House of Commons

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

Wednesday 23 October 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

Prince George of Cambridge

The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House that he had replies from Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Duke of Cambridge in response to an address and message from this House on the birth of a son to the Duke of Cambridge.

From Her Majesty:

I thank you most sincerely for your loyal and dutiful address and congratulations on the occasion of the birth of my great-grandson. The Duke of Edinburgh and I are greatly touched by the good wishes which you have expressed towards my family.

From His Royal Highness:

The Duchess of Cambridge and I thank you most sincerely for your loyal congratulations on the occasion of the birth of our son. We are greatly touched by your good wishes.

Oral Answers to Questions

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What recent steps she has taken to improve the humanitarian situation in Democratic Republic of Congo.

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

May I take this opportunity to welcome the right hon. Member for East Renfrewshire (Mr Murphy) and his colleagues to their Front-Bench roles in International Development? I also offer the apologies of my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, who is unable to be here today. She is visiting Uganda to see what more DFID can do to improve the lives of the millions of people living with disabilities in the developing world.

I am deeply concerned by the ongoing conflict in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. For that reason, last week DFID agreed an additional £5 million of UK funding. That funding will provide life-saving interventions to more than 130,000 people and support protection for girls, women and children affected by the conflict.

[Tom Blenkinsop]

I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. The UK is the second largest bilateral donor to the DRC. Does she agree that the UK should therefore seek to play a leading role in the humanitarian effort, including the opening of a DFID office in the east of the country?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are the single largest contributor to the common humanitarian fund, which does precisely what I think he wants us to do—provide the humanitarian support needed by so many people affected by the conflict. Alongside that work, we have an additional fund for emergency response; that focuses particularly on providing for people’s health and sanitation needs. As I have explained, I have extended that by a further six months. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are absolutely playing a leading role in that regard.

[Mr Henry Bellingham (North West Norfolk) (Con)]

A large amount of money is involved and a significant amount is, rightly, being spent on the crisis. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is essential that her Department gets the full support and co-operation of the DRC Government? Does she also agree that it is equally essential to have the total engagement and commitment of the President of the DRC? In the past, that has not been fully forthcoming.

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ultimately, we need a political solution to the conflict, and that has to be led by President Kabila. The solution also has to be regional if it is to be sustainable. Furthermore, Mary Robinson, the special envoy appointed by the United Nations Secretary-General, can have a key role in bringing together the various countries that must be brought together if we are finally to achieve long lasting and long overdue peace.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

Has the Secretary of State had any discussions with the mobile phone companies that source some of their rare minerals in Democratic Republic of Congo, thereby financing the warring parties? If she has not, may I suggest that she does?

[Justine Greening]

I very much take the hon. Lady’s point on board. A lot of DFID’s work is in addressing corruption, and that includes illicit flows of money. As part of the G8 this year, for example, we led the way on challenging the leading economies of the world to up their game on tax, trade and transparency. Illicit flows of money were a core part of that. I assure the hon. Lady that I take her point on board and will follow it up.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Is it not the case that diarrhoea caused through poor sanitation is one of the leading causes of infant mortality in the developing world, and that in the Congo it results in the second highest rate of infant mortality in Africa? How many people will benefit from Britain’s investment in the water and sanitation system in that benighted country?

[Justine Greening]

We have delivered life-saving support to 2.1 million people in DRC. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If we look at the millennium development goal on child mortality, we see that one of the reasons it has not had more success is the continued fatal effect of diarrhoea. He is right to highlight that. It is one of the things we particularly work on in DRC, and it is why sanitation is so key.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State will know that 46% of people in DRC are under the age of 14, and reports say that youth unemployment is nearly 90%. Will she say a little more about the long-term plans for DRC? What conversations has she had with colleagues in the international community about getting those children to school and giving those young people a future?

[Justine Greening]

I very much welcome that question. The hon. Lady is absolutely right to say that one of the key challenges in DRC is to blend together what we are doing from a humanitarian perspective with the country’s longer-term development needs. That is why we are keen to see a long-lasting peace settlement there. I can assure her that alongside the work on the humanitarian effort we are looking at what we can do with partners on the development effort, including in education.

[Nadhim Zahawi (Stratford-on-Avon) (Con)]

2. What recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in Syria. [R]

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

The humanitarian crisis in Syria has reached catastrophic proportions. Since the start of the conflict, over 100,000 people have been killed, 2.1 million have become refugees, and nearly 7 million people within Syria are in need of urgent humanitarian assistance.

[Nadhim Zahawi]

Let me declare an interest as a member of the International Rescue Committee’s policy and advocacy committee. Given that 60% of Syrian refugees are living outside refugee camps, what steps are the Department taking to ensure that there is adequate support for urban refugees and the communities that are supporting them?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think that for some countries the total is possibly in excess of 70%. In Jordan, for every refugee who is in the Zaatari camp, there are four outside it. We are therefore working very closely with Governments such as Jordan’s through the World Bank trust fund that we helped to set up—we launched it when I was at the World Bank just a couple of weekends ago—to make sure that we have the investment in infrastructure and public services that the host communities need to be able to support not only their own day-to-day lives but those of the many people who have arrived in their midst.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

In order to try to reduce the terrible humanitarian crisis not just in Syria but throughout the region, with the prospect of conflict in Lebanon, does the right hon. Lady agree that the non-governmental organisations are right to seek to work with local organisations, and will she encourage them in that objective?

[Justine Greening]

We are encouraging NGOs to work with grass-roots organisations, and they, too, understand that they need to do that. This is vital if we are to maintain the support of the host communities, who have been incredibly generous in accepting refugees. I should also point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one of the challenges is making sure that we can work with NGOs, which have the breadth and capacity to be able to work across the piece and across communities but are absolutely working on the ground with existing civil society organisations.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

May I thank the Secretary of State for the comprehensive evidence session that she gave to the International Development Committee yesterday? I welcome the leadership role that the UK has played in committing these funds, but will she urge other countries such as those in Europe and the middle east also to step up to the plate and ensure that the UN appeal is fully funded and Britain is not left in front without followers?

[Justine Greening]

I could not agree more with the right hon. Gentleman. Britain has done exactly the right thing in playing a leading role in the humanitarian response. It is absolutely right for the Syrian refugees, but right for us too, to try to do what we can to keep stability in the region. However, we cannot do that on our own, and it is now time, in the run-up to the next donor conference in January, for other countries in the international community to ask themselves what more they can do alongside the UK in making sure that the next UN donor appeal, unlike the last one, is fully funded.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Some 58,000 Syrians have sought refuge in Jordan since the onset of the civil war. Organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross are aiding those displaced individuals with the basics to live. What more can Governments do to help charities such as the Red Cross?

[Justine Greening]

We need to do a number of things. First, we need to make sure that the financing and resources are in place so that not just the life-saving work, but the broader work on educating the 1 million children who are now refugees can take place. As I have said, we also need to work with host Governments—such as the Jordanian Government, who have been incredibly generous—to make sure that they are well placed to be able to cope with this huge, unprecedented number of refugees.

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

9. Mindful of the impact on Jordan, Lebanon and Turkey, and mindful of the fact that this is an international humanitarian crisis, what international co-operation are we receiving with regard to the refugees in those countries?

[Justine Greening]

As I have said, it is deeply concerning that the United Nations donor appeal is only half funded. Having said that, as a result of the Prime Minister’s leadership, since the G20 we have managed to get an additional $1 billion of funding. The key test for us all will be whether the donor conference in January can be successful so that we can meet the needs of the UN agencies that are working so hard.

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

This refugee crisis is the greatest since that in Rwanda and the Secretary of State has our support in trying to get aid to those civilians, including 1 million refugee children. If the violence continues at its current ferocity, what is her Department’s assessment of the likely refugee numbers by the end of this year and of the capabilities of neighbouring nations to absorb them without destabilising their politics and economies?

[Justine Greening]

Some non-governmental organisations would assess that the number of refugees could reach the 3 million mark by next spring. That is deeply concerning and it is one of the reasons why, alongside all the humanitarian work we have done on the ground, the UK has brought together top donors and UN agencies to make sure that they can work together effectively as a single team on a single strategy for not just supporting refugees outside Syria, but, critically, reaching those in need in Syria.

[Mr Murphy]

We look forward to the Department’s assessment of possible refugee numbers by the end of the year. Refugees are not just scampering across borders; they are also clambering on to small boats in order to seek safety by travelling across the Mediterranean. The tiny dot of an island, Lampedusa, has become a checkpoint for people seeking refuge from north Africa and Syria. Sadly, 300 people have drowned on that journey. Does the Secretary of State accept that the international community has to do more to prevent those desperate people from dying in such dreadful circumstances as they flee civil war only to drown in the Mediterranean?

[Justine Greening]

What we have seen is shocking and it is one of the reasons why international development is so important. We need to make sure that we can work with developing countries so that they can provide people with opportunities, prosperity and a future so that they can pursue their lives with their families where they grow up. Surely that has to be the best thing and surely it is sensible to help Governments tackle instability and conflict on their own territory, rather than allow it to spread to ours.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

3. What plans her Department has to assist with elections in Nepal in November 2013.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

Our budget of £14 million for Nepal’s elections will cover items such as £5 million to the United Nations Development Programme for the electoral roll, £8 million to the Election Commission of Nepal for the administrative costs of the election itself, and a further £1 million to cover independent observers.

[Mr Jones]

I thank the Minister for his answer. Given that so many years have passed since an election last took place in Nepal, is he confident that the assistance he is providing will contribute to a successful outcome?

[Mr Duncan]

I know that my hon. Friend has in his constituency a Nepali community to which he pays a great deal of attention. Nepal has faced a bit of a logjam for a number of years, in that it has needed elections to approve a constitution and a constitution to approve elections. We hope that the November elections will take place with full participation and no violence.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

What work is the Department doing to stop any violence between competing parties in the November elections?

[Mr Duncan]

The UK is at the forefront of engaging with politicians of all parties in Nepal. My right hon. Friends in the Foreign Office and we in the Department for International Development visit them regularly and have urged all of them to participate. When I visited in April, I was very robust in urging some of the smaller Maoist parties to participate when at the time they were minded not to do so.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

4. What contribution her Department is making to the implementation of the Government’s preventing sexual violence initiative.

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

The UK will co-host a call-to-action event in November with Sweden, which will focus on protecting women and girls from all forms of violence in emergencies. That work builds directly on the G8 Foreign Ministers’ declaration on preventing sexual violence in conflict, which was led so ably by the Foreign Secretary.

[Valerie Vaz]

I am grateful for that response. In Burma, reports of rape and sexual violence against women by the army have increased. Given the level of aid that we send to Burma, will the Secretary of State encourage the Burmese Government to sign our declaration and ask her colleagues to raise the matter in Europe and at the United Nations?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point about what is happening in Burma. Aung San Suu Kyi is in the country and I will be meeting her today. I will be sure to raise those issues with her. I am sure that she takes them as seriously as this House.

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

As a means to encouraging the wider implementation of the convention on the protection of children against sexual exploitation and sexual abuse, the Council of Europe launched a campaign in February to encourage its member states to have their municipal and regional authorities sign a pact to stop sexual violence against children. Will the Secretary of State say whether she is aware of that campaign and what contribution her Department can make?

[Justine Greening]

I am not aware of that campaign. The Department sets a lot of store by the work that it does to protect children, whether in Syria or Democratic Republic of the Congo. Only today, I announced £2 million to take care of the Syrian children who are turning up in Iraq unaccompanied. I will write to my right hon. Friend to respond more fully on the campaign that she mentioned.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

5. What assessment she has made of the adequacy of the levels of food, fuel and medical supplies entering Gaza each day.

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

Although the supply of food in Gaza is adequate, prices are rising fast. The level of fuel and medical supplies has dropped, exacerbating an already precarious humanitarian situation and threatening the basic needs of ordinary people in Gaza.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Minister has recognised in his reply that the humanitarian situation in Gaza is increasingly fragile. The impoverished Palestinian population is reliant on the tunnels for affordable goods. The tightening of restrictions by the Egyptian and Israeli authorities is resulting in shockingly high prices for fuel and basic commodities. With access to, and the affordability of, food becoming a huge problem, will the Government acknowledge that the blockade of Gaza is a violation of international humanitarian and human rights law and constitutes collective punishment?

[Mr Speaker]

There are extremely serious matters of life and death in Gaza. Let us hear the questions and the Minister’s answers.

[Mr Duncan]

I recognise exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. We would far rather see free movement and access for trade and economic activity in Gaza than an economy that is channelled through tunnels in a way that benefits Hamas. Israel’s plan to expand the capacity of the Allenby crossing between the west bank and Jordan is a welcome example of the sort of steps that can be taken to improve trade.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The truth is that the international community and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency will have to continue supporting thousands of people in Gaza and the west bank until a two-state solution is found or until Gaza and the west bank are incorporated into de jure Israel. Permanent occupation is a perpetual hell for thousands of people. When will the international community find a long-term solution for Gaza and the west bank?

[Mr Duncan]

I hope that the efforts that are under way will lead to exactly the kind of agreement that my hon. Friend is seeking. The efforts of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister, in particular in working with the US Administration, will hopefully lead to a two-state solution and a long-lasting agreement that lead to peace and security between the two countries.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that the price of fuel in Gaza has almost doubled in recent weeks. What steps is his Department taking to assist small businesses in Gaza, particularly fishermen, who have been hit hard by that increase?

[Mr Duncan]

The hon. Lady makes a very fair point. The amount of fuel that enters Gaza via the tunnels has halved from about 1 million litres a day in June to about 500,000 litres this month. The Gaza power plant is operating at half its capacity, triggering electricity blackouts of up to 12 hours a day, exacerbating the already difficult economic and humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

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

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

During the past month I have attended the UN General Assembly, meetings at the World Bank and I have put in place a new £30 million “Lost Generation” initiative to provide protection, counselling and basic educational supplies to children affected by the Syrian crisis. I have announced a £1 billion commitment to the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, and the Department is committed to transparency, results and value for money. I am proud that in procurement in DFID, despite competition from the public and private sectors, my departmental procurement team recently won the annual award for best international procurement from the Chartered Institute for Procurement and Supply.

[John Mann]

The Batwa, who were evicted from the forests to allow tourists to trek gorillas, are the most socially excluded group in east Africa. Will the Secretary of State look at her programmes to ensure that they too do not exclude the Batwa?

[Justine Greening]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will look into the specific point he raises. Human rights run through all DFID programmes, and when dealing with Governments we have partnership principles that also include human rights.

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

T3. What is my right hon. Friend’s Department doing to promote the business skills of developing countries so that they can promote their own economies?

[Justine Greening]

I know that my hon. Friend was involved in excellent work on business mentoring in Burundi over the summer, and last week I met the Institute of Chartered Accountants—of which I am a fellow—to discuss accounting and auditing standards in the developing world. I hope the UK’s excellent professional services will play a role in driving standards and skills in the developing world over the coming months and years.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

T2. What progress has been made since the G8 in curbing illicit financial flows from developing countries by revealing more information about the beneficial ownership of companies?

[Justine Greening]

I am pleased the hon. Lady raises that issue. This country played a leading role in using the G8 to raise the issue of illicit flows, and ensure transparency alongside our efforts on tax and trade. The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills is now consulting on beneficial ownership, which the hon. Lady referred to, and that is a key route through which we can help developing countries ensure they get the tax takes they are due.

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

T5. When I visited India two weeks ago with my local gurdwara from Hounslow, I had a useful discussion in the Punjab with ActionAid and other organisations about female feticide, which I am sure my right hon. Friend agrees is a disgrace to humanity. What can she do through her Department to improve the way that women are valued, so that they are protected worldwide?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend raises an important issue. Female feticide is shocking, and I pay tribute to organisations such as ActionAid, and others that work and campaign on that issue. In too many parts of the world, women are treated as chattels or assets and are bought and sold, often through early forced marriage or trafficking. The lack of basic human rights for women underpins much of what my Department works on.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

T4. Many billions of pounds of taxpayers money have rightly been spent investing in schools and community centres in Afghanistan. What proportion does the right hon. Lady believe will remain open after the departure of our troops next year?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that a huge amount of work through the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund has gone into education and building schools, including in Helmand. Given the work that is taking place in the run-up to the troop draw-down and beyond, I hope not only that those schools will continue, but that more schools will join them and extend education to more Afghan children.

[Sir Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove) (LD)]

T6. Will the Secretary of State tell the House what progress has been made since the G8 on cutting illicit financial flows from developing countries, and on setting up a public register of the beneficial ownership of those companies?

[Justine Greening]

I reiterate that a consultation on beneficial ownership is under way. Since taking up this role I have increased the amount of funding that my Department gives to the Met police to track down and prosecute those involved in illicit illegal flows, and they are doing an excellent job.

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

T8. Will the Secretary of State say what discussions she has had with the Israeli Government about the price of petrol for the Palestinians?

[The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Mr Alan Duncan)]

The Department is in regular discussions with the Israeli Government, and as mentioned earlier, we are particularly concerned about the limitation that exists on fuel in Gaza. We fully understand that those pressures exist, and we make representations whenever we can.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

T7. What steps is the Department taking to ensure that ethnic conflict in Burma is brought to an end? Otherwise, it threatens both the stability and the development prospects of that country.

[Justine Greening]

The Department is working hand in hand with the Foreign Office to play its role in improving governance and accountability, not only at regional and governmental level, but at community level, where, clearly, so many of the root causes of that situation lie.

The Prime Minister was asked—

[Mr Julian Brazier (Canterbury) (Con)]

Q1. If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 23 October.

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I am sure the whole House will wish to join me in paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin of 14 Signal Regiment, who died in Afghanistan. It is clear from the tributes that he was a highly talented and professional soldier. Our thoughts are with his family, his friends and his colleagues at this very difficult time. He has made the ultimate sacrifice, and we must never forget him.

On a happier note, I am sure the House will join me in celebrating the christening of baby Prince George later today.

This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

[Mr Brazier]

I join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to Lance Corporal Brynin. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and comrades in 14 Signal Regiment. I also join the Prime Minister in his applause for the christening of Prince George this morning.

Does my right hon. Friend believe it is a good time for an apology from those regional branches of the Police Federation who so traduced our right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), and from the Leader of the Opposition?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me start by saying on behalf of all hon. Members that we should put on record what an incredible job the police do on our behalf every day. I see that at very close hand, and the Leader of the Opposition and I saw it at the police bravery awards last week. However, as I said last week, my right hon. Friend the former Chief Whip gave a full explanation of what happened. The police in the meeting said that he gave no explanation. It is now clear, reading the Independent Police Complaints Commission report, that the police need to make an apology. The officers concerned and the chief constables are coming to the House today. I hope they will give a full account and a proper apology to the Home Affairs Committee. It is a moment for all hon. Members to consider what we said at the time. I hope the Leader of the Opposition does the same.

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

I join the Prime Minister in paying tribute to Lance Corporal James Brynin of 14 Signal Regiment, who died on his second tour of duty in Afghanistan. He was a brave, professional soldier. I send our deepest condolences to his family and friends.

I also join the Prime Minister in celebrating the christening of Prince George later today and send best wishes to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

The Prime Minister has said that anyone who wanted to intervene directly in energy markets was living in “a Marxist universe”. Can he tell the House how he feels now that the red peril has claimed Sir John Major?

[The Prime Minister]

We are intervening—[Interruption.] I am not surprised the right hon. Gentleman wants to quote the last Conservative Prime Minister and forget the mess the people in between made of our country. Let me be absolutely clear that I believe in intervening in the energy market. That is why we are legislating to put customers on the lowest tariff. John Major is absolutely right that bills in this country have reached a completely unacceptable level. We need to take action on that. We need to help people to pay their bills, and we also need to help to get bills down. This is where we need a frank conversation about what is putting bills up. The Government are prepared to have that conversation; the Leader of the Opposition is employed in cynical ploys and gimmicks.

[Edward Miliband]

Of course, John Major was a Conservative Prime Minister who won a majority, unlike this Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said something rather interesting. He obviously now agrees with Sir John Major that the energy price increases are unacceptable. If we agree that they are unacceptable, the question is: what are we going to do about it? The former Prime Minister said that,

“given the scale of those profits”,

we should “recoup that money”. He wants to do it through a windfall tax; I say we need a price freeze. What does the Prime Minister want to do to “recoup that money” for the consumer?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me answer that question directly. We need to roll back some of the green regulations and charges that are putting up bills. We all know who put them in place. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The House is very over-excited. I want to hear the answers. Let us hear the Prime Minister.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about John Major winning an election, and he is right. He beat a weak and incredible Labour leader. Is that not rather familiar? The first thing that John Major said is that Labour’s policy is unworkable, and he is absolutely right. What we need to do is recognise that there are four bits to an energy bill: the wholesale prices, which are beyond our control; the costs of transmission and the grid, which are difficult to change; the profits of the energy companies; and the green regulations. It is those last two that we need to get to grips with. So I can tell the House today that we will be having a proper competition test carried out over the next year to get to the bottom of whether this market can be more competitive. I want more companies, I want better regulation and I want better deals for consumers, but yes, we also need to roll back the green charges that the right hon. Gentleman put in place as Energy Secretary.

[Edward Miliband]

The Prime Minister really is changing his policy every day of the week. It is absolutely extraordinary. His Energy Secretary, who is in his place, says this has nothing to do with green taxes, and 60% of green taxes were introduced by him. Who is the man who said, “Vote blue to go green?” It was the Prime Minister. I will tell him what is weak: not standing up to the energy companies. That is this Prime Minister all over.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the big six energy companies. Who created the big six energy companies? When Labour came to power there were 17 companies in the market, now there are just six. I can help Opposition Members, because I have the briefing that Back-Bench Labour MPs have been given about their own energy policy. In case they have not read the briefing, they might want to hear it. Question 7:

“what would stop the energy companies just increasing their prices beforehand?”

Absolutely no answer. Question 6. [Interruption.] No, let me share their briefing with them. Question 6:

“How will you stop companies just increasing their prices once the freeze ends?”

Here we have the great Labour answer:

“the public would take a dim view”.

A dim view—how incredibly brave. Let us have question 9, because this says it all. This is what Labour’s briefing says:

“Ed Miliband was Energy Secretary in the last government - isn’t he to blame for rising bills?”

We all know the answer: yes, he is.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the Prime Minister what happened. When I was Energy Secretary, energy bills went down by £100. Since he became Prime Minister, they have gone up by £300. Let us clarify where we are. The Prime Minister says these price rises are unacceptable. He says he wants to act. He is the Prime Minister—I know he can sometimes forget that, but, heaven help us, he is the Prime Minister, so he can act. I have a suggestion: he should implement Labour’s price freeze. The Energy Bill is going through the other place. We can amend it and bring in the price freeze right now—two parties working together in the national interest. Let us do that—

[The Prime Minister]

rose—

[Edward Miliband]

I think the right hon. Gentleman has been following his own advice too much: wearing too many woolly jumpers and getting overheated. Let us do it—we can bring the price freeze right now.

[The Prime Minister]

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well it is not a price freeze; it is a price con. He admitted it was a price con the very next day, because he could not control global gas prices. The truth is that prices would go up beforehand, he would not keep his promise and prices would go up afterwards. It is a cynical ploy from the Energy Secretary who wrecked the energy market in the first place.

[Edward Miliband]

I will tell the Prime Minister what is a con: telling people last week that the answer was to switch suppliers and that that would solve the broken energy market. What does he say to someone who took his advice last week to switch from British Gas, only to discover that npower was raising its prices by 10%?

[The Prime Minister]

It is worth people looking at switches—they can save up to £250 if they switch—but we want a more competitive energy market. The right hon. Gentleman left us a market with just six players, and we have already seen seven new energy companies enter the market. We need an annual audit of competition to make this market more competitive—something he never did in office—and to roll back the costs imposed on people’s energy bills, part of which he was responsible for. One of the first acts of the Government was to take away the £179 that he was going to put on to energy bills through his renewable heat initiative. He put bills up and is trying to con the public; we will deliver for hard-working people.

[Edward Miliband]

John Major said what we all know. We have a Prime Minister who stands up for the energy companies, not hard-pressed families. Many people face a choice this winter between heating and eating. These are the ordinary people of this country whom this Prime Minister will never meet and whose lives they will never understand.

[The Prime Minister]

The difference is: John Major is a good man; the right hon. Gentleman is acting like a conman. That is what we are seeing. He is promising something he knows he cannot deliver. He knows he cannot deliver it because he never delivered it when he was in office.

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

Q2. In the town of Colne, where I live, unemployment is down and small businesses are flourishing, but serious traffic congestion is holding back the economic growth of the area. Will the Prime Minister join me in welcoming the start of a six-week consultation on a Colne bypass that would address this problem and boost job creation in Pendle and east Lancashire?

[The Prime Minister]

I very much welcome what my hon. Friend says. He is absolutely right about the need to build bypasses and roads in our country, which is why we are spending £3 billion over the Parliament on major upgrades. I welcome the consultation on the Colne bypass. As he says, it comes at the same time as very good news on unemployment and employment, with 1 million more people in work in our country.

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

On this day 20 years ago, the Provisional IRA brutally murdered innocent men, women and children on the Shankill road in Belfast. Will the Prime Minister join me and my right. hon. and hon. Friends in ensuring that no one in a civilised society will ever equate innocent victims with guilty murderers?

[The Prime Minister]

I join the hon. Gentleman in commemorating the appalling act and loss of life that day. We all remember it. Of course, no one should ever glorify, in any way, terrorism or those who take part in terrorism, but he and I know that everyone in Northern Ireland has to try to come together to talk about a shared future and to try to leave the past behind.

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

Q3. Rural post offices are vital, but they need more government work to survive. They must continue to pay pensions and benefits and are ideally placed to handle universal credit applications, provide banking and identity check facilities and act as a front office for government. Will the Prime Minister encourage all his Ministers to give more government work to post offices?

[The Prime Minister]

We all want to see the post office network survive and thrive. Unlike the last Government, who saw nearly a third of the rural post office network close, we have committed that no post office will close in this Parliament. I absolutely hear what my hon. Friend says. The current arrangements for collecting pensions and benefits at post offices will remain in place at least until 2015, and the Department for Work and Pensions and the Post Office are discussing an extension to 2017.

[Jim Dobbin (Heywood and Middleton) (Lab/Co-op)]

Q4. A total of 1.5 million people in the UK are addicted to the benzoates diazepam and “Z drugs”. I know of one individual who has been on those products for more than 45 years—a total life ruined. They are not drug misusers; they are victims of the system of repeat prescriptions. Will the Prime Minister advise the Department of Health to give some guidance to the clinical commissioning groups to introduce withdrawal programmes in line with the advice from Professor Heather Ashton of Newcastle university, who is the expert in this field, to give these people back their lives?

[The Prime Minister]

First, I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has campaigned strongly on this issue over many years. I join him in paying tribute to Professor Ashton, whom I know has considerable expertise in this area. He is right to say that this is a terrible affliction; these people are not drug addicts but they have become hooked on repeat prescriptions of tranquillisers. The Minister for public health is very happy to discuss this issue with him and, as he says, make sure that the relevant guidance can be issued.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

I know that the Prime Minister is very well aware of the concerns that many of our people have about rising energy prices. Will he therefore act to reduce the effect of Mr Huhne’s unfortunate legacy by cutting the carbon reduction policy, elongating the targets and relieving the burden on both consumer and business man?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend makes a good point; as I say, this is why we have to have an honest discussion about this, because the fact is that on our energy bills is £112 of green taxes and green regulations. We need to work out not only what is necessary to encourage renewable energy and what is necessary to go on winning overseas investment into the UK, but how we can bear down on people’s bills. It simply is the politics of the conman to pretend that you can freeze prices when you are not in control of global energy prices. The proper approach is to look at what is driving up bills and deal with it. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I let it go the first time, but the word “conman” is, frankly, unparliamentary; the Prime Minister is a man of great versatility in the use of language and it is a bit below the level. We will leave it there.

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

Q5. Yesterday, The Independent reported the Government’s failure to close the quoted Eurobond tax loophole, which could be losing the Exchequer £500 million a year. Has the Prime Minister ever been lobbied on the loophole? Will he now pledge to close it immediately?

[The Prime Minister]

To my memory, I have never been lobbied on this particular issue. I looked at it this morning. The Treasury has listened very carefully to the arguments and has made the decisions for the reasons that the hon. Lady knows.

[Richard Benyon (Newbury) (Con)]

More than 300,000 new businesses have been registered in the United Kingdom over the past three years—that is a record figure. The key priority in supporting those businesses over the difficult first few years of trading is to make sure that we bear down on regulation. Much has been done through the red tape challenge, one-in, one-out and other measures. What more can the Government do to support these risk-takers at this difficult time?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. The news out today is that we now have the largest number of companies we have ever had in our country, and over the past three years we have seen 400,000 extra companies established. What we have to do is help them in every way we can. The most powerful thing we are doing is cutting the national insurance that they will have to pay by £2,000, starting next year. That will be a real boost to small businesses. On the red tape they are currently throttled with, we are dealing with that at every level, including at the European Council coming up this week, where I have organised a meeting for our businesses to explain their proposals for cutting red tape to fellow European leaders from Finland, Italy, Germany and elsewhere. It is an agenda right across the board to help small businesses grow our economy.

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

Q6. New research shows that the right hon. Gentleman’s Government are trapping low-earning aspirant parents on benefits. His benefit cap is hitting vulnerable children, stopping parents working and costing the taxpayer—is it not time for a rethink?

[The Prime Minister]

We know that the Labour party is against the benefit cap. It wants unlimited benefits for families. It is no longer the Labour party; it is the welfare party. That is very clear from the questions Labour Members ask. We think it is right to cap benefits so that no family can earn more out of work than they would earn in work. The early evidence is showing that this is encouraging people to look for work. For a party that believes in hard-working people, that is good news. Presumably for the welfare party it is bad news.

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

The Prime Minister will be aware of the business model of Welsh Water Dwr Cymru, which is a not-for-profit company that is responsible to its consumers rather than to shareholders. Does he agree that such companies would introduce real competition in the energy supply sector?

[The Prime Minister]

We want more competition in the energy sector, whether it comes from private businesses, from co-operative businesses or, as the hon. Gentleman says, from charitable enterprises. We want an open energy market, but the fact is that we were left with the big six by the party opposite. We were also left an Ofgem in which the Leader of the Opposition had appointed five of the nine people. The reason that the energy market is not working properly lies largely at his door.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Q7. Wigan and Leigh Housing estimates that it will take approximately seven years to rehouse the 1,400 tenants who wish to downsize because they cannot afford to pay the bedroom tax. Would the Prime Minister advise those tenants to move to private rented accommodation, thereby increasing the housing benefit bill, or should they try to save money by turning off the heating and wearing a jumper?

[The Prime Minister]

What is fair about removing the spare room subsidy is that it makes the situation fair between private rented accommodation and council sector rented accommodation. It is that sort of fairness that we want to see in our country. The Labour party has opposed every single welfare reduction that we have proposed; it would have to find £85 billion to fund its opposition to every single thing that we have done to help this country get back on track.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

The positive outlook for Osborne Construction in my constituency this year, with its increased turnover and a strongly increased forward order book, is mirrored in the real economy all over the country. Will the Prime Minister undertake not to be diverted from the long, hard slog of righting the public finances and reducing the burdens on business, so that plan A can continue to enable businesses in my constituency—Osborne and all the others—to put our economy right for the long term?

[The Prime Minister]

I am very glad to hear that Osborne Construction is working in my hon. Friend’s constituency, just as it is around the rest of the country. That is very worth while. I shall take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, as a constituency MP, for standing up for people and businesses in Reigate and for knowing that what Reigate needs is what the country needs, which is to stand up for hard-working people and to get more businesses, more jobs and more investment turning our country around.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

Q8. Fixed-odds betting machines allow the user to stake £100 every 20 seconds for up to 13 hours a day. They have transformed the local bookies from places where people went for a flutter on the horses into high street digital casinos. Will the Prime Minister consider banning these addictive machines, as has recently happened in Ireland?

[The Prime Minister]

This is an issue on which I have been repeatedly lobbied by people across the House and more broadly—[Interruption.] I do think that it is worth having a proper look at the issue to see what we can do. Yes, we want to ensure that bookmakers are not over-regulated, but we also want a fair and decent approach that prevents problem gambling.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

In Mid Bedfordshire last year, 130 parents, teachers and staff were very disappointed when their free school application failed. That application was managed by the Barnfield Federation, which is now under investigation by the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. Will the Prime Minister please use his good offices to ensure that the failed free school application in Mid Bedfordshire is incorporated into that inquiry?

[The Prime Minister]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her suggestion. Obviously, we need a proper policy of ensuring that proposals for free schools are ready to go ahead before they go ahead. It is worth making the point that two thirds of the free schools in our country have been judged to be good or outstanding, which is a higher proportion than for schools in the state sector. It is therefore worth not only continuing with this policy but putting rocket boosters on it so that we see many more free schools in our country.

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Q9. When he next plans to visit the Liverpool city region.

[The Prime Minister]

I visited Liverpool earlier this year to launch the city’s international festival for business 2014. While there, I discussed with mayor Joe Anderson the prospects for the city in overseas investment and the importance of the international festival. I also met Hillsborough families, and I am sure I will visit the city again soon.

[Mr Howarth]

I am grateful for that answer. Does the Prime Minister accept that Government support to local government should be related to need? If so, how does he explain the fact that households in my region have lost £40 over the last two years, whereas households in his constituency have gained £6?

[The Prime Minister]

Let me give the right hon. Gentleman the figures. We need to look at spending power per dwelling, which is the combination of grant plus council tax. In the right hon. Gentleman’s area, the spending per dwelling is £3,122 whereas it is £1,872 in West Oxfordshire. I fully accept that the need is much greater in Knowsley than it is in West Oxfordshire, but I would argue that that provides a relatively fair balance between the two.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Q10. Following decades of underinvestment and hollow promises from previous Governments, the coalition’s early decision fully to dual the A11 is driving investor confidence in Norwich and East Anglia. May I urge the Prime Minister to continue to look east, as a powerhouse for economic growth, and to back the opportunities available for investment in the great eastern main line?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stand up for Norwich and for Norwich’s economy. The £100 million we are investing in the A11 is an important part of that. It will be completed in 2014, and it will cut congestion on the route between Cambridge and Norwich. For once, I have said something that the shadow Chancellor agrees with, because I know that he wants to go and watch the Canaries. Now we will be able to get him there a little bit quicker. There is no end to my munificence in trying to help the shadow Chancellor.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?

[The Prime Minister]

We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.

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

Q11. Following the reckless handling by The Guardian of the Snowden leaks, will the Prime Minister join me in paying tribute to the women and men of our intelligence services, who have no voice but who do so much to keep this country safe?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is one of the greatest privileges of my job to work with our intelligence and security services and to meet some of the people who work for them. He is right to say that they do not get thanked enough publicly because of the job they do, but I am absolutely convinced that the work that GCHQ, MI5 and MI6 do on behalf of our country helps to keep us safe. We have seen that again this week with the arrests that have taken place. Once again, this came from brilliant policing work and brilliant intelligence work, helping to keep our country safe. We cannot praise these people too highly.

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

Q12. The realities of work for millions of people—low pay, short time, zero hours, agency exploitation—were exposed on Channel 4’s “Dispatches” this week. Did the Prime Minister see it? If not, will he use catch-up, so that he can watch it and then wake up to real life in Britain?

[The Prime Minister]

Everyone in our country wants to see living standards increase, more people in work and for people to keep more take-home pay. That is why we have cut taxes for the typical working person—by £705 if we look at what will be in place next year. Let me make a point about zero-hours contracts. The proportion of people in employment on zero hours in 2012 was the same as it was in the year 2000. The number of people on zero hours increased by 75% between 2004 and 2009—when that lot were in government.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

Q13. Businesses in Crawley are creating hundreds of jobs, and as a result unemployment fell to 2.7% last month. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the way to raise living standards is to increase and continue the policies of economic growth rather than the Labour party’s discredited policies of debt?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. What we see in our country is business confidence rising and consumer confidence rising. Our exports are increasing, construction and manufacturing are up, and we are seeing a good growth in employment: there are a million more people in work in our country than when we came to office. Of course we want to do more to help people to feel better off by reducing their taxes, which is exactly what we are doing. All that would be put at risk if we gave up on reducing the deficit and having responsible economic policies. The Labour party would give us a double whammy of higher mortgage rates and higher taxes, and that is just what Britain’s hard-working families do not need.

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

Does the Prime Minister think it fair that a sacked pregnant woman will now have to pay £1,200 to take a maternity discrimination case to an employment tribunal?

[The Prime Minister]

It is very important for people to have access to employment tribunals, and they do under this Government. One thing that we have done is ensure that people do not earn such rights until they have worked for a business for two years, and I think that that is the right approach.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Q14. Thanks to the Chancellor’s economic policies, unemployment in Burton and Uttoxeter fell by 10% last month, and is now at its lowest since September 2008. Many of the new jobs were created in small businesses which now have the confidence to invest. Will the Prime Minister commit himself to supporting those small businesses, to help us to “grow” the economy?

[The Prime Minister]

My hon. Friend is right. Unemployment in the west midlands fell by 14,000 during this quarter. However, my hon. Friend does not just talk about helping people back into jobs; he has also set up a job fair in his constituency, which has done a huge amount to bring businesses large and small together with those who want jobs. That is the sort of social action in which Conservatives believe: not just talking, but helping.

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

I wrote to the Prime Minister on 8 May about the possible involvement of Lynton Crosby in public health matters. I raised his failure to reply on 19 June at Prime Minister’s Question Time, and again during the summer Adjournment debate on 18 July. I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. This question will be heard with some courtesy, which is what I expect in the case of all questions. That is very simple and very straightforward.

[Mr Barron]

I have served under four previous Prime Ministers who replied to Members’ letters. Why will this Prime Minister not do so?

[The Prime Minister]

I will certainly reply to the right hon. Gentleman’s letter, but let me give him a reply right now. Public health responsibility is a matter for the Department of Health. Lynton Crosby’s job is the destruction of the Labour party, and he is doing a pretty good one.

Probation Service

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I rise to present a petition initiated by the Hartlepool probation service, which is part of the Durham and Tees Valley Probation Trust, and I understand that every single officer, manager and administrator working in the Hartlepool office has agreed with, and signed, the petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. The Petitioner believes that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001232]

Grangemouth Refinery

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

12:33

[Caroline Flint (Don Valley) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change if he will make a statement on the Government’s contingency planning in the light of the closure of the Grangemouth refinery.

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

I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. Let me inform the House of the latest situation in respect of the disruption at the Grangemouth refinery and petrochemicals complex in Scotland.

I recognise the concern of many Members, and, in particular, the active involvement of the hon. Member for Linlithgow and East Falkirk (Michael Connarty). The Government have been in regular contact with both sides throughout the dispute, and we continue to talk to both sides. We are working very closely with the Scottish Government, and I spoke to John Swinney, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth, again this morning.

This morning INEOS made a statement confirming the decision of its shareholders to place the Grangemouth petrochemicals plant in liquidation, which puts 800 jobs at risk. The Government are saddened by the move, particularly because of the uncertainty that it will bring for the work force and all those who indirectly owe their livelihoods to the Grangemouth plant. The Government do not underestimate the plant’s importance to both the local community and the Scottish economy.

While respecting INEOS’s right to make this decision, it is regrettable that both parties have not managed to negotiate a fair and equitable settlement that delivers a viable business model for the plant. Even at this late stage, the Government urge them to continue dialogue, and we will offer all possible help and support with that. We want the petrochemicals plant to stay open if at all possible but, should redundancies be made, support will be available from Partnership Action for Continuing Employment, which includes the Scottish Government, Skills Development Scotland, Business Gateway and Jobcentre Plus.

INEOS’s statement this morning made it clear that the situation regarding the refinery is different from that of the petrochemicals plant. The owners of the refinery, INEOS and PetroChina, have announced their intention to keep their refinery open and their wish to restart full operations as soon as possible. The Government stand ready to help with discussions between the management and the union to ensure that that can happen, and I am speaking to both parties again today.

Throughout the disruption, fuel supplies continue to be delivered as usual. Moreover, my Department has been working closely with industry and the Scottish Government to put robust contingency plans in place to ensure that supplies of road fuels, aviation fuels and heating oils will continue to be available to Scottish consumers and to fuel the Scottish economy.

The Secretary of State for Scotland and I will be giving a briefing at 4.15 pm today in Dover house for MPs with Scottish constituencies and any other interested hon. and right hon. Members who wish to discuss the situation in more detail after these exchanges.

[Caroline Flint]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the support, through Jobcentre Plus or anyone else, for those who have lost their jobs so that we do whatever we can to help the workers and their families at this difficult time.

The closure of the petrochemical plant at Grangemouth means that the 800 people employed there, and more who are employed as subcontractors, will lose their jobs. The INEOS chairman, Jim Ratcliffe, said at the weekend that if the petrochemical plant closed, it was likely that the refinery would go too. John Swinney, the Scottish Finance Minister, claimed yesterday that he was in discussions with potential buyers for Grangemouth. Is the Secretary of State aware of those discussions and what involvement have he or his Ministers had?

The Unite union committed not to strike, with no preconditions, while negotiations over pay and conditions were undertaken. PetroChina, the 50% shareholder in INEOS’s refinery business, made a statement calling for all parties to get back around the table and reach a consensus but today, sadly, rather than coming back to the negotiating table, INEOS has announced that it will close the—profitable—petrochemical plant. Sadly, there were reports on the BBC this morning that management delivered the news with smiles on their faces. Does the Secretary of State agree that INEOS should have got around the table to negotiate, rather than delivering ultimatums?

In its July report “UK oil refining”, the Energy and Climate Change Committee found a mismatch between refinery supply of petroleum and demand, but we are still waiting for the Government to respond. Can the Secretary of State be confident that the Grangemouth refinery will stay open? Will he tell us more about the contingency plans that are in place to secure fuel supplies for Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England? Given the current shutdown and uncertainty over the closure of Grangemouth, will he reassure us that he will commit to undertake the review of UK refining capacity that the hon. Member for Wealden (Charles Hendry) promised in June 2012 in response to the closure of the Coryton refinery?

[Mr Davey]

I thank the right hon. Lady for her questions. Her first was about the recent statement by the Finance Secretary in the Scottish Government that they were looking for potential buyers. I have spoken to Mr Swinney about that, and we in the Westminster Government certainly stand ready to assist. It is a devolved responsibility, but my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills will be making all efforts, through Departments and UK Trade & Investment, to assist should we need a buyer for the petrochemicals plant.

The right hon. Lady asked whether INEOS should have got around the table. Throughout the dispute, I have personally been asking both sides to get around the table. At one stage, INEOS was not prepared to go to ACAS. I personally spoke to INEOS and persuaded it to go to ACAS, which it then did, and I regret that those ACAS talks were not successful at avoiding the situation that we have arrived at today.

The right hon. Lady asked about the contingency plans that we put in place. We have been working for a significant time to ensure that there were contingency plans, should the disruption become any worse. As she knows, the refinery is currently closed down, but fuel is coming through the refinery—refined fuel is being loaded from ships into the plant and then on to racks to go into tankers. That is a part of our contingency plans, but they are much more detailed and granular than that. They go into minute detail about how we would ensure that fuel—heating oil, road fuel and aviation fuel—is supplied throughout Scotland, which is why I can say confidently that the people of Scotland may be reassured that we will keep fuel going through that economy.

Finally, the right hon. Lady asked about the review of refineries, and we expect to have that—probably—by the end of the year. It is very detailed and has been under way for some time. She will understand that there has been a big switch in the way in which motorists use fuel—away from petrol to diesel—but most refineries in the UK produce petrol rather than diesel. We import a huge amount of diesel, and that is one of a number of issues being considered in that review.

[Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD)]

I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. The dispute has been characterised by intransigence on both sides and it is regrettable that it has resulted in this decision. I support the fact that the Governments who have jurisdiction in Scotland—the Scottish Government and the UK Government—are working together to ensure that we get a solution. What assurances can my right hon. Friend give about any guarantees that we can secure for the future of the Scottish and the UK economies, which are threatened by the present situation, and not least for the future of North sea oil production?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his question. The Scottish Government and the Westminster Government have been working extremely closely and I am grateful for such work. The partnership has been successful and constructive, and we will need to continue to work together in the days and weeks ahead for the people of Scotland—and, indeed, for the people of the UK, because as he suggested, this has UK-wide implications. Beyond that, I remind the House that Her Majesty’s Treasury has been working with INEOS to look at potential infrastructure guarantees, should INEOS make a decision to invest in the petrochemicals plant. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has developed innovative infrastructure guarantees and we stand ready to assist with that. I know that the Scottish Government have plans to assist as well.

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

I thank the Secretary of State for recognising that I have kept the Government and Opposition Front Benchers, and also the Scottish National party, informed of developments. There is common purpose in this.

On 14 October, I sat with Calum MacLean as he told me about the bright future that was available to Grangemouth Petrochemicals—the chemicals side—if it could go across the bridge to a point where it would be breaking even and then making money in large amounts, with ethane coming from America after 2022. It is unfortunate that there seems to have been an ultimatum approach, rather than a negotiation approach. There is still time for all parties—the Opposition, the Government and the Scottish Government—to ask the company to rewind the tape, get back to negotiations and think of the bright future that can be shared with the community after negotiations.

I heard the general secretary of Unite in Scotland saying this morning that the entire survival plan and all the terms and conditions of employment are on the table for negotiation, so there is still time to save the plant, which supplies 30% of the ethylene to the UK down the pipeline. It not just refines 300 barrels of oil a day for Scotland, the north of England and Ireland, but feeds the chemical industry of the whole of the UK.

[Mr Davey]

I once again pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has been representing his constituents with his usual skill. I agree with much of what he says but, as the Government must look at all potential scenarios, we have to look at the potential scenario of liquidation, as announced by INEOS today. We very much regret that, but we have to plan for all potential outcomes. The hon. Gentleman is right that a better outcome would be to get both sides around the table so that we can get agreement on a way forward and secure the investment that we wish to see. We want to see the petrochemicals plant staying open and developing.

[David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con)]

The impact of Grangemouth closing is far in excess of the 800 jobs because of the issues regarding ethylene and refining capacity throughout the country. Will the Secretary of State assure us that, in the same way that European countries go to the nth degree to prevent their refineries from closing even though there is overcapacity in Europe, he will do the same in this country?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right to say that the ramifications, severe though they are for the 800 people, their families and the communities in which they live, go wider than that, which is one of the many reasons why I and my colleagues have been working so hard to secure a resolution that sees the investment and sees the plant staying open. As I said in answer to the right hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), we are very much focused on looking for the right approach to maintain the refinery capacity that the UK needs. We have already seen—I think it was two years ago—a refinery at Teesside closing, and recently there was the situation at Coryton. Refineries in the UK and throughout Europe are under severe pressure; their margins are very narrow and there are serious economic issues. I have referred to one of the reasons for that—the switch from petrol to diesel—but there are others as well. We need to ensure that our response is strategic and based on evidence, and that it will have the results that we need. We do need a successful refining industry in the UK and that is the purpose of our work.

[Mr Alistair Darling (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)]

I think that everyone in the House recognises the importance of the Grangemouth plant—not just for Grangemouth, but because, if we lose it, there will be huge hole in the Scottish economy and the loss of the refining capacity would have a serious implication for the UK. Does the Secretary of State agree that two things are necessary? First, the Government and the Scottish Government should do everything that they can to try to persuade the employers to start negotiating again. It would be a tragedy if we were to lose the plant as a result of it falling victim to rhetoric that looks more like the 1970s than the industrial relations we would expect today. Secondly, if that is not successful and INEOS is determined to walk away, what steps will the Government and the Scottish Government take together to try to find an alternative? Frankly, losing such a facility would be a major loss and, once lost, we would never get it back again.

[Mr Davey]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is critical that we do everything possible to keep the petrochemicals plant and the refinery working. I am clear that, working with the Scottish Government, we will do everything that we can to get negotiations going again. I understand from INEOS this morning that it will be talking to Unite today, not just to tell it about the shareholders’ decision, but to discuss the issue in more detail. Let us see what comes from those talks. Should they not be successful, and should INEOS decide to walk away, of course we will be very much involved in trying to find a future. The Scottish Government have a key role for the petrochemicals plant in particular, and we will work with them on that. A lot will depend on the process that the INEOS management at the petrochemicals plant decides to follow. It says that it will talk to liquidators, but it has other options, so we will be in close contact with it as it develops those options. There may be alternatives with INEOS’s involvement. Whatever happens, we will be active in seeking an acceptable solution for the people involved and the Scottish economy.

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

The loss of any jobs is, of course, a real tragedy for those concerned and their families. May I welcome what the Secretary of State says about a review of refining capacity, especially with regard to diesel? My understanding is that much of the diesel used in the UK is refined in Russia, which obviously adds to costs for motorists, who have been under a lot of pressure recently.

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. When we decided to undertake the review of refinery capacity, we did so in the light of a huge amount of evidence that we needed to ensure that our economy was not vulnerable, yet with the developments in the refining industry, there was a danger that it would become increasingly so. He is right that we are importing a lot of refined fuel at the moment, and we need to ensure, as an energy security issue, that we know where our supplies of transport fuel are coming from.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State not agree that this situation shows the importance of good, mature industrial relations? My right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) suggested that it was reminiscent of the 1970s, but I suggest that lockout, threats and ultimatums are more reminiscent of the 1870s. Any new buyer must have a better industrial relations policy, and the Government must encourage that and not undermine it.

[Mr Davey]

I understand the hon. Lady’s concern, and indeed anger, and am sure that in that regard she speaks for many local people. As the Government working with the Scottish Government, we have been, and must remain, balanced in our approach, because our job is to try to get both sides to negotiate. That is the most effective role we can play, so we will continue to do that in as balanced a way as we can.

[Jackie Doyle-Price (Thurrock) (Con)]

The competitive challenges facing the refining market have been well established for a number of years and led to the closure of Petroplus in Coryton last year. In view of the competitive challenge, is it not regrettable that the local branch of Unite was more interested in manipulating the Labour party in Falkirk than in representing the interests of its members?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Lady asks me to comment on an issue, the details of which I am not privy to. There is a disciplinary investigation under way, which INEOS has been leading. I understand that it might publish, or at least share with Unite and the convenor involved, the results of its investigation later this week, but I do not think that it is for me to comment on that.

[Stewart Hosie (Dundee East) (SNP)]

I thank the Secretary of State for many of the answers he has given so far, but ask him to reiterate the following three important points: it is vital that the refinery is reactivated, that both Governments continue to take steps to mitigate even the threat of job losses, and that there is continued joint working between both Governments to keep the plant open and to search for a new buyer.

[Mr Davey]

I can say yes to all three points. It is vital that the refinery gets going again, as I said in my initial remarks. We must do everything we can to prevent job losses. I am afraid that it is not in our power to prevent the threat of job losses, which the hon. Gentleman asked me to do, but we will certainly do everything we can to prevent that threat being realised. Both Governments are absolutely duty-bound to co-operate for the people involved and for the Scottish economy.

[Michael Moore (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (LD)]

I think that everybody here accepts the seriousness of what is at stake in this dispute, but we are in danger of downplaying the impact that closure would have not only on Grangemouth, Linlithgow and central Scotland, but on Scotland’s economy and, as other Members have said, that of the United Kingdom. The closure of the Grangemouth complex, or indeed any part of it, would be an act of industrial vandalism the scale of which we have not seen in decades. Given the seriousness of that, I welcome what my right hon. Friend and the Secretary of State for Scotland have been doing, including working with the Scottish Government. Can he assure me that he is willing, before we give up on negotiations, to work with the Scottish Finance Secretary and anybody else and to meet the key players around a table so that we do every last possible thing before thinking of this being sold to somebody else?

[Mr Davey]

I will first pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who worked extremely hard on this case when he was Secretary of State for Scotland. Much of the contingency planning we have in place is down to his hard work, for which I am grateful. He knows better than anyone what the impact on the Scottish economy would be if part or all of the Grangemouth plant were to close. I can reassure him that we—I am sure that I speak for the Scottish Government on this—will do everything we can together, leaving no stone unturned, to try to reach a resolution.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

As well as the concerns about supplies to Northern Ireland, it is estimated that upgrading the refinery will cost £300 million. What discussions have the Government had with the owners on helping them through the infrastructure guarantee loan?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question. My right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is in charge of the discussions with INEOS on infrastructure guarantees. Of course, it is impossible to guarantee an investment proposition until it is put forward, so we await the business case. Given today’s news, it does not look like it will be immediately forthcoming, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman, the House and INEOS that, should a business case be put forward for investment in the petrochemicals plant, we will look at it extremely closely.

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

This is obviously very sad news for those at Grangemouth, but many others working in the chemical and petrochemicals industry, including many thousands on the south bank of the Humber, will also view it with concern. Can the Secretary of State give us an assurance of the Government’s long-term commitment to the sector and inform us whether any lessons can be learnt from this case and applied to other areas, such as the Humber?

[Mr Davey]

My hon. Friend is right to focus on the chemical industry not only in his area, the Humber, but across the UK. The chemical industry is the UK’s leading manufacturing exporter, and it has significant growth potential. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills has been working with others to try to maximise the growth potential. The chemistry growth partnership strategy has been developed, and the aim is for the Government to do everything we can to support our important chemical industries. We have been looking at the impact of a closure of the petrochemicals plant at Grangemouth on the rest of the UK’s chemical industry, and that is also being led by the Secretary of State. So far we believe that the supplies that would be needed for the rest of the UK’s chemical industry can be found, and obviously that is quite an important industrial issue, but we keep that under close review.

[Mr Tom Watson (West Bromwich East) (Lab)]

I thank the Secretary of State for the way he is handling the crisis and for his comments to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). I am sure that the Secretary of State will be as saddened as many of the workers were to hear that the negotiations that he managed to secure around the table at ACAS were slightly thwarted because the billionaire hedge fund manger who runs INEOS, Mr Jim Ratcliffe, was on his yacht in the Mediterranean, so the negotiating team had to phone him. I think that shows a lack of seriousness. One of the big concerns people have is that tax avoidance disguises the profitability of the site. Will the Secretary of State consider conducting an independent financial assessment of the site to see what options future buyers might have?

[Mr Davey]

We will not have access to all the information, because the site is the property of a private company, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would recognise, but we have made it very clear to INEOS, and indeed to the joint owners of the refinery, that we stand ready to assist. I do not think that I can take up his proposal, but he should not take that as an indication of any lack of resolve on the part of Government to do everything possible.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

I understand that INEOS believes the plant to be loss-making. What assessment has the Secretary of State or his counterpart in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills made of the source of those losses? Given that the plant is so important in producing a third of Britain’s ethylene product, what assessment has been made of the knock-on effect on all the other companies that depend on that product throughout the United Kingdom economy?

[Mr Davey]

On my hon. Friend’s latter point, we have already made that assessment, as I have said, and at the moment we are convinced that the chemical supplies required can be supplied from other sources. With regard to why the petrochemicals plant is making a loss, I can only tell him what INEOS has said publicly: that the cost of pensions and salaries make the plant unprofitable. However, as I have said throughout my answers, the Government will remain balanced and even-handed on this issue, so we are not going to say that one party is right and the other is wrong, because we want both sides around the table.

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

I know Grangemouth well. As a former deputy general secretary of the old Transport and General Workers’ Union, I well remember when the tanker drivers broke the fuel blockades to restore fuel to a Scotland then in crisis.

Make no mistake: today’s announcement poses a serious question mark over the whole of Grangemouth. I recognise that the Secretary of State has done everything he can thus far, but he must not give up. Will he meet INEOS representatives and express to them the strong feeling across the House that, even at this late stage, they should come back to the negotiating table so that we secure the future of the whole of Grangemouth?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his question and I recognise his knowledge and expertise in this area. I refer him to my statement at the Dispatch Box that we have engaged with INEOS throughout. I am due to have a phone call with Mr Ratcliffe later today.

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answers so far—in particular, his recognition of the importance of the chemical industry. I ask the Government to give maximum support and have close discussions with the petrochemical industry in my constituency—in particular Sabic, with its ethylene cracker. Furthermore, when does he expect to get state aid clearance for his measures on energy-intensive industry, which the Grangemouth complex clearly represents?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. Many of his requests fall under the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, although we work closely together on all these issues, not least those to do with energy-intensive industries.

My hon. Friend is right to say that we have an application in front of the Commission with respect to state aid clearance on the costs to energy-intensive industries of the carbon price floor. We already have state aid clearance for our proposals to assist energy-intensive industries with the indirect costs of the European Union emissions trading system. As he will know, we are consulting to help energy-intensive industries with the costs of contracts for difference. Like other member states, we have a comprehensive programme to support energy-intensive industries. We continue to press that case.

[Ann McKechin (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

I concur with others in saying that the closure of the Grangemouth plant is a disaster not only for its staff and the local community but for the Scottish economy. It also has ramifications for the wider UK economy. Does the Minister agree that now is the time for an urgent review of how we regulate the owners of critical infrastructure of this country, to make sure that it is fit for purpose and that we do not again end up having to urge a reluctant company to come back to the negotiating table?

[Mr Davey]

The Government have looked at all aspects of critical national infrastructure—not just in the petrochemical sector, but across the piece—to make sure that, in the face of a whole series of potential disruptions to critical national infrastructure, whether industrial action or natural causes, critical national infrastructure is available for our country, economy and people.

We have had the most comprehensive review of policy to ensure that CNI is available. I apologise, but I am not sure what the Minister for the Cabinet Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), who is leading that, has published on it. However, he is leading that work and it is extremely thorough.

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

Is what has happened not a puzzling action to take about what many feel is in reality a money-making petrochemical plant? Does the Secretary of State agree with the First Minister, Alex Salmond, that the Grangemouth site has a positive future?

[Mr Davey]

I certainly believe that it can have a positive future. We need the investment to go in; the Scottish Government will offer the maximum they are able to, £9 million, as part of regional assistance support if investment does go in. I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s question. It is incumbent on us to ensure that the plant has a positive future.

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

I also welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. Any investment in our country is welcome, whether it be foreign or otherwise. However, that should not come at the cost of the livelihoods of the workers—many of whom, along with the local community, pay taxes, unlike Mr Ratcliffe. If there is to be state intervention, and I hope there will be, will the Secretary of State make sure that it does not end up on anyone else’s profit sheet? Will he make sure that we speak to the Chinese partner involved, to see what it has to say?

[Mr Davey]

We have been in discussion with PetroChina, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon), the Minister, is due to meet its representatives next week. We are talking to everyone involved. Given our infrastructure guarantees, we are now more engaged in state support than Governments have been in the past. That makes sure that we get good value for both the taxpayer and the economy. I do not think that what the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about will come to pass. As part of the way we do the infrastructure guarantees, we will make sure that we get the outcomes we need for our country.

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

Is the Secretary of State aware—I am sure he is—that people who work for big powerful multinationals need effective, intelligent trade union representation? Sadly, that is the last thing that people in Grangemouth have had for the past few months.

Today we have heard a lot of personalising—who owns INEOS and so forth—but at the root of all this is Unite’s placing a petty party political issue at the very top of its priorities and ignoring the looming train running along the track. Will the Secretary of State be aware of that in the coming weeks, when he will do what he can to help people at Grangemouth? Is he also aware that INEOS continues to be the main income driver for thousands of families across the Falkirk area?

[Mr Davey]

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jackie Doyle-Price), the hon. Gentleman invites me to talk about a disciplinary dispute. The investigation is due to be published and shared with those involved on Friday and it would be wrong for me to speculate about the rights and wrongs of any individual or individuals involved.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s approach. Will he say more about how he will assure the UK’s fuel security and secure a sustainable future for UK refineries, including those on the South Humber bank?

[Mr Davey]

I am grateful for that question. One of the first issues I had to deal with when I became Secretary of State was the potential for a tanker drivers’ dispute. I got very involved in thinking about energy security with respect to transport fuels. The Department has set up a unit that was not there before. When we talk about energy security, we normally mean the security of the electricity supply, but actually the issue is much wider than that. I have personally given a lot more focus to that than previously, particularly in respect of what the hon. Gentleman mentions—not just for Scotland, but for the whole UK. The review of refinery capacity is part of that, but only part; we have to look at a number of issues to make sure that the people who drive the cars, lorries and vans on the roads get the fuel they need, given the critical role that that transport sector plays for our economy.

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

To what extent does the Secretary of State believe that the current structure of the industry—a small number of large sites, often with foreign owners—effectively stacks the deck in favour of those owners and against the needs of the wider community?

[Mr Davey]

The hon. Gentleman is asking me to speculate about the outcome of our review. Given that I have not received the report, that would be unwise. However, large complexes are needed to refine fuels in what is a capital-intensive business. Small players would be unlikely to have such capital. Whether the hon. Gentleman or I like it or not, there are going to be big players. The question is whether we have the right fiscal, financial and regulatory framework to make sure that we have the refinery capacity that our economy needs. That is what the review will answer.

Bill Presented

Counsellors and Psychotherapists (Regulation) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Geraint Davies, supported by Dr Julian Lewis, Jonathan Edwards, Mrs Siân C. James, Jessica Morden, Chris Evans and Mr Mark Williams, presented a Bill to provide that the Health Professionals Council be the regulatory body for counsellors and psychotherapists; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday, 22 November, and to be printed (Bill 120).

Funding for Local Authorities Bill

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

13:09

[Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to establish a commission to identify the changes in the law necessary to provide for the differing requirements for funding of local authorities taking into account the varying demand for the services they provide; and for connected purposes.

The title of the Bill mentions local authorities, but I want to focus on cities. Cities are the engines of economic growth, and one does not go for growth by switching off the engine. In the words of the Centre for Cities:

“Cities don’t follow the national economy—they are the national economy.”

Let me start by declaring not so much an interest as a bias, and a strong one. I am a Birmingham MP, and one of the landmarks of the centre of Birmingham university is a tower known as Old Joe. The Joe in question is Joe Chamberlain, founder of the first civic university with an emphasis on business, who in November 1873, almost exactly 140 years ago, accepted the nomination for mayor of Birmingham and began the two-and-a-half year term of office that has been widely acclaimed as the most outstanding mayoralty in English history. He municipalised gas, which he allowed to make profits that would be ploughed back into the city; municipalised water, which, as a public health good, was not allowed to make a profit; initiated a massive housing programme; and, together with George Dixon and others, established the principle of free education in the city. He did so in two and a half years. We would still be running pilot studies or requesting permission from Westminster to do anything.

We have devolved power, but in today’s Birmingham it is clear that we have not devolved enough. Devolution has gone to Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and London, but not to our cities. In Birmingham we have Europe’s largest local authority, with a population of over 1 million. We are the fastest growing young city in Europe, with 40% of the population aged under 25, yet Ladywood and Hodge Hill constituencies consistently feature in the top three national unemployment figures. England is clearly unfinished business in terms of devolution. I regret that we do not have more directly elected mayors and that we have not completely moved towards unitary authorities. One fact remains: we are still the most centrally controlled developed country in western Europe and, probably, in the G20. In the UK some 30% of public expenditure is controlled by local government, but Whitehall needs to let go of much more. In the US and Sweden, 50% is devolved; in Canada and Denmark almost 70% is spent at Länder, or city, level.

Last year’s report by Lord Heseltine, “No stone unturned in pursuit of growth”, made a powerful case for decentralising economic powers. He looked at the various regional contributions to UK gross value added over the last 30 years; it makes depressing reading. In England, in London and the south-east, contributions have steadily increased; in the east of England and the south-west they have remained roughly level; and in all the other regions to the north of that line they have continued to decline. Allowing the south to overheat and the midlands and the north to be drained of energy is bad for the whole country. Central Government talk about letting go, but when it comes to the crunch they lose their nerve. There are regional growth funds, city deals, enterprise zones, and all kinds of pilots, and all that is great and commendable, but it is simply not enough.

Things are not only not moving in the right direction; they are getting worse. The undeniably necessary cuts in spending are made in a distorted framework that hits hardest those who most need support. It is wrong to devolve responsibilities but not match the funding or the freedom to rearrange the money available. It is wrong to have the largest cuts in areas where the jobs are fewest. It is wrong to have a situation where the National Audit Office warns that 12% of councils are at risk of being unable to balance their books in the future, with potentially disastrous consequences. The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), who is on the Front Bench, did not challenge that figure when I raised it earlier this week. The Local Government Association calculates that in the current Parliament local government’s core funding will fall by 43%, and by 2020 there will be a £15.6 billion funding gap. The future looks worse for our core cities. For 2013-14, the difference is negligible, but for 2014-15 there is a forecast fall of 5% compared with a 3.4% fall nationwide.

Yesterday Birmingham came to the Jubilee Room to show what the city has to offer: food, music, ideas, energy and diversity. By the way, we still make things in Birmingham. However, the future could look pretty bleak. In a phone-in from local residents conducted that morning, the three areas they said they wanted local government to address were better transport, the creation of jobs, and better regional co-operation. None of those things can be done in a framework of short-term, unco-ordinated funding cuts. Over the past three years, our spending power in Birmingham has declined by 13% compared with a national average of 9.3%. There is something not right when every man, woman and child in Birmingham has had £149 taken from the money given by the Government, while people in prosperous Wokingham in Berkshire lost just £19 a head. That cannot be fair. Birmingham has calculated that from 2011 to 2017 it would need to find savings of £825 million—£210 million more than expected. Cuts of that magnitude threaten the future viability of local government. At present, only a third of Birmingham’s £1.3 billion budget is controllable. The predicted shortfalls suggest that we will have a cut of two thirds in that one controllable third of the budget.

So why are things so bad in Birmingham? First, cuts nationwide to local authorities average £74 per person, while in Birmingham the figure is £149. Secondly, there is a colossal revenue shortfall created by keeping council tax rises artificially low for five successive years—1.9% during the Tory years and frozen for past two years. Thirdly, two thirds of the city’s funding comes directly from central Government rather than taxation and other sources—a much higher proportion than in most local authorities.

But this Bill is not asking for money or putting a case of rural versus urban; it is asking for a commission to be set up that addresses the currently broken model for financing and running local government in general, and our big cities in particular. The commission should be guided by three principles. First, it must recognise the need for financial stability and sustainability; money needs to be distributed in a way that recognises the real needs and responsibilities of our cities. Secondly, money raised in our cities should stay in cities, releasing them to drive the growth and prosperity we will all share. Thirdly, checks and balances should be provided to prevent any one Government from unsettling the funding structure on a political whim.

The Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy has said:

“we are clear that the current system of local government funding allocation needs to change. The susceptibility of the local government settlement to the see-saw of political influence means that it is well overdue for fundamental reform.”

I believe that we can build on the work of the Heseltine review of 2012 and the Michael Lyons inquiry into local government of 2007. I want a third commission that looks specifically at funding structures and revenue flows and has at the core of its thinking the future sustainable prosperity of our cities and the recognition that, whether we talk about city regions or not, cities are the driving force of their regions, and if we go on cutting them, we will destroy the surroundings areas as well.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ms Gisela Stuart, Richard Burden, Mr Liam Byrne, Jack Dromey, Mr Roger Godsiff, Mr Khalid Mahmood, Shabana Mahmood, Steve McCabe, Mr Clive Betts, Mr Nicholas Brown, Paul Goggins and Fabian Hamilton present the Bill.

Ms Gisela Stuart accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 29 November and to be printed (Bill 117).

Opposition Day

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

[8th Allotted Day]

Northern Ireland

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

13:19

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House notes the ongoing discussions in Northern Ireland chaired by Dr Richard Haass on a number of important issues including the legacy of the Troubles; recognises the deep sense of loss still felt by the innocent victims of violence and their continuing quest for truth and justice; acknowledges the valour and sacrifice of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the armed forces, the police and the prison service in Northern Ireland; and is resolved to ensure that those who engaged in or supported acts of terrorism will not succeed in rewriting the narrative of this troubled period in Northern Ireland’s history.

It is a privilege to move the motion standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and other colleagues on dealing with the past in Northern Ireland. First, I wish to record an apology on behalf of my right hon. Friend. As Members will be aware, he is attending a memorial service in his constituency to mark the 20th anniversary of the Shankill bomb on 23 October 1993, in which nine innocent people tragically lost their lives.

Today we remember the families of John Desmond Frizzel, aged 63, in whose fish shop the bomb was exploded; his daughter Sharon McBride, aged 29, married to Alan with one child; George Williamson, 63 years old, married with two children, and his wife Gillian Williamson, 49 years old; Evelyn Baird, 27 years old, married with two children; her daughter Michelle Baird, seven years old, a schoolchild; Leanne Murray, 13 years old, a schoolchild; Michael Morrison, 27 years old, married with three children; and Wilma McKee, 38 years old, married with two children.

Today I am sure that all right hon. and hon. Members will join me in saying that the tragic loss and pain suffered by those families and the thousands of innocent victims—whether Protestant, Roman Catholic or of other faiths—killed or maimed in Northern Ireland, here in Great Britain or elsewhere during our troubled past will never be forgotten by those of us who cherish the value of human life, reject violence and pursue peace as the only way forward for Northern Ireland. Today we especially remember the families of the victims of the Shankill bomb.

I also wish to acknowledge the presence of the Secretary of State. I am aware that she had other obligations and commitments this week outside of the United Kingdom, and we appreciate her presence today.

Discussions between the political parties at Stormont have failed to achieve sufficient consensus on dealing with the legacy of the troubled past to which I have referred. Therefore, the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have invited Dr Richard Haass to chair discussions about this and related matters such as parades and protests, flags, emblems and symbols. Dr Haass is assisted in this work by a small team, including Meghan O’Sullivan, who is his vice-chair of the talks presently under way.

I also acknowledge the work of the previous Consultative Group on the Past, led by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley, and the recommendations set out in its report. However, I must place on record the fact that many of those recommendations were rejected at the time, not least because of the schism that exists at the very heart of the debate on the past and the definition of a victim.

The Democratic Unionist party remains firmly of the view that we cannot equate the perpetrators of terrorist violence with their innocent victims, yet that is precisely what the current law does in Northern Ireland under the Victims and Survivors (Northern Ireland) Order 2006. This is a law that the DUP seeks to change, and for that reason I have proposed a private Member’s Bill that is due to be given its Second Reading in December. My Bill would ensure that an individual killed or injured as a result of their own act of terrorism or convicted of a terrorism-related offence as defined in law would not be classified as a victim for the purposes of deriving any benefit from schemes designed to assist victims and survivors.

I referred at the outset to the Shankill bomb and the innocent people murdered by the IRA in that incident. One of the IRA terrorists on that day, the bomber Thomas Begley, was killed when the bomb exploded, and his accomplice Sean Kelly was seriously injured. When convicted of this heinous crime, Sean Kelly was given nine life sentences—one life sentence for each life he had destroyed—yet under the early release scheme that formed part of the Belfast agreement, Kelly was released after serving just seven years in prison. That is less than one year for each life that he destroyed that day on the Shankill road.

That is an enormous burden for the families of those victims to bear. Michelle Williamson, whose father and mother were murdered by Sean Kelly, campaigned vigorously to prevent his release. Regrettably, Kelly walked free. To have this injustice compounded by the fact that the law currently defines the IRA bombers Sean Kelly and Thomas Begley as victims in just the same way as the nine innocent people who died that day on the Shankill road are defined as victims is an outrage. It is an affront to decency and the rule of law, and it is something that this Parliament should act to change. For the sake of the nine innocent people who died on that terrible day 20 years ago to this day, I trust and pray that parties throughout the House will support the necessary change to the legislation.

That is fundamental to finding an agreed way forward on dealing with the legacy of the past in Northern Ireland. On the definition, let me be clear: whether the innocent victims were murdered by those IRA bombers or by the Ulster Volunteer Force gang known as the Shankill Butchers that operated on the Shankill road, or whether the victims were Protestant or Roman Catholic or of other faiths or none, it does not matter. There cannot be equivocation between the innocent victims of terrorism and those who perpetrated those acts of terrorism. The principle applies in all cases. Those who commission or commit murder cannot be equated in a definition with their innocent victims.

Of course, this is not the only challenge we face in dealing with the legacy of the past. This summer has been a stark reminder of the difficulties surrounding very sensitive issues that we desperately need to address and resolve. I am bound to say, in the absence of the Sinn Fein Members elected to this House, that their attitude in the summer and recently has not helped to create an atmosphere in which we can make progress.

I refer specifically to an event that occurred in Castlederg in August when we witnessed a blatant glorification of terrorism by senior members of Sinn Fein. Castlederg is a small town in County Tyrone near the border with the Irish Republic. Many terrorist atrocities were committed there during what we call the troubles. The IRA waged a vicious sectarian campaign against the local Protestant community and especially targeted the security forces.

This August, republicans held a commemoration event in Castlederg to unveil a memorial to two IRA terrorists, Seamus Harvey and Gerard McGlynn, who 40 years ago, like Thomas Begley, were killed by their own bomb. I cannot understate the insensitivity of this event. Initially, republicans even sought, as part of the commemoration, to have a parade past some of the locations where the IRA had murdered people in Castlederg.

The speeches that were made on that day, most notably by the Sinn Fein Member of the Legislative Assembly, Gerry Kelly, were undoubtedly interpreted as a glorification of terrorism, and rightly so. Mr Kelly was convicted of trying to blow up the Old Bailey in London in March 1973. In his speech, he asserted that his actions were not acts of terrorism. I ask every Member of this House the following question: if a gang that includes Mr Kelly plants a bomb outside a courthouse in a public place and that bomb explodes, killing one person and injuring more than 200 people, is that an act of terrorism or something else? My understanding is that that is an act of terrorism as defined by the law of the United Kingdom and international law. We have the ridiculous situation whereby republicans are trying to redefine what terrorism is and to recast the actions that they perpetrated during the troubles. They are trying to explain away the heinous nature of those actions by some form of twisted justification. That will not do and we will not stand for it. There can be no redefinition of terrorism in Northern Ireland.

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

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this important issue. It is important that we do not paper over the fact that terrorists committed horrendous crimes during the troubles. We should all congratulate the civilians and soldiers on their courage and steadfastness at that time. Will he admit that it is important to remember those terrorist acts if only because, in remembering the horrendous nature of those crimes, the Province stands a better chance of having a brighter future?

[Mr Donaldson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct and I will speak about commemoration and dealing with the legacy of the past in a moment.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on calling this debate. He mentioned the fact that Sinn Fein MPs do not take their seats. Does he think that it is time for this House to get to grips with that issue? There is an idea that we cannot have that debate in this House. However, those MPs still receive allowances and support. Is it not time that we all stood up to the blackmail, almost, that we have from the Sinn Fein MPs, who think that they are entitled to decide whether they come here or not, and yet—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady wishes to speak later, but she is in danger of cutting the time that she is allowed.

[Mr Donaldson]

I concur entirely with the hon. Lady’s remarks. She can be assured that that issue will be raised on another day in the House of Commons.

On the same day that the IRA commemoration took place in Castlederg, 11 August, there was a memorial service in Omagh to commemorate the Omagh bombing of August 1998, in which 29 innocent people lost their lives. Sinn Fein members were present at that event in Omagh. I pose a simple question: how can the same party, on the same day, in the same county engage in an act of glorification of terrorism in one town and stand alongside the victims of a similar atrocity in another town, and claim that there is no double standard?

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

For 14 years, I represented Omagh and Castlederg in the House of Commons. Sinn Fein have a twisted mentality that means that they can easily do that, because they were not associated with the Omagh bomb and they close their minds to all the other bombings, including Teebane and the many other atrocities across the Province.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend for those words. I pay tribute to the way in which he has represented people in Northern Ireland over many years. The personal cost that he and his family have borne for that representation is often overlooked. He is absolutely correct.

We cannot equivocate on this matter. The finger would be pointed in our direction if we sought to justify an act of terrorism by one paramilitary organisation in Northern Ireland while condemning the same kind of action by another paramilitary organisation. The two bombers whom Sinn Fein commemorated in Castlederg were transporting a bomb that was designed to murder innocent people in a country town. The people whom they condemned in Omagh on the same day were doing the same thing: they transported a bomb into the heart of a town in the same county of Tyrone and it was designed to murder innocent people. What happened in Castlederg and what happened in Omagh must be condemned equally. It is time that Sinn Fein grew up and recognised that wrong is wrong, no matter who the perpetrator. There can be no rewriting of the history of the troubles in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene, particularly given that I was a few minutes late for the debate, for which I apologise to all Members. I invite him to confirm to the House, as I am sure he will do gladly, that his party leader, who serves the entire community in Northern Ireland as First Minister, has brought those criticisms of Sinn Fein’s behaviour to the attention of his Deputy First Minister, Martin McGuinness. I would like that assurance.

[Mr Donaldson]

I know that the hon. Lady takes a keen interest in all these matters. I confirm to the House that our party leader, the First Minister, Peter Robinson, has on numerous occasions brought to the attention of the Deputy First Minister the inconsistency and double standards adopted by Sinn Fein in these matters, and the damage that that does to the building of community relations and the development of reconciliation in Northern Ireland. Sinn Fein needs to address this issue.

We will not stand for a process that seeks to paint the forces of the state as the bad guys and the terrorists as the good guys. I remind the House that the Sutton index, which tabulates and records all the deaths associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland, is very clear that of the 3,531 deaths recorded to date, the Army was responsible for 297. Many of those were entirely lawful and legitimate, and were carried out by soldiers acting in the course of their duty to protect human life. The Ulster Defence Regiment, in which I was proud to serve, was responsible for eight deaths. When one hears the attacks that are made against the integrity, valour and sacrifice of the Ulster Defence Regiment, one would think that it was responsible for many more. I reiterate that those deaths were the result of soldiers acting in the course of duty. The Royal Ulster Constabulary, which is also demonised at times by Irish republicans, was responsible for 55 deaths. Interestingly, the Garda, the Irish police, were responsible for four deaths and the Irish army for one.

Let us look at the record of the paramilitary organisations. On the republican side, the Irish National Liberation Army and the Irish People’s Liberation Organisation, which were part of the same grouping, were responsible for 135 deaths and the Provisional IRA was responsible for 1,707 deaths. The Ulster Defence Association and the Ulster Freedom Fighters were responsible for 260 deaths, and the Ulster Volunteer Force was responsible for 430 deaths.

Let me say that every death associated with the troubles in Northern Ireland is regrettable. I do not seek, in any sense, to diminish the sense of loss that people feel when they lose someone.

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

My right hon. Friend is outlining the distinction between the various paramilitary groups of all kinds and the security forces. Does he agree that there is one massive and very simple distinction: the forces of law and order were committed to maintaining law and order, whatever may be said about a tiny percentage of their number who exceeded lawful authority, while the paramilitary groups were set up precisely to kill, murder and create mayhem, which they did for many years until they were prevented from continuing to do so?

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank my hon. Friend; he is absolutely correct and I need not add anything to what he said.

The reality is that republican terrorists were responsible for 60% of the totality of deaths during the troubles in Northern Ireland. Loyalist paramilitaries were responsible for 30%, and forces associated with the state—whether in the Republic of Ireland or the United Kingdom—were responsible for 10% of those deaths. As my hon. Friend stated clearly, the vast majority of those killings were within the law and carried out in the course of duty by soldiers and police officers protecting the community.

However, when we look at the current process for dealing with the past, whether the Historical Enquiries Team, the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, or an inquest or inquiries funded by the state, the vast majority of resources to examine the past in Northern Ireland are devoted to the 10% of killings, with a scant amount devoted to the 90% of killings carried out by paramilitary organisations on both sides. That cannot continue as it only adds to the sense of disillusionment felt by many people about the current process in Northern Ireland. It is one-sided, biased, and is assisting Irish republicans to rewrite what is called the narrative of the troubles. That has to stop. We must find a process to ensure that attention goes to the more than 3,000 unsolved murders in Northern Ireland, the vast majority of which were committed by illegal paramilitary organisations on both sides. The victims of those atrocities deserve better than they are getting at the moment.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is reinforced by successive Governments who have permitted, endorsed and financed inquiry after inquiry into the role of the security forces during the troubles in Northern Ireland, while at the same time there is no such inquiry into the role of republican paramilitaries?

[Mr Donaldson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We hear republicans talk about a truth process and the need for truth, yet when the challenge has been brought to their door, I think, for example, of the Saville inquiry into the events in Londonderry in 1972. When Martin McGuinness, now Deputy First Minister of Northern Ireland, gave evidence to that inquiry, he refused to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, citing some IRA code that he had signed up to when he joined the Provisional IRA.

Sinn Fein agreed to co-operate with the Smithwick inquiry, which is investigating circumstances surrounding the murders of the two most senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary—Harry Breen and Bob Buchanan—killed by the IRA in south Armagh. Sinn Fein agreed to assist the inquiry with its investigation, and designated two IRA members from south Armagh to meet lawyers representing the Smithwick inquiry. It was a farce. The two IRA members arrived at the meeting; lawyers were present, there was a discussion, and questions were asked. Each time a question was asked that might in some remote way have caused the IRA members to implicate any member of the IRA in any way whatsoever, they left the room, made a phone call, came back in and said, “We cannot answer that question.”

That was a private meeting with lawyers. It was not on the public record or in the public domain, yet even in those circumstances the IRA could not tell the truth about what happened and the circumstances surrounding the murder of the two most senior RUC officers to be killed in the troubles. What hope do we have of getting the truth from Irish republicans when their leadership, when called on to tell the truth, cannot do it, and when those members who have been designated by the leadership to tell the truth also refuse to do so? The problem for me is that when the state is called on to tell the truth, records are brought out, filing cabinets opened, and it is all laid bare.

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for initiating this important debate on dealing with the past. Is he aware of the several hundreds of files lodged in a place in Derbyshire that have not yet been released to the Historical Enquiries Team? Those would bring great benefit to the Police Service of Northern Ireland in investigating many unsolved crimes.

[Mr Donaldson]

I thank the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie)—that beautiful part of Northern Ireland—for her intervention, but I think she would be better directing that question to the Secretary of State. Of course the state has a duty to co-operate, but the difficulty I have is that paramilitary organisations are not under any such duty to co-operate, and show no indication whatsoever of a willingness to co-operate in providing the truth. Through the Historical Enquiries Team, a number of cases have been reviewed. Have republicans come forward at any stage in that process to assist the families of those victims with information that might help them get to the truth? No, they have not in any case.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

For the record, there have been occasions when the authorities have inadvertently given evidence or information that they should not have given, thereby disclosing people who were involved in helping the security forces. On occasion evidence has been given that should not have been given, and compromised people who were helping the security forces.

[Mr Donaldson]

Indeed, and I am sure my hon. Friend will wish to elaborate on that important point in his remarks. The extent to which the state is co-operating, whether with an inquest, the police ombudsman, or through the Historical Enquiries Team, could potentially compromise the modus operandi of the security services, and others who are tasked with protecting the community, not only now but in the future.

Before drawing my remarks to a close I want to place on record some principles that I feel are important as we seek to address the legacy of the past in these talks with Richard Haass. The first principle is that victims have the right to justice and must continue to have that right. Last Monday, as part of the Haass process, I met a number of victims at Stormont. I want to quote the words of one young woman, whose brother I had the honour to serve with in the Ulster Defence Regiment. He was a young man called Alan Johnston from Kilkeel, my home town, and I served with him in the 3rd (County Down) Battalion, Ulster Defence Regiment. He was murdered one morning on his way to work with his lunchbox under his arm. He was a joiner and a part-time soldier, cut down by the IRA. His sister said this:

“A denial of justice would only serve to re-victimise the innocent victims.”

I agree with her. It would be wrong to deny victims the right to justice.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman and his party on raising this important issue. He referred to his meeting with victims as part of the Haass process. Does he agree it is important that Dr Haass takes an inclusive approach to the process, and engages not just with the parties but also with victims and survivors?

[Mr Donaldson]

I commend the right hon. Gentleman on the excellent work he did in Northern Ireland when he was a Minister. He is right, and I assure him that Dr Haass is meeting a wide range of people—as is Meghan O’Sullivan—including the victims. Indeed, some of the victims we saw on Monday had already met Dr Haass. It is important that their voice is heard in this debate.

The second principle I want to be clear about is that there must be no amnesty for the perpetrators of terrorist violence. Thirdly, as I have already stated at length, the definition of a victim of the troubles in Northern Ireland should exclude those who were killed or injured as a result of engaging in an act of terrorism, or convicted of a terrorist-related offence. We hope that that will be taken forward either in this House, or through the Haass process. Fourthly, the glorification of terrorism should not be facilitated or allowed, and if the law needs to be strengthened in that regard, it should be strengthened. This is a free country and a democracy, and we are proud of freedom of speech, but there are times when we have to step in and say that what people say and how they behave is irresponsible, provocative and should stop.

The Democratic Unionist party is strongly opposed to the establishment of any kind of one-sided and unbalanced inquiry process. Any evidentiary process such as a truth commission will inevitably focus on the state, because the paramilitary organisations did not keep records or documents and, as I have stated, are unlikely to tell the truth. Such a process would create an unfair narrative of the past, in which the true perpetrators of the vast majority of the deaths and injuries—more than 90%—will seek to legitimise their actions. They would not be held to account or held responsible for what they have done.

The needs of the victims and survivors must be met as far as possible. Their loss and circumstances should be treated with respect and sensitivity. They deserve and need proper recognition. Victims should have the opportunity to tell their story without it having to be intertwined with the voices of the perpetrators. Innocent victims should be remembered through a significant act of remembrance and commemoration, and, potentially, through a significant regional memorial in Northern Ireland. That could take the form of a memorial garden to the innocent victims of terrorism.

In conclusion, the narrative of the past should reflect core values, including that terrorism was and is wrong, and that it is not a legitimate method of obtaining a political or other objective. The narrative must clearly reflect the fact that approximately 90% of the deaths were the result of terrorist actions, and that the majority of those were by republican groups, so we are very clear that we condemn murder on all sides.

All hon. Members have a responsibility to address the issues relating to our troubled past. The Government have a responsibility—I hope the Secretary of State tells us what role the Government will play—and the process cannot be down to the political parties in Northern Ireland. Equally, the Irish Government have a responsibility. Some of the atrocities were committed in the Irish Republic; some were committed by those acting from the territory of the Irish Republic. The Irish Government have questions to answer about the arming of the IRA in the early days of the troubles, their extradition policy, and their failure at times to co-operate fully with the RUC in a way that would have brought to justice those responsible for terrorist actions in Northern Ireland. The Irish Government therefore have a role and a responsibility in the process.

Finally, I pay tribute to those who have served this country and protected the community, whether they were in the Royal Ulster Constabulary or, as it is today, the Police Service of Northern Ireland; in the armed forces and the regiments that came faithfully to Northern Ireland to serve and protect the community, some of whom are current Members of the House; or in the Ulster Defence Regiment, the locally recruited regiment of the Army, and its successor, the Royal Irish Regiment.

It is worth reminding the House that the RUC was awarded the George cross by Her Majesty the Queen, as a recognition of the collective courage and dedication to duty of all who served in the RUC and accepted the danger and stress it brought to them and their families. The Ulster Defence Regiment and the Royal Irish Regiment were awarded the conspicuous gallantry cross by Her Majesty the Queen in recognition of their valour and sacrifice over the years in Northern Ireland. It pains me when I hear nationalist parties attacking the RUC, the UDR and the Royal Irish Regiment in the way they do—without any balance in their approach to the service that those men and women provided in protecting the community.

I trust that the House will support the motion.

13:54

[The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mrs Theresa Villiers)]

I thank the Democratic Unionist party for giving the House the opportunity to discuss matters of such great significance not only for Northern Ireland but for the whole United Kingdom. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) on a passionate and moving speech on Northern Ireland’s troubled past.

As the right hon. Gentleman reminded the House, and as we heard in Prime Minister’s questions, the debate coincides with the anniversary of one of the most appalling atrocities of Northern Ireland’s past: the Shankill bomb, which had the tragic consequences set out by the right hon. Gentleman. In the days following the attack, my predecessor as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, my noble Friend Lord Mayhew, spoke in the House of the revulsion that people felt at such a hideous and atrocious attack on people going about their business on that Saturday morning 20 years ago.

I echo those sentiments today, and repeat the long-standing position of this and previous Governments that politically motivated violence, from wherever it came, was never justified. The Government will not condone attempts to glorify or legitimise acts of terrorism. We will never treat the men and women of the police and the Army who acted with such courage and self-sacrifice in upholding the rule of law as equivalent to those who used terrorism to try to further their political ends.

My noble Friend Lord Mayhew, in concluding his statement to the House on the Shankill bomb, reaffirmed:

“In this democracy, it is only through dialogue—dialogue between those who unequivocally reject the use or threat of violence—that the foundation will in the end be found for a fair and hence a lasting peace.”—[Official Report, 25 October 1993; Vol. 230, c. 578.]

Thankfully, over the ensuing years, that dialogue did go forward, beginning with the 1993 Downing street declaration and continuing with the 1998 Belfast agreement and its successors, and the basis was found for the relative peace and stability that Northern Ireland enjoys today.

Twenty years on from the Shankill bomb, Northern Ireland has its own inclusive, devolved Administration. Whatever the imperfections of the devolved institutions, they are a vast improvement on what went before. Relations within these islands—both between north and south, and between London and Dublin—have never been stronger, with both Governments determined to work closely together on the economic and other challenges our two countries face. The main paramilitary campaigns that led to more than 3,500 lost lives and such widespread and tragic suffering, which we have heard about this afternoon, have come to an end. Lethal though they are, the people who continue to seek to pursue their aims through violence are small in number and enjoy almost no public support whatever.

The transformation that has taken place over the past 15 years is a great testimony to the leadership and courage shown by so many of Northern Ireland’s political leaders, a number of whom are in the Chamber. It also vividly demonstrates the power of dialogue as a means of dealing with problems that were previously viewed as intractable. Yet, for all the progress, there is no doubt that the legacy of the past continues to cast a shadow and have an impact on today’s Northern Ireland. I see that whenever I meet victims of terrorism, as I did, for example, in Castlederg just a few weeks ago. I also see it when I meet those who believe that the unjustified actions of the state robbed them of their loved ones. All of them have highly personal tales of tragedy, and it is impossible not to be moved by their stories.

It is therefore not surprising that there are calls from a number of quarters in Northern Ireland for a mechanism or process to be initiated to deal with the past and grapple with the questions outlined today by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. I agree with him that, in taking forward that process, we must put the needs of victims at its heart. He is right to look at the options that involve enabling victims to tell their stories, so that the facts of what happened to them are on record and never forgotten.

Numerous attempts have been made in the 15 years since the 1998 agreement to come up with a so-called overarching process on the past. In 2008, the previous Government established the consultative group on the past under the chairmanship of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley. On coming to office, my predecessor as Secretary of State published a summary of the responses to Eames-Bradley and embarked on an extensive round of meetings with Northern Ireland’s political parties, victims groups and other interested bodies. Since becoming Secretary of State just over a year ago, I have had wide-ranging discussions on the subject both within Northern Ireland and with the Irish Government.

However, so far, none of the initiatives by either the previous Government or the current one has succeeded in establishing a consensus on how best to take things forward. That is certainly not to say that nothing is happening on the past—far from it. As well as a host of local and oral history projects and the tireless work by the voluntary sector in supporting victims, there are initiatives such as the CAIN archive at the university of Ulster, the renowned collection at the Linen Hall library, and thousands of hours of historical footage held by the BBC and Ulster Television. In fact, given the wealth of archive material available, Northern Ireland’s troubles are probably one of the most comprehensively recorded and documented periods in history.

For our part, the Government are committed to accelerating the release of state papers, so we are moving from the 30-year rule to a 20-year rule, although this will always have to be done in a way that is sensitive to the article 2 rights of all parties and to national security considerations. We are working with the Irish Government on the decade of centenaries that is now under way. Both Governments want to use the forthcoming anniversaries to promote mutual respect and understanding between different traditions, and to prevent them from being exploited by those intent on causing division and conflict. We continue to support the work being done in the devolved sphere, for example by the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland, the Historical Enquiries Team and the Victims’ Commissioner. The Government have been fully prepared to apologise where the state has failed to uphold the highest standards of conduct. That has been done in the cases of Claudy, Patrick Finucane and, of course, Bloody Sunday, where the Prime Minister acknowledged to the House in the frankest of terms that what happened that day in Londonderry in 1972 was “unjustified and unjustifiable.”

There is no doubt that some want a broader initiative, a so-called “overarching” process, and they have asked the Government to deliver it. I understand that, and of course the UK Government are prepared to play their part in dealing with legacy issues, but I am also very clear that we do not own the past. The reality is that for any process to succeed it must command a substantial consensus among the Northern Ireland political parties and across the wider community.

The Government strongly welcome the initiative by the five parties in the Northern Ireland Executive to begin to take local ownership of this issue through the establishment of the Richard Haass working group on flags, emblems, parades and the past. While not formally part of this group, the Government are fully engaged with it. I and my officials have had a number of meetings and discussions with Dr Haass and his team, and I am seeing him again next week. Last Thursday, Dr Haass had talks in Downing street where he met the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, who gave their full backing to the crucial task that Dr Haass has undertaken. It is clear that the Haass talks are dealing with some of Northern Ireland’s most difficult and long-standing fault lines and there is no guarantee of success, but I believe that there is a genuine willingness on the part of Northern Ireland’s political leadership to make progress. From my discussions with Dr Haass, I believe that there is no better person to help achieve that. With 12 months of protests and tensions around flags and parades, it is essential that progress is made.

While the focus of today’s short debate is about dealing with the past, it is also important that we do not lose sight of the overriding need to build a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland. That is particularly true on the economy and on building a shared society that is no longer blighted by the sectarian divisions that have caused so much damage over the years, both areas on which the Government are working very closely with the Executive. As I have made clear, progress cannot await the outcome of the Haass talks; it is vital that momentum is maintained. On the economy, there are now clear signs that, like the rest of the UK, Northern Ireland is turning a corner, with business activity growing, unemployment falling, the property market stabilising and construction finally starting to pick up after the disastrous crash experienced under the previous Government.

There is much more that needs to be done, which is why the Government and the Executive are pressing ahead with implementing the economic package we signed in Downing street in June, and on which we jointly published an update a fortnight ago. As part of that package, the Prime Minister and I attended a highly successful international investment conference at Titanic Belfast, where senior business figures from across the world were shown just what a great place Northern Ireland is in which to invest and to grow a business.

On addressing community divisions, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I have repeatedly pressed for progress. We therefore warmly welcomed the community relations initiative by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, with the publication of “Together: Building a United Community” in May. It was a significant moment last week when the First Minister of Northern Ireland broke new ground for a Unionist leader in addressing a Gaelic Athletic Association event. As the First Minister himself pointed out, this would have been unthinkable a few years ago and is another sign that Northern Ireland is moving forward.

In conclusion, I would like to echo the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in paying a warm tribute to the members of the police, the prison service and the armed forces who served with such distinction, valour and courage in defending and upholding the rule of law, defending democracy and protecting the community in Northern Ireland. This is a welcome opportunity to reiterate the thanks of this House for all they did during the troubles and to reiterate the thanks to all those who currently defend the community in the security forces in Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for allowing me to intervene. I have waited patiently for the Secretary of State to put on record the Government’s deep and sincere appreciation of the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary George Cross—not just within the general title of the police, but the RUC George Cross, which made an enormous sacrifice: 302 murdered police officers, men and women. Too often, this House lets the opportunity go past without putting on the record the debt of gratitude we owe the RUC, particularly the families of those who stood by them and those who did not come home.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am only too happy to put on record once again the support and tribute to the members of the RUC and their families, who suffered greatly at the hands of terrorists during the troubles, and to their successors in the PSNI, who even today are subject to repeated targeting by the terrorists who still operate in Northern Ireland.

[Kate Hoey]

Will the Secretary of State tell us what her view is on the recent announcement that the PSNI will try to persecute and prosecute some of the soldiers involved in the terrible incidents of Bloody Sunday so many years ago? Does she think that this is a way of moving forward? Does she not realise that this is making one side of the community feel, when they cannot even get an inquiry into Omagh, that there is not even-handedness?

[Mrs Villiers]

In the Prime Minister’s statement on Bloody Sunday, he reiterated very clearly that the vast majority of those who served in Northern Ireland, whether in the Army or the RUC, served with distinction, integrity, courage and valour. He also said, however, that one does not defend the British Army by defending the indefensible. What happened in Londonderry in 1972 was indefensible. Whether that will lead to criminal prosecutions is a matter for the police and the prosecution authorities in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter for politicians to intervene in. I am sure that great care will be taken in deciding whether it is appropriate for a prosecution to go forward in relation to what happened on that day.

[Ms Ritchie]

I emphasise that murder was and is always wrong, and that terrorism was and is always wrong. In so doing, and to bring some relief to the victims, may I ask the Secretary of State if she would consider immediate discussions with the Secretary of State for Defence to ensure that the files held in Derbyshire are released to the Historical Enquiries Team for its investigation? That would bring relief right across Northern Ireland in terms of all the unsolved cases.

[Mrs Villiers]

I am certainly happy to have a conversation with the Secretary of State for Defence on that matter, which the hon. Lady has raised on a number of occasions. I reiterate, however, that the need for transparency always has to be tempered against the need to protect people who might come under threat if their names were disclosed, and to take account of national security interests.

In her historic speech during her visit to Ireland and Dublin castle in 2011, Her Majesty the Queen spoke of being able to bow to the past, but not be bound by it. It is impossible to be involved in Northern Ireland and not be aware of the power of the past to affect current events, but we know that with the same kind of leadership and courage shown over recent years, the people of Northern Ireland can build a prosperous and united future together. Working with them, that is what the Government are resolutely determined to achieve.

14:10

[Mr Ivan Lewis (Bury South) (Lab)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on behalf of the official Opposition. Hon. Members will agree that we do not get the chance to discuss Northern Ireland often enough on the Floor of the House, so I thank the Democratic Unionist party for giving us this opportunity and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) for his opening statement. I know that for him this is not only politically important, but personally extremely salient, because of the losses that he and his family suffered as a result of the troubles.

I also acknowledge the work of Northern Ireland Members who have dealt with these sensitive and complicated issues from the perspective of the friends, neighbours and families of those killed and injured. Their work, alongside voluntary organisations in Northern Ireland such as the Commission for Victims and Survivors, led by Kathryn Stone, provides crucial and unwavering support for the families of victims. As the right hon. Gentleman and the Secretary of State said, it is also important to acknowledge that today is the 20th anniversary of the appalling Shankill road bombing and horrendous loss of life. We should also remember the awful events at Greysteel the subsequent week.

The debate comes at a crucial time in the aftermath of recent concerning disturbances, and in the midst of the Haass talks, in which all the parties in Northern Ireland have agreed to participate. I have been in this role for only 15 days, so I have no intention of presenting myself as an expert on Northern Ireland, but I promise to listen and learn, and then to provide leadership on issues on which I believe that the Opposition can help to make a positive difference. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to visit Northern Ireland for the first time in my new role. In the past fortnight, I have met the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, and many of the Northern Ireland MPs here at Westminster, and attended meetings with Members of the Legislative Assembly, business people and community organisations. I have met people whose sense of place and belonging, and connection to family and community, shines through. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude for the guidance and support that I have received during the transition into my new role.

Notwithstanding the many remaining challenges, Northern Ireland has been transformed over the past two decades by the peace process. My party played an important role in making that process possible, and I am aware of the many people in the House who have shown tremendous leadership by supporting that process through the good times and the bad. Irrespective of the many continued challenges, we have a shared interest and responsibility to ensure that Northern Ireland continues on its journey to build peace, fairness and prosperity.

Make no mistake: on the whole, Northern Ireland is on the up. Most recently, we saw the successful investment conference in Belfast, and in 2013 alone, Northern Ireland has hosted some of the most important global political, cultural and sporting events. The G8 summit was held in the beautiful surroundings of Lough Erne, while the 10-day world police and fire games, the third-largest sporting event in the world, which attracted competitors and supporters from around the globe, was hosted in Belfast for the first time. Moreover, Derry-Londonderry was designated the UK’s inaugural city of culture. Northern Ireland is in the spotlight for all the right reasons and is taking its rightful place on the world stage.

Despite that remarkable progress, however, significant challenges remain and we cannot afford to be complacent. The disgraceful scenes of rioting that we witnessed over flags in the early part of the year and over parades in the summer, and the terrible murders of two weeks ago, are a reminder that deep wounds still exist and that the legacy of the past continues to afflict communities in Northern Ireland. In that context, it is important that we pay tribute to the courageous work of the men and women of the Police Service of Northern Ireland, who do such an important job on the front line.

As others have said, violence can never be condoned. It is unacceptable and should be condemned by politicians from all parties and all community leaders. We have welcomed the all-party Haass talks as a crucial opportunity to address the contentious issues of flags, parades and the past. It is essential that these talks lead to meaningful progress and action that has the confidence of the vast majority in all communities. That will require not only courageous and visionary political leadership from Northern Irish politicians, but the active and consistent engagement of the UK and Irish Governments. It therefore remains a source of serious concern that too many people in Northern Ireland feel that the present UK Government are insufficiently engaged. Engagement is essential, given the need for recognition of the responsibility the UK Government have for their role in the troubles and of the reality that any process to deal with the past will have financial and legislative implications that, ultimately, will require their support.

[Mrs Villiers]

The hon. Gentleman repeatedly makes the allegation of disengagement, which is very far from the truth, as I outlined in my speech and at Northern Ireland questions. If he is concerned about disengagement, is he concerned about Opposition Front Benchers, given that his predecessor, the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), was barely seen in Northern Ireland during what was a very difficult parading season?

[Mr Lewis]

I have made it clear to the right hon. Lady that when we agree with the Government on security issues, we will continue to operate on a bipartisan basis—that is how we should work in the context of Northern Ireland. As an old boss of mine once said, however, perception is reality, and if many politicians and others active in Northern Ireland believe that there is insufficient engagement from the Government, it might just be, with respect, that they are telling the truth. As for her comments about my predecessor, there are very few politicians who, when they leave a job, receive such widespread acclaim—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] That acclaim came from all political parties that are doing their best to make a difference in Northern Ireland, so her criticisms of him were not worthy of her.

[Mrs Villiers]

My concern is about perceptions and reality. If the hon. Gentleman believes that the Government are disengaged, I am surprised that he took the trouble to point out two great successes for Northern Ireland—the G8 conference in Fermanagh and the recent investment conference—that would not have happened without the close engagement of the UK Government.

[Mr Lewis]

With respect, I have been in this job for only about 13 or 14 days, but the majority of politicians I have met in Northern Ireland feel that there is inadequate engagement from the Government on a range of issues. It is not just about turning up at the high-profile events. Of course, the fact that the Prime Minister attended the recent investment conference was incredibly important, but this is about rolling one’s sleeves up and working, on an ongoing basis, on a range of issues, so that people feel that one has a passion for and a commitment to the challenges facing Northern Ireland.

[Sammy Wilson]

Whatever the Secretary of State might say about the former shadow Secretary of State, the view of parties in Northern Ireland is that he was assiduous in his work. He visited almost all the constituencies and spent all day with Members going round them, so the Secretary of State was unfair in her allegation that he did not perform his role with enthusiasm, zeal, passion and a concern for people in Northern Ireland.

[Mr Lewis]

I thank the hon. Gentleman; I could not have put it better myself. The “hear, hears” we heard earlier demonstrated that his view is echoed by almost every Member who had the privilege of working with my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker).

[Mrs Villiers]

rose—

[Mr Lewis]

I will give way one final time, on this point, to the Secretary of State.

[Mrs Villiers]

It is simply not true that the Prime Minister’s involvement in Northern Ireland consists only of his turning up at a few high-profile events. A huge amount of planning went into delivering the G8 summit, and it is this Prime Minister who has delivered a wide-ranging economic pact that enables us to work with the Northern Ireland Executive in an unprecedented way to deliver a more prosperous future for Northern Ireland.

[Mr Lewis]

The best thing I can do at this stage is to move on with my contribution. The right hon. Lady should reflect on how many people in Northern Ireland feel, and think about the implication of those feelings.

Engagement is essential because any process that deals with the past will involve financial and legislative implications requiring the support of the UK Government. I want to highlight an initial view of the principles that we believe should apply to any credible process seeking to deal with the past. First, as the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley said, any process must put victims and their families centre stage, while recognising that they will have different views and needs—I have learned that during my first couple of weeks in the role. One of the most powerful meetings I had during my visit to Belfast was with representatives of the families of victims who disappeared during the troubles—they have been described as “the disappeared”. As a result of the peace process, the families I met have had their loved ones returned and have been able to lay them to rest. They told me of not only their pain and trauma, but their desire not to pursue further action against those responsible. However, I am acutely aware that some families have still not experienced similar closure and that others may feel very differently about those responsible. I intend to meet and hear directly from victims and survivors from all backgrounds, as well as from their families and those who care for them. Their stories deserve to be heard and listened to, and their experiences need to be respected, as the right hon. Gentleman said.

[Kate Hoey]

I know that my hon. Friend is looking forward to getting to know Northern Ireland extremely well. Will he clarify his position on the definition of a “victim”?

[Mr Lewis]

After 14 days in my post, I can say that any violence, from whatever source, is to be condemned unequivocally. I would regard anyone who is a victim of violence, intimidation or terror as a victim. If we want to get into a detailed debate about this, I would want some more time in my post so that I can carry out further work and engagement—I have tried to respond as much as I can to my hon. Friend. A big and important part of my job is to spend time with victims and their families to get a sense of how they feel and what the definition of justice means to them. In different circumstances, there can be a different response, so we need to be sensitive to that fact.

A second important principle is that any process must recognise that significant progress can be made without trying to achieve a shared narrative about the past, as achieving such a narrative would be an unrealistic expectation. What is of paramount importance is that nationalists and Unionists learn to respect the equal status and legitimacy of their fellow citizens now and in the future.

The third principle is that while it is, of course, right to consider all options about addressing responsibility and accountability for past wrongdoing, it is also important to say that any process must recognise the rights and responsibilities defined by the European convention on human rights. The convention is clear. It stresses the importance of ensuring justice, truth and reparation in response to violation and abuses, which would require a deep and sensitive understanding of what that would mean for the wishes and expectations of victims and their families.

I have always believed that the public expect politicians, on the whole, to focus primarily on change and the future. However, it is clear that part of securing a better future for Northern Ireland requires us to deal with the unresolved issues of the past, which is why the Haass talks are so important and cannot be allowed either to fail, or to arrive at superficial solutions. Haass has the potential to achieve meaningful transformational change if all political parties, and the UK and Irish Governments, show leadership and seek common ground in the interests of all people of Northern Ireland.

[Lady Hermon]

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he, his party leader and his party will make a submission to the Haass talks, albeit he has been in his post for only a short period? Will he kindly publish any such submission so that rest of us can be au fait with the requirements of the Labour party?

[Mr Lewis]

I am delighted to give the hon. Lady that assurance. I will be meeting Richard Haass next week, or the week after, and we will certainly make any written representations public and ensure that hon. Members are aware of our position.

Just as it would be wrong to minimise the importance of the past, it would be equally mistaken to suggest that that, in itself, is Northern Ireland’s biggest challenge. The greatest challenge is the corrosive cycle of poor educational attainment, worklessness and intergenerational deprivation that continues to afflict far too many families and communities in Northern Ireland. That lethal cocktail has the potential to be the breeding ground for extremists, and for perpetual conflict and instability. Although those issues are primarily the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Executive, the UK Government have a key role to play in pursuing an active industrial strategy to generate jobs and growth, while reflecting on the negative impact that pernicious policies such as the bedroom tax have on the most vulnerable and also would have on Northern Ireland’s block grant.

This year’s disturbances should teach us a number of lessons, one of which is undoubtedly that unfinished business remains in relation to the past. However, we must also reflect on the impact of social and economic inequality, which cannot be allowed to prevail if peace in Northern Ireland is to move from a political accommodation to a society built on genuine reconciliation and mutual respect.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. If we have a 10-minute limit, we will, I hope, get everybody in.

14:26

[Mr Laurence Robertson (Tewkesbury) (Con)]

I thank the Democratic Unionist party for today’s two debates, both of which are very important. I pay great tribute to the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), who has been a friend of mine for many years, for the way in which he introduced the debate. I think that the whole House will have found it extremely moving and very sad when he read out the names, ages and family connections of those murdered 20 years ago today—it really reminds us of what a terrible time in Northern Ireland we have seen. I would like to add my sympathies and condolences to all those who survived that attack and lived with the pain of it—it is unimaginable what they went through then and what they are still going through.

Just last year, I visited Enniskillen with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for the 25-year anniversary commemoration of another terrible atrocity. I was in Dundalk the day the bomb went off at Omagh and have since visited Omagh three times. I have also met the families in relation to the events at Kingsmill and Ballymurphy, and the Finucane murder. Terrible though those atrocities were, it is worth remembering that they all took place some time ago and since then enormous progress has been made in Northern Ireland—it is very important to remember that. We have seen Her Majesty the Queen pay an outstanding, historic visit to not only the Republic of Ireland, but to Northern Ireland, when she shook hands with Martin McGuinness and many other people. We have also seen power sharing and several important events in Northern Ireland which have been referred to already: for example, the G8 meeting was held there and Londonderry is the city of culture. There are many tourism opportunities in Northern Ireland, such as Giant’s causeway and the Titanic centre—there are very many reasons to go to Northern Ireland. We have seen so many changes, even just over the years I have been going there.

It is also right to say that challenges remain, however. There is unfinished business in Northern Ireland and sadly it is still, in some ways, a divided society. For example, there are more peace walls there now than there were 10 years ago, which cannot be a good thing. There are still dissidents attempting to murder members of the security forces and, over the summer and during the flag protests at the end of last year, we saw so-called loyalists throwing bricks at police officers. That simply cannot be right.

Much has been done, but this debate is about dealing with the past. How do we deal with the past? Can we ever do it successfully? There has been a call for an inquiry to be held into the Omagh atrocity, and there are powerful arguments for doing so, but there are also people who do not want such an inquiry because it would bring back the pain and rake over the past. It would risk prolonging the pain.

Perhaps the only way to deal with the past is to build a better future. Since 2010, the Select Committee, which I have the honour of chairing, has been concentrating on the future. For example, it has been inquiring into and making recommendations on economic matters such as corporation tax and air passenger duty—which we shall discuss in a short while—in an attempt to cement the peace that has been achieved by building a better economy, and by giving people greater opportunities and allowing them to feel that the peace process has been worth while for them. This is about building a Province that is very different for present and future generations from what it was in the past.

The Select Committee also considers security matters and issues relating to the past. For example, we are meeting Dr Richard Haass next Tuesday to discuss his work. We will also be meeting the Chief Constable and Deputy Chief Constable to discuss the security situation. Shortly after that, we will meet the Secretary of State to discuss all those issues and more.

One issue that the Committee cannot look into in any detail, because it is devolved, is that of education and schooling. I believe, however, that we need to make more progress on integrated education. We need to bring children together at the age of four, rather than separating them and allowing them to live separate lives. We need to show them that there is no difference between a Catholic and a Protestant, and that what differentiates us is the way we behave rather than the labels that are placed on us.

[Kate Hoey]

I thank the Chair of my Select Committee for giving way. It is important to remember when we talk about integrated education that many of Northern Ireland’s grammar schools are highly integrated. The idea that the only way of getting Catholics and Protestants to be educated together is through the introduction of integrated schools does not reflect what is actually happening.

[Mr Robertson]

I accept that the hon. Lady knows an awful lot about this subject, and I accept her point about grammar schools. She will also be aware, however, of the turmoil surrounding the ability of children to qualify to go to those schools. I suggest that there is still a need to move the general principle of integrated education forward in the wider sense.

[Mr Brian Binley (Northampton South) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. I congratulate the Select Committee, which he chairs, on its work. I also congratulate my hon. Friends in the Democratic Unionist party on securing this timely debate. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the best ways to make progress on burying the past would be for Sinn Fein Members to come to this House and take part in debates such as these? It is a matter of great sadness that they do not do so. I appeal to my hon. Friend to make a plea to that effect—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Interventions must be short.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for that powerful intervention. That point was also raised earlier, and I agree entirely. I have in fact taken the matter to the very top, in that I have said to Mr Gerry Adams and Mr Martin McGuinness that that is exactly what they should be doing. They should be coming here to argue their case. They travel to Westminster and hold meetings here in this building, but they will not come to the Chamber to discuss these issues. They are not serving the people of Northern Ireland very well by pursuing that abstentionist policy. Almost a third of the Province is unrepresented here in this Chamber, which is a tragedy for the people of Northern Ireland, regardless of whether they are republicans or Unionists.

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

As a fellow member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee, I congratulate my hon. Friend on the way in which he chairs it. Does he agree that we have begun to make progress, in that Sinn Fein has started to attend some meetings of the Select Committee, including when we are in Belfast? We have opened a dialogue of some sort. We have much further to go, but that will be down to my hon. Friend’s activities as well.

[Mr Robertson]

I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. It is true that Sinn Fein has started to give formal evidence to the Select Committee, and I regard that as progress. Despite what I just said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mr Binley), I must point out that these things sometimes take a little while. There has been progress in that respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) says, and I hope that it will continue because I see it as a positive move. It is sensible for Sinn Fein to make that move, but there are still a number of steps that it will have to take.

I was talking about integrated education, and I am very keen on that concept. I attended a Church of England secondary school, and I am proud to have done so, but I must point out that Bolton in Lancashire is very different from West Belfast—as you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker—and presents very different challenges. I want to see a society in Northern Ireland in which peace walls are no longer required, and in which we stop counting and publishing the percentages of Catholics and Protestants in organisations. We need to reach a point at which that does not matter.

We must move towards a society in which, rather than segregating children almost at birth, we teach them to live together. That is the way to achieve a shared future, because a shared future involves sharing institutions and sharing lives. The peaceful future that we all want to build in Northern Ireland will not be secured through treaties or international agreements; it will be secured through changing hearts and minds. That is something that we must try to work towards.

I have mentioned the violence in Northern Ireland over the summer and at the end of last year. I was there during the marches in mid-July, and I witnessed many thousands of people celebrating their culture. There was not a single problem among all those thousands of people. Of course, as ever, the 0.1% did cause problems and, unfortunately, those are the pictures that get flashed across the world. The Select Committee visited America a few months ago, and the people we spoke to told us how disconcerting it was to see the pictures of the flag protests and of the problems relating to marches. We had to point out to them that the problems were due to that 0.1% of the people. Unfortunately, however, those pictures that are flashed across the world lose revenue for Northern Ireland. They lose us tourists and inward investment, and that cannot be right. Those acts of violence cannot be right, whether they are the result of political ambitions related to republicanism or loyalism or the result of pure thuggery, which I suggest some of them were.

Either way, we have to move forward and try to build a better Northern Ireland, so that this generation and future generations do not suffer as those in the past have done, in the ways that my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley so graphically described earlier. To summarise, perhaps we can best deal with the past only by building a better future.

14:39

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), and I congratulate him on the good work he has done as Chairman of the Northern Ireland Select Committee.

It was L. P. Hartley who famously said of the past that it is

“a foreign country: they do things differently there.”

He was right in the sense that we should learn from past mistakes, either as individuals or collectively as a community, in order to ensure that they are not passed down to be repeated by a further generation. Perhaps because of the immediacy of the troubles in Northern Ireland, however, we have not yet reached the stage where we can describe the past as another country or as something foreign; it is not. There are tens of thousands of people, including hundreds of my own constituents, who live with the trauma caused by past events. They have lost loved ones—fathers, mothers, brothers, sisters, husbands, wives—to the conflict, and that legacy of hurt is enduring, despite the progress made over the last decade or so. We owe it to our fellow citizens to ensure that they are at the heart of the transformation process that our society is undertaking. They cannot be left behind.

In every sphere of life, people see things from different perspectives. If we ask two people to describe an event they both witnessed, we will often get two very different descriptions of it. If we did not, there would be no need for football commentators or current affairs television shows. This is especially the case in historical debate and discussion.

When the premier of the People’s Republic of China, whose name I will not try to pronounce, was asked about the impact of the French revolution, he famously declared that it was “too early to say”—some 200 years after the event. We were tasked with addressing issues that happened within the living memory of most people in Northern Ireland. History is, and always will be, a contested field, and there will never be any agreed interpretation of historical events. This is the case in every society. In that regard, Northern Ireland is no different.

Although there are differences of emphasis and differences of approach to the interpretation of past events that occurred in Northern Ireland, I believe it essential to establish a basic framework of first principles. Truth is not a relative concept; it exists independently of historical visions or approaches. Without the establishment and widespread acceptance of such truth, we cannot adequately hope to address the legacy of pain and suffering that still exist in our society as a consequence of past events.

The first and most obvious statement of truth is that not everyone in Northern Ireland is a victim. There are some who would seek to claim that every single person in our country is a victim. That is an insidious concept for two reasons. First, it diminishes the genuine suffering and pain of those who were directly affected by the actions of terrorists during the troubles. Secondly, it elevates those who engaged in criminal acts to equal status with those whose suffering they caused in the first place. Terrorists of whatever variety or hue do not exist on the same moral plane as those whom they terrorised. They cannot ever enjoy such standing.

Secondly, although general attitudes in society shape people’s outlook and perspective, we must accept that people are ultimately individuals and that, as such, they must be responsible for their individual actions. Society, even one as divided and conflict-riven as Northern Ireland was, did not make people engage in murder or other such crimes. While we are not all victims, we are also not all collectively responsible for the actions of terrorists. No one made Sean Kelly and Thomas Begley plant a bomb on the Shankill road that murdered nine innocent people, as we have already heard, and ultimately cost Mr Begley his own life. That applies to any other atrocity carried out by either side of the community in Northern Ireland. To latch on to the concept of society and to use it to justify such barbaric acts is a measure designed only to placate the conscience of evil people and to lay the blame for their actions at the door of the huge majority of the citizens of Northern Ireland. That is much like a wife-beater saying that his unfortunate spouse made him do it. For terrorists to blame society is a lazy get-out clause, with no moral basis at all.

The third principle we must adhere to is that those who engaged in armed insurrection against the state are in no position to demand the recovery of openness and truth from anyone while they lie about what they did. We have reached the absurd point in Northern Ireland today where the President of Sinn Fein would seek to deny he ever was a member of the Provisional IRA, yet would then with a straight face demand truth and honesty from the state. People cannot lie through their teeth while at the same time demanding truth. It is time that Sinn Fein grew up and accepted the fact that they will never—I say never—be allowed to rewrite the history of Northern Ireland.

You will be aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the intensive talks process involving Dr Richard Haass is currently under way in the Province. I suspect that of all the challenges he faces, dealing with the legacy of the past will be the greatest, but I believe it is essential that we do so in a way that is victim-centred and founded on principles that are rooted in justice, honesty and the truth.

14:47

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

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), along with his Democratic Unionist colleagues, on securing the debate. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis) on his new post as shadow Front-Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland. I have to say that I hope he will have his shadow job for a very long time, but only because it would help him to gain a better understanding of what happens in Northern Ireland. I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for the last three years, and I certainly think I have a better understanding now than I did beforehand. Let me also pay tribute to the previous Minister of State in the Northern Ireland Office, who has now gone to the Department for Work and Pensions. He was incredibly helpful to me and did a very good job. I know that his successor, the former Defence Minister, will do an equally good job.

As I have said, I have been a member of the Northern Ireland Select Committee for the last three years, so I have been able to see first hand some of the real problems that confront many families, having been through the experience of seeing their loved ones killed, murdered or maimed. I attended a number of meetings with such families and I was particularly struck by our meeting with the victims of Kingsmill—a horrendous story. While visiting Northern Ireland, I took the opportunity to look at some of the paperwork from historic inquests. Reading some of these accounts of what happened—there were lots of them—was incredibly moving.

I want to pay tribute to the armed forces—of course, I would do that, because I represent a constituency that is a naval garrison city—and to the Royal Marines, who have certainly given their lives in support of ensuring peace in Northern Ireland.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Speaking as an ex-member of the armed forces who frequently went to Northern Ireland, I would like to pay full tribute to those people wearing uniforms who lived in Northern Ireland and who had to leave their families behind as they went out, day after day, to do their duty. Risk is something that we normally do not have to deal with, but the courage of people in the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Ulster Defence Regiment or the Police Service of Northern Ireland was quite breathtaking.

[Oliver Colvile]

I thank my hon. Friend for his moving tribute. I pay tribute to him as well, because I know that he experienced some very difficult times when he was serving in Northern Ireland. There were bombings, including the discotheque bombing.

[David Simpson]

May I add to the hon. Gentleman’s list the Northern Ireland Prison Service, especially in view of the fact that Mr David Black was murdered recently in my constituency?

[David Simpson]

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman.

The riots in Northern Ireland were one of the main stories during the summer, along with the flags issue. I welcome Dr Haass’s efforts to find solutions, because I found the riots quite appalling. On 12 July last year I visited Belfast and saw the loyalist parade that was taking place. I learned a great deal from all that. I witnessed some of the marching at first hand, and observed that a number of Roman Catholics and nationalists found it difficult to accept.

If we are to find a solution to the past, we must recognise that Northern Ireland now has a devolved Assembly with its own responsibilities. One of the problems that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may encounter is the difficulty of ensuring that she does not tread too much on what the devolved Assembly and the devolved Executive are seeking to do.

A key issue is the feeling among some of those aged between 16 and 24 that they are not really involved in the peace process. They do not understand it, and they do not have a sense of engagement with it. They are the NEETs—those who are not in education, employment or training. My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who is an excellent chairman of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, made a serious point about the importance of improving education and skills, and it is in that connection that I have argued in the Committee that it is time for a review of the progress made following the Belfast agreement, or Good Friday agreement. I hope that Dr Haass will conduct such a review, because it is the only way in which we shall be able to reach some conclusions about what else may happen. Before I was elected to the House, I ran a small public relations company which advised developers on how to obtain help with public consultation. I think there is a very big job to be done—the job of engaging with small, deprived communities in order to understand what they are up to. We need to think about the likely impact on those youngsters.

Another key issue is the need to rebalance the Northern Irish economy. A good 70% to 80% of people still work in the public sector, and I am sure that they do an extremely good job, but I think that unless more people in the private sector invest in the economy, things will be very difficult. It is important for us to create opportunities and jobs if we can possibly do so.

We must retain our commitment to striving for peace. I strongly support the peace campaign, and also the work done by both Tony Blair and, more importantly, John Major, who kicked off the whole peace process. Before I became a member of the Select Committee, I was very much aware of what was going on in South Africa, where there was the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. That would not work in this instance, because many people would feel intimidated by the idea of becoming involved in such a process, and would fear for their own futures.

I believe that we need to expand the university technical colleges, which are working very well; there is one in my constituency. We also need to increase the amount of development, and to encourage the Americans to invest in Northern Ireland, so that we can create private sector jobs and bring about aspiration and hope.

14:54

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell (Belfast South) (SDLP)]

I thank those who tabled the motion for giving us the opportunity to discuss this subject today. I should like to think that the debate will lay some foundations for the work of Dr Haass and Meghan O’Sullivan.

Let me begin by endorsing the honest comments of the Rev. David Clements, who said this morning that neither the past nor victims should be used by anyone to advance a selfish political agenda. Let me also draw Members’ attention, as others have done already, to the fact that today is the 20th anniversary of one of the most horrific events of the troubles. I offer my sympathy, and the unconditional sympathy and support of the SDLP, to all the innocent people who were killed in that horrific Shankill road bombing.

Dr Richard Haass has, in essence, been invited to help us to sort out critically important unfinished business dating back to the time of the Good Friday agreement, more than 15 years ago. We are grateful to him and his team for agreeing to help us. Our failure to grasp the issues of flags, parading and the past has cost us dear, summer in and summer out, year in and year out, during most of those 15 years.

The SDLP’s firm goal in the Haass negotiations is a further comprehensive agreement that would grab the imagination of people in Northern Ireland—and, indeed, further afield—and would inspire hope and create ambition for the future. Not least, such an agreement would send a resounding message to potential investors that Northern Ireland is an even more secure and stable place to which to bring business, thus creating the jobs and prosperity that we dearly need. A piecemeal, temporary, cobbled-together agreement would sell Northern Ireland short and dash the hopes of our people, who look to us, the politicians, to deliver meaningful change.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that real progress was made 10 years ago in Derry/Londonderry, when both communities worked together to ensure that parades in that great town did not cause the strife and difficulties they are causing in Belfast?

[Dr McDonnell]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. All the difficulties have been resolved in Derry. Everything is now a celebration, and the contention surrounding the parades has gone. Derry’s month as UK City of Culture has been an outstanding success story. I congratulate the people of Derry, and, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan), who represents them.

We in the SDLP seek from Dr Haass—in broad terms—a bigger and better agreement. We want an agreement that transcends the narrow issues of parades and flags, and addresses the past in an expansive way; an agreement that celebrates rather than denigrates the expression of culture, allegiance and political identity across the communities in Northern Ireland; an agreement that promotes healing and reconciliation, and enables us to grow up politically and develop mature politics in the atmosphere of growing mutual respect that was promised in the Good Friday agreement, after which—in 1998—the people voted for

“reconciliation, tolerance and mutual trust”

and for

“partnership, equality and mutual respect”.

Only a radical change of attitude all round that embraces the values and ambitions of that agreement will deliver the successful outcome that Northern Ireland needs so much. Surely, given ambition, flexibility and resolve, that much is not beyond our reach. We in the SDLP are up for the challenge posed by Dr Haass and Professor Meghan O’Sullivan.

In recent weeks—I put my hand up at this point, as indeed we all must, because we have all made mistakes and must now join others in making progress—we have sought to make our small contribution to the healing process by addressing an issue that has been raised in the House from time to time. Some months ago, our councillors in Newry voted to retain the name of a local play park that the council had named after an IRA hunger striker 10 years earlier. Our councillors genuinely believed that if the name were allowed to remain, a line would be drawn in the sand and no other public spaces would be similarly named in future. In local terms, perhaps, that was a pragmatic decision—it was, perhaps, understandable in terms of local government. Our representatives acted entirely in good faith. They reassured me, one and all, that it was neither in their thinking nor was it their intention to cause hurt or distress to anyone. I want now to reaffirm the SDLP’s position. Our position is that no public place or public space should be named after any person involved in state or paramilitary violence of any sort.

The issues addressed in the Haass process can be resolved only on the basis of mutual respect, equality and parity of esteem. The SDLP will not be found wanting in generosity or determination to bring about a comprehensive agreement that will be an example to divided communities everywhere. The atmosphere for these talks would be greatly improved, and Belfast traders would breathe a huge sigh of relief, if the loyalist flag protesters called off their planned demonstrations in the city in the run-up to Christmas and if the Orange Order agreed to call a halt to its continuing irresponsible protests at Ardoyne, which are resulting in a policing operation that the PSNI estimates is costing £50,000 a day—which amounts to £5 million over the period. That would have paid for 200 or more young teachers, 200 nurses and perhaps even 200 extra police that we so badly need

[Mr Donaldson]

The point the hon. Gentleman makes about the economy is an important one. Is it not therefore a matter of regret—this is not an issue for this House but it is nevertheless worth placing on the record—that yesterday the Minister for the Environment, who belongs to the SDLP, refused to move a Bill that could transform our planning system and help attract a lot more investment into Northern Ireland? Should not the SDLP act on its own words?

[Dr McDonnell]

At this point, may I welcome you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to your place and say what a privilege it is to speak in this Chamber under your chairmanship?

I will respond later to the comment that was just made, because it is a clear example of what is wrong, rather than what is right.

The past is a more intractable and complex issue than flags and parades and it casts a long shadow in Northern Ireland. By far the best and most coherent blueprint for tackling the past is the report of Lord Eames and Denis Bradley. The group jointly chaired by Lord Eames and Denis Bradley carried out an immense amount of work, publishing a report that ran to almost 200 pages and carried more than 30 main recommendations. It is unacceptable that such a balanced and carefully considered document should apparently be forgotten—gathering dust on a shelf somewhere—because of the controversy that attached to one of its recommendations in relation to ex gratia payments. The SDLP believes Eames-Bradley still has much to commend it. All would benefit from giving it the reconsideration it has well-earned and is due, while, of course, bringing additional ideas of their own to the table.

There are many among us who would wish to forget the past, but there are many victims out there whose lives have been wrecked and who cannot move on without closure.

[Ms Ritchie]

Nearly 20 years ago six people from my constituency of South Down were murdered in cold blood at O’Toole’s bar in Loughinisland, and nearly 20 years later the victims and families of those six good men have still not received justice or an answer as to why they were killed, and those who carried out this heinous crime have still not been brought to justice. Does my hon. Friend agree that the PSNI must now complete its investigation, based on the work of the former police ombudsman, so that families have a pathway to justice and truth?

[Dr McDonnell]

I agree with my hon. Friend. [Interruption.] I also agree with others who are whispering from a sedentary position that there are many victims out there whose lives have been wrecked and who cannot move on without closure and without answers. I do not distinguish between people based on what their politics were or what their religion was: innocent victims are innocent victims.

Unfortunately, time and again the past comes back to haunt us. I am told that this evening “Channel 4 News” will bring us some horrible truths about the past in Northern Ireland, and on Friday a book will be published called “Lethal Allies”, chronicling some of the criminal collusions between renegade elements of the security forces and loyalist killers. I am given to believe that, among its revelations, it will throw some light on the horrific murder of a former colleague of mine, Dinny Mullen. Dinny was the father of my friend and colleague, Denise Fox. Dinny was targeted and murdered in his own home because he was an SDLP activist. His crime was that he was the election agent for my colleague, Seamus Mallon, a former Member of this House.

There is a murky past out there, and while I must put on record my view that the vast majority of the members of the RUC—as the hon. Member for North Down (Lady Hermon) said earlier—and the security forces, including many who are now Members of this House, served with integrity, honour and distinction, a small number of others acted in the shadows and they dishonoured that honourable vast majority. They acted in a way that was no better than those they were attempting to oppose—the terrorists they were challenging. They acted well outside the law, and lines of accountability were blurred and, indeed, ignored. They acted directly and indirectly in acts of terrorism. The gang that murdered Dinny Mullen went on within a short space of time, and with little challenge by police or security forces, to murder well in excess of 100 people, including members of the Miami show band. We need to get closure on a lot of these issues.

I want to say a few words about the two Government co-guarantors and about an earlier point that was made. The British and Irish Governments, who are co-guarantors of the Good Friday agreement, must be bold, decisive and vigilant in standing up to the narrow self-interest of the DUP and Sinn Fein, which the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) referred to. The DUP and Sinn Fein made a savage attack on what was otherwise a very positive and creative planning Bill. They tried to hollow it out and destroy it, and the Minister responsible had no choice but to dismantle it. This was petty party self-interest to destroy the Bill.

The two Governments must remain centrally involved in the Haass process and be prepared to underwrite the comprehensive agreement that I hope we will have, with good will and mutual respect. I compliment Peter Robinson, leader of the DUP, on what he has said in two recent very significant recent speeches. With attitudes such as that, we can achieve a further agreement and achieve peace.

15:07

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

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

I thank the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and his party colleagues for introducing this important debate. As they know, I am half-Northern Irish and have made many visits to Northern Ireland ever since I was a child—since the beginning of the troubles. I share the right hon. Gentleman’s profound belief that we have to manage the past properly and fairly if we are ever to have a positive future. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), who made a very thoughtful contribution. I agree that we must try to move forward in a much more inclusive way if Northern Ireland is ever to have the wonderful, prosperous and peaceful future that all of us in the House wish for it.

Having said that, in Northern Ireland the past is always a challenge. Although I am only half-Northern Irish—and half-English—I know that it is an incredibly delicate area to tread in, and I also know that that is one of the reasons why there have been so many piecemeal attempts to try to get on top of the past. In some ways, I think that Northern Ireland has succeeded. When compared with the situation of only a few years ago, the recent progress has been substantial, but the complexity of Northern Ireland, its past and the troubles cannot be resolved easily or simply, because otherwise that would have happened many years ago under the previous Government. Strong movement in one direction tends greatly to upset people on the other side of the divide.

A good example of that, to which the hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) alluded, was the Eames-Bradley report, which I thought was outstanding, detailed and fair. It tried honourably to address the immense complexity of the sectarian divide, but we all know the result: it was shelved, ostensibly for one reason. My personal view is that that reason was used as an excuse to shelve the whole report, which was disappointing. However, the report is still in a drawer somewhere in Whitehall, so perhaps one day we can bring it out, re-evaluate it and use much of its learning, because the Eames-Bradley report was a good way forward.

On the one hand, I am optimistic about the Haass initiative, which I think is a good, positive step. On the other hand, however, I am slightly depressed about it because Dr Richard Haass’s consultation has come about because we have yet again reached an impasse. My hon. Friends from Northern Ireland will know that “impasse” is a French word, and impasse may be a common occurrence in Northern Ireland, for the reasons that we know. I am glad that the five political parties have endorsed and supported Haass. After he has spoken to people, including the Secretary of State and the shadow Secretary of State, but more importantly the political parties in Northern Ireland, and his group presents some recommendations, I am pretty sure that not everyone will agree with all of them, as the day when that is not the case in Northern Ireland will be the day the Liberals sweep to sunny uplands and have a majority in government. That will take a few years yet; I like to be an optimist—I am a Liberal. However, I hope that when Haass’s recommendations come forward, we will engage with them properly and seriously.

[Lady Hermon]

First, may I congratulate our newest Deputy Speaker? I am delighted to see you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker.

May I double-check something with the hon. Gentleman, as I did with the shadow Secretary of State? Will the Lib Dem wing of the coalition Government make a separate submission to the Haass talks? If so, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be published?

[Stephen Lloyd]

The hon. Lady raises an important point. The honest truth is that we are still considering the matter, but if we make a separate submission, it certainly will be made public. I sound as though I might be obfuscating only because I am not entirely sure that, separate from our colleagues in the coalition Government, we would have anything productive to say, but I promise her that if we do make a submission, it will be made public.

When we receive the Haass report, I hope and trust that all of us in the House, and particularly in Northern Ireland, will do what is necessary to move forward on key and extremely difficult issues. As I am someone who perhaps is not as steeped in the issues as some hon. Members from Northern Ireland, I imagine that there would be nothing more irritating than for me to pretend that those issues were anything other than challenging and complicated.

I was struck by a recent quote from Amnesty International. I do not always agree with everything that Amnesty says, even though I have been a member for around 30 years. I would, however, like to repeat some comments from Amnesty International so that they will be recorded in Hansard because I think that they sum up the problem. Amnesty International says:

“the piecemeal approach to investigations adopted in Northern Ireland is too diffuse and too incomplete to provide a comprehensive picture of all the violations and abuses that occurred during the decades of political violence. Inherent limitations within the mechanisms…have meant that much of the truth remains hidden while those in positions of responsibility have remained shielded. It has also contributed to a failure to develop a shared public understanding and recognition of the abuses committed by all sides.”

Without in any way taking sides, I believe that that is a true statement. From my relatives and my relatives’ friends from both sides of the divide, I know well that in the Northern Ireland that I love so much, there is often a lack of understanding and appreciation, and a sense of “more evil was done to us than to you”. As someone who has one foot in Northern Ireland and one foot outside, my observation is that both sides in their own way are right and both sides in their own way are wrong. That is the tragedy, and that is why I tread delicately but sincerely. I treat with profound seriousness the shadow role on Northern Ireland that I have in my party. I profoundly respect the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley and his party for calling this debate as it has demonstrated the strengths and weaknesses of the whole challenge in Northern Ireland.

I hope that the Haass report will move matters forward. As an observer, I think that the impasse has hit the Executive—and has done so for a while. It may equally have affected our own Government. We have got stuck, and that is unfortunate, but I hope that the Haass consultation, which will see him and his group talking to all the key individuals and parties in Northern Ireland, will lead to progress.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. The RUC and the security services had an incredibly difficult role, but they played an incredibly important part in ultimately defeating terrorism. The Royal Ulster Constabulary was not perfect in every way and the security services were not perfect. Mistakes were made and a tiny proportion of people clearly worked in the shadows, but overall, without the bravery of the RUC and the security services, Northern Ireland would have lost to terrorism, and that would have been wrong. Both my uncle and my grandfather were in the RUC, and my uncle survived a couple of assassination attempts. That demonstrates the importance of this debate and the importance of Northern Ireland, because while my uncle and grandfather were Catholic, the paradox is that, on the one hand, the IRA tried to blow them up a couple of times and, on the other hand, a section of the Loyalists would not trust them as far as they could throw them. That sums up the challenges facing us in Northern Ireland.

I hope that a positive and productive debate such as this, and moving forward in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury outlined, leading towards the Haass discussions, will mean that, within the next few months, Northern Ireland will begin to move forward from the past in a more positive way. It is timely and necessary, and the blockage should come to an end.

15:20

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

It is a pleasure to see you occupy the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I wish you great wisdom as you give leadership to the House.

I thank my colleagues for tabling the motion at a time when many of our fellow citizens are gathering with my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) to remember the tragedy of the Shankill bombing 20 years ago today. On that day, many innocent lives were lost because of the atrocity committed by the Provisional IRA.

I acknowledge that Dr Richard Haass and Professor Meghan O’Sullivan have been given the task of seeking a way forward on a number of important issues that have divided our community for years, and I know that the House wishes them well in their endeavours. Today, however, my colleagues and I believe that there are issues that cannot be airbrushed out of existence, as some would wish, as if they had never happened. Nor must we let Sinn Fein and its republican fellow travellers rewrite the narrative of our troubled past in Northern Ireland.

I pay tribute to the thousands of men and women who donned the uniform and stood in the gap between community and anarchy throughout the long years of IRA terror. Those soldiers who patrolled the roads of Ulster over the years, alongside the RUC/RUCR, GC, USC, UDR and RIR, did so with valour and distinction. They rightly deserve our deep gratitude, having faced gangsters and thugs who reigned over 30 years of terror on a law-abiding population. We must never forget the sacrifice of our security forces and their bravery. We must also never forget the sacrifice of their families—mothers and fathers, sons and daughters—who anxiously waited, hoping that their loved ones would return home safely—alas, many of them did not.

The deep sense of loss still felt in the hearts of many innocent victims of violence across our Province today is raw, and no one except those who have walked this dark and lonely path can understand the pain. But this anguish has been made worse by the coat-trailing exercises of the republican movement, and Sinn Fein in particular, over recent months. The leader of my party has on many occasions gone out on a limb, seeking to reach the hand of friendship to nationalists and republicans in an effort to build a stronger community spirit and give the generations to come a better future and a prosperous Province of which we can all be proud. But, sadly, many Sinn Fein representatives just cannot leave their failed past, while others pretend they have—that is, of course, until the mask slips. Yes, some politicians speak piously of a shared future, but in reality the proof is that they cannot bear to see Orange feet walk the Queen’s highway. They cannot even share a road in Belfast or Portadown for a few minutes to allow a small contingent of Orangemen to walk home after a day when Protestants celebrate their culture. The reality is that when we scrape beneath the surface, we find that the old leopard has not changed his spots.

As Mr Robinson sought to build a peaceful future, Sinn Fein representatives such as Gerry Kelly defied the law by hanging on to police Land Rovers in north Belfast, and on another occasion, they celebrated the escape from the Maze prison, in which a prison officer was murdered. Sinn Fein coat-trailed through Castlederg and north Belfast, lauding as heroes those who blew themselves up with their own bombs, leaving a trail of innocent blood across the Province. Today people gather to remember the slaughter of the innocent on the Shankill, but no world attention will be focused on this event of course: they were only Protestants—innocent men, women and children, slaughtered by the blatantly sectarian IRA.

In reality, the authorities here on the mainland, as well as international Governments, have granted favoured status to those who murdered and maimed, while the law-abiding people of Northern Ireland were left to suffer and then told simply to move on. The Prime Minister made an apology to the families in Londonderry. The media spent hours of air time propagating one single event in the history of our Province just as if no one else had endured any injustice over the years of turmoil and trouble. No apology has been given to the law-abiding Unionist majority for the years they were plagued with IRA terrorism. I have no doubt that our security forces were well able to crush these terrorists, but political expedience would not allow them to do so. We are expected, and were expected, to suffer in silence, while world leaders kowtowed to, and wined and dined, Adams and McGuinness. Over the years, I have wept and comforted many families of innocent victims, and I carry in my heart deep wounds because of what the IRA has done. However, if we allow hatred and bitterness to take over our lives, we destroy ourselves and allow the enemy a victory over us.

The IRA were terrorists, formed as an organisation with the aim of removing the British from Northern Ireland and bringing about the unification of Ireland by force. They were doomed to fail, not because the Governments of the day stood up for the rights of the people, but because tens of thousands of ordinary people were determined to remain part of the United Kingdom and exercised their democratic right accordingly. Do not forget that Ministers from the Fianna Fail governing party in the Irish Republic diverted funds intended as emergency aid illegally to import weapons directly for the provos. Surely it is time for an unreserved apology from the Prime Minister of the Irish Republic for the actions of a former Government who helped to spawn and support IRA terrorist gangs. An apology from the Irish Republic’s Government would go some distance to assure the Unionist community that the pain of innocent victims of terror has been recognised. How long we will have to wait for such an apology, I do not know, but time will tell.

The Provisional IRA was responsible for the deaths of 1,706 people up to 2001. Of those, 497 were civilian casualties, 183 were members of the UDR, 455 came from regiments of the British Army and 271 were members of the RUC. Of its victims, 340 were Northern Ireland Roman Catholics, 794 were Northern Ireland Protestants, and 572 were not from Northern Ireland. The university of Ulster also states that the IRA lost 276 members during the troubles. However, in 132 of those cases, IRA members either caused their own deaths as a result of hunger strikes, premature bombing accidents and so on, or were murdered due to allegations of having worked for the security forces.

Let me put the record straight in the House. The IRA was not fighting a just war, but through bombings, assassinations, kidnappings, punishment beatings of civilians, torture, extortion, robberies, racketeering and so on, it forced successive British Governments into endless concessions. Those who were involved in terrorism should be called terrorists and must not be granted a similar status to those they terrorised, irrespective of what part of the community they come from. The IRA terrorist made a deliberate choice to join a terrorist organisation. Their victims and the families are worthy of justice, but their chance of getting that seems small. If the IRA claims it was a war, Gerry Adams, Martin McGuinness and Martin Ferris whom, on 20 February 2005, the then Justice Minister of the Irish Republic, Mr Michael McDowell, publicly named as members of the IRA army council, should be hauled before the war crimes tribunal for their acts of brutal crimes against humanity.

Some suggest that a truth commission should be enough to satisfy the innocent victims, but what would that achieve? When asked about his terrorist past, Gerry Adams looked into the camera and quietly, brazenly denied that he had ever been in the IRA. Martin McGuinness was exposed by the report into the events in Londonderry, but he told the Saville inquiry:

“I wish to make it clear that I will not provide the Inquiry with the identities of other members of the IRA on 30th January 1972 or confirm the roles played by such persons whose names are written down and shown to me...As a Republican I am simply not prepared to give such information.”

Yet that same person had the audacity and the cheek to welcome the £192 million report into Bloody Sunday pointing the finger at soldiers while dismissing the findings of the same report in regard to his being identified as having a submachine gun in Londonderry. Now they talk about prosecuting soldiers who put their necks on the line to preserve life in Northern Ireland, yet those others are lauded and applauded worldwide.

There will be no films or documentaries made about the Shankill bomb, even though there have been bloody Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays that must never be forgotten by this House. We must ask: why did the innocent have to die on Ulster soil? Was it because there was an acceptable level of violence, as was said, or because, as a previous Prime Minister said, his Government had no strategic interest in Northern Ireland?

We need closure, but we must not allow republicans to rewrite history or romanticise their murderous campaign. No one can understand the nightmare that the people of Northern Ireland have been through. They were terrorised in their kitchens and bedrooms, while walking on the streets as they went to restaurants and hotels, or while worshiping in their churches. They left their children in the morning not knowing whether they would ever come home to see them again in the evening. We lived through that. It was reality. We need the truth; we need justice. No one should be too high or mighty to escape the rule of law.

15:29

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

Like other Members, I want to say how pleased I am to be here today under your chairmanship, Madam Deputy Speaker.

I obviously cannot agree with all the terms and tone of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), but I share his strong sense of solidarity with those gathered today in sombre commemoration of the terrible Shankill bombing. Equally, we will all lend our solidarity to those families who go through next week’s anniversary of the Greysteel attack, and all the others who lost loved ones, sometimes in lonely deaths that are not remembered in the commemorations of the landmark atrocities of the troubles, because they, too, have their feelings touched or stirred by commemorations such as today’s and by debates such as this. I also concur with him completely on the need to repudiate any pretence that some sort of claim about a just war can be made in relation to the IRA campaign, or indeed any other campaign of republican violence over recent decades.

It is supposed to be a Russian proverb that to dwell on the past is to lose an eye, but to forget the past is to lose both eyes. That is why we must properly acknowledge and address issues of the past. It is not enough, as some people sometimes suggest, to draw a line under the past and move on, or just to find some glib form of closure. Too many people are burdened by the past, carrying hurt and feelings that are all too present. They cannot just decide that they are well adjusted victims and move on when they are confronted with denial about what actually happened to them and about the nature of the crimes committed against them, their loved ones or their community. In those circumstances, we cannot treat victims as though some are well adjusted and some are badly adjusted because of where they are on the reconciliation scale according to some commentator or other.

We have to confront the past properly if it is not to be repeated. We currently have a group of dissidents who are basically happy to say that they are continuing the methods and principles of struggle pursued by the Provisional IRA. Thankfully, many of those who were involved in the Provisional IRA now choose to repudiate and reject the violence pursued by these dissidents, but it is important that current and future generations know the truth about the nature of the Provisional IRA campaign. Those who were involved in the Provisional IRA cannot give themselves some sort of moral superiority over the violence carried out by today’s dissidents, which is targeted in the same vicious and reckless way.

Other hon. Members—I want to acknowledge the opening statement by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) in particular—talked about the breakdown of victims in that sense, but it was also important that he read out the names, particularly the names of those whose deaths are being commemorated today, so that we remember not only the numbers, but the “whoness” of those people. They were loved and loving members of families and communities. That needs to be remembered as well.

My hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) referred to the fact that the Pat Finucane Centre will soon publish a book called “Lethal Allies” by Anne Cadwallader, which looks at some very dark aspects of the troubles. It relates to a number of cases—10 in particular—that have been investigated by the Historical Enquiries Team, but the reports have never been made public because the HET reports are offered as the private property of the families. That is a weakness that I think we need to address. I agree with the point the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) made, picking up from Amnesty International. That is one of the reasons why I tabled amendments to the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill to give the Secretary of State new powers and new responsibilities to do more to consolidate the value of the HET’s work and draw on its work. It should not just be left to the Pat Finucane Centre or somebody else who happens to have had the reports shared with them. That is something that we, as a Parliament, should take more responsibility for. The truth about many of those deaths and murders is coming out now in different ways, but the fact is that here in this House untruths were told about many of those deaths and murders. The claims of my colleagues Seamus Mallon, John Hume, Joe Hendron and Eddie McGrady about the dirty war, and our concerns about intelligence not being properly shared or used, about people not being apprehended and about collusion, were all denied. But the truth shone through in the De Silva report on the Finucane murder and it will shine through in the book I mentioned as well.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast South said, some of the victims were targeted by loyalist gangs, which included some members who served concurrently in the security forces. Those victims were targeted not because they were involved in the IRA or anything else, but because they were obviously seen as uppity Fenians—they had been associated with the civil rights movement, were involved in the SDLP, were buying property and developing businesses, so they were put down. It is clear that the people specifically targeted in their homes and cars came into that class. Others, of course—including members of the security forces themselves—were more randomly targeted.

Other Members have paid tribute to members of the security forces. Let us remember that some of those lost their lives in attacks that could have been prevented had intelligence been shared and acted on. However, there was a warped game going on, in which some inside the security forces—particularly in the intelligence services—put the long war intelligence game ahead of the immediate protection of the lives of civilians and members of the security forces.

Collusion was not just something whereby agents of the state allowed loyalist attacks to happen; they also allowed republican attacks and servants of the state and people in the community to be killed. That truth needs to be told. If we do not have the truth about the dirty war, we will be settling for a dirty peace. If we do not have the truth about the viciousness and nastiness of all the violence that took place from all the paramilitaries, we will be selling future generations a false narrative about the experience of the past.

I was amazed to be told by a young man in my own city that the IRA only ever killed so-called “legitimate targets”—only those in the security forces and only in the high heat of active service incidents. That, of course, is completely untrue. It is one of the reasons why we need a proper truth process about the past to spell things out. Will we get the truth from the victim makers? No, but we need at least to gather and consolidate the truth from the victims. They need to know that their truth will be remembered and acknowledged. They must not die with the burden of remembrance heavy on their shoulders, as it is for too many of them.

We have to resolve the issue with a proper framework for dealing with the past. It will not be a one-size-fits-all approach, and it will mean that we politicians have to face up to our failures on this issue. Ever since the Good Friday agreement, every time there were talks and an impasse, both my party and I made proposals about the need to address the past. We were constantly faced with evasion, both from the two Governments and from other parties.

As I was told by the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Paul Murphy), the Secretary of State at the time, the reason why there was nothing in the 2003 talks in Hillsborough for victims and the past was that both Sinn Fein and the Ulster Unionist party were absolutely clear that there should not be. The past was not to be touched and there was to be nothing for victims in that deal, which was meant to be a breakthrough.

There was a good speech from the Opposition Front Bench today, but we need to remember that the last Government produced the most insulting effort on the past that anyone could have—the Northern Ireland (Offences) Bill. We were told by the then Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr Hain), that the Bill was about bringing closure, but it would have given all sorts of secret immunity certificates to all sorts of people. In fact, the only people who might have been prosecuted or sent to jail for any past crimes in Northern Ireland would have been any journalists or victims who reported or speculated on those who might have got one of those certificates, who might have been at a tribunal and what might have been involved. That was a gross insult.

[Stephen Lloyd]

I would like to hear more from my hon. Friend. Does he agree that the Haass initiative is absolutely crucial, and that if all the political parties in Northern Ireland and the Government dropped the ball, that would be another blow and another impasse?

[Mark Durkan]

I think that the Haass process really does give us another chance. At least the parties are gathered together and we are engaged in a process. Previously we have been arguing about whether there should be a process or the shape of it. People resiled from the very good recommendations in Eames Bradley, and I think that the Haass process will look at those. The HET has already done good work in a lot of areas, but it has not been consolidated and built up. A lot of good and strong recommendations in Eames Bradley need to be revised and revisited.

There is also very good work going on in the cultural sector. I think of Theatre of Witness, which has done so much to portray the true stories and experiences of people, whether loyalists, republicans, innocent victims, members of the security forces, prison staff, or whoever. Those true stories are all brought together compellingly, not in any controlled or contrived balance but in a very powerful and emotional way. That is a strong way of helping to discharge us from the past so that people can see truth instead of injustice and reconciliation instead of retribution.

15:41

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker, on achieving your position and wish you well in your job for the future.

I also congratulate the shadow Secretary of State and welcome him to his new post. He is only 14 days into the job and already finding his way in what could be a very difficult portfolio. We are a bit disappointed that the shadow Minister of State, the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), is unable to be with us because he is away on parliamentary duties. I think he would use the phrase “erudite tones” of the debate if he were here. It is a pity that he is not, and we are obviously disappointed to miss his contribution.

I recently attended Irish Fest in Milwaukee, USA, where I highlighted the other side to the history that many of Irish descent and many of Ulster descent had learnt from the propaganda and an often slanted media view. Americans and those from mainland USA watch films like “The Devil’s Own”, which have a degree of artistic licence that I fear greatly rewrites history. These and other stories make it seem as though 302 RUC men and women—men and women with the George Cross—were not human beings with families and lives but simply moving “legitimate target” signs; or make it seem as though 30 prison officers and 763 armed forces members were simply numbers on a score sheet, not people whose spouses and children still feel the devastating loss to this day. These histories and films would glibly portray a prison break as a great lark and not take into account the lives that were destroyed by the loss of a father and husband. One of those was my constituent Mr Ferris, and other people were shot and injured as a result of that escape. Never portrayed in a film is a scene where a busy fish shop is bombed with no warning on a busy Saturday, killing one terrorist and nine people, including two children, and injuring 57 others. Nor do we see depicted the unveiling of a plaque in memory of this terrorist, yet that is the legacy that we are dealing with in Northern Ireland today, as so ably laid out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson).

This is history. It should not be rewritten to glorify what were nothing more than acts of evil. I watched the snippets of the Shankill bombing and saw one of the bombers on the one hand apologising but, on the other hand, stating that he was proud to be unveiling a plaque in memory of his fellow murderer. That certainly stirs up the feelings of anger and loss in communities that are determined that they cannot and should not let their heartbreaking histories be displayed in a light that would dull the horrific nature of what has taken place.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

How does my hon. Friend think that people would feel if anyone in the Unionist community were to suggest that next week a commemoration was held to acknowledge and to celebrate what happened at Greysteel, when eight innocent people were slaughtered? How would he feel if we decided that there should be a band parade and a celebration? What would that say about this community, and does not it say the very same about nationalists and republicans whenever they decide to do that about the Shankill road bombing?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend, who makes the point exactly. That would annoy me no end, as it would annoy everybody in this Chamber and everyone right across the whole of Northern Ireland. It does a disservice to every man, woman and child in Northern Ireland who has ever suffered loss on either side of the troubles. It does a disservice to those who are rehabilitated and living with injuries caused by the troubles, and to those who work hard to see the past for what it was and still try to find a way forward.

I want to make it clear that I believe there is a way forward for Northern Ireland, because I am positive and always try to be so. I would even go so far as to say that Northern Ireland is at long last on a journey forward, but it is not an easy task. There are many bumps in the road and many hurts that must not be whitewashed, and must be sensitively handled. Sometimes that happens, but a lot of the time it does not. Make no mistake: there are tensions. They are stirred up in all communities by agendas that would not seek to move forward while ever remembering the past, but that would seek to throw us into turmoil once again.

The removal of the Union flag from city hall is one such tension-stirring issue. There was no doubt about the strength of feeling in favour of retaining the flag. I asked people at Irish Fest in the United States of America how they would feel if they were asked to remove their flag at the Alamo. They would never do it, and yet the people of Belfast had it enforced on them in the name of progress. That is not progress: it is not now and it will not be so in the future. It is disrespectful. We are trying to engage with those on the ground to ensure that it does not derail the good that has been done thus far.

The Haass talks will, I hope, be positive. I would like to think that they will pave the way for another step forward, but if people continue to disrespect and alter what has gone before, that will not take us forward but leave us for ever going over the same ground. It is important that we be positive, but some in the community are not and are holding things back.

I am delighted that our party tabled this motion and it is only right and proper that we address the attempts to rewrite what really happened. Winston Churchill, whom I admire greatly and who was one of my childhood heroes, once said:

“History will be kind to me, for I intend to write it.”

The history of Northern Ireland is too fresh to undergo a rewrite and we can never defend the indefensible or justify the unjustifiable, no matter whether a tweet about a 30th anniversary is sent by a twit—I can think of other words, but I am not allowed to use them in this House—and no matter how many people gather to celebrate the lives of terrorists and murderers.

Anyone who saw the faces of those family members who gathered at Castlederg during the despicable and wretched IRA parade—I was there—would say that the history of that area is not written but etched on the lines on their faces and the breaks in their hearts. The Protestant and Roman Catholic members of the Castlederg community had no wish to see the glorification of atrocities committed there. They had no wish to listen to the words of IRA members and elected leaders, or to see them parading through their streets with blatant disrespect. They stood silently in dignified protest with photographs of their murdered loved ones.

There are 28 unsolved murders in Castlederg and only one person has been held responsible. Imagine the anger and pain that the people of Castlederg felt at the time. My cousin Kenneth Smyth, a sergeant in the Ulster Defence Regiment, was murdered along with his Roman Catholic friend on 10 December 1971. That caused real pain, real sorrow and real frustration. An elected representative tried to elevate the position of two would-be killers, and the parade disregarded totally the feelings of those who were only 100 or 150 yards away.

We can move forward and find a way to make things work in Northern Ireland, but we cannot do so when such events are perpetually thrown in the faces of victims. Those real victims—as opposed to the perpetrators—have enough daily reminders, and it is essential that they feel supported by their community, their representatives and this House.

I ask Members to send a message of support that they will stand with my party and me against the artistic licence that is too often used to lessen the impact through phrases such as “legitimate targets” and “collateral damage”. There is no such thing: there is no such thing in Castlederg, on the Shankill road or at La Mon in Castlereagh in Belfast. There is certainly no such thing in Ballydougan in Downpatrick, where four UDR boys, three of whom I knew personally, were murdered by the IRA. There are only evil people, carrying out evil deeds for a cause that even those they think they represent do not want.

Today I stand for every true victim of the troubles and say to them: even as we attempt to move forward to a functioning society, your loss has not been erased, you were not irrelevant, your family were not ignored or emotionally isolated, and you are not now—indeed, you will never be—forgotten. That is my promise and the promise of my party.

15:49

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the DUP for the extremely well phrased motion, which covers everything that anyone who has been involved in Northern Ireland for many years sees as essential to the future. I feel a little like an interloper, but I think it important that somebody from the Labour party speaks, other than my hon. Friend the Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis).

I pay tribute to the previous Minister of State, the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning), and the previous shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), both of whom I had the pleasure of being with at Northern Ireland football matches. I hope that the new shadow Secretary of State, the new Minister of State and, indeed, the Secretary of State will come to the next Northern Ireland international match, which will hopefully take place at the newly developed Windsor Park stadium. We will not talk about the results in the World cup.

Much has been said about the Eames-Bradley report. The Northern Ireland Affairs Committee discussed that report and took evidence on it. As the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) said in his speech, Eames-Bradley could never have gone any further until the whole section on victims was changed. As he said, we cannot have a situation in which innocent victims are equated with perpetrators who die in the act of undertaking a killing or an atrocity.

I am sorry that so few Members from both sides of the House have been here to hear the very moving speeches of Members from all parts of the House, particularly those from the DUP and the SDLP, who have lived through what we are discussing. Those of us who are involved in Northern Ireland have observed it and have been there a lot, but they have lived through it. The speech of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) encompassed so well the frustration, anger, despair and misery of the many people in Northern Ireland who feel that they have not received justice. We cannot have a proper look at the past or look to a brave new future until there is honesty and truth. Honesty and truth are not coming from Sinn Fein-IRA. Until those leaders are honest about what happened in the past, we will not move forward.

I welcome the honest statement from the SDLP about the decision of its councillors on the naming of the park, which it knows caused huge distress. It is important that the leader of the party was prepared to say what he said. I also welcome the U-turn from the DUP on the Maze. It would have been quite shocking if it had become a shrine to terrorists, so that visitors could have gone to the Titanic in the morning and to the shrine in the afternoon. I am delighted that that has been dropped. I just hope that Sinn Fein does not throw its toys out of the pram and that the proper development of the site can go ahead.

[Dr McCrea]

I assure the hon. Lady that she did not need to worry, because there was never going to be and there never will be a shrine at the Maze.

[Kate Hoey]

We are all very happy about that.

We have to recognise that there is a feeling among the pro-Union community in Northern Ireland that there has been an unevenness about the way in which we have investigated atrocities, particularly in relation to the huge amounts of money that were spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry. That inquiry did produce a very good report and the Prime Minister made an excellent contribution in recognising that, but the idea that the PSNI will spent thousands and thousands—

[Dr Alasdair McDonnell]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kate Hoey]

Of course I will give way.

[Dr McDonnell]

Does the hon. Lady accept that the reasons why so much money was spent on the Bloody Sunday inquiry were, first, that a whitewash job was done on it in the beginning and the lies had to be reversed and, secondly, that half the money was spent because of Ministry of Defence obstruction, which caused endless amounts of money to be spent on lawyers, who had to move all over the place? A fraction of the money could have brought us to the same conclusion.

[Kate Hoey]

The fact is that a huge amount of money was spent on that inquiry. We have had the report and the apology, and I do not see the necessity of the PSNI spending a lot more time and money trying to prosecute people who are now pensioners and who, whatever happened in the past, and whatever went wrong, were doing what they thought at the time was their duty.

Why have that money, time and effort not been spent investigating atrocities such as that at Kingsmill? That was a shocking atrocity, as the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson) who met some of the victims said. This is something people do not understand. They do not understand why no one has been investigated further for Omagh or Enniskillen—we could go through a whole list. It is just not acceptable because it seems that things are investigated only when the military or armed forces have been involved in some way. I know that their standards have to be higher, but when it comes to looking at justice, people feel aggrieved because they feel they have not had justice.

I join the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in paying tribute to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. People who did not live in border areas in those days realise that they do not understand what many of those RUC officers and their families went through in dark nights, when they were subject to the most appalling retribution. I add my tribute to the RUC to those of other hon. Members.

Dr Richard Haass has a huge task. He may find that he can move some things forward and get some more agreements, but ultimately, one man coming in from the United States will not change what people feel. This is interesting because we are talking about the past, and I hope Dr Haass recognises his country’s past role in the way it spent thousands and thousands of pounds allowing money to come to Ireland that was then used to fund the IRA and kill innocent civilians. I hope he realises that the United States had a bit of involvement for some time in ensuring that money was coming through to the IRA. We must remember that kind of thing as well; otherwise, the issue is again seen as one-sided.

I see huge changes in Northern Ireland, and tourism now is brilliantly up on all the figures we have had in the past. The Titanic centre, the new Giant’s Causeway centre—I can name something in every constituency in Northern Ireland that has improved and is bringing in tourism.

[Jim Shannon]

Tourism in Northern Ireland is up by 4% in the last year, and is aiming for more. One of the great places to visit is Strangford Lough in my constituency.

[Kate Hoey]

I have had the honour of speaking at the annual dinner in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, so I do know it.

Finally, we must remember—this is a point for those on the Front Benches—that there is a feeling in Northern Ireland that it is somehow great and okay to be Irish and have the Irish flag. The Irish Government are always speaking up for nationalists in Northern Ireland, and people who feel more Irish than British. Somehow, however, there is almost an embarrassment somewhere about sticking up for people in Northern Ireland who feel British and have the British flag. Our Government and Secretary of State have to feel that they are above it all and neutral, but the Irish Government do not feel like that. They are quite clear: they support people in Northern Ireland who would ultimately like to be part of an all-Ireland state. We must be careful about that issue.

People voted to stay part of the United Kingdom. They want to stay part of the United Kingdom, and until there is a vote, I do not understand why anyone is saying that the British flag should not be flying anywhere in Northern Ireland, particularly on our town halls. There are all these nice words about everybody getting on well with each other. Of course that has to happen, and the work going on in our communities is making that a lot better than it was. However, we cannot divert the important issue of identity. That would be important to people in my constituency, so why should it not be just as important to those in Northern Ireland?

Finally, on victims, would mainland MPs—we do not have the same law on victims as Northern Ireland—accept it if someone who had committed the most appalling atrocity was treated as a victim in the same way as those who suffered from their atrocity? We would not let that happen. I hope Northern Ireland will be part of the UK for a very long time—for ever. People in Northern Ireland must be entitled to the same rights and privileges as people in the rest of the UK. That is fundamental. Until that approach to victims is changed, we will never be able to move forward to the future all hon. Members want.

[Mr Gregory Campbell]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the hon. Gentleman, I should inform the House that I will not apply the 10-minute limit to the winding-up speeches, but I trust he will adhere roughly to it.

16:00

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will adhere to that time. It is a pleasure to serve under your deputy speakership.

The debate has been telling and important. As many right hon. and hon. Members have said, it is being held on the 20th anniversary of the Shankill road massacre. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) outlined in very emotional yet diplomatic terms what happened on that day. October 1993 was an horrendous month. As the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and others have outlined, we had not only the Shankill massacre, which resulted in nine murders, but the Greysteel massacre a few days later in my constituency, which resulted in eight murders. They are to be condemned equally. Without equivocation or hesitation, we utterly and totally condemn all those murders. In fact, 28 people died in October 1993, such was the nature of the violence that year.

[Ian Paisley]

My hon. Friend will vividly recall that on that morning we were sitting in a meeting of party officers in a hotel in Dungannon when we got the news of the atrocity at Shankill. Many of us raced to the Shankill road and saw for ourselves the horrid vista of violence that was visited on the people of Northern Ireland. When we witness such things with our own eyes, it drives home how atrocious terrorism in Northern Ireland has been, and how grateful we should be that we can start to move on.

[Mr Campbell]

We all recollect exactly where we were and our reactions at that time.

I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to his new position. He indicated that he has been in place for only 14 days, and yet he is rapidly getting to grips. He understands that his position is a challenging profile. The hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson)—the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee—said that the future had to be better than the past. All hon. Members concur with that. My hon. Friends the Members for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), and other colleagues, elaborated on double standards.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) made a reasonably positive contribution, although I do not get what connection the Planning Bill, which was debated yesterday in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has with dealing with the past. I will leave that to one side. The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) spoke at some length about the need to reconcile the distinctive and profound differences, which all hon. Members understand.

The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that honesty was required, and I shall speak in the remaining moments I have on the theme of honesty. There is a distinction in Northern Ireland, but it is not between Unionism/loyalism and nationalism/republicanism. There is a distinct difference in how we look at the past. The vast majority of people, be they Unionists or nationalists, look at the past and see that there were those who carried out evil, heinous atrocities. There were then those in the RUC, the UDR and the Army who had to respond and try to deal with the problem that had been created by the paramilitaries. The vast majority of people on both sides know that that distinction is absolutely clear. The security forces endeavoured to contain the paramilitaries that carried out so many atrocities, whether they were republican or loyalist organisations. Unfortunately, that containment was for many years restricted by political considerations. We always knew that the decoded message was, “Do not rock the boat. We’re trying to include republicans in the political process. Please do not rock the boat.”

[Mark Durkan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He rightly talks about the nefarious activities of all paramilitaries, but does he not recognise that the UDA, which carried out the murders that the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) talked about, carried out many of those murders while it was a legal organisation, with the British Government failing to proscribe it and both main Unionist parties supporting keeping it as a legal organisation, even though everybody knew it was up to its necks in sectarian murder?

[Mr Campbell]

The hon. Gentleman makes an intervention that, unfortunately for him, is not based on fact. Whether there was murder by the UDA or the UVF, or any overreaction by security forces, our position has been that if there is any evidence against anyone, no matter what their standing is, it should be brought before a court of law and that person should face the full rigours of the law.

Unfortunately, there are those in the republican community who engaged in paramilitary violence and seem to be beyond the reach of the courts and the prosecution service. No matter how much pressure people bring to bear by indicating their knowledge of previous events, there seems to be a reluctance to call in for questioning Gerry Adams, the former Member for West Belfast, Martin McGuinness the former Member for Mid Ulster, and a host of others.

The position is this: the past is there and we, in different communities, are trying to grapple with it. We are having a difficult time coming to terms with how we move forward. Dr Richard Haass and his team have been involved, and will be involved in the course of the next few months, in trying to help us to come to terms with that past. The perpetrators of violence might not acknowledge their part in it and not accede to the rest of the community that they were wrong. That has been Sinn Fein’s position to date and it gives no indication of changing it. If it holds to it, it may well be that we cannot deal comprehensively with the past. It would have to admit that it was wrong to engage in murder on Shankill road and so many other places, as others were equally wrong to engage in murder in Greysteel and in other locations.

While the guilty refuse to admit their guilt, we cannot come to a successful conclusion about the past. We may have to make do with whatever agreement we can reach to try to minimise the impact the current situation brings to all sides and say, as the Chair of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee said, that we have to make a future that is better than the past. As we are dealing with honesty, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, it would be churlish of us not to say that we must move forward. Let us try to indicate to everyone that what we have done in the past has been done. If the guilty refuse to own up and we cannot bring the evidence to bear to bring them to court, we will have to move beyond that and leave them to the contempt that, hopefully, their peers and successive generations will heap upon their heads.

16:09

[Mrs Villiers]

Madam Deputy Speaker, I join others in congratulating you on your new role. I also thank all Members for their contributions. It has been a very good and, at times, extremely moving debate, and I echo the praise of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) for the number of the contributions. We all in the House should pay particular tribute to political representatives and MPs in Northern Ireland who were prepared, courageously, to put their heads above the parapet during the troubles. It is an honour to have them in the House and to hear directly from them, who lived through these events, about their experiences.

A theme that has pervaded the whole debate is our profound sympathy for all those who suffered in Northern Ireland’s troubles. We have heard some desperately sad stories, and I am sure I speak for the whole House in again offering our condolences and sympathies to those who were injured, to those who lost loved ones and to those whose injuries might not be visible or physical, but are none the less deep-seated. It is a privilege to have the opportunity, thanks to the DUP, to debate these matters in the House.

The second thing common to almost every speech was a profound and sincere tribute to the men and women of the armed forces and police, particularly the Ulster Defence Regiment and the RUC, for all they did in upholding the rule of law and protecting the community in Northern Ireland, despite huge personal risk to themselves. Of course, many of them made the ultimate sacrifice.

Too many points were made in the debate for me to cover them in the short time available. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) expressed his concern about pubic inquiries, and certainly the Government have also expressed their scepticism about public inquiries as a means to deal with the past. In particular, it simply is not possible for each of those 3,500 victims to have their own public inquiry, which means that those we have are uneven and can divide opinion. Several other speakers, including the hon. Member for Vauxhall, raised that potentially uneven approach. She was also concerned about so-called Government neutrality. I can assure her that the Government are not neutral on the Union, but are fully supportive of Northern Ireland’s place within it. It was the previous Government who professed neutrality on the Union.

On the comments from the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), yes we had a little episode of non-bipartisanship, but there will always be areas in which the Front Benches work together—that has always been the case—and I welcome his reiteration of that this afternoon. As he said, we have a shared responsibility to do all we can to help Northern Ireland make progress. Crucially, I can provide the warmest of assurances that the Government remain determinedly engaged in Northern Ireland matters, as was seen not least in the Prime Minister’s bringing eight of the world’s most powerful leaders to a summit in County Fermanagh as a means of demonstrating what a fabulous place Northern Ireland is and how much affection he has for it.

[Lady Hermon]

Picking up on the comments and criticisms made by the shadow Secretary of State, I say very gently to the right hon. Lady that the perception in Northern Ireland is of a polite disengagement by the Government. If 54 police officers had been injured in rioting in Manchester or Birmingham, Cardiff or Bristol during the summer, the Home Secretary would have gone there, and it would have been equally nice and appropriate had she gone to Northern Ireland and said to the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister, “We support you all the way.” That is just one example of what I regard as polite disengagement. Will the Secretary of State address that concern?

[Mrs Villiers]

I assure the hon. Lady that I was fully engaged throughout this summer. I was in Northern Ireland for much of it, and I kept in close touch with the Chief Constable and the Justice Minister because of my grave concerns about what was going on. I assure her that I was the first very publicly to condemn the violence and the attacks on police officers, which were absolutely unacceptable. I will continue to call on all to ensure that they comply with the determinations of the Parades Commission, that they respect the rule of law and that these disgraceful attacks on police officers are not repeated.

My hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), the Chairman of the Select Committee, was right to focus on the future. Like other hon. Members, he expressed concern about the parading system and the violence we have seen. He was right to emphasise that hundreds of parades take place in Northern Ireland every year that are entirely peaceful, but it is important to point out that not only were the attacks we saw on police officers unacceptable, but they do huge economic damage to Northern Ireland because of their impact around the world. That is an important reason why I hope we will see a resolution of the current situation in north Belfast. It is a concern to have a protest camp and nightly parades so close to a very volatile interface, and I hope that local conversations can take place to try to find a way to resolve the situation.

The hon. Member for Bury South and my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury made a number of points about the importance of going forward with educational improvements. We heard an exchange about whether integrated education was the way forward. I am sure that all in this House recognise the importance of ensuring that children in Northern Ireland have the chance to learn alongside others, whether that is through shared education or integrated education.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) started his contribution by emphasising that it is vital to learn from the past, and I fully agree with him. Like him, this Government will not accept attempts to rewrite the history of the troubles. As many hon. Members have done today, he called for any process to have the victims of the troubles at its heart.

My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) paid tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mike Penning) for the excellent work he did as Minister of State. He also told us of the poignant and moving meetings he had with victims, including those of the horrendous Kingsmill massacre. Like others, he paid tribute to the armed forces, doing so as a Member of Parliament for a constituency with a proud naval tradition. The hon. Member for Upper Bann, too, talked about the importance of education and skills in building a successful future in Northern Ireland. I firmly agree with that and I am sure that the Northern Ireland Executive, who have responsibility for education now, do as well.

The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) spoke frankly about his party’s position on naming places after those responsible for previous violence, and it was welcome that he was able to clarify that. I share his call for a move towards a truly reconciled society. I am sure that everyone in the House will agree with calls made by him and by many others for all the political parties to approach the Haass process with the determination to give courageous leadership and to make progress. He also spoke, as others did, about the Eames-Bradley report. That proved quite divisive when it was published, but no doubt Dr Haass and others will seek to look at aspects of that report to see whether any of them are appropriate in terms of the outcome of the work that is undertaken by the Haass process.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) was right to focus on the complexity of this issue and the fact that there are no easy answers. It is of grave concern that so many victims are still seeking the truth and still feel that they have not had justice. He also talked about whether lessons could be learned from the Eames-Bradley report as part of the process that is now going forward.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke movingly about his experiences, and I wish to pay tribute to all the work that he has done in Northern Ireland on behalf of his constituents. They could not possibly have a more resolute defender of their interests, and I know that he and his family have personally suffered as a result of the terrorist campaigns in Northern Ireland. This House owes him a great debt of gratitude for all that he has done for his constituents. The hon. Gentleman said that, in his view, there was a need for an apology from the Government of the Republic of Ireland. I hope that he will welcome, as I did, the speech made recently by the Tánaiste, Eamon Gilmore, at the British-Irish Association conference, in which he acknowledged the concerns and the perceptions around the way in which his Government had occasionally approached the troubles. That was a welcome speech, and an important step forward by the Tánaiste.

The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) spoke with great determination and passion, and repudiated any suggestion that the troubles amounted to a just war. He was right to emphasise how important it had been to start this debate with a list of names being read out by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley. It is crucial, in this debate and in the Richard Haass process, that we remember that this is about individuals, each with their own story of tragedy. Hearing their names was an entirely appropriate way in which to commence what has been an excellent debate.

We have heard much about the past this afternoon, but a number of people have also called for a determination to move forward and build a better future for Northern Ireland. Much is being done to improve the economy, and important work is under way to address sectarian divisions and build the genuinely united community that we all want to see. The Executive, the political leadership and the people of Northern Ireland all have the full support of the UK Government in taking that important work forward.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House notes the ongoing discussions in Northern Ireland chaired by Dr Richard Haass on a number of important issues including the legacy of the Troubles; recognises the deep sense of loss still felt by the innocent victims of violence and their continuing quest for truth and justice; acknowledges the valour and sacrifice of the men and women who served and continue to serve in the armed forces, the police and the prison service in Northern Ireland; and is resolved to ensure that those who engaged in or supported acts of terrorism will not succeed in rewriting the narrative of this troubled period in Northern Ireland’s history.

Air Passenger Duty

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

16:21

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises that the UK has the highest rate of air passenger duty (APD) in the world; believes that this is detrimental to attracting inward investment, encouraging exports, drawing more tourists to the UK and helping ordinary families to benefit from aviation; notes research carried out by PricewaterhouseCoopers and others stating that abolishing APD would not only pay for itself but would be a permanent economic boost to the UK economy and create tens of thousands of jobs; further believes that the abolition of this tax would be of benefit to all regions of the UK; further notes that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to review green taxes; and calls on the Government, as part of that review, to give high priority to the abolition of air passenger duty.

May I offer you my congratulations on achieving your position, Madam Deputy Speaker? This is the first time I have spoken while you have been in the Chair.

I am pleased to say that the debate has received endorsement from the very highest level. During today’s Prime Minister’s questions, the Prime Minister made it clear during his exchange with the Leader of the Opposition that it was his intention—and presumably therefore that of the Government—to “roll back…green regulations”. His office has also promised a review of green taxes.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

I also welcome that statement by the Prime Minister. However, air passenger duty should not be confused with green taxes. It is a tax that costs the economy more than it brings into the Exchequer, so it is important that we concentrate on that as well.

[Sammy Wilson]

I will come to that in a moment, but we must make it clear that APD started off as a green tax and that it is still regarded by many as a tax that is meant to cut down emissions from the aviation industry. Like many other taxes that started off as green taxes, it is highly damaging to the economy.

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

Given the hon. Gentleman’s views, I expect that I will agree with most of what he says, but he is wrong on that point. I went back to Hansard and checked what the Government said at the time of the introduction of APD. It was not introduced as a green tax. It has been stolen by the green movement, but it was introduced because the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, thought that aviation was under-taxed, even though that was not the case. I agree with most of the hon. Gentleman’s points, but the tax was not introduced as a green tax.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not going to go back into the history of Hansard to dispute that point. However, whether the tax has been hijacked, or whether it was originally intended to be a green tax, it is still cited today as one of those taxes that we need to hold on to if we are to cut our carbon emissions.

There is, of course, general concern about electricity prices, the cost of air travel and a whole range of issues affecting the UK economy. The previous Government were, of course, the same on green issues as the present Government, but the zeal of UK Governments to deal with such issues is not found in other parts of the world or of Europe, and that places us at a disadvantage. We have to stop this King Canute attitude to climate change whereby the UK Government think that they can somehow use fiscal powers to affect what is happening to the climate across the world, although they are damaging our own economy at the same time.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

A label has been attached to the hon. Gentleman—quite unfairly, I am sure—to the effect that he is a climate change denier. I cannot believe for one moment that that could be true. Would he like to take the opportunity to put on record the fact that he actually believes that there is climate change?

[Sammy Wilson]

Only a fool would deny that there is climate change. The world’s climate has been changing ever since the world was in existence. The question is what is the cause of that climate change, and what impact might the fiscal measures introduced by the House have on it.

[Mr Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Ind)]

On measures to address climate change, does the hon. Gentleman agree that air passenger duty has led to passenger change? Instead of flying from UK domestic airports, people are going to Schiphol, Paris, Frankfurt and Madrid for their long-haul flights, which means that the UK just loses out.

[Sammy Wilson]

We in Northern Ireland, of course, feel that much more than anyone else because we share a land boundary with another country and are just 100 miles away from what is now a major international airport at which there is no air passenger duty. That places airports in Northern Ireland at a grave disadvantage.

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

I will glide over the hon. Gentleman’s advertising of Dublin airport. Is not his main point that this has nothing to do with climate, as it is really about demand management at Heathrow, where there is not enough capacity to deal with demand? That demand-management tool then damages other airports in Scotland, Northern Ireland or wherever.

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not know whether it is about demand management at Heathrow, but I do know that there has been an impact not only on the pattern of where and how people fly but, much more importantly, on economic growth in the United Kingdom and on the connectivity that many of the regions need if they are to develop markets elsewhere in the world.

Let us look at the facts. Since air passenger duty was introduced, it has increased by 160% for short-haul flights and by 225% for long-haul flights. The tax brings £2.8 billion into the Exchequer, and that is expected to rise to £3.8 billion by 2016-17. If we make a comparison with other EU countries, we can see where the problem lies. Many EU countries do not have any APD, while some introduced it but abandoned it because of its impact. The countries that have retained it have done so at a lower level than here in the United Kingdom. I shall not bore the House with all the percentages, but others might want to cite them to demonstrate the impact on airports in their areas.

I do not want to be parochial, although other Northern Ireland Members may wish to spell this out in much greater detail, but it would be remiss of me not to point out that air passenger duty has a significant impact on the economy in places such as Northern Ireland. We cannot transfer between air and train travel, so the only option for people who wish to travel to places outside Northern Ireland, whether in Great Britain or elsewhere, is to travel by aeroplane, and hence to pay the duty. The Irish Government abolished air passenger duty in the Republic, with which we share a land boundary, because they recognised the importance of air connectivity to the general well-being and growth of the economy, the promotion of jobs, the attraction of inward investment, and a range of other economic benefits.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

Is not a typical example of the benefits of zero air passenger duty provided by the Dutch Government who, having abolished it in 2010, discovered that £1.3 billion had been lost to infrastructure and the economy since its introduction?

[Sammy Wilson]

The Dutch Government were not the only Government to change their mind in that regard.

It would be churlish of me not to accept the role played by Ministers—especially the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury, who is in the Chamber, and the former Minister of State for Northern Ireland, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire)—who listened to what was said by Northern Ireland Members about long-haul flights and, in particular, one long-haul flight to north America that connects us to a major investment market. We have managed to attract a great deal of inward investment from that place, but the main fear expressed by the Northern Ireland Executive was that the loss of that route—which was likely to go because of the air passenger duty issue—would lead to the loss of an important economic lever in the investment package of the Minister of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

Notwithstanding what has been said about this not being a listening Government, on that issue the Government did listen and act. As a result, we have retained the long-haul flight to north America, which is still paying dividends in terms of connectivity and investment. The industry Minister has announced a number of investments from north America in the last few months, and I have no doubt that part of that success is due to the ease with which managers from New York and Boston, for example, could fly into Northern Ireland for meetings with the firms that they had set up there.

[Mr Jeffrey M. Donaldson (Lagan Valley) (DUP)]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the leadership that he provided in discussing these issues as Northern Ireland’s Finance Minister. Does he agree that what Northern Ireland really needs—apart from a solution to the APD problem—is a proper air strategy that takes account of the role of each of our airports and enables us to adopt a joined-up approach?

[Sammy Wilson]

I think that that applies to the United Kingdom as a whole. The debate about whether Heathrow should be expanded or whether there should be an alternative to Heathrow is relevant to regional airports in not just Northern Ireland, but other parts of the United Kingdom, to which I am sure other Members will refer.

[Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises the importance of protecting the existing route between Northern Ireland and north America, but does he agree that APD is also preventing new routes from opening up? May I offer an example from Manchester airport in my constituency? AirAsia X was looking to open a new route from Kuala Lumpur and was considering Manchester as the destination, but it dropped the plan in favour of Paris Orly simply because of APD.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is one of the reasons why the Northern Ireland Executive sought the devolution of long-haul APD. We pay the price for that, as the lost revenue has to come out of the block grant for Northern Ireland, but despite that, it was important because of the freedom that it gave us to look for new long-haul routes, which would be good for the economy. I have heard time and again from regions in England and Scotland that industry leaders believe it is important to try to get new long-haul routes for connectivity in terms of selling exports, getting inward investment and making business connections, but that is being held back because of the high level of APD for long-haul flights.

[Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)]

I have listened with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the effects of APD on Northern Ireland and the complexities of the issue. Is he aware that it is also a tremendous issue in the Caribbean? Because of the arbitrary way in which it has been zoned, people pay more APD to go to the Caribbean than to go to north America. Does not all this point to the need for a holistic look at APD and its effects on not only the economy of Northern Ireland, but traditional allies of Britain in the Caribbean?

[Sammy Wilson]

I do not want to get into the complexities of how APD is calculated, but anyone with just a basic knowledge of geography knows that the Caribbean is closer than California, yet California is regarded as closer in terms of calculating APD. Even here there are anomalies that have regional impacts.

[Mr David Lammy (Tottenham) (Lab)]

Have the Northern Irish been able to forge any solidarity with the small nations in the Caribbean that are suffering in this way? The hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are many British citizens of Caribbean background and, as they are certainly not the country’s richest citizens, many of them cannot afford, as a family of four, £332 extra in APD to fly back to the Caribbean on a once-in-a-lifetime trip.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Although this tax is regarded by some as a tax on the rich and therefore a progressive tax, it is not: it is a flat-rate tax and therefore it is a regressive tax. Many of those who are hit are travelling on holidays or to see their families, and they save up for that even though many of them are on low incomes. Indeed, 45% of those who are hit by it would be regarded as being on medium or below-medium incomes, yet they pay the same tax as those earning more than £80,000. Leaving aside the impact on growth, on exports and on industry, the regressive nature of the tax makes it an unfair tax, and that is another reason this issue needs to be looked at.

[Sir Alan Haselhurst (Saffron Walden) (Con)]

Bearing in mind the huge revenue APD currently yields for the Government and the fact that passenger demand is rising, it would be quite a good idea to concentrate on some of the anomalies in the structure of the tax at present. That might be the weakest point of the shell around the argument—the perverse way it impacts in Northern Ireland, as the hon. Gentleman has persuasively been saying, in the Caribbean and, indeed, in other parts of the Commonwealth.

[Sammy Wilson]

The right hon. Gentleman is right. One of the reasons why we in Northern Ireland sought devolution of the long-haul tax is that we could not have afforded to have all our passenger duty devolved, with the impact that that would have had on the block grant. Nevertheless, chipping away at APD as the right hon. Gentleman describes is important.

I will come later to the revenue that the Government currently make from APD, as I am sure that is the point that the Minister will make. It is one thing to rant about the unfairness and inequity of air passenger duty, but where will the Government get the money from otherwise?

[Mr MacNeil]

Does not all that the hon. Gentleman is highlighting show the mindset of the zero sum game? There is no concept that, if APD were devolved, that would cause growth in the economy and the Government doing that would be rewarded. All that happens is that devolved Governments are penalised, while another Department in London gets the extra revenue in the economy.

[Sammy Wilson]

I have dealt with the issue in Northern Ireland, so I shall deal with that as a general issue for the United Kingdom economy as a whole. Let us look at the Government’s present objectives. We wish to achieve economic growth. We have heard the Chancellor on many occasions in the House argue that growth cannot be achieved simply by injecting more public funds into the economy, although some of us would query whether a particular type of injection, especially in infrastructure, would not have benefits.

Leaving that aside, the Government’s main thrust is that, if industry in the United Kingdom became more productive and more export-oriented and sold goods abroad, we would be able to achieve economic growth. Yet if there is one tax militating against export-oriented growth, it is this tax. Businesses currently pay about £500 million per year in air passenger duty. That, according to all the reports that have been done, influences the willingness and the ability of businesses to go overseas to look for suppliers, markets, investment and opportunities, and the frequency with which they do so. Therefore, air passenger duty has a deflationary effect and reduces the incentive for businesses to do what the Government want them to do. It therefore impacts on the ability of firms to increase their markets, increase their productivity and bring in investment, which can create further competition and help to increase the health of the economy.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman raises some interesting points, but I am puzzled about one thing. If reducing APD increases flights, where will those planes land? We seem to have a shortage of capacity at present. If we were full because we were doing so well, what would happen?

[Sammy Wilson]

The point was made earlier by my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) that APD must be seen in the context of an overall strategy. However, as has been pointed out by a number of Members, there are airports other than Heathrow and Gatwick which are capable of taking long-haul flights. Having those direct long-haul flights or even short-haul flights to other destinations would help many regional economies significantly, and there is excess capacity there. We should not always think in terms of only the main hub airports when we are talking about the industry’s capacity.

Studies have been done on the impact of removing air passenger duty and a report by PricewaterhouseCoopers went to the Chancellor. All economic models can be challenged. As an economist, I used to tell youngsters when I was teaching them in school that the model is only as good as the assumptions put into it, and those may change before the model has been run for sufficient time. We always have to be careful about economic modelling, and I am sure that the Minister will make the same point. The model used by the consultants took cautious views about elasticity of demand for tourism and elasticity of fiscal changes. It used a model that is used by the Treasury to measure the impact of policy changes. When the Chancellor comes to the House with Budget policies and tells us that behavioural changes will lead to this or that, he uses exactly the same kind of models that were used in this report. The outcome was that to remove air passenger duty altogether would lead to GDP growth in the first year of 0.45%, and in the next two years of 0.3%. During those three years, £16 billion would be added to GDP and there would be 60,000 jobs, an increase in exports of 5% and an increase in inward investment of 6%.

When people asked me for money, I would ask where it was to come from. If they wanted me to spend money on this, I would ask where we would spend less. If they wanted taxes on business reduced, I would ask where we were to get the money from. There must always be a counterbalance, but the good thing about this proposal is that it is fiscally neutral. If anything, given its impact on exports, investment and growth, the £4 billion that would be lost by 2016-17 would be more than compensated for by the increase in tax revenues and the reduction in benefit payments. That is most unusual for any fiscal change. The reasons for it are, first, that the level of taxation is so high in the UK compared with elsewhere that there would be a positive impact. Secondly, there is the importance of transport. This is borne out not just by the model but by the Department for Transport. The importance of transport to the economy is such that there is a huge multiplier effect. Lastly, because of the connectivity that this gives to other markets, there would be a positive impact.

The coalition Government promised to look at a replacement for air passenger duty and said that the revenue raised—they did not say that more would be raised—would be used to offset income tax changes. If the Government changed the method of taxation for air travel, they did not see that money as going into the general pot, either to reduce borrowing or to facilitate spending on other Departments, but as something that would be given away anyway to taxpayers. Therefore, as for how we pay for it, all the work that has been done indicates that it should be revenue-neutral. However, I assume—perhaps I am just being naive—that if the Government had made a promise that the revenue from taxing air travel would be given in income taxes and that had been factored in already, they did not actually need it for their fiscal reduction plans anyway.

I was going to talk about the environmental concerns. Members might have gathered that the impact of CO₂ emissions, or whatever other emissions there might be from air travel, on the world environment does not feature very high on my list of priorities. I am one of those who believe that there is a big orange globe up in the sky that has influenced the Earth’s climate for billions of years and will continue to do so and that the impact humans have on that is very limited. We should certainly not be strangling our economy in order to try to change the climate, especially when countries around the world that emit far more CO₂ than we ever will, do not give two hoots about emissions, so anything we do strangles our economy and is likely to have very little impact anyway.

Another reason why I do not believe that we should spend too much time on the environmental concerns is that air passenger duty, as a number of Members have pointed out, is not a green tax anyway. In that case, I am sure that Members will not be using arguments about polar bears sinking to the bottom of the Arctic ocean, or whatever other emotive arguments and blackmail they might wish to use, during this debate. Actually, it also means that I do not even have to deal with the environmental concerns.

[Mr MacNeil]

I hear a sigh of relief from behind you.

[Sammy Wilson]

There probably is a sigh of relief from hon. Friends behind me, because they do not all share my views on that.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

I was enjoying that part of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. For the Assembly, how close did the abolition of APD in Northern Ireland come to being a viable way of encouraging investment? Was it anywhere near that, or was it way down the Assembly’s list of priorities?

[Sammy Wilson]

It was very high on the Assembly’s list of priorities. We entered into the devolution of air passenger duty for long-haul flights not knowing what the final bill would be, but we did so in the knowledge that, regardless of what the bill would be, it was a very significant issue for the Northern Ireland economy—I can say that now because the bill has been settled, but if I had said it earlier Treasury Ministers might have thought, “Oh well, we can stick the arm in as far as we like.” It was one of our top priorities. Indeed, many people argued at the time that it was all about tourism, but it was not; it was essentially about the investment strategy that had been set out for Northern Ireland and the need for connectively with one of the main markets from which we attract inward investment. All the indications we had from investors show that ease of travel was very important, whether for their managers into Northern Ireland or for staff going to north America for training purposes or whatever, so for Belfast to have that connection was essential. For those reasons, the Northern Ireland Executive decided to seek the devolution of air passenger duty for long-haul flights.

[Nigel Mills]

I understand that completely, but can the hon. Gentleman explain why the Executive are not taking a similar view on short-haul flights and why it presumably thinks that there are better ways to encourage inward investment or tourism than at least partially reducing APD for flights from Northern Ireland?

[Sammy Wilson]

It really comes back to the point made in an earlier intervention about chipping away at it and trying to use arguments to undermine the tax and its anomalies and to highlight its impact at the regional level. We took the view that it was most important that the long haul part of the tax should be devolved because we were about to lose Continental Airlines flights into Northern Ireland. That issue had immediate priority.

As the Executive have discussed again just this week, we believe that the problem is UK-wide. One of the reasons why this debate is important and why we did not frame it solely in terms of Northern Ireland is that we believe it is about a UK-wide issue. If there is to be change, it should be made here in Westminster rather than the full cost—anything up to £90 million—being borne solely by Northern Ireland. That would have a significant impact on the block grant.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I fully accept that, but does the hon. Gentleman not accept that Northern Ireland is special and different because there is a lot of sea between it and the rest of the UK? Those who cannot afford to fly have to take a long route. It might help if Ministers sometimes did not fly to Belfast, but took the route that many poorer people have to take because it is so much cheaper to go all the way up to Stranraer.

[Sammy Wilson]

That is exactly right. The road or road-and-rail journey is also long and expensive.

To sum up, I trust that during this debate we will hear from Members about the impact that they have seen the tax having on the parts of the economy that they represent across the United Kingdom. Since there is to be a review of green taxes, semi-green taxes, pale green taxes, taxes that used to be green but are no longer, or whatever, and given that this issue should be revenue-neutral yet fit in with the Government strategy of export-led growth, I trust that APD will be given serious consideration in the review of fiscal policy.

16:57

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Nicky Morgan)]

Madam Deputy Speaker, it is a real pleasure to speak in this debate, particularly given that you are in the Chair. It does not seem that long ago that we were meeting on the Terrace and you were giving me advice on how to become a Member of Parliament—and now look at where we both are.

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I thank him for raising the issues, which relate to the two greatest challenges facing the Government and Britain today—rebuilding the British economy and restoring the public finances. The House well knows the state of both challenges when the Government came into office. The economy was still reeling from the impact of the recent banking crisis and Britain had the largest fiscal deficit in our peacetime history.

The hon. Gentleman started talking about zealousness, particularly in respect of green taxes. I thought he was going to talk about zealousness in tackling the fiscal deficit, although I am not sure that I heard that from him. The Government have had to face up to those challenges and take tough choices. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor committed to tackling our budget deficit and getting our national debt under control. Fixing the public finances is vital to maintain confidence in Britain and the stability that is an essential condition of growth, as the hon. Gentleman mentioned, and recovery.

In recent months, the statistics on gross domestic product, employment, business investment and consumer confidence have all shown that our efforts are beginning to bear fruit. The process of recovery is, of course, far from complete, but, building on the stable foundations that the Government put in place, the economy is now healing. I am sure that the whole House welcomes the signs of recovery so far and looks forward to seeing them continue.

In particular, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the recent good economic news from Northern Ireland. This year, Northern Ireland’s exports have risen by 4% in the second quarter of the year and in September they rose at the fastest rate in nearly six years. September also saw the third consecutive month of growth in Northern Ireland’s GDP, with activity rising in the manufacturing, retail and services sectors. It also saw the third consecutive month of rising private sector employment, while total jobs have grown by more than 5,000 over the course of the year. That has kept unemployment in Northern Ireland well below the UK average and the fourth lowest of the 12 UK regions. Just as Northern Ireland makes a key contribution to the UK economy overall, growth and recovery in Northern Ireland are making a key contribution to the UK’s wider recovery.

Supporting strong transport links is a key part of building our economic recovery. The Government are therefore bringing forward record investment in transport infrastructure, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, to ensure the connectivity of all parts of the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland. That is why in this year’s spending review we announced a £20 million fund to improve air connectivity between London and the rest of the United Kingdom. Where the case is made for a public service obligation, the Government will use this fund to support regional air links. Northern Ireland will be able to bid for that support. This would build on existing support for the Northern Irish economy—for example, the additional £94 million of capital spending power for the Northern Ireland Executive announced in this year’s Budget and the action plan set out in the Northern Ireland economic pact published this June.

Ensuring sound public finances is indispensable to economic recovery. With forecast revenues of £2.9 billion in 2013-14, air passenger duty—APD—makes an essential contribution to the Government’s strategy for tackling the current budget deficit and getting debt under control.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

I welcome the Minister to her post on the Treasury Front Bench. She will be aware that this time last year the Silk commission in Wales argued strongly that minor taxes such as airport duty should be devolved to the National Assembly and the Welsh Government with more or less immediate effect, to be implemented in the most recent Finance Bill. We are still waiting for the UK Government to respond to the first part of the Silk commission’s report. Is she able to enlighten us on when we are likely to have that response?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a specific date. All I can say is that Ministers are continuing to evaluate all this and ask for his patience for a little longer. I do appreciate that this matter is part of those discussions.

Despite these challenges, the Government have frozen APD in real terms since 2010, and since then APD rates have risen by only £1 for the vast majority of flights. Given the fiscal challenges we face, no responsible Government would simply relinquish nearly £3 billion of revenue.

[Ms Abbott]

The whole House understands the fiscal challenges, but given the particular problems that APD zoning is causing in the Caribbean, why are Treasury Ministers not prepared even to consider a change in the arrangements that would maintain their total tax take, as I appreciate they want to do, but be fairer to millions of people in the Caribbean and millions of people who live here, who are British voters, and who are having to pay this tax to go backwards and forwards?

[Nicky Morgan]

First, I am not sure that all hon. Members do understand the fiscal challenges facing the Government, but I will assume that the hon. Lady does, very much so. I listened carefully to what she said about the Caribbean. I know that Ministers, including my predecessor, have engaged with representatives. I could be wrong, although I do not think the hon. Lady will be surprised if I said that I know more about air passenger duty today than I did this time last week, but I think that zoning for the Caribbean was introduced by the previous Government. All Ministers keep all taxes under review. However, I heard what she said, and we will listen to the representations that are made.

[Mr MacNeil]

I, too, welcome the hon. Lady to her new position. What are these fiscal challenges that the Westminster Government face? The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), as Finance Minister in Northern Ireland, has to balance his books. The UK has not paid its way since 2001; in fact, in the past year it has borrowed £120 billion. There is a good argument that says that changing the management of APD will increase GDP and tax revenues. With that body of evidence behind it, is it not worth listening to the wise words on APD rather than ploughing on regardless?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I think that the fiscal challenges are very apparent. We still have a large debt and a deficit run up under the previous Government which this Government have said we need to tackle. Later in my speech I will talk about the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, the impact on GDP, and the assumptions that are made.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Minister to her post. She is at least the sixth Minister whom my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and I have approached on this subject and I think she may have slightly misunderstood the point made by my hon. Friend, which is that it is possible to be fiscally neutral while also being fairer. Will she go away and consider issues related to the Caribbean in particular, although this does affect other countries as well? Before the last election, the then shadow Treasury Ministers were very eloquent in advocating per-plane taxes and readjusting banding so that many of my Caribbean constituents, as well as those of many of the other Members present, would not be disadvantaged. Will the Minister at least give an undertaking to look at the issue with a fresh pair of eyes?

[Nicky Morgan]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I am keeping a very fresh pair of eyes on all areas of my Treasury brief. I look forward to meeting him and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) to discuss the issue further. We will certainly keep it under review.

As I have said, we must continue to work hard to reduce the deficit, so if we were to abolish APD, an alternative source for the revenue would need to be found. We never seem to hear any suggestions, but if we hear any today my hon. Friend the Exchequer Secretary will respond to them in his winding-up speech.

Some have argued that, in the case of APD, no such off-setting measures would be necessary and that abolishing the tax would pay for itself by increasing economic activity overall and thus receipts from other taxes. The motion cites the report by PricewaterhouseCoopers arguing exactly that. I will turn to the report shortly, but first let me address the general question of the impact of the tax system on the UK economy and the UK’s international competitiveness.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

I welcome the Minister to her place and congratulate her on her new post.

May I suggest that one way in which the Government could make money out of this and increase productivity would be to incentivise the 50,000 Australians who visit Northern Ireland every year to fly through Heathrow and use that as their hub, instead of flying to Dublin before travelling up to Northern Ireland and then leaving via Dublin and spending their money there?

[Nicky Morgan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s suggestion and I will certainly think about it. My earlier remarks hinted at the existence of the Airports Commission, which will look at all the UK’s airports, the role they play for travellers and how we deal with those who come here by whichever means.

[Mr Lammy]

On the Minister’s broader point, it is incredibly interesting to hear a Conservative arguing at the Dispatch Box that the highest taxation of this sort in the world is necessary. Is that consistent with the hon. Lady’s position in Loughborough?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his remarks. As a Conservative, I believe in the lowest tax possible, but I also believe in running the economy as responsibly as possible, meaning that what we get in, we spend out. That was put out of kilter by the legacy of the previous Government. We have been very clear about the reason for APD and the role it plays. We cannot choose to ignore £3 billion when we have to deal with the deficit and legacy left to us by the previous Government, of which the right hon. Gentleman was at times a member.

[Mr MacNeil]

On balancing the books and spending what we raise, if that were the case the UK would raise income tax by 8p to 10p in the pound, such is the size of the UK deficit in a country that has not paid its own way since 2001.

[Nicky Morgan]

This Government are making progress in making sure that we do pay our way. We also believe that people should keep as much as possible of the income they earn. I will come on to talk about household income and the impact APD has on it, but for now I want to address UK competitiveness.

When comparing different countries’ tax regimes, it is important to view the system as a whole. Comparisons between individual elements can be misleading, especially if companies’ decisions about where to invest are driven by the impact of the system as a whole, not its individual parts. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made clear many times, the Government are committed to ensuring that the UK has the most competitive tax system of all advanced economies. We want to have a tax regime that supports the attractiveness of all parts of the UK as places to invest in and that ensures that the whole of the UK is open for business.

[Graham Stringer]

I welcome the hon. Lady to her position. What she is saying about inward investment may or may not be true. As the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said, if we reduced this tax, the Revenue would not lose any income. However, what she is saying cannot possibly apply to tourism. Tourists from all over the world are flying to Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol rather than to Heathrow because of air passenger duty, and certain routes are not coming to regional airports in this country because of air passenger duty. Routes such as Bangkok, Hong Kong, Delhi, Mumbai and Beijing could be coming into Manchester if we did not have air passenger duty.

[Nicky Morgan]

I return to my original point, which is that if we were to abolish air passenger duty, as is called for in the motion, it would have to be replaced by something else to meet the Government’s commitment to put the nation’s finances on a sound footing and reduce the deficit. Although the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, I have not heard from him—indeed, I have heard from only one hon. Member—a suggestion as to how that revenue could be replaced.

I will come on to talk about investment and the PWC report. The hon. Member for East Antrim will not be surprised to hear that the Government have some questions about the assumptions that are made in that report.

[Nigel Mills]

I welcome my hon. Friend to her new post. I accept that the Government cannot fully abolish air passenger duty, but will she consider a short holiday for new long-haul routes, especially at regional airports? For example, if there was a new route from East Midlands airport to India, it could be spared APD for the first three to five years to give it a chance to bed in and to become viable. That would have no immediate cost to the Exchequer, but it may well help to generate the growth that we need.

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that suggestion. Like him, I know East Midlands airport very well as an east midlands Member of Parliament. The difficulty with regional holidays or variations is that they must be quite substantial to change passenger behaviour. That takes us back to my original point that the £3 billion that is raised by APD is a significant contribution to the Exchequer when we are tackling the deficit.

[Mr Nigel Evans]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her new position. She said that the changes would have to be significant to alter passenger behaviour. Is not the fact that we have the most expensive APD in the world changing passenger behaviour, because people are taking short-haul flights to Schiphol, Charles de Gaulle, Dublin or even Belfast in order to take longer-haul flights, saving several hundreds of pounds for their families?

[Nicky Morgan]

I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. The previous question was about regional variations within the United Kingdom. That is why I was talking about changing behaviour. As I said, this all goes back to my original point that air passenger duty raises £3 billion a year, which is a sum that cannot be ignored if we want to do what this Government were elected to do, which is to repair the nation’s finances. Obviously, my interest in this area is growing as every second of this debate passes.

[Graham Stringer]

The hon. Lady is being very generous with her time. I appreciate her difficulties because, as she says, she is a new pair of eyes on these issues. Will she meet an all-party delegation on behalf of regional airports to discuss these matters in more detail away from the heat of the Chamber?

[Nicky Morgan]

I am always happy to meet hon. Members to discuss these matters. That sounds like an interesting idea. It might help me to learn more about these issues, as I am doing in this debate.

In order to make our tax system more competitive, we plan to reduce the rate of corporation tax to 20% from April 2015. At that point, the UK will have the joint lowest corporation tax rate in the G20 and by far the lowest rate in the G7. Increased rate relief on research and development, combined with the patent box, will make the UK one of the most attractive places to innovate. As a result, the latest KPMG annual survey of tax competitiveness rated the UK as the No. 1 most competitive tax regime internationally.

As well as supporting UK competitiveness, within the constraints of the need to repair the public finances, the Government are also supporting households to meet the cost of living. By April 2014 the Government will have increased the personal allowance to £10,000, which will take 2.7 million people out of income tax altogether. In Northern Ireland, since 2010 the rising personal allowance has already taken 75,000 people out of tax. In recognition of the impact of persistently high pump prices, the fuel duty increase that was planned for 1 September this year was cancelled, and the Chancellor has also announced his intention to cancel the September 2014 duty increase.

On aviation taxes, the House will recognise that the UK is one of only four EU countries that does not charge VAT on domestic flights. That stands in contrast to rates of VAT on those flights of 19% in Germany and 20% in the Netherlands. There is also no duty charged on the fuel used in international, and virtually all domestic, flights. Finally, as I have already said, despite the fiscal challenges, the Government have ensured that APD rates have been frozen in real terms since 2010, rising by just £1 for the vast majority of passengers since then. The Government therefore reject the suggestion that we have pushed taxes on aviation too high.

Let me turn to the report on APD published earlier this year by PricewaterhouseCoopers and to which today’s motion refers. The report claims that abolishing APD would give such a boost to the wider economy that it would make other tax receipts increase by enough to offset the loss of APD revenue—the £3 billion I referred to a moment ago. The report’s conclusions, however, are based on economic models that rely on a series of significant assumptions. In particular, the report makes a series of assumptions about the behavioural impact of scrapping APD—how much business air travel would increase by—and the resulting increase in overall UK productivity.

The Government have reviewed the report, its modelling and the underlying assumptions carefully. We do not agree with the assumptions needed to justify the claim that abolishing APD would be revenue neutral overall, and, in our view, abolishing APD would have a significantly smaller impact on UK economic activity than PWC has estimated. There would therefore be a smaller increase in other taxes than PWC predicted, with overall tax revenues falling as a result. We also note that under some of the less optimistic assumptions that PWC considered in its report, its models predicted a net loss of revenue in the longer term. As I have said, any revenue loss would either need to be made good by increased revenues from other sources, or would need to be compensated for by further reductions in public spending.

The Government dispute the claim by PWC that APD is a regressive tax—I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is no longer in his place, as this goes to the heart of what he was talking about. PWC compared APD rates with average weekly household expenditure of different income groups, but its analysis took no account of the fact that not all households pay APD at all. A better measure of fairness would be to compare what households spend on APD, relative to their incomes. Using that measure, statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher income households.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am amazed at the way the Minister is trying to deal with this issue. Surely we only measure the impact of a tax on someone who consumes a service. The PWC report looked at various income groups and found that the tax fell far more heavily on those with lowest income levels—that is 45% of travellers— compared with those with the highest levels. We are already comparing travellers. Indeed, the tax represented 28% of their average weekly income. If that is not regressive, I do not know what is.

[Nicky Morgan]

ONS statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher-income households. We are looking at what people actually spend.

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

How would the Minister explain that to my Caribbean constituents, many of whom come from Jamaica or other Caribbean islands and have lived here for 40 or 50 years on low incomes? They now find themselves being excessively taxed in order to stay in contact with their family and friends in their home countries.

[Nicky Morgan]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has just arrived in this debate, but we have already discussed Caribbean issues [Interruption.] Well, I think I have dealt with that issue. [Interruption.] I am sorry—I had not appreciated that the hon. Lady was present, but there were questions on this matter from the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington and the right hon. Member for Tottenham, and I have addressed the issue of the Caribbean. ONS statistics show that lower-income households spend a lower proportion of their disposable income on APD than higher-income households. In relation to the Caribbean, APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax, specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention on APD ensures that our APD complies with those rules.

The hon. Member for East Antrim spoke of the impact of APD on Northern Ireland in the context of recently announced changes to the rate of air travel tax in the Republic of Ireland. I thank him for saying that this is a listening Government and for his recognition of the moves we have made in that regard. We recognise the position of Northern Ireland as the only part of the UK that shares a land border with another EU member state with a different rate of aviation tax, which is why we have devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set APD rates for direct long-haul flights. The Government and the Northern Ireland Executive recognise that decisions on further fiscal devolution of any taxes require careful consideration. We expect recommendations on further devolution to be put to the Government and Northern Ireland Executive by autumn 2014.

The debate highlights some of the most important issues facing Britain today, including repairing the public finances and bringing debt under control, thus ensuring the stability on which economic recovery depends. APD makes a vital contribution to the Government’s fiscal strategy—it would be irresponsible of us to abandon it—and forms part of the wider tax system that we are making into one of the most competitive in the world. I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving us the opportunity to debate those important issues, but I cannot agree with his proposal that the tax should be abolished.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Before I call the shadow Minister, I point out to the House that nine hon. Members have indicated to me that they wish to catch my eye. In recognition of that fact, and of the time constraint we face, I will impose an eight-minute limit on Back-Bench contributions, the first of which will follow the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell).

17:21

[Catherine McKinnell (Newcastle upon Tyne North) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I commend the Democratic Unionist party, and particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), for bringing this timely issue before the House. He gave a thoughtful and considered introduction to the debate.

It is clear from the hon. Gentleman’s contribution that air passenger duty causes concern to many hon. Members on both sides of the House and their constituents. More than 100,000 people backed the petition of the fair tax on flying campaign, which resulted in a Backbench Business Committee debate in November 2012. Who can blame people for being concerned when they face a worsening cost-of-living crisis, with soaring energy bills, increasing child care costs, countless other demands on household budgets, and prices rising faster than wages in 39 out of the past 40 months since the Government came to power?

The fair tax on flying campaign is driven by a number of the UK’s leading travel organisations, including airports, trade associations and destinations. In my new role as shadow Economic Secretary to the Treasury, I look forward to engaging with those bodies and their concerns with my fresh eyes.

[Lady Hermon]

Given that APD is loathed and detested by our constituents throughout the United Kingdom, will the hon. Lady take this opportunity at the beginning of her contribution to commit any future Labour Government to the complete abolition of APD, and cheer us all up before we go home this evening, please?

[Catherine McKinnell]

It is interesting that the hon. Lady mentions cheering up—an ONS report out today says that Northern Ireland is one of the happiest places in the UK—but I appreciate that APD is a cause of unhappiness, as was clearly articulated by a number of hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim. I will set out the Labour party’s position on the subject later, but I want to focus on the Government’s approach—[Interruption.] Given the Prime Minister’s performance today, one wonders who is running the country.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

To be specific, what exactly is the position of the Labour party, not the Government, on air passenger duty?

[Catherine McKinnell]

As I said, I will set out the Labour position, but it is interesting that Government Members are keen to deflect responsibility. It is important to reflect on what the Government have said to date on air passenger duty.

I would, however, first like to reflect on the contribution by the hon. Member for East Antrim, who made a well-thought-out speech, particularly on the 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers report into the impact of APD. The report concluded that APD affects not just the travel and tourism sector, but the economy as a whole. PWC was commissioned by British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, Ryanair and easyJet, and suggested that the abolition of APD could result in a 0.45% increase per year in GDP and the creation of almost 60,000 jobs between now and 2020. The Government dispute those figures, but I will return to them later in my speech.

[Mike Thornton]

I congratulate the hon. Lady and thank her for giving way. Is it not significant that the companies that would benefit most from getting rid of APD want to get rid of it? Is it not pretty obvious that they would back the report’s conclusions?

[Catherine McKinnell]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind wishes. The companies commissioned the report, but it is for the Government to set out their position and their own findings. I would like to focus on the Government’s statistical analysis and assessment of APD. I know the value added to the north-east economy by Newcastle airport. I know how critical certainty and stability on issues such as APD are for the airport and the businesses that rely on it, and for the export-led recovery that the hon. Member for East Antrim referred to on a number of occasions. Newcastle airport alone supports 7,800 jobs across the north-east region, with 3,200 on site, and more than £250 million of UK exports were shipped through the airport in the last year—facts that speak for themselves. It is therefore little wonder that the Government’s dither and lack of direction has caused significant frustration for passengers, the travel and tourism sector, and the industry as a whole.

What have we heard so far from the Government on APD? The Conservative 2010 election manifesto pledged to:

“Reform Air Passenger Duty to encourage a switch to fuller and cleaner planes”.

The Liberal Democrats went further, suggesting that they would ensure that pollution was “properly taxed” by replacing the per-passenger APD with a per-plane duty and that air freight would be taxed for the first time. They also said that they would introduce an additional, higher rate of PPD on domestic flights if realistic, alternative and less-polluting travel was available.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady makes a good point about the views of the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrats held a multitude of views in opposition and hold another multitude of views now they find themselves in government, so her words do not surprise me at all.

[Catherine McKinnell]

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next comment. It is important not to take a Liberal Democrat election manifesto at face value, but one might reasonably have expected to see some action from Ministers given that the coalition agreement promised that the Government would:

“reform the taxation of air travel by switching from a per-passenger to a per-plane duty.”

and

“ensure that a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.”

The Chancellor then announced in the 2010 Budget that major changes to APD, including switching to a per-plane duty, would be subjected to public consultation, but nothing happened, and almost one year later, at Budget 2011, he announced that the Government would consult on simplifying the structure of APD. In between, the fair tax on flying campaign was launched not only to raise concerns about this issue, but to elicit a modicum of action or at least certainty or clarity from the Government. Budget 2011, however, saw the Chancellor U-turn on the coalition agreement pledge made less than 12 months earlier to switch to a per-plane duty, informing the House:

“we had hoped that we could replace the per passenger tax with a per plane tax. We have tried every possible option, but have reluctantly had to accept that all are currently illegal under international law. So we will work with others to try to get that law changed.”

Will the Minister update the House on how that work on changing the law is going?

At Budget 2011, the Chancellor went on to state:

“In the meantime, we are consulting today on how to improve the existing and rather arbitrary bands that appear to believe that the Caribbean is further away than California. We will also seek to bring private jets, which pay no duty at all, into the scope of taxation.”—[Official Report, 23 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 963.]

The APD rate rise due in April 2011 was deferred to April 2012.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Catherine McKinnell]

Not just yet, because I need to make some progress.

At the same time, we saw an 8% increase take effect, with APD rates thereafter rising in line with inflation. As announced at Budget 2010 and then again at Budget 2011, the Government did indeed consult on the structure of APD, in a consultation that covered several areas, including private jets, different tax bands, premium economy flights, flights from regional airports and the possible devolution of APD. The consultation paper raised the concern that the existing four-band structure was damaging UK competitiveness and contained several anomalies, such as the higher rate on Caribbean flights than on flights to destinations in the USA, about which several hon. Members have raised concerns.

The paper set out two options: returning to the pre-2009 structure of two tax bands and a different rate between two classes of travel; and combining the two higher bands for flights over 4,000 miles to create a three-band structure and retaining different rates between different classes of travel—an option, however, that would not have resolved the Caribbean concern. The consultation also raised the prospect of a lower rate of APD for flights from regional airports and the question of whether APD should remain a UK-wide tax or be devolved.

The Government spent the best part of a year apparently listening to interested parties that took considerable time and effort to respond in good faith to the consultation. And then what? For the whole of the UK, apart from announcing that APD would be extended to business flights, they did absolutely nothing. In their response to the consultation, they confirmed in December 2011 that they did not propose to make any changes to the tax’s banding structure, to how different classes of flight were taxed or to the application of APD to the regions. It is little wonder then that industry players described the consultation as

“a sham and a waste of taxpayers’ money”.

Of course, we saw action on Northern Ireland, following the July 2011 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee report, which urged the abolition of APD on flights to and from airports in Northern Ireland owing to the specific problem faced there—direct competition from airports in the Republic and its lower rates of APD. In order to maintain the transatlantic route from Belfast to Newark, the Chancellor announced in September 2011 that the APD rate on long-haul flights using airports in Northern Ireland would be cut, because Continental Airlines had, unsustainably, been paying the APD itself at a cost of some £3.2 million a year. Then, in the Finance Act 2012, APD on direct long-haul flights departing from Northern Ireland was devolved to the Northern Ireland Assembly, which then abolished it on these flights from 1 January 2013.

Clearly, flights from Northern Ireland face specific challenges, as I have noted and as was set out clearly by the hon. Member for East Antrim. It is the only part of the UK that has a land border with another EU member state. George Best Belfast City airport and Belfast International both compete directly with Dublin in attracting airlines, routes and passengers. So the Opposition supported the Government’s move on APD in relation to long-haul flights and Northern Ireland. Given that Northern Ireland also largely relies on air transport for its link to the rest of the UK, we are sympathetic to the argument for reducing APD on all routes from Northern Ireland, but we would need to examine the impact of that in the round, including on the block grant, which the hon. Member for East Antrim acknowledged.

Other options are, of course, available. We could consider protected routes, which already exist in the UK—the air link to the Scottish islands being an example—with Belfast to Heathrow being suggested as the obvious choice. But the Government’s piecemeal approach to dealing with APD, an issue that affects the UK as a whole, is regrettable, particularly given the importance of long-term certainty on this issue for industry and the wider economy. Leaving aside the changes we have seen in Northern Ireland, it appears that the Government have simply given up on this issue altogether.

In May, the Select Committee on Transport published a number of proposals on APD as part of its wider inquiry into aviation strategy. Included in the recommendations were that: the Treasury should conduct and publish a fully costed study of the impact of APD on the UK economy; the Government should carry out an objective analysis of policies such as differential rates of APD; the Government should conduct a 12-month trial on an APD holiday for new services operating out of airports not in the south-east; and the Government should not further devolve APD at this stage, as it may have negative impacts, for example, in the north of England. Some of those recommendations stemmed from the February 2013 PricewaterhouseCoopers report, to which reference is made in the motion.

Ministers appear to have totally dismissed both reports, rejecting all the Select Committee’s recommendations apart from the one on devolution. They have stated:

“The Government disagrees with the findings of the PwC report. The Government believes that abolishing APD would have a smaller impact on GDP than the report implies and would cause a net loss of tax receipts. This reduction in receipts would need to be paid for through tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere, which would themselves have an economic impact.”

The response went on to state:

“The Government has no plans to undertake a review of the economic impact of APD at this point.”

So, the Government do not believe the findings of others about the economic impact of APD, but have no plans to verify them or otherwise undertake their own review.

There is no doubt that APD brings in a significant amount of funding to the Treasury, with a yield of £3 billion anticipated this year and next, as the Minister mentioned a good number of times. The matter does need to be considered in the round, but the Government’s unscientific approach to this issue seemed to be a cavalier one to take to economic growth, given that we have had three years of a flatlining economy.

The motion states:

“that it is the intention of the Prime Minister to review green taxes; and calls on the Government, as part of that review, to give high priority to the abolition of air passenger duty.”

In preparing my comments for today, I wondered whether this review actually existed, but the Prime Minister seems to have confirmed it at questions, because he is apparently waking up to the fact that struggling families need support and believes that this is the way forward. We then read, however, that this review has been kiboshed by the Liberal Democrats before it has even begun. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will shed some light on that issue, too, in his concluding comments.

In conclusion, despite various promises of action on this issue, we have seen anything but. The reforms in Northern Ireland addressed the very specific situation in that part of the UK, but this issue affects the whole of our country. After three years of a flatlining economy, and with households up and down the country in the midst of a cost of living crisis, the Government’s complete lack of direction on APD has been extremely unhelpful at a time when family purse strings have been tightened and businesses have been crying out for support. The lack of certainty on this issue from the Government simply risks investment decisions being delayed and future development being jeopardised, which, crucially, puts jobs at risk, too. This just is not good enough, but it is what we have come to expect.

17:38

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I intervened during the speech made by the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) to ask what the Labour party’s policy on this issue actually was. The hon. Lady made a good speech, but she did not answer my question. She spoke for 17 minutes without providing any clarity on the Labour party’s position, and I remain unsure about the nature of her objections—if they are objections—to this tax.

It is important to review the tax’s history. It was introduced in 1994 by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr Clarke), and at that time it was not a green tax. Like most taxes, it was brought in as a revenue-raising exercise and there was no mention whatever of its environmental impact. It was only under the previous Labour Government that the tax mutated into a green tax. It was doubled in 2007, and the banding was introduced in 2008. The right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) and the hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) have spoken of how their constituents who travel to the Caribbean are particularly affected by the banding, but we did not hear any mention that that banding was introduced by the Labour Government. It seems peculiar that the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North has not mentioned that Government’s contribution to the development of the tax and nor has she set out the Labour party’s current position on it—that remains perfectly obscure.

We need to consider the deficit. As a free-market Conservative, I do not like taxation, and I yield to no one in my desire and enthusiasm to cut taxes and to stimulate the economy through reducing the burden of taxation to promote growth and enterprise, and to encourage risk-taking and other forms of business enterprise. However, I recognise that we have a deficit, and that deficit completely shapes the nature of our debates on taxation—[Interruption.] I sense an intervention coming on.

[Mr MacNeil]

I was trying to resist the urge to intervene, but the deficit in the UK has been in existence since 2001. The UK has been in a fiscal black hole since then, which was seven years before the economic crisis; it has not been able to pay its way since that time.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman shows an admirable grasp of our recent economic history; he is absolutely right. From 2001 to today, we have consistently run a deficit. Conservative Members have always been struck by the fact that, although the economy was actually growing during the first six of those years, between 2001 and 2007, the Government of the time saw fit to run a deficit in every one of those years. The present Government inherited a deficit of £160 billion—12% of our gross domestic product—and the fact that it has now been reduced by a third represents a remarkable success. It now stands at somewhere between £110 billion and £115 billion, depending on how the figure is calculated. In the context of deficit reduction, any Government would be reluctant to abolish air passenger duty in a peremptory way, as it brings in more than £3 billion a year. We all recognise that the deficit is a real thing—it is an ongoing annual sum that we have to close—and the £3 billion a year raised by APD makes a real contribution to its reduction.

I fully understand all the supply-side arguments. I understand that, if we were to abolish the tax, we could perhaps reap economic rewards at some future date. However, those who promote reducing or abolishing it must tell us how they would replace that revenue from day one. Where would they find the £3 billion that APD currently brings in? Conservative Members are familiar with general tax-cutting arguments. One could argue for the abolition of most taxes on the basis that that would stimulate growth, and that the money would be recouped in the long run through increased tax revenues. However, we have to face the fact of a real deficit, which is something that Opposition Members never seem to acknowledge in their speeches.

I was entertained by the speech made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who put forward in a typically trenchant way his views on green taxes, the environment and all the rest of it. I have often heard such arguments in the pub in Staines among my constituents and others, so I am familiar with them, but I shall not touch on green taxes, because what I am concerned about is the deficit.

If we were balancing our books and if we had succeeded a fiscally responsible Government, I would be among the first to say that this APD tax should be abolished. I would absolutely recognise the compelling argument that lowering taxes increases business enterprise. However, because we run a deficit, I feel that the £3 billion coming into the Exchequer is too high an amount simply to discard and forget about.

We need to look at the effects of such taxation on the aviation industry. I think it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) who made the point that although APD is quite high, the industry is expanding and more people are flying. From the Government’s point of view, as a revenue collector, the tax is not impeding the growth of the industry, so it would be irresponsible for them to forgo such tax revenue, especially given our record deficit.

Going forward to a time when we are balancing the books under the next Conservative Government, I will be at the forefront of those arguing to abolish APD. Earlier in this Parliament, I wrote and often said that while, in principle, the tax might not be the best thing, there are specific budgetary requirements and conditions of the moment that make APD essential.

We have to consider corporation tax and taxation generally in the round. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Nicky Morgan) on her appointment as Economic Secretary. She cited the fact that our corporation tax rates are extremely competitive. The rate of 20% is among the lowest, if not the lowest, in the OECD. In that context, general taxation on companies and business has been reduced, and we are seeing flickerings of growth—we expect encouraging growth figures at the end of this week. In the round, we can therefore say that the Government’s policy is working. The deficit reduction is happening and growth is beginning to return to Britain. Now is not the time to slacken the deficit reduction plan, so I fully understand why APD is necessary: to further our principal aim of deficit reduction.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The time limit will have to be reviewed, probably when the Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means takes over from me. I am not changing it at this moment, but contributions that are significantly shorter than eight minutes would enable all colleagues to get in, rather than some being excluded. I know that the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) is a sensitive and considerate fellow who will wish to take account of my strictures on this matter.

17:48

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

Indeed you are right, Mr Speaker. To reciprocate your acknowledgement that I am a sensitive and caring fellow, I shall try to be as quick, brief and short as possible.

At the outset, I want to express a short apology because I might have to leave the Chamber to fulfil a previous engagement. If that happens, it is absolutely no comment on the debate, which has been riveting in the extreme. I am sure that those watching the monitors in their offices, as well as people at home, will be enjoying the debate and waiting for the next gripping instalment after mine.

Air passenger duty is one of the most damaging of the Westminster interventions in the Scottish economy. We should remember that, for the past 30 years, Scotland has on average paid more tax per person than the UK. This year, Scotland will pay 9.9% of all UK taxes, while it has only 8.4% of the total UK population. That is the situation without a tax system that is designed for Scotland’s needs.

Just about all those in Scotland who have been closely associated with the APD issue see the wisdom of devolving APD to Scotland. We know from our internal party points of view that the people who are better informed about the independence process in Scotland are those who are more likely to support it, so the Westminster Government need to understand that this policy supports arguments for independence. Of course, I welcome that, in a way, but the Government should bear in mind the downside: in the meantime, the policy is damaging Scotland’s economy, as well as the economies of other areas under centralised Westminster control. I am sure that an independent Scotland would run an air passenger duty regime if it were more in sympathy with Scotland’s needs.

As I suggested, we do not have taxes that are designed for Scotland, and if ever something crystallised that point, it is the issue of APD. Scotland is being fleeced by APD. It is estimated that, in each of the four years between 2012 and 2016, 2.1 million fewer passengers will go through Scottish airports as a result of it. APD is a demand-management tax. Heathrow and other London airports benefited from preferential treatment by successive UK Governments for decades because bilateral air agreements with a host of other countries stipulated that London airports must be used. That policy has come back to haunt those Governments. There is now a shortage of runways in the south-east of England, because the hub that was put in place cannot cope with the demand that was deliberately created, and the solution has been this congestion tax of the skies to slow traffic into Heathrow and other London airports.

In some ways, the Government’s demand-management tool has indeed been successful. The London airports are nearing full capacity, and APD has succeeded in controlling the pressing demand that has resulted from the lack of runways in London. However, London is losing passengers and commerce to other parts of the current United Kingdom, such as Scotland, Northern Ireland and the north of England. The solution is surely to devolve the policy and leave it in the hands of those who could manage it better because they are closer to the problem. Those who are distant from it advance all sorts of odd arguments, as we have heard today.

It would even benefit the Treasury if APD—the gatekeeper tax—were removed, because an increased number of people visiting the country would be likely to increase commerce. The Prime Minister has said that the UK has a lopsided economy—he is right—but will his Government act? Will they help by taking the one step for which a host of parties across the House have called? Will they right the wrong that was caused by lopsided international bilateral air agreements favouring one area of the UK by devolving APD and giving control of it to other areas? Unfortunately, they will not, but I am sure that those who are listening to the debate will understand why I argue for an independent Scotland, even if other Members in the Chamber may choose not to do so. I should add, in fairness, that there are a few Members here who do choose to, but they are keeping their heads down at the moment.

It need not be like this, however. Friends in Catalonia tell me that while Madrid may be notoriously intransigent and knuckle-headed on many issues—a sentiment that friends in Gibraltar would share—it has shown some sense in one respect, on which London should follow suit, by abolishing APD, or reducing it by 100%, on new routes. Barcelona alone has gained 37 new routes this year: to Islamabad and Karachi in Pakistan, Lebanon, Iceland, Kos in Greece, Bucharest, Kiev, Oslo, Helsinki, Luxembourg, Bergen, Pristina, Kristiansand and Hamburg, to name but a few. Such is the growth of Barcelona as a result of that more intelligent approach. Reductions in APD have been shown to benefit a number of other countries.

The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) advanced some tremendous arguments, to which the Treasury ought to listen. As a former Treasury Minister, he ran the Treasury in Northern Ireland by balancing the books. The UK Treasury does not balance its books and has not done so since 2001.

Prestwick, the Scottish airport that has been most affected by APD, lost 14% of its traffic in 2012, and just the other week it had to be nationalised by the Scottish Government because the alternatives were unfortunately unthinkable. The Scottish Government feel that Scotland is a high-quality aviation market. It has a record of establishing successive intercontinental air routes with high load factors, including business-class traffic. They believe that there is considerable potential for improving Scotland’s international air connections, but the UK Government’s punitive APD rates are seriously hampering that process. York Aviation has pointed out that APD rates have rocketed since 2007, with short-haul travellers being hit by a rise of about 160%. The price paid by a family of four travelling to Spain has increased from £20 to £52 since 2007, and the price that they would pay to travel to the United States has increased from £80 to £268—a shocking rise.

PricewaterhouseCoopers says that the reduction or abolition of APD could bring about immediate and permanent increases in UK GDP worth around £16 billion in the first three years alone, which backs up the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim. Increased revenue from other taxes would more than compensate the Exchequer for the revenue forgone by the abolition of APD. Indeed, the dividend in the first year alone would be half a billion pounds.

Passengers are losing out as a result of opaque methods of ticketing. Fully flexible tickets mean that people get back the entire cost of the ticket and the taxes if they do not fly, but there is a question for those travelling on restricted tickets who would lose their ticket price, because they also seem to be losing the taxes they have paid. The penalties imposed by airlines seem exactly to match the amount of APD taxation, so I would like the Government to look into this opaque process.

What do these penal levels of APD mean for Scotland? York Aviation says that by 2016 Edinburgh airport would be losing 1 million passengers due to high APD rates each year for four years, while Glasgow would lose 700,000 a year and Aberdeen about 200,000 a year. That shows the economic damage that is being done to Scotland’s economy.

Disappointingly, we have seen no significant difference between Labour and the Conservatives today, so the message to Scots is, “Business as usual, regardless of who gets into office in Westminster.” That is why, on 18 September next year, we will vote for independence in Scotland.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The time limit will have to be reduced with immediate effect to six minutes.

17:56

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I am afraid the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) made two incorrect observations at the start of his speech: that he would speak for much less time than the time limit, which was then eight minutes; and, secondly, that he was looking forward to hearing the gripping contribution following his speech. He had obviously not seen the speaking list. I cannot promise that my contribution will be either interesting or gripping, but it will at least be less than eight minutes now.

I congratulate the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is not currently in her place, on her contribution. She is new to the role. I was, of course, waiting by my phone at reshuffle time hoping to be offered that post, but it was not to be. She did an excellent job at the Dispatch Box today. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on taking up her new position on the Opposition Front-Bench team, but I will just say that it would be nice if those on the Labour Benches showed a little contrition about how we got into the economic situation we are in when talking about the cost of living, and perhaps took some ownership of the problems they bequeathed to the country in 2010. We are delighted to be dealing with them and we are delighted to go on doing so, but we would sometimes like those who are guilty of having created them in the first place to accept some of the blame.

My view on APD has changed considerably since the fair tax on flying campaign of a few years ago. As there was a lot of terrible economic news at that time, not least to do with our massive deficit, it seemed to me and many other Members that to be asking, effectively, to make holidays less expensive was not the most appropriate thing to do.

My views have changed slightly over time, however. APD can easily be dismissed as a tax that can be avoided, and for some that is true, but for many businesses and individuals—particularly, as we have heard, in certain parts of the country, including Northern Ireland—it is a tax that cannot be avoided.

Since joining the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, I have been growing concerned about the impact APD is having on our regional airports, especially after a meeting with representatives of Continental Airlines, who explained in great detail and depth the impact that it has had on the company. Heathrow will always be successful, but airports such as mine—Humberside airport—and Leeds Bradford, East Midlands and Doncaster airports have struggled, and continue to struggle, to find new routes as it is a lot cheaper to fly from Schiphol or Dublin.

When I was looking to book a holiday recently, I found it would have been cheaper for me to fly from Leeds or Manchester to Dublin and then connect on to the ongoing flight. That is counter-intuitive and, it would seem, a little perverse. Although I am no economist, it is clear to me that that is not good for our economy. It is time that we looked at the issue.

I accept that there is a take of £3 billion from air passenger duty. I have not had a chance to look through the methodology of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report or to analyse that in any great depth, but there is a solution to the problem of how to find £3 billion: it is called leaving the European Union. That might net us a bit more than £3 billion—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I knew I would get a cheer from hon. Members on the Democratic Unionist Benches, who have a sound view on the subject. I do understand that any reduction in APD would have an impact on the Treasury. That is why it is time for a proper review to establish the extent of that impact.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) reminded me that, when people made arguments about beer duty in the past, the response from the Treasury was always “This will cost us money. How will we make up the difference?” That has been turned on its head now, as we seem to have accepted that a cut in beer duty can bring in more money.

I remember air passenger duty being presented as a green tax. I know there has been some discussion about whether it is a green tax, a light green tax or a pale green tax. It certainly was presented as a green tax and many people have argued that it is such a tax, so I hope that it will be in the mix in any review, in line with the Prime Minister’s statements today about wanting to review green taxes and being honest about green taxes. It strikes me that we will not have a particularly honest debate with the public about APD or about energy bills unless we are prepared to open up the whole debate about green taxes and their impact not just on energy bills, but on our whole economy.

I represent an area with many carbon-intensive industries. We are still waiting to hear what is going to happen with the assistance for them. Green taxes are having a massive impact on them and an increasing number of people feel that the country is being hamstrung by those taxes. If we can throw APD into that discussion, all the better. People who use regional airports are most affected and in my area incomes are much lower than in other parts of the country, so APD has a disproportionate impact on the poorest parts of the country.

There is much that I agree with in the motion. I will not vote against it, but I have yet to decide whether I will support it. I call on the Minister to pay heed to the sensible comments that have been made by many Members in all parts of the House, particularly the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), whom I congratulate on his speech. It is time for a proper assessment of the impact of APD on our economy and on our citizens, and I hope the Minister will respond in those terms.

18:02

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

I shall address the issue on behalf of my Caribbean constituents, and report how angered and disappointed they are about the banding of Caribbean countries. Not only are my Caribbean constituents angry and disappointed, but so are their original home Governments at the way in which the banding impacts upon them and the development of their industries and tourism industries.

The Caribbean community in my constituency came to Mitcham and Morden in the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s. They did the jobs that nobody else wanted to do. They drove the buses, built the schools, dug the roads and worked in the hospitals, just as my own family who came from Ireland in the 1940s did. They never earned much but they worked hard. They looked after their families at home and in the Caribbean, and they contributed hugely to our community through youth facilities, churches and clubs for the elderly. They feel they have earned, and they have earned, their right to be here. They are proud of being British, they are proud of being Londoners, but they are also proud of the country that they came from.

Members of the Caribbean community work hard, and they save hard to go home every so often to see how their towns and cities are getting on and how their family and their friends are. Air passenger duty is a tax on their ability to do that. Whatever accounting company came up with whatever report, nobody can argue that for a Caribbean lady or gentleman in my constituency who lives on a pension and an occupational pension, APD does not disproportionately affect them in their efforts to stay close to their ageing families. It clearly does.

I am not arguing that APD should be scrapped; I am asking the Treasury to look at the banding. Nothing is set in stone; these are conversations that I and other Labour Members have had with Ministers of this Government and the previous Government. We are where we are because of the Chicago convention and the ticketing rules that exist for the airline industry. But it does not make sense to people in the Caribbean, or to me, that to go to Kingston, which is closer than Los Angeles, 25% more tax has to be paid. There is a way to look at the banding and to alter it, to recognise the contribution of those people, their families and communities, and to accept and respect the deep and long-standing connection that we have with those individual Caribbean countries and their Governments. They, like us, are going through hard times. They wish to develop their tourism industries in a price-sensitive market. Anything that we can do to help them out of respect for their communities’ work in our country and in our capital city would be gratefully received. It is not beyond the wit of the Government to do precisely that.

18:06

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on securing the debate. As usual, the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is no longer in his place, blames everything on the Westminster Government. I noticed that a number of right hon. and hon. Friends found that rather funny. But it is not funny to anyone who lives and breathes amongst the people who want to break up the UK. The people of Scotland want a serious Government with serious politicians, and that is what we are hoping for. I do not share the hon. Gentleman’s view that in September next year people will vote for independence. I sincerely hope not.

Several hon. Members have referred to the devolution of APD, which I will keep an open mind on. If it proves to be to the benefit of the people of Scotland, fine, let us go ahead and devolve APD to the Scottish Parliament. But one question has to be answered, and perhaps the Minister will do so when he replies. If it is devolved, what proportion of money will come out of the block grant to pay for that? Someone, somewhere has to tell us exactly what that will cost. If APD is devolved and it is abolished, that money must come from the health service, education or somewhere else. It would be helpful, when we start blaming the Westminster Government for all our ills, if somebody from the separatist party told us where the money is going.

While I am on the subject of other countries, I have a document here that says clearly that in Malta APD was abolished in 2008, and one of the reason given was that it was

“Removed following legal challenge from the European Commission. Tax described as discriminatory.”

It would be helpful to know the reason for that. One aspect of APD that I find particularly discriminatory is that people in the north are being hammered twice. They have a double whammy if they travel through the London hub airports when going on to continental flights or flights to America. Even if there is no agreement to abolish APD, it would be helpful to abolish the double whammy.

Glasgow airport in my constituency contributes a great deal to the Scottish economy, including 5,000 jobs, but it pays more than £7.9 billion in tax. I am particularly annoyed that this will cost Scotland more than 2 million passengers and 5% of long-haul demand may be lost. Like a number of colleagues, I am finding that people in Scotland, particularly the holidaymakers and their families, are now going through Schiphol, Paris and elsewhere, which means that London and Gatwick are losing out. There is some impact on the London airports and it would be helpful if the Minister said how many people are involved.

APD also has an impact on Scotland’s tourism industry. Scotland has a lot to offer tourists. The Commonwealth games are coming to Glasgow in 2014, which many people from various parts of the world will attend. I am sure that they will not want to be affected by this tax either, and hopefully they will want to visit this country again. York Aviation estimates that 148,000 trips and £77 million in visit expenditure could be lost over the next three years and that by 2016 APD will cost the Scottish economy up to £210 million a year in lost tourism. One of the difficulties with this debate is that there is an awful lot of repetition, so I apologise to those in the Chamber and outside for using all these statistics, but unfortunately they have to be repeated. I take the view that the more we repeat something, the better the chance of achieving it.

This is about the whole United Kingdom, not just Scotland. Frontier Economics estimates that there will be around 3 million fewer trips each year to and from UK airports, that spending by overseas residents in the UK will fall by £475 million a year and that our GDP will be reduced by £2.6 billion a year, with the potential loss of 77,000 jobs. I do not think that this Government, or any Government, should contemplate the loss of such a significant number of jobs. A report by PricewaterhouseCoopers has shown that abolishing APD would boost the UK’s GDP by 0.46% in the first year, provide 60,000 extra jobs in the long term and increase revenues from income tax and VAT, with a net benefit of £500 million in the first year.

I make a plea to the coalition Government—unfortunately, the previous Government did not take appropriate action—to listen to what has been said on both sides of the House on the impact APD is having on the aviation industry and take appropriate steps to help our constituents.

18:11

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

I commend the motion standing in the name of the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and welcome both the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, who is no longer in her place, and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is also no longer in her place, to their new roles.

I want to address air passenger duty in the context of the UK Government’s broader tourism and transport strategies. When it comes to tourism policy, it really is a tale of two Governments. Last week the Irish Government announced in their budget that they will be retaining a 9% rate of VAT for the tourism sector and entirely scrapping their air passenger tax. The UK Government, however, have presented us with the highest airport taxes in the world and raised VAT to 20%, with no dispensation for the tourism industry. Although I commend the Irish Government and hope that those measures bring more visitors across the island, this clearly puts businesses in the north of Ireland at a huge disadvantage. The UK Government urgently need to look at introducing similar measures, particularly in Northern Ireland, to enable our businesses to compete on a fair footing with businesses in the rest of Ireland. I hope that this debate will spur them on to do just that.

The rate of APD in the UK is the highest in the world and has risen by over 300% over the past five years. We in Northern Ireland are particularly vulnerable to that excessive duty owing to our reliance on air travel, which is dictated by our location, as has already been referred to in the debate. The rate is choking growth in the sector by having a severe impact on visitor numbers and is hurting our whole economy, especially those businesses that rely on exporting goods.

The motion refers to the recent PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which contends that lowering APD would be, at worst, budget neutral and would almost certainly boost growth and create jobs. Such evidence supports the measures taken by the Irish Government to get rid of their equivalent duty rate, and I find it hard to see why the UK Chancellor cannot respond with similar measures to support the UK economy—or at least, as suggested by the Transport Committee, commission research into the matter. Perhaps the Exchequer Secretary will deal with that issue in his response.

Obviously, the Chancellor would point to the devolution to the Assembly of long-haul APD, which was particularly welcome. However, domestic flights make up the vast bulk of flights out of Belfast International and Belfast City airports. There is also the slightly bizarre situation in which flights to London, Manchester and Glasgow are taxed at a higher rate than those to Newark, New Jersey.

Another point that should be emphasised is that the APD cut for long-haul flights was not some generous Treasury handout, but has to be paid out of the Northern Ireland block grant; as a former Minister for Finance, the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) will know all about that. It was the decision of the Northern Ireland Executive to prioritise growth and tourist numbers by cutting the tax and we in Northern Ireland should be given a similar dispensation over the short-haul rate. Our geographical location makes us especially vulnerable to the pressures exerted by a high rate of APD, as someone going to or from Europe or further afield will often need to make two journeys.

We cannot ignore the wider context of our tourism industry. I have called here for a similar cut in VAT for businesses. Cutting both would mean much for tourism, which is one of Northern Ireland’s principal economic drivers, along with agriculture and fisheries; our manufacturing sector is now smaller. I have no doubt that the measure will involve assessing transport and infrastructure on a north-south basis in the island. That will require a maturity, on the part of all those who have spoken today, in harnessing the power that an all-island economy will release. For too long, our approach has been dominated by physical and psychological borders that do not exist in the mind of most people.

The Government talk a great deal about boosting the private sector in Northern Ireland and rebalancing the economy. One way to do that would be to lower APD on short-haul flights as well as lowering VAT on tourism.

18:17

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) and her colleague the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I welcome the new Economic Secretary to the Front Bench; I have no doubt that she will be a huge asset to the Government and the House.

I declare a slight interest, as I have cousins in Northern Ireland and, in my prior career, I spent far too many hours on internal flights, particularly to Scotland. Like many, I have enjoyed city breaks with my family; I shall spare the House the details of our recent trip to Amsterdam.

The democratisation of air travel in recent years has been a force for good, opening up to millions of families opportunities previously denied them. Millions more people are enjoying the thrill and experience of easy air travel and all that it opens up. Air travel does, of course, have a high carbon footprint, but just as the air industry has achieved stunning breakthroughs in safety through the extraordinary application of private sector expertise, investment, innovation and science, I have no doubt that it will be a force in demonstrating potential for energy-efficient air travel as well.

My principal reason for speaking this afternoon is to discuss the business of air travel and the role of air travel in business and in the economic predicament faced by this country. We are rightly—I commend the Government for it—putting an emphasis on the rebalanced economy and unlocking the power of our regions and cities to drive a new model of innovation-led growth, and air travel is an important part of that.

However, let us turn to the charge sheet that the House is presented with this afternoon and the motion, which calls for air passenger duty to be scrapped. The first charge is that it is a green tax, but, as the hon. Member for East Antrim said, it was not introduced and justified on that basis. However, he explained that even if it were, that would be no reason for not getting rid of it. This country, the western world and the whole world face a challenge in increasing energy efficiency and reducing the carbon footprint. Although that would not be a reason for introducing APD, it is worth bearing it in mind that we need to send a signal that rail travel, car-sharing and other forms of energy-efficient transport are to be encouraged.

The second charge is that the tax is regressive. The data in the ONS publication “The Effects of Taxes and Benefits on Household Income, 2011/12”, which I commend to colleagues, make it clear that it is not regressive; in fact, it is no more so than VAT. I think we would all love to get rid of that too—certainly colleagues in the House today would love it; we would like to get rid of most taxes—but we are not in a position where we can afford that luxury.

The third charge, interestingly, is that the tax is disproportionate. In fact, the Government have limited the rise in APD to inflation in the period 2010-11 to 2013-14, and in this year’s Budget they ensured that the rate will remain constant in real terms. This afternoon I looked online and found an air ticket to Berlin for £80, £13 of which is APD. That does not seem to be a prohibitive level of tax that will put people off.

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

Does my hon. Friend share my sentiment that it is good to be on the Benches of a Government who realise the need for tax competition? We realise the need for competitive corporation tax rates and income tax rates; surely APD is a tax and we need to be competitive on that too. We have the highest APD in Europe. Of the 27 countries in the European Union, only six charge APD, and the Republic of Ireland is going to reduce it to zero in April next year. Should my hon. Friend not bear it in mind that we need to compete?

[George Freeman]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. He must have spotted my notes, because my very next point is that we need to view this in the wider context of business and tax competitiveness. I hugely welcome the fact that the Government have committed to reduce corporation tax from 28% to 23% and, in due course, to 20%, meaning we are constantly cited as one of the top three in the G8 on tax competitiveness, as stated in the 2012 KPMG global survey. That is a strong signal to global businesses that we are open for business, and it supports my hon. Friend’s point that we need to view this in the context of wider support for businesses and tax competitiveness.

The fourth charge is that the tax is bad for Northern Ireland. In this respect, I have some sympathy with the case made by colleagues from the Province. The fact that the Republic has cut APD creates a particularly difficult situation in Northern Ireland. The Minister said, encouragingly, that the Northern Ireland economy is not showing signs of suffering as a result, with very high growth and new jobs being created. That is a testament to the creativity and entrepreneurialism of the people of Northern Ireland. The changes made to the tax in November 2011, which reduced long-haul rates to the same as those for short-haul, and the devolution of the matter to the Assembly are important and welcome measures. However, I have a lot of sympathy with the argument that locally, given the situation in the Republic, there is a particular problem that the Government will need to look at.

The truth—an inconvenient truth, to borrow a phrase—consists of three points. As a generation, a Parliament and a Government, we face, and have to deal with, the most massive crisis in our public finances. We inherited from the previous Government £1.2 trillion of debt—£5,000 for every man, woman and child in the country. Debt interest alone is now the fourth biggest item of Government expenditure, and it is set to rise, if the coalition has not acted, to £76 billion a year in interest payments. We have a structural crisis in the public finances—in pensions, in welfare, in health and in debt interest.

Despite the very best efforts of the Government to contain the crisis and make sure that they do not trigger a downward spiral in public confidence in the economy, we still face a huge challenge to restore our public finances. We do not have money to spare. There is no such thing as a free tax cut; the closest thing is a tax cut on wealth creation. That is why I support the steps that the Treasury has taken on corporation tax to put in place a competitive tax environment for our businesses and why, in particular, I support a new deal for start-up businesses—the people who are at the coal face of creating new jobs. The truth is that APD is not a tax on business creation; it is a tax on air travel, which is not the same thing.

Finally, this tax raises £2.8 billion a year, and that figure is set to rise to £3.8 billion in 2016. That is a significant amount of money. Interestingly, it is nearly the same amount as that which the Government have given away in a fuel duty cut, which has caused huge reductions in income at the Exchequer and has a relatively low impact on people’s pockets. Abolishing APD would have a small impact on GDP and hard-working families, but it would lead to a major £4 billion cut in our deficit credibility. I hope Ministers resist it.

18:24

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the Economic Secretary, who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) on their appointments to their new positions.

I am sure that every Member has been contacted about the issue of air passenger duty. A gentleman who is not from my constituency visits my office because he has no representation. His constituency Member is a Sinn Fein MP who does not contribute at Westminster, but who is part of a team who have drawn £600,000 in expenses from here. The gentleman, therefore, has to ask another MP, who happens to be me, to represent him at Westminster. Every time he books a flight he calls in to see me and asks when the Government are going to change their tactics and do the right thing on APD to the UK mainland.

It is clear that APD is hurting the individual in Northern Ireland, who is somewhat restricted in travelling to the mainland. I believe that we, along with some parts of Scotland, are feeling the pinch of the decision to keep this tax more than others. The Northern Ireland Assembly and my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) in particular, who was wearing his other hat as the Finance Minister at the time, abolished APD for long-haul flights out of Northern Ireland in order to secure business, ensure investment opportunities and secure existing flight routes. Clearly, my hon. Friend took some good steps.

There are many opportunities to base businesses in Northern Ireland, but what can be viewed as isolation from the UK is highlighted by the high cost of flights to and from the UK mainland. It is my belief that a reduction or abolition of APD would encourage more businesses to look at the potential for business expansion in many areas of Belfast and, indeed, my own constituency of Strangford, which has a highly educated and skilled work force in most areas and great links to the rest of the UK and Europe. We are asking for this issue to be considered again today not just for the benefit of our constituencies in Northern Ireland, but for the benefit of all constituencies across the whole of the United Kingdom.

When this debate was announced, I was, as always, bombarded with constructive e-mails and briefings from many different companies that have made their case well. British Airways says in its briefing:

“Abolishing APD would pay for itself by increasing revenues from other taxes such as Income Tax, VAT, and Corporation Tax. This benefit would amount to almost £0.5bn in the first year…APD is among the most distortive major taxes in the UK economy—more distortive than VAT, Income Tax, or Corporation Tax, and second only to Fuel Duty.”

That sticks in the craw of many of our constituents.

No matter how the Government try to play it or how deeply entrenched they sit in their revenue-raising mode, the fact is that our APD is much too high compared with those other countries that have it. In fact, the United Kingdom has the second highest air taxes and charges in the world, according to the World Economic Forum’s “The Travel & Tourism Competitiveness Report 2013”, which is right up to date. Only Chad in central Africa is ranked above the UK—imagine being second to Chad—in the list of 140 countries based on their ticket taxes and airport charges. The report states that

“the United Kingdom continues to receive one of the poorest assessments for price competitiveness…in large part because it has the 2nd highest tax rate on tickets and airport charges worldwide.”

We are the silver medallists behind Chad.

European nations are cutting or abolishing their air passenger taxes. Of the 27 European Union nations, just six levy an air passenger tax, with Ireland agreeing to scrap its tax completely in 2014, having dropped it from €10 to €3 in 2011. The German Government froze air passenger tax in 2011 following the publication of a study undertaken on behalf of the German Federal Ministry of Finance that found that the introduction of the tax at the beginning of 2011 had resulted in an estimated 2 million passengers changing their travelling behaviour, including an estimated 750,000 people who opted to fly from a non-German airport to avoid the tax. That demonstrates the very point that we have been trying to make throughout this debate: if we do away with air passenger duty, we will reap the benefits from those who choose to use airports in the United Kingdom as a result. The evidence from Germany and elsewhere proves that. In 2006-07, Denmark phased out its air passenger tax.

We all know that money does not grow on trees. We are realists. If it did grow on trees, I would be very well off because I have 3,000 trees. Unfortunately, it is not like that. No money grows on my trees or on anybody else’s trees. Although we do not need to follow every step that the rest of Europe takes, it is clear that there is a good financial reason why other countries are taking those steps. Our reasoning should follow the same lines.

The BA briefing statement said that the abolition of APD could result in an immediate increase in UK GDP, as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim has said. The increase in GDP would be about £16 billion and there would be about 60,000 additional jobs. That would be a win-win for the Government and a net gain for the Exchequer.

As time has beaten me, I plead with the Government to look at the big picture and to consider the big changes that would come from the abolition of APD.

18:30

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a huge honour to follow the lumberjack from Strangford.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) led the charge in putting this important case. He presented a compelling argument to the House. Indeed, he got us so far out in front of the Government that I do not think we will need to have a vote tonight. I congratulate him on the way he presented his case.

I cannot believe that this Government—a Government with whom I have a lot of sympathy in many areas—want to tax people more than any other Government in the world when it comes to air travel. That is astounding. It is sad to see my friends on the Government Benches trying to defend the indefensible. This is a pernicious, nasty little tax that affects transport, ordinary people and jobs, prevents UK businesses from exporting and expanding, and harms growth by stopping inbound tourism.

The tax affects ordinary citizens in the United Kingdom. If mum and dad in Northern Ireland want to take little Billy and Sarah to their nation’s capital, they will go on the internet and look at the cheap flights that they could take from Aldergrove airport or George Best Belfast City airport with easyJet, Aer Lingus, British Airways or any of the other airlines that operate out of Northern Ireland. If they book in advance, they will get tickets for the whole family for less than £100. Unfortunately, they would then have to write a cheque for £104 to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the privilege of flying from one part of the United Kingdom to their nation’s capital. That is wrong. It is ridiculous. As the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) argued, it is grossly unfair to the citizens of the United Kingdom. The Government have an opportunity to stop it and they should stop it.

Our competitors recognise that the tax is wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) said in an early intervention, in 2009 the Netherlands followed Belgium in abolishing its equivalent of APD because although it raised the equivalent of £266 million in a year, the loss to the wider economy as a result of taxes from which the country did not benefit was almost £1 billion per year. The German Government have said that they will freeze their equivalent tax and the Minister of Transport has stated publicly that they want to abolish it. I believe that they will do so before the next German election.

I draw Members’ attention to the words of the chairman of the Northern Ireland Tourist Board, Howard Hastings, and a speech that he made in London on Monday evening. He is not known for being outspoken or as abrasive as my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim, but he said:

“It is daft at any level that there is a lower level of APD between Dublin and GB when compared to Belfast and GB”.

He also said it was daft—doubly daft—to create a system in which thousands of visitors who come to Northern Ireland each year are

“financially incentivised to come through Dublin, rather than through Heathrow—”

or Gatwick, and our nation’s capital. He went on:

“Our two airports are fighting to attract new routes, particularly from Continental Europe. Air passenger duty is a major stumbling block. Recently published evidence shows that the cross channel air capacity for Winter 2013 is 2.4% up on a year ago. But drill down a layer, and we see that the increase in capacity to the Republic is up 13,000 seats…or 10%”

per year.

If ever there was a compelling argument to remove something that is doubly daft from our tax system it is the argument that airport passenger duty must be scrapped, and it must be scrapped sooner rather than later.

18:36

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

I congratulate all Members who have taken part in the debate, and in winding-up on behalf of my colleagues I want to say that it has been an interesting discussion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on the usual skilful and robust way in which he introduced the debate, and I thank him for sparing us his full views about green issues. His thought-provoking speech was certainly worthy of careful consideration, and I trust that those on the Treasury Bench listened to it carefully.

I welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to her post, and as she said, we welcome the good economic news from Northern Ireland. I found it strange, however, that despite representing a party of low tax, she defended the highest APD anywhere in the world. I trust that when the Minister winds up the debate we will hear some different views.

I welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), to her post, and thank her for her keen interest. I accept her point that APD is an issue that affects the whole country, not simply Northern Ireland. Our motion acknowledges that because we have spread it out, taking in the whole United Kingdom, rather than only Northern Ireland.

The hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng) proclaimed his low-tax conservatism. Having done that, however, he went on to defend why we should have the highest taxation in Europe—it was amazing to have the hon. Gentleman draw that to our attention, because in reality United Kingdom taxpayers are being taxed silly. He mentioned bringing down corporation tax. I acknowledge what the Government have done on that, but perhaps he should also bear in mind that Northern Ireland has a land border with a country that has a corporation tax of 12.5%, which is far below anything that the Government have done. We in Northern Ireland have a double whammy of taxation.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

The hon. Gentleman will know that in this House I am absolutely in favour of low taxes, and I have said to the Chancellor that I think we should have corporation tax of 15%. I will always be in favour of lower corporation tax.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful intervention.

I thank the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) for acknowledging the problems faced by regional airports—many hon. Members acknowledged that point in the debate. The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) is right that statistics are worth repetition because they might get through to the Government, who must then answer to them.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) drew attention to the impact of the Irish Government on Northern Ireland. She was exactly right. It has been said that the UK Government cannot do what the Irish Government have done because of the deficit. However, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that the Irish Government have a greater deficit problem than the UK Government. The Irish Government nevertheless believe that removing APD was of greater value economically. The Minister should bear that in mind when he expounds why we should not abolish APD—he should not say that it is because we are dealing with the deficit. As I have told him, the Irish Government have a greater problem, yet they have announced the measure in their budget.

I am happy that the hon. Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) spared us the details of his trip to Amsterdam. Nevertheless, I hope he has learned something from the debate and will change his mind on any decision he makes later.

I share the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon): a lot of ordinary people come to my constituency office because they have no Sinn Fein representation in the House and we must represent them. That is a disgraceful situation, but it is a fact, and we must accept the reality. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) gave the House an interesting report of the statement by Mr Hastings. That, too, is worthy of our consideration.

It is clear from the debate that the civil aviation sector is one of the main pillars of economic growth in the UK, driving job creation and growth both at home and overseas, as well as providing air transport for goods and passengers. More than a third of world trade is delivered by air, and about half of international tourism is facilitated by air links. However, as hon. Members commented, UK passengers are taxed more for air travel than passengers anywhere in the world, with APD rates expected to rise again in line with inflation from 1 April 2014.

In March 2013, the UK was ranked by the World Economic Forum as the world’s least-competitive country in terms of taxes and charges levied on air passengers. The TaxPayers Alliance has described APD as

“an unwelcome burden on family holidays, a cost to business and redundant with the EU Emissions Trading System now being applied to aviation”,

and has called for APD to be phased out entirely.

Our vision for a strong and prosperous Britain can be achieved only with healthy and vibrant transport and economic development sectors. Air connectivity is the key to efficient trading and, as the UK economy continues to transform in the face of domestic and global change, it is essential that the aviation industry is given the certainty and incentive necessary to allow it to plan and invest for the long term. Time and again we are presented with the argument that APD has deterred airlines from opening new routes, especially in Northern Ireland, where robust air links are fundamental to underpinning our regional economy, and has compromised the ability of local businesses to attract new foreign direct investment.

The situation is similar in Scotland. Amanda McMillan, managing director of Glasgow airport, has stated:

“Due to the size of the market in Scotland, we will always find it difficult to attain and sustain new routes and this situation is compounded even further by APD which simply serves to artificially depress demand and dissuade airlines from basing aircraft here…Unless APD is reformed, people travelling to and from Scotland…will continue to face some of the highest levels of taxation in Europe which is clearly a disincentive to travel.”

In an evidence session to the Northern Ireland Assembly Finance and Personnel Committee on 18 September, the director of the City of Derry airport, Damien Tierney, described APD as one of the “big factors” influencing airline decision making. Low-cost carriers such as easyJet and Ryanair, which account for most of the Province’s air travel, are particularly influenced by APD.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that APD has long since ceased to be an environmental tax, if it ever was, and is now simply a means of revenue generation for the Government?

[Dr McCrea]

I thank my right hon. Friend for his intervention. Throughout the debate, Government Members have acknowledged that APD is a way to deal with the deficit, so my right hon. Friend is spot on in identifying that this is another form of taxation on the people of the United Kingdom.

Belfast International airport has noted in similar terms that APD has been held up as a barrier to airlines that might otherwise have shown interest in operating services in Northern Ireland, thereby limiting market opportunity and creating competitive disadvantage for operators. A 2011 report by PricewaterhouseCoopers, entitled “Helping Economic Take Off”, looked at Northern Ireland’s geographical location, which makes us unique in both a UK and EU context. We are the most westerly part of the European Union and the only region of the UK separated by water, yet we share a land frontier with another member state. We have to travel and we have to trade, and air connectivity is the essential springboard from which future economic growth will be launched. The report, however, found that the continued imposition of APD would serve as a significant deterrent to further investment by existing or new carriers in existing or new air routes.

Much has already been said in today’s debate about the Netherlands experience. The Dutch Government introduced an aviation tax in 2008 for passengers departing from Dutch airports. The Dutch air passenger duty proved controversial from the outset and decreasing passenger numbers, combined with the global economic crisis, led the Dutch Government to subsequently abolish it on 1 January 2010. Belgian plans for a ticket tax were not implemented for similar reasons and a Danish tax was withdrawn due to adverse economic impact. In January 2013, the German Government announced that they would freeze their air passenger tax, while the German Transport Minister has publicly stated that he would like the tax to be abolished completely. Will our Government not listen to what is happening across the rest of Europe? Surely those decisions are being made in the light of economic circumstances.

The decision announced in last week’s budget by the Irish Government—that air travel tax is to be removed from 1 April 2014—has once again thrown APD into sharp focus, particularly its potential impact on the aviation sector in Northern Ireland. Concern has already been expressed by the Consumer Council of Northern Ireland that demand for air services in Northern Ireland could face decline, as people head south of the border to avoid tariffs. As Belfast International airport, in my constituency, has commented:

“Any tax or regulation prevailing in Northern Ireland which makes our gateway less attractive than those across the border is entirely retrograde with regard to economic development”.

As recognised by the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee in its two previous reports, Northern Ireland suffers greatly from its shared land mass with the Irish Republic, where the abolition of air travel tax, along with low corporation tax, start-up incentives and marketing funds, will now make it even harder for Northern Ireland to compete for cheaper fares and new route development. Belfast International airport, which lies on the shores of Lough Neagh in my constituency, is the main international port of entry for the province and has proved itself to be an essential component of the local economy and regional growth, as well as being a strategic asset nationally.

In conclusion, I realise that time has run out and I want the Minister to have the opportunity to respond to the debate. I thank every right hon. and hon. Member for participating. I trust that the Government have listened to what has been said and will take away the motion and the thoughts of the House, rather than seek to divide it.

18:49

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate, given that it has focused on one particular tax, and I thank hon. Members for their contributions. We began with the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), who delivered a wide-ranging speech in which he made it clear that APD did not constitute a green tax but that, even if it did, he would be against it. He was described by various hon. Members as “trenchant”, “outspoken” and even “abrasive”—and those were the comments from his hon. Friends. However, he set out a strong case on behalf of Northern Ireland and, indeed, the UK more widely. Interestingly, the motion applies to APD across the UK; it is not specifically a Northern Irish issue.

We heard from the new Economic Secretary—I add my words of welcome to the many warm words already offered—who has already demonstrated that she will be a formidable Treasury Minister. We then heard from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), whom I also congratulate on her move to the post of shadow Economic Secretary, although I am saddened that she is no longer the shadow Exchequer Secretary. I am pleased, however, that we have had the opportunity to debate again so soon, and I am sure that we have many happy hours together in Finance Bill Committees ahead of us. She was very critical of Government policy although, as her history of APD pointed out, the regime in place is largely the one that we inherited from the previous Government. Despite her criticisms, she did not give us any examples of what she would change, but we were grateful for her contribution none the less.

My hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), who has a strong interest both in aviation and in lower taxes, made the point very strongly that we have to reduce the deficit. His injunction that we should not slacken on deficit reduction was sensible advice.

The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) raised Scottish concerns, citing criticism that APD rates had rocketed since 2007. I should point out that, since 2010, APD has risen in line with inflation—it has been frozen in real terms. That means, for example, that since 2010, the price of an economy ticket for a short-haul flight—such tickets apply to the majority of passenger flights—has risen from £12 to £13. It is worth pointing out that that is an increase of £1. He also raised concerns about the impact of APD on Scotland, but the most recent figures I have—for 2010-11—show that passenger numbers at Scottish airports grew by 5.5%, so they are not being slashed by any means.

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

No doubt the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene and take the credit for the Scottish Government.

[Mr MacNeil]

I do not need to take the credit for the Scottish Government, because the Minister has already given the credit to them, for which I thank him. Can he discern any real difference between his position and that of the Opposition, because I cannot?

[Mr Gauke]

Is the implication of the hon. Gentleman’s question that he managed to identify the position of Labour Front Benchers, because I could not particularly?

My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) delivered a thoughtful speech in which he set out the evolution of his own thinking and made the case for regional airports. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) raised a point on behalf of her constituents who originally come from the Caribbean. Such a point was also made in interventions, so let me reiterate that APD must adhere to international rules on aviation tax—a point that she acknowledged—specifically the Chicago convention. The capital city convention in APD ensures that the duty complies with the rules. She asked why we could not reform the bands. We could move to having two bands, and we did examine that as part of the 2011 consultation, but no banding structure can be entirely free of anomalies, and a revenue-neutral move to two bands would require an increase in APD for about 90% of passengers, including those flying to Europe and the United States. We were not attracted to that approach.

The hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Jim Sheridan) raised a point about Scotland, following on from the contribution by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar. He rightly said that there would be an implication if the tax were devolved to Scotland and then abolished, because the cost of that would have to be found from the block grant. We have not estimated what that would be, but such a decision would have consequences to comply with EU state aid rules. It is also worth pointing out that we would need to take into account any market distortions that would be created and that the cost would have to take into account any lost revenue for neighbouring English airports, for example. That is not an insignificant point.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) spoke about domestic flights. It is worth pointing out that several European countries put VAT on domestic flights, whereas the UK does not—the rate is 19% in Germany, 21% in the Netherlands and 27% in Hungary. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Norfolk (George Freeman) made the point that we would like to get rid of most taxes, but we are not in a position to do so. He also highlighted the fact that rates have increased with inflation. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued that there would be a net gain for the Exchequer if APD were abolished, but we do not agree—I shall set out the reasons why in a moment.

The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) spoke against the tax and also hoped that we could all unite behind the motion. I am terribly sorry to say that I have to disappoint him on both fronts. The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) summed up the debate, arguing that we should perhaps follow the example of the Republic of Ireland, which is not always an argument that I hear from him.

As I have made clear, APD makes a crucial contribution to tackling our fiscal challenges. The tax raises nearly £3 billion in annual revenue. Contrary to the claims of the PricewaterhouseCoopers report, which has been cited frequently, scrapping APD would not be costless; it would result in a significant loss to the Exchequer. Unless we were to give up on our fiscal goals—my hon. Friends have been absolutely right to highlight the need for us to maintain discipline on reducing the deficit—the lost revenue would therefore need to be found elsewhere, either by increasing other taxes or by further reducing our public spending. In the course of the debate, I have heard few realistic proposals as to how that could be done. Not only would scrapping APD create substantial costs to the Exchequer, but the benefits of such a step would be small compared with those of the policies that the Government have already put in place.

We are not persuaded by the case that has been put before us. We cannot take risks with the public finances, so we will not be supporting the motion.

Question put.

The House proceeded to a Division.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 13, Noes 284.

18:59

Division 107

Ayes: 0

---

Democratic Unionist Party: 5
Labour: 4
Conservative: 3
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 2
Scottish National Party: 1

Noes: 0

---

Conservative: 241
Liberal Democrat: 41
Labour: 1
Independent: 1

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I ask through the Chair whether any application has been made for a statement on the recent developments concerning the Arctic 30? I am sure that many of us will be pleased to hear tonight that the charges against them have been downgraded from piracy to hooliganism. Some are related to, or friends of, Members, and one is a constituent of the Prime Minister, as my right hon. Friend has said. Is there any chance of them now being granted bail, and what does the development mean in terms of the possibility of their being repatriated home to this country?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

As the hon. Lady will know, that is not strictly a point of order. The matter of statements is something the Government themselves determine and I have no knowledge of that, but she has had the opportunity to raise her point in the Chamber and, importantly, to get her views on record. I am sure that those on the Treasury Bench have taken note of what she said.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. There is not a point of order, Mr Shannon. Having just ruled that what we heard was not a point of order, I can hardly allow you to speak further to what is a non-point of order.

petition

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

17:50

[Mr Iain Wright (Hartlepool) (Lab)]

I rise to present a petition initiated by the Hartlepool probation service, which is part of the Durham and Tees Valley Probation Trust, and I understand that every single officer, manager and administrator working in the Hartlepool office has agreed with, and signed, the petition.

The petition states:

The Petition of a resident of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the Probation Service in its current form and to privatise up to 70% of work currently undertaken by it. The Petitioners believe that those convicted by a Criminal Court should be supervised by those employed by a publicly accountable Probation Service such as currently exists; further that the Petitioner opposes the Government’s plan to abolish the 35 public sector Probation Trusts replacing them with one Probation Service that only supervises those deemed to be of a high risk of harm to the public. It is envisaged under the current plan, 70% of probation’s work will be subject to a competitive process which excludes the Probation Service. The Petitioner believes that such a plan is “high risk” in that it could place the public at a greater risk of harm.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons urges the Government to stop the planned changes to the Probation Service.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001232]

In-patient Mental Health Services (Children and Adolescents)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Commons Chamber

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

19:18

[Alan Johnson (Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle) (Lab)]

Last week, Dr Martin Baggaley, medical director of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, said that mental health services in England are unsafe and in crisis. At the same time, BBC News and Community Care magazine printed the results of a freedom of information request to mental health trusts around the country, which revealed that 1,500 mental health beds had closed since 2011. The Royal College of Psychiatrists is among the many expert organisations that have expressed concerns about poor in-patient mental health provision, particularly for children and adolescents. In response, the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) who I am pleased to see is present, said that he was determined to end the institutional bias against mental health. This debate presents an opportunity for him to do something in pursuit of that noble objective.

There is increasing demand for mental health services, and all the research shows that early intervention is essential to prevent mental health problems developing in later life. One in 10 children aged between five and 16 suffer from a diagnosable mental health disorder, half of which, with the exclusion of dementia, start before the age of 14. Yet, although the Government claim to be increasing expenditure on health, child and adolescent mental health services in England have been grappling with unprecedented cuts to their funding over the past two years.

Many MPs will know that from their experience in their constituencies, where social care and education funding, which is such an important part of CAMHS budgets, is having to be reduced dramatically. The charity YoungMinds found that since 2010 two thirds of local authorities in England have reduced their CAMHS budget. The contrast with physical health budgets is a stark manifestation of the institutional bias against mental health.

The West End unit in my constituency was the only in-patient mental health facility for Hull and the East Riding. It closed in March while a consultation on CAMHS—which, incidentally, gave no opportunity for respondents to voice an opinion on whether the unit should remain open—was still under way. So much for “No decision about me, without me”.

Can the Minister confirm that the guidance to section 244 of the National Health Service Act 2006 concerning consultation states:

“No final decisions—even decisions in principle—must be taken until the public has been consulted and the results of the consultation have been considered by the NHS body”?

When I raised that appalling breach of the Government’s own guidance on consultations, I was told that West End was closed by the unaccountable monolith otherwise known as NHS England. It changed the specification for tier 4 services and the West End in-patient unit that provided high-quality services in Hull and the East Riding for 20 years closed as a result.

I felt sure that Hull could not have been the only area affected, so I submitted a parliamentary question asking how many in-patient mental health units had ceased to operate.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In my constituency 33% of young people have depression. That rises to 50% among those who are unemployed. Does the right hon. Gentleman’s area have the same concerns as I have in my area? We have taken steps in Northern Ireland to address the issues, and perhaps the Government need to do the same here.

[Alan Johnson]

This debate is about services in England, but I confirm that part of the problem is the fact that there is a rising need for adolescent and child mental health services and a decreasing capacity to deal with that need.

I asked the Minister in a parliamentary question which other areas had been affected and which units had ceased to operate. I was told by the Minister that no units had ceased to operate as a result of this change and nor were any closures expected when the change was introduced on 1 October. As I said, the unit in Hull closed in March. The change had already happened. Will the Minister take this opportunity to correct that answer?

Not only did West End close in March, but we are beginning to hear of closures across the country, including in Devon and Somerset, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) has been pursuing this issue vigorously with the chief executive of NHS England, who confirmed in a letter to him that other units had closed as a result of the change to tier 4 specification well before the spurious 1 October date.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Is my right hon. Friend, a former Health Secretary, aware that, in Devon, that has led to young people being admitted to adult mental health residential units, in clear breach of the Mental Health Act 2007—a scandalous position? I hope that the Minister will have something to say about that when he responds.

[Alan Johnson]

I am aware that that has happened. I feel sure that, as the debate gathers momentum, Members from other parts of the country will have similar experiences.

Let me be clear. I fully accept that for the majority of young people, a community-based approach to mental health problems will give them the best treatment, but for a number of children and their families, intensive in-patient care is necessary. Those children need an approach that spans the whole network of provision, not just health, but education and social care, which cannot be replicated in a child’s home—if they have a home; many of the children affected are in care.

West End provided such services. Its in-patient facility was judged inadequate because it was available for only five nights a week. But combined with weekends at home, this provided an excellent service, which the parents who experienced it fully supported. Their preference was to extend the unit to a seven-day service, if that was what was necessary to meet the new specification, but that alternative was never offered or discussed.

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

I am sure that my right hon. Friend has seen the note from the Royal College of Psychiatrists flagging up the point that because of the cuts to tier 3 there is increased pressure on and more likely to be admissions to tier 4, yet here we are discussing closures. That is a real problem.

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. YoungMinds, the charity that deals specifically with child and adolescent mental health, makes exactly the same point. We need early intervention, and if we are cutting back on tier 3 there will be a bigger problem with tier 4. If the problems are not addressed anyway, we are stacking up a host of problems, and costs, never mind the tragedy to the individuals when they reach adulthood.

It is difficult to escape the conclusion that the changes have nothing to do with improving care, and everything to do with saving money. The closure of the West End unit has had a profound effect. I have a constituent who is a single mother, who works for the NHS as a staff nurse, whose 13-year-old daughter suffered a severe mental breakdown two years ago. Her daughter spent nine months at West End, which opened at weekends specifically to accommodate her needs. Her mother believes that the treatment given by the excellent staff at West End saved her little girl’s life.

When my constituent’s daughter needed further treatment this year, after West End had closed its in-patient facility, she was first of all sent to Leeds, 66 miles away, where the inability of her mother and five-year-old brother to spend as much time with her, led to a further deterioration in her health. She was then incarcerated with young offenders in Cheadle, 103 miles from her home. Her mother, coping with a five-year-old son and a job in the NHS, spent nine hours travelling to have just one hour with her daughter. For the rest of the time she was forced to listen to her deeply unhappy daughter sobbing at the other end of a phone. Is this what the NHS has come to? Is this the kind of treatment that any of us would accept for our children?

[Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con)]

I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Obviously, this is a matter that affects my constituency too. He is right to raise the issue, but sadly this is nothing new. In 2008, my constituency saw all its in-patient mental health beds go, resulting in patients having to travel much further, often to Hull, and their families struggling to be near them, so I agree with him entirely on this point. Does he agree that it is important that people are treated in the community as much as possible, but where necessary, treated at in-patient units in their localities?

[Alan Johnson]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is talking about the closure of adult in-patient services, which had to move from Goole to Hull. The irony is that in-patient mental health facilities for adults exist in Hull. Providing care close to home is important for adults, but surely it is even more important for six, seven and eight-year-old children. The further away they are from their parents, the more their mental health situation is likely to deteriorate.

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

I congratulate my right hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I want to raise the case of a constituent of mine whose daughter is having treatment on the other side of Manchester, 115 miles away from their home in Hull. He has not been able to see his daughter for three weeks because of the financial implications of having to travel so far. He is distraught about not being able to give the emotional support that his daughter needs at this time. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that that is totally unacceptable when we are dealing with the mental health issues of young people?

[Alan Johnson]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has been fighting a battle about the West End unit. It started with one constituent, but we now know that up to 13 have been affected in that way, one of whom she has mentioned.

In medical care we often talk of the need to concentrate operations in fewer locations in order to maximise expertise, but that is not a relevant argument for child and adolescent mental health. In the case of my constituent’s 13-year-old daughter, for instance, the specialist consultant had to travel from Hull to Cheadle to see his patient. It cost the NHS £1,000 a day to provide that appalling service, but that is without the cost of the consultant having to travel to see his patient.

One case of this nature in Hull would be bad enough, but there have been 13 such cases, and probably more, since we lost in-patient services. Youngsters from Hull and the East Riding have been sent to Manchester, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) mentioned, and Northampton as well as to Leeds and Cheadle. That is worsening the condition of the children concerned.

Trying to address the problem in the newly reorganised NHS bequeathed to us by the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley) is a nightmare. NHS England is responsible for in-patient care, clinical commissioning groups are responsible for out-patient services, local authorities are responsible for public health and the Humber NHS Foundation Trust, the provider, says that it is absolutely powerless in the matter. I have been told by the director of commissioning that, if a proper in-patient service were offered to the mental health trust in Hull and the East Riding, it would have to decline the commission because the tariff is so low. I wonder whether the Minister can comment on that.

The service is removed by NHS England without consultation because it is available for only five nights a week. The CCG then tries retrospectively to justify the closure, saying that it is underused, and we will hear more about that from the Minister—I tell him that there is gaming going on to try retrospectively to justify something that it cannot justify on an intellectual basis. The mental health trust says that it cannot operate it anyway because the tariff is too low.

The public in Hull want the in-patient facility restored. A local business man has even offered the use of Elloughton castle in east Yorkshire as a location for in-patient care, but he can find nobody in the NHS prepared to talk to him—I know how he feels. Only the Department of Health can sort of this mess by ordering the re-provision of in-patient units, including at West End.

The Minister should also reinstate the child and adolescent national psychiatric morbidity survey to begin to address the lack of meaningful data since its cessation. I am pleased that the adult version has been restored, but the child and adolescent version has not. Above all, he needs to address the problem of diminishing funding for mental health.

I hope that the Minister will meet me and my constituent whose daughter has received such appalling treatment in order to begin a proper dialogue about the closures with those who have been genuinely affected. Only then can we begin to say that we are addressing the institutional bias against mental health in this country, which he and I both know exists and both want to eradicate.

19:33

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Hessle (Alan Johnson) on securing the debate. It brings back happy memories of the times when I used to shadow him in his previous job as Secretary of State. He raises an incredibly important issue. Let me say right at the start that I would be very happy to meet him, together with his constituent and NHS England. Having read the brief and listened to him, I am conscious that there is some confusion about the number of children involved, the acuity of their condition and so forth. I want to get to the bottom of that and understand exactly what is going on to ensure that we get the right facilities available for children in his part of the country.

The right hon. Gentleman talked in his introduction about the reduction in the number of in-patient mental health beds. That, of course, is a trend that has been going on for the past two decades, under his Government and this Government, and rightly so. There has been a substantial shift towards early intervention and care in the community, rather than institutional care. However, there is still a long way to go. Too many people with mental health issues stay too long in in-patient beds, which tend not to be a therapeutic environment, much as we would want them to be. On the whole, however, the trend has been in the right direction, as the right hon. Gentleman would probably agree.

The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the data issue. I completely agree. Mental health issues have been a data-free zone. He talked about the loss of one particular data set, but in the mental health sector we struggle in an absence of data and of understanding of the evidence about what interventions work effectively. That has to be addressed and it is being addressed.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned what I said about the institutional bias. There is absolutely an institutional bias against mental health issues. One example is the 18-week wait for treatment for physical health conditions, which his Government introduced—rightly so, because people were waiting for far too long. But people with mental health conditions were left out. No one with such conditions has any understanding of when they should be seen; there is no access standard. There is no requirement for someone with an eating disorder, which can kill, to be admitted for care and treatment within a defined period. I am determined to end that because such provisions drive where the money goes in the NHS.

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that, as a result of decisions of commissioners around the country, funding for mental health conditions has gone down whereas that for physical health conditions has gone up. That is because of how money works in the NHS. We have to end that institutional bias. I suspect that we completely agree about that.

I fully appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s concerns about child and adolescent in-patient mental health services, and I am aware that this is not the first time he has raised them. We have corresponded about the issue and can consider it further when we meet. Caring for children and young people with mental health problems is incredibly serious and it is a priority for the Government. We want to achieve parity of esteem between physical and mental health, which should be regarded as just as important as each other. Historically, that has not been the case—that is not a party political point, but a fact.

The Health and Social Care Act 2012 sets out the equal status for mental and physical health. Our overarching goal is to ensure that everyone who needs it has timely access to the best care and treatment available. We have made improving and treating mental health conditions a key priority for NHS England. One of the 24 objectives in the mandate, which sets out the Government’s priorities, is to put mental health on a par with physical health and close the health gap between people with mental health problems and the population as a whole.

Why do those with mental health problems die years earlier than those with physical health problems? We will hold the NHS to account for the quality of services and outcomes for mental health patients through the NHS outcomes framework, which at last assesses what results we are achieving for individuals as a result of the money spent. There is a strong desire for change across the health sector—and the justice sector as well.

We are working with a range of agencies and representative organisations to develop a single national crisis care concordat. Crisis care for children and adults is simply not acceptable in too many parts of the country. What we are trying to achieve together is a joint statement of intent and common purpose—an agreement about what each service everywhere should do, and when it should do it. It will help to ensure that people who find themselves in need of immediate support for their poor mental health get the right services when they need them and the help they need to move on from their episodes of personal crisis.

Of course, our aim must be to support our children and young people with mental health problems in the community wherever possible. I absolutely share the right hon. Gentleman’s concern and that of other Members who talk about children being sent long distances from home. As a parent, I would feel exactly the same. The most important thing is that such children should be in the right facility with the right care and treatment. As we are trying to care for more youngsters in the community, the specialist units become more specialist. It is not right for a child with an eating disorder, for example, to be put into an in-patient unit that does not specialise in eating disorders. Getting the right facility is crucial, but that sort of distance causes me great concern, and I accept that we need to address it.

[Alan Johnson]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Lamb]

Of course, very briefly.

[Alan Johnson]

I thank the Minister, and I am pleased that he is going to meet me and my constituent. Will he confirm the consultation process set out in the 2006 Act? Will he also say something about the tariff, which I am told by the clinical commissioning group in the East Riding would prevent the provider from accepting in-patient care, even if it were restored, because it means that it loses money?

[Norman Lamb]

. The right hon. Gentleman raises the tariff, and that is what I want to get to the bottom of. I genuinely want to understand the issue and reach a conclusion on it, and I hope that by meeting we will be able to do that.

We want to ensure excellent child and adolescent mental health services facilities across the country. That is why we are investing £54 million over four years in the children’s and young people’s IAPT—improving access to psychological therapies—programme. That will drive service transformation in CAMHS, giving children and young people improved access to the best mental health care by embedding evidence-based practice which has been absent in these services until now and making sure that they use session-by-session outcome monitoring. The IAPT programme is fundamental to the success of our mental health programme. Our children’s IAPT programme is ambitious in its objectives. Its aim is service transformation with an emphasis on evidence-based practice and a rigorous focus on frequent session-by-session outcome monitoring. It differs from the adult IAPT programme in working across existing community-based CAMHS rather than creating new services.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I am sorry to have to say this, but the Minister’s speech is just waffle. Will he accept that the Government’s reorganisation of the national health service has led to confusion as to who is responsible for the interface between tier 3 and tier 4 mental health services for young people? Will he look at the cases I have raised with the Secretary of State of young people from my constituency being sent to Newcastle—the north-east of England—and all over the country, and being sent to adult wards, in breach of the law?

[Norman Lamb]

I do not think it has been waffle at all. I have tried to answer very directly the concerns that have been expressed. I will absolutely look into the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises. When I hear reference to children being placed in adult services, I find that as unacceptable as he does. I want to understand how it has happened and bring it to an end. NHS England is carrying out a review over a three-month period to assess the facilities for tier 4 services to ensure that sufficient services are available in all parts of the country. Because of the nature of the specialism, they cannot be in every town and city, but they must be within reasonable reach. That is exactly what the review is seeking to undertake.

[Alan Johnson]

I have just heard in the last 10 minutes that the staff of the West End unit have been told that its day services will close on 20 December. There has been no consultation and it is the first I have heard of it. Will the Minister look into that immediately? This is no longer about in-patient mental health services; it is about all mental services in Hull and the East Riding.

[Norman Lamb]

Yes, of course I will look into it. It is the first I have heard of it, and I need to understand the full facts. It is important to say that the centre was only occasionally used for overnight stays, as I think the right hon. Gentleman recognises. That was certainly the case in 2012-13. Let us establish the facts. I am very happy to meet him, together with NHS England and his constituents, so that we can get to the bottom of this and provide proper answers on an issue that causes real concern not only to him but to me and to his constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

19:44

House adjourned.

Petition

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Petitions

Wednesday 23 October 2013

National Railway Museum

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Petitions

The Petition of Steve Hughes, Editor of “The Press” York and the people of York,

Declares that the Petitioners note with concern that the National Railway Museum, one of the most treasured attractions in York and the UK, and one of the world’s best transport museums, is threatened with closure.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to ensure that the National Railway Museum remains open.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Hugh Bayley, Official Report, 24 June 2013; Vol. 565, c. 133.]

[P001185]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport:

The Department acknowledges the importance of the National Railway Museum to the City of York and the valuable contribution it makes to education.

Following the favourable outcome of the Spending Round in July, it was announced that the reduction in resource and capital grants for the national museums and galleries sponsored by DCMS has been limited to 5% in 2015-16. In addition, a package of operational and financial freedoms is being granted to national museums and galleries which will help them act more strategically, increase revenues from their commercial operations and attract more philanthropic donations. In the light of this settlement, the Science Museum Group confirmed that all of its museums, including the National Railway Museum, will remain open.

Westminster Hall

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

Wednesday 23 October 2013

[Mr Andrew Turner in the Chair]

Greenpeace Activists in the Russian Federation

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I should start by making a slight correction to my own title for the debate, because this incident did not happen “in” the Russian Federation—a point that I shall come on to.

I shall say first what I am not saying in the debate. I am not saying that Greenpeace activists should have immunity from prosecution wherever they engage in their activities in the world. I am not calling for impunity for people when they take on such activities and, indeed, I do not think that Greenpeace would, either. Part of civil disobedience is that people expect that at some point they will face the criminal law, and I do not think that anybody resiles from that or wants to hide from it.

I am also not saying that Greenpeace is right in its assertions on polar drilling or what the Russians should or should not be doing in the Arctic. I personally have a set of concerns about whether it is possible to drill in heavily icy water—whether it would be possible to clear up a spill—but that is not my argument today at all. I am also not saying anything about the criminal justice system in the Russian Federation, respect for human rights in the Russian Federation or its membership of the Council of Europe and its adherence to the European convention on human rights, although I have said many things on all those matters on many other occasions. That is not the issue before us today.

Let me run through the facts. The first is that, on 18 September, several Greenpeace activists attempted to climb a Russian oil rig owned by Gazprom, the state operator—they had also done that the previous year—so as to be able to hang a great big banner proclaiming their views on drilling in the Arctic. The Prirazlomnaya rig has been there for some time, and Greenpeace has been running a campaign against its presence there. Not immediately but 24 hours later, FSB—the federal security service—operatives, presumably on the command of the Russian state, stormed the Greenpeace ship and seized it, along with the captain and all the crew members, the activists and the two journalists who were on board, and took them all off to Murmansk.

The 28 activists and two journalists were subsequently charged with piracy, which in Russian state law carries a term of imprisonment of up to 15 years. Every one of them was refused bail and, as I am sure right hon. and hon. Members—I note that this debate is very well attended—will know, there are six British people involved. They are Phil Ball, who is a Greenpeace activist and a constituent of the Prime Minister; Kieron Bryan, who is a freelance videographer and a constituent of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who is sitting on my right; Frank Hewetson, a Greenpeace activist; Alex Harris; Anthony Perrett; and Iain Rogers, who was the second engineer on the Greenpeace ship.

I think there are some very significant problems with the actions of the Russian authorities. The first is that, as I said, the ship was not seized in the Russian Federation. It was not in Russian Federation state waters. It was in international waters. I know that Russia has sought to declare a 3-nautical mile exclusive economic zone around the rig, but I believe that is not within international law. Quite explicitly, article 60.5 of the United Nations convention on the law of the sea specifies, I believe, that that 3-nautical mile exclusion zone is illegal. But even if it is legal, that does not give the Russian authorities the right to operate in the way that they did, using the level of force that they did, 24 hours after the demonstration on the rig had ended, let alone to seize a ship that is flagged under the Dutch authorities, which is why the Dutch authorities have now made a claim on the ship. Therefore, I think there are significant areas in which, even against their own Russian law, the Russian authorities have not operated correctly.

There is also the matter of the charges that have been brought against the activists. They have been charged with piracy. This country takes piracy extremely seriously. The situation off Somalia has seen the British Navy and British troops engaged in a European effort to root out the significant problems there, and British people have been seized by pirates, so we do not take piracy lightly at all. But even President Putin says that it is completely obvious that the activists are not pirates. I am quoting his direct words. He said that

“it’s completely obvious they aren’t pirates.”

Mikhail Fedotov, the chair of the presidential human rights council, which advises the President on human rights issues in Russia, has also said that they should not be prosecuted for piracy.

I believe there is a very good reason why these people should not be prosecuted for piracy. It is not only that we undermine the law on piracy around the world and the efforts to tackle piracy if we call people pirates when they are not in any sense pirates. It is also that we have only to look at the United Nations convention on the law of the sea, which says specifically in article 101:

“Piracy consists of…any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft”.

The key element in that is “for private ends”. That does not mean prosecuting a campaign. It means “for personal, private, financial or monetary gain”. There is no allegation that that is the situation in this case. For that matter, the article says that there has to be an illegal act “of violence or detention”. Greenpeace engaged in no such act of violence or detention.

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

rose—

[Chris Bryant]

Of course I will give way. The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, so I am sure he will be able to help.

[Mr Buckland]

The article also talks about acts against ships or aircraft. I do not think that the definition of an oil rig falls within that ambit. There are also huge questions about the moral dimension to the use of piracy charges against these protesters.

[Chris Bryant]

The hon. Gentleman, as so often, foreshadows what I was about to say next, because I was going to move on to the next bit of article 101. He has made the point for me, and I know that many other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, so I will not bother to labour the point, but even within Russian law—many countries have specific laws in relation to how the United Nations convention should be interpreted into their own law—I cannot see how it could possibly be thought that these people were pirates.

Article 227 of Federal Act No. 162-FZ of 8 December 2003, which was adopted by the state Duma in 1996, says that piracy is an

“Assault against a maritime or other vessel with intent to capture the property of others and with the use of force or the threat of force.”

Nobody thus far, I think, has alleged that Greenpeace was seeking to seize the rig. Nobody has said so. For that matter, nobody has yet maintained that the rig—this goes back to what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) said—is a maritime or other vessel. I therefore find it inconceivable, either within Russian law or within international law, that they should be prosecuted in this way.

That brings me to what has happened since the activists were seized and taken to Murmansk, which is not a particularly hospitable region for people to be imprisoned in—I think all right hon. and hon. Members understand that—and is a considerable distance from most consular support. That has brought up a series of questions, which I hope the Minister will be able to answer later, but I do have concerns about the conditions in which each of the activists has been held. I think it bizarre that bail has been denied in every single instance. It feels as if proper criminal justice procedures have not been followed. Frequently, if not invariably, the activists have been held in solitary confinement, and I cannot conceive why that would be necessary. It is not because I am a socialist, although perhaps it helps—[Interruption.] I am sorry to have lost all the Conservatives in the room, and half the Liberal Democrats. I believe that the worst thing we can do to a human being is put them in solitary confinement, because we are by nature social beings. To deny someone the opportunity to engage with anybody, even somebody who cannot speak the same language, is a cruel act, which is why I have concerns about how people are being treated.

It is clear to me that consular access has not been as easy as it should have been under all the conventions to which the Russian Federation is a signatory. There has been uncertain access to lawyers and translators of the individuals’ choosing. That access is important in international legal situations, because someone might be given a lawyer, but it might be one who has no intention of prosecuting the case in the interests of the detained person. I hope that the Minister can reply on the issues of consular access and support. Being in a country where one does not speak the language is particularly solitary. When Greenpeace activists engage in such activities elsewhere in the world, nobody expects everything to be roses, but basic levels of treatment are expected in international law.

I hope that the Russian ambassador will be following the debate, and that it will be followed closely in Russia. As we come to the winter Olympics in Sochi, the eyes of the world will be on Russia. People will be deeply troubled, not only in this country, but in many of the other countries concerned, including Argentina, Italy, New Zealand, Poland, Switzerland, Turkey and Ukraine, if a sledgehammer has been used to crack a nut, which is what this situation feels like. An entirely peaceful demonstration was disrupted by armed force—people in balaclavas working in the FSB. Dirigible boats were slashed and sunk, shots were fired, ships were seized and people were charged with offences way in exaggeration of the facts.

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

I am in the middle of a Select Committee inquiry, so I hope hon. Members will bear with my intervention. I learnt to speak Russian at school. I revived twinning links between Zamoskvorechye and Lambeth to bring about peaceful dialogue between the two countries. I am also Chair of the Environmental Audit Committee, which recently published the report, “Protecting the Arctic”. Two weeks ago, I was with the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr Gray) at a conference on the Arctic circle, looking at ways to achieve peaceful dialogue over the issues that the Committee identified in the report on the future of the region. I would like to put that on record.

In making the case for the journalists, as well as those on the Greenpeace ship, has my hon. Friend any sense of the Russians engaging with us in peaceful dialogue to address the environmental issues? Does he have any knowledge of whether Shell or BP, which are closely linked with Gazprom, have been involved in seeking a solution to this international situation?

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

May I draw Members’ attention to the need for brief interventions?

[Chris Bryant]

The answer to the question by my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) is yes. I hope that the Minister will reply on the issue of how the British Government can work with Russia, because the British Government’s relationship with the Russian Government is not always at its best, and whether it might be possible to work with other countries and some other agents, such as Shell and BP, to ensure a successful outcome. In my view, a successful outcome means that all the activists are out of Murmansk, out of the Russian Federation and home before Christmas, preferably in the next couple of weeks.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Chris Bryant]

Yes, but the hon. Gentleman must be brief.

[Mr Gray]

I will speak fast, so I will be extremely brief. I agree with the points that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent North (Joan Walley) made a moment ago. She and I attended the Arctic conference. The point she made was not so much about the consular issues, which the hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct to raise—I strongly agree with every word he has said so far—but that we must find a way for the future of bringing the two sides together in a way that does not involve raiding oil rigs and taking action. It should involve talking and sitting down to discuss the issues among ourselves.

[Chris Bryant]

I agree. When I was Minister for Europe, I also had responsibility for the Arctic region, and a successful discussion between all the countries that have an interest was one of the things we were trying to prosecute. Incidentally, those countries are not only the ones that abut the Arctic, but all the countries in the world, due to the environmental issues that pertain.

I say to our Russian friends and colleagues that peaceful demonstration is always a challenge. Greenpeace is irritating; in a way, that is the point of Greenpeace. The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) is irritating. He has been irritating since we were at school together. He probably thinks that I am irritating. How do we deal with extremely irritating people who want to make a point? That is the challenge for the international community, and for every country that seeks to be a democracy and prosper in the modern world. That is why the eyes of the world will be on Russia and why the Nobel laureates have written to say, “Look, you have to honour your treaty obligations and make sure that you are not using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.”

We know people are watching, because there have been demonstrations around the world—in Hong Kong and South Africa—and the Nobel laureates have referred to the situation. I am sure that Greenpeace will engage in many more demonstrations in future, and not only in Russia. Over the past weeks, there have been demonstrations at the pumps in Germany and a massive banner was unveiled by Greenpeace at a football stadium in Switzerland. We all seek to manage such challenging confrontations calmly, and not in the way the Russians have.

I shall end with two quotes. The first is not from a Brit, but a Swiss activist—he apologises for his bad English—Marco Weber:

“I am now for about 12 days alone in a cell, I don’t have books, newspapers, TV, or someone to talk to. At the daily walk I am also isolated. The 4x5 metre ‘walkyard’ is surrounded by concrete walls and covered with iron bars. On top is a roof, which doesn’t allow the sunshine in. The only sky I can see is out of my cell window, which is placed in the northern wall of the building. This means no sun at all. Days are long!”

Alex Harris writes:

“Surely my future isn’t rotting in prison in Murmansk?!...Being in prison is like slowly dying. You literally wish your life away and mark off the days.”

I am not saying that the Russians should declare some kind of legal immunity for Greenpeace activists—no one is saying that. Greenpeace is not saying that. Its activists know the risks they take when they engage in such activities. All I say to the Russians is “Slona iz mukhi,” a short Russian proverb that means, “Don’t make an elephant out of a fly”—a mountain out of a molehill.

09:49

[Mr Geoffrey Cox (Torridge and West Devon) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on his speech and on securing the debate and I applaud the approach with which he commenced. It does not help those who are currently incarcerated in Murmansk to insult or offend their custodians. What we must do—I apprehend it was the approach intended by the hon. Gentleman—is to appeal to the Russian authorities, to His Excellency the Russian ambassador, who I know is taking an interest in the proceedings this morning, and to the President of Russia. I hope that speakers in the House today will base their appeal not only upon an analysis of what occurred that day and during those days in which the Arctic Sunrise was pursued and seized, but upon the compelling compassionate grounds, which are represented in part by the attendance of the families of some of those who are in custody today.

In my constituency, I have the families of Alexandra Harris and Kieron Bryan. Both families are suffering the inevitable shocking anxiety and anguish of knowing that those whom they love are isolated and segregated in a faraway place and accused of something that they are convinced, as I am, they did not do, and they are anxiously awaiting their return. It is in that spirit that I hope those who are listening, particularly the Russian ambassador, will interpret all the remarks that we make this morning.

Kieron Bryan is 29. He was a videographer on the Arctic Sunrise. He was nominated for an award. He is a talented, young and idealistic man. He was not there to break the law; he was on board the ship merely to record what happened and to keep a record. Alex Harris is 27—my own daughter’s age—and was on board as a digital communications officer, in charge of the Twitter account. She was fresh from joining Greenpeace in Sydney, and has been a volunteer in Vietnamese orphanages. She is, again, an idealistic young person who was not there to break the law—far from it—and to whom the idea of illegal violence would have been anathema, as it would to Kieron Bryan.

We all in this country can be proud of such young people. They were not intending to threaten the Russian state. They were intending to make a point about drilling in the Arctic. We all know, as the hon. Member for Rhondda has said, that drilling in Arctic conditions is a dangerous, arduous task, and it is inevitable that there will be sensitivities among those whose task it is to protect such installations, but those sensitivities should not lead to disproportionate reactions. I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, but, on reflection, I hope that the Russian ambassador, the President and the authorities currently conducting the proceedings in Murmansk will reflect that there is an important principle of law: proportionality.

Proportionality must be applied in all circumstances to all the actions of a sovereign state and its court system. The actions currently being taken against Alex Harris, Kieron Bryan and others who are under the custody of the Russian authorities are not proportionate.

As the hon. Member for Rhondda said, article 101 of the UN convention on the law of the sea interdicts illegal acts of violence for private ends on the high seas. The hon. Gentleman is completely right. Even if there was an illegal act of violence, which is doubtful, in the mere ascension of the rig with the intention of placing a banner upon it, it cannot be said that it was for private ends in the ordinary sense in which international lawyers mean it. Private ends must mean some form of deliberate attempt to secure a gain. In such circumstances, I would urge the Russian authorities to reflect on whether the charge of piracy is proportionate.

As the hon. Gentleman has said, to charge those young idealistic people—whose interest is not in violence but in peace, and, while some may think it misguided, is in preservation and creation, not destruction—with piracy is to bring into disrepute the very law that prohibits it. That is why I urge the Russian authorities, His Excellency the ambassador, who is listening to this debate, and those who may be listening in Russia itself to feel that the proportionality of their actions is under severe question.

There is another point that the hon. Gentleman did not mention: the United Nations convention prohibits actions of this type only on the high seas. The fact is that the oil rig was within the territorial waters of Russia, so any act against it would not necessarily be an act under the UN convention, and the action that was taken is not prohibited by the UN convention. The Arctic Sunrise was three nautical miles from the oil rig at the time—plainly, as the hon. Gentleman said, in international waters. In such circumstances, the exercise of power under the convention is questionable at least.

However, I do not wish to dwell upon the steps that were taken by the Russian authorities and whether or not they were lawful. I wish to dwell upon the plight of the individuals themselves. In the grim conditions of the Murmansk jail in which they reside are two young people whose families I represent. Kieron Bryan is a constituent of the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who will speak eloquently on his behalf, but I hope she will forgive me if I say that I feel a powerful connection to the families of both Alexandra Harris and Kieron Bryan. They are Devonshire people from the area of Torridge that I have the privilege to represent. Alexandra Harris was brought up in a farming family of generations. She went to Dolton and then Great Torrington school. She attended that school with a constituent who works for me in my constituency.

Kieron Bryan was brought up in Shebbear, a great village in Torridge that I know well, so I feel particularly close to those two young people at this particular time. I urge the Russian authorities to understand that those two people, as well as all their colleagues at the time, were not there in any destructive, illegal or lawbreaking spirit. It is ironic that they are incarcerated in Murmansk, the port to which many convoys sailed through the Atlantic to bring to the Russians succour in a time of great need. I ask the President of Russia, the Russian ambassador and the Russian authorities to think again. The human reality of Alexandra Harris’s, Kieron Bryan’s and others’ plight is brought home, as the hon. Gentleman said, by the letter that Alexandra’s mother published only recently and which she has asked me to draw to the attention of the House and the Minister. The letter said:

“I’m worried about what’s going to happen. I have moments of feeling panicky, but then I try to tell myself that there’s nothing I can do from in here and what will be will be so it’s pointless worrying. But it’s hard. Surely my future isn’t rotting in prison in Murmansk?! Well, I really hope it isn’t.”

It is our job—the job of the Minister, the Prime Minister and all those who care for justice and for freedom—to see that it is not.

09:59

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on the balanced presentation that he gave to the House and also the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) on his impassioned plea to the House. I want to add my and my party’s support to the joint approach of all the parties here. Although I do not have a constituent involved in the affair, I want to convey my support to the Members of Parliament who represent the people who are in jail at present.

I believe that we need to drill for oil; it is important that we do so. I would like to get away from relying on fossil fuels—we all know that—but when we produce and use oil, there is a tremendous burden on us to ensure that we do so as environmentally safely as possible. It is incumbent on us all to make sure that every possible measure is taken to ensure that oil is drilled safely and that measures are taken to protect the unique and fragile environment of such areas. Greenpeace, as the hon. Member for Rhondda said, might be a pain at times, but it highlights vital issues. That is why its members were on the Russian oil rig, and accusing them of piracy is absurd and wrong.

I understand why Greenpeace was highlighting Russian oil-drilling techniques. The director of Greenpeace, John Sauven, claims that half the world’s oil spills occur in Russia. He estimated that some 30 million barrels of oil a year are spilt there—six times the 4.9 million barrels thought to have been spilled in the gulf of Mexico. Considering the environment and what Greenpeace was highlighting, that is the issue. For me, that is, in a way, also the injustice of what has happened.

Greenpeace’s thought process behind boarding the rig was clearly to highlight the actions in the Arctic, not to carry out an act of piracy, which is an absurd accusation. Certainly, the fact that the entire ship was seized and everyone on board arrested, including two journalists, shows that the response is less to do with their actions and more to do with the Russian Government making a statement—or, as some suspect, trying to hide the truth. I make those comments as well because I think it is important to do so.

That statement has been made and the world is in no doubt as to the current stance of the Russians. It is past time that the people were released. That is why it is right and proper to highlight the issue in Westminster today. The six UK residents who have been arrested and held—not, according to media outlets, in the most pleasant of conditions, as the two previous speakers have mentioned—are an indication of Russia’s stance. The way in which they have been treated in prison demands that a message is sent from this place, making it clear that we want our citizens released along with the other people on that boat. It is absurd to hold off a trial until November. To deny bail to such people and to hold them, on trumped-up charges, far from their families and from access to loved ones is cruel and must be stopped.

Europe as a whole—indeed, the world—has a role to play. Hillary Clinton, the former US Secretary of State, has made a statement. She said last week that there should be a greater international outcry. The issue goes beyond Europe and as far as the United States.

I am aware that the Netherlands has determined to bring the matter to the international maritime court and that others are considering the same course of action. The situation is more than just arresting people and letting them think about what they are going to do for a night or two; it is an infringement of their rights. As upholder of democracy, this place must make it abundantly clear that we will join other nations and demand that Russia releases those innocent people and puts a stop to whatever statement it is trying to make.

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

My hon. Friend is following through a train of thought about the sequence of events that needs to happen internationally. Does he agree that urgent action is needed? The Minister present and the Prime Minister need to make immediate contacts, so that whatever needs to be done is done in a matter of days rather than months.

[Jim Shannon]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. We also need the Prime Minister to action it right away. The statement that will come clearly from Westminster Hall and from all hon. Members present will sincerely say that.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda on raising the issue. I look forward to hearing other input and even more so to hearing the input and response from the Minister and, ultimately, the Prime Minister. If there is a chance to bring the matter up in Prime Minister’s Question Time today, it should be brought up.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Andrew Turner (in the Chair)]

Order. Each hon. Member will have seven minutes.

10:04

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing the debate. He was, to some extent, tactful in what he said about Russia, and he did not mention some of the other significant human rights cases, such as those of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Platon Lebedev and the late Sergei Magnitsky, and the disproportionate treatment meted out to members of Pussy Riot. I understand his reasons for being tactful, but there is an issue for Russia to take notice of: its reputation for human rights abuses, and the damage being done in that regard, is significant and cumulative. It is doing more and more damage to its international reputation through disproportionate responses to events such as those that we are discussing.

Russia’s response is disproportionate, as the hon. Gentleman also, less tactfully, said. There is a level of irritation that comes with politics; he conceded that he is sometimes irritating to me. His ability to remind everyone that we went to school together is one of his more irritating habits, although I suspect that the fact that he went to Cheltenham college does him more political damage in Rhondda than it does me in Cheltenham.

We in this Parliament have been subject to Greenpeace actions. Members of Greenpeace were on our roof in 2009, unfurling banners about climate change. They climbed Big Ben—or the clock tower, in deference to the hon. Gentleman’s reputation for pedantry—in 2004.

[Mr Gray]

The Elizabeth tower.

[Martin Horwood]

Indeed, but then it was still the clock tower. Those protests were met, in large part, with good humour, even though they were probably more significant security breaches in one sense than anything that the Arctic 30 have done in the waters close to Russia. However, they were met with good humour and a proportionate response by the authorities. People were arrested, but they were not charged as terrorists. It was understood that they were peaceful political protests. That is what the Arctic 30 were also engaged in.

The hon. Member for Rhondda was absolutely right to draw attention to the United Nations convention on the law of the sea. Article 101 has two fundamental aspects to its definition of piracy. The first is use of violence, and the other is, as he quite rightly pointed out, the fact that it is done for private means. Piracy is a criminally violent act, and that, as even President Putin clearly said, is quite clearly not what the Arctic 30 were involved in.

I will go a little further than some other hon. Members and say that there is an environmental issue in addition to a human rights one. That is, after all, what Greenpeace was seeking to highlight. As we turn to more and more novel means of extracting fossil fuels, and go into more and more extreme environments in our pursuit of them, we are taking higher and higher risks with the environment. The lessons from the gulf of Mexico are clear, and there are lessons to be learned not only by Russia, but by this and other western countries, about novel means of extracting fossil fuels. My comments are therefore not directed solely at Russia. If the Arctic 30—certainly those placed under arrest—have inspired future generations of environmental activists to highlight such issues, and if they have helped to generate a debate about the risks of more extreme extraction of fossil fuels, their action will not have been in vain.

The Minister made a written ministerial statement on 9 October, which was welcome. However, it had the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s traditional consular emphasis; the FCO is diplomatic, but I think it is occasionally diplomatic to a fault. There seemed to be, in the statement, something of a reluctance to pass judgment on whether it was appropriate to prosecute these people for the act of piracy. There seemed to be great reluctance, as there was in other cases, to contemplate any kind of sanctions against Russia for its actions. There was the rather significant inclusion of the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in lobbying the Russian Government, but not of the Prime Minister. When British citizens are involved, I think it is appropriate for the Prime Minister to have some personal involvement.

The FCO always puts a great premium on discreet persuasion, but there are limits to that. At some point, we need to hear from the Government what further concrete and proactive steps they are taking to make progress on the issue—most obviously in partnership with our European Union friends and other like-minded democracies—and how they will try more strongly to encourage Russia to take a different path.

Many hon. Members and people involved in politics the world over were deeply inspired by Russia’s transition from communist dictatorship in the 1980s and ’90s. It is a matter of immense sadness that Russia’s reputation, particularly in human rights, seems to be slipping backwards towards that era. I hope that, collectively, we and supporting organisations such as Greenpeace can encourage Russia to make this issue a turning point, and not to carry on treading this dangerous path.

10:09

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

My comments—I shall keep them brief, because I know that many Members want to speak—follow on nicely from those of the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood). I want to press the Government on what exactly they have been doing for the past month, and to question the “softly, softly” approach that they appear to have adopted.

I wrote to the Foreign Secretary a month ago, and I still have not received a reply to my questions. It has not escaped my notice that the Governments of other nationals held captive in Murmansk have been much tougher. The Dutch are taking legal action; Hillary Clinton, who has been mentioned, has spoken out very strongly; and Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, who does not even have any nationals held in Murmansk, has picked up the phone to President Putin and made it clear that what has happened is unacceptable and should be resolved quickly. Yet when the Prime Minister was asked at Prime Minister’s questions last Wednesday what he has been doing, he said that he has simply been asking for updates. I am afraid that that is not good enough.

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

I want to put it on the record that my right hon. Friend’s point is supported by constituents of mine who are friends of Kieron’s. They have written to me to say that our Prime Minister really should get involved. I am sure that my right hon. Friend agrees.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I absolutely agree, not least because more Britons are being held by the Russians in Murmansk than people from any other country. As has already been said, there are six of them, of whom three are from Devon.

In a letter to me from his jail in Murmansk, the marine engineer from Exeter, Iain Rogers, has complained bitterly about what he sees as the British Government’s lack of action, compared with what is being done by his fellow captives’ Governments. He makes this direct appeal to the Prime Minister:

“I find it hard to believe that you are not outraged that British subjects have been kidnapped at gunpoint, detained and abused and yet so far you have done nothing except sit on your hands. It is time to act Mr Cameron. You have a duty to protect UK citizens and international law.”

Iain’s mum, Sue Turner, visited the Foreign Office last week. I understand that she did not get to see a Minister, which is regrettable, but she did see an official. At a vigil held for the Arctic 30 in Exeter on Sunday, she told me that she and the rest of the relatives share a concern that they are not being given enough information. She said that when they asked why more was not being done and said publicly, she was told by the Foreign Office official that Russia had not responded well to criticism from abroad in the past. We all know that, and it may well be the case, but this has been going on for more than a month.

Many of us do not have a great deal of faith in the Russian judicial system, and other Members have already referred to the prosecution of Pussy Riot and the state- sponsored persecution of gay and lesbian people in Russia. The British Government should make it absolutely clear to the Russians—yes, privately if necessary—that the situation is unacceptable, and that severe damage will be done to our bilateral relations and Russia’s already battered international image unless the hostages are freed forthwith. The Government also need to tell the relatives and the British public what they are doing to help.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) has quite rightly said that it would be inconceivable for the Sochi winter Olympics to go ahead unaffected if these 30 people from all over the world are still held illegally in a Russian jail. Does any hon. Member think that that would be an acceptable backdrop to an international sporting event? I hope that the Minister will reassure us by telling us what the Government are doing, and what representations he, and the Prime Minister personally, have been making. Are they supporting or are they a party to the Dutch legal action, and if not, why not?

[Mr Cox]

On the Dutch legal action, it is important to remember that only the Dutch have the standing to bring such an action: it was their sovereign-flagged ship, and they therefore have that status under the convention. We could not bring that action. Of course, we can support it morally, but we cannot be a party to it.

[Mr Bradshaw]

I defer to the hon. and learned Gentleman’s superior legal knowledge, but I hope that the Minister will at least tell us that we are supporting the Dutch legal action politically and morally.

Finally, what conversations have there been between the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary and Cathy Ashton? I would have thought that—given her very good reputation in recent months for bringing together parties, including the Russians, over Iran and Syria—the European Union’s foreign policy representative would be well placed to organise a co-ordinated European Union response to this intolerable behaviour by the Russian authorities.

10:14

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing the debate. He spoke very eloquently, as have other hon. Members, about the seizure of the boat, the charge of piracy and the issue of proportionality. I very much support those comments, and those made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw).

I want to say a few words in support of Anthony Perrett from Newport, whom I share with my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn). He is one of the Greenpeace activists detained in Russia, and his family live in my constituency. May I say to the Minister that we are grateful for the very helpful and practical meeting with hon. Members the week before last, and the subsequent meeting with the families, although the Minister was not able to be at that one? The family have certainly requested a meeting with the Minister in person as soon as possible. Greenpeace’s constructive engagement in the case is also heartening, not least its steps to give daily updates to the families, including Anthony’s family and partner, about what is happening.

Anthony Perrett is a tree surgeon, a former member of Caldicot town council in my constituency and a volunteer for the Severn Area Rescue Association. He undoubtedly has strong and passionate views about the environment, and campaigns proactively. He would probably have been aware of what the consequences of his actions might be, but being charged with piracy is clearly excessive, given that the maximum sentence is 15 years. More than a month on, the Russian authorities have sent a loud and clear message to Greenpeace—the point has been made—but we all hope that reason prevails, and that Anthony and his fellow protesters can be set free and reunited with their families as soon as possible.

The debate has touched on what is happening to those detained in a Russian prison, and on our not having enough information on the circumstances in which they are detained. I want to speak about the stress placed on the family and Anthony’s partner, Zaharah, who have to watch and wait while events in Russia unfold. They are struggling to cope with the impact of his detention on their lives at home in Newport. Zaharah is obviously unable to talk to Anthony. She is unsure about how the Russian legal process works and how long it will take, and about when this trauma will end. She is obviously concerned about his welfare, and wants to know more about the conditions in which he is detained, so it would be helpful to know more about that.

The speed at which the protesters have been charged with piracy is clearly an immense shock, especially given President Putin’s remark about the Greenpeace protesters on 25 September that

“it’s completely obvious they aren’t pirates.”

On a practical level, Zaharah has told me that she would like to send Anthony some personal items at the jail where he is held, but that has so far proved impossible. Parcel couriers have not been able to get help, and people are still trying to find a way to get parcels through. She is asking the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to look at that practical matter and help to find a resolution, which would be a small comfort for my constituent’s family and friends.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend think that it is worth reminding our Russian friends that Newport is probably unique in commemorating the role of the merchant navy—it lost more of its representatives in warfare than any other service—with a special memorial and a special commemoration every year, and that it is worth saying that many of those who died were on the route to Murmansk, under terrible conditions of weather and danger? Can we build on the solidarity and comradeship that existed during the war to ensure that the Russians respond generously now?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend and neighbour for that worthy intervention, which is timely given the commemoration that is about to take place in Newport. His point was well made. It would be helpful if we could look at some of the practical issues, including the provision of more information on visits. Such help would make a really big difference on a day-to-day basis to both those detained and their families.

As we do not have much time and other Members wish to speak, may I thank the Government for the representations that they have made so far? We look forward to hearing from them about what more can be done. I just ask that they do all they can to secure the release of the Greenpeace activists and to urge the Russian authorities to think again.

10:20

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner. I thank the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for his contribution and congratulate him on securing the debate. I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute.

I want to set out my concern for the 30 individuals who remain incarcerated in a Russian jail, and add my voice to those calling for the charges of piracy to be dropped and for the activists and journalists to be released. I also want to recall why these brave individuals were prepared to take peaceful direct action at the oil drilling platform operated by Gazprom in Arctic waters. The threat that oil drilling poses to the Arctic region is immense. The current failure of global leaders, both here and elsewhere, to respond with sufficient urgency to the threat of climate change is overwhelming.

It is difficult to imagine what it must be like being detained in a Russian jail for more than a month. The reports in the media of letters from the activists and the concerns and feelings of their families and loved ones pierce through sharply into normal life. Phil Ball is one of those being held. He is a nature photographer and film maker who has been credited on David Attenborough’s films, and a father to sons aged eight and seven and a three-year-old daughter. His brother has spoken of the contact he has had with him. He said:

“While Phil seemed quite ‘down’ in his earlier letters, he seemed stronger in this one to me and is very keen we don’t just get them back and forget why they all went out there—to highlight the damage which is being wreaked on the Arctic.”

1 know that all the UK citizens are being well represented by their own MPs and am told that the FCO is making every effort on their behalf. I am sure that all of us will want to keep up the pressure on the FCO publicly and behind the scenes and to work closely with Greenpeace to secure the release of all those detained.

I want to focus my remaining comments on the concerns that motivated those men and women to board the Arctic Sunrise, and that they continue to want to highlight. The Greenpeace ship, crew, volunteers, campaigners and journalists were there to highlight the Arctic oil rush. Fronted by companies such as Gazprom and Shell, the rush for oil is bringing unprecedented risks to the area and to us all in terms of climate change. The activists are playing a key role in letting the world know about the catastrophic consequences of any potential oil spill for the many people living in the Arctic who rely on their natural environment for prosperity, both directly and through tourism, and for marine wildlife and ecosystems.

The activities of the oil companies do not tend to attract much attention here in the UK. The investigative work and the non-violent direct action of Greenpeace and other organisations are helping to shine a light on what is taking place. Every 18 months, more than 4 million barrels of oil spew into the Arctic ocean, where it becomes everyone’s problem. For decades, Russia’s oil giants have been polluting parts of the country’s once thriving landscape, often in secret, spilling oil on to the land and into the Arctic ocean, poisoning the water and destroying the livelihood of local communities and indigenous peoples.

Greenpeace has investigated and documented the ongoing disaster, revealing how the oil seeps into rivers and farmland and how it spreads and becomes a thick, heavy mire, suffocating plants and animals and forcing people to abandon the area. The oil contaminates food and water supplies, and people live with the knowledge that their once clean rivers, forests and air now pose serious health risks.

Last year, the Environmental Audit Committee, of which I am a member, carried out an inquiry into the risks of drilling in the Arctic, and the future of the region more generally. The inquiry concluded by calling for a moratorium on oil and gas drilling in the Arctic region, at least until we have put in place stronger safeguards, such as a pan-Arctic oil spill response standard and a stricter financial liability regime for oil and gas operations, requiring companies to prove that they can meet the costs of a clean up.

The peaceful activists on the Arctic Sunrise put their freedom on the line to highlight issues not just around oil spills but around climate change. Last week, 11 Nobel peace prize laureates including Archbishop Desmond Tutu wrote to President Putin offering their support for the Arctic 30. Describing the Arctic as a “precious treasure of humanity”, the signatories are all supporting efforts to protect the high north from oil exploration and climate change.

On Friday 27 September, the Arctic 30 woke up in their freezing jail cells after a whole week of incarceration. On the same day, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change released its latest report on the science of climate change. Scientists are more certain than ever that human activity, mainly the burning of fossil fuels, is driving a powerful underlying trend of rising global temperatures. The IPCC report also underlines the need for substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions to limit climate change. For the first time, it talks about the need for a global carbon budget—the amount of carbon that it is safe to release into the atmosphere. That view echoes recent reports from organisations such as Carbon Tracker. There is a stark choice. If we want to avoid catastrophic climate change, we need to leave at least two thirds of existing fossil fuel reserves in the ground, unburned. It does not matter whether we are talking about Arctic oil, tar sands from Canada or Madagascar, or shale gas from Sussex; we just need to leave unconventional fossil fuels in the ground.

One of my constituents wrote to me recently about her concern for the Arctic 30. Summarising the situation, she said:

“I don’t agree with the exploitation big oil companies like Shell are wanting to pursue, drilling in this delicate environment for profit. Climate change is a threat to us all and I strongly believe that a new direction and other alternatives should be considered and more researched.”

She went on to say:

“I tune into BBC Parliament regularly and often find myself disappointed by the lack of interest and low seat count MPs have in debates discussing”—

climate change and—

“similar matters concerning wildlife and the environment.”

Across the world, citizens are increasingly taking non-violent direct action against fossil fuel companies because of the failure of democratically elected representatives to act in the public interest, to stand up to the small number of fossil fuel giants whose business models are fundamentally incompatible with a safe climate and to direct their attention to keeping the vast majority of fossil fuels in the ground instead. The latest IPCC report confirms that the ground is where fossil fuels must remain if we are to keep climate change below the “dangerous” threshold of 2°.

Earlier this year, the UK and other G8 nations reiterated that commitment. They said:

“Action needs to continue and intensify as a matter of urgency. Ministers remain committed to long term efforts with a view to limiting the increase in global average temperature below 2 degrees Celsius.”

That is what they said, but it is “deeds not words” that matter.

Four years ago, climate scientist James Hansen was first arrested when taking part in a protest against coal mining in West Virginia. In Canada and elsewhere, civil society resistance to the Keystone XL pipeline is diverse and growing. That is because the exploitation of tar sands is devastating First Nation communities and the local environment, and spells game over for our climate.

The resolve and courage of the Arctic 30 is truly humbling. Today’s debate is an important opportunity to call for their release, and also to put on the parliamentary record the contribution they are making to the fight to protect the Arctic and to create a safe climate and a better future for our children and grandchildren.

10:27

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

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate and for the tone of his contribution. I share with him the view that Greenpeace activists are not innocents abroad. Their position is part and parcel of being Greenpeace activists. That is certainly the case of my constituent, Frank Hewetson. He has been a very active campaigner for many years. It is important that we not only raise our concerns about the treatment of our constituents in the hands of the Russian authorities but point out that Greenpeace is active on behalf of the whole world, and no more so than in its actions in the Arctic. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) pointed out, changes to the Arctic could have the most deleterious and terrible effect on the rest of the world.

I share with everyone who has spoken today a sense of disbelief that the Russian authorities have chosen, as someone so aptly said, to take this great hammer to crack a nut. The charge of piracy, as those who have comprehensive backgrounds in international law know, is an absurdity. The Russian authorities are determined to hang on to the charge of piracy, and are obdurate in not granting bail to the Arctic 30. What possible harm can they do if they are given bail?

I am in two minds as to whether to argue that one should put forward the need for a compassionate approach to the prisoners, because of course we are talking about a society that even the slightest contact with its culture and literature—I presume that we have all read “The Gulag Archipelago”, so we know that Russian treatment of prisoners, whether the charges against them were justified or not, is surely one of the blackest stories in the history of humankind. I am amazed that Russia, which seems to want to go back to the old, desperate and surely discredited tradition, seems to want to replicate it yet again, so soon after we have seen it take a major step forward in international affairs by being so central and essential in ensuring that the inspectors were allowed into Syria, and the chemical weapons will be destroyed and brought out. Far from arguing on the level of Russia suddenly discovering a compassionate nature, we should argue with Russia that that is really good public relations for it.

Russia is somewhat paradoxical, in that it is clearly a very proud nation and yet sometimes it feels that it is not given sufficient credit for its standing in the international community. Sometimes it is Russia’s fault, and on many occasions it could be argued that it is the fault of the international community, that this great nation is not given sufficient credit for being great, but actions such as charging these activists with piracy tend to push Russia even further into the background, when it so clearly wants to be at the forefront.

I hope that our diplomatic associations and contacts with the Russian authorities will help. I also have to thank the Minister for being so available to the families of the activists; he has certainly been available to the family of my constituent and to the families of other Members’ constituents. Possibly, the best way forward is diplomacy behind closed doors. Perhaps that will at least achieve the first step that I am sure all of us here in Westminster Hall today wish to see, which is affording the Arctic 30 bail, improving contacts with their families and providing items such as books to read, more time on the phone or at least a clear line when they do have time on the phone.

As I have said, these people are not innocents abroad, but what they are doing on behalf of the entire world is entirely admirable, and Russia is a part of that world. Her people can be destroyed just as easily as anybody else’s if climate change is allowed to run unchallenged.

10:32

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

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) for securing this debate. I know that he is very involved in relations with Russia through his work in the all-party group on Russia.

I would particularly like to identify myself with the comments of the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox), in whose constituency Kieron Bryan’s parents live; Kieron Bryan is my constituent. I want to speak about Kieron Bryan today and to say that he is detained in Murmansk, and that it has been a long time since 19 September; here we are on 23 October. It is a long time to be detained in Murmansk. He is not a criminal, he is not a threat to the Russian state, he is not a pirate and I say very strongly that I hope the Russian authorities will listen to what is being said in this debate and allow Kieron Bryan to come home.

Kieron Bryan was on a contract with Greenpeace as a journalist. He had worked for The Times, the Daily Mirror and in broadcasting; he had really done well in his professional career. Aged 29, he had already made great strides in that career, and had taken up a short-term contract with Greenpeace to be on the Arctic Sunrise to record the crew’s activities. Now he is in solitary confinement in Murmansk.

None of us makes a habit of lightly second-guessing other countries’ criminal justice systems, and I certainly do not do so. There are many British citizens who are in prisons all around the world, but I say to the Russian authorities that Kieron Bryan is not a criminal, much less a pirate, and I hope that they will release him and allow him to return home.

I will also say something about the facilities in which Kieron has been detained. As has been said, to be in solitary confinement for 23 hours a day, having been refused bail, is very hard indeed. Regarding his access to the outside world, I understand that his letters are brought in and he is allowed to read them, but then they are taken away. So he cannot even keep his letters and see what his friends and family are writing to him. He has only been allowed one book and he has now finished that. He was allowed one phone call to his family when he was on the way to detention. Since then, he has only had access to the phone last weekend, which is not acceptable.

I have asked the Russian authorities for Kieron’s brother, Russell, to be able to go out to Murmansk to visit him. A Russian prisoner on remand is allowed a visit from their family, but how much more does someone need a visit from their family if they are detained thousands of miles away from their home in a cell in a prison where they do not speak the language?

I hope that the Russian authorities will listen to what is being said. I thank the Foreign Office for the work that it has already done. I want it to do absolutely everything it can and to leave no stone unturned to get Kieron Bryan back home. I know that the Foreign Secretary is aware of and engaged on this issue, as is the Prime Minister. I thank the Foreign Office Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today for having a meeting with myself and other colleagues, and for the consular team and the team in the Foreign Office here who are working on this issue.

For my part, I will seek a meeting with Baroness Ashton of Upholland. Perhaps she can meet a number of us and can hear from us all how much we are concerned about this issue and how grateful we would be if she could do what she can to help.

I have asked for a meeting with the Russian ambassador, but he has not been prepared to meet me. Perhaps the Minister who is here in Westminster Hall today might encourage him to meet me, and perhaps I could go along with the hon. and learned Member for Torridge and West Devon. If a country has an embassy in this country, it is so that it can hear from people in this country what is going on, and to refuse to hear—as a matter of courtesy—what I have to say about my constituent, who is in detention, is wrong. I hope Russia will allow that meeting to happen.

I want Russia to allow visits; to allow Russell a visa; to allow books and phone calls—

[Chris Bryant]

The Russian ambassador is here in Parliament this afternoon at 4 o’clock for a meeting with the all-party group on Russia, if my right hon. and learned Friend would like to attend.

[Ms Harman]

Excellent. I will definitely attend that meeting, and I look forward to seeing the ambassador. I hope that he will take this issue very seriously and will listen to our concerns, particularly regarding the different situation of Kieron Bryan, who is a journalist. It is hard to know how much information Kieron is able to get, so many thousands of miles away as he faces a winter in a prison cell in Murmansk, but I hope he knows that for his family—his parents, Ann and Andy, and his brother, Russell—not a day goes by without their using every effort to help to bring his plight to the attention of the Government and the Russian authorities. His family will leave no stone unturned until he is back with them, and I will certainly do absolutely everything I can to help them too.

10:38

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. It is clear from the attendance here in Westminster Hall today, and from the correspondence that I am sure we have all had, that there is considerable concern across the House and among the wider public about the plight of the Arctic 30, as they have become known, and in particular about the six Britons who were arrested: Kieron Bryan, Philip Ball, Frank Hewetson, Anthony Perrett, Alexandra Harris and Iain Rogers.

As we have heard, 28 Greenpeace activists and two freelance journalists were detained last month after armed Russian security forces descended upon the Arctic Sunrise. They have been charged with piracy and are being held in prison in Murmansk, after the courts denied them bail.

I will come later to the issue of opposition to oil drilling in the Arctic, which is, after all, why Greenpeace activists were off the coast of Russia carrying out this action. The immediate priority must, of course, be the safety and welfare of the 30 detainees, who face at least two months’ pre-trial detention and possible prison sentences of up to 15 years. Other speakers have spoken of concern about the conditions in which they are held. Some are held in solitary confinement or are unable to converse with cell mates. They have limited contact with the outside world, they cannot receive telephone calls or have visits from their family, and their letters are confiscated when they have read them.

Alexandra Harris has said that she suffered serious stomach pains and asked both a Russian human rights official and a British diplomat about seeing a doctor, but she was not able to see one. Earlier today, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and I met Kieron Bryan’s family and heard some of their concerns about the fact that he is unable to converse with his cell mate, and that if his brother went to Murmansk to visit him he would be questioned at length and would not necessarily have the right to talk to Kieron when he arrived there. I hope very much that the Foreign Office officials in our embassy in Moscow can help to facilitate a trip and ensure that if he goes to Russia he will be allowed access to his brother. That is the least they could do.

I understand that Kieron has had three visits from our diplomats in Russia. Can the Minister assure us that consular staff have unimpeded access to the six British citizens? How satisfied is he about the conditions in which they are held and their access to medical assistance and legal counsel? Whenever our officials in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia want to see those six Britons they should be able to do so, and I am worried that that is not the case. Have the Government been able to secure visas, visitation rights and telephone contact for all the families?

We have heard about the somewhat dubious nature of the charges. Even President Putin has said that the six Britons are obviously not pirates, yet they are being charged with piracy. What representations have been made about the legal situation, the legal basis on which the Russian authorities boarded the Arctic Sunrise and the legality of the charges?

As has been said, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, has raised her concerns directly with President Putin, but when the Prime Minister—one of his Witney constituents is among those held in Murmansk—was asked about the matter at Prime Minister’s questions, he merely said:

“We need to follow this case extremely closely, and that is exactly what the Foreign Office is doing…we are daily seeking updates from the Russian Government”.—[Official Report, 16 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 736.]

That implies that the Prime Minister is not personally involved although one of his constituents is among the detainees. Will the Minister tell us to what extent the Prime Minister is involved, both as Prime Minister and as a constituency MP? The implication of

“daily seeking updates from the Russian Government”

is that not a lot of lobbying is going on. Surely, instead of just waiting to hear what is going on, we should exert pressure and do all we can behind the scenes to ensure that the case for releasing the six Britons and the other activists is made as swiftly as possible.

Oil drilling in the Arctic is deeply contentious and it is right that we discuss not just the plight of the people held in jail in Murmansk but why the Greenpeace activists felt compelled to take the personal risk of protesting at the Prirazlomnaya oil rig in the harsh Arctic climate. The Arctic is warming twice as fast as anywhere else on the planet. Last September, the extent of the ice cap was at a record low and the Environmental Audit Committee advised in its excellent report that we need to re-examine the risk of a summer collapse. It also warned that a number of tipping points are approaching “with potentially disastrous consequences”. The tragic irony is that melting of the ice caps provides greater opportunities for oil and gas exploration, which will then further accelerate climate change.

The Environmental Audit Committee argued that the Arctic is one of the least well understood places on earth and highly sensitive to environmental damage, and that any response to an oil spill would be ineffectual. It called for a moratorium on drilling in the Arctic. As the shadow Minister for the Arctic, I was happy to support that during the debate in February on the Committee’s report. There was common agreement that such issues are not just for the Arctic states and members of the Arctic Council, on which the UK has observer status. In that debate, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), assured us that the UK is

“leading the fight on tackling the underlying cause of the threats facing the Arctic.”

He also said that the possibility of an oil spillage in the Arctic

“is absolutely abhorrent and has terrifying consequences for the environment”.—[Official Report, 7 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 159WH, 161WH.]

That suggests that the Government would be sympathetic towards the Arctic 30 protest.

What discussions have the Government had with their Russian counterparts about the implications for both the Arctic specifically and the wider environment of Gazprom proceeding with its plans to drill there? During the debate in February, the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for East Devon, assured us that

“It is wrong to say that the UK should not, and does not show leadership on issues affecting the Arctic.”— [Official Report, 7 February 2013; Vol. 558, c. 159WH.]

However, I suggest that the extent of the UK’s leadership is in doubt. Indeed, in July the Environmental Audit Committee concluded that the Government

“failed to grasp the urgency of action needed”

and

“failed to offer a coherent argument for its view that future Arctic oil and gas exploration is compatible with efforts to contain global warming to 2°C.”

The UK accounts for the largest contingent on board the Arctic Sunrise, so does the Minister agree that now is the time for leadership from the Government? What conversations has the Foreign Office had with representatives from the 17 nations represented on the ship? Canada, Brazil, Denmark, Argentina, Australia, Italy, Sweden, the USA, the Netherlands, France, Turkey, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ukraine, Finland and Poland all had citizens detained. Have the Government had conversations with representatives of those Governments, and have they sought to raise the arrests and the reasons for the protest with the Arctic Council?

I understand that today the Russian Foreign Ministry has said it will not accept the international arbitration process in relation to the Netherlands’ application to the UN Tribunal for the Law of the Sea in an attempt to secure the return of the Arctic Sunrise and the release of the activists. What support are the Government giving to the Netherlands’ bid to deal with the matter under the auspices of the UN tribunal?

Last week, the Foreign Office published a policy framework on the Arctic, and the Government have pledged to

“work towards an Arctic that is safe and secure; well-governed in conjunction with indigenous peoples and”

in line with international law and where

“policies…are developed on the basis of sound science”

with

“full regard to the environment.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 17 October 2013; Vol. 748, c. 77.]

The compatibility of that statement with the Government’s support for Arctic drilling is a matter for another debate, but will the Minister elaborate on the Government’s vision for “well governed”, how he sees international law being enforced, and how they plan to work with other states to achieve a “safe and secure” Arctic? Is that something they plan to discuss with Gazprom and other companies such as Shell or British-based insurers?

I want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond, particularly as I have asked many questions. There are real concerns about the human rights situation in Russia and the deterioration of freedom of expression, which the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) raised. This is not the time or place to go into the details of that. However, I will check my diary to see if I can make the 4 o’clock meeting with the Russian ambassador. It is important that we go along and express our concerns on those fronts.

10:48

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) on securing this debate. The attendance this morning and the passion with which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber have spoken indicate clearly to anyone studying our proceedings, in this country or Russia, that there are extremely strong feelings in Parliament and among the wider British public about what has happened offshore and in Murmansk.

In the 11 or 12 minutes remaining, I will focus on the British nationals who have been detained. That is not to dismiss the importance of wider issues of Arctic policy that the hon. Members for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), and for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), raised. The Government published a new policy framework document on the Arctic last week, and there may be opportunities for a wider debate on those matters in the House.

The arrest of the six British nationals who were on board the Greenpeace vessel Arctic Sunrise was, and remains, of great concern to the British Government. We hope that there will be a resolution to the incident that is acceptable to all parties. The priorities that govern our approach at the moment are, first, to try to do everything we can to ensure the proper welfare of the British citizens and the two New Zealanders detained—the New Zealand Government have asked us to take responsibility for providing consular support—and, secondly, to find an outcome to the affair that is acceptable to all parties concerned.

We learned of the arrest of those aboard the Greenpeace vessel on 19 September, and on the same day we decided to deploy a consular team to Murmansk before the vessel got into port. We contacted the Russian authorities to secure access rights, and on 24 September, consular officials were able to meet the British nationals when they arrived in Murmansk to check their welfare and collect messages to pass back to their families.

Murmansk is some 1,000 miles from Moscow, and we do not have a permanent British consulate there, but because of the seriousness of the incident and the number of people involved, each week we have dispatched a team of officials to Murmansk from our missions in Moscow and St Petersburg. Our consular officials attended the preliminary court hearings for all British nationals between 26 and 29 September. As the House knows, all 30 detainees were remanded for up to two months and transferred to pre-trial detention facilities while the authorities investigated further. Both before and after the hearings, our consular officials were allowed to talk to the British citizens and take messages from them to pass to concerned relatives in the United Kingdom.

Our officials carried out further consular visits to all six British detainees on 3 and 4 October. We were able to check on their welfare and address any concerns; this included helping to ensure that one British national who had earlier collapsed in court received appropriate support. We have since continued to visit the British nationals regularly, and our officials were present during the appeal hearings that concluded this week. As the House knows, the court dismissed all the appeals and upheld detention. Due to our lobbying efforts, at present all the British nationals are being held in the same detention facility, and have had regular access to Greenpeace lawyers.

Briefly, on the points raised by the hon. Member for Rhondda, our understanding is that all the detainees have access to lawyers, who were provided by Greenpeace in the first instance. We have also provided lists of local lawyers who we understand are able to do business in English—clearly, the FCO cannot vouch for the quality of any particular legal representative. We take up with the Russian authorities any concerns about prison conditions and access to appropriate medical treatment, as well as other concerns that detainees may have. Our latest information is that some of the detainees are sharing cells and others are in a cell on their own. We have raised any concerns expressed to us by the detainees with the prison authorities. The detainees are telling us at the moment that the conditions are what they term “broadly acceptable.” I am not saying that the conditions are comfortable in the remotest, but the detainees themselves describe the conditions as “broadly acceptable.”

Our priority is to ensure that we continue to provide consular assistance to the British nationals in Murmansk and to maintain contact with their families here in the UK. I have made it clear to my officials that when it comes to prison conditions and access to visits of any kind, I want to ensure that we hold the Russians to the letter of what they offer under their own prison rules, law and constitution.

On 2 October, the Russian investigative authority charged all 30 detainees with acts of piracy. Bearing in mind the clearly stated view of President Putin, many hon. Members will have been surprised that piracy charges were brought. The UN definition of piracy in the convention on the law of the sea does not appear to uphold the charges. The charges, however, are being brought under a particular provision of the Russian criminal code. I agree with those who have said during this debate that the key issue is the proportionality of the charges. We are in regular touch with Greenpeace lawyers on that issue, but the legal picture is complicated by the Russians arguing that the action comes under their domestic law.

As some hon. Members have commented, the Dutch have taken the ship’s detention to international arbitration. That is a legal matter for the Dutch as flag nation, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr Cox) said, but we remain in close contact with the Dutch authorities on that aspect of the case.

[Mr Cox]

Will the Minister give way?

[Mr Lidington]

I will, but I would be grateful if my hon. and learned Friend was brief.

[Mr Cox]

The arrest of a ship on the high seas must be done under the UN convention. Is it the opinion of the Foreign Office that the arrest of the ship was within or without the legal power under the convention?

[Mr Lidington]

With respect to my hon. and learned Friend, I am not here to comment on the Russian legal case. I am certainly not saying that we agree with the case, but the Russian argument is that the Russian domestic criminal code applies to the rig, and that the small boats from the main vessel that approached close to the rig were in breach of that criminal code. That is the Russian argument, and it may be something to take up in more detail with the Russian ambassador when hon. Members meet him.

It is not only in Murmansk that we have taken action. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in New York on 25 September, and he followed that with a letter to him on 6 October. Senior FCO officials raised the case with the Russian ambassador to the United Kingdom on 26 September. Our ambassador in Moscow raised the case with deputy Foreign Minister Ryabkov on 2 October and met deputy Foreign Minister Titov yesterday to discuss the case further. We will maintain that senior-level engagement. We continue to use working-level contacts with the Russian Government, and to explore other options to raise the issue with senior Russian interlocutors.

[Mr Bradshaw]

Is the Minister saying that the Prime Minister has not picked up the phone to President Putin, as Chancellor Merkel has? That is outrageous.

[Mr Lidington]

We continue to keep under review at what level and with what sort of approach it is right to make approaches to the Russian Government. Our priority is to try to get the best possible outcome for the British nationals who have been detained. The Prime Minister is taking the very close interest that the House would expect, both as Head of Government and as a constituency Member of Parliament. As the Foreign Office Minister dealing with the case, I can testify that the Prime Minister’s involvement and interest are continuous and intense. He has also been in personal touch with other European Heads of Government—in particular, he has been in touch with Prime Minister Rutte of the Netherlands—and he will continue to be so.

[Chris Bryant]

It would be a good idea if the Prime Minister were to get in touch directly with Putin. Specifically, the Prime Minister should be saying that using piracy charges undermines the law of piracy across the rest of the world. That is why those charges are like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

[Mr Lidington]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point with the courtesy with which he has addressed the subject throughout the debate. We have been in touch with the Governments whose citizens are being detained, and we have taken a lead at local level in Russia on co-ordinating the efforts of other nations with detained nationals.

I will look further into the question that the right hon. Member for Exeter (Mr Bradshaw) raised about his letter, because I am concerned to hear him say that he has been waiting for more than a month. We will get back to him as quickly as possible.

We have not forgotten the families here in the United Kingdom and what they are obviously going through. On 10 October, I met parliamentarians representing the detained nationals and representatives from the constituency offices of MPs. My officials met the families themselves on 16 October, and I hope to agree a date next month when I can meet the families and hon. Members representing them, so that I can hear directly from the families any concerns that they have, and so that I can talk to them about the work being done on the case by the FCO and the British Government generally. One issue raised by the families is the chance to talk to their relatives by telephone.

I am conscious that time is running out, so I propose to address the issues that I have been unable to address today in writing to the hon. Member for Rhondda, and I will place a copy of that letter in the Library of the House so that it may be circulated to the families concerned.

Policing (Bassetlaw)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[John Mann (Bassetlaw) (Lab)]

It gives me pleasure, or a level of pleasure, to introduce this debate on policing in Bassetlaw. However, that pleasure is tempered by what I have to say about the crisis in policing that is beginning to unveil itself in Bassetlaw. Other parts of the country are suffering a similar crisis, and they will continue to suffer it in the future.

A few years ago, I spent time with the police. I went around on the beat at night, at weekends and in the daytime, and I sampled the work of the local police. One sergeant told me, “The way we police in Nottinghamshire is that we know the criminals.” That approach raises two questions. First, if we know the criminals, why are they at large? Secondly, and more seriously, if “we know the criminals” has been the culture in the Nottinghamshire police over the years, what about the crimes that were not just undetected but unreported, because they were not known to be crimes at the time?

The classic, very real examples are historic sex and child abuse, along with domestic violence. Those problems were not recognised as existing, but in the aftermath of the publicity about Savile and others, case after case was raised in my constituency surgeries. I heard an extraordinary number of historic allegations. It is not for me to judge whether they are true, but, on the balance of probabilities, if a lot of people come forward with entirely unconnected allegations, confident that something will happen, some, if not all, of those allegations must be true. If a constituent comes to me with such allegations or other serious allegations, I take the approach, as I am sure other Members do, that we should take a rational approach and ensure that our constituent’s voice is heard.

If the police claim to know the criminals, there is a problem in the culture. I have challenged the approach of the Nottinghamshire police directly on many issues, including in the House, but that culture did begin to be seriously turned around. However, in turning around culture, working practices, attitudes and approaches, there is a huge imperative to ensure that specialism is built up. Yet, in Nottinghamshire, and specifically in my constituency, the wrong kind of cuts are taking place. This debate is not the place to discuss Government economic policy, so I will not go into that, save to say that I have suggested more than 30 alternative cuts that could be made in different areas, but not in policing, because the cuts to policing are the wrong kind of cuts.

In the past three years, the 999 service has been in crisis. However, those wishing to make cuts in Bassetlaw forget the nature of the people of Bassetlaw. We are not averse to standing up and defending our 999 services. When the fire service proposed closing Retford fire station at nights, there was a huge public campaign in 2011. That resulted in not only the reversal of the decision, but a decision to build a brand-new fire station and the shifting of fire training to Retford. We stood up for our public service.

When the ambulance service decided to close our ambulance stations, we did not stand by and have some intellectual argument; the people of Bassetlaw put in more than 90% of the submissions to the consultation, as we did with the fire service proposals, and the decision was reversed. When the hospital tried to close accident and emergency services, our response was, “No, that will not happen.” Last week, the Secretary of State for Health cited Bassetlaw hospital, with its new, seven-day A and E working, as the model for the rest of the country. Yet, in the past three years, the A and E has been under direct threat of overnight closure and a reduction in emergency services.

The same is true of the proposals for the police: we will not accept the prioritisation of the police being reduced to such a level that we lose a critical service. Let me give two precise reasons why. First—I cannot go into much detail, but I will on another occasion, if I am given the opportunity—disaster management planning is in chaos. Mine is one of the areas most at risk, with motorways, the east coast main line, airports and power stations. Disaster management is no longer properly planned. Should there be a major disaster in my area, there will be problems with ambulances and fire engines, given what we have seen already, and so it is with the police. The police cannot respond to a major disaster if they are not working at the time, and there are many times of the week when whole swathes of Bassetlaw are denuded of police.

The second problem—we have not seen many of these closures yet, but there will be more—is the closing of custody suites and police cells. At some stage, there will doubtless be an attempt to close the courts too. What does that mean? Let me give the bare statistics, because they are astonishing. Every local police officer tells me that the police do not make many arrests, because there is nowhere to put the person who has been arrested. If officers make an arrest, they have to take that person miles to Mansfield, which takes police officers off the job, leaving no police officers in Bassetlaw.

Miraculously, public order offences have collapsed in Bassetlaw—they are going off the scale. Clearly, peace and harmony have broken out overnight on the streets of Bassetlaw! No, they have not. The police simply cannot arrest people, because they have nowhere to put the brawlers, the drunks and the fighters on a Friday and a Saturday night; they have to take them to Mansfield and Nottingham.

Shoplifting, however, is booming, and the figures are going up. Why? Because there are no police on the streets deterring the petty, casual repeat offenders from stealing from shops, but people in the shops still have the integrity to report shoplifting. Frankly, people are not bothering to report shed break-ins and such things, because they never get the police to come. Someone attempted to break into my office last week and I am still waiting for the police to attend. What they say in my area is, “If that happens to the local MP”—and I expect no special privilege—“what on earth will they do for the rest of us?”

Since 2010, Nottinghamshire has lost 314 police full-time equivalents—gone. That is on top of the back office people who have gone; and my area takes the brunt of it. The police must concentrate on Nottingham, where there have been a record number, relative to population, of murders in the past decade. Of course, they need a strong and permanent presence there and I would not deny them that. It is a higher police priority than Bassetlaw, which is right, fair and proper; but we become the poor cousins, so that there are times when there are no police, or when the few who are there are so stretched that they cannot do the job.

I and the police can name the streets in my constituency where they have lost control, and the criminals who run those streets because policing has reached such a low level. Those people are not being arrested for the minor offences that it would be easy to arrest them for, which would nip in the bud their attempts to bully and intimidate the community.

I also see what is happening alongside that, with the specialist police. For example, there is a wholesale failure to investigate historic sex abuse cases properly. There are plenty of examples, and it would be unfair and improper to list them, with the possibility of revealing identities; but that is the other side of the coin, and it affects my constituency dramatically.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend makes a strong and passionate case on behalf of his constituents. Does he believe that the establishment of the National Crime Agency will be helpful to Bassetlaw police, or will it take resources away? Alternatively, is the jury still out, because we do not know how things will work in the new landscape?

[John Mann]

In my view the jury is out. One of the cases that I have told the police about, on six occasions, has never been prosecuted; but I am certain from the detailed evidence that I have given on six separate occasions, with different witnesses and different forms of evidence, that we have plenty of cases that fall between the national and the local. The problem is that if there are not resources and expertise in the local police force they do not produce the evidence for what, in fact—in the case that I have cited six times to them—is, for my area, very major crime with all sorts of criminal add-ons. Again, I cannot give details, because that would probably identify the person or persons involved. That shows, however, the problem that exists, and the dilemma for the Nottinghamshire police force.

There are have been £35 million of cuts so far, and 314 full-time equivalent front-line officers have been lost. If it is then announced that there must be further cuts in the next three years, which is what is being said, at least 100 more will have to go. We have some great police community support officers, but if all that is done is to replace the police officers with PCSOs, that is not the way to provide a police service in my area.

My demand to the Minister is something that is beyond his powers—to change Government priorities, and to fight for the police service with the Treasury and others. What I have been describing are the wrong kind of cuts. As to the things that he does have the power to do, it is his duty as a Minister of the Crown to stop the situation that means my constituency gets a second-class service compared with other places. It is not an acceptable solution to bring in G4S, with some mobile canteen operation to sling people into, and to privatise the making of arrests in Bassetlaw—as if that is appropriate compared with a well funded professional police resource, with police cells in the police station. On the streets they say—they will be singing it in Bassetlaw—“G4S, you’re having a laugh.”

That is not good enough for my constituents. It is not good enough to close our police cells. It is not good enough that the number of public order offences is going down because local police say they cannot arrest people because cells are not available; and that shoplifting rates are rocketing because there are not police on the streets and Nottinghamshire has been denuded of them. Of course, as I have always argued, Nottinghamshire has, relatively speaking, never had a proper police funding formula; but within that situation the good people of Bassetlaw are being let down. We are not prepared to accept that.

I am looking for vision and courage from the Minister. If he can achieve the reopening of the police cells that were arbitrarily closed and keep them going, he will get a warm and friendly welcome from the people of Bassetlaw, just as the hospital and fire chiefs who reversed their plans now do. Do the right thing, and set the right priorities, and we will be happy. At the moment, the Minister and the Government have a major fight on their hands.

11:16

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (James Brokenshire)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate on policing in his constituency. He is always a firm and passionate advocate for his constituents, as he has shown today, even if I may disagree in several respects with the analysis that he has given.

The crime rate remains too high, but the reality is that it is falling, and has fallen. Recorded crime has dropped yet again, by more than 10%, under the present Government, and the recent crime survey reports that crime has more than halved since its peak in 1995. In Bassetlaw recorded crime fell by 4% in the 12 months from June 2012 to June 2013 and it is down 6% in the Nottinghamshire force area over the same period.

That is important, positive news, and shows that police are rising to the challenge of making savings while cutting crime and providing a better service to the public. England and Wales are safer than they have been for decades. However, I agree that the crime rate remains too high. That is why we will continue with measures that keep pace with the changing nature of crime and improve our ability to combat emerging issues. That is why the landscape that we have established is important—to make it possible to respond to those emerging challenges.

On 7 October the National Crime Agency was launched, to deal with the most serious national-level crimes. Just as importantly, it is intended to be a centre of expertise on dealing with specialist crimes such as cybercrime and organised crime, and to use its skills and capabilities to work with the regional organised crime units to provide linkage between the national, the regional and the local. The Government have put that landscape in place to ensure that the right skills are in the right places, and that some of the issues that have been confronted before—the gaps where regional or local criminality meets national capability—are more effectively joined up.

I pay tribute to the work of the Nottinghamshire police, of Chief Constable Chris Eyre and of Paddy Tipping, the police and crime commissioner. Many of the points made by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw this morning can be directed at the PCC and the local police, because we have put in place that direct reform of the landscape, central to which has been giving people a direct say in how their communities are policed. The election of police and crime commissioners represented the most significant democratic reform to policing in decades, giving the public a voice at the highest level, holding forces to account and helping to restore trust.

Importantly, PCCs are best placed to understand the needs of victims in their communities and to work with the police to cut crime. Indeed, the commissioner in Nottinghamshire is working closely with the chief constable to find innovative solutions to deliver better and financially sustainable policing to the people of Nottinghamshire. They are looking at ways to increase police visibility and the number of police constables and PCSOs involved in neighbourhood policing, which can only be good news for the people of Nottinghamshire and of Bassetlaw.

[John Mann]

Is it not the case that the chief constable and the PCC are doing so with a reduction in their budget since 2010 of £20,184,000, with further reductions to come, making their job somewhat more difficult?

[James Brokenshire]

As with all parts of the public sector, the police must play their part in helping to tackle the deficit. I understand that this debate is not about economic policy, but the Government are having to take measures to deal with the financial problems that were left by the previous Government.

Unquestionably, the police will still have the resources to do their important work. What matters is how officers are deployed, not necessarily how many there are. All forces need to look at how front-line services are delivered, so that the quality of service provided is maintained and improved. Her Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary has made it clear that there is no simple link between officer numbers and crime levels, between numbers and the visibility of police in the community, or between numbers and the quality of service provided. Budgets are falling, but forces are prioritising front-line delivery and crime continues to fall.

The police and crime commissioner is looking at ways to increase police visibility in Nottinghamshire; his work has seen an increase in the number of PCSOs, and there are also ambitious plans to do with the recruitment of special constables, which I strongly endorse. Those are examples of how PCCs can work together with their chief constable to deliver real impacts in the communities that they serve. Moreover, PCCs will become stronger as people become more used to their existence and see their effect locally.

The hon. Gentleman made some sweeping comments on the ability to cope with major disasters. There is, however, detailed planning, led by the Cabinet Office, with exercises and other steps escalating from the local and regional all the way up to Cobra and the national-level response that can be triggered. There is just such a detailed approach—the risks are analysed and assessment is made of whether the right capabilities are in the right place to deal with them. Indeed, joint working is taking place between the police, the ambulance service and the fire service to ensure a strong response to serious terrorist incidents, to take one specific example.

Furthermore, it is right for the Government to continue to reflect on the important role that PCCs have in ensuring good, solid emergency response in their local areas. The hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware of the recommendations contained in the Knight review, which looked at whether police and crime commissioners should have a more direct role in the context of the fire service. The Government are considering that—we are examining the recommendation from the Knight report, to see whether it would be appropriate, and we will be providing a formal response in due course.

It is also important to stress that we have scrapped targets for the police and done away with the myriad types of meaningless and counterproductive box-ticking that the police were subject to for far too long. The Government announced a reducing bureaucracy package in 2012, seeking to save up to 4.5 million officer hours nationally—the equivalent of more than 2,100 additional officers on the beat. A programme of work is being developed, with the aim of further freeing up police time in a context of diminishing resources, so it is about how best to use technology and process modernisation.

We are working towards transformational change, which will be recognised on the front line. The approach of scrapping targets, therefore, is important, as is the use of technology and the work to do with better co-ordination and commissioning of services between forces. Rather than wrapping the police up in bureaucracy, we are driving increased transparency and accountability. Our reforms are making the police more responsive to the public. Thus, the police.uk website—of which the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware—has had more than 600 million hits since its launch in January 2011. On average, the site receives more than 300,000 hits per day. It strengthens accountability, as well as the information available to the public, so that they can hold policing in their area to account.

Another of our reforms is the College of Policing, which is about driving up standards and developing policing as a profession among officers of all ranks. That is central to a new focus on evidence-based policing—distilling and identifying what works in fighting crime and spreading it throughout all 43 forces. The College of Policing will devise a code of ethics to be issued to every officer, which will equip the police with the leadership skills at every level to ensure that it is followed. Good leadership, like anything else, is born of hard work and professionalism. Leadership can and must be taught, in particular when the ramifications of police decision making can mean the difference between life and death.

[John Mann]

Will the Minister comment specifically on the loss of the police cells in Worksop police station, the only cells in the whole district?

[James Brokenshire]

As a Minister, it would be wrong of me to comment on that, because that is precisely the role of the police and crime commissioner. In conjunction with the chief constable, the PCC determines such local priorities and what works well in the context of policing in Nottinghamshire, and that is the right place for a response to be provided on the appropriate way to ensure that front-line policing operates effectively within the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and in Nottinghamshire more generally.

The hon. Gentleman also commented on getting resources in the right place, and Chief Constable Chris Eyre has led in establishing and supporting the east midlands special operations unit, which represents an important way to draw together the strands of expertise and to share and collaborate with other forces so that the specialist capabilities to support neighbourhood and front-line policing are in the right place. The PCC also continues to explore further options for collaboration, including with the other emergency services, to create even more opportunities to provide a better and more cost-effective service.

Neighbourhood policing can and will be preserved through the innovation and ingenuity of forces in changing how they work to deliver the same or better outcomes with less. We will all see and reap the benefits of a well-managed, self-confident, open, transparent and scrupulously honest police force. I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s debate this morning for holding policing to account and for raising the issues that he identified as important to his constituents. It is right and proper that we have had such a debate.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Co-operatives in Education

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

14:30

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I call the sparkling Steve Baker.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

Thank you for your kind words, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship in this important debate. I thank the Minister for being here. I know that liberating his time has caused his Department some inconvenience, and I am extremely grateful to him for being here willingly when his Department is so busy.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

It is his duty.

[Steve Baker]

As the hon. Gentleman says, it is the Minister’s duty, but he has been most generous in the way he has approached the debate.

My reason for calling this debate is to support the Cressex school in my constituency, the young people it serves and the wider community from which they are drawn. It is undoubtedly the most disadvantaged community in my constituency. I want to cover the circumstances and successes of Cressex school, and the wider experience of co-operatives in education, and to ask the Government for action. I hope the Minister will forgive me if I say that although they have said some interesting and good things, they need to follow them through.

In a message of support, Dame Pauline Green, president of the International Co-operative Alliance, has set the definitive context for this debate. She said:

“Co-operatives have been involved in education from the very beginning, and there is an inextricable link between education and co-operative development. That is why we continued to place great emphasis on education when the co-operative principles were last revised in 1995, and why new guidance notes strongly reaffirm the importance of co-operative education.”

When I visited the Rochdale Pioneers museum, I was pleased to discover two things that explained a lot to me: autonomy, which I will return to, and the fact that one of the principles of co-operation has always been to educate, train and inform.

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

As something of an historian, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the co-operative movement started long before the Rochdale co-operatives in Yorkshire and in Huddersfield in my constituency.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the information and the way he provided it. When watching some of the films about the pioneers, I noted that although they were not the first, they were perhaps the earliest successful ones.

[Mr Sheerman]

They had good PR.

[Steve Baker]

They had very good PR. A couple of things struck me. First, they did not trade on credit, so people did not get into debt to consume, which is an interesting lesson for present times. Secondly, they made a surplus. They did not like to call it a profit, but they realised that they had to make a surplus over time, and doing so enabled them to succeed. A lot of interesting language was involved in that conversation, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his information.

In April 2010, Cressex community school became part of the Cressex Co-operative Learning Trust. I remember my first visit to the school after the election because I encountered a defiant spirit of autonomy and independence. There was a whisper of forced academisation because of its results, but there was fierce determination to remain a co-operative because of the way that the co-operative structure allows all parties to be engaged across the community.

The proper context of the results includes the selective system. As a Conservative in Buckinghamshire, I am expected to support selective education, but a whole tier of students at Cressex has been taken off to another school, which naturally depresses the overall results. There is no denying that Buckinghamshire county council is one of the most affluent in the south-east, but a high proportion of Cressex students and their families experience levels of disadvantage equal to those in northern cities. Nearly half of Cressex students live on estates that are among the most economically disadvantaged in England, with areas of entrenched poverty and low skills. The proportion of families with experience of higher education is below the national average and the proportion of children living in overcrowded households exceeds the national average. More than half of students have been eligible for free school meals in the past six years and are entitled to the pupil premium.

Although Wycombe has an ethnic minority population of around one fifth, 80% of the school’s pupils are from minorities and the school now receives increasing numbers of students from eastern Europe. Crucially, about three quarters of the students do not speak English as their first language. That is the context for Cressex school, and that is the challenge to which it must rise.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. Deprivation is found not only in urban areas. There is considerable deprivation in remote rural communities such as Cornwall. In areas such as the Lizard peninsula in Cornwall, we have often found co-operative trusts to be a good way of providing education to deprived remote communities where there are lots of small primary schools that face challenges in delivering high-quality education. Does my hon. Friend agree that the model can work for a broad range of communities throughout the UK?

[Steve Baker]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I will come to the success of the model elsewhere, but I am aware that it has been a rip-roaring success in Cornwall. I originally come from Cornwall, which reminds me that we tend to focus on our own constituencies. There is rural poverty in Wycombe, but the rural part of my constituency is generally the better-off part. We still live in times of considerable inequality throughout the country and in our constituencies, and that focuses the mind.

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

Reddish Vale technology college in my constituency was the first co-operative trust school to be established under the Education and Inspections Act 2006. The Reddish part of my constituency is a deprived community and it has used the excellence at that school to engage with the wider community and to spread those co-operative values not just within the school community, but to the wider Reddish community. Is that not an example of co-operation in action?

[Steve Baker]

Absolutely. I think we are in danger of fierce agreement in the Chamber.

Cressex school is keen to support business and enterprise, and that demonstrates its wider commitment. In particular, it hosts the Wycombe business expo. The principles of co-operation and engagement allow a school to reach out more broadly.

I turn to the challenge to which Cressex must rise. Last year, 36.4% of pupils across England who were known to be entitled to free school meals gained five or more GCSEs at grade A* to C, including English and maths, but Cressex did better. At the time, 39.1% of students were receiving free school meals. Over the last six years, the number achieving those GCSEs has risen to 48%. Of course, the school aims higher than 48%, but it represents a dramatic improvement in results and they are the best in the history of the school.

The head teacher, David Hood, recently provided details. Of the students who left year 11 in 2013, 46.5% gained five or more GCSE passes including English and maths, a rise from 27% in the previous year, and 64.8% gained five or more GCSEs in any subject. The overall results represent a considerable increase over the previous year.

[Mr Sheerman]

To someone who has chaired a Select Committee for many years, that sounds really good, but when such figures are read out I sometimes insist that we ask how many pupils left with no qualifications or barely one GCSE, as 25% of kids at our schools do. It is important to get the balance right when looking at the figures.

[Steve Baker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He is of course right that we sometimes forget to look at such points. It is crucial that no one should be left behind and the ethos of the school, as he will appreciate, is that the co-operators involved are determined to lift everyone up. I appreciate his point and I apologise that I do not have that information to hand.

Mr Hood made the point that performance in all core subjects rose markedly. In particular, Cressex has risen well above the national average in maths for the first time. He said that that is an exceptional achievement and he is right. Cressex is improving itself, which goes back to the point about defiant spirit. Cressex does not wish to have a model imposed on it; it is improving itself.

I have been on a journey, discovering something of the traditions of the left and the co-operative movement, and to me, that was the essential thing to understand. It is about self-help—a difficult term for a Conservative to use—mutuality, self-responsibility, direct democratic control, equality and solidarity. Such terms are perhaps vexed for Conservatives, but separated from state power, they actually just represent values and ideals that any fully formed human being should support. That, to me, explains the defiant spirit of autonomy that I found. Those values are being used by the Cressex school to engage with the community around it, and they are values transforming the lives and prospects of individuals whom we cannot allow to fall into neglect. Those people must be supported with a degree of delicacy if they are to flourish, which, in the end, is what we want for all the people in our constituencies, irrespective of their voting habits.

I turn to what it means to be a co-operative, and how Cressex has applied some of those principles. In the co-operative statement on identity, we find a definition that I think anyone could support and welcome:

“A co-operative is an autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise.”

That crucial element of voluntarism surprised me. I hope that Members on the left will forgive me if I say that I have always misunderstood socialism to mean compulsion, and I was amazed to discover that on the left, there is this great tradition of voluntarism. When I look down through the values—

“ethical values of honesty, openness, social responsibility and caring for others”—

who could possibly disagree with them?

I turn to the principles: “Voluntary and Open Membership”—of course, a school should certainly comply with that. When I look at “Democratic Member Control”, I start thinking that the Government need to act, because it seems to me that across the whole suite of policy areas in education, the Government need to ensure that when parents, staff and others in the community are engaged in a school, they have the opportunity for their democratic control to be meaningful. The next principle is “Member Economic Participation”—although I paid £1 to become a member of Cressex co-operative, it does not seem to me, unless an Opposition Member would like to correct me, that anyone is immediately leaping to suggest that there should be economic participation in schools. However, “Autonomy and Independence”—what a marvellous idea, which seems to go directly to the heart of the Government’s policies. We then have “Education, Training and Information”, “Co-operation among Co-operatives”, and “Concern for Community”.

Those are some of the values that the Cressex co-operative trust has implemented, and which I think could allow other schools to follow suit, particularly where they are smaller and need to combine in order to be viable. The partnership with Cressex school has included Buckinghamshire New university, Dr Challoner’s grammar school, Wycombe Abbey school, the local authority and the Co-operative college.

After years of campaigning, the school moved into a new building, which certainly lifted spirits, and I have to say that we are grateful to the previous Government and all those involved locally for giving us those new premises. The community’s values were naturally aligned to those of the co-operative movement, and particularly the notion of being values-driven and faith-neutral, which, in my constituency, is highly relevant. The community engages actively, and as I mentioned in response to an intervention, is a specialist business and enterprise school.

I am particularly pleased that Johnson & Johnson’s Dr Cesar Rodriguez Valdajos, a Spaniard, has engaged with the school and become a governor. At a time when we are challenging how capitalism is working and where it has gone wrong, it is particularly interesting that someone from Johnson & Johnson has engaged with the school. When capitalism previously failed, that company showed, through its credo, how private enterprise could step up. What I find encouraging is that the notion of enterprise being people-centred is actually highly inclusive. Wycombe Abbey school is one of the finest independent girls’ schools in the country, and its engagement with Cressex has been not only crucial but mutual, because it is in those sixth-form pupils’ interests that they engage with the school and help with literacy and numeracy.

Crucially, the pupils share the school’s co-operative vision and values. As a former head boy told the governors recently:

“High achievement for all is certainly our shared responsibility. I can say for a fact that Cressex is a rising star. It’s climbing to the top and I am proud to be head boy.”

I have to say that Cressex has travelled a long way very quickly, since when I first visited the school as a candidate and saw a collection of prefab buildings and some people who were rather long in the face. There were some poor results, but Cressex is transforming itself very rapidly.

I am aware of the time, and that other Members would like to speak, so I shall abridge some of my other remarks on other co-operatives, but I particularly want to point to the experience of Mondragon university from the Library debate pack. Mondragon university is a Spanish institution owned by its staff, and an article, in the course of describing it, interviews a British academic, saying that

“many of the principles on which cooperatives are based are not necessarily that radical in higher education. Cook”—

Dan Cook—

“points out that the University of Cambridge ‘is already configured as a sort of workers’ co-op’ because every academic is part of the governing body…he adds: ‘I don’t think anyone has told them yet.’”

Therefore, it may well be that co-operatives are more advanced in the United Kingdom at all levels than has generally been believed.

Co-operative schools are now the third largest network of schools in the country, following Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. More than a quarter of a million young people attend a co-op school and more than £4 billion of assets have been transferred from local education authorities to co-operative trusts. In September 2011, co-op trusts ran 63 secondary schools. There are now 94 and the figure is predicted to be 102 by December. In the same period, co-op primary schools increased from 76 to a surprising 389, which is predicted to be 444 by December. Overall, co-operative schools have grown from 188 in September 2011 to a predicted 714 in December this year. That is an astonishing vote in support of autonomy and self-governance in relationship with others. To me, it is an enormous endorsement of liberty and civil society, and I believe that the Government should row in behind it.

The first co-op free school will be in Swanage, which demonstrates that co-ops are not incompatible with the Government’s free school programme. However, I look ahead to 2014, and I must say to the Government that at this time there are real imperatives for action, because about half of secondary schools and almost 90% of primaries still need to determine their long-term structure. There is every likelihood that they could choose to be co-operatives. If co-operation is a necessary requirement to enable small schools to flourish, the Government certainly need to act fast to put in place whatever is necessary to allow co-operation to thrive.

The Government ought not to fear co-operatives. I know that the co-operative movement began with figures such as Robert Owen, who was a utopian socialist, but the values and principles, and the place reached by the co-operative movement today, are not to be feared by people on the Government side of the House of Commons. Co-operatives are, above all, people-centred businesses, and it strikes me that co-operatives can resolve a number of conflicts of interest and ideology.

On markets versus collectivism, we have democratic, collective ownership of property, and yet co-operatives participate—and always have participated—in markets. I observe that one of the crucial reasons why state socialism can never work is that it eliminates markets in capital goods. Co-operation does not do that.

On employer versus worker, the Co-operative party’s website recognises that producer interest can effectively be dealt with through co-operation. I would suggest that some problems that the Government are currently experiencing could be ameliorated if more schools were directly controlled by parents, staff and the community, so that not only were industrial relations easier from the outset, but if difficulties did arise, they would be easier to resolve, because it would be clear who was negotiating with whom, and to what end.

It seems to me that today, sometimes co-operative schools are succeeding despite obstacles. That may well be in the spirit of the co-operative movement, but it seems that the Government ought to do more to ensure a crisp, simple and effective legal framework. I do not wish to pre-empt the remarks of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), but I would like to ask the Government to look closely at the ten-minute rule Bill that she brought forward. She proposed a measure that would enable schools to register as industrial and provident societies and enable nursery schools to be established as school trusts. That seems an extremely good idea, not only to complete that scale of education from nursery through to—it turns out—university level, but to ensure that things are viable and sustainable. I expect the Government to go down that road because of what has been said, and I would like to provide a little detail on what has gone before.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education said:

“First, let me pay tribute to the work of the co-operative movement. Since it started in Rochdale, many of us have been inspired by its achievements. I believe that the academies programme and particularly the free schools programme provide an opportunity for the ideals of the original co-operative movement to be embedded in our schools. The idea that all work together for the good of their community and for the fulfilment of higher ideals is one that Government Members wholeheartedly applaud.”—[Official Report, 16 January 2012; Vol. 538, c. 468.]

Cabinet Office Ministers have been outspoken in support of co-operatives. My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General said of mutuals and the Government’s policies:

“The right to provide will challenge traditional public service structures and unleash the pent up ideas and innovation that has been stifled by bureaucracy.”

That chimes directly with the Co-operative party’s message that co-operative models offer the best model for the reform of the public services or public service delivery.

In November 2007, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister spoke of co-operatives in Manchester and developed arguments leading to the tantalising prospect of

“a new generation of co-operative schools in Britain—funded by the taxpayer but owned by parents and the local community.”

In January 2012, he also held out the prospect of a new co-operatives Bill. Without wishing to give succour to Opposition Members, I say gently to the Government that the Prime Minister ought now to find time to bring forward that Bill, encompassing the proposals of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, if we are to avoid the allegation of mere posturing. I want us to get behind co-operative schools, and more broadly co-operatives in education, in the general interest, to transcend some of the partisan debate that has gone to and fro, because I know that, in Wycombe, co-operative principles are transforming Cressex school. Those principles are proving increasingly popular across the country.

Today, a revolution in autonomy for schools is taking place, but it seems to me that it is taking place despite obstacles, so I ask the Government please to work more closely with the co-operative movement in establishing new free schools and helping academies to become co-op trusts. Will they bring forward the co-operatives Bill and will they look closely at the hon. Lady’s proposals? I am sure that Ministers will be welcome at Cressex school if they wish to see how it works in practice.

The Government ought just to do the right thing. Principles of co-operation entrench liberty and civil society. They produce self-esteem, confidence and resilience. They are evidently popular with the public. The Government should now move heaven and earth to liberate the co-operative spirit in education.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

From the sparkling Steve Baker to the fragrant Meg Munn.

14:52

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Thank you, I think, Mr Hollobone. It is a delight to take part in the debate. Of course, I must start by congratulating the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) not just on having secured the debate and established such good cross-party support for it, but on his speech. He spoke very eloquently of the reasons why some of us in this room have been co-operators for many a decade, not just many a year. I warmly welcome him to the cause of co-operation. It is everything he says it is and should be spread more widely, not least in our schools. I have always been proud to be a Labour Member of Parliament, but I am more proud to be a Labour and Co-operative Member of Parliament. Some of my colleagues also bear that title. Other Labour Members do not stand as Labour and Co-operative, but are members of the Co-operative party. It is a set of principles and a vision that are widely shared.

I shall not repeat what the values are, as the hon. Gentleman has done justice to that. I shall simply say that I wholeheartedly agree with him that the values of co-operation could not be more appropriate for schools. This is about having all parts of the community—not just the teachers and parents, but people from the community and pupils—involved in the schools. It is about helping them to understand what it means to take on responsibility for themselves, helping them to understand that they have a role in the school and embedding the school firmly where it is—in its local community.

We heard the excellent example from the hon. Gentleman of the school in his constituency that has done so much to persuade him of the values of co-operation, but that is happening up and down our country. We are talking about values such as business and enterprise, and values that are enabling young people to think about going into the world of work, but in a different way—not a competitive way that is unhelpful, but one that focuses on the benefits of co-operation.

Real strength and depth is emerging in parts of the country, including the south-west, my own beloved Yorkshire and Humberside and the north-west, which I am sure we will hear from. Of course, Cornwall, which I am sure the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton) will speak about in due course, is looking to become the first county in the country in which the majority of schools work together mutually to pool resources in co-operative ways. This revolution in structures and governance is gaining momentum, and we should all be supporting it. That is why I want the Government to take more seriously the proposals that I made back in April this year in my ten-minute rule Bill.

I support choice in education, but there are barriers that should be removed to allow more schools to follow the successful model of co-operation. As the hon. Member for Wycombe said, the legal forms currently available are industrial and provident societies and co-operative and community benefit societies. There is no specific provision in relevant Acts for co-operative schools, so although they have done well so far and they exist, they are having to work around the existing structures and legislation. They have been helped enormously in that by the relevant parts of the co-operative movement, Co-operatives UK and the Schools Co-operative Society, but that is not enough. We want this to go further.

I am an optimist: I believe that one clause could deal with the issue. Of course, it would be a powerful clause. I have a draft of the Bill that I put forward, and would be delighted to pass it to the Minister later. It suggests that we allow Education Acts to be amended to include the legal forms that I just mentioned and ensure a level playing field with other school structures. Of course, I know that any legislation has to stand up to proper scrutiny. I would warmly welcome the Government looking at what I have proposed and coming to a view on whether it is the right way forward. I would like to press the Minister on taking that forward.

[Mr Sheerman]

As greater ammunition, is my hon. Friend aware that a change in the tax structure is coming out of the Treasury imminently and will be very helpful to co-operatives, community interest companies and social enterprise generally? Harnessed to that tax change, a change in regulation might be quite easy and simple to do.

[Meg Munn]

I thank my hon. Friend. That is a very good point and will, I hope, add strength to what we would like to see. When I put forward my Bill in April, the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock), who is now the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, was on the ministerial Bench and was kind enough to speak to me afterwards and to indicate that he thought this was something the Government should be looking at. Unfortunately, my letter to him either got lost in his office or disappeared somewhere when there was a transfer of responsibilities, but I should be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for Education, the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), would take back with him a commitment to come back to me and to the hon. Member for Wycombe on the Government’s view on this issue.

I believe that legislation as simple as the measure that I have described—a simple amendment allowing the Education Acts to be amended to recognise these forms of school—could enable us to move forward relatively quickly and, as the hon. Gentleman said, would firmly put action behind the warm words that we have heard about co-operatives from the Prime Minister and other members of the Government.

However, I have not limited myself to just one clause in my ten-minute rule Bill, because that would mean that part of the change that is needed would be missed out. My second clause focuses on nursery schools, to which the hon. Member for Wycombe referred. Labour Members have to hold their hands up; the Education and Inspections Act 2006, passed by the previous Government, did not allow nursery schools to become school trusts, and so prevented them from becoming co-operatives. We need legislation to change that. It is important because co-operatives, by their nature, are based in a geographical area that serves a group of people, otherwise known as the local community. The idea that a co-operative trust could be a school from nursery through to secondary level, and perhaps through to further education—those are other potential areas for the development of co-operatives that I will not deal with today—is powerful. Allowing it to happen is relatively simple, and we should do it.

[Kevin Brennan]

My hon. Friend makes a strong point. About two years ago, I visited Upper Shirley high school in Southampton, which is part of a co-operative trust with an all-through arrangement that includes a local FE college. There is also a co-operative trust in Tiverton in Devon. If the Government were able to look at the issues with nursery schools, that could be a powerful force to promote such all-through co-operative development trusts.

[Meg Munn]

I entirely agree and am grateful for the example. The important aspect is that parents obviously first become involved with schools as institutions at nursery. They are often more likely to be present in the building, because they bring their children there, and possibly take part in parents’ groups, so if they were introduced to the values of co-operation at that point, they would see it as a normal way to get involved in their child’s education and schooling throughout the age groups.

One of the most powerful aspects of Sure Start, which the previous Government introduced, was that, in a non-threatening, non-stigmatising way, parents from all parts of society were made to feel welcome entering the building where their children were being supported in their education. I know from my constituency and my experience working in social services that many young parents who have had not good experiences in school do not like to cross the threshold, because doing so brings back bad memories. It is enormously powerful to involve, from that early point, the values of co-operation and support, and to say not only, “Come in, because your child is here,” but “Come in and have your say. We are all equal; all have equal membership.” From the first, it creates a different relationship between the parents and the people providing the education and support for children. The Minister should look closely at that second change.

[Mr Sheerman]

My hon. Friend and I are both Co-operative Members, and she knows that I have set up a few co-operatives myself. Does she agree that being a co-operative is not a panacea? On this sad day of the demise of the Co-operative bank as an independent co-operative, it would be wrong of us, as Co-operative Members, not to put on the record that sometimes people get into co-operatives for reasons of venality, and that through incompetence things can go wrong. Full involvement in a co-operative is needed to stop that happening. Today is a sad day for many co-operators.

[Meg Munn]

My hon. Friend has put his concerns on the record and he is absolutely right. There is strength in the co-operative movement; it is not about co-operative schools managing on their own and being separate academies or free schools, but about their being part of a movement that, as the hon. Member for Wycombe indicated, naturally gives support—there is support from Co-operatives UK and co-operative schools organisations —and sets up mutuality with other schools that can be helpful and supportive.

[Steve Baker]

I want to respond to what the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said about the Co-operative bank—I am glad that is on the record. I would like to offer two points of comfort. First, given the way in which the credit markets were manipulated by central banks over the past few years—Members know that is one of my favourite subjects—no bank was likely to escape, so I am not surprised that the Co-operative bank was one that did not. Secondly, although we may be small in number, our spirit for co-operation is that of tigers. Co-operation’s moment has come. It will be victorious, and in future the co-operative movement will surge away.

[Meg Munn]

There is nothing I can add to that. I was going on to say that such wide support is positive.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. She touches on the power of co-operation outside the schools community. Co-operative schools do not act in isolation. I commend to her the work of Reddish Vale technology college, which has strong co-operative links with its local nurseries and primary schools. It feeds them, as equal members, into the co-operative principles and ideals that apply at the college, and works incredibly closely with them to drive up excellence in standards across all schools, not only those in the co-operative trust.

[Meg Munn]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and to all hon. Members who have given real-life examples, which are the important background to the legislative changes I propose.

[Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)]

I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate; it was due to a Delegated Legislation Committee. Hon. Members know that I am a keen supporter of co-operatives. I planned to support the hon. Lady’s remarks with examples of co-operatives in Herefordshire, but as I had to sit through all the discussion and hearings about the Co-operative bank on the Treasury Committee, I cannot resist pointing out that there were specific issues with the bank that were not merely to do with the model it adopted, and a series of catastrophic misjudgments by successive managements. The issues with the bank should not be taken as an indictment of the co-operative model or the co-operative movement.

[Meg Munn]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and welcome him to the debate. I welcome his support for co-operatives. I am moved to call him my fellow co-operator, which is the term those of us in the co-operative movement use. Welcome, fellow co-operator.

I am coming to a conclusion, Mr Hollobone. There is wide support for the changes, which the Government now need to action. The NASUWT, a trade union active in many schools, is supportive of the model. It creates, as has been discussed, a basis on which people come together as equal parts to run schools, try to achieve excellence and work in their communities. Everybody should see co-operation as fundamental to education. It should be part of the process, and is what will help all our children and young people to do their best. I thank all the co-operative movement: the Co-operative party, which produced an excellent briefing, and drafted the clauses for, and supported me in introducing, the ten-minute rule Bill; and the Schools Co-operative Society, which has been enormously important in ensuring that the schools that have taken on the model are supported, and that growth is achievable in a way that does not threaten the model.

15:08

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate and on his eloquence in furthering the arguments I support. Despite co-operatives and the co-operative movement having a strong association and history with the Labour party, not least through the 32 Labour and Co-operative MPs in this Parliament, of which I am one, it is praiseworthy that the ideas that power them are not owned by a political party. They are represented by a political party, but they are owned by all of us. It is incumbent on us, in each of our political traditions, to uncover those self-sustaining values for the time we are in now, and the hon. Gentleman has been a powerful advocate today.

I want to start by talking about some of the shifts that we have seen in education in recent years and conclude by talking about some of the ways in which the co-operative movement may be able to contribute to and shape that story, rather than merely being subject to it. We have already discussed several excellent co-operative schools across the country. Cressex, to which the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) referred, is a fine and outstanding example of a co-operative school.

In Luton South we do not have a co-operative school, but we are keen to have one. Co-operative schools, and co-operative education in general, empower local people to take responsibility for the education that they best understand. Co-operative education avoids many of the traps inherent in the fragmentation of education that has occurred in recent years, particularly when it comes to the dispersal of power, which is abused in the education system more often than we tend to admit.

In the past 10 or 20 years, under successive Governments, control and responsibility for education has shifted from local authorities to individual schools. As many Opposition Members have argued in recent years, however, I believe that under the coalition Government we have seen an expression not of localism but of centralism. In other words, the Secretary of State has been given direct responsibility over individual schools. In Luton, we have real issues around community cohesion, we are a good size to allow democratic control to be exercised across all our schools, and schools working in partnership are a key part of where we hope to be in future and the kind of community that we seek to shape. Many of the Government’s choices and decisions have, therefore, been unfortunate for our attempts to pursue our ends.

Whatever we feel about the shift, under either of the previous two Governments, towards more individual schools taking responsibility, taking ownership and taking governance, the change has happened. We see that in the statistics on the adoption of the academy and free school models. Co-operative education provides a powerful mechanism for harnessing some of the positives of that shift, such as the exercise of leadership and good teaching quality, which we understand to be most crucial for raising standards in schools and the provision of education.

[Mr Sheerman]

May I suggest to my hon. Friend that if he wants to be slightly subversive, the best example I have seen of a co-operative is one in which the pupils are empowered to help run the school through Learning to Lead? That combination is liberating and amazing, and it provides a revolutionary structure of governance. It now exists in more than 100 schools.

[Gavin Shuker]

My hon. Friend does not anticipate my remarks, as is often said when someone makes a good point that we would like to adopt. He does, however, pre-empt my central argument about the distribution of power in the education system. How do we reap the benefits of allowing people to get on and lead in their own context, while sharing the responsibilities and ensuring that abuses of power do not take place, without sidestepping effective governance? That is where I believe that co-operative schools can be truly helpful.

In my own experience of mixed provision of education, public interest units can sometimes run schools autonomously, which can be good for local authorities. In Luton, two of our high schools became academies under the previous Government’s academies programme, which was designed for schools that were struggling to keep up with others. A further education provider came in and ran those schools. There has been, and continues to be, a strand of scepticism and concern in the community when schools are taken over, which we must acknowledge, but the education provider had a trusted relationship with the local authority and was able to step in and improve results.

A free school has opened in the centre of my constituency. It seemed bizarre to me that the only way in which we could get the basic primary school allocation of places was to bar the local authority from running the school, but we had to find a way to get that allocation, because there is a massive push on places. We found an arm’s-length council body to run the free school. It was a good example of how to use the existing system and to link it back into the community, and I believe that it is a really positive development.

In the mix of those different models, I believe that the co-operative model presents one of the best ways in which to harness elements of the co-operative tradition, even now, when the Labour party does not control but seeks to shape education policy in opposition. We should encourage local authorities and others to adopt the co-operative model to ensure that we reap the benefits of choice and autonomy in the education system. I note the comment of Peter Laurence, who is development director in the Brigshaw Federation, one of the first co-operative trusts in Leeds:

“We could all see the direction of travel of Government policy and the rapidly changing role of the LA. To us self-help is a natural solution.”

Is that not exactly the point? From the rich traditions of the co-operative movement, we find mechanisms that are appropriate to us today.

[Jesse Norman]

I am reluctant to introduce a note of discord into a debate that has been remarkably harmonious and valuable, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that there is a potential conflict between the co-operative nature of a school and the demands of the unions, which may sometimes find themselves in opposition, as they have been in other areas of public service?

[Gavin Shuker]

The hon. Gentleman genuinely pre-empts my next point—

[Jesse Norman]

Brilliant as it is.

[Gavin Shuker]

Brilliant as it is. I was going to say that if we look at the record of co-operative schools’ relationships with other partners, such as trade unions, we see that they perform incredibly well. I point to the Schools Co-operative Society, which has been able to establish nationwide a package of terms and conditions with the network of schools to ensure that that kind of strife does not occur.

[Andrew Gwynne]

I have seen several schools in my constituency convert either to trusts or to academies, and I know some of the fraught discussions that take place with staff at the schools during the conversions. May I highlight to my hon. Friend the fact that by converting first to a co-operative trust and subsequently to a co-operative academy, Reddish Vale technology college helped to ease some of the concerns of the staff because they had buy-in to the co-operative principle?

[Gavin Shuker]

That makes the point entirely that the best way to harness leadership is not usually to parachute it in from outside—sometimes that has to be done if a school has failed the community consistently over a period of time, which usually comes down to school leadership—but to empower members of the community who, day in and day out, serve young people and families to get on and lead. That goes right to the heart of how the co-operative governance model works. Those are not simply structures; they are values. It is not about looking to see how we could design an over-engineered, so-called democratic arrangement. It is about saying that certain values of the co-operative movement, in particular the fair distribution of power, can be applied in education extremely well.

In the past few weeks questions, at least, have been raised, or investigations carried out, across the country, about the alleged misuse of power in a number of schools—and a DFE investigation is under way into several schools in my constituency that converted to academies and continued rapidly to adopt other schools. In my region the transition into academies or other types of governance, and the results of that, has been questioned. That has happened in Basildon, Thurrock and Luton; but a previous example in Derby at least raised the question of the fair exercise of power.

The advantage of the co-operative movement is not just the structure, but the ethos. However, the structure is a key factor: the idea that all of us with an interest in education locally can shape it locally and question the authority that is exercised, instead of constantly looking up and across to centralised power in Whitehall and Westminster, or to the immediate leadership of the school. In that way, the co-operative model can present a powerful, positive argument for allowing schools and communities to exercise their own power.

I was proud to grow up in a comprehensive system, with local democratic accountability through voting for and selecting councillors, portfolio holders and leaders, because the link with the community was not broken. Co-operative schools go right to the heart of that issue, and they present a different and powerful model for achieving such democratic control, in which the people who care most passionately about education—the parents, children, teachers, school leaders and governors—come together to share responsibility and power.

I want to ask the Minister about the level of capacity building that DFE is engaged in, particularly in local authorities, to encourage them to examine the co-operative model and consider it as an alternative route, alongside the many others that the Department provides. I understand from speaking to people in local authorities that there is still some misunderstanding about what a co-operative is. That should not surprise us, because we sometimes encounter the same degree of misunderstanding in Parliament, and such things may be difficult for people to get their head around. However, if we are to have genuine choice and to move away from one-size-fits-all comprehensive education, which I have talked about already, it is important to put all the options on the table, and not just some of them. If the Government were to do that they would have more supporters from across the House for their reform of education.

15:23

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

I have been called to speak earlier than I anticipated, and it is great to have this opportunity. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing the debate and on his speech, which came across as genuine and sincere. He captured the values of the co-operative movement very well, and I welcomed his remarks, on which hon. Members can build in debate. He was very polite and thanked the Minister for turning up. I said that it was his duty, and I know that he would agree, but the hon. Gentleman should never apologise for making Ministers come to the House of Commons. When I was a Minister, that was a priority, and I know that the Minister who is present today thinks so too. The debate is important, and the hon. Member for Wycombe kicked it off extremely well.

I congratulate, too, someone whom I was going to call my old friend—but she might take that the wrong way, so I will call her my long-standing friend: that is my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn). We cut our teeth together, when we first came into Parliament, on the Adoption and Children Act 2002 and she has a long—not that long, but longish—history of involvement in the co-operative movement. She spoke with passion, sincerity and knowledge on that subject.

I also want to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker), who made the important point about the co-operative movement and co-operative schools that although structures are important it is the values underpinning the movement that make it a suitable model for the education system.

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

I apologise for missing part of the proceedings. Lipson community college in Plymouth is a co-operative academy. It was set up in 2009 and is outstanding. It encourages pupils to follow up and become co-operators. In fact, they are very involved in the young co-operative movement, and the Ruptors street dance co-op is an example of that. Does my hon. Friend agree that there are many offshoots from the education of young people in co-operative schools? I do not think that anyone puts a value on that, and we need a better understanding of what co-op schools can offer. I think many colleagues in this place do not really understand that.

[Kevin Brennan]

I strongly agree. I should like to talk more later about knowledge and understanding of co-operative schools. I should say at the outset that the Labour Front Bench is strongly supportive of the movement and of the rapid development and spread of co-operative schools that has happened in recent years, since legislation was amended to make it a little easier to form them. There is still work to be done, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley pointed out. There is a good quotation on the Schools Co-operative Society website:

“Essentially they are just what schools should be and what people thought they really were about already!”

That is a good way to put it. There is nothing about co-operative schools that would not be familiar to people, as far as values or ideas of what a good school should be are concerned. Yet, as we know, there is sometimes misunderstanding about co-operatives and co-operative schools.

Values in education are one reason why Labour supports the movement. It is time that we had more of a debate about those. There is much debate about structures and the idea that opening a free school or an academy will solve everyone’s problems. However, we all know that what really counts is good teaching, great leadership and the values underpinning a school and education system. It is interesting that the process that has been going on, which is a quiet revolution in the system—and people talked about a revolution in the debate—has received hardly any media coverage. Yes, the Government have a flagship policy for free schools, but there are far more co-operative schools than free schools. No one would think that from reading the papers and following the news. Certainly, a lot more Department for Education staff are devoted to free schools than to co-operatives. There are more than 100, are there not? I did not realise there were that many left in the Department. It is an awful lot of staff, but very little in the way of resources is devoted to helping co-operative schools to develop.

I welcome the remarks of the Secretary of State about the co-operative movement and co-operative schools in general, which the hon. Member for Wycombe quoted. No one would ever accuse him of not talking a good game, but in relation to actual delivery and policy, it would be good to see more resources within the Department being devoted to co-operative schools, since the Secretary of State has made it so clear that he is powerfully in favour of their development. That is important because it provides a bulwark against what some people fear—that the current upheaval in the structure of the schools system could lead to the idea that the Secretary of State has entertained from time to time: a system of taxpayer-funded, profit-making schools. That idea was tried in Sweden under its free school system, but it has not worked out too well.

The Swedish system was a model. The Secretary of State was infatuated with Swedish models, but he does not talk about them much any more. Sweden had profit-making free schools, but what happened was perhaps predictable. There are two ways to make a profit: increase revenue or cut costs. Of course, there are limited opportunities for taxpayer-funded schools to increase revenue. In Sweden, once hedge funds and the like invested in the schools, it led to the cutting of costs.

Since there is no requirement for qualified teachers, an obvious way to cut costs is to employ people who do not have to be paid qualified teacher rates. As a result, some of the schools went bust, with consequences for the education of the children, and also with the consequence ultimately that the legislation was overturned and a requirement was reintroduced for qualified teachers in the schools. There were no real educational or co-operative values underpinning the schools, which left them as the prey of hedge fund managers and the like. [Interruption.] If there are co-operative schools—would the hon. Member for Ipswich (Ben Gummer) like to intervene?

[Ben Gummer (Ipswich) (Con)]

No.

[Kevin Brennan]

The hon. Gentleman does not want to intervene. He is chuntering away from a sedentary position, but he is not prepared to share his views with us.

If there is a co-operative schools system underpinned by the values described so eloquently by the hon. Member for Wycombe at the start of the debate, we overcome such problems. The schools can have autonomy. They can be run by local people according to a set of values that do not put profit before the education of local children and the views of local people.

I have had the opportunity to visit co-operative schools around the country. I mentioned earlier the visits that I made to Upper Shirley high school in Southampton and the Tiverton co-operative learning development trust in Devon. I talked to the teachers and the leaders in those co-operative schools and I put the hard questions to them. It is not enough simply to have a structure and values in place. It has to be absolutely the case that everybody involved in the school is focused on raising standards and making sure that every child matters and that every child is given an opportunity to fulfil their potential.

I have no doubt that from time to time some co-operative schools will go off the rails, as do other schools, but it is surely right that a model based on co-operative principles, whereby everybody knows the values that they should be working to, stands a better chance of success than one that is based on ultimately making a profit. That is a road down which I understand the Secretary of State is interested in travelling.

[Steve Baker]

I do not want to break up the spirit of consensus that we have engendered, but I am not against profit. I simply want to draw the hon. Gentleman’s attention back to the third principle of co-operatives, which I am sure he knows better than I do: member economic participation. We know—we discussed it earlier—that one reason why the Rochdale pioneers succeeded is because they made a surplus, and surpluses are paid as dividends to members. I am a little cautious when talking about co-operatives. I would not want the debate to be shut down too far, because there is an honourable tradition, clearly articulated by the co-operative movement, of member economic participation. I would not want to exclude it from the future of co-operative schools.

[Kevin Brennan]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s remarks and the opportunity to make it clear that I am not against profit, either. We live in a mixed economy and the market is a wonderful thing. In the case of education, occasionally it can be a good servant, but it is a very, very poor master. Opposition Members will never support profit-making schools. Yes, there is a role for a profit-making business in education—publishers, for instance—but Opposition Members will not support profit making in taxpayer-funded schools.

[Alison Seabeck]

The Plymouth Learning Trust is made up of 16 schools that have come together in a not-for-profit company. They are doing a lot of joint working, which is very effective, so pure profit does not always have to be the driver.

[Kevin Brennan]

Indeed. My hon. Friend makes that point very well and she is absolutely right to do so.

Some people in teachers’ associations and trade unions have been suspicious of co-operative schools, but the partnership that is developing between teachers’ associations and trade unions and some co-operative schools around the country is to be welcomed. The agreement between the NASUWT and the co-operative schools movement is a welcome development. I hope other teachers’ associations and unions will also engage in a positive manner with the co-operative schools movement. As was pointed out earlier in the debate, teachers should very much welcome such a development and the opportunity to be a part of running their schools and playing their role within co-operative schools and co-operative trusts.

On the ten-minute rule Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley earlier this year, I hope the Minister will encourage the Department—it might have been another Department—to answer the letter that she sent earlier in the year. If it has been lost, perhaps she can provide a further copy. The Minister’s hon. Friends welcomed her remarks on the Bill, and I would welcome an opportunity for us to co-operate in a parliamentary way on the provisions of her Bill, albeit after they have been appropriately stress-tested by the civil service and Parliament and properly scrutinised before we do so. May I make that offer to him?

If the Government feel that that is something they would like to do to make it possible for my hon. Friend’s Bill, or the spirit of her Bill, to become law, the Minister would have our co-operation. I completely understand that he cannot commit to that today in a debate of this kind, but perhaps he will take away that offer and consider my hon. Friend’s remarks. Will he ensure that it is possible for co-operative structures to be incorporated into the legislation, as in clause 1 of her Bill, and also make it possible for nurseries to become co-operatives? Will it be possible for them to form part of a co-operative trust that, as she rightly pointed out, might form an all-through education service for an area, which is an ambition of many co-operative trusts around the country? I hope he will be able to say something positive and take that away and consider it, even if he cannot make a commitment now.

I welcome this debate and the way it was kicked off by the hon. Member for Wycombe. I welcome the Government’s professed support for co-operative schools, and I hope the Minister will talk about that. What counts is what works, and we can see that co-operative schools do work. They work because they can generate the kind of leadership and teaching that we want, where everybody understands the values under which they are working—the values of sharing and of working together in the interests of children and young people. Finally, I once again thank and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on this debate.

15:39

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) on securing this important debate, and on his passionate contribution, demonstrating his commitment to raising educational standards in his constituency? As he knows, this Government want to be champions of diversity, of high standards and of closer working-together in the education system.

It is always hugely encouraging to hear examples of where standards are being raised. We are seeing improvement, including in the recent results in the Cressex community school in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Like him, I want to pay tribute to the head teacher—David Hood—the governors, the staff, pupils and the whole community, which has played its part in helping to drive up standards. They are to be commended for their efforts.

I assure hon. Members that the Government are wholeheartedly supportive of the role that school partnerships and co-operation play in achieving our shared goal of a high-performing and self-improving education system. As my hon. Friend said, we are in danger of fierce agreement. Politics is not always as black and white as people think it is. Shared values can surface, and this is one such occasion. There is an underlying cause to which we all want to contribute, which is ensuring that every child, whatever their start in life, gets the best possible chance to reach their full potential, as the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) said. The community has a huge role in making that happen.

We have had excellent contributions from the hon. Members for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn), for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) and for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), and from my hon. Friends the Members for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) and for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). I welcome this opportunity to discuss on behalf of the Government the contribution that diversity partnerships and collaboration are making to improving standards in education, performance and teaching through the co-operative movement and other things in our education system.

The evidence is stark. It shows that schools working together leads to an increase in performance for all schools involved in that partnership, even—this should be noted—for high-performing schools that support weaker schools. As Dr Chris Tomlinson, the phenomenally successful executive principal of the Harris academy Greenwich, Harris academy Chafford Hundred and the primary attached to that in the Harris federation of schools, said:

“Working together improves our knowledge about how to get the best out of pupils and staff. It helps us to fine-tune and understand those occasionally small changes that make a real difference”.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe has set out, one of the interesting things about the example of Cressex community school is that it is a maintained school in partnership with a successful converter academy and an independent school, among other partners. That is exactly the sort of partnership that we are developing through our academies programme and in other education reforms.

We should, and do, cherish the values of co-operative trust schools, in particular the importance of shared responsibility for problems and for designing solutions, and the importance of those involved in a child’s learning having a stake in that learning. As we have heard, since the Education and Inspections Act 2006, which introduced trust school status—the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish reminded us that the first was in his constituency—we have seen a steady and increased pace of such schools being set up. Their number is up from 188 in September 2011, as we have heard, to more than 700 by the end of this year. That in itself demonstrates that the permissive nature of the establishment of such schools is doing nothing to prevent schools from starting to form trusts and relationships. Cornwall is perhaps the most acute example of where that is happening right across a county.

The co-operative trust model is one of many that can facilitate effective partnership working. In an increasingly diverse education system, many different models are emerging, which is increasing choice for parents, which we want to see more of, as well as increasing support for schools. We now have academy chains, where schools formally work together, often sharing governance and leadership while benefiting from the autonomy of academy status.

We also have sponsored academies, with more and more outstanding schools now formally sponsoring weaker schools so as to bring about improvement. Six such sponsored academies are co-operative trust academies. We also have federations, where maintained schools formally share governance and expertise. There is also the sharing of head teachers and senior leadership teams; teaching schools; national or local leaders of education; the independent and state schools partnership; and other formal partnerships, such as the Bradford partnership, a not-for-profit organisation consisting of schools from that city working together to improve outcomes for young people.

In that eclectic mix of different models, it will come as no surprise to hon. Members that the Government’s view is that academy status is effective in driving improvement and collaboration. That status is now enjoyed by close to 3,400 schools in England. We believe that teachers and head teachers, not politicians and bureaucrats, should control schools and have more power over how they are run in the best interests of students. With well over half of secondary schools now being academies, and primary schools joining the programme at an increasing rate, research has found that more than a quarter of academies have seen their relationship with other schools improve since they became academies.

The evidence is clear that the freedom that academies have has led to an increase in standards, and that the highest-performing institutions are helping to improve the weakest. As Mary Speakman, head teacher of Altrincham grammar school for girls, one of the lead schools in the Bright Futures educational trust, said:

“The pupils at AGGS get a really privileged education. They do well and our standards are high. We want to share that experience and develop other schools, so that every young person has those chances”.

I am pleased to see that, so far, 173 converter academies are sponsoring 192 academies, and a further 106 projects are approved to open. In the spirit of this debate, I am also pleased to note, as has been said, that the role of the co-operative movement as a sponsor of schools that need extra support is increasing, and to note the increasing number of co-operative schools choosing academy status and becoming co-operative academies. I do not think that the schools have to live in isolation from one another. They share many of the values that, as has been rightly pointed out, exist in the co-operative movement.

It is worth noting what David Wootton, chair of the Independent Academies Association, has said on the issue:

“The academy movement, and sponsored academies in particular, have a strong commitment to social justice and moral purpose. This means a dedication to the communities they serve and a deep desire to improve outcomes and ‘close the gap’ for students in some of the most challenged communities. Many academies have very strong community routes…We in the academy movement welcome the support of the Co-operative movement, who are now actively involved supporting academies, and believe there is room for a diversity of providers.”

[Gavin Shuker]

I thank the Minister for his warm words about co-operatives. Will he say a few words about the Department’s approach to making the benefits of co-operative governance known to schools that are looking to change their governance arrangements? Is there any literature that goes out? Does he have any officials working on the project? What discussions has he had with the co-operative movement on that?

[Mr Timpson]

I will talk about that in relation to some of the proposals regarding the ten-minute rule Bill and other measures to try to open that up to a wider aspect of the education system. As I have set out, there has been a huge increase in the number of co-operatives over the past two years alone, which shows that they are not being prevented from doing so.

On the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley, I am happy to take back the issue of the messages that the Department and other parts of Government are sending out about the benefit that the movement brings to communities around the country. Our having this debate, and my sending out a strong message of support on behalf of the Government, demonstrates our desire to see diversity in the education system that meets the needs of individual communities.

[Andrew Gwynne]

Is it not one of the benefits of co-operative education that there is no one-size-fits-all approach? Every co-operative school is different in its make-up and outlook, but the one thing that bridges all co-operative schools, whether they are academies, trusts or free schools, is the values that underpin the co-operative principle.

[Mr Timpson]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. No one size fits all and, as we know from schools in our constituencies, there is no blueprint that will make every school successful. My hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe reminded us earlier that the first co-operative free school will open next year in Swanage, and the first co-operative alternative provision free school will open in Harlow in 2014. Those are two examples of how different types of model can be nurtured to meet the needs of particular areas.

Collaboration, which is a feature of the values we have been discussing, manifests itself in several different ways, one of which is the academies programme. Other formal partnership arrangements may work for different communities in relation to both academies and maintained schools, so long as they provide a framework for joint working, with clear lines of accountability, and preserve the intrinsic values of autonomy and liberty that my hon. Friend spoke about.

[Steve Baker]

May I correct an error that I made earlier? I should have paid tribute to Katy Simmons, the chair of the governors of Cressex community school, and Mervyn Wilson, the principal of the Co-operative College, who have helped me to understand that the co-operative movement is striving for autonomy and self-government. While I do not wish to argue about party, it seems to me that the Government are trying to drive people to make the most of their in-built, inherent talents and to exercise freedom and responsibility in relationships, which is all moving in the direction of co-operatives. I am grateful to the Minister for his approach to the subject, but I hope that he will go back to the Department and ask it to produce the Bills that will make that a reality.

[Mr Timpson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. At this juncture, I should perhaps talk about the ten-minute rule Bill introduced back in April by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. Some of its provisions related to the status of industrial provident societies and the existing legal barriers that she has identified, as well as to the role that nurseries may play in the co-operative movement.

As the hon. Lady will know, by virtue of having brought in the Bill, some elements of the 2006 Act preclude nurseries from inclusion in such co-operative trust arrangements. We are currently consulting on measures to make it easier for schools to extend their age range downwards—for example, from five to 11 for primary schools, to three to 11—so nursery classes in those schools would be able to adopt co-operative ideals. I anticipate that she will understand that some nurseries will therefore still exist outside the extended school system and that it is not possible for them to be trusts.

I will undertake, first, to ensure that the hon. Lady receives a full and proper reply from my Department and, I assume, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills—the Minister for Skills and Enterprise, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Matthew Hancock) is a Minister in both Departments—to her inquiry in relation to her Bill. Secondly, I will consider whether it would be of assistance to have a meeting with her and my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe to discuss both how we measure the success of the co-operative movement as it has begun to grow over the past few years, and where it fits into the jigsaw of educational provision that is now available. I am happy to take that back and ensure that it is given full attention.

[Meg Munn]

I am grateful to the Minister for that offer, which saves my having to press him for exactly that. It would be most effective to have a meeting—I would certainly want it to be a cross-party one, with hon. Members from both sides of the House who have spoken in this debate—to see how we can take forward both the need for legislation and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South (Gavin Shuker) has said, the need to publicise more widely to schools the benefits of co-operation, of which they may be unaware.

[Mr Timpson]

I am glad that we have managed to come to another co-operative consensus in this debate. Given the steep rise in the number of co-operative trusts in England, it is important to look seriously at their impact and where they fit into our attempts to establish the most effective education for all our children. As the hon. Lady rightly points out, much of that involves good joint working relationships that should provide incentives for schools to develop higher educational standards.

Doing so has several other advantages. The biggest contribution to school leadership development lies in providing the rich and varied opportunities that will lead to the innovation and responsibility that we want schools to show. Collaborative working can, therefore, provide a broader base for developing leaders, and a greater opportunity for leaders to learn from one another. As I have seen in my constituency, it gives such leaders a greater experience of what is going on not only in their schools, but in surrounding ones and at different levels or key stages.

Working more closely together increases the scope for shared learning and continuous professional development, and helps to improve the capacity of small schools—another important point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—by creating a greater pool of resources and expertise that can be shared more flexibly between schools. School leaders tell us that they can recruit and retain the best staff by providing them with professional challenge and support in working with other schools.

One major advantage of shared arrangements has been the improvement in the governance of weaker schools. It is typical for governing bodies of sponsored chains to be supported in their monitoring role not only by training, but by receiving data that are collated and presented to main boards and local governors in a standard format. The format will normally report on progress against targets and previous performance, comparisons with national benchmarks and the performance of other academies in the chain.

Another advantage is that central costs can be shared across more schools, giving them greater purchasing power in partnership than they would have as stand-alone schools. They can also benefit from economies of scale and from the pooling of resources. The use of shared business management as a resource across schools has been shown to lead to improved efficiencies and the more effective use of resources across schools. Collaborative working also opens up new opportunities to adapt the primary and secondary curriculums to meet local needs, and it allows schools to put in place stronger academic transition procedures between different phases of school.

The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) raised the issue of the Treasury’s proposed tax changes. Obviously I need to look carefully at that to establish exactly whether they will play out as he suggested. On ensuring that we have a crisper, clearer legislative framework, that builds on the matters raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley. Whatever we do in education, we must ensure that it raises standards and that it is sustainable, which is another reason it is important to look at the impact of co-operative trusts on our educational system.

We have managed to transcend a partisan debate, mainly because, as I said at the outset, we have many shared values that do not always have an opportunity to rise to the surface in political debate or in our efforts to make our wider political points as we think is most effective. We do not, however, have anything to fear from co-operatives. Whatever side of the political spectrum we are on, we should embrace the values they offer.

The debate has been an opportunity to celebrate the success and the growing involvement of the co-operative movement in our schools, and to acknowledge that at its core are values that we all hold dear, wherever we sit on the political spectrum—a commitment to social justice and moral purpose, a combined spirit of autonomy, a deep desire to help ensure that children and young people across our communities, but especially in the most challenging areas, get every opportunity to make the most of their education and, wrapping around those values, strong community roots that bind in a joint sense of responsibility and, perhaps most importantly, of caring for others. We all have some compassionate bones in our body, and such values have risen to the surface today, which is a testament to the fact that the co-operative movement does much to enrich our communities, as it does more and more within our schools.

I hope that I have given a forceful indication that this Government hugely value the co-operative movement’s work in our schools. We want to learn more about the effect that it is having, what it is achieving and how it can do more in the future. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe said, many schools are still deciding and choosing, as are parents, what sort of schools they want their children to be in. This excellent and informative debate will have encouraged us all to continue to push for higher educational standards in whatever form, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing this subject to the House.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

I thank all those who co-operated so effectively in the debate.

Royal British Legion (Norwich)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

16:00

[Miss Chloe Smith (Norwich North) (Con)]

I thank you, Mr Hollobone, for chairing this debate. This is an important topic, even though we have not yet been joined by too many other colleagues. I have had the pleasure of working with constituents in Norwich for the Royal British Legion since I was first elected. On Saturday, I will be doing what I have done for many years: joining Roy and Val Hill of the Sprowston Royal British Legion branch in their well-regimented but good-natured poppy appeal at the largest local branch of Tesco. I am sure that other hon. Members will have similar engagements in their constituency.

On Remembrance Sunday, I usually join hundreds of my constituents at Norwich city hall for wreath-laying and the “Last Post”, and then in Norwich cathedral. In the afternoon, I usually take part in a parade down Yarmouth road with the Thorpe St Andrew branch, led by the indefatigable Roy Robson and the town mayor. However, this year I unwisely chose the day before Remembrance Sunday on which to get married. I hope my constituents will forgive my absence this time.

In Norwich, the work of the legion is coming to the fore in an unfortunate way, which is poor timing, as this is the month before November. I want to use this debate to discuss the ways that we can best support this long-lived and courageous organisation. The Royal British Legion is of course the UK’s leading armed forces charity. It provides practical, emotional and financial support to all members of the British armed forces, past and present, and their families. Secondly, it actively campaigns to improve lives, and it safeguards the military covenant between the nation and its armed forces. By the bye, I am pleased that the Government have published that covenant, setting out the relationship between the nation, the state and the armed forces. It recognises that the whole nation has a moral obligation to members of the armed forces and to their families, and it establishes how they can expect to be treated. Community covenants are also being signed across the country, bringing military and civilian communities together.

Armed forces have long been based in Norfolk. RAF Marham, for example, has recently been the focus of an enormous community campaign, orchestrated by the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Norfolk (Elizabeth Truss). The Norfolk covenant builds on those relationships and local support and rightly aims to provide a more consistent approach.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The Royal British Legion operates in Ilford North as well as Norwich North. Does she agree that the work it does for the people who have served our country so well, and who should always be remembered, is irreplaceable, and that we should cherish such a great organisation and help it in every way we can?

[Miss Smith]

I certainly do. I am confident that my hon. Friend, like me and many other Members, wants to see the Royal British Legion succeed in Ilford, Norwich and across the country. I will come on to that, as well as how we might mark the centenary of world war one next year. Perhaps my hon. Friend will tell us how his region will mark that event.

Let me return to the legion’s purposes. It also organises the poppy appeal. It runs one of the UK’s largest membership organisations, and it is recognised as the nation’s custodian of remembrance. In summary, its mission is to provide welfare, comradeship, representation and remembrance for the armed forces community. We all pay tribute to this impressive and durable organisation. We are talking about a crucial cause, and it is given voice and action by many members and volunteers who have shown the highest courage in their service to this country.

We all want the Royal British Legion to be a strong organisation. As I have mentioned, next year sees the beginning of the world war one centenary commemoration. Another important event is the Normandy Veterans Association’s 70 years commemoration, which is championed in my constituency by some most wonderful veterans who are passionate about seeing it done well. All that is important work that we want the legion to sustain for today’s and tomorrow’s service people and their friends.

It is clear, however, that the legion faces challenges. Its accounts suggest that it runs at a deficit, and it has embarked on a major programme of modernisation and change called the “pathway for growth”. Its aim is to make the legion more visible, more relevant and more accessible to those members of the armed forces community who may require help, advice and support at any stage of their lives. I suspect that this is where the rubber hits the road. The Jubilee hall, which serves the Norwich branch and is a fine community hall, faces closure. The head of clubs and trusts at the headquarters says:

“The primary duty of the trustees in this case is to ensure that the best value is obtained from the assets placed in their trust in order that they can provide the maximum support to the objects of their trust. It was accordingly decided that the better option was to seek to sell the property for the best value which can be obtained from the open market.”

The local branch heard that news in August, and I sombrely noted that in one of their first phone calls afterwards, they contacted me as the local Member of Parliament. After two months, several public meetings, a local newspaper campaign by the Norwich Evening News, a generous underwriting offer from a local businessman, and some initial commercial negotiations, I am raising the story in Parliament, and I also have a petition from 617 local residents, which I shall present next week to the director-general of the Royal British Legion. I will explain to him the love that we in Norwich have for our Jubilee hall. First, it is the most visible base of the legion in the area. It is the size of a sports hall and it is emblazoned with the wording “the Royal British Legion” in brass letters a foot high. It is terrible to lose such an emblem.

Secondly, it is more terrible to lose a supportive and friendly establishment for many legion members who depend on it. It provides a warm drop-in for those who want it. Every table is neatly decorated with tinsel or flowers, depending on the season, and it provides a fuller space when that is wanted as well. Thirdly, it is the kind of community hall that already has 500 bookings for next year. I would be interested to know of any community venue that can rival that. In fact, now I know where all the zumba classes in this country are taking place; they are taking place in the Jubilee hall in Norwich, if not in Ilford.

That wide spectrum of activities taking place in the hall is something of which we can be proud. The acting chairman and his team of volunteers at the Norwich city Royal British Legion branch are doing their utmost to achieve a sustainable business after some instability in recent years.

Last Thursday, a “save Jubilee hall” public meeting passed a unanimous vote to keep the hall open, supporting the setting up of a charitable organisation to take on the building. Members and non-members alike of all generations expressed great anxiety about the danger of closure, and wanted to bring back the building to its former glory. Local man Martin Wyatt has offered to underwrite the finances required for such work, and deserves thanks for his generosity. He and the legion committee are working hard to make the transformation a reality. They have secured free legal advice through a local law firm, so they plan to lodge charitable status as soon as possible.

I am pleased—I am sure that the Minister will join me in my pleasure—that the local Labour councillors see the value in the Localism Act 2011, and we all encourage the local authority to list the hall as an asset of community value; that could give us six months’ grace before any sale. Volunteers are delighted to have received a kind letter from the secretary of Her Majesty the Queen, who is of course the patron of the Royal British Legion.

Naturally, the next step is more commercial negotiations, which are not the business of Parliament. However, the hall was built with local funds, and the committee intends to maintain it for its original purpose, though it will broaden its remit to encompass fully the local community. As Mr Wyatt has said,

“we look forward to a completion of this transfer, whether by lease or sale, as soon as possible, and for a stress-free and happy running of Jubilee Hall for years to come”.

It is my hope that by raising this issue today, I have done a little bit to remind us in this great institution of Parliament about the work and the standing of that other great institution, the Royal British Legion.

Here comes the crunch, however. The legion must not leave its members behind; it must not neglect the people who make it a great institution. Now is the time for the legion to listen to its members and to its friends in the wider community. If its aim is to make the legion more visible, more relevant and more accessible, then it should listen and be visible in the Norwich community, and work constructively with local volunteers. We are all behind the legion and its wonderful volunteers, and we do not want the legion to waste that good will.

I said earlier that I would return to the topic of the year ahead. As you know, Mr Hollobone, 2014 will mark a momentous milestone in British history—100 years since the outbreak of world war one. The centenary offers a special opportunity to commemorate not the war and the bloodshed, but the dedicated men and women who sacrificed so much to protect the United Kingdom. It also presents a very important chance to educate a new generation of young people about the war, to ensure that the lessons of that extraordinary time are not lost.

As the Minister will no doubt remind us, the Prime Minister has laid out the Government’s plans to mark the centenary. He has announced that support will be available for projects and initiatives, large and small, in local communities across the UK, in the form of Heritage Lottery Fund grants. I hope to work with councils, heritage groups and charities such as the Royal British Legion to mark the centenary locally. It is a matter of shame, I am afraid to say, that the Labour administration at Norfolk county council has rejected that idea, telling me that it has a rather full diary at the moment. It would be a matter of sadness, and downright discourteous to veterans and serving members of the armed forces, if the Labour administration at county hall did not have the time, inclination or gumption to do this job properly.

I turn back to the matter at hand. I will leave time today for colleagues to express, perhaps, their interest in the work of the legion, and for the Minister perhaps to tell us a little more not only about the commemoration plans but about the way that he works incredibly hard in his brief to support charities. Perhaps he can suggest further ways in which the Royal British Legion can do its job and be supported strongly from inside this great Parliament.

In conclusion, I support the Royal British Legion in Norwich. I passionately want it to succeed for those whom the charity serves: veterans of past campaigns; those yet to fight; and, of course, those whom we remember as fallen, and of whom we will say again in November,

“Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn.”

We all are friends and supporters of the Royal British Legion. My final message today is to those at the legion’s headquarters, if they are listening. I say to them, “Please remember your local members and friends, and save the Jubilee hall in Norwich.”

16:12

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Hollobone, for calling me to speak. At the start of my few words, I ask you for a little latitude, as I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), on behalf of all parties in the House of Commons, on her forthcoming marriage, whatever date it may be on. I am sure that she will be fully occupied over the Remembrance Sunday weekend.

The work of the Royal British Legion takes place not only in my area of Redbridge but across our great country. If we forget our past, we risk repeating the mistakes of the past. If we do not honour the people who have given their lives, and who are no longer with us because of the passing of time, we risk history repeating itself.

Throughout many conflicts, members of our great Army, Air Force and Navy have given up their lives so that we can enjoy our freedom, and so that we can debate, as a democracy, in this Parliament. I think that members of all parties in this House will agree that the work that the Royal British Legion has done, is doing, and I am sure will continue to do benefits many veterans of many campaigns.

Sadly, it will not surprise you to know, Mr Hollobone, that I have never been in the armed services, but I am a member of the Royal British Legion, because I think that it is important. It is important that when we lay our wreaths, as most colleagues from all parties in this House will, on Remembrance day—in my area, we lay one on the Saturday and one on the Sunday; I will also lay one at a former Air Force base on the Monday—we genuinely remember, respect and honour the people who have given their lives for us. My only point today is that whether we are talking about Norwich North, Ilford North or any other “north” in this great country, we should honour all those people. May God bless the Royal British Legion.

16:14

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hollobone; I think it is for the first time.

I miss my former ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Miss Smith), so I am absolutely delighted to be in a position to respond to her debate, which brings home very clearly just why she is so respected and loved as a champion of Norwich North and of the things that the people there hold dear. I warmly congratulate her on securing this debate and on drawing the attention of the House to the incredibly important work of the Royal British Legion, as well as to concerns about the closure of the Jubilee hall in Norwich.

Just as my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Mr Scott) skilfully intervened to place on record his huge admiration for the work of the Royal British Legion in his constituency, I must also take the opportunity to place on record my recognition of the incredible work done in the “third North”, which is my constituency of Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner, in particular the work of the legion’s branch at Eastcote, which managed to get a cheque out of me and which looks after me incredibly well during the remembrance services there.

This debate has opened my eyes to some other work that the Royal British Legion is doing that I was not aware of—work that is frankly magnificent. For example, there was the recent opening of its centre for blast injury studies at Imperial college London, which is the first collaboration of its kind in the United Kingdom and where civilian engineers and scientists work alongside military doctors to reduce the effect of roadside bombs and improvised explosive devices. The legion has also teamed up with Help for Heroes to officially open the Phoenix House recovery centre in Yorkshire, where injured and sick service personnel from across north England and Scotland can recover and access key services. The legion is an enormously important institution, and I am sure, Mr Hollobone, that it does wonderful work in Kettering too.

Regarding the specific issue of the Jubilee hall in Norwich, I quite understand the passion underpinning that project; I have similar situations in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North will know that it is not for the Government to intervene in a charity’s decisions, however unpopular they are, but I am absolutely sure that the Royal British Legion will listen very carefully to this debate and will have heard her message about the community’s desire to save Jubilee hall.

My hon. Friend will also know that the Government are very keen to support this kind of community-led response. She mentioned the Localism Act 2011. That Act introduced the community right to bid, which, as she said, allows communities and parish councils to nominate buildings or land for listing by the local authority as an asset of community value. Exploring this option—asking the local authority to list the hall as an asset of community value, in line with the Act—seems eminently sensible.

What my hon. Friend may or may not be aware of is that, at a time when there is not a lot of money around, significant funding is being made available to support communities that want to take over buildings and assets. In June, I was proud to hear the Prime Minister announce a quarter of a billion pounds of funding at an event at the G8, which will be dedicated over the next 10 years by Big Society Capital and the Big Lottery Fund, to help communities own local assets, such as pubs, shops, community centres and sports facilities. More details of that programme will be announced shortly.

My hon. Friend may also be aware that the My Community Rights support programme provides advice and help to eligible community groups to develop business cases and get “investment-ready” to seek support from other sources. Information is readily available on the programme’s website.

I genuinely wish my hon. Friend and her local campaigning group every success and I hope that the Royal British Legion will go the extra mile in helping the community to safeguard what is clearly a very valuable asset.

My hon. Friend also asked me to talk a little about the commemoration plans to mark the centenary of the outbreak of the first world war, which all the speakers today have talked passionately about. They will know that the first world war was a period of almost unparalleled importance in our country’s history. I am proud to say that the Government are taking a strong lead in commemorating the centenary in a way that I hope is appropriate. The centenary will not only focus on military history but on the social and cultural changes that the war brought about, telling not just soldiers’ stories but those of men and women on the home front. We should remember that there were almost 900,000 deaths of British service personnel during the first world war, so it is entirely appropriate that remembrance lies at the heart of the commemoration.

We are working hard to encourage public interest and engagement, showing why the first world war still matters in the 21st century and is relevant to people today—including myself—through their family histories. My hon. Friend will know that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is the co-ordinating Department, but several Departments are working together to deliver what I hope will be a strong, diverse and inclusive programme. There is strong support from bodies such as the Imperial War museum, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, the BBC and the Heritage Lottery Fund, all of which have a big role to play in securing public engagement and all of which are represented in the programme’s governance structure.

There will be £53 million of funded activity across a range of undertakings, including a major capital project at the Imperial War museum, Heritage Lottery Fund grants for community projects and moneys for other cultural activity. For example, the first world war centenary battlefield tours project is offering students and teachers from every state-funded secondary school in England the opportunity to visit battlefields and other notable sites and to take part in remembrance ceremonies on the western front. That will be an enormously powerful experience for them. The tours start in spring next year and will run until 2019. Schools, including those in Norfolk, have been piloting the scheme, with pupils visiting battlefields at Ypres and the Somme. More than 1,000 schools have already registered for the tours from next spring, which is well ahead of the planned target. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North said so powerfully, the bravery and suffering of the heroic men and women who gave their lives so selflessly in the great war—including my great uncle—must never be forgotten.

To conclude, the Government recognise the massive contribution that is made by our servicemen and women. The words trip easily enough, but it is important to convey what underlies them with sincerity. The armed forces covenant ensures that we are doing all we can for our armed forces in return for asking them to do dangerous jobs in places such as Afghanistan and Iraq, and the Government take it extremely seriously.

I am proud that the Chancellor was in a position to announce that the LIBOR fines collected from banks for their shockingly bad behaviour and their distortion of British values are being used to provide permanent funding of £10 million per annum to charities working to support military personnel. That money was taken in fines on the worst of values to support organisations working with the best of British values.

On that note, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North on her championing of her constituents, the campaign to safeguard the hall and this opportunity for us all to place on record our recognition of the enormously valuable work that the Royal British Legion does. It would be wrong of me to conclude my remarks without congratulating my hon. Friend on her forthcoming marriage to Sandy, who is, I believe, a former paratroop officer. I am sure that her constituents will forgive her for her absence from Remembrance day services and for getting married, even if there are many colleagues in this place who never will.

16:22

Sitting suspended.

UK-Colombia Bilateral Investment Treaty

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Westminster Hall

16:30

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

I am grateful to Mr Speaker for selecting this debate.

Bilateral investment treaties are a long-standing mechanism to protect foreign firms and investors undertaking risky overseas investment from the danger of expropriation or policy changes in the destination country that could reduce the financial return from those investments. Bilateral investment treaties have generally been seen as benign, technical instruments, but developments in their use in the past 10 years or so have raised doubts about their benign character. Those doubts certainly arise in the case of the UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty, which I understand is due to be ratified in the next few weeks. I will air some of those doubts in this debate and press the Minister to clarify the Government’s thinking in response to some of the concerns that are being raised.

Bilateral investment treaties allow investors to sue elected Governments if policy changes adversely affect their profits, but neither the host Government nor the communities affected by the investment have reciprocal rights. There is at least a question on whether that balance is correct.

Last October, under a bilateral investment treaty, a tribunal established by the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, which is part of the World Bank, fined Ecuador $1.8 billion—a sum equal to Ecuador’s entire annual education budget—for terminating a contract with Occidental Petroleum Corporation after reaching the view that Occidental broke Ecuadorian law when selling its production rights. I notice that on 30 September 2013, the tribunal decided to stay the enforcement of that fine for the time being, but it is not clear that handing a technocratic tribunal the power to impose fines in that way is necessarily the right thing to do.

By the end of 2012, corporations had launched more than 500 cases under bilateral investment treaties against 95 Governments. Compared with the preceding three decades, the number of disputes since the year 2000 has risen two-and-a-half-fold. The treaties seem to be evolving into something rather different from what they were originally intended to be. We need to reflect on how we want the treaties to be used, on what is appropriate to put into them and, indeed, on when it is appropriate to enter into such a treaty.

Governments across the world are now reviewing their policy on bilateral investment treaties. I understand that Norway and South Africa are terminating their treaty, and Australia and the US have decided to restrict the scope of their treaty. I am delighted to see the Minister in his place this afternoon as I know he has other pressing business, and I hope he will use this debate to set out the British Government’s thinking. I would welcome a review in the UK along the same lines as we are seeing elsewhere.

The UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty will be laid before Parliament shortly and will provide far-reaching rights to foreign investors in Colombia. I am worried that the treaty might not take into account the potential risks it poses to securing human rights in Colombia. The Minister knows very well the human rights position in that country. In the first six months of this year, 11 trade unionists and 37 human rights activists were killed—nobody has been charged in relation to any of those killings. Over the summer there were strikes and protests across Colombia, and 16 demonstrators were killed by the police and the army, with more than 90 people imprisoned. Paramilitary groups continue to operate widely. There is already substantial opposition on human rights grounds to the ratification of the EU-Colombia free trade agreement.

I ask the Minister to take the opportunity presented by the forthcoming ratification, and indeed by other negotiations for new investment treaties at EU level, to consider whether it is appropriate to have a general review of UK policy towards bilateral investment treaties.

I have three areas of concern about the current use of bilateral investment treaties that I think make a review necessary. First, it is not clear that the human rights impact of such treaties is in line with the UK Government’s policy. That is a particularly pressing concern in the case of Colombia, where the human rights situation is so precarious, particularly in relation to workers’ rights and land rights.

According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Colombia has the largest number of internally displaced people in the world after Sudan—there were 5.7 million internally displaced people in Colombia by the end of the 2012—largely due to land-grabbing around mineral and resource-rich sites. Colombia has enacted a land restitution law to restore more than 2 million hectares of land to people from whom it had been wrongly taken, but that restoration has not yet taken place. Human Rights Watch reported last month that only one family have to date had their land returned.

There is serious concern that a bilateral investment treaty could make the implementation of land reform even more difficult; it could trigger demands from foreign investors for compensation if, for example, cases were brought forward in which land occupied by an investor that had previously been appropriated from someone else and then sold to the investor was restored to its original and rightful owners. Such processes could potentially scupper the prospects for land restitution, which is widely recognised as key to Colombia’s future stability.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, for the powerful case he is making and for bringing this debate to the House. The recent UK action plan on business and human rights was strongly welcomed because of some of the difficulties that he raises, but it is unfortunately silent on remedy and redress for victims of such abuses. Indeed, recent legislation has restricted the ability of victims of actions by UK companies overseas to access justice through the UK courts. Does he agree that it is essential that we build on the momentum that the Government and others have created to ensure adequate redress when bilateral investment treaties are breached, and that otherwise we risk undermining the host country’s ability to meet its international human rights obligations? Would he also welcome a response from the Minister on that, either today or at a later date?

[Stephen Timms]

I will address the action plan on business and human rights in a couple of moments. My hon. Friend is absolutely right on the need for people to be able to obtain redress, and I would certainly welcome a comment from the Minister on that topic.

ABColombia, the consortium comprising Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development, Oxfam and others, is particularly worried about the potential threat to land restitution. The UK-Colombia treaty risks making it impossible for Colombia to restore land that has been stolen from its previous owners, thereby potentially restricting the implementation of future peace agreements with the guerrillas and limiting reparations to victims of human rights violations. Land injustices have been at the centre of the long-running conflict in Colombia, as the Minister knows. I gather that a treaty with Ethiopia is likely to come up next, which raises a similar set of issues on land and rights, so there is a pressing case for carrying out a policy review.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) has reminded the Chamber of the action plan on business and human rights, which the Government published last month and which, as she says, has been widely welcomed. The action plan makes the point that investment agreements should,

“incorporate the business responsibility to respect human rights, and…not undermine the host country’s ability to…meet its international human rights obligations or to impose the same environmental and social regulation on foreign investors as it does on domestic firms.”

That is welcome reassurance. The review that I am suggesting would enable the Government to make good on that commitment in the specific context of bilateral investment treaties.

Secondly, there is a worry that investment rules in bilateral investment treaties could restrict the ability of Governments to set policies in the interests of their public. The investor-state dispute settlement mechanism allows foreign firms to sue Governments when and if they feel that their interests have been violated by a new law or policy. That is a pretty big limitation on the right of citizens to elect a Government to change the policy of the preceding Government.

I am chair of the trustees of Traidcraft, the fair trade organisation, which has drawn the issue to my attention—I declare that interest, although the role is unpaid. I share that concern about the restriction on the ability of developing country Governments to pursue policies that have worked elsewhere—such as land reform or requiring investors to give preference to local suppliers.

The concern, however, does not apply only in developing countries. The US tobacco firm, Philip Morris, is suing Uruguay and Australia over their anti-smoking laws. The company argues that warning labels on cigarette packs or plain packaging prevent it from displaying its trade mark effectively, causing a loss in market share. The threat of legal action against the UK under a bilateral investment treaty might be a factor in thinking about the introduction of plain packaging proposals here, so developing countries are certainly not the only ones in the frame. The US company Lone Pine Resources Inc. is demanding US $250 million in compensation from Canada for introducing a moratorium on fracking, because of environmental risk concerns. Corporations have used investor-state settlement provisions to challenge environmental, land use, energy and other laws.

Thirdly, I am worried that such claims bypass domestic courts and are heard in private—behind closed doors—in tribunals made up of three arbitrators, behind closed doors at the International Centre for Settlement of Investor Disputes. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan reminded the House that any such decision is extremely difficult to change. In some instances, the existence of the cases is barely known at all; even when they are known, the reasons for decisions or the level of awards by a tribunal are not always disclosed.

There is concern that the system has led to bad decisions, which is particularly important given that an arbitration tribunal can make unlimited monetary awards. In 2012, dispute settlement compensations awarded to corporations ranged from US $2 million to, in the Ecuadorean case that I mentioned, nearly $1.8 billion; lots of pending claims total billions of US dollars. Disputes between multinational companies and Colombia under the UK-Colombia treaty would be confidential and heard by the international tribunal, despite the growing recognition worldwide, not least on the part of the UK Government, that transparency is vital to democratic processes, good governance and the rule of law.

Finally, there is at least a question mark about whether the treaties do, in fact, succeed in attracting additional foreign investment into signatory countries. A number of studies suggest no significant correlation between a country’s level of foreign direct investment—we all want to increase such levels in developing countries—and the decision to adopt treaties that include those broad investor protections.

I hope, therefore, that the Government will review their policy on bilateral investment treaties, in view of the lack of transparency, the use of the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism, the imbalance of rights and responsibilities, and the potential to undermine human rights in countries where investment is taking place. I am grateful to the Minister for his readiness to respond. I accept that part of the responsibility on the subject rests with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, but the Foreign and Commonwealth Office clearly has a key role as well. I look forward to what he has to say in response.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The right hon. Gentleman timed that to the second!

16:45

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr Hugo Swire)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Hollobone, and I congratulate the right hon. Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) on securing the debate. The right hon. Gentleman has a long-standing interest in such issues, as evidenced in his declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests about his activities with Traidcraft, to which he alluded.

The Government’s aim in developing bilateral investment treaties is to provide a high level of protection for companies from one country that invest in the other country. In particular, we aim to ensure that British investors in a country with which we have a bilateral investment treaty will receive equal treatment compared with other foreign and domestic investors.

In general, the UK Government believe that such treaties have a positive impact, protecting investors against unfair expropriation and mistreatment, and encouraging investment. As the right hon. Gentleman said, however, bilateral investment treaties need to strike the right balance between providing protection for investors and giving Governments the space that they need to regulate in the public interest. The UK aims to achieve that balance in its treaties and, now that competence for foreign direct investment has transferred to the European Union, in treaties concluded by the EU.

To begin addressing some of the comments and questions of the right hon. Gentleman, increasing transparency in governance at home and internationally is a priority for the Government. Next week, I am pleased to say, we will be hosting the Open Government Partnership summit here in London, and that will be a key theme. We have also pushed for greater openness in investment arbitration, and I am pleased that new UN rules on transparency will enter into force next year. The hon. Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy) made an intervention about redress in particular, but we will write to her with a fuller answer.

In response to the related concern about giving away privileges to distant tribunals, while the system is clearly not perfect—hence, for example, our work on transparency—overall we see such tribunals as positive. They have long been a feature of the international system and are considered generally to provide a dependable way for investors to achieve justice, where it cannot be achieved through the domestic legal system of the country in which they have invested. The tribunals are, therefore, important to guaranteeing investors’ rights and to preserving stable investment climates, which, in turn, help to encourage economic development. Without access to an international tribunal, such benefits would be lost. Furthermore, if we did not have tribunals, what should replace them? The right hon. Gentleman did not answer that question in his speech—I am happy to accept an intervention, should he wish to make one.

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government intend to review their policy on investment protection. As I have mentioned, competence for foreign direct investment has now transferred to the EU. Since that transfer in 2009, the UK has not negotiated any new treaties. It retains the right to do so, but it has no immediate plans to negotiate new treaties. It does not, therefore, make sense for the UK to launch a full-scale review of our policy on such matters at present. That said, I reassure him that, in ongoing EU negotiations, we are pushing hard to achieve that important balance—guaranteeing fair treatment for investors, without an adverse impact on Governments’ rights to regulate in the public interest. That is also a principle that we will apply in any new treaties that the UK negotiates.

Our intention is to place before Parliament shortly a ratification instrument that will bring the UK-Colombia bilateral investment treaty into force. We believe that the treaty broadly achieves the right balance. Indeed, it includes specific provisions designed to preserve the right of the UK and Colombia to regulate for “reasons of public purpose”.

[Stephen Timms]

I am grateful for the way in which the Minister is responding to the debate. Will he explain the significance of the timing, given that he said that competence has moved to the European Union? I am told that the Colombia treaty was drafted almost 20 years ago. What is the significance of the timing, given that ratification will take place shortly?

[Mr Swire]

The right hon. Gentleman has more confidence in these matters than me. He referred to the next few weeks. I am reliably informed that it will be shortly, which is not necessarily in the next few weeks, but no doubt my colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills will bring the matter to the House at the appropriate time and will be able to explain exactly, if I cannot. It is worth saying that the UK received authorisation from the European Commission to enter the Colombia treaty into force, as the right hon. Gentleman said, in spring 2013 and the Colombian note confirming its ratification in the summer.

The treaty is an important symbol of the close relationship that the UK has enjoyed with Colombia in recent years. To answer the right hon. Gentleman’s point about the importance of such treaties to the countries with which they are contracted, it is worth saying that the Government of Colombia is actively looking forward to the treaty being ratified. I believe that it is a positive move. It will cover all existing British investments in Colombia, which currently total £2.5 billion. The Government hope that when the treaty enters into force it will provide a further incentive for additional investment in Colombia by increasing the level of legal protection.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly raised a concern about the human rights situation in Colombia, including land rights. I assure him, as I have the House on a number of occasions when we debated the matter, that progress has been made, as noted in our 2012 human rights report. Around 170,000 victims have been provided with reparations under its victims and land restitution law and the Colombian Government are taking steps to reform the judicial system. We continue to press them to speed up the processing of cases and to eliminate impunity.

In 2012, experts from the Land Registry provided technical advice to the agriculture Ministry on land registration issues. Security for claimants and those returning to their land is a key concern, and our embassy in Bogota has funded a security risk analysis in potential restitution zones. However, almost five decades of conflict have caused many people to be displaced, as the right hon. Gentleman said. We welcome the significant progress made to date in the peace negotiations, in which provisional agreement on land reform has been reached.

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising the concerns. The Government want bilateral investment treaties to provide a high level of protection for British companies investing in Colombia, but we also want to strike the right balance between providing protection for investors and giving Governments the space they need to regulate in the public interest. We are committed to supporting international efforts to increase transparency. We recognise that the current system of tribunals is not perfect, but it generally provides a dependable way for investors to achieve justice.

Competence for foreign direct investment has now transferred to the EU and the UK has not negotiated any new treaties since 2009, so we have no plans to review our policy on investment protection. However, in ongoing EU negotiations and any new treaties the UK negotiates, we will push for the right balance between investors and the public interest.

Question put and agreed to.

16:53

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

Wednesday 23 October 2013

Double Taxation (Republic of Panama)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A new double taxation convention with the Republic of Panama was signed on 29 July 2013. The text of the convention has been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The text has been scheduled to a draft Order in Council laid before the House of Commons on 12 September 2013.

ECOFIN

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

A meeting of the Economic and Financial Affairs Council was held in Luxembourg on 15 October 2013. Council discussed the following items.

Current legislative proposals

The presidency provided an update on the following financial services dossiers: central securities depositories regulation (CSDR); omnibus II; markets in financial instruments directive (MiFID); the Commission noted the formal adoption of the single supervisory mechanism (SSM); single resolution mechanism (SRM); bank recovery and resolution directive (BRRD); and deposit guarantee scheme directive (DGSD).

Preparation of the European Council on 24-25 October 2013

a) Indicators and policy areas for strengthened economic policy co-ordination:

ECOFIN held an exchange of views on indicators and policy areas for strengthened economic policy co-ordination. The Government consider that, consistent with the June European Council conclusions, participation in any new measures for economic and monetary union should be voluntary for those outside the single currency and be fully compatible with the single market.

b) Commission-EIB SME initiative:

ECOFIN considered Commission-EIB designs for financing instruments aimed at leveraging finance for SMEs, of which participation in any scheme should be voluntary for member states.

European semester: Lessons from 2013 and way forward

ECOFIN held an exchange of views on lessons to be learned from the 2013 European semester.

Follow-up to G20 Finance Ministers and governors’ meeting on 10-11 October and annual meetings of the IMF and World Bank Group on 11-13 October in Washington

The Commission and presidency provided a short update on the outcomes of the G20 ministerial and IMF meetings in October.

Preparation of the 19th conference of parties to the United Nations framework convention on climate change (UNFCCC) in Warsaw from 11-22 November 2013

ECOFIN endorsed conclusions on climate finance ahead of the UNFCCC conference in Warsaw on 11-22 November.

Counter-Terrorist Asset-Freezing Regime

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

My noble friend the Commercial Secretary to the Treasury, Lord Deighton, has today made the following written ministerial statement:

Under the Terrorist Asset-Freezing etc. Act 2010 (“TAFA 2010”), the Treasury is required to report to Parliament, quarterly, on its operation of the UK’s asset-freezing regime mandated by UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

This is the 11th report under the Act and it covers the period from 1 July 2013 to 30 September 2013. This report also covers the UK implementation of the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime and the operation of the EU asset-freezing regime in the UK under EU regulation (EC) 2580/2001 which implements UNSCR 1373 against external terrorist threats to the EU. Under the UN al-Qaeda asset-freezing regime, the UN has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under the Al-Qaeda (Asset-freezing) Regulations 2011. Under EU Regulation 2580/2001, the EU has responsibility for designations and the Treasury has responsibility for licensing and compliance with the regime in the UK under part 1 of TAFA 2010.

Annexes A and B to this statement provide a breakdown, by name, of all those designated by the UK and the EU in pursuance of UN Security Council Resolution 1373.

The following table sets out the key asset-freezing activity in the UK during the quarter ending 30 September 2013:

Tax Information Agreements (Guernsey and Jersey)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

Exchange of letters amending the 2009 tax information exchange agreements (TIEAs) with Guernsey and Jersey were signed on 22 October 2013 to permit automatic and spontaneous exchanges of information. At the same time agreements were also signed to improve international tax compliance which set out the precise details of the information which will be automatically exchanged. The texts of the agreements to improve international tax compliance have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses and will be made available on HM Revenue and Customs’ website. The texts amending the tax information exchange agreements will be scheduled to draft Orders in Council and laid before the House of Commons in due course.

Grangemouth (Update)

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

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

Following developments on this issue I will today provide an oral update to the House outlining the current position.

Cost of Motoring

Wednesday 23rd October 2013 Written Statements

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to their consultation “Reducing the number and costs of whiplash claims”, which closed on 8 March 2013, alongside further measures this Government are taking in order to help drive down the costs of motoring and put money back in the pocket of the driver.

The publication also provides our response to the House of Commons Transport Committee’s “Cost of motor insurance: whiplash” report and recommendations, published on 31 July 2013. I am grateful to the Committee for their valuable and thoughtful findings, which we have taken into account.

For too long honest drivers have been bearing the cost—through higher insurance premiums—of fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims. The Association of British Insurers indicates that 7% of all motor claims were fraudulent, and that dishonest personal motor insurance frauds worth £441 million were detected by the industry in 2011. The Government want to tackle that abuse to help drive down the cost of living and deliver a system that hard-working, law-abiding people can have confidence in.

The reforms I announce today form part of a series of changes to the justice system introduced by the Ministry of Justice, such as the reform of “no win, no fee” arrangements and a ban on referral fees paid between lawyers, insurers, claims firms, garages and others, which are removing incentives for excessive litigation and tackling the culture of claims. New figures from the Ministry of Justice’s claims management regulation unit also published today, show that the number of claims firms in the personal injury market has gone down by more than 1,000 following the law changes, from a peak of 2,553 in December 2011 to 1,485 last month.

We now propose to implement our consultation proposal to introduce an independent medical panel scheme, to establish a new and more robust system of medical reporting and scrutiny of whiplash claims. These measures received a good degree of support from those who responded to the consultation. Our reforms will mean that exaggerated and fraudulent whiplash claims are deterred and challenged while the genuinely injured, backed up by good-quality medical evidence, get the help and compensation they deserve.

We are currently working on the detail of the independent medical panel scheme. We will have further discussions with all sides, including insurers and claimant representatives, and within Government, before we bring forward our final proposals. I am grateful to representatives from all sides of the industry for their constructive proposals in this area, which we are considering. I am clear that the final scheme will need to be not only effective but proportionate and sustainable, with any costs not falling on the public purse.

We also want to work with all sides to tackle those practices which can contribute to the inflated number of whiplash claims. For example, we want insurers to end the practice of making offers to settle claims without requiring medical evidence. We also want insurers to share more of their data on suspected fraudulent or exaggerated claims with claimant lawyers, and we want claimant lawyers to carry out more effective checks on their potential clients before taking on claims.

On the consultation option to increase the small claims track threshold for personal injury claims, the Government have carefully considered all responses. We believe that there are good arguments for increasing this threshold to £5,000 for all road traffic accidents to raise incentives to challenge fraudulent or exaggerated insurance claims. At the same time, we have listened to the views of the Transport Committee and others that now may not be the right time to raise the small claims limit because of the risks that it may deter access to justice for the genuinely injured and encourage the growth of those disreputable claims firms which so damage the industry. At this stage, we have decided to defer any increase to the small claims threshold until we can determine the impact of our wider reforms on motor insurance premiums and better safeguard against the risks identified above. We believe that this is the right thing to do for all interests.

Our consultation also generated a number of further proposals to reduce fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims which we are currently considering.

The reforms I am announcing today and those which we have already made to the civil justice system should contribute to lower motor insurance premiums. Indeed we are already seeing these beginning to fall. Figures published by the AA’s British insurance premium index today show that quoted shop-around premiums have reduced by 12% over the previous year.

The Government expect the insurance companies to act on the commitment they made at the Prime Minister’s summit in February 2012 to pass on to consumers and businesses industry estimated savings of approximately £1.5 billion to £2 billion that could come from the reforms on both legal fees and future changes on whiplash claims.

I believe that taken together the measures I set out today will provide an effective response to support hard-working motorists and families, deterring fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims and helping to reduce the cost to premiums of dealing with such claims.

In addition to these reforms and in order to help further the hard-working people of this country we have decided to launch a range of measures to help drive down the costs of owning and running a car.

The fee charged for the MOT test for a car is £54.85, and has been frozen at that price since 2010. I can inform the House that the Government will freeze the price for an MOT test for the rest of this Parliament. While competition in many areas introduces discounts to this fee, some 12 million drivers are estimated to pay this fee in full. This announcement will save them from a price rise that would cost them around £50 million a year.

This Government are also determined to help the motorist at the pump. I can announce today that the Government will launch a trial of motorway signs that will display the cost of fuel along the route, helping the driver make the informed choice about where to fill up, and importantly, boosting competition along British motorways.

Finally, the Government want to make it cheaper for those who want to drive for the first time. The Department for Transport will launch a review of the fees charged to obtain driving licences and the fees for taking a test.

Copies of the Government response to the consultation and to the Transport Committee report are available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office. The document is also available online at http://www.justice.gov.uk.