. We need to work on that.

My noble friend Lord Filkin said that the committee was continuing, albeit unofficially. That is very welcome. The report has given us a huge wake-up call and the responsibility falls on all of us to respond as effectively as we can.

19:06

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, I begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, not only on raising this important debate but on chairing the committee that produced Ready for Ageing?. I thank the other members of the committee for their work on this valuable report. I am sorry that we were unable to discuss the report earlier in the year. However, had we done so, we would not have had the advantage or the pleasure of listening to my noble friends Lord Livingston and Lord Borwick deliver their superb and wise maiden speeches.

The committee’s report covers a number of very important and fundamental issues. As a result, it has provoked discussion and debate across government about how we can continue to work together most effectively to meet the needs of an older population. This country faces major demographic and economic challenges as a result of an increasingly ageing population. We welcome the committee’s report, which shares the Government’s ambition of making this country a great place in which to grow old. If we think about what such a country should look like, it is a place where older people get excellent care and support when they need it, where people are supported to live independently, where people plan and save to ensure a good retirement income in later life and where we make the most of the skills and talents everyone has to offer.

We know the challenge is significant. The quality of our later life is an issue which affects us all. The noble Lord, Lord Bichard, was right that cross-government co-ordination and focus are crucial to achieving success. We all have responsibility for ensuring we make the most of the extraordinary opportunity of increasing life expectancy, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, rightly pointed out. These challenges are for individuals and communities, for local and national government and for the private and third sectors.

The Government’s response to Ready for Ageing?, published in July, describes the far-reaching programme of reforms we have put in place, as well as the plans we have for further work, which we believe will begin to address the challenges that the noble Lord and his committee have set out. The noble Lord, Lord Warner, was correct to highlight the pressures on the NHS. For example, the NHS handles more than 2 million unplanned admissions to hospital a year for people aged over 65. These account for 68% of hospital emergency beds and the use of more than 51,000 acute beds at any one time. It would simply not be sustainable for those admissions to go on increasing in line with demographic changes. We know that, to adapt and respond to future need, the health and care system needs to change. The challenges set out in the report create an opportunity for the NHS and local authorities to innovate and explore new ways of working, better to meet the needs of the local populations and optimise the use of available resources.

I listened with a very considerable measure of agreement to the noble Lord, Lord Bichard. Our vulnerable older people plan will strengthen primary care to make sure vulnerable and elderly people, including those with long-term conditions, have the support they need to keep them in better health and out of hospital. These are urgent and absolutely necessary changes to help ensure that our health service is person-centred, efficient and sustainable for the future. It is our ambition that people should receive high-quality, integrated and person-centred services that deliver the best outcome to the service user and make the system as a whole more efficient.

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, questioned whether bottom-up change would be sufficient to transform health services. On 26 June, we announced the establishment of a £3.8 billion integration transformation fund, a pooled fund between local government and health to drive forward better integration between health and care services. It is perhaps more of a top-down initiative than the Government have been used to, but we felt that it was necessary.

The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and my noble friend Lord Mawhinney referred to the need for a 24/7 NHS, and my noble friend questioned how we would create that. Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, medical director of NHS England, is undertaking a review, consulting patients, the public and NHS staff to help shape the future of urgent and emergency care services. The review is investigating the provision of urgent and emergency care as part of a drive to promote more extensive seven-day services in the NHS and developing a national framework to build a safe, more efficient system. I can tell my noble friend that we are holding Sir Bruce to account for delivery of that framework. We urgently need to improve the way we offer care between our hospitals, primary and community care, and social services. Better integration and communication between these services is the key to success.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that the NHS is planning for the longer term. In July, NHS England published NHS: A Call to Action. This is a first step in a sustained programme of engagement between NHS users, staff and the public around how the NHS will meet future challenges, including an ageing population and a significant increase in the number of people with long-term conditions. We are also consulting on major changes to the way in which people plan and pay for their care. The reforms will give everyone the peace of mind that they will get the care they need, and that they and their home will be protected from huge costs if they develop very complex care needs.

My noble friends Lord Borwick and Lord Griffiths and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, were absolutely right: enabling older people who can work to stay in work is critical to the economy and pension sustainability, and to the financial health and social well-being of individuals. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made that point as well. We have abolished the default retirement age, meaning that most people can now retire when the time is right for them. However, employment rates for older people remain lower than for some of their younger counterparts, and we must ensure that older people who wish to contribute in the workforce have the opportunity to do so. To that end, we have announced our commitment to publish an extending working life framework for action early next year.

The state pension reforms, which are currently in the House of Commons, will replace the two-tier pension system with a simpler, single-tier state pension for future pensioners. The full rate of the new state pension will be set above the basic means test, helping to provide a clear foundation for retirement saving. The reforms will underpin the rollout of automatic enrolment, which will see 6 million to 9 million people saving more, or saving for the first time, into a workplace pension. I can tell my noble friend Lord Griffiths that increasing the basic state pension by the triple lock is part of the secret here—a minimum of inflation, earnings or 2.5%. From April this year, the basic state pension has represented a higher share of average earnings than at any time since 1992.

The noble Lord, Lord Hutton, with his insight into these areas, spoke with great authority about defined contribution pension schemes. Automatic enrolment and the single-tier pension will provide a firm foundation for saving for retirement, but if the current forms of defined contribution pension saving become the default alternative to defined benefit schemes, the pension income of future generations from workplace pensions will be more uncertain than for past generations. Over the past 12 months, the defined ambition project, a joint project between DWP and the pensions industry, has been exploring options in a middle ground that do not leave either individuals or employers shouldering the entire risk of pension saving. The Government will shortly publish a consultation paper outlining the conclusions from this work and proposals for defined ambition pensions. Following the response, the Government will consult on draft legislation.

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and my noble friend Lady Thomas referred to the imperative of housing, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins. The Government are providing £315 million to help to develop specialist housing for older people and adults with a disability. That tailored accommodation will help people to retain their independence for as long as possible and provide a better quality of life at the same time as maintaining links to family and friends and retaining ties to their local communities.

I can tell my noble friend Lady Thomas that the care and support specialist housing fund will be paid out in two tranches. The first tranche will provide 3,000 extra specialist houses for older and adult disabled people; the second will support development of private sector housing for that group. All that is in addition to £4.5 billion being invested over the spending review period to deliver 170,000 affordable homes by 2015 for rent and affordable home ownership. That investment will lever in £15 billion of private sector investment, a total of £19.5 billion invested in new affordable housing. The National Planning Policy Framework, published last year, should deliver a wide choice of homes and plans for a mix of housing based on demographic trends and the needs of different groups in the community, such as older people.

Those are just a few examples of the wide-ranging reforms that are detailed in the Government's response to Ready for Ageing?. To follow up a point made by my noble friend Lord Livingston, work that we are doing today will mean that future generations will not be burdened with huge debts. As Albert Camus said:

“Real generosity towards the future lies in giving all to the present”.

Public provision must continue to adapt and respond as the needs and expectations of the population change. At the same time, individuals must take personal responsibility for planning for their later life, making choices and exercising control.

However, we are conscious that that is not the whole answer. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, and my noble friend Lord Ridley that work is ongoing across government to identify the scale of the challenges ahead. At a ministerial level, we will then consider how we should meet those challenges. I say to my noble friend Lord Mawhinney that this is definitely a matter for government. We will use this work to look for opportunities to innovate and explore new ways better to meet the needs of our local communities and optimise the use of available resources.

The Department of Health does not make its own projections of demographic changes, but is informed by work undertaken by academic experts in the field. Their models were developed under a programme of research funded by the Department of Health and other funding agencies. Inevitably, although they are plausible assumptions, there is significant uncertainty about the direction of future trends, and there is no consensus among academics. However, the department is confident that it is informed by the best modelling and evidence available.

My noble friend Lady Thomas rightly observed that social care funding is dropping. She made the point that it was not keeping pace with demand. I would not want to belittle the pressures on local government budgets. However, interestingly, the Health and Social Care Information Centre has recorded a drop in demand for social care. Local authorities report that preventive services, such as reablement of people leaving hospital, are successfully reducing demand on social care. We need to build on that.

The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, called for greater literacy in decisions about paying for care, and I completely agree. I am sure that he will therefore welcome the new advocacy powers that we have inserted into the Care Bill, which local authorities will be able to exercise.

My noble friend Lord Wei asked about the use of crowdsourcing as part of the chief scientist’s analysis. I can tell him that the chief scientist’s work is still being scoped, but I shall pass on my noble friend’s suggestion.

My noble friend Lady Tyler spoke powerfully about loneliness among the elderly, which is a serious issue blighting the lives of many people. We know that the quality of people's relationships has a massive impact on their physical and mental well-being. If we improve social and local connections, we can keep people healthier, active and more resilient for longer. If we do not, as she rightly said, people will continue to have their lives cut short. We are raising awareness of the issue and helping local health and well-being boards and commissioners to get better at measuring the issue in their local communities. This will help them to come up with the right targeted solutions and to drive local improvements that really make a difference. Loneliness and social isolation are problems that government alone cannot solve. For older people, as the right reverend Prelate was right to say, extending working life may be part of the answer, along with encouraging neighbourhood action, volunteering and participation.

The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, raised volunteering, as did the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. It is vital that the voluntary sector, business and individuals work together to find the right solutions. The Government, alongside Age UK and the Age Action Alliance, are supporting a whole strand of work: a growing network of more than 465 organisations from all sectors of society, including businesses and the voluntary sector, working alongside older people to find practical solutions to the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, highlighted in his report. ILC-UK, the organisation with which the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, is involved, is a member of the alliance along with several government departments and businesses such as Microsoft and all the major energy companies.

My noble friend Lord Livingston spoke about carers, and rightly said that they needed support. A summit last year, co-hosted by the Government and Employers for Carers, agreed that a task and finish group would be set up to consider national and international evidence on good practice to support carers who wish to remain in the labour market and to support employers to grow their businesses. He spoke, too, about the use of technology; it is a key priority for government to bring the technology revolution to health and care. We believe that at least 3 million people with long-term conditions could benefit from the use of telehealth and telecare services. Their use can also, incidentally, help social inclusion.

My noble friend Lady Tyler called for the Government to report back on progress. The Government’s response to this report is a first step in an important dialogue between the Government and the public, which must and will continue into the next Parliament. As part of this dialogue, the Government have committed to writing to the House of Lords Liaison Committee in a year’s time to update on the progress of their reforms, as well as providing any new evidence on challenges that might have arisen since the original report was published. This debate has contributed further to that dialogue and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for bringing us together today and for his tireless work in raising the profile of these important issues.

19:22

[Lord Filkin]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his thoughtful response, as ever. I thank all who have spoken so powerfully, whether from humanity, policy or politics in different dimensions. I particularly enjoyed, as did we all in the Chamber, the superb maiden speeches of the noble Lords, Lord Livingston and Lord Borwick. We could not have been better served. Above all, I was pleased as one of the committee’s goals was to get all political parties to commit to working on these issues in their manifestos. That was explicit in our report and we heard, I think for the first time in public, two political parties saying that they would do so. That is good news and I am sure that we will get the third before long.

I should have mentioned one member of staff who I forgot: Owen Williams. He was our press officer and was genuinely superb. He got almost everything right, except for the final day. At about 10 pm on the night before our launch, we know that we had the lead spot on the “Today” programme the following day. Then the College of Cardinals elected the Pope. Owen had failed to control the College of Cardinals and we were bumped off the top slot. You cannot get the perfect staff, can you?

In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Mawhinney, was good at giving me strong advice—the committee will recollect this. He did not mince his words and at the end of the process I asked him, “What do you think I should do now?”. He said, basically, “Keep going”, and he made me think that that was the right thing to do. I thank him for that because we have kept going, which is sensible even if we are not really a Select Committee anymore. We will keep going and I will wish to discuss some of the excellent ideas that I have heard in this debate to see how we can pick up on them. I thank all who have spoken.

Motion agreed.

House adjourned at 7.24 pm.