House of Commons

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 7 November 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

1. What progress his Department has made on the roll-out of better bus areas.

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

Last year we announced our intention to establish a small number of new better bus areas, within which bus subsidy would be devolved to the local authority to invest in bus improvement measures in partnership with local operators. The Department has made good progress with five new better bus areas having been announced this year. These are in Sheffield, York, the west of England—the area centred around Bath and Bristol—Merseyside and Nottingham.

[Mel Stride]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speed with which this new scheme has been rolled out, but may I urge him to ensure we have fair and firm targeting, particularly on remote rural areas? I have a number of villages in my constituency that have no bus service at all, and many that do have very little provision.

[Mr Goodwill]

Earlier this year we announced that current levels of Government support for buses will be maintained until at least 2016, and we have also ring-fenced a portion of bus subsidy that will be devolved to local authorities from January, providing greater security to vital local services. In addition, in 2011-12 a total of £20 million in funding was targeted to rural authorities to support those very vital community transport solutions.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

What is the Minister doing to improve bus services for young people? I recently met some young people on the national citizenship scheme in my constituency, and they raised the particular problem that for them travelling around after 6 pm on unaffordable transport is almost impossible. What are the Government doing to help young people travel around in their areas?

[Mr Goodwill]

We believe these better bus areas are a more intelligent way of supporting bus services. Rather than the crude method of a straightforward fuel subsidy, the partnership between local authorities and bus companies will encourage things such as smart ticketing, better information and bus priority schemes, which make buses more reliable for young people and for everyone else.

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

When will the Minister get his act together on buses? Most people in this country travel on buses. Buses are really important to our country, but the bus industry feels neglected by this Government—and why cannot I have a new innovative bus scheme in Huddersfield and Kirklees?

[Mr Goodwill]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman should declare his interest in having a bus pass, which, of course, the Conservatives promised—

[Mr Sheerman]

I’ve got one.

[Mr Goodwill]

Despite what we heard in the last general election campaign, the Conservatives have kept the concessionary travel scheme for pensioners, along with all the other benefits for pensioners. Some 40% of money going into buses outside London is Government support and we believe we are discharging our responsibilities in that regard.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

2. What procedures are available to communities to seek mitigation of the effects of the High Speed 2 route with respect to visual, aural and vibration disturbance.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

There has already been widespread consultation on phase 1. In addition, there will be a consultation on the environmental statement following the deposit of the hybrid Bill and the opportunity to petition the Select Committee established as part of the hybrid Bill process. For phase 2, the route consultation is currently under way and is due to end in January 2014.

[Michael Fabricant]

A few months ago, I and a group of people from Lichfield came to see the Secretary of State to discuss the monstrous 20-metre high viaduct planned for the HS2 crossing over Lichfield. He will know that this affects not only Lichfield, but the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Tamworth (Christopher Pincher) and for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), because of the height of the line. A plan for mitigation was developed together with HS2 engineers, and this has been completely ignored. When can we have some hope that there will be any mitigation for us in Staffordshire?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He rightly says that he never loses an opportunity to make clear his objection to this viaduct. It was part of a route realignment which was done initially to help mitigate some of the effects around Lichfield, but once the Bill is deposited and following Second Reading there will, of course, be an opportunity for those directly affected to petition the Select Committee.

[Stephen Timms (East Ham) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State know of any other countries which, on building their second high-speed railway line, have chosen to connect it to the first via a single-track railway line with a capacity of three trains per hour?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The important thing is that there will be a connection between HS1 and HS2. That will allow direct access for trips right through Europe from places that at present do not have those connections. That is important. We believe the three trains per hour that will be able to go directly from Birmingham, Manchester or Leeds to Paris or Brussels or other European destinations is a very positive move.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

As my right hon. Friend knows, the preferred route for HS2 phase 2 goes straight through the village of Hopton in my constituency, as well as Ingestre, Yarlet and Marston and close by to Great Harwood. What measures can HS2 take to mitigate the effects on these communities, either through extra tunnelling or realignment of the route?

[Mr McLoughlin]

What I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) in my original answer was that the consultation for phase 2 is still ongoing and it would be wrong of me at this stage to pre-empt it. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy) will be making strong representations through the consultation process, and I will consider them in due course.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Pursuant to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), I know that the Secretary of State takes these matters very seriously, but does he agree that where mitigations are small scale, such as those proposed by my constituents in the Knox Grave Lane community, HS2 should be able to move ahead with them quickly and not give conflicting messages to the community affected? I have written to him on this matter. Will he give the letter careful consideration?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Of course I will consider any points that my hon. Friend has written to me about. Consistency in HS2’s responses on these lines that directly affect people is very important. I am disturbed to hear that inconsistent advice has been given by HS2, and I will want to look into it.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

3. What assessment he has made of the potential of High Speed 1 domestic services in Kent to expand.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

I recognise the importance of domestic High Speed 1 services to the people and economies of Kent. The Department is currently negotiating a direct award with Southeastern, which operates them, in which we will consider what improvements can be made to services. We are also undertaking an evaluation study of the High Speed 1 infrastructure, which is due to report in spring next year.

[Charlie Elphicke]

I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. High-speed services are economically transformational for east Kent. Constituents of mine in Deal, and those in Sandwich, wish to have an all-day Javelin high-speed service. Will Ministers help to make that happen?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I know how very important the high-speed service has been to my hon. Friend’s constituents. Although high-speed rail does not run right down to Deal or Sandwich, his constituents get the benefit from HS1 as the Javelin train from St Pancras carries on to serve them. There are ongoing negotiations about the franchise extension, which we will be doing with Southeastern, and I will certainly bear his comments in mind.

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

4. What plans he has to extend railway electrification.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

In the rail investment strategy the Government are investing in more than 800 miles of electrification up to 2019. This includes lines in the north-west, north trans-Pennine, midland main line, electric spine, Great Western main line and Welsh valley areas. That is a substantial advance in electrification of the railways in this country.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. A couple of weeks ago, I launched the business case for the electrification of the Harrogate to Knaresborough rail line, which would bring more frequent and quicker services for passengers, and a great return for taxpayers from public money. Will he meet me to discuss this opportunity?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will be delighted to meet my hon. Friend, who wastes no opportunity to raise this case for electrification with me. He has been a doughty campaigner for it. We have received a copy of the business case for the electrification of the Leeds, Harrogate and York line. The case looks promising and I am more than happy to discuss it further with him.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

Plans for electrification are very welcome, but when will rolling stock be available for the electrified lines in the north, now that that there has been such a delay in the procurement for the Thameslink project?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I hope that that delay, on which there was a Public Accounts Committee report recently, will not lead to long-term delay. I am confident that once we have done the electrification the rolling stock will be ready to fulfil the needs we all want it to fulfil.

[Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that people in Cumbria very much welcome the plans for electrification of the lakes line to Windermere and the benefits that will bring to the economy and the environment. Will he also consider the electrification of the Furness line from Lancaster to Barrow, which goes through my constituency? That would link the industrial centres of Barrow and the western Lake district to the main line.

[Mr McLoughlin]

Indeed, and when I was in my hon. Friend’s constituency in the summer I was made very much aware of the desire for that line to be electrified. One great thing that has happened in the railways is that the constant request of any Secretary of State now is for more services and better services. That just shows how important the railways are now to our national life, and I will look at the case he makes.

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

Will the Secretary of State tell me why under the current arrangements the electrification of the route to Hull will stop at Selby, which, as I am sure he knows, is several miles short of Hull? Will he do everything he can to support the Hull trains proposal to extend the electrification to Hull?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I could point out to the hon. Lady how much of the line was electrified by the previous Labour Government in 13 years: 10 miles, as opposed to the 880 miles that we are planning to electrify as part of our commitment to the railways. She is making yet another case for further electrification of an important line and I shall certainly look at the case again in detail.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will know that the welcome electrification of the midland main line will miss out the two stations in my constituency at Langley Mill and Alfreton. Will he consider the plans to complete that little section so that the whole line is electrified?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I had a meeting on Monday morning with the people operating the midland main line franchise and that particular issue was pointed out to me. We plan to electrify the whole line from St Pancras up to Sheffield, but my hon. Friend is right that part of it, which goes through his constituency, is missed out. I have no doubt that we will want to look at that as we are doing the rest of the line.

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

Last November, I asked the Secretary of State whether one of the intentions behind the electrification of the midland main line was to speed up journey times, in which case the line would need the new inter-city express trains and not the transfer of old rolling stock from the east coast line, which would be slower and would increase journey times. The Secretary of State could not answer me then. Can he tell me now whether the electrified midland main line will get the new rolling stock needed to speed up journey times, which is what we both want to see?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I travelled down on the line—in the cab, as it happens—on Monday morning and I saw some of the work that is going on for the planned electrification. A number of bridges are being replaced, which is necessary. That work is well under way and has started well. I will consider the questions about new rolling stock in due course when I come to consider the remaining period of the franchise.

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

5. What progress he has made on reviewing the structure of rail passenger fares.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The “Rail Fares and Ticketing: Next Steps” report was published on 9 October following a wide-ranging review and public consultation. It contains a number of measures to give passengers a better, more modern, and more flexible deal on fares and to improve the current ticketing system.

[Mr Buckland]

Swindon commuters who have no choice but to travel at peak times face increasing fares and want value for money. What plans does my hon. Friend have to increase flexibility and reduce costs for rail fare payers and season ticket holders?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. The train operating companies set the prices for season tickets and for fares. I recognise that Swindon is a popular commuting town that benefits from the frequent services on high-speed trains to London, Wales and the west country. Nevertheless, he is right and he will have noticed the announcement from the Government restricting “flex”, which means that none of his commuters will face a fare increase of more than 3% above inflation from January 2014.

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

15. In the autumn, East Coast achieved the highest passenger satisfaction rates since records began, so why are the Government wasting taxpayers’ time and money privatising that successful service rather than getting to grips with the cost of living crisis and this Government’s inflation-busting rail fare price rises?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will obviously have read the Brown report, which suggests that franchising is the best way to secure better deals and more investment for passengers. That is why we are continuing to franchise and are putting the east coast main line out to franchise.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

I remind my hon. Friend that commuters who are reliant on coming into London to work do not have any flexibility in their work times. What ideas does he have to get a better deal for commuters, who are a captive market and who have regulated fares?

[Stephen Hammond]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he did in contributing to the rail fares review. He will know that we have restricted fares to the retail prices index plus 1%, which “flex” has also reduced, so no one will pay more than 3% above RPI. He will also remember that the document suggests considering ways to provide season ticket holders with more flexible arrangements.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The Government’s fare review took 18 months and has delivered fare rises of up to 6%. That 6% is twice the rate of inflation and is cold comfort for commuters struggling as their incomes fall in real terms. Is that really the best the Minister can do for commuters struggling with the Government’s cost of living crisis?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will know that the formula for regulated fares is RPI plus 1%. Unlike her Government, we have reduced flexibility to 2%. We have made that permanent, something that the Government of the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), who is shouting from the opposite Bench, did not do. She may just wish to remember this, which was in the franchise arrangement from 1 January 2011:

“the amendment to the Franchise Agreement set out in this notice of amendment shall be reversed.”

They did not scrap it; they put it in place for one year only.

[Mary Creagh]

The Department for Transport announced in September that it would cap standard return fares at £500. Given that no one will benefit from that £500 fare cap, is that not just another example of the Minister’s smoke and mirrors on fares?

[Stephen Hammond]

A number of things were announced in that review. The fare cap was a voluntary initiative put in place by the rail industry. We have not assessed, and nor has anyone else, how many passengers will benefit from that. We have also announced a reduction in the fares “basket flex”, a trial of single-leg pricing for off-peak returns, a trial of flexible ticketing, including discounted fares in quieter periods, and a new code of practice on ticketing information.

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

14. Can my hon. Friend assure me that everything is being done to reduce the cost of running the railways and the inefficiencies that the previous Government left behind so that we can move towards an era of no above-inflation rises?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am delighted to confirm to my hon. Friend that the package of measures that we have worked up will continue to bear down on the cost of running the railways. We recognise the cost of living and the implications of fare increases. That is why the Government are doing something to help commuters and anyone travelling on the railways. It is noticeable that Passenger Focus recommended the recent package that the Government put forward.

[John Stevenson (Carlisle) (Con)]

6. What steps he is taking to increase the volume of freight carried by rail.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government support the transfer of freight from road to rail. We are investing £400 million in rail freight infrastructure for the investment period out to 2014. The rail freight grant is helping to remove more than 800,000 lorry journeys. Ultimately, rail freight needs more capacity on our network, which is why we are taking forward High Speed 2.

[John Stevenson]

In Carlisle we have DRS—Direct Rail Services—a very successful rail freight company that is looking to expand. Can the Minister assure me that everything will be done to ensure that companies such as DRS are given every opportunity to expand not just their volume but their capacity?

[Stephen Hammond]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on highlighting the work of DRS. It is indeed a very successful rail freight company. The Government are committed to the growth of the rail freight industry, and we recognise the contribution that companies such as DRS make. We are continuing to look for every opportunity to support the expansion of the freight industry and encourage transfer to rail where it is practical, economic and environmentally sustainable.

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

Will the Minister engage with his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills? A number of key companies in my constituency are losing competitiveness because they cannot move their goods fast enough across the UK into mainland Europe, in particular because there are huge blockages at the top end of the M6. A little bit of joined-up thinking could radically improve Britain’s competitiveness. Will he do something about it?

[Stephen Hammond]

This Government are known for their joined-up thinking, so if the hon. Gentleman wishes to write to me about the particular problem in his constituency, I will look at it and speak to my colleagues in BIS.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that the wise decision to invest £45 million in redoubling the Kemble to Swindon railway line is a huge improvement, not just for passengers but for freight? Does this not reinforce the point that this Government invest not only in HS2, which is right, but in the existing network?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is right. We have consistently made the point that we are not only investing in High Speed 2 but that we are investing £37 billion in improvements across the network. He is right to pick out that example, which illustrates exactly what the Government have been saying—that capacity is being added across the network.

[Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North) (Lab)]

The Minister will be aware that 80% of freight in Britain goes by road, both cross-channel and within Britain, and that serious modal shift from road to rail cannot take place until the railways are capable of taking lorry trailers on trains. Will he look seriously at schemes for investing in rail freight capacity capable of taking lorries on trains?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Gentleman is aware, of course, that there has been a huge increase of some 60% in rail freight over the past 10 years. The capacity that is being added will add the prospect and the potential for extra rail freight and extra transference from road to rail. If there are serious schemes, we will look at them, but they would have to justify the economic business case and provide better value than the capacity that we are adding, which will allow that transfer from road to rail.

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

Today the new London Gateway port receives its first ship. As my hon. Friend knows, its ambition is to transport many of the materials that come into the new port by rail freight. Will he ensure that Network Rail looks carefully at the provision of level crossings across Thurrock so that our road network is not disrupted by the increased volume of freight trains using the network?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend is a well-known and doughty campaigner for her constituency, which is why I have had the pleasure of visiting it several times in the past couple of years. I will of course look seriously at that and speak to Network Rail. It is essential that that new port is a success.

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

7. What recent assessment he has made of the quality of bus services outside London.

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

Passenger Focus research shows that customer satisfaction with bus journeys is high—84% of passengers are satisfied with their service. The Government set out their programme for further improving bus services in “Green Light for Better Buses”, which was published in 2012. Our proposals include reforming bus subsidy, improving competition and making buses easier to use for everyone.

[Alison McGovern]

As we have heard a little this morning, Members could probably talk for hours about rail fares, but what about bus fares, especially those outside London? Will the Minister tell the House what has happened to bus fares outside London on his Government’s watch, and what impact the removal of the bus service operators grant had?

[Mr Goodwill]

Bus fares have been rising for several years above inflation, although many operators and councils across the country are working together and separately to provide good deals. The picture is variable and reflects local circumstances. We are working with the sector to see what can be achieved to make sure that buses are accessible to as many people as possible, given the social and economic importance of bus travel.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Given the major changes in the rural population over the past 100 years, which has made it increasingly difficult to provide an effective service based on the traditional mid-20th century model of rural bus services that is currently used, what research has the Department done to look at alternative 21st-century methods of providing a decent bus service in rural areas?

[Mr Goodwill]

I have already pointed out that in 2011 and 2012 we provided a total of £20 million in additional funding for rural areas. In some rural areas which are sparsely populated, there may be alternative solutions, such as dial-a-ride, car sharing or similar schemes, which may be more appropriate for the more remote rural areas.

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

While the number of bus passengers falls and fares rise, this Government have stopped the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency, which checked bus operators’ punctuality, doing so properly. People need to know how reliable their buses are, as will the new local transport bodies planning their services, so why are Ministers keeping consumers clueless and local transport bodies toothless?

[Mr Goodwill]

Bus users are all too aware of reliability; they use services if they are reliable. It will be interesting to see how the policy in Liverpool, which is getting rid of bus priority schemes and bus lanes, will impact on the reliability of services and how much they are used.

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

8. What assessment he has made of recent trends in road accident statistics.

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

The Department for Transport’s 2012 statistics show that the number of people killed in accidents reported to the police has decreased by 7.7%, from 1,901 in 2011 to 1,754 in 2012, the lowest figure on record, and today’s figures show further progress.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. He will be aware that 16% of all road deaths in Britain are caused by drink-driving, and that is after a 17% increase between 2011 and 2012. What are the Government doing to improve road safety by dealing with repeat drink-drivers? He will know that that is the subject of my ten-minute rule Bill, which is listed for a Second Reading on 22 November.

[Mr Goodwill]

We have introduced measures to ensure that anyone disqualified for drink-driving twice in 10 years will be classed as a high-risk offender. High-risk offenders cannot get their licence back until doctors are satisfied that they are medically fit to drive again. The figures that my hon. Friend mentions are of concern, but they are against a trend of ever-reducing levels of fatality on our roads involving drink-driving.

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

The biggest killers of young people in the UK are road crashes. The Government have been promising a Green Paper, not a White Paper, on graduated licensing for young drivers since the spring. When are we likely to see it?

[Mr Goodwill]

It is absolutely true that while young people make up 8% of drivers and account for 5% of miles driven on our roads, they account for 18% of accidents. We will publish the Green Paper before the end of the year.

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

The big increase in deaths related to drink-driving on the roads shows that we are not winning the battle against drink-driving. Is it not simply time to show our commitment to tackling drink-driving by introducing the recommendations of the North review and reducing the drink-driving limit?

[Mr Goodwill]

Many countries in Europe have a lower drink-driving limit, but they also have lower penalties. I believe it would be a mistake to reduce our gold-standard penalty of disqualification for drink-driving, which could lead some people to perceive drink-driving as being on the same level as speeding or parking offences.

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

May I welcome the Minister to his new post? He mentioned the road casualty statistics published today. Is it not also the case that there was a 4% increase in the number of motorcyclists killed or seriously injured and a 12% increase in the number of cyclists killed or injured on our roads? The day after we heard of a further tragedy, is it not time, as we approach road safety week, for the Minister to tune into road safety himself, put the vulnerable first and introduce clear targets to cut the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads?

[Mr Goodwill]

I in turn welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and look forward to sparring with him across the Dispatch Box. There are certainly concerns about motorcycle deaths—motorcycles are particularly dangerous. We have targeted motorcyclists, in particular, in our Think! campaign. Of course, in some cases motorcycle deaths are very much related to the weather. In north Yorkshire, certainly, when we have a nice summer there are, sadly, an awful lot more motorcycle casualties. It is of concern that we are seeing more cycling casualties, and I have noted some of the accidents in London involving heavy lorries and cyclists. Some of that is due to the fact that there has been a big increase in the number of people cycling, but it is of concern and we are targeting our information campaigns on motorcyclists and cyclists.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to improve existing railway stations and build new stations.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

The Government have allocated some £550 million to the new Stations Improvement and Access for All programmes for the period to 2014, which have led to improvements at over 500 stations. For the next control period, from 2014 to 2019, a further £200 million has been allocated to improve stations and station access in England and Wales. The Government have also allocated £20 million through the new stations fund. Four successful proposals are now being built and a fifth is under consideration.

[Stuart Andrew]

I am grateful to the Minister for that answer. Will he update us on the progress being made on the new and much-needed Apperley Bridge and Kirkstall stations, which are crucial to alleviating chronic congestion in my constituency? May I also lend my support to the suggestion my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) made about the electrification of the Harrogate to Knaresborough line, which would help commuters in the Horsforth area?

[Stephen Hammond]

Apperley Bridge is part of the Leeds growth package promoted by the West Yorkshire passenger transport executive, and it has received programme entry funding from the major local transport schemes budget. The Department is expecting to receive the PTE’s submission of a business case for final approval in spring 2014. I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for the electrification of the Leeds-Horsforth-Harrogate line, although Apperley Bridge is not on that line but on the already electrified Leeds-Bradford Forster Square line.

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

13. In the past fortnight, East Riding of Yorkshire council has commenced a £50,000 improvement of the subways at Goole station. We want Network Rail to contribute to this improvement to make it a lot better. If I provide the Minister with details, will he help me to lobby Network Rail to get that additional funding?

[Stephen Hammond]

My hon. Friend will be aware that funding for almost all these schemes comes through the new local growth fund, which is being used to finance transport improvements up and down the country, but of course, if he cares to provide me with the details, I am happy to meet him to discuss them.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

10. What recent assessment he has made of East Coast Main Line Ltd’s financial performance.

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

My officials regularly meet representatives of East Coast Main Line and Directly Operated Railways to discuss the performance of the franchise. DOR’s financial accounts are published on its website annually. On 24 October, I announced the start of the competition for a new private sector partner for InterCity East Coast and published a prospectus for the East Coast Main Line business, which included an assessment of its financial performance.

[Mrs McGuire]

I thank the Secretary of State for his answer. Will he confirm that while German, Dutch and French railway companies will be allowed to tender for the new franchise, a successful British company that is currently operating the franchise will not be allowed to do so?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I refer the right hon. Lady back to the time when she was a supporting member of the previous Government, when the then Secretary of State said:

“I do not believe that it would be in the public interest for us to have a nationalised train operating company indefinitely…because of our recent experience on rail franchising”.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 1 July 2009; Vol. 712, c. 232.]

Rail franchising has led to the biggest growth in rail usage in this country that we have ever seen—up from 750 million to 1.5 billion passenger journeys. I want that improvement to continue, and that is why huge investment is going into the east coast main line.

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

12. The publicly run east coast main line franchise will have returned £800 million to the taxpayer by the end of this financial year, and all its profits are reinvested in the service. Why are the coalition Government privatising this successful public operator, given that the previous two private operators failed?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I pointed out to the right hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), I am following the policies that have taken the rail industry from 750 million to 1.5 billion passenger journeys. I am happy to speak for the passengers and for all the people who work on the railways; it seems as though Labour Members are happy to speak just for the union barons. They can speak for the barons; I will speak for the workers, the consumers and the people who use our railways.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

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

[The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr Patrick McLoughlin)]

We have started consultations on our plans to reform the Highways Agency into a Government-owned company, backed by legislation, to achieve greater efficiency as we treble our capital spending on the strategic road network. Significant efforts have been made this year across road, rail and aviation to boost resilience and preparedness for the winter months. This week, the Highways Agency began its “Make time for winter” campaign, with practical advice for drivers. Local highways authorities are holding robust salt stocks and will enter the winter with a healthy supply.

[Heidi Alexander]

The Government’s policy on rail fares will offer scant consolation to my constituents, who not only have to travel on unbearably overcrowded trains into central London but in the past two years have been asked to pay £100 more for their annual season ticket. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that above-inflation increases in rail fares will be matched by a comparable increase in capacity?

[Mr McLoughlin]

There is a problem, but we are investing record amounts in the rail industry. Over the next five years, Network Rail will invest some £38 billion in the railway network. Those are very significant investments that are bringing on new rolling stock and better capacity and efficiency to try to help people who are suffering. I do accept, particularly where there is overcrowding, that we need to try to do more to help those consumers.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

T2. The electrification of the midland main line through Kettering is extremely welcome, but the immediate consequence for Kettering residents is the complete closure of the Pytchley Road bridge as it is changed to accommodate the new overhead wires. That means that the main access route into Kettering from the south will be completely closed for three months over the Christmas period. Will the Secretary of State ensure that Network Rail completes this job on time by the end of February 2014?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I well understand the concerns raised by my hon. Friend. This is one of the problems when major work is done on the railways. As he may have heard earlier, I travelled in the cab of one of those trains on Monday to see some of the work that is already ongoing in preparation for the electrification of the whole line. There will be some disruption—that is unavoidable. Nottingham station was closed for five weeks over the summer, but the whole job was done on time and it actually came in £5 million below budget.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

T3. The Secretary of State will be aware that there has been significant disruption on the east coast main line because of infrastructure failure. I think we have now had three Mondays on which there has been significant disruption, and a fortnight ago 30,000 passengers were stranded, some for five or six hours, while repairs were carried out. The east coast main line was electrified on the cheap—many engineers tell us that, and there has been severe disruption. Can we do something about it, please?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point. It relates to what we are doing with HS2 to increase capacity in the longer term, although that is not the short-term answer he wants. I was disturbed to read the reports about the delays on the line, and I will talk to Network Rail to see if there is anything we can do.

[Peter Luff (Mid Worcestershire) (Con)]

T4. The high speed of High Speed 2 will depend on the high technology of a new generation of civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers and many others. May I challenge a member of the ministerial Front Bench to come upstairs with me, after Question Time, to the Bloodhound supersonic car simulator to see whether they can beat the very creditable speed of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) and learn about what the product is doing to inspire a new generation of children about the opportunities for British engineering?

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

I am delighted to accept that invitation, particularly because on Sunday I took part in the oldest motoring event in the world, driving from London to Brighton in six hours. The speed of the Bloodhound will be a great experience, I am sure.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure an invitation to come upstairs beats an invitation to come outside.

[Steve Rotheram (Liverpool, Walton) (Lab)]

T7. I am basically supportive of HS2 proposals, although I am becoming increasingly concerned about the project the more I read the specific detail of regional benefits. Will the Secretary of State assure me that Liverpool will get a spur to increase capacity and ensure greater connectivity with our ports so that the whole city region can benefit?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman seems to be having second thoughts. The mayor of Liverpool is certainly not having second thoughts and is a big supporter of the project. The truth is that once the high-speed line goes to Manchester, it will then go on to Liverpool. That will be very important for Liverpool, but it will also get the benefits from phase 1. Parts of Kent that are not served by the line benefit from the capacity and the trains.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

T5. I am extremely grateful to have got here, having been stuck outside Clapham Junction station. May I seek assurances from the Department that it will work closely with major transport infrastructure such as Gatwick airport and those who operate the M23 and the London to Brighton rail line to ensure that there is winter preparedness?

[Mr Goodwill]

We continue to invest in third rail heating, to ensure the reliability of our rail services. Gatwick airport has the advantage over Heathrow, in that it has capacity to put snow ploughs on the runway without disrupting flights in the same way. As I said in my evidence to the Transport Committee only a week or so ago, we have good winter resilience, with more snow ploughs and more salt, and we are confident that the Highways Agency and local authorities can keep the roads clear.

[Bridget Phillipson (Houghton and Sunderland South) (Lab)]

In Tyne and Wear, a consultation process is currently under way on introducing quality contracts for local bus services. Does the Minister agree that bus companies should be investing in local services rather than wasting vast sums on misleading and scaremongering attacks?

[Mr Goodwill]

We continue to keep the option of quality contracts open to local authorities. In the spirit of localism, it is their decision if they want to use them. I think that the better bus contract is a better model, but if local authorities want to follow the model that is used in London, they may do so.

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

T6. The Secretary of State has been very kind to the East Riding in respect of pinch-point funding. I urge him to extend his kindness to the other side of the Humber and support the pinch-point funding bids from North Lincolnshire council, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Martin Vickers) and I are very supportive, and in particular the bid that relates to Humberside airport.

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency to look at one of the pinch-point schemes that has received funding and will take any representations about other schemes into account.

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

Although the reduction in road accident fatalities is warmly to be welcomed, what plans does the Department have to make cycling safer, given the increase in cycling fatalities not only in London, but beyond, which has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden)? When will the Secretary of State encourage the creation of segregated cycle paths?

[Mr McLoughlin]

We all want local authority highways agencies to give greater consideration to cycling. After meeting British Cycling a few weeks ago, I instructed the Highways Agency that all the highways schemes that it comes forward with must be cycle-proofed. There are some irresponsible drivers and some irresponsible cyclists. We all have a responsibility to get the message across to everybody: “Be careful on our roads.”

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

T8. How can the Secretary of State reassure the people of Bristol, who want enhanced branch lines, that having HS2 for London and the north will not mean that the south-west is left out? Will he look positively at bids to reopen the Henbury loop line in north Bristol?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The development of HS2 does not mean that the people of Bristol and the south-west will be left out. HS2 is part of a bigger boost to our transport system and will make up less than a quarter of the transport investment in the next Parliament. I am always interested in talking to my hon. Friends about the schemes that they are promoting in their constituencies and I am more than happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her scheme in greater detail.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the Minister agree that as we approach the Christmas period, more use should be made of the media, and television in particular, to underline the zero-tolerance message on drink-driving? Will he consider running such a campaign in conjunction with all the regions of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Mr Goodwill]

We regularly publicise the issue of drink-driving, particularly in the run-up to Christmas, and will continue to do so. I do not know whether the problem is worse in Northern Ireland than elsewhere, but I am sure that the devolved Government will push the same line as us.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

According to a report by the transport consultants, Atkins, enhancements to capacity, line speed and service quality on the great eastern main line could bring an extra £3.7 billion into the economy. Will the Minister confirm that the recommendations of the East Anglia rail prospectus, which is backed by MPs from across the region, will be progressed at the earliest possible opportunity?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Stephen Hammond)]

I congratulate those who put a considerable amount of work and effort into unifying the stakeholders in East Anglia and producing that excellent document. It contains a huge number of recommendations. I will continue to engage with MPs and others to ensure that we complete the process, that their voices are heard and that we understand the benefits of the recommendations.

[Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)]

The A67, which runs through my constituency between Darlington and Barnard Castle, is a major bus route. It recently suffered from a major landslip at Carlbury banks, which is severely disrupting bus services. Will a Minister meet my hon. Friends the Members for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and for Darlington (Jenny Chapman) and me to see whether any funding can be made available from the pinch-point fund?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I was in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency last Friday for the start of work on the new Hitachi site, which will build new trains for the east coast and Great Western lines. I am sorry to hear about the problems that he is having with part of his highways network. We will be happy to talk to him in due course.

[Nick de Bois (Enfield North) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will be aware that the M25, which spans my constituency from junction 23 to junction 25, has had a serious spike in fatal accidents, which included the tragic deaths of three people and two young girls during the course of one week. Will he urgently investigate the causes of those accidents, which might include the road management measures during the road expansion works, and let me know what he finds as soon as possible?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend has already written to me about this issue, and brought my attention to those appalling incidents that caused the death of those people, and the families who were affected, as well as incredible disruption to his area. I want a full investigation into whether the points he has raised had any bearings on those accidents.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

1. If the Commission will establish a Members’ consultation group for the work on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North)]

I shall answer for the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

Last year the House of Commons Commission invited the right hon. Member for Saffron Walden (Sir Alan Haselhurst) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and West Fife (Thomas Docherty) to join two Members of the House of Lords as an informal consultation group for the pre-feasibility study on the restoration and renewal of the Palace of Westminster. That group is not a decision-making body; its purpose is to ensure that the programme team has a good understanding of the range of Members’ views and requirements, and that that is reflected in the final formal proposals.

[Pauline Latham]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. I am not sure whether he said that there are Members of the House of Commons on that advisory body, as I could not quite hear. If there are not, would it be possible to include them? I have strong opinions on this issue as, I am sure, do many other Members of the House. I would like an assurance that the House will be consulted and kept up to date on progress.

[Mr Doran]

There are already two Members of the House of Commons on the informal committee, and there may be a third. There are currently three Members of the House of Lords. The hon. Lady is right and it is crucial that Members are kept advised. That will be done through the normal channels, and all relevant committees will be advised. If she is interested—I know her commitment to this issue—and would like to meet the project manager, that would be perfectly possible.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

What is the latest estimate for the cost of restoring and renewing the Palace of Westminster? If the cheapest and quickest option is to close the place down and do it in one go, is that a route the hon. Gentleman would be kind enough to advance?

[Mr Doran]

I am sorry I did not catch the question, but no decisions have been made except to appoint advisers and consultants who will advise on the options. Those options will be considered in the next Parliament, and the final decision will be taken by both Houses. There will be an immense amount of consultation and, of course, interest from Members of both Houses.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Pat Glass (North West Durham) (Lab)]

2. What recent assessment he has made of the performance of each Government Department in answering written parliamentary questions.

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

My office collates departmental performance information for ordinary and named day parliamentary questions, which I submit for each Session to the Procedure Committee. I provided data on the last Session to that Committee in July, and those are available on the parliamentary website.

[Pat Glass]

Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Department for Education remains the most poorly performing Department and is getting worse, and will he say what is being done about it?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will be aware from information on the parliamentary website of the relative position of Departments, including the Department for Education. The Procedure Committee held evidence-taking sessions with the Secretary of State and the permanent secretary, and the Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), has written to that Department. The context of that correspondence was that performance was poor but had improved in recent weeks. I stress that over the past Session, more Departments have increased their performance in responding to written questions than have deteriorated. It was possible, however, for the Department with the largest number of such questions—the Department of Health—to achieve a 99% response rate.

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

3. What his policy is on extending pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills.

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

The Government are committed, wherever possible, to publishing draft legislation for pre-legislative scrutiny. We published 17 draft Bills or sets of draft measures in the last Session, which is more than any other Government in any Session.

[Chi Onwurah]

Following last week’s announcement of a pause in proceedings on the reviled gagging Bill and the previous pause in the equally reviled Health and Social Care Bill, can the Leader of the House confirm whether this form of legislative coitus interruptus is becoming his preferred form of parliamentary planned parenthood?

[Tom Brake]

Clearly it is not. As I have stated, we have a very good track record with the largest number of Bills in pre-legislative scrutiny of any Government in any Session. In relation to what has happened in the Lords, they wanted more time and that is exactly what the Government have provided.

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

Does my right hon. Friend agree that pre-legislative scrutiny allows consultation while legislation is more easily amended, and allows politicians and stakeholders to give their opinions? Will he commend the work of the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee, a joint Committee with the House of Lords, on the Deregulation Bill, which I have the honour to serve on?

[Tom Brake]

I will certainly do that. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a very positive opportunity for stakeholders to contribute. As I stated, the Government have been very positive in providing those opportunities to a large number of stakeholders in no fewer than 17 draft Bills.

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

In the light of the completely unconvincing answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) by the Deputy Leader of the House, will he explain exactly how he plans to make use of this wonderful new parliamentary invention, the pause stage, to respond to widespread concerns about the lack of pre-legislative scrutiny of the provisions in the gagging Bill?

[Tom Brake]

I am not quite sure what the hon. Lady means by “the gagging Bill”. If she is referring to the transparency Bill, she will be aware that the lobbying aspect did have pre-legislative scrutiny, and she should be aware that the Government have responded, for instance, to Select Committee reports on this subject and engaged with a very large number of organisations that have a strong interest in this Bill.

[Charlie Elphicke (Dover) (Con)]

4. What assessment he has made of options for the reform of Private Members’ Bill procedure.

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

The Government are considering the recommendations contained in the report published by the Procedure Committee on 2 September and will respond shortly.

[Charlie Elphicke]

Will the Deputy Leader of the House join me in congratulating the Procedure Committee on an excellent report and consider implementing its recommendations for the timetabling of private Members’ Bills so that Back Benchers voices will be properly heard in this place?

[Tom Brake]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on pursuing these matters as vigorously as he does in relation to private Members’ Bills. I am afraid that I am not in a position today to tell him that the Government have responded, but I can tell him that we will respond very shortly to the Procedure Committee’s report, and indeed it contains some sound and strong recommendations that I am sure we will want to consider carefully.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Is it not the case that if 100 MPs turn up for a closure motion on a Friday they can ensure the progress of any Bill, which is not a great number out of 650 if it has such widespread support? Hon. Members should not expect to turn up with some well-meaning claptrap and expect it to be nodded through just because it is a Friday.

[Tom Brake]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right that the use of a closure motion and, indeed, timetabling is possible for private Members’ Bills, but it is also worth pointing out that the Procedure Committee has said in its report that it is not its intention to facilitate the passage of Bills into law, and that it should not be easy to see a private Member’s Bill become law.

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

Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that regardless of the procedures used to deal with private Members’ Bills, such a Bill is extremely unlikely to reach the statute book unless it has the express or at least tacit approval of the Government?

[Tom Brake]

I can assure my hon. Friend that there have been examples in the past—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House secured a private Member’s Bill in opposition—so there are opportunities even for Opposition Members to push private Members’ Bills through, although clearly having the support of the Government is helpful.

[Mr David Crausby (Bolton North East) (Lab)]

5. When the Government plan to respond to the e-petition created by the hon. Member for Bolton North East on grass-roots football.

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

The delay in response to the hon. Gentleman’s query was unacceptable, as has been acknowledged. However, I can confirm that a response has now been published on the Government e-petitions site. Petitions that reach the 10,000 signature threshold should receive a response from the Government within 30 days.

[Mr Crausby]

I did indeed receive a response to my petition just after midnight on Tuesday morning, within hours of this oral question being published—two facts that I am sure are not remotely connected.

On a serious point, given the billions of pounds available from football on television, will the Government put pressure on the Football Association to spend more of that money on grass-roots football, especially for children, as opposed to even more outrageous wages for top professional footballers?

[Tom Brake]

I am not sure that that is a question for a Deputy Leader of the House, but I will ensure that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport is aware of the hon. Gentleman’s concern. I would certainly echo his suggestion, however, that we need strong investment in grass-roots football. He might be aware that the Premier League will be investing about £168 million in grass-roots football over the next three years, which is something that hon. Members on both sides of the House would want to encourage it to do.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen North, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

6. If he will make a comparative assessment of the service provided by (a) Nexis news service currently in use in the House of Commons and (b) Factiva news service; and if he will make a statement.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North)]

The Nexis and Factiva services, along with the online news services offered by the bidders, were assessed as part of the open procurement process carried out in 2011. The position will be reassessed in 2015, when a decision will be required on whether to extend the current contract for a further two years or retender the service

[Michael Fabricant]

We really do need to have this issue reconsidered. When we changed from the Factiva to the Nexis service, we found that some newspapers were being reported on three days late and that we were not getting any reports from, among other newspapers, The Sun, The Times or The Sunday Times, whereas Factiva was comprehensive in its coverage. The House of Commons and the taxpayer could save money by dumping Nexis now because it provides an inadequate service for Members of Parliament. Please let us have Factiva back. At least it works.

[Mr Doran]

In the current economic climate, we have to look for value for money, and when the contract was tended, the difference between the bids, which was substantial, amounted to a £500,000 saving over the life of the contract. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, however; there is a real issue with News International newspapers not being available on the service, although the Library continues to negotiate with News International. He will also be aware that some members of the Library have individual subscriptions, and these can be accessed.

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

7. If the Commission will take steps to enable hon. Members to receive in their Commons offices live regional BBC and other regional television news programmes covering constituencies outside London and the south-east in place of Sky Sports channels.

[Mr Frank Doran (Aberdeen North) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has been dogged in her efforts to get her local BBC news shown here, and I am delighted to tell her that work to expand and modernise the Annunciator service is currently under way with the intention of switching to a digital service, following the national digital switchover, to ensure compatibility with television services such as subtitles. The upgrade will also provide the opportunity to develop the service, and it is proposed that the channels available be expanded to include all regional BBC 1 channels, whose broadcasts include regional news programmes, and some key international channels.

[Diana Johnson]

At the moment, our constituents have to pay £50 a month to get Sky Sports beamed into their own homes, otherwise they have to go down the pub, so I am not sure why we have it beamed into all our offices on the parliamentary estate. I am pleased that we are finally dealing with the need of MPs with constituencies outside London and the south-east to have access to our regional TV news programmes, but when will this actually happen?

[Mr Doran]

On the last point, we hope that the service will be provided next year. On the other point, Sky Sports is provided free by Sky, so we do not actually pay for it, but all my hon. Friend’s other points will be dealt with.

The Leader of the House was asked—

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

8. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues on making statements in the House before making such statements in the media.

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

The ministerial code is clear that when Parliament is in session the most important announcements of Government policy should be made first to Parliament. I regularly remind my colleagues of this.

[Heidi Alexander]

Will the Leader of the House give me his word that the autumn statement will not be leaked to the media in advance, as happened with the Budget this year?

[Mr Lansley]

The House will recall the inquiry that took place into the pre-announcement or pre-leaking of material relating to the Budget and will recall equally the assurances that the Chancellor and I gave at this Dispatch Box that that would not happen in future.

Petition

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I am presenting a petition of 1,298 signatures from the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Puriton, Somerset,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the proposed redevelopment of the old Royal Ordnance Factory site is unacceptable on grounds of air pollution, noise, village access, visual impact and the overall character of the development.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take note of the plans in advance of consideration by the local planning authority.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001275]

Speaker’s Statement

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

10:34

[Mr Speaker]

I remind the House that Monday is 11 November, Armistice day. Although the House is not sitting in the morning, many of us will be on the estate, performing our parliamentary duties. At 11 o’clock on Monday, I regard it as appropriate that we and staff working for us should join the nation in observing the two-minute silence so that we might remember those who gave their lives for their country to help preserve our democratic freedoms. Instructions will be issued to heads of House Departments so that those members of staff who wish to observe the two minute silence may do so.

Business of the House

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

10.35 am

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

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

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

The business for next week will be:

Monday 11 November—Second Reading of the Offender Rehabilitation Bill [Lords], followed by a debate on a reasoned opinion relating to the regulation of new psychoactive substances.

Tuesday 12 November—Opposition day [11th allotted day]. There will be a full day’s debate entitled “Abolition of the Bedroom Tax”. The debate will arise on an Opposition motion.

I would like to remind colleagues that this year Parliament week will run from 15 to 21 November. The week will launch with the annual sitting in this Chamber of the UK Youth Parliament on Friday 15 November.

The business for the week commencing 18 November will be:

Monday 18 November—Remaining stages of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, followed by a motion to approve a carry-over extension on the Energy Bill, followed by a general debate on police procedures in dealing with mental health issues. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Tuesday 19 November—Opposition day [12th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion, subject to be announced.

Wednesday 20 November—Remaining stages of the Defence Reform Bill.

Thursday 21 November—A debate on a motion relating to the finances of the House of Commons, followed by a debate on a motion relating to the implementation of new legislation on stalking. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 22 November—Private Members’ Bills.

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 21 November, 5 and 12 December will be:

Thursday 21 November—Debate on the first report of the Committees on Arms Export Controls on the scrutiny of arms exports and arms control.

Thursday 5 December—Debate on the second report of the Education Select Committee on the role of school governing bodies, followed by a debate on the third report of the Education Select Committee on school sport following London 2012.

Thursday 12 December—Debate on the first report of the International Development Select Committee on global food security, followed by a debate on the second report of the International Development Select Committee on violence against women and girls.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for announcing next week’s business. I am looking forward to attending the sitting of the Youth Parliament next week. May I take this opportunity to remember the sacrifice of our armed forces as we approach Remembrance Sunday? We all wear our poppies with pride.

This morning, the Public Accounts Committee has published a devastating report on the Government’s flagship benefit reform, citing a shocking failure to manage it and predicting that the Department for Work and Pensions will have to write off a substantial part of the £425 million it has already spent. It seems that the blame game for this costly fiasco has already started. This morning we learn of a wholly improper attempt to lean on members of an independent Select Committee of this House by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and his parliamentary team to try to put the blame on the permanent secretary. Can we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions about these very serious allegations?

While the majority face a cost of living crisis, it has been reported in the Daily Mirror today that the Prime Minister has cut his own household bills by nearly £400 a year while refusing to support our motion yesterday for an energy price freeze for everyone else. That tells us everything about who he is standing up for. Will the Leader of the House now confirm how much less the Prime Minister is paying on his home as a result of the top-rate tax cut?

In evidence to the Health Select Committee, the chief executive of NHS England said that the NHS was becoming

“bogged down in a morass of competition law”,

following the Government’s botched, £3 billion top-down reorganisation. Given that the Leader of the House had his fingerprints all over that one, does he agree with that analysis?

The Leader of the House must also have felt a sense of déjà vu as he was forced into a humiliating climb-down on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill in the Lords this week. Perhaps he is trying to patent a new way of doing Bills. First Reading—outcry; Second Reading—lose the argument but stubbornly refuse to listen; go to the Lords—hit the emergency pause button and say that he will do all the things he should have done before he published the Bill in the first place. This is just like what happened on the Health and Social Care Bill. Everyone who will be affected by the lobbying Bill opposes it. Just like on the health Bill, he cannot make the case for his proposals because there is no case for them; and just like on the health Bill, he is disguising his true intentions because he knows he has no public support. Will the Leader of the House tell us how he intends to use the next six weeks to “listen, pause and reflect” on the lobbying Bill, and will he commit now to making the substantial changes that this sinister gagging Bill needs? Better still, why does he not just scrap it and start again?

We all know that the Prime Minister does not seem to like answering questions from the Opposition very much during his Wednesday outings. Yesterday, he told three of my hon. Friends that he did not have the answers to hand. He did not know the total number of people in the country on zero-hours contacts; he did not know how many of his so-called new private sector jobs involved zero-hours contracts; and he decided that the appropriate way to respond to a question about the rights of pregnant women not to be sacked was to have a cheap shot at trade union general secretaries. Is it not time we renamed Prime Minister’s questions “I’m sorry I haven’t a clue”?

This week, the Government were forced by the courts to keep the independent living fund up and running, and they lost yet another vote in the other place on the Energy Bill, despite stuffing the Chamber with their friends. They have also now lost two terror suspects: one escaped in a black cab, the other dressed as a woman. And on Monday, the Communities Secretary welcomed a report that called for sheep and cows to replace council lawnmowers. I know that I call this Government Orwellian, but I was not suggesting a production of “Animal Farm”.

Last week, we discovered that there had been a 50% rise in the number of special advisers, despite the coalition agreement promising to cut them. We also discovered that the Deputy Prime Minister had 19 special advisers, costing over £1 million a year. This week, despite the uproar, the Deputy Prime Minister decided that the best thing to do was to hire another one, to do his PR. We have had the famous five, and we have had the magnificent seven. Even the Messiah only had 12! What on earth does the Deputy Prime Minister need 20 for? Does the Leader of the House agree that the Deputy Prime Minister is not the Messiah—he’s a very naughty boy?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House, and I join her in remembering the fallen, as will Members right across the House, both here and in our constituencies on Sunday. Many families will remember not only those who fell but those who have served this country, including those who made the ultimate sacrifice.

The shadow Leader of the House made a point about universal credit. The Public Accounts Committee report deals with historical matters, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department for Work and Pensions have already taken steps to secure the safe and sound delivery of the programme on time and on budget. She also referred to certain reports, which I have seen. I have talked to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and I can tell the House that there is no need for a statement. I can tell her and the House that there is no truth—[Interruption.] I can tell the House now that there is no truth in the allegations about talking to members of the Public Accounts Committee. I talked to the Secretary of State and I can tell the House that.

I spoke to my good friend, the chief executive of NHS England, on the Committee corridor. As for

“a morass of competition law”,

I do not think that is true. We do not share the same view. As it happens, the Health and Social Care Act 2012 did not change the structure of competition law as it applies to the NHS, except in so far as it introduced a concurrent jurisdiction for Monitor, a health-related body, to exercise, as opposed to competition authorities doing so directly. The Health and Social Care Act has enabled us to deliver £5.5 billion-worth of savings in administration costs in this Parliament and to support the NHS in delivering, for example, 23,000 fewer administrators and 4,000 more clinicians.

On the transparency Bill, no pause is taking place—[Interruption.] I am telling Opposition Members what is happening. The order of consideration in the House of Lords is quite understandable, given that peers wanted the opportunity to consider in detail issues relating to part 2—part 1 and part 3 will be considered first, and part 2 will be considered later in December. That is perfectly sensible. We will engage fully. My noble Friend signalled an amendment in the House of Lords that relates to the structure of the registration thresholds. We will look at what is being proposed—if changes are proposed to part 2, we will look at them—but in the context of delivering through the transparency Bill, what we should all agree on, and this House agreed in principle, is that when third parties seek to influence the political system, whether it be through lobbying or through campaigning at election time, or when the trade unions are seeking to exert influence, it should be subject to proper transparency and accountability. Nobody is being gagged, but the transparency must be there. We must see how third parties influence the political system.

I did not draw up a complete list of all the points that the shadow Leader of the House raised—[Interruption.] The Deputy Leader of the House is quite right—I am not sure whether I should respond to jokes rather than to questions. In that context, the only other question was about zero-hours contracts—

[Ms Eagle]

What about the special advisers?

[Mr Lansley]

Oh, yes—the special advisers. I think it is the same answer as last week. The coalition gives rise to particular requirements, and it is perfectly understandable that when two parties are in coalition there is a need for sources of independent advice for the Deputy Prime Minister. That is understandable and it will continue to be the case.

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House will have noticed the magnificent display in Parliament square of the flags of the British overseas territories and, indeed, of the Crown dependencies. Will he invite the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on an unusually helpful comment in and answer by the EU Commissioner, Michel Barnier, about the tax and financial status of Gibraltar, in which he confirmed that there were

“no ‘well founded’ complaints alleging Gibraltar’s failure to cooperate on tax, financial and money-laundering matters”?

Does my right hon. Friend agree that that completely debunks the propaganda put out by the Government of Spain?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, and I have indeed seen those flags displayed; it is good to see them. I completely agree with my hon. Friend about the character of the complaints made about Gibraltar by the Spanish Government, and the Commissioner rightly made an important point about that. Earlier this week, my right hon. Friend the Minister for Europe made a written statement about Gibraltar in general. In the context of working with overseas territories, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a written ministerial statement—a welcome one—about our taxation arrangements with the Cayman Islands. That is demonstration of how we are working more positively than ever before with the British overseas territories to secure an exchange of information in respect of, and action on, tax evasion and avoidance.

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

Later today the Intelligence and Security Committee will hold its first public session, at which the heads of the various security agencies will speak. I welcome that, because, along with others, I have advocated such a meeting for some considerable time, but no notice of it is given on today’s Order Paper. I do not blame the Clerks, because I am sure that there are parliamentary reasons for the fact that the meeting is not listed, but will it be possible for notices to be posted around the building informing people that it will take place at—I understand—2 pm, and can the Leader of the House confirm that, although it has been suggested that tickets should be obtained beforehand, there will be no restriction on Members’ attendance?

[Mr Lansley]

The Order Paper does not convey the information because the Intelligence and Security Committee, although under statute a Select Committee of Parliament as designated in the Act that we passed during the last Session, is not analogous with other Select Committees of the House. There are ways in which it differs from them.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It is not a Select Committee!

[Mr Lansley]

The statute says that it is a Select Committee of Parliament, but it is not analogous with parliamentary Select Committees. I understand that, Mr Speaker, and you understand it, but the hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) does not understand it.

I must confess that I am not aware of the arrangements relating to the attendance of Members of Parliament at meetings of the Intelligence and Security Committee. They are a matter for the House authorities, and no doubt you, Mr Speaker, will advise the House further if necessary.

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

Has my right hon. Friend noted the reports of the Justice, Home Affairs and European Scrutiny Committees on the European justice and home affairs opt-ins? Is he aware that all three reports call for a debate to be held so that the Government’s hand can be strengthened in negotiations by the House having expressed its views?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me take this opportunity to congratulate my right hon. Friend personally on his 40 years in the House.

I have indeed seen those reports, and, as my right hon. Friend will know, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear our intention to enable the House to consider what the Government have proposed in relation to the opt-out and the measures in respect of which we think that it may be appropriate to opt back in, and to express its view.

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

The allegation in The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has been smearing a civil servant is a serious one. May we have a statement tomorrow—or a resignation?

[Mr Lansley]

I have just told the House that the allegations are not true.

[Mr Robert Syms (Poole) (Con)]

May we have a debate about morality in the tax system, with particular reference to section 58 of the Finance Act 2008? Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is trying to collect tax retrospectively from some 2,200 people, including constituents of mine. Some of them will have to sell their homes. We really need to debate this issue and reconsider it.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will ask Ministers in the Treasury to respond directly to my hon. Friend, although he will know that the subject was discussed during consideration of the Finance Act. We are careful to ensure that the instances in which legislation has a retrospective effect are minimised, and that when it does occur, it is subject to specific advice from the Law Officers about its appropriateness.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

It is truly shocking if there is any truth in the allegation in today’s edition of The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, or others associated with him or working for him, tried to influence the report of an independent Committee of the House. It is also of concern that, when one of the Committee members was asked to deny that he had been approached, he refused to comment. It really would be right and proper for the Secretary of State to come here and explain himself, so that we can ask him questions on behalf of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

Opposition Members seem to have arrived in the Chamber expecting to be able to make points without listening to the answers that I have given previously. I have had a conversation with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, and there is no truth in the allegations.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

May we have an early debate on local government finance? That would enable Members to reflect on the fact that, given that both sides of the House now accept the public spending limits until 2016-17, even if there is a change of Government at the next general election, there will be no more money for local government and, difficult though it may be, all local authorities are going to have to live within the funds allocated to them?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. When we came into government there was no money, as a message from the then departing Chief Secretary stated. We are trying to escape from the mess we inherited from the Labour party. In part, that depends on every bit of the public sector doing its bit. Local government has undeniably had to contribute substantially to the reduction in the deficit. It continues to do so, and does so very well as local authorities are achieving more for less and are delivering public satisfaction with many local government services, notwithstanding the substantial reductions. The Government are giving support to enable councils to address some areas of greatest need, such as supporting them in freezing their council tax. That is relieving the pressure on hard-working families. We are also supporting local government directly through the work that the NHS is going to do on joint funding for social care; £3.8 billion in additional support was announced in the latest spending round. Full details on the local government finance settlement will be published in due course, but we have made encouraging progress.

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

May we have a debate on the imminent reintroduction of the skip tax by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which will lead to a 2,700% increase in the cost of emptying a skip? It will lead to an increase to customers of £175 for hiring a skip, and it will force 1,500 small businesses into bankruptcy, including Mr and Mrs Tapping of Reliable Skips in my constituency. If construction and small businesses are to be the drivers of growth, how can the skip tax be right?

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will not comment in detail on that, but I will ask my hon. Friends at the Treasury to respond to the point that the hon. Lady makes.

[Mr Stewart Jackson (Peterborough) (Con)]

As a Conservative member of the Public Accounts Committee, may I begin by making it clear to Opposition Members that no pressure was exerted on any Members in respect of universal credit?

May we have a debate on technical and vocational education in Peterborough? The number of NEETs—those not in education, employment or training—is falling, the number of apprenticeships is rising and youth unemployment is dropping, but we need to drive up skills. Serendipitously, this week a very strong bid for a university technical college in Peterborough comes before Ministers. Will the Leader of the House nudge them in the right direction?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, including for his confirmation of the point I have repeatedly made now at these questions to Labour Members, who do not appear to be able to understand when they are being told a simple fact.

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s reference to a UTC. We have a UTC being developed in relation to skills to support the life sciences industry in Cambridge. The possibility of a UTC in Peterborough is an interesting and important opportunity. The UTCs will help us ensure that young people have the training to support economic growth in the future. In terms of the applications, I expect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education to announce the successful projects in January.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

On Tuesday, regulations will take effect that allow the outsourcing of provision for children in care to private companies, despite a striking lack of evidence that it is good for children. The regulations also allow for a clear conflict of interest to arise, because the same private company will be allowed to place a child into care and run that placement. This is, frankly, a disaster waiting to happen. Does the Leader of the House agree that the fact that there has been virtually no scrutiny of this measure—the Government tried to push it through under a legislative reform order before they were stopped—is an extraordinary breach of our responsibility as corporate parents to these children? Given that he is so fond of pausing legislation, will he pause these regulations so we can have an urgent debate in this House about this very important matter?

[Mr Lansley]

I am not sure that I heard a request for a debate as such, but I will ask the relevant Minister at the Department for Education to respond to those issues. As the hon. Lady says, the state’s responsibility as a corporate parent to children has often not been discharged as well as it ought to have been. Clearly it is important that we improve the quality of the placements that we achieve for looked-after children. The Children and Families Bill made good progress through this House, when it was the subject of extensive scrutiny, and it continues to be the subject of scrutiny in the other place, with more than six days in Committee, so that gives real opportunities for the matter to be considered.

[Jessica Lee (Erewash) (Con)]

Next week marks national export week. Many businesses in Erewash are successfully exporting their products and services around the globe, so may I ask my right hon. Friend to make time available in the House over the next few weeks in which we can support this important area of UK business?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. I think that everyone in the House will recognise that we have made good progress on support. Indeed, when I was talking to a company in my constituency just last week, it described the excellent support it has received in China from UK Trade & Investment. We have had great success in increasing our exports to China, India and Brazil—some of the emerging economies —but we all recognise that we need to do more. We have some great businesses, but if we were to secure an increase in the proportion of businesses, especially small businesses, that export to some of our competitors, such as Germany, it would do an enormous amount to boost our long-term recovery.

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

I do not know whether the Leader of the House was able to listen to today’s “Thought for the Day” by Rev. Lucy Winkett, who spoke movingly about this week’s events in the campaign for a living wage. The fact is that a living wage is very important, especially to people living in my constituency and in London. Those working in this House need a decent level of wage in order to have a reasonable life. May we have an early debate on the work of the House of Commons Commission so that we can sort out that this place should be a beacon for good employment?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the view expressed by the Prime Minister at this Dispatch Box, and by the Mayor of London and others, about the desirability of supporting a living wage. So far as I am aware—I did discuss this with the Clerk of the House—the staff employed in this House are all in receipt of at least the London living wage.

[Mr Sheerman]

No, they are not.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. People who work in the House of Commons are indeed paid the living wage. The right hon. Gentleman, the Leader of the House, is factually—[Interruption.] Order. The Leader of the House is correct in what he said. That is the beginning and the end of it.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

I am sure that the whole House was shocked by the death of the young girl who was attacked by her dog earlier this week—our thoughts must be with her family. Will the Leader of the House arrange for an urgent review of the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill, because if its provisions on dangerous dogs go through, the mother of that young girl would face up to 14 years in prison, which would be a ridiculous unintended consequence of the legislation? Will he ensure that the Bill at least involves provision on intent, or that it is changed in other ways, to ensure that the mother of that young girl, who is going through enough trauma at the moment, does not face a ridiculously long prison sentence?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to refer to the great distress and shock that people have felt as a result of those events. Many people have called for the provisions in the Bill relating to harm caused by dangerous dogs on private premises for a long time. They have been debated in this House, but the Bill continues to be considered, so I know that Members of both Houses will consider the points he makes and the application of the Bill in any individual circumstances.

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

Serious accusations were made in this morning’s edition of The Times that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions tried not only to nobble a Select Committee, but to smear a civil servant. The Leader of the House has just told the House that he has spoken to the Secretary of State, so will he tell us what the Secretary of State said in response to the accusations? Would not the best way of clearing things up be for the Secretary of State to come to the House and make a statement?

[Mr Lansley]

I have told the House that there is no truth in those allegations, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who entirely endorsed the point that I made.

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

Although I welcome the Government’s plans to build a new nuclear power station at Hinkley Point C, Babcock, which is responsible for refitting and refurbishing our nuclear submarines at Devonport dockyard in my constituency, faces a challenge in retaining skilled nuclear engineers. May we have a statement, or perhaps a debate, on how we might avoid such skill shortages?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. When I was a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry some 10 years ago, we were concerned about the loss of skills and expertise in this country because of the failure to proceed with any new nuclear build. I am afraid that remedying the situation has taken until now, following the coalition Government’s steps. My hon. Friend rightly makes a wider point about the availability of skills. The sector skills organisations and, in some locations, the local enterprise partnerships will be able to work with industry to focus on enabling Government support to go directly to meet those needs.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Even those who are not particular fans of football might have seen the horrific pictures last Sunday of the Spurs goalkeeper, Hugo Lloris, being concussed on the pitch, but being forced to go back on and play. May we have an urgent debate as soon as possible on the dangers of concussion in sport so that we can provide a lead? A conference in Twickenham this afternoon is considering the subject in the context of rugby and The Mail on Sunday is running a big campaign. There is clear evidence that when people are forced to play again after being concussed, they can all too easily end up suffering from premature dementia.

[Mr Lansley]

I confess that I did not see that, but the hon. Gentleman makes an important point very clearly. I am not sure whether I can promise Government time for a debate, but if he is in conversation with colleagues across the House who, quite rightly, share his concern, they could seek an Adjournment debate or Back-Bench time, perhaps in Westminster Hall, to allow those important issues to be raised.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

My late and courageous constituent, Private John Brackpool of the Welsh Guards, was killed while on active duty in Afghanistan in July 2009. I understand that the Australian military offers visits to the place where loved ones fell in Afghanistan, and I would be grateful for a statement from the Defence Secretary on whether the Ministry of Defence could offer a similar scheme for British families.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. The Ministry of Defence is committed to giving the families of service personnel all the support it can, especially when they tragically lose a loved one on operations. The most recent loss of a soldier from 3rd Battalion The Mercian Regiment provides us with a painful reminder of the sacrifices our armed services personnel make. The Ministry of Defence is sensitive to requests from families who wish to visit the place where their sons and daughters have died while on operation in Afghanistan. However, its overriding responsibility is one of safety, both for those visiting and for our service personnel. Afghanistan, as the House will know, remains a dangerous environment, and the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility to ensure that those who are escorted are not exposed to unnecessary risk, and that doing that does not expose service personnel to additional risk.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

The House’s Select Committee system has proven itself time and again to be a cornerstone of our democracy. Given today’s serious allegations in The Times that some of its impartiality and independence might have been compromised, why will the Leader of the House not allow the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions to come to the House and tell Members and the public what he has told the Leader of the House, and to reassure us that that independence will be defended at all costs?

[Mr Lansley]

I have informed the House of the situation, so the premise of the hon. Gentleman’s question is not justified. I have no reason to believe that the independence of the Public Accounts Committee has been compromised in any way.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

I was unable to be in the Chamber for Transport questions this morning but, if I had been, I would have asked for a debate about extending the cycle routes that the Secretary of State has announced through the national parks and joining them up so that more people can use them, especially if the routes go through a world heritage site. That would bring tourism into my constituency and enable cyclists to commute into Derby on safe routes.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point that I suspect my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be familiar with and sympathetic to, given his constituency interest. I will draw the further point relating to transport to his attention, and he might like to respond to my hon. Friend.

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

May we have a statement about what is happening with the Chilcot inquiry? It seems like an age since it was established and took its evidence, and we learn today that there has been a further blockage in obtaining correspondence between Tony Blair and George Bush from the Cabinet Secretary. Surely the Chilcot inquiry should get everything that it requires so that we can get to the bottom of why we went into that disastrous illegal war?

[Mr Lansley]

I regret that I am not in a position to comment about that. I have read about this in the newspapers, but that is literally all I know about whether information is being sought by the Chilcot inquiry. I will talk to my colleagues and see whether we can update the House on the timetable although, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it is not in the hands of the Government as such.

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

May we have a debate on geography? As I sat through Transport questions, I heard about wonderful investments in the north, the midlands and across the country, but I did not hear one word about anything west of Swindon or south of Bristol. There is a real fear that the Department for Transport does not know where the west country is. If the Secretary of State wants to assure me that he does, he can announce improvements on the A303, the electrification of the Great Western line and the re-opening of Langport and Somerton stations, and then I will be satisfied.

[Mr Lansley]

I did hear the Secretary of State respond to a question about Bristol, but not beyond Bristol. I am entirely familiar with the geography of the south-west, having lived in Exeter for four years. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to the rail investment programme, which is not just HS2—as he said, HS2 represents just a quarter of the investment during the next Parliament. Many projects in the programme were never proceeded with under the previous Government, but will have a positive impact on many parts of the country. If there is anything in particular that my colleagues can say to my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr Heath) about this matter, I will ask them to do so.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

It has always struck me that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is an honourable man so, notwithstanding the assurances given by the Leader of the House, I would have thought that he would want to come to the House and deal with these matters directly.

[Mr Lansley]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is indeed an honourable man and a man of integrity. I am happy to confirm to the House that the allegations are not true and there is no reason for him to come to make a statement. We make statements to the House to update it on something that has happened, not something that has not happened.

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

On 25 October I received a parliamentary answer informing me that, out of 2,533 railway stations, only 452 had disabled access to all platforms. That is clearly inadequate in the 21st century, so would it be possible for a Minister to make a statement on when that inadequacy will be rectified, placing particular emphasis on rural areas?

[Mr Lansley]

There are stations in my constituency where it is difficult for people with disabilities to access all platforms to change trains, so my hon. Friend makes a good point. I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to write to him as he has just missed the opportunity to raise that point during Question Time.

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

I can remember at least two occasions since I have been in the House when improper conduct—within and externally—in relation to Select Committees has been the subject of inquiries called for by the Leader of the House’s party. Why is he being inconsistent now? Can he not simply accept that it undermines the credibility of Select Committees for him to act as a shield for the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry, but Opposition Members are persisting with a complete misapprehension. There is no basis for their questions; there is no need for any further statement. I have made it clear that the independence and credibility of the Public Accounts Committee is not compromised.

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

Given that, during the course of the Electoral Commission’s research into the excellent private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), which provides for holding a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union, the commission discovered that some people apparently do not even know that we are members of the EU, may we please have a debate on the effectiveness of our education system?

[Mr Lansley]

There are two things that I would say to my hon. Friend, who makes a good point. First, the national curriculum review has revised programmes of study to ensure that teaching is directed towards a core knowledge of citizenship, including how our society is governed. That, we hope, will help young people in the future. Secondly, and perhaps more immediately and practically, the passage of legislation that ensures that the people of this country have a referendum on our membership of the European Union will educate everybody about the character of our membership of the European Union—and, I might say, about its benefits.

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

Yesterday was the 10th anniversary of the Work and Pensions Secretary’s departure as leader of the Tory party. To commemorate that, may we have an urgent statement by him about the allegations repeated in The Times of pressure being applied to a parliamentary Committee of this House, and about whether this again is a resigning matter for the Secretary of State?

[Mr Lansley]

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave some moments ago—and the one before that, the one before that, and the one before that.

[Mark Pawsey (Rugby) (Con)]

Has the Leader of the House seen today’s report from WRAP—the Waste and Resources Action Programme—showing that although domestic food waste has been cut by 21% since 2007, the average household still throws away the equivalent of six meals every week? May we have a debate to consider how such waste might be further reduced, and to look in particular at how the effective use of packaging could affect that?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the issue, and the report from WRAP is extremely helpful. Clearly progress has been made, but a lot more progress is possible. I am glad that Tesco, for example, recently illustrated rather powerfully the extent of food waste. The more we can reduce food waste, the more we can improve our situation in so many respects, including by reducing the amount of unnecessary packaging, by making sure that we can balance more effectively the growing and supply of food with demand for food and, hopefully, by also reducing the cost of food.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

As chair of the all-party kidney group, I recently heard distressing evidence from kidney dialysis patients of their difficulties in living a full family life because of their inability both to find and to fund DAFB—dialysis away from base? May we have a debate on a statutory requirement to make available vacancies in dialysis units so that dialysis patients can go on holiday, attend weddings or visit their grandchildren, with the funding going with them to finance their treatment?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady might wish to seek an Adjournment debate or, perhaps with colleagues, time from the Backbench Business Committee to discuss that important issue. I imagine that kidney patients would find that very valuable. I recall that, when I was Secretary of State for Health, I was aware of the relative lack of access to dialysis here compared with in other countries. The previous Government made some progress on that and we have added to that progress since. I recall visiting dialysis units, such as in Brighton, that expressly set out to provide sufficient capacity for those working away from home and those on holiday.

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

Last year Warwick’s High street and Jury street were closed for 17 weeks for roadworks, causing significant disruption for local businesses and residents alike. Warwickshire county council now proposes closing the roads again in January, partly as a consequence of the failure of the previous roadworks. May we have a debate on how we can build better communications between local authorities and businesses so that local infrastructure projects are undertaken in a way that is sensitive to the needs of the local economy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend does good work to raise his constituents’ concerns. Obviously that is not a matter for the Government directly, but I understand that the works proposed for January are to install a pedestrian crossing on Warwick’s High street, although no decision will be made by the council until 22 November, when the portfolio holder concerned is expected to make a final decision on whether the works will proceed. That is a matter for the local highways authority, Warwickshire county council. I know that my hon. Friend will have raised it with the council and will continue to do so, but raising it here today might help its considerations.

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

The Government have been celebrating a huge increase in sanctions against jobseeker’s allowance claimants. In order to have a fuller picture and to be confident that there are indeed grounds for celebration, may we have a debate on the reasons for those sanctions, the number of appeals pending and the outcomes of the appeals heard so far?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman might wish to raise those issues during Work and Pensions questions on Monday 18 November. I do not think that it is a matter of celebrating sanctions. I think it is important for us all that we focus the state’s resources on supporting those in need, whether that arises from disability or relative vulnerability, and those genuinely seeking work. It is therefore important that those who should be seeking work are genuinely doing so.

[Tessa Munt (Wells) (LD)]

May we have a debate on how a co-director of a company can possibly meet the requirements for an application for financial support and assistance, including legal aid, when the company’s accounts are being withheld by her spouse, from whom she is separated?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her question. I will not delve into it too far, because it seems quite an interesting and difficult point. It is a statutory requirement that a company’s accounts are made available through Companies House. If I may, I will refer her question to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Justice, because it relates to legal aid, to see whether they can provide her with a further helpful answer.

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

May we have a debate on the international festival for business, which Liverpool is hosting next year on behalf of the whole UK? A debate would enable us to hear about the excellent work taking place in Liverpool, carried out by Liverpool Vision on behalf of Liverpool city council, and consider how the whole UK could benefit from the business opportunities on offer.

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but I think that the House would welcome such an opportunity, which interested Members might seek through the Backbench Business Committee. I completely agree that it would be good to have an opportunity to celebrate that, not least the new business formation and the regeneration and renaissance of businesses in and around the north-west, and in Liverpool in particular. I know from my visits to the city that it has shown admirable progress in regeneration and in new business creation, and I hope that that can be showcased for the whole country from Liverpool to the rest of the world.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

Last night, Mr Speaker, you kindly hosted an event to highlight the campaign for women’s rights in Afghanistan. I was pleased to meet students there from Benton Park school in my constituency who have done considerable work in that area. Given the withdrawal of troops next year, may we have a debate on that important issue so that we can lend our support as this becomes even more urgent as the 2014 date draws nearer?

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and join him in welcoming the Amnesty International event to which he refers. As it happens, my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Warsi, the Senior Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, was in Afghanistan yesterday, when she raised with Deputy Foreign Minister Ahmadi and others the need to uphold the historic gains in women’s rights since 2001. We work in partnership with the Afghan Government and others to further progress the rights of all Afghan citizens, including the equal rights of women and girls. As for a debate, it would clearly be helpful at some point, but it might be premature in advance of the presidential and provincial elections in Afghanistan scheduled for April next year.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Yesterday, the Court of Appeal found against the Department for Work and Pensions on the very important issue of the independent living fund. Today, serious allegations have been made about the Department’s conduct. Is it not correct and proper that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions should come to this House to be held publicly accountable to all Members on these issues and not have private conversations with the Leader of the House that are supposed to satisfy my constituents?

[Mr Lansley]

On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, the purpose of the conversation was so that I could give the House the assurance that I clearly have given to it. On his first point, we were pleased that the Court of Appeal upheld the way in which we undertook our consultation on the future of the independent living fund and accepted that it had been carried out properly and fairly. By contrast, we are disappointed with some aspects of the decision. We will examine the judgment very carefully, consider its implications, and, in due course, take and announce decisions on how we intend to proceed.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

We are approaching the first anniversary of the elections of police and crime commissioners. In the Humberside police area, we are fortunate to have Matthew Grove as our commissioner. He is doing an excellent job in contact with local communities in improving policing in their areas. May we have a debate in Government time to mark this important anniversary of an excellent coalition policy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have had the pleasure of meeting Matthew Grove during the past year and hearing from him about the excellent and innovative, almost exciting, ways in which he is—

[Chris Bryant]

Almost exciting?

[Mr Lansley]

I never get excited. However, they were certainly innovative and effective. He and others are demonstrating that police reforms are working and crime is falling. The police and crime commissioners have been a mechanism by which the public can see that their priorities are being reflected directly into the priorities of policing in their area. That is welcome not only for democratic purposes but from the operational point of view.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Yesterday at the all-party group on youth affairs, the Youth Select Committee launched its report, “A Curriculum for Life”, which is the result of its inquiry into the role of the education system in supporting young people to develop life skills. Please may we have a debate on that excellent report?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, but the hon. Lady makes an important point. I hope that if she is in her place on Monday at Education questions she might have a further opportunity to highlight it to Education Ministers. I recollect that at last year’s meeting of the United Kingdom Youth Parliament in this Chamber, its members resolved to pursue the issue of a curriculum for life, so they are on exactly the page to which she refers. When the Youth Parliament is here next week, it will have an opportunity to reinforce the point, which I hope that we as a House will then have further opportunities to take up.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

May we have an urgent debate on motorway congestion in West Yorkshire? For two years, my constituents have suffered from the implementation of the managed motorways scheme between Huddersfield and Leeds. Now the central barrier is being replaced, causing yet more congestion, and they cannot even use the M1 north from Wakefield to Leeds because it is now having its own managed motorway scheme implemented as well. This is a really important issue for my constituents every morning.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raised these important issues about the M62 earlier. There is inevitably some disruption during these works. He will know that the further work relating to barriers on the M62 was not able to be funded at the time when the managed motorways scheme was being introduced. That is a pity, but the work is now due to be completed in December. I can assure him that the Highways Agency will keep three lanes open to traffic during the day, limiting necessary lane closures to overnight where possible. I hope that the smart motorway works that have been undertaken will bring extra capacity and more reliable journeys for his commuters in future.

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

The Leader of the House has sought to assure the House that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions did not seek to influence an independent Select Committee. Given the interest in and seriousness of the allegations, I am sure that is something the Secretary of State will want to explain to the House himself. Can this be arranged and can we then have a debate on who at the Department for Work and Pensions should take the blame for the shambles of universal credit, which is affecting the lives of so many constituents, including mine, across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I do not think that I sought to assure the House—I think that I have assured the House. I have made that clear. I reiterate my earlier point that the Public Accounts Committee report makes important points about the historic problems, and that is precisely why the Secretary of State and my colleagues have sought to ensure the safe and sound delivery of the programme by proceeding at a different pace for the roll-out. They and we remain committed to the achievement of universal credit on time and on budget, because the resources we provide should be directed towards supporting those who are most in need, and in the context of ensuring that it always pays to be in work.

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

May we have a debate on the Government’s policy on light rail? The excellent “Green light for light rail” report overturned the anti-tram policy of the previous Government but, unfortunately, Leeds is still being told that we cannot have a tram station and that we have to have a bus-based scheme, which was a decision made by the previous Government. May we have a debate on why Leeds cannot have a modern light rail scheme?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Transport to respond to the particular points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but he and his colleagues in Leeds may wish to secure an Adjournment debate on the issue. My constituency has a guided busway scheme that uses an old rail route. It has become very successful and is now exceeding its anticipated passenger numbers. Although there were considerable difficulties involved in establishing it, it is possible to have an effective public transport route, through a guided busway system, on an old rail corridor.

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

On average, for every £100 a man earns, a woman earns only £85. Today is equal pay day, the day when women in effect stop being paid due to the 14.9% gender pay gap. It is 43 years since the Equal Pay Act 1970, 100 years since the suffragette movement and 125 years since the match women’s strike, so may we please have a debate on ensuring that all women get equal pay for work of equal value?

[Mr Lansley]

I hope and believe that there are common values on this issue throughout the House. It is something we have legislated on and we seek to pursue it in the public sector. The evidence today suggests that we have made more progress than appears generally to be the case in the private sector. The hon. Lady will recall that equal pay day in the private sector was 27 August. We have to make progress on the issue. If an opportunity arises for a debate, not least through the Backbench Business Committee, I for one would welcome it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

May we have a full day’s debate in Government time on Britain’s rapidly increasing population? Official statistics suggest that Britain’s population will increase from 63.7 million today to 73.3 million in 2037 and that we will have to absorb another city the size of Greater London, which will put huge pressures on our public services, social cohesion, jobs and wages.

[Mr Lansley]

Those are interesting figures from the Office for National Statistics, although they are in the nature of a forecast, some aspects of which we can influence and some we cannot. For example, over roughly the past decade, this country’s birth rate has gone up by, I think, about 16%. There is a limit to what we can do. The increase in population is also a result of increased longevity. The combination of those two things will inevitably mean an increase in our population and we have to respond to that.

We must therefore ensure that we manage migration into this country better than has been done in the past. That is why we set ourselves the objective of bringing net migration down from a quarter of a million a year to the tens of thousands. We have made considerable progress and have reduced net migration by a third. We need to continue with that because of the simple fact that an increase in the total population creates pressure on resources.

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

May we have a statement on the plans for a trans-Pennine transport feasibility study, which the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced in June? That will directly affect the Longdendale area of my constituency, which is heavily congested. I first wrote to the Department for Transport at the end of June to follow up on that welcome announcement and have contacted the Department three times to seek a response. I appreciate that there have been ministerial changes, but I am eager for news. If the Department needs any assistance in formulating its response, I reiterate that I am happy to work with it, as is my Conservative neighbour, the hon. Member for High Peak (Andrew Bingham), to deliver the feasibility study. Will the Leader of the House kindly pass that message on?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, of course, do so. It is one of my responsibilities to assist Members by ensuring that my colleagues respond to them on such issues.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I thank the Leader of the House for his fitting tribute to the brave soldier from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, the Staffords. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family, friends and fellow Mercians.

May we have a debate on the responsibility of banks for the way in which their financial products are sold by agents? My constituent, Mr Locke, was sold a product by an agent for Barclays in such a way that, without his knowledge, he was unable to claim the protection of section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 when the service was not delivered in the way that had been promised.

[Mr Lansley]

I will talk to my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Treasury about securing a response on that matter. The work of the Financial Conduct Authority will enable some of those issues to be pursued. The Financial Services (Banking Reform) Bill is being considered in another place. When it returns to this House, I hope that the measures will be further strengthened to protect consumers in the way that my hon. Friend describes.

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

A survey of businesses in my constituency found that exporters are seeing solid growth and that they expect that growth to continue. Given that next week is export week, please may we have a debate about the support that is provided to new exporters so that they can grab the opportunities that are available to their business and, in so doing, make a big difference to the national economy?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend once again illustrates a general point with the welcome progress that is being made in his constituency. As I said earlier, the resources and support that the Government are giving to UK Trade & Investment are making a difference. The way in which the Foreign Secretary has reoriented the priorities of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our diplomatic posts around the world is making a difference. The support that the Government are giving to bilateral chambers of commerce is making a difference too. The connections that that will provide to chambers of commerce and local enterprise partnerships in local areas will enable smaller businesses to network and to access export promotion and support more effectively than in the past.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Why does the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions not want to come to this place to defend himself against the serious allegations that have been made in The Times this morning?

[Mr Lansley]

I have reported the facts to the House. They do not give rise to the need for a statement because the allegations are not true.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

It was announced recently that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs offices in York will be part-privatised. That is causing concern for a number of my constituents. May we have a debate on the outsourcing of jobs and, more importantly, on the fear that some of those jobs might be outsourced abroad?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be aware of the benefits of joint working and the sharing of services between Departments. I do not think that any decision has been made, other than that services will continue to be provided out of York and Alnwick. Beyond that, I do not know what the situation is. I will ask colleagues at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to write to him about where shared services might be delivered.

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

Between 1997 and 2010, 50,000 hospital beds were cut, including a number in my constituency. We were told those beds were no longer needed, but in recent years, hospitals in and around my constituency have had to open emergency beds to deal with winter pressure, due to a failure of intermediate care services. In my constituency at the moment, the local Labour party is fighting against proposals for a new 30-bed intermediate care centre. May we have a debate on the urgent need for proper intermediate care services across the country?

[Mr Lansley]

I cannot promise a debate immediately, although I suspect the House will recall just how strongly Members have felt in the past about the availability of intermediate care services, often in the context of locally accessible community hospitals. The devolution of responsibilities to clinical commissioning groups with active GP involvement gives an opportunity for that to be reconsidered, in particular by GPs who recognise the needs of their patients for treatment locally, accessible admissions and step-down care after admission to acute services. We might see a reduction in the number of beds in the most acute context, but care of the kind my hon. Friend refers to must also be available. I know that clinical commissioning groups will focus on that point.

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to apply pressure on an issue that has come to my attention over the past 24 hours? A book for sale on Amazon, “To Train up a Child” by Michael and Debi Pearl advocates the beating of children under the age of 12 months, using a switch. The book recommends that a switch be cut from a willow tree, and be no longer than 12 inches in length and 8 cm in diameter. It advocates the use of paddles, rulers and other means to beat children from four months onwards. I have written to the Secretaries of State for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education, and to the Prime Minister’s Office and Amazon. Given that this issue has come to light only in the past 24 hours, will the Leader of the House advise how we can bring this issue to Parliament and apply pressure on Amazon to remove this book from sale?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Lady is seeking a statement. That is what she wants.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend has raised an important point, and Members of the House will be rather shocked by what she has described. She has raised her point in the House, and I will certainly talk to colleagues in the Departments for Culture, Media and Sport and for Education. I hope there will be a proper response from those responsible for Amazon’s publicity and marketing of this book, but if that does not happen, my hon. Friends from the Department for Education will be in the Chamber on Monday. That might be a further opportunity if those responsible for this issue have not taken action.

[Mr Speaker]

I have a feeling the hon. Lady will be in her place on Monday. I hope that is helpful for today.

Points of Order

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

11:43

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will know that since a resolution of the House in 1688, it has been clear that Committees of the House should proceed without let or hindrance. Page 838 of “Erskine May” states:

“Any disclosure of written evidence or a Committee’s internal working papers, which has not been authorised by the Committee, may be treated as a contempt. In particular, disclosure of a draft report which has been submitted to a Committee before such a report has been agreed to by the Committee and presented to the House may be treated as a contempt.”

The allegations that the Leader of the House has tried to brush off today about what the Secretary of State is said to have done go considerably further than he suggests. We do not know whether the Leader of the House has asked the Secretary of State all the relevant questions. We want to ask questions in the Chamber. My point of order to you, Mr Speaker, is this: can you make it absolutely clear to the Leader of the House that it is perfectly possible to have a statement tomorrow, or for that matter an urgent question, and that the House would regard it as a courtesy to hear directly from the Secretary of State, and not just second hand from the Leader of the House?

[Mr Speaker]

It is, of course, perfectly possible for there to be either an urgent question or a statement tomorrow, but I feel sure that those are facts of which the Leader of the House was already well aware. I am merely courteously repeating them in order properly to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point of order.

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

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Home Secretary said on Monday, about the latest TPIM terror suspect to abscond:

“I do not have his passport, but the police do.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 27.]

However, the Home Secretary has since asked that Hansard be corrected to say:

“I do not have his passport, Mohamed was not in possession of his British passport when he returned to the UK so there was no passport for the police to seize.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 1MC.]

Can you tell me whether it is in order for a Secretary of State to try to amend Hansard because of her own error, or should she come back to Parliament and correct the record herself? Can Hansard even be changed in this way, especially as it has been printed and the facts have now changed?

[Mr Speaker]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order, of which I did not have advance notice. Therefore my immediate reply is that I will look into the matter that she has very properly raised.

The issue of the Intelligence and Security Committee was raised earlier and for the purpose of clarification I wish to remind the House that the Committee may sound like a Select Committee and, at its hearing today, it may look like a Select Committee, but in fact it is not a Select Committee. We will leave it there for now.

Personal Statement

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

11:46

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

A report has been published today by the Standards Committee following an investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards into complaints made about me. I am grateful to the commissioner for her thorough, courteous and professional work and her report, and to the Chair of the Committee, its members and Clerk for dealing with this matter in a very fair and efficient way. I accept entirely their conclusions.

From the beginning I believed that I had not breached the lobbying rules and I am grateful and relieved that the commissioner and the Committee have rejected those complaints. The Committee has found that there was no attempt to conceal any donations, which were all reported to the Electoral Commission and in the public domain, but that I failed to register in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests some donations to my local party; that I failed to make declarations in debate, and in connection with one meeting, in relation to two of those donations; and that I registered two donations late. I have, of course, admitted my mistakes and apologised from the outset to the commissioner and to the Committee.

Although the commissioner found that none of these breaches of the rules was intentional, I accept entirely the findings of the commissioner and the Committee that I was not as attentive to these matters or as careful as I should have been, and therefore in those ways failed properly to observe the code of conduct, and that I did not sufficiently seek advice from the registrar. I will immediately register the outstanding interests as the Committee recommends. I take full responsibility for these failures and I apologise unreservedly to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am extremely grateful to the right hon. Gentleman.

Backbench Business

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Tobacco Packaging

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Under the order of the House of 29 October, this debate must conclude at 3 pm. I should point out that we need to put a time limit of 10 minutes on Backbench speeches in view of the level of interest and the constraints of time. The limit does not of course apply to the person introducing the debate, but I know that he will wish to tailor his remarks to take account of the number of his colleague who wish to participate.

11:49

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered standardised packaging of tobacco products.

I welcome our first opportunity to debate this matter in the Chamber since the Government made their decision in the summer, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing it to take place.

The Department of Health held an extended consultation on standardised packaging of tobacco products, but it was greatly disappointing to people across the House that the Government decided not to proceed with standardisation. In September we had a very full Westminster Hall when we debated this subject. It was the first day back after our summer recess, so I suspected that we would not get a full audience, but in the end 21 Members spoke, meaning that a strict time limit had to be imposed on speeches. It was a wide-ranging debate that allowed everyone to put their point of view, and I hope that we can do the same thing in this Chamber this afternoon.

Since that Westminster Hall debate, we have had a new Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), whom I welcome to her place. She has an opportunity to set out the Government’s position on standardised packaging of tobacco products, and I hope that she will indicate some movement in favour of standardisation. When this matter was raised in Health questions recently, it was debated at length, with many Members wishing to get in. By way of context, there is also an upcoming House of Lords debate on the Children and Families Bill, which I hope will result in the Bill being amended to outlaw the smoking of tobacco products by people travelling in cars with young children.

Obviously, we do not wish to divide the House today, but I say to the Government that unless we get some movement before Christmas, we will seek another debate, with a Division, so that the will of the House can be expressed.

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

How does my hon. Friend think that the banning of smoking by people travelling in cars with children would be enforced?

[Bob Blackman]

I do not wish to be diverted from our subject, which is the standardisation of tobacco packaging. I will leave it to the other place to determine that matter, but no doubt if it has the wisdom to implement that rule, it will come back here for further debate.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

I share my hon. Friend’s concerns about smoking, and I agree that we should do everything possible to get people to stop smoking and to stop young people in particular taking it up, but does he agree that policy has to be evidence-based, that we should wait and see what emerges elsewhere across the globe and that, in view of that, we should continue to educate people, particularly young people, not to take it up in the first place?

[Bob Blackman]

I will come to that point—particularly in respect of young people—later.

I am personally committed to stopping people smoking in the first place and to helping them give up. Both my parents died of cancer. My mother died at 47 of lung and throat cancer, and I still remember what she went through. It was the direct result of a long-standing tobacco habit.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

It would also be great to cut the amount of each cigarette smoked. Would the hon. Gentleman like to take up the suggestion of not just changing the packaging of the box, but printing something on the cigarette itself to encourage people to stop smoking before they get to the end?

[Bob Blackman]

That sounds like a good idea. We are not talking about that today, but it could be included in the evidence.

We have an opportunity to debate these issues. As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading West (Alok Sharma) said, we must take an evidence-based approach. The widespread consultation that the Department of Health conducted over the summer found a welter of evidence supporting the standardisation of packaging and its impact on the numbers of people taking up or giving up smoking. I am secretary of the all-party group on smoking and health and I regard tobacco control as a very high priority for any Government, and an issue that cuts across party lines and creates different views. I welcome the fact that members of the APPG from all parties are here to debate the issue.

[Lorely Burt (Solihull) (LD)]

I entirely agree that any standardised packaging to which we agree should be evidence-based. We have looked at the results from Australia after nine months. The anecdotal evidence so far suggests that although people have switched to cheaper brands, the volume of cigarettes being sold has not altered. What does the hon. Gentleman make of that?

[Bob Blackman]

The issue for us is that we want to remove the last aspects of advertising that are available to the tobacco industry. At the moment, there is still an attractive promotional aspect of tobacco, which is the packaging. We want all tobacco packs to be uniform, including the colour of the pack, and to allow the promotion of strong anti-smoking and pro-health messages. Evidence is emerging from Australia, but other parts of the globe are going ahead with standardisation of packaging, including Ireland.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point. Does he agree that use of the term “standard packaging” or “plain packaging” is a misnomer? We should be calling it “stark-staring truth packaging”. What it means is that we are handing someone a packet with a picture of gangrene. It is actually a crystal ball, and it counteracts the very powerful subliminal messages and the last legal form of tobacco marketing in this country.

[Bob Blackman]

The fact is that smoking is a lethal addiction. We know that. It is the one product in service in the world where, if used in the way it is intended, will lead directly to poor health and possibly death. Across England, 80,000 people a year die from smoking-related diseases. There are more premature deaths from smoking than from obesity, alcohol, illegal drug use and AIDS put together. It is the biggest single killer. In the long run, if we can get a fall of just one percentage point in smoking prevalence rates, we could save 1,800 lives per year. Who would not wish to save 1,800 lives per year? There cannot be an effective public health policy unless tobacco control is at its heart.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Every one of us in the House will remember how, in our youth, cigarettes were marketed as fashionable, trendy and stylish. With 200,000 children starting smoking every year in Britain, and 11,000 in Wales, is it not right that we send a very clear message that smoking is not trendy or stylish; it is a killer?

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady comes on to a particular issue. The vast majority of smokers begin smoking in childhood. Two thirds of current smokers began under the age of 18 and we know that 200,000 young people under the age of 15 begin to smoke every year. When you add in the people that begin to smoke between 15 and 18, it becomes 300,000 smokers per year. Once someone is hooked, it is very difficult to give up. Most people say that after the direct sale of cigarettes to minors was made unlawful, many young people still continued to start smoking. Cancer Research stated in 2011 that more than 200,000 young people under the age of 16 had started to smoke. We must make sure that we reduce that number quite drastically.

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

My hon. Friend talks about the accessibility of cigarettes for people who take up smoking. Gillingham has the largest amount of illegal cigarettes smoked in the country, which has an effect on health, the economy and crime. Does he agree that more needs to be done nationally to ensure that we stop these illegal cigarettes coming in to our country?

[Bob Blackman]

I agree completely. That demonstrates the failure of the tobacco industry to stop the illicit trade, even under the current advertising arrangements for packaging.

[Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP)]

The hon. Gentleman will know that more than 1,000 people in my constituency are directly employed by the tobacco industry, which creates huge employment opportunities for my constituents. Why will he not just be honest and say that we should ban smoking altogether and make it illegal? That is the direction of travel he is taking. We are hearing all this nonsense about different colours, subliminal messages and messages written on cigarettes; let us cut the nonsense. Why will he not be honest with the House and say that he wants to ban smoking altogether?

[Bob Blackman]

I am not one of those who wants to ban particular substances. If someone wants to put a cigarette in their mouth, set light to it and attempt to kill themselves, that is their choice. They have the freedom to do so. All I say is, “Don’t breathe that smoke over me, don’t breathe it over children, don’t inflict it on others.”

[Alok Sharma]

rose—

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

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I have taken several interventions, and I know that Mr Deputy Speaker wants me to make progress.

Once young people start smoking, they are likely to continue for the rest of their lives. Smoking causes much more damage to young lungs, which increases the likelihood of young people dying from smoking-related diseases. The tobacco industry is desperate to retain its market share, and to recruit new smokers every year. After all, older smokers either quit or die, and younger people also die from smoking-related diseases. Most of the new smokers will be children. In my constituency, about 550 children start smoking every year. That is a scandal, and I want to see that figure radically reduced.

To make the control policy more effective, we must prevent children from starting to smoke in the first place. We must adopt policies that make it more difficult for the tobacco industry to target and recruit new smokers. Once again, however, if young people choose to start smoking, that is their right. In trying to find the policies to achieve that result, we could do worse than look at the commercial strategies adopted by the tobacco industry itself. Over many years, the industry has designed its advertising and marketing to promote an image of smoking that is most likely to appeal to young people.

A great deal of information about this has come into the public domain, particularly after confidential industry documents were made public following the US tobacco master settlement with the industry in 1998. I shall give the House an example. An internal R. J. Reynolds document from 1981 states:

“Smoking is frequently used in situations when people are trying to make friends, to look more mature, to look more attractive, to look ‘cooler’, and to feel more comfortable around others. These aspects of social interaction are especially prevalent among younger adult smokers”.

I could not have put it better myself. The fact is that the industry markets itself in that way.

Successive Governments have made it more difficult for the industry to reach its target teenage market. Conventional tobacco advertising is banned, and I welcome that. I also welcome the banning of retail displays in large shops. They will soon be outlawed in smaller shops as well. Stopping smoking in enclosed spaces has significantly reduced the exposure of young people to smoking.

[Mr Nuttall]

My hon. Friend said that he had no objection to people taking up smoking. Does he not feel that, in a free society, we would cross a dangerous line if we were to prevent manufacturers from differentiating their brand from the others?

[Bob Blackman]

No, I do not. It is quite right that we should take action to prevent manufacturers from making their products more attractive to children and young people.

We are left with one large loophole, through which the tobacco industry is still furiously blowing smoke. The packs themselves can be used to market and advertise, to create brand identities, and to help to present an image of smoking that might indeed seem “cool” to an insecure teenager.

[Jake Berry]

My hon. Friend is generous in giving way and is making an excellent opening speech. On the covering up of cigarettes in large and small retailers—something I support—at what point does he think that packets will be on display as advertisements for the tobacco companies if they are covered up at the point of sale? Will it just be at the point when the cigarettes are in someone’s hand—after they have already been bought?

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend brings me to the next aspect of the issue. The cigarettes will be behind closed doors, as it were, and the only time when smokers will display their tobacco branding will be when they take out their pack to smoke, which is welcome.

[Jake Berry]

People have already bought them.

[Bob Blackman]

Indeed, but that is the only advertising that the tobacco industry can currently have.

The trade magazine World Tobacco advises:

“If your brand can no longer shout from billboards, let alone from the cinema screen or the pages of a glossy magazine…it can at least court smokers…from wherever it is placed by those already wedded to it.”

That is the industry speaking. Philip Morris International, in its company response to the consultation on standardised packaging, said that as

“an integral part of the product…packaging is an important means of differentiating brands and in that sense is a means of communicating to consumers about what brands are on sale and in particular the good will associated with our trademarks, indicating brand value and quality. Placing trademarks on packaged goods is, thus, at the heart of commercial expression.”

[Alok Sharma]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Bob Blackman]

Just one more time.

[Alok Sharma]

I thank my hon. Friend, who is making a very passionate speech. I know he feels very strongly about this subject. At the end of the day, however, we have noted the importance of policy being evidence-based. I do not hold a candle for the manufacturers of cigarettes, but I understand that KPMG published a report in October showing that the emerging evidence from Australia was that the introduction of standardised packaging has seen an increase in the levels of illicit tobacco and no reduction in consumption. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

[Bob Blackman]

I will comment on it in a few moments. I shall skip over the last few sections of my speech, as I know that Mr Deputy Speaker wishes me to conclude.

The research done by Stirling university’s public health research consortium shows that standardised packaging is less attractive to potential consumers. That is good news because it means that if we have standardised packaging, smoking will be less attractive to young people and children. The reviewers looked at 17 further studies, so there is no lack of evidence. There is plenty of evidence, and the evidence in favour of standardised packaging is very strong.

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

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way because I am under time constraints.

The industry’s position is quite clear: it wishes to protect the intellectual property rights of its product, and it thinks that that trumps the requirements of public health. I say that public health is much more important than the rights and wrongs of the tobacco industry. Tobacco firms have spent heavily, tried to lobby Members and the Department of Health and sought to prevent progress on this issue. They have put the different aspects of the argument, but I am sure that colleagues will allude to the fact that there are ways of stopping the illicit trade and ensuring that security is maintained on the product. We can prevent the illicit trade from growing.

Let me touch on what is happening in Australia. The evidence has been very positive. One study showed that, compared with smokers who were still using branded packs when the research was carried out, standardised pack smokers were 66% more likely to think their cigarettes were poorer quality than a year ago; 70% more likely to say they found them less satisfying; and 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day every week since the ban was introduced.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

rose—

[Pete Wishart]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I will not give way, because Mr Deputy Speaker wants us to make progress.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Everyone wants to get in, but we are running out of time. I need to remind the House that the opening speech was to be 15 minutes, but we are well over that already.

[Bob Blackman]

Now that we have the evidence, I ask the Government to listen to the debate. We will hear a response from the Minister, and I trust that by the end of this debate, the view of the House will be overwhelming and the Government will seek to introduce regulation on standardised packaging as fast as possible. We will not seek to divide the House today—this is a general debate—but if the Government do not come forward with regulations before Christmas, we will seek another debate on a motion that allows the House to divide and express its clear will.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I shall now reduce the speaking time limit to eight minutes—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) wants me to reduce it further, I shall be more than happy to do so, but I am sure that he would rather speak for eight minutes than five. The danger is that speeches will run on, and many Members wish to speak in the second debate.

12:09

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

I understand the time constraints, Mr Deputy Speaker.

I, too, am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for giving us an opportunity to debate this issue. I am pleased to be following the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who has more than earned his spurs through his campaign.

On the last occasion when we tried to encourage the Government to act in this regard, speakers were restricted to just three minutes, and even a number of Members on the other side of the argument shared our frustration because they had so little time to put their case. Many Members in all parts of the House are still far from happy that the Government are delaying the decision to do the right thing and implement the proposals for standardised packaging—a delay that will lead to countless more young people starting to smoke.

[Pete Wishart]

No doubt the hon. Gentleman is aware of the efforts that have been made in Scotland, and wishes to congratulate the Scottish Government on the fact that we are going to introduce standardised packaging as well as minimum pricing. We are going to do that because we take the issue of public health very seriously, and because we do not have Lynton Crosby advising us.

[Alex Cunningham]

I will congratulate any Government who are making the right decision on plain packaging.

I am aware that some Members fear that a fall in demand for tobacco will cost many of their constituents their jobs. I know that they will stand up and speak for the industry, but they will also be speaking for their constituents. I hope that the prospect of improved health, a smaller burden on the national health service and the protection of children will make them think again. I also hope that today’s debate will focus not on the cynical speculation that surrounds the drivers of tobacco policy and the influence that the tobacco lobbyists are able to exert, but on the decidedly positive effects that standardised packaging could bring, and the harm that is likely to result if the Government continue to insist on dragging their feet.

Reducing the prevalence of tobacco use is a key public health priority. None of us needs reminding of the consequences of smoking, which remains the leading cause of preventable mortality in the UK. Half the number of lifetime smokers will die from smoking-related diseases, which means that there may be 100,000 preventable deaths each year. One in five adults continues to smoke, and many people continue to take up the habit, including 573 children aged between 11 and 15 each and every day.

[Dr Wollaston]

Does it not strike the hon. Gentleman as strange that the Government claim to be delaying the introduction of standardised packaging because they want to wait for more evidence, but at the same time are virtually rushing into regulation to make e-cigarettes a medicinal product, although there is mounting evidence that, if anything, they could cause harm?

[Alex Cunningham]

I agree that we also need to look into the issues surrounding the smoking of electronic cigarettes.

The Government should be acting on this matter. The evidence has already been presented to the House today. It is unquestionable that we need to take action now, and save children and young people from an addictive habit that will devastate their lives.

As I have said many times before, while I disagreed with the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr Lansley), about a number of issues, I believe that the best thing he ever said was that he wanted the tobacco industry to have “no business” in the UK. I hope that the new Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Battersea (Jane Ellison), shares that goal, and will pursue it with the vigour that it deserves. I welcome her recent assertion that

“Stopping children and young people smoking is a priority for us all”.

However, actions speak louder than words.

Since the Government’s consultation closed 15 months ago, Australia has become the first country to introduce standardised packaging for tobacco products. That is already changing attitudes. Our own Government’s inaction in failing to enact measures similar to those in Australia poses a major threat to tobacco control. However, I was pleased to hear the new Under-Secretary of State tell the House during Health questions last month that

“new information ... not just from this country but from around the world… is under very active consideration.” —[Official Report, 22 October 2013; Vol. 569, c. 132.]

I should welcome her confirmation of the timetable for the completion of that consideration and the making of a definitive decision.

I have no doubt that standardised packaging for tobacco products is necessary to quell demand. Smoking is an addiction that begins in childhood, and tobacco packaging is designed to be attractive, catching the eye of young people in particular. I am aware of the damage that this horrible habit is doing to people in my constituency, young and old alike, many of whom live in some of the most deprived wards in the country. We need to take active steps to reduce the incidence of smoking, and to implement measures to prevent future uptake. The decision to delay progress with standard packaging will needlessly condemn hundreds of thousands more to a life of addiction because some think it “cool” to smoke. Plain packaging fits the bill. Not only is there a real need for it, but it is a solution that is wanted and workable.

It is worth noting that, during a Westminster Hall debate in September, the former Under-Secretary of State for Public Health, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), recounted her own experiences of tobacco addiction and its horrendous consequences. Fortunately, she was able to kick the habit. It is significant that she recalled the “power of the packet”, and spoke openly of choosing a particular brand of cigarette for her first pack

“because they were green, gorgeous and a symbol of glamour.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 23WH.]

Indeed, she made a superb case for standardised packaging as a means of preventing future uptake. I hope that that, along with evidence provided by fellow Members today, will remind the Health Secretary of the strong supporting evidence, and persuade him to delay no more. Perhaps he will even go so far as to do the right thing and give Members the right to vote on the issue, thus allowing the will of Parliament to be implemented.

The United Kingdom has previously taken a leading role in this regard, certainly in Europe. It has some of the most comprehensive tobacco control policies in the world, not least the tobacco control plan, which led to the introduction of smoke-free public places and the banning of displays on retail premises. It is clear that the current Government have recognised, at least to some degree, the raft of negative consequences that can arise from ready access to branded packaging, yet Ministers remain adamant that the evidence we have is not substantial enough, and continue to insist that non-legislative solutions are better suited to the task in hand.

There is already a wealth of evidence that standardised packaging works, and new evidence is being published all the time. A systematic review of 37 peer-reviewed studies, carried out by the university of Stirling for the Department of Health, found standard packaging to be less attractive while also improving the effectiveness of health warnings, thereby reducing smoking uptake among young people. The review also found that standardised packs were perceived as having less “clutter” to detract from the all-important health warnings, with the monotony and sincerity of the packaging serving to enhance their seriousness and believability. Since then at least 12 additional studies have been published, and the growing body of research consistently reports that standardised packaging would reduce the appeal of tobacco products and increase the effectiveness of health warnings.

Lest there be any doubt, let me add that the evidence from Australia confirms those findings. Not only do those who smoke cigarettes from standardised packs perceive their cigarettes to be of a lower quality than those from branded packs, but there is a demonstrated tendency to perceive cigarettes as less satisfying.

[Simon Wright]

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of calls to Quitline, Australia’s smoking cessation service, has increased considerably since the introduction of the new law in that country?

[Alex Cunningham]

We can all choose which part of the briefing we wish to cite. It is clear to me that standardised packaging is working in Australia, and I am sure that it will continue to do so. The hon. Member for Harrow East mentioned that 81% of people were likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day during the past week, and I think that that too is an important statistic.

What further evidence does the Secretary of State need to see before he commits himself decisively to making these life-saving changes? Pressure on smoking must be continuous and relentless, because we are fighting a pervasive, lethal and powerful addiction. We cannot afford to waver or hesitate. Every year more than 200,000 people under the age of 16 start to smoke, and that is 200,000 too many. Even if plain packaging just halves the number of new young smokers who are currently attracted to the slim, colourful and glamorous packs, it will have had a major impact on hundreds of thousands of lives.

If we wait the suggested three years for evidence from Australian legislation to emerge, little if any progress will be made. Incidentally, in the United Kingdom fewer people are attempting to quit with the help of the national health service for the first time in five years. The current prospect is unacceptable. The Government must act now to prevent further tragedy, rather than adopting the leisurely timetable that has been proposed by some who think that they know better, or perhaps have vested interests.

Let me drive the point home. More than 250 people die prematurely every year from smoking-related diseases in my local authority area of Stockton-on-Tees. We have a lung cancer rate of 67.1 per 100,000 people, which is a staggering 40% higher than the national average, and figures show that 610 children aged between 10 and 14 are already regular smokers.

I recall young people referring to cigarettes as “cancer sticks”, but many still think it cool to smoke. I see them walking to school, cigarette in hand or mouth, and it upsets me to think that had the Government acted, many of them would not have been attracted to the habit at all. Attempts are being made in the other place to introduce new clauses to the Children and Families Bill which would create a requirement for standardised packaging, and it is also possible that my own proposals to render it illegal to smoke in any vehicle where children are present will be reintroduced.

[Jake Berry]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Alex Cunningham]

No.

I hope the Government will do the right thing by pre-empting the votes in the other place and announcing they will introduce their own legislation and put this matter to bed once and for all. No company should be allowed to promote such a deadly product through advertising and marketing. The glamorised packet in the hands of a young person is the most powerful marketing tool the industry now has left. Let us deny it to it without delay.

The case for standard packs is strong, and the need for action is urgent. A few weeks ago I spoke of the two sides in this debate: on the one side, the rich and utterly cynical industry that is quite happy to market products that still kill more than 100,000 people across the UK every year—more than the next six most common causes of preventable death—and on the other side, the medical and health community, politicians from all parties, and the general public. In the middle are the Government. Ministers from the Prime Minister himself down through the ranks know there is evidence that standardised packs will work for the better. I hope they will announce action now and give our people a better chance at better health.

12:20

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

It is a delight to take part in this important debate, and I declare my interest in the register. Although I no longer own a convenience store in Swansea, I suspect over my lifetime I have sold more cigarettes than everybody in the House has consumed.

I see this as a non-partisan issue. It should be evidence-based. We are talking about treating the sale of a legal commodity completely differently from the sale of any other commodity, and before going down that route, we should ensure that our decisions are properly evidence-based.

I do not smoke, apart from the odd cigar—it is just the odd one—but I am cognisant of the fact that there are over 12 million smokers in this country. The vast majority of them are adults and this is all about individual choice and liberty. The hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) made an important point when he said he believes we are going in the direction of possibly banning cigarettes and tobacco completely, and we should be more honest about that. If these products have the consequences that were described by the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), that is perhaps the direction in which we will be going. My hon. Friend spoke emotionally about the loss of his parents through cancer. I lost my own dad through cancer as well, and it is hideous seeing loved ones dying in that way.

My father switched brands. He used to smoke Senior Service, then Player’s, and I even think he toyed with Capstan Full Strength at one stage, and as he was dying he switched to Silk Cut—but all far too late, of course. The fact is that anybody who has seen someone die of cancer knows it is hideous.

As has been said, we need education. People must be properly educated about the damaging effects of smoking, and the damaging effects it can have over a lifetime.

I think it is right that we should wait for the evidence from Australia and any other countries that are about to embark down the route of standardised packaging. I know there are World Trade Organisation issues and European Union issues and these will all be dealt with in the right arenas. The EU is looking at standardising 65% of the packaging as far as the health warnings are concerned and making the sale of packs of 10 illegal.

There have been a number of changes to smoking laws in this country, including the banning of smoking in public places. Indeed, we have the Smoking Room in this Parliament where nobody is allowed to smoke, and I have always joked with friends when they leave the pub to have a quick cigarette outside that, given the cold winters in the United Kingdom, pneumonia will become a smoking-related disease. We have brought in these rules, however, and in many cases they are sensible.

It has always struck me that there was a very good argument against banning tobacco advertising. Advertising is influential and therefore important, of course, and it was always the advert at the bottom of the advert that I found most important. The advertisers could put anything on top—“the fat lady sings” adverts, or the Marlboro ones which we had to look at very carefully to work out whether they were advertising cigarettes or something else—but it was the advert below, which was the health warning saying “Smoking kills”, which was always more persuasive to me than anything else displayed.

[Mr Nuttall]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that if branding is banned, tobacco companies may use the money they currently spend on branding to cut the price of cigarettes?

[Mr Evans]

That is exactly what is going to happen, and I think one hon. Member intervened to say that that is part of the evidence from Australia. A lot of people like brands, such as Benson & Hedges or Regal, but others will go for the own-brand—whatever is cheaper. If it is £1 cheaper than the more expensive brands, that is what they will go for. Some people, I swear, will smoke the dust off the floor if it is sold at £1 cheaper than a branded pack. The point my hon. Friend raises therefore has got to be looked at as a possibly unintended consequence of bringing in standardised packaging.

I visited Clitheroe grammar school a few months ago and the issue of why the Government have delayed introducing standardised packaging was mentioned. I thought about it for a while and then I said to the pupil concerned, “Right: how much cannabis and ecstasy is consumed in the UK?” The pupil said, “Oh, quite a lot,” to which I said, “I think you’re probably right. Do us a favour: describe to me the packaging on cannabis or ecstasy.”

I ask Members to think about that for a second. What is the packaging for cannabis or ecstasy? There is no packaging. They come in foil or see-through bags, or in an envelope, perhaps. Clearly, people are not buying these products because of the packaging, standardised or otherwise. They buy them because they want them. That is a strong counter-argument to the proposal to get rid of branding.

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

Surely the answer to the question is that if those things were legal, health warnings would be on them, and quite right, too.

[Mr Evans]

Certainly there is no health warning on cannabis and ecstasy, and we know they kill a lot of people.

[Jake Berry]

Surely if making something illegal stops people consuming it, the fact that it is illegal for those under 18 to buy cigarettes would already stop any children taking up smoking.

[Mr Evans]

We know that is not an effective law, but that does not mean we should not have that law.

I believe we ought to look at education for young people. I do not want to see young people taking up cigarettes or any tobacco products at all. Doing more in the schools is vitally important, as is doing more through public health education campaigns. Will the Minister tell us what plans the Government have to roll out health campaigns particularly aimed at young people, to discourage them from starting to consume tobacco products?

I believe we should wait until we get the proper evidence from Australia and other countries about the impact of standardised packaging. Once we have the evidence, it will be appropriate to decide whether or not to introduce standardised packaging. As I said at the outset, tobacco would be the only product sold in the UK where the state entirely governed the packaging. Before we go down that slippery slope, which may be extended to other products in the future, we should make absolutely certain we have the science and evidence to back up the decision.

12:30

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Although I disagree with much of what we have just heard, it is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans). I am grateful that we, once again, have a chance to speak about the merits of standardised packaging. I also spoke on the subject in the debate that took place earlier in the year. Like many other right hon. and hon. Members, I spoke of the devastating effects that smoking-related illnesses have on families and individuals throughout our country. In the 10 months after the Government closed the consultation on this matter, no meaningful action was taken. During that time, 150,000 children will have started to smoke and, as we have heard, addiction results in the death of half its long-term users. Fifteen months have now passed, so we have had another five months during which we have had the opportunity to reduce significantly the 100,000 smoking-related deaths that take place each year. Sadly, yet again, no action has been taken by this Government.

We cannot neglect our duty to give all children and young people the best start in all areas of life. Health, education, decent housing and physical and emotional security are some of the very basics we should strive to achieve. Without them, children do not have an equal chance in life. By failing to protect children from the dangers of smoking when they are too young to make a truly informed choice, we are failing to provide each child with their very basic rights. The reform is simple and the potential gains are immense. There is a reason why smoking-related deaths are labelled as “preventable”. The question is how long, and how many lives will it take, before the Government act.

One thing is clear: standardised cigarette packaging will be introduced. This country has historically taken a strong line on the regulation of harmful products consumed by young people: in 2005, we tightened regulations on the advertising of alcohol, ensuring that advertising did not link to youth culture or irresponsible behaviour; to prevent passive smoking, we banned smoking in public places; to prevent children from taking up smoking at a young age, we made it illegal for shops to sell cigarettes to under-18s; and to prevent cigarettes from being glamorised, we ended sports sponsorship and billboard advertising.

We have put legislation in place to make adult consumers fully aware of the risks associated with smoking, launching nationwide health campaigns and offering tailored support for those who want to quit. Evidence and public support has helped successive Governments strive to improve the health of our nation. We must continue that tradition and strive to give young people every opportunity to live a healthy life. If we are to improve public health, cut preventable deaths and prevent young people from taking up a habit that could cause them significant harm, the course of action that is open to us is clear: standardised cigarette packaging, which can and would improve the health of future generations.

The evidence is clear: advertising works. If it did not, tobacco companies throughout the world would not spend huge amounts of money to reach out to new and existing consumers. Last year. Cancer Research UK released a report on the influence that marketing has on young people. It stated:

“All 19 quantitative studies found standard packs less attractive than branded equivalents, to both adults and children”

and that

“13 qualitative studies found that standard packs consistently received lower ratings on projected personality attributes (such as ‘popular’ and ‘cool’) than branded packs”.

All that reinforces the World Health Organisation’s conclusion:

“Marketing of tobacco products encourages current smokers to smoke more, decreases their motivation to quit and urges young people to start”.

Over half of long-term smokers die from a smoking-related disease, and that amounts to more than 100,000 people each year. In my constituency, 283 people per 100,000 die each year from smoking-related diseases. An estimated 1,110 young people aged between 10 and 14 are classified as regular smokers. Given that nationally each year more than 200,000 young people under 16 are beginning to smoke, inaction amounts to nothing less than neglect. For Barnsley alone, smoking creates a bill amounting to £75.3 million each year; financially, and socially, the costs of smoking are high.

The evidence is clear, and the only thing lacking clarity in this debate is the reason behind the Government’s failure to act. By introducing standardised packaging, Britain would send an important message that we are a country that prioritises our children’s health and well-being. By failing to act, the Government are prioritising business interest over the health of young people and future generations.

[Alex Cunningham]

My hon. Friend used the word “neglect” and said that we could be neglecting our young people by failing to act. Does he agree that this is a genuine child protection issue?

[Dan Jarvis]

I agree with my hon. Friend. We are in this place to make judgments about what is in the interests of our constituents, and it is my judgment, as it is his and, I believe, that of the majority of hon. Members, that it is in the short-term, medium-term and long-term public interest of our constituents to introduce standardised cigarette packaging.

I therefore strongly believe that the arguments against plain packaging—standardised packaging—and the justification for the Government’s “wait and see” approach are inconsistent. First, introducing standardised packaging is not aimed at stigmatising adults who already smoke. This is not about limiting choice for adult consumers; standardised packaging does not change what is inside the packet, but is a measure to protect children who are more easily influenced by marketing. Secondly, some hon. Members have argued that introducing such a measure would limit the tobacco industry’s right to advertise. Instead, we should be asking ourselves whether, by allowing the continuation of the status quo, we are infringing on the right of every young person to have a healthy childhood, and increasing their chances of taking up a habit that could have significant health implications for them for the rest of their life.

It is regrettable that I, along with many other hon. Members, must persist in relaying the facts to a Government who, as of yet, seek to ignore the evidence in front of them. This country has been an international leader in public health policy and we should continue to be so. We will have standardised packaging at some point in the future—it is just a question of when. Fundamentally, standardised cigarette packaging is about improving the nation’s health and giving each child the best possible chance of living a healthy life. The choice is theirs when they are an adult, but the responsibility is ours now. I urge the Government to act.

12:38

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

May I begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests? I speak as a lifelong non-smoker. I have never smoked and I do not intend ever to smoke. That is my choice, and such a choice is open to anyone, but there has been a huge change in the culture surrounding smoking since I was a child. I do not know whether anyone in the Chamber is as ancient as me, but if they are, they will remember a television advert saying, “You’re never alone with a Strand”. It had a picture of a glamorous, enigmatic man with the collar of his raincoat turned up. He was smoking, and every man wanted to be like him because he was glamorous and mysterious. Hollywood stars, who appeared to spend their entire lives in evening dress, had long cigarette holders and the practice was presented as glamorous, attractive and sophisticated. People of my age at that time could not wait to grow up and reach 16 so that they could smoke—everybody did—because it was a sign that someone had grown up. I suppose that it was a blessing that I was brought up poor and working class. I could not afford to buy cigarettes and I should probably be grateful for that fact now, as it meant that I never took up the habit.

A couple of hon. Members have referred to the harrowing experience of losing a parent to cancer. I share that experience, although it was not smoking-related in my case. It is important that the education on smoking that I never received as a child, nor for several years afterwards, is now available to our younger generation. It was normal for me to see every adult around me smoking, but that is not normal now. If one goes past a place of work, however, there will be a group of people outside smoking, leaving a carpet of cigarette ends on the ground. That is a cause for complaint for all the non-smokers in that organisation, who know that smokers get smoking breaks from time to time during the day that they do not.

In a previous life, when I worked in local government, the one recreation room for staff had to be surrendered to the smokers because the council was obliged to provide a smoking room. It had glass walls, and as one walked around, all one could see was a great fug of smoke. Again, people in there were spending time on breaks that non-smokers were not allowed to take.

I pay tribute to the schools in Hornchurch and Upminster for the important work they are doing to educate our children from the youngest age. They have citizenship classes and school councils, and they take anti-smoking education extremely seriously.

The purpose of plain packaging is mainly to deter young people from taking up smoking and, hopefully, to deter established smokers. As has become obvious, there is consensus on both sides of the House that we should do everything we can to deter young people from taking up smoking and to enable them to understand the health implications of which people were not aware years ago. When I was a child, the health implications of smoking were never mentioned.

The first question we need to ask ourselves is: would plain packaging work? Secondly, what would be the effect on illicit tobacco sales and products? Finally, what would be the effect on small retailers and the design and packaging industry? Several speakers have referred to the fact that plain packaging has been introduced in Australia, but that was only about a year ago. I think that it is far too soon for us to make a credible evaluation of how effective the measure has been on young new smokers and existing smokers.

In 2008, the Department of Health identified the predictors of smoking initiation as age, gender, home environment, drug use and alcohol. Truancy and exclusion from school were also factors, but not packaging or the appearance of tobacco products—and, strangely, not price. When I was young, price was the one thing that stopped me smoking. Had I been able to afford it, I probably would have tried it. The NHS study “Smoking, drinking and drug use among young people in England in 2011” reported that 5% of 11 to 15-year-olds smoked regularly—that is, at least one cigarette a week. That sounds to me as though one child who could afford a packet of cigarettes was handing them around to their friends. That was half the number reported in 2001 and it compared favourably with the 6% who said that they had taken drugs in the past month.

There are better solutions to reduce the number of young people who take up smoking. Such smoking is at an all-time low of 5%, but we need to do more. We must not underestimate the influence of fashion and trends on young people, and if smoking becomes the in thing again, that percentage could rise.

[Jake Berry]

On the question of smoking becoming fashionable again, what is my hon. Friend’s view on recent concerns about electronic cigarettes? Of course, they are not covered by the 2007 legislation and they can be smoked indoors in bars, clubs, pubs and restaurants. Recently, e-cigarette fluid has been marketed in champagne, vodka and bubblegum flavours. Is she concerned about that?

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

I must confess that I have tried e-cigarettes. I tried an apple-flavoured one, and it was quite an attractive, comforting thing to do.

I was a co-signatory to the open letter from my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley) that highlighted the dangers posed by plain packaging to jobs, businesses, tax revenue and the legal trade due to increased smuggling and counterfeiting. Plain packaging would make smuggling easier and cheaper, and such products could be manufactured without regulation or quality control—I am told that some contain quite noxious additives. That situation could only exacerbate the associated criminality and revenue loss.

Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimates that in my constituency of Hornchurch and Upminster, and those of other hon. Members, up to one in six cigarettes and 48% of hand-rolling tobacco is already illegal, costing the Exchequer up to £3 billion a year. If plain packaging were introduced, those figures would undoubtedly rise.

Plain packaging would also have a negative impact on small convenience stores. The display ban that is already in place in large stores will cover small shops in 2015. Most customers make additional purchases when buying their cigarettes and that custom is essential to the viability of small shops. I was in my local newsagent recently, standing behind somebody who was buying a packet of cigarettes. There was a warning on it in big, bold letters to the effect that smoking can kill. One could not possibly miss it, so that person had made a conscious choice to disregard the warning on the packet.

Plain packaging would also have a devastating effect on the supply chain for the tobacco sector, particularly as regards the design and production of branded packaging. That would stifle innovation, development and competition. It would be likely that lobby groups would continue to campaign for other product groups, such as alcohol or certain foods, to be subject to similar measures. That would be the thin end of the wedge, and it would pose a further threat to the design and packaging sectors and to the freedom of customers to make informed choices.

The Government are already investing significantly in anti-smoking measures. Anyone who wants to stop can get smoking cessation courses free of charge. We have television adverts and hoardings on the street, and there cannot be anybody in the country who does not know the health risks of smoking. People make a choice about whether to do it. As far as children are concerned, the principal responsibility lies with their parents, who should know how much money their children have to spend—a packet of cigarettes is very expensive—and how they spend it unsupervised.

12:44

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this important debate. Like him, I am an officer of the all-party group on smoking and health, and I also believe that tobacco control transcends the usual party differences. In my years in the House, that has certainly been the case for anti-tobacco policy.

Members will know that back in 2006 the previous Labour Government conceded a free vote on ending smoking in enclosed public places. The vote was won by a majority of more than 200, which showed that the proposal had strong support. The Government might want to find a similar means of getting themselves out of their awkward position, as they have been accused of being in bed with the tobacco industry because they have blocked the introduction of standardised packaging. The Children and Families Bill, which is now in Committee in the other place, might present such an opportunity.

The hon. Member for Harrow East rightly drew our attention to the fact that most smokers start their lethal addiction when they are children and that, for many years, the tobacco industry has advertised and marketed its products to make them as attractive to young people as possible. We all know that eight out of 10 smokers start by the age of 19 and that more than 207,000 11 to 15-year-olds become smokers each year. One in two of them, if they remain smokers, will die a premature death. In this country, in the region of 100,000 premature deaths a year are caused by the habit of smoking.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans) is no longer in the Chamber. He made the argument that the 12 million smokers in this country were all adults. Of course, most of them are adults—that is absolutely true—but at what age did they start smoking? Statistics on the number of people who start smoking at the age of 21 are insignificant. I started smoking years before I could legally buy cigarettes. I was smoking at the age of 12, and I stopped at the age of 24. The vast majority of people I was at secondary school with smoked. We were just trying to emulate other people. I also came from a poor, working-class family, and in theory there was not the money to buy cigarettes, but we used to find it. I say to the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) that if we look at the incidence of smoking now, social classes 4 and 5 have the majority of smokers and of premature deaths.

The importance of packaging is well understood by the tobacco companies. They dodge the existing health warnings and packaging requirements with great skill and ingenuity. I draw the attention of the House to the packaging of Benson & Hedges Silver Slide. Benson & Hedges in this country is owned by Japan Tobacco International, one of the big four international companies. People slide the cigarettes out of the pack, so it is not the standard packaging that was around when I was smoking back in the 1950s and 1960s. The outside of the Silver Slide package looks pretty normal but, unlike most packs, it is opened by pressing the side opening where it says “Push and Slide”, which exposes a tray containing the cigarettes. Printed on the tray are the words:

“I owe my success to having listened respectfully to the very best advice, and then going away and doing the exact opposite”,

which is a quote from G. K. Chesterton. The initials B&H are highlighted for a little extra brand identity on the slide. I suggest that the design has the obvious purpose of reinforcing a key tobacco industry marketing message that has been used with success for many years, particularly to recruit young people to smoke and to discourage quitters. That message is pretty simple—smoking is cool and an act of rebellion, and it is adult and transgressive. The hon. Member for Harrow East rightly pointed out that that marketing strategy is set out clearly in the internal documents that were published as a result of the US master settlement agreement with the industry.

[Alex Cunningham]

Is my right hon. Friend aware of the advertising in America for Vogue cigarettes, which says:

“The Vogue cigarette style was based on 1950s couture. The cigarettes that are preferred by women from across the world. Their lengthened appearance is an attribute of their femininity”?

Does he think that that is another example of the industry aiming to glamorise smoking?

[Mr Barron]

It is indeed. The packages themselves are there to attract young women. I have an empty packet in my office that demonstrates exactly that. The idea that packaging is not used to sell products or advertise them effectively is nonsense. The Silver Slide design is intended deliberately to undercut the health warnings that the law now requires on each packet.

The hon. Member for Ribble Valley talked about adverts and bill posters, and said that he could only understand the part at the bottom. When I introduced a private Member’s Bill in 1994 to get rid of tobacco advertising and promotion, it was pretty clear that most of the adverts on billboards were not understood by some people. They were deliberately designed for the inquiring mind. There would be a picture of a piece of silk with a cut halfway down the middle. The advert did not say Silk Cut cigarettes; it did not have to. However, who are the ones with inquiring minds? They are young people. Tobacco companies did that deliberately for many years, and the G. K. Chesterton quote is to get young people to say that they can take this on, and that they are not bothered about what people say.

In Australia, it has been decided that there should be no branding on tobacco packaging other than the product name shown in a standard font, size and colour. No other trade marks, logos, colour schemes and graphics are permitted. Colours and graphics have been selling cigarettes in this country for decades. In Australia, cigarette packs should not carry attractive designs and should therefore come in standard shape, size and colours, and the colours should be as unattractive as possible. There should be prominent health warnings front and back, in pictures as well as writing, and there should be a phone number and web address on every pack to help smokers to access quit services.

There are 100,000 premature deaths a year from tobacco smoking in this country. If those deaths had been caused by anything else in the 30 years that I have been in Parliament, this House would have been sitting 24 hours a day, seven days a week, until we could find a way to stop it. It is no good the Government saying that they will wait. We know what tobacco marketing has been like for decades. We have stopped most of it, and we should stop this advertising at the point of use as well.

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

In an area such as Salford, 1,000 young people—the figure was 1,100 in Barnsley—will start to smoke this year. If I am called to make a speech, I will talk about that. Ten months, a year or 18 months of delay will cause 1,000 or 1,500 young people in an area such as mine to start smoking, and that is a tragedy.

[Mr Barron]

And another 207,000 nationally will start this habit a year.

One might ask why people buy a packet of cigarettes when it has a warning on it, but this is an addiction. All sorts of addictions sadly roll over common sense, and tobacco is no different. Stopping young people starting is crucial, and that is working. Smoking rates for young children are diminishing now, as are rates for adults, partly as a result of taxation and partly because we are stopping tobacco companies promoting cigarettes.

There are no figures to show that counterfeiting is more likely with plain packaging. Earlier this year, the Japanese company came to the House and told us that there would be more counterfeiting, but there is no evidence of that. It showed us—I have one in my pocket —a counterfeit packet. It looks like any other Benson & Hedges packet, so counterfeiting happens now. Standard packaging could include features to protect against counterfeiting, and it is for the House to regulate to introduce them. Hon. Members should not use the arguments that have been sold by the tobacco companies year after year. When it was found that tobacco related to massive numbers of deaths, the companies were still questioning that decades after the event—they still do now. They use this House to do it on occasions and, I have to say, it is wrong. When there are 100,000 premature deaths a year, we as legislators have some responsibility to alleviate the problem. I know that smoking is addictive and it is difficult for people to stop.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that no young child can become addicted to cigarettes unless their parents provide them with the money to buy them?

[Mr Barron]

My father used to provide me with cigarettes; the only thing was that he did not know about it. I used to go in his packet of Woodbines and take one out, and he did not count them very often. That was how I started smoking on the street at a very early age. If we put the price up, of course it will reduce the consumption of cigarettes, but we need to stop young people starting.

12:58

[Paul Burstow (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)]

I rise as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), a fellow officer of the all-party group, on securing this important debate, which is an important opportunity for the House to continue to put pressure on the Government to move on this issue. I am a co-sponsor of the debate. It should come as no surprise that the APPG strongly supports effective action to reduce the harm that is caused by tobacco. I welcome the contributions from the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), all of whom set out compellingly the piles of evidence that show the effectiveness of standardised packaging as a further aid to tobacco control and reduction of the harm that tobacco does. That surely has to be a key goal of public health policy in this country.

Reducing the number of people dying from preventable disease and of people living with chronic disease has to be a key part of what this debate is all about. How do we address that? By tackling risk factors—in this case, the risky behaviour of taking up smoking in the first place. A variety of interventions can make a difference. In this country over the past few years, parliamentary action and parliamentary pressure have persuaded Governments to do something. I congratulate the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) on his initiative when he was Chair of the Health Select Committee to enable the Labour Government to bring in via a free vote the ban on smoking in enclosed public places.

No Government have a particularly good record of leadership in this area. Most Governments tend to have to be led by this place. That is why we are having this debate today, and I hope the Government will take their lead from this House and the other place, because both Houses have a cross-party unity of purpose in addressing these issues. We have seen that progress over the years.

Over the past 15 years the combination of measures has made a difference. Smoking prevalence has fallen among adults by a quarter and among children by as much as half. More clearly remains to be done, as the debate so far has demonstrated. Smoking is still a major cause of preventable disease and death. It far outweighs the next six major causes. When it comes to public health and to children and young people, we have a special duty, over and above that which we owe to all our fellow citizens. That duty is clear: we should act. Above all, standardised packaging is about protecting children and young people, as has been said in this debate.

Big tobacco must attract children. Why? Because its product kills 100,000 of its customers every year in this country, and it needs to replace those dead customers. The evidence is clear. Smoking is a childhood addiction, not an adult choice. We need to understand that. Some 40% of smokers are addicted by the age of 16, and two thirds are addicted by the age of 18. Two hundred thousand children take up smoking every year and about 530 of them do so in my borough, the London borough of Sutton. Very few people start smoking over the age of 20, as we have heard.

The focus on the recruitment of children has been admitted by big tobacco. The tobacco industry knows how sensitive children and young people are to brands of all sorts. Removing the brightly coloured packaging has been shown to make a difference. It has made those products less attractive to children.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

The right hon. Gentleman rightly emphasises addiction, but have we not heard, even in this debate, that this is addiction marketed as freedom?

[Paul Burstow]

Absolutely, and that is the most pernicious part of it. It is addiction posing as freedom of choice, whereas once they are addicted, people have lost their freedom of choice, and it is very hard to step back from that.

[Jake Berry]

On the subject of free choice, I am interested to hear that three-quarters of smokers take up smoking between the ages of 16 and 18. If people are not capable of exercising free choice at the age of 16, why does the right hon. Gentleman think it right that the Lib Dems have a policy of reducing the voting age to 16?

[Paul Burstow]

To make sure that the record is clear, I said that two thirds of smokers are addicted by the age of 18. It is entirely right that we have the debate on the voting age. The House has voted on the matter and has supported the idea that we should allow people to exercise a democratic choice at the age of 16, but that is not today’s debate. Although I would hope that voting was an addictive behaviour, it is not, and getting people to vote at an earlier age is more likely to get the participation rate up. That is why I support it and why my party does as well.

Let me move on to another point about what the industry has as its agenda. Imperial Tobacco’s global brand director, Geoff Good, has said that package redesign has been worth

“over £60 million in additional turnover and a significant profit improvement. . .the UK had become a dark market, the pack design was the only part of the mix that was changed, and therefore we knew the cause and effect.”

That was in 2006. Tobacco advertising is already banned in the UK. The branding and brightly coloured packaging clearly meet the legal definition already in existence. They are a form of commercial communication with the aim or direct or indirect effect of promoting a tobacco product. In the words of Imperial Tobacco’s global brand director, Geoff Good,

“pack design was the only part of the mix that was changed”.

The cause and effect are clear. Package-based advertising should be banned.

In earlier contributions to the debate, reference was made to some types of packaging. One example was Vogue cigarettes. The packet looks like a lipstick container or a perfume product. It is intended to convey the glamour of smoking, about which the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Dame Angela Watkinson) spoke earlier.

I have a question for the Minister, which she might be able to address in her contribution later. It concerns the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control. I understand that the UK plans to sign the protocol on the elimination of illicit trade in tobacco products. The protocol makes it clear that arrangements for tracking and tracing tobacco products should be independent of the tobacco industry. In other words, the industry should not be allowed to self-police. Does the Minister agree that the EU draft revision of the EU tobacco products directive should give full effect to the World Health Organisation protocol to ensure independence of action for our enforcement agencies in dealing with the illicit trade?

I welcome the Minister’s remark at Health questions a week ago that she was examining the issue “very carefully”. However, having already considered the evidence, her predecessor made it clear in the House and elsewhere that she supports the measure, as does my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Health. Why do we still have to wait for the Australian scheme to be tested further? We know after the first 11 months that it has been bedding in well. As we have heard already, it is having a material effect on consumer behaviour. Consumers are reporting that they think the same product tastes different. The same product is less attractive. Standardised packaging is affecting behaviour, which is a key element of this drive.

There is clear and sustained public support for standardised packaging. National polls show that two thirds of the public want to see the Government act on this agenda. When my local paper, the Sutton Guardian, ran a poll recently, it found that 80% of those who took part in that poll backed standardised packaging. Other nations in the United Kingdom are choosing to act. Other nations in Europe are choosing to act. The evidence is mounting, as is the death toll and as is the recruitment of children and young people to this pernicious habit. May we now see action? May we have something that children and young people deserve—this Government and this Parliament acting to protect them from the harm of smoking? Standardisation of packaging is the next step in effective tobacco control and I hope the Government will take that step soon.

13:07

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

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham), my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) and the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) on securing the debate on this important subject. We need to keep focusing on the issue because it has a great impact on the health of our constituents and most of all on the children and young people in our constituencies.

As an MP representing Salford, I want to speak today because, as others have said about their constituencies, smoking, smoking-related deaths and lung cancer rates are all too high in Salford. One in four of the population in Salford smoke, which is higher than the national average of one in five people in England as a whole. As a consequence, we have much higher rates of smoking-related death in Salford and a higher incidence of lung cancer, with 175 new cases of lung cancer diagnosed each year. The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said that it was estimated that 530 children in his borough would start smoking this year. In Salford, sadly, the figure is nearly 1,000—almost double.

As we have heard in the debate, so many smokers— estimated at eight out of 10—start by the age of 19 and one in two of those young people will die of smoking-related diseases if they become long-term smokers. We know and we should continue to reflect upon the fact that this habit is the biggest cause of premature death in the UK and long-term smokers have a life expectancy that is 10 years shorter than non-smokers.

There has been some debate about the early evidence from Australia on the introduction of plain packaging. It suggests to me that branded cigarette boxes influence the perception of smoking among young people, and that plain packaging can help in the fight against starting smoking. That is why the issue is important and it is largely what I shall speak about here. As the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, 70% of those interviewed in a study in Australia who smoked from plain packets said that they thought the cigarettes were “less satisfying”. That is an important finding. They rated quitting as a higher priority than those who continued to smoke from a branded pack did.

A separate study found that 80% of children interviewed rated plain cigarette packs as “uncool”. Members who have spoken so far have rightly focused on how much packaging influences that perception of cool, because brands are very important to young people. Those are powerful findings from Australia.

I believe that there is weight behind the argument that cigarette packaging is the last legal form of tobacco advertising and that it has an influence on young people’s perception of smoking. That in itself is why we should take action to introduce plain packaging.

In the excellent Westminster Hall debate on 3 September —we have already touched on this, but it is worth reflecting on—the then Health Minister, the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), talked about the power of packaging. She said:

“I have never forgotten the first time that I bought a packet of cigarettes.”

She deliberately chose a particular brand

“because they were green, gorgeous and a symbol of glamour.”

She said:

“I distinctly remember the power of that package. It was the opening of the cellophane and the gold and the silver that was so powerfully important to many people who, as youngsters, took up smoking.”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 23WH.]

That was a very honest admission from a Health Minister, but she still went on to adopt the “wait and see” approach that we are getting from the Government. The health of our young people does not have time for wait and see.

In the previous Parliament we introduced a ban on smoking in public places, and I was very pleased to be a Member of this House when we voted for that. I visited Copenhagen earlier this year and found myself in public places where people were lighting up cigarettes. I was surprised, because it is easy to forget how unpleasant it is to be in a public place where people are smoking and to come home with clothes and hair reeking of smoke. It is very unfamiliar to us now. Much worse, of course, are the health impacts for the people in those places who do not want to inhale smoke.

My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) outlined the steps that have already been taken to make smoking less attractive. Tobacco advertising has been banned from TV, billboards and sports such as Formula 1. Surely the next step is to tackle the advertising on the packaging.

In 1950 the figures were much higher: around 80% of men and 40% of women smoked. Amazingly, cigarette advertising at the time used images of doctors and celebrities to promote the different brands. One brand even used images of Santa Claus smoking—imagine that in the run-up to Christmas—to prove that it was easy on the throat. In the Westminster Hall debate my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) told me about a cigarette pack currently being sold—we have heard today from the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam about some of the packs available—and described it as

“a lovely 1950s retro pack, which opens up to show nice pink cigarettes inside”—[Official Report, 3 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 18WH.]

Those packs are targeted at young teenage girls, and that is very cynical advertising. As I have said, the early evidence suggests that the attractiveness of the brand does have an impact, especially on young people, who are so impressionable. We know that the colour pink is being used because it is attractive to young teenage girls.

Early reports suggest that plain packaging can make such a big difference by changing perceptions of smoking. That is important for our children. A review commissioned by the Department of Health and the Public Health Research Consortium showed that standardised packaging was less attractive, more effective in conveying messages about the health implications of smoking and more likely to reduce the mistaken belief that some brands are safer than others, the old idea that flavourings or menthol make it less damaging, which is also untrue. All the evidence suggests that plain tobacco packaging greatly reduces the attractiveness of cigarettes for children, and Australia’s stance is supported by the World Health Organisation.

I want briefly to congratulate stop smoking services in Salford, particularly on their programmes focused on reducing smoking in families with children under 16. If children do not see their parents smoking, they are less likely to start smoking themselves. Many of our programmes in Salford are targeted at those families.

All the tobacco advertising I have talked about is pernicious. However it is done, whether with slim packages, colouring or making it look like perfume, it focuses on young people, and particularly young women who want to remain slim. It is almost unbelievable that tobacco companies used to use Santa Claus and doctors to promote smoking and tried to persuade us that it was safe. I do not want to continue to see 1,000 young people in Salford start smoking each year. It is time we took the next important step to close down cigarette advertising by introducing plain packs. It is time to prevent our children from starting smoking. It is time the Government supported the amendment to the Children and Families Bill that will take that important step. Above all, it is time to reduce the large numbers of people affected by smoking-related illness and early death, both in Salford and across the country.

13:15

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing the debate and the other Members who went to the Backbench Business Committee to ensure that it took place. However, my comments will not be particularly supportive of my hon. Friend’s views on the issue. I look at the matter from the perspective of a member of the Public Accounts Committee, which recently produced a significant report on the impact of tobacco smuggling on the loss of tax revenue in the UK. Having seen the evidence, I came to the strong conclusion that the case for plain packaging is certainly unproven.

The hon. Member for Worsley and Eccles South said that she wanted to ensure that 1,000 children in her constituency do not take up smoking. I wonder what the evidence is to suggest that those 1,000 children will not take up smoking simply because of a change in the product’s packaging. The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) explained that he started smoking by stealing cigarettes from his father. I wonder whether his father’s choice of brand had any significant impact on his decision to steal a single cigarette. When I was growing up in Caernarfon, when people wanted to smoke they went to a local post office to buy singles. I suspect that they gave no consideration whatsoever to the brand; the point was that they could buy cigarettes very cheaply, usually one at a time. It was an important development when that was made an illegal practice that would not be tolerated. However, it is still the case that the driver is the price, not the branding. That is what I want to talk about.

When the Public Accounts Committee researched the smuggling of tobacco products into the UK, some of the information that emerged from that work was shocking. For example, in the top 10 recognised consumer brands of cigarettes in this country there are often two or three that are illicit and that it is illegal to supply in this country—for example Jin Ling, Richman and Raquel. Strictly speaking, those brands should not be available and so they would not be affected by legislation on plain packaging, yet independent consumer surveys show that those brands, despite being illicit and illegal, are recognised by the public.

The question we must ask, therefore, is why and how those brands are gaining a foothold in this country. Clearly it is unacceptable that they are smuggled into the country, and at such a rate that they are now recognised consumer brands. The key point we must recognise is that the driver for the sale of those products is not the branding or the so-called attractive packaging; it is the price. A packet of 20 cigarettes costs between £7.50 and £8. My son, who is lucky enough to have a paper round, would have to spend half his weekly wage if he decided to buy a packet of cigarettes legally, yet he could go out to any estate or high street in my constituency and, if he was switched on, find a packet of illicit tobacco for between £2 and £2.50.

I therefore argue that the driver encouraging young people to start smoking is more likely to be the price than the branding. If a young person can buy a packet of 20 cigarettes for 15% or 20% of their weekly paper round wage, they would be more tempted to do so than if they could buy it for 50% of their wage. By concentrating on plain packaging, we are ignoring an important fact: price is a driver for the sale of these products.

Time and again hon. Members have argued that plain packaging is about protecting young people, yet in university towns the young people often smoke roll-your-owns. The figure for roll-your-own tobacco is absolutely atrocious. In my constituency, which has no higher education facility, 48% of loose-leaf tobacco will be smuggled and illicit. The vast majority will not be recognised UK brands. In any town with a university or further education college, the percentage of illegal and smuggled loose-leaf tobacco will be even higher. What is the driver? What is persuading young people to buy tobacco products that are not officially marketed in the United Kingdom? The answer, I argue, is price.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman seems to be arguing that people who are already addicted, such as older students, will smoke anything, but that is not surprising. We have repeatedly argued that young people get addicted in their early teens, and his arguments do not negate that.

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady completely misrepresents my view. I said clearly at the outset that the temptation for young people is much enhanced if the product is affordable, and I think she fully understood my point.

It is important to recognise the problem of illicit and smuggled products because evidence—yes, to be tested and argued about—has been presented to suggest that plain packaging will actually make it easier for these products to be made available. I am fully aware that there are arguments on both sides. However, what is being said in this debate is, in effect, that the Government’s decision to wait to look at the evidence from Australia somehow indicates that they are in league with the tobacco companies. I find that quite distasteful.

I genuinely approach this debate from the point of view that I would like the number of people who smoke to be reduced—to nothing, I hope. I have never smoked, and if any of my children smoked I would be absolutely furious. Indeed, I lost my father to lung cancer at the young age of 63. My children never saw their grandfather simply because of his smoking. If the evidence was clear that plain packaging would be the answer, I would be supportive. I find it very odd that Members are saying that looking at the evidence is somehow condemning people to die. That is emotional and unacceptable language.

When Populus recently surveyed a number of police officers about whether they thought that plain packaging would be helpful, 86% of them clearly stated that they thought it would make it easier for illicit tobacco products to be supplied and that those products would be targeted at young people who could afford them. Sixty-eight per cent. of the police officers thought that plain packaging would lead to an increase in the size of the black economy in relation to tobacco products. A full 62% thought that an increase in cheap tobacco products would result in an increase in the use of tobacco products by children. Those are very interesting and important findings from a poll of police officers. Are their views correct? We need to look at the evidence and consider very carefully whether it supports them.

[Mr Barron]

The latest figures from HMRC, at a mid-point estimate, show that the market share of illicit cigarettes has fallen from 15% in 2006-07 to 9% in 2010-11. There is no evidence that this is not going the right way; it is enforcement that we lack.

[Guto Bebb]

The right hon. Gentleman should perhaps read the report by the Public Accounts Committee, which presented evidence that there has been an uplift since 2010-11. I thought that the whole point of this Chamber was to debate on the basis of the facts, and that we liked evidence to be up to date. If he wants to quote evidence from 2010-11, that is absolutely fine, but I refer him to the PAC report, which has updated figures. It is interesting that he would probably be very supportive of today’s PAC report on universal credit, but when the facts do not suit him he seems to ignore them.

The key thing we need to remember is that time and again this place has legislated in haste. There is a significant question mark over both sides of the debate. What the Government have said is very simple: let us see the evidence and consider it. If the evidence from Australia and other countries that decide to go down this route proves that there has been a reduction in the use of tobacco products, a reduction in illicit tobacco being taken into the country, a fall in the availability of illicit products, and a fall in the number of smuggled products, it would be worth taking the issue extremely seriously and moving to legislate. However, the argument advanced by some hon. Members is about their prejudice rather than the facts. We should congratulate the Government on being willing to wait and legislate correctly rather than acting in haste and possibly contributing to and supporting the behaviour of people who are making tobacco products available to young people not at £7.50 or £8 but at £2.50 or less.

We should consider very carefully what is tempting young people to take up smoking. I am very clearly of the view that the temptation is not necessarily branding but more likely to be price. Labour Members might like to have a good feeling about doing something in this place to help young people, but they should do it on the basis of facts, not their ill-informed opinions.

13:25

[Mr John Leech (Manchester, Withington) (LD)]

I am delighted to have a chance to speak in this Back-Bench debate, and I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing it. I will make a few brief comments because many issues that I would have mentioned have already been covered by other right hon. and hon. Members.

I absolutely support the principle of standardised packaging of tobacco. I believe that it should have been introduced a long time ago and that it should have had a higher priority than a ban on point-of-sale displays. That is because introducing standardised packaging would have resulted in the end of displays of cigarettes, as the adverts that those displays created would no longer be created by standardised packets.

The decision not to proceed with standardised packaging has rightly been criticised. Questions about whether advisers have unduly influenced senior Conservative politicians are perfectly legitimate and do not seem to have been properly addressed. However, equally disturbing are the interventions by the unions, with bogus claims that standardised packaging will result in significant job losses in the packaging industry. I would have hoped that Labour Members would be just as vocal in condemning those interventions as they have been in questioning the influence of Conservative party advisers, but sadly not.

The Government’s argument for delaying a decision on standardised packaging was based on a perceived lack of empirical evidence that it would discourage young people from taking up smoking. I would have thought the fact that the tobacco industry has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds, and more, in trying to lobby against standardised packaging would be evidence enough. Why would it spend so much money on trying to stop something happening if it was not going to have an impact on levels of smoking?

If that is not evidence enough, may I bring to the Minister’s attention early-day motion 559, in my name, which highlights research by the British Heart Foundation into standardised packaging for cigarettes in Australia? It interviewed 2,500 young people and found that more Australian teenagers than UK teenagers had been discouraged from taking up smoking, owing to the standardised packaging. Fifty-nine per cent. of Australian teenagers said that standardised packaging deters them from smoking, and 77% of UK teenagers and 66% of Australian teenagers support it. If that is still not enough for the Minister, perhaps she could look at the findings of the study by Cancer Council Victoria, which showed that when young people view packs stripped of colours and logos, they believe that the cigarettes are lower quality, will taste worse and are less appealing.

In my opinion, the evidence is clear: standardised packaging does discourage young people from taking up smoking, and we should introduce it without delay. However, may I suggest to the Minister that we go one step further? A lot of research was carried out to work out the most unappealing colour scheme for the packaging. I think we should extend this to the cigarettes themselves, and as well as having grotty green-brown packets, we should have grotty green-brown cigarettes.

13:29

[Jake Berry (Rossendale and Darwen) (Con)]

A lot of the points I was going to make have already been made, but I will start by saying that I absolutely support anything that is proven to reduce smoking. On that evidence-based test, I am delighted to congratulate the schools in my constituency of Rossendale and Darwen that have made fantastic progress on reducing the number of young people who take up smoking. Nationally, there is a good-news story to tell about the fall in the number of people who smoke and who take up smoking. The number is less than 20% of adults for the first time since records began, and there have been continued falls in the number of young people ever taking up smoking.

Many of us have had experience of cancer. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), whom I congratulate on securing this debate, have spoken movingly about their own family experience with cancer. It is a horrendous disease and that is why I am growing a moustache for Movember.

I think that lots of people who smoke are realistic about the risks. There cannot be many of them who do not know that smoking has a direct link to cancer and that it ends lives more quickly than may otherwise be the case. Some 12 million people still exercise their free choice to smoke cigarettes, however.

Many of the Members who are in favour of plain packaging have said that it will be a next step, but what they really mean is that it will be the next step on the road to banning smoking. Let us not beat about the tobacco bush: if people want to ban smoking—a legitimate habit of 12 million people in this country—let us have a debate about it. Some have spoken about taking incremental steps towards banning smoking in cars. I was tempted to intervene on the hon. Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) to ask how such a ban could be enforced, but I invite him to tell me now.

[Alex Cunningham]

Nobody wanted to wear seat belts when legislation was introduced, but the vast majority of people started to do so. I think that about 90% now do so. I believe that people would adhere to a law if we introduced it. If not, we would need just a few cases in court and I am sure it would then start to happen.

[Jake Berry]

I guess that the reason why people wear seat belts is that it is a criminal offence not to do so. If the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that smoking in cars should be made a criminal offence, that just reinforces my point about the desire of certain people on the other side of the debate to ban smoking. If that is what people want, we should have an active debate about it and give people who smoke legitimately an opportunity to have their say.

During this Parliament alone, the Government have increased NHS funding by £12 billion, given people access to the cancer drug fund and protected public spending with regard to local authority public health budgets. That is good progress and I am proud to be part of a Government delivering it. Limits on the display of tobacco products have also recently been introduced in larger stores. Anyone who has been to a supermarket recently will have seen the white signs that slide backwards and forwards to disguise tobacco products, and they will be introduced in smaller retailers in 2015. I support that and think it is a good thing.

The ban on vending machines in pubs is particularly good. I started smoking by buying cigarettes by the men’s loo in a pub in Liverpool, where I was brought up. It is the easiest way to buy cigarettes under age, so I am delighted with and support the ban. The way in which the Government have continued to increase the tax on cigarettes has also been good. I think that making them more expensive discourages people from taking up smoking. I support all that action, but such action must be based on benefits.

[Mr Barron]

I started on my anti-tobacco crusade 20 years ago this year when I promoted a private Member’s Bill. In all that time, the only person I have heard say that if tobacco was discovered now it would be banned was the then Conservative Secretary of State for Health, who now sits in the other place. As far as I know, it has never been part of the anti-tobacco campaign in this country to say that we want to ban people from smoking. What we want to do is prevent them from starting and save lives.

[Jake Berry]

I think it is right to say that if tobacco was discovered today it probably would be banned. I also think that if alcohol was discovered today it probably would be banned. That does not mean that we should seek to do so.

I am very pleased with the progress the Government have made. The evidence shows that we have reduced to a record low the number of people who smoke, but there are still things left on the to-do list. First and foremost, we need to look at the evidence from Australia. If it demonstrates that plain packaging has reduced the amount that people smoke, we should take it up and I would not oppose it. I do not accept, however, that that has yet been proven. Part of being in this House, in government or in opposition is to have an evidence-based debate about outcomes. I do not think that we have the evidence or that the outcome will be a reduction in the amount that people smoke. We also do not yet know the impact of disguising packages in supermarkets, which may have the effect we seek without increasing the regulation on the tobacco industry.

We need much more rigorous enforcement against under-age sales. It is illegal to buy cigarettes under the age of 18. People under that age can have consensual sex and they can go to Afghanistan to fight in the Army, and the Opposition and the Liberal Democrats think that they should have the right to vote, but they are not allowed to buy cigarettes. We should have much more rigorous enforcement of the existing laws against selling cigarettes to under-18s, rather than rush to introduce new laws on plain packaging and banning smoking in cars.

[Alex Cunningham]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jake Berry]

No, I will not.

The European Union has recently legislated on banning 10-cigarette packs and menthol cigarettes. I do not support the ban of 10-cigarette packs. People who smoke often purchase a packet of 10 cigarettes as a way of rationing themselves, and people who are trying to cut down on smoking will also buy them. I understand that this is about increasing the price of the first packet of cigarettes that someone buys, but making people buy 20 cigarettes at a time will increase the amount they smoke and encourage them to smoke more. That will be the unintended consequence of what is probably a well-intended piece of EU legislation and I am disappointed that the Government supported it.

Legislation banning menthol cigarettes also went through the European Parliament just a few weeks ago. I do not understand why the hundreds of thousands—millions even—of people in this country who smoke menthol cigarettes should have them taken away from them. People have to be able to make their own decisions. If they want to smoke normal or menthol cigarettes, they should be free to do so.

This House also needs to give much more attention to legislation with regard to electronic cigarettes. I do not smoke normal cigarettes. Having moved on to electronic cigarettes as a way of giving up, I know that they can be a hugely positive medicinal aid if someone is desperate to give up smoking. To talk about cigarettes as they are today is to talk about old technology. Within the next year or 18 months, in the United States of America more fluid for electronic cigarettes is likely to be sold than traditional cigarettes. It is a large, unregulated industry. We need to get a handle on it and an overview of it and scrutinise its potential benefits or, indeed, dangers. We need to start considering legislation with regard to electronic cigarettes and try to prevent young people from taking them up.

I know from experience in my local pub, the Robin Hood in Helmshore in my constituency, that more people are starting to smoke electronic cigarettes because they can do so while standing at the bar. Young people are starting to smoke them because they can get champagne, truffle, cherry and bubble gum flavours. We need to debate this important development in order to have some sort of control and to protect young people from, to be frank, the inappropriate glamorisation of the electronic cigarette.

13:39

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

This is the first time I have had the privilege of speaking with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I look forward to it.

I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) for seeking this debate, the co-sponsors from all parties and the Backbench Business Committee for making it possible. It has been a very good debate, with many thoughtful and powerful contributions and, I think, a large degree of consensus. There is a clear reason for that consensus. In the final analysis, this is a debate about children. Adults do not take up smoking; children do. Despite hon. Members having referred to a drop in the take-up of smoking, more than 200,000 children still take up smoking every year. Eight out of 10 smokers start by the age of 19. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron) said, there are few new smokers over the age of 21. In my patch, there are 460 regular smokers across Liverpool who have not yet turned 15. As the right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow) said, we are talking about a childhood addiction, not an adult choice.

We know that about half of those children—half of all regular smokers—will eventually be killed by their addiction. Contrary to the presentation by the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr Evans), who I am sorry to see is not in his place, tobacco is different from other products, because if it is used properly, as instructed, it kills one in two of its users. It is the only product for which there is an international treaty, the World Health Organisation’s framework convention on tobacco control, precisely because it is not like any other product and has to be treated differently.

Smoking remains by far the largest preventable cause of cancer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, more than 100,000 people die across the UK from smoking-related diseases every year. In Liverpool, 346 deaths per 100,000 are attributable to smoking, whereas the national average is 201 deaths per 100,000. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) spoke about NHS spending on the cancer drugs fund.

The question that we should be asking ourselves is whether we are doing everything we can to discourage children from starting to smoke in the first place. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb) said, I make no apology for asking the emotive questions. Are we doing all that we can to protect our young people? Have we exhausted every measure at our disposal? With that in mind, I want to cover three broad themes: first, why packaging matters so greatly; secondly, why the arguments against standardised packaging do not stand up to close scrutiny; and thirdly, why we cannot afford to wait.

I echo what was said by the hon. Member for Harrow East, my hon. Friends the Members for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) and for Barnsley Central and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley about the part that packaging plays in encouraging young people to smoke. It is widely accepted that in the years since the last Labour Government banned tobacco advertising in 2002, the tobacco industry has developed far more sophisticated ways of using packaging to entice people to smoke.

We have all seen what cigarette and tobacco packaging looks like in Britain today, with its bright colours, shiny veneers and slimmed-down packets. We have heard about the boxes shaped like perfume bottles and lipsticks, with the glamorous slogans to match. One slogan that struck me was:

“Indulgence—change the taste to suit your mood”.

Such novelty packets appeal to young people, because that is exactly what they are designed to do. Academics at the university of Stirling tested that by surveying more than 1,000 children for a study that was published in the British Medical Journal a few weeks ago. They found that the children were overwhelmingly more attracted to the packets with such designs.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

The hon. Lady has spoken about children starting to smoke. Does she agree that the main responsibility lies with their parents, because the money has to come from somewhere? If it does not come from their parents, where does it come from?

[Luciana Berger]

That point has been made by other hon. Members in this debate. I remember from when I was a young person that children do not get their money only from their parents and that they do not necessarily buy the cigarettes themselves. Often, they see other people getting out their packs of cigarettes.

The children in the university of Stirling study who were shown a packet of Silk Cut cigarettes were found to be more than four times more likely to be susceptible to smoking. Those children had never smoked.

It is the packaging that entices children. If we want to discourage children from ever starting to smoke, we need to question whether that is an acceptable way to market a product that is highly addictive, seriously harmful and clinically proven to kill. Smokers advertise tobacco brands to other people every time they take out their pack to smoke. The packets should not be glitzy adverts, but should carry strong and unambiguous health warnings about the dangers of smoking. We should not allow those warnings to be subverted by the design of the rest of the packet.

I will move on to my second theme. We have heard a few arguments against standardised packaging in this debate. We have also heard those arguments from the tobacco industry. I will deal with each of the arguments in turn. Much of the discussion has centred around evidence. Hon. Members have said that there is no evidence that standardised packaging will work. That is not true.

Last year, the systematic review by the Public Health Research Consortium, which was commissioned by the Department of Health, looked at all the evidence on standardised packaging. The findings are clear for everyone to see. It found that standardised packaging is less attractive, especially to young people. My hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) rightly pointed out that it takes away the cool factor. The review also found that standardised packaging makes health warnings more effective and combats the utter falsehood that some brands are safer than others. Those findings have been backed up by 17 studies that have been published since the systematic review. Government Members, including the hon. Member for Ribble Valley, have asked for evidence. We have the evidence.

A separate study that was published in the British Medical Journal in July looked at research from Australia soon after the introduction of standardised packaging. It found that smokers who used standardised packs were 66% more likely to think that their cigarettes were of a poorer quality, 70% more likely to say that they found them less satisfying, 81% more likely to have thought about quitting at least once a day in the previous week and much more likely to rate quitting as a higher priority in their lives than smokers who used branded packs. Not only are people less likely to take up smoking when presented with standardised packs; people who already smoke are more likely to think about quitting if the cigarettes that they buy come in standardised packaging.

[Barbara Keeley]

My hon. Friend is being very generous with her time. The hon. Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Jake Berry) seemed to be quite satisfied with the Government’s action on this issue, although that is perhaps not surprising given the views that he has put forward in this debate. However, it is a fact that fewer people have quit smoking successfully and that fewer people have attempted to quit with NHS help over the last year. That is the first time since 2008-09 that those figures have fallen. I talked about quit services in Salford, but such services are now less successful and there must be a reason for that. Does my hon. Friend take that as seriously as I do?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. The figures that came out just the other week do show a drop in the number of people who are quitting smoking through NHS services. I am very concerned about that. As I said at the start of my contribution, 200,000 young people still take up smoking every year. That is exactly what we are seeking to address in this debate.

We have reflected a lot on the Australian experience. The former Australian Health Minister, Tanya Plibersek, reported that there was a

“flood of calls…in the days after the introduction of plain packaging accusing the Government of changing the taste of cigarettes.”

She went on to say:

“Of course there was no reformulation of the product. It was just that people being confronted with the ugly packaging made the psychological leap to disgusting taste.”

That is a significant point. Far from there being no evidence, there is a swathe of evidence.

The second claim raised during our debate is that standardised packaging would increase the trade in counterfeit cigarettes, or impact on the printing trade. Again, it is important to clarify that we are talking about standardised packaging. I have heard hon. Members use the term “plain packaging”, but we are not discussing that. I know I am not allowed to demonstrate this at the Dispatch Box, Madam Deputy Speaker, but standardised packaging is clearly printed; it is not a plain pack. Current packaging is already so easy to forge that covert markings enable enforcement officials to identify counterfeit cigarettes, and all key security features on existing packets would continue on standardised packets. Standardised packaging would make pictorial warnings more prominent and packaging harder to forge.

We heard in an important contribution that standardised packaging might lead to an increase in illicit trade, but that is simply not true. Andrew Leggett, deputy director for tobacco and alcohol strategy at Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, stated in oral evidence to the House of Lords European Union sub-Committee on Wednesday 24 July:

“There are a number of potential factors that weigh on counterfeit packaging”,

but that if standardised packaging was introduced, it was

“very doubtful that it would have a material effect.”

[Jake Berry]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way to give her a chance to find her place. Does she acknowledge that the Government’s current policy on standardised or plain packaging is exactly the same as it was under the previous Government?

[Luciana Berger]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention but more than three years have passed since that point. I am immensely proud of everything the Labour Government did through their tobacco strategy to reduce smoking. We heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central about the many measures we introduced, but we must do more and go further, and in my concluding remarks I will say why I am disappointed with the Government’s current approach.

The third claim I want to counter is that the proposed changes to tobacco packaging are somehow a symptom of the nanny state. People should, of course, be allowed to make their own decisions, but we should not be standing by while industry sets honey traps and uses every means at its disposal to try to make those decisions for them. Nearly all new smokers are children, we are dealing with an addictive product that is clinically proven to kill, and smoking rates are higher among the most vulnerable groups in our society, particularly children in residential care. That is why today’s debate is so important.

I will conclude with my most important point, which is why we cannot afford to delay. The Minister has previously made it clear that the Government’s position is to wait and see. Her predecessor did the same, despite saying that she personally had been persuaded of the case for standardised packaging a few months previously. Just today, about 570 children across the country, none of them older than 15, will have their first cigarette, and approximately 71 will have done so while we have been debating this subject. If we wait and see, we will be standing idly by while hundreds of thousands of young people become victim to this deadly addiction.

The Opposition have made their position clear. If the Government wish to bring forward legislation to make standardised packaging a reality, they can count on our full support. That was our position before the Government changed their mind about this issue in July, and it is our position now. The Children and Families Bill is making its way through the other place. Labour has tabled an amendment to that Bill to introduce standardised packaging that will be debated in the coming weeks and voted on later this year. That simple measure would make a huge difference and is clearly supported by Members on all sides of the House. On behalf of those 71 children who have started smoking during this debate, and the 200,000 who will start every year, I urge the Minister and her Government colleagues to do the right thing and support our amendment. Let us save future generations from the perils of smoking.

13:49

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

It is a genuine pleasure to respond to this Backbench Business Committee debate. I was a member of the Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), who initiated the debate, made a bid for it, although at the time I did not expect to respond to it, so I am in an interesting position. My hon. Friend made a great bid and we have had a terrific debate. I am grateful for the contributions from all hon. Members.

It is good that we are debating this important issue now. It has been helpful for me, as a new Minister, to hear arguments put so eloquently from across the House, and I will try to respond to some of the specific points made and to set out the Government’s position. I recognise that I will disappoint some people, but I will try to give a flavour of the Government’s current position and mention some of the important measures we are taking on tobacco control.

As many hon. Members have said, tobacco use remains one of our most significant public health challenges. For me as a new Minister, over the past month briefing after briefing and chart after chart have illustrated how important and what a significant public health challenge tobacco control is. There is no question in my mind that it is an essential aspect of any Government’s commitment to reduce the number of people dying prematurely in our country, and it is essential to promoting the health and well-being of children. A number of speakers have made the point that two thirds of smokers say they were regular smokers before they became adults. Many have spoken about adult choice, but we must recognise that by the time many people are addicted to smoking, they are already an adult and the addiction started as a child.

As hon. Members know, the Government have decided to wait before deciding on standardised packaging, but I do not recognise some of the time frames that people have ascribed to our position. I said that during Health questions, and I repeat that the policy remains under active consideration.

Interesting points have been raised in the debate, including about emerging evidence from Australia and studies carried out elsewhere, some of which the shadow Minister referred to in her contribution. Evidence and information are emerging all the time, and we want to spend more time assimilating that information and considering the likely effect that standardised packaging would have in this country. It is sensible and sound politics, particularly when dealing with a controversial area and a litigious industry, to show the stages by which we reach a decision, and I am sure that Members appreciate that we must be able to evidence that decision.

[Alex Cunningham]

If we are going to allow another half a million young people to take up smoking over the next three years while the Government decide whether to introduce plain packaging, what measures will the Minister take to hit the big numbers that we know plain packaging—or standardised packaging—could affect?

[Jane Ellison]

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman corrected himself, because it is important that we do not call it plain packaging—it is standardised. I hear his point and will move on to address some of the specific issues. Many people have cited such numbers.

[Mr Barron]

If the other place legislated to introduce standardised packaging, we would be able to have a vote in this Chamber. May we have a free vote, just as the current Prime Minister argued for a free vote on smoking in public places?

[Jane Ellison]

The Government are following discussions in another place closely. Beyond that, I am not able to comment in this debate, but we are well aware of those discussions and Ministers are participating in them.

Australia introduced standardised packaging in December 2012, and New Zealand and the Republic of Ireland have committed to do that. In addition, other academic studies are emerging about the effects of that policy.

The UK has a long and respected tobacco control tradition internationally, although at times in this debate it has been possible to miss that point. Under successive Governments the UK’s record has been good, and we will continue to implement our existing plan to reduce smoking rates while keeping the policy of standardised packaging under active review. The tobacco control plan for England sets out national ambitions to reduce smoking prevalence among adults, young people and pregnant mothers. As the plan makes clear, to be effective, tobacco control needs comprehensive action on a range of fronts.

I will talk a little more about this in the context of devolved powers of public health to local government, but there is a slight danger that by focusing only on one aspect of tobacco control, we forget that there are other—and indeed more—things that we could do. Even if it was possible to say today that we would do this tomorrow, we would still be debating how we could effectively control tobacco and stop children taking up smoking. As various hon. Members have said, including the right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr Barron), this is an ongoing battle to protect children’s health.

[Barbara Keeley]

Is the Minister concerned about the fact that between April 2012 and March 2013, there was an 11% decline in the number of people setting a quit date? We are concerned about children, but if they are still watching their parents smoking, it is more likely that they will start. I hope that she is disturbed by the fact that the numbers setting out to quit are falling—it is the first fall since 2008-09. The Minister should address that point.

[Jane Ellison]

We are aware of that, but smoking in this country has dipped below 20% for the first time ever. I am aware of the hon. Lady’s concerns and I shall talk a bit about some of the public health campaigns and the new opportunities, not just for the Government but for local government and individual Members, on tobacco control policy.

As our plan makes clear, effective tobacco control needs comprehensive action on many fronts. The Government are taking action nationally. We are committed to completing the implementation of legislation to end the display of tobacco in shops. Since 2012, supermarkets can no longer openly display tobacco. In 2015 all shops will need to take tobacco off view. Tobacco can no longer be sold from vending machines, which has stopped many young people under 18 accessing smoking.

I do not want to downplay the importance of this policy—we are conscious that it could make an important contribution—but we can do many other things. The reasons why children, in particular, take up smoking are very complex, and are to do with family and social circumstances. One policy alone will not address that. Local authorities have a vital role to play, which is why we have given local government responsibility for public health backed by large ring-fenced budgets—more than £5.4 billion in the next two years. I encourage all hon. Members who have participated in today’s debate to ask tough questions of people locally. I hope that they are talking to their public health directors, health and wellbeing boards and clinical commissioning groups about where tobacco control sits in the armoury of local government. That is why this power has been devolved. The local insight and innovation made possible by that policy will help us to tackle tobacco use at a local level as well as through policies that the Government can put in place.

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

I congratulate the Minister on her obvious grasp of the subject. She is right to say that this will be a continuing debate beyond the issue of standardised packaging. Does she agree, however, that an increasing welter of evidence suggests that standardised packaging would help in the fight against smoking, particularly among the young? Will she give an assurance that the Government will increase the urgency of their review of the situation, and especially of the growing evidence in favour of standardised packaging?

[Jane Ellison]

I can give my hon. Friend that commitment and I am giving this my urgent consideration. It is impossible to sit through a debate such as today’s, and hear the passion expressed by many hon. Members on both sides of the House, without going away, as the public health Minister, to give it one’s serious, urgent and active consideration.

I have laid out a little challenge to hon. Members to take this issue up at the local level. I appreciate that it is right that I should be held to account on this issue, but in the new world of devolved public health powers, I urge hon. Members to have those conversations with their health and wellbeing boards and with public health directors. In areas of the country where smoking prevalence among children is a difficult issue—some examples have been cited in the debate—our belief is that by devolving some of the power and, importantly, the ring-fenced budget to local authorities who know their communities best, they can begin to tackle the problem with great urgency and added innovation in a way that central Government cannot.

Public Health England has an important part to play. As a new, dedicated, professional public health service, it will be available to advise on local action to promote public health and encourage behaviour change to help people live healthier lives. It will put expert advice at the disposal of local authorities.

[Alex Cunningham]

The Minister has outlined some good ideas, but will she say whether she would support a free vote on this issue on the Floor of the House?

[Jane Ellison]

With respect, I am outlining these other aspects to underline the point that one policy is not sufficient to tackle this problem. There is a slight danger of believing that the approach is a silver bullet. It is an important policy that has been given serious consideration, and the case has been made for it, but we would still be debating how to stop children smoking, even if it were introduced.

[Alex Cunningham]

What about a free vote?

[Jane Ellison]

I will move on as I have tried to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s point.

Our local stop smoking services are among the best in the world. The fact is that smokers trying to quit do better if they use them. Research has found that

“English stop smoking services have had an increasing impact in helping smokers to stop in their first 10 years of operation”—

although I hear the challenge that has been made on the recent drop—

“and have successfully reached disadvantaged groups.”

The latter are obviously particularly important from a public health point of view.

This year, Public Health England has launched a new dedicated youth marketing programme. This marketing strategy aims at discouraging a range of risk behaviours, including tobacco use, among our young people. In this financial year, that is worth more than £1.5 million.

[Barbara Keeley]

The Minister does not seem to be saying what the Government will do about the decline in quitting—the fact that stop smoking services are not reaching people to the extent that they should be. Does that concern her, and is she going to do something about it?

[Jane Ellison]

That is something that I will look at carefully, but I point out to the hon. Lady that obviously this issue now falls under the remit of Public Health England. It will be on my agenda for the next meeting with the chief executive, and I will write to her after I have had that discussion, if that would be helpful.

[Jake Berry]

Does the Minister think that there is any connection between a record low number of people smoking and relatively few people contacting the quitting helpline? Does she think that we might be down to the core of people who actually choose to smoke and do not want to give up?

[Jane Ellison]

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but after four weeks in this job, I do not know that. I am not prepared to speculate on such an important issue, but I am happy to come back to him with more detail when we have given it further consideration.

Through Public Health England, we will continue to run national marketing campaigns, such as the hard-hitting health harms “Mutation” campaign, in the new year. I am sure that no one who saw that can forget the images in the campaign, which reminded smokers about the physical damage caused by smoking. We have just finished Stoptober—we have now moved on to Movember—a new approach launched in 2012 challenging smokers to stop for 28 days, all at the same time. We know that that can be a key turning point if people want to quit for ever.

The Government will continue to play their part. To discourage smoking, we have some of the highest-priced tobacco in Europe and we will carry on with our high tax policy. That is coupled with an effective strategy, led by HMRC, to reduce the illicit tobacco trade, which has been mentioned in the debate. However, we must not forget the great progress that has been made. As I said, fewer than 20% of adults in England now smoke, compared with 39% in 1980. However, we want that number to fall, and there is no room for complacency.

On standardised packaging and illicit tobacco, some 21% of the UK’s cigarette market was illicit in 2000. Latest estimates from HMRC for 2012-13 suggest that that proportion has dropped to around 9%. Enforcement is having a real impact on illicit tobacco and we want to see the figure fall still further. The Government, working with other interested parties, are trying to drive down the size of the illicit tobacco market through improved enforcement and reducing opportunities for fraud. I am grateful to those hon. Members who have made the point that if we were to adopt standardised packaging, it would not mean plain packaging. Approaches such as anti-smuggling devices could be built into standardised packaging, if we choose to go down that route.

A few hon. Members were concerned about the possible impact of the policy on jobs. Obviously, the Government need to consider all aspects of the policy, including any impact on employment, alongside possible health benefits. Others made a point about small retailers, and some might have been present for a recent late-night Adjournment debate to which I responded that was led by the hon. Member for Solihull (Lorely Burt), who is not in the Chamber. She made some very interesting points, especially by citing evidence from a small retailer who told her that tobacco constituted 14% of his profits, but 50% of his turnover, and who was actively trying to diversify his business into areas that yielded greater profit.

I want to place on record our position on tobacco industry lobbying, which several Members mentioned. We are well aware that the tobacco industry opposes the introduction of standardised packaging, as has been the case on many other tobacco control policies, and we are equally aware of our commitment to protect public health policy on tobacco control from the commercial and other vested interests of the tobacco industry. We encourage tobacco companies to respond in writing to consultations so that we can understand and take account of their views about the implications of policy options. Members will fully appreciate why we have to take such steps properly to inform a robust public policy in this area.

The right hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Burstow)—he is not in the Chamber, but I know he had a long-standing previous engagement—made a point about the proposed tracking and tracing scheme in the EU directive that is under negotiation. We are considering those details, particularly in the light of our obligations under the framework convention on tobacco control, to which reference has been made.

I reiterate that this policy is under active consideration, but I want hon. Members to reflect on what else we can do.

[Dame Angela Watkinson]

When looking at future policy development, will the Minister pay greater attention to how parents can be encouraged to take responsibility for the behaviour of their young children and how much money they have to spend unsupervised? Such money obviously gives children access to tobacco, but it is in parents’ hands to control it.

[Jane Ellison]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important point. We know that many children who start smoking are within a family who smoke and that they are sometimes given cigarettes by parents or other family members and friends. I will of course consider her very relevant point.

I reiterate that there are many things we can do, but we are actively considering whether standardised packaging could make an important contribution to our overall policy on tobacco control. I have noted the strength of feeling on both sides of the House. This has been a good debate, and an informative one for me as a new Minister. As I have said, I am actively considering the matter, and today’s powerful contributions have spurred me to give further and urgent consideration to this important public health issue.

14:13

[Bob Blackman]

This being the first time I have spoken when you have been in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker, I congratulate you on your election to high office.

We have heard today from 11 Back Benchers, as well as the two Front Benchers, and hon. Members have put their arguments strongly. Clearly, I am wholly in favour of standardised packaging for tobacco products, and the quicker it is done the better. Three arguments have been advanced against its rapid introduction. The first concerns the illicit trade. In reality, the illicit trade continues now, but the evidence is that through the security marking of packaging and cigarettes themselves, and with greater vigilance from our customs and excise people, the illicit trade can be stamped on hard. The tobacco industry, which is against standardised packaging, uses the illicit trade as an excuse.

Secondly, we have heard that the big tobacco companies would use the money they currently spend on packaging to cut the cost of tobacco. My answer is to increase the tax. We must ensure that tobacco is expensive so that people are discouraged from purchasing it. Thirdly, the key argument from those who oppose the measure seems to be, “Let’s delay and prevaricate. Let’s wait and see what happens. Let’s wait for everyone else to decide, and then take action ourselves.” As we have said, 300,000 under-18s start smoking every year, so the longer we delay, the greater the number of people taking up smoking and dying prematurely.

[Barbara Keeley]

I imagine that the hon. Gentleman was as disappointed as me to hear the Minister’s response. There is a tendency among Health Ministers to say that everything is at arm’s length. Like me, I hope that he rejects the Minister’s claim that responsibility lies with Public Health England, local government and Members themselves. The action we need is action that only the Government can take. Does he support that view?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, but the Minister did give some clear assurances about the review of evidence and research that will take place.

We cannot afford to delay this health measure. It would stop young people being attracted to smoking. The evidence overwhelmingly shows that big tobacco targets young people to get them smoking, and we must not allow it to continue prevaricating and preventing progress on this agenda. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to go back to her office this afternoon and look at the evidence, including the 17 studies, and make it clear to her health officials that we want to do this now, not to wait. If the Government refuse to act and the other place refuses to amend the Children and Families Bill, we will introduce another debate on which we can divide the House and demonstrate that the overwhelming will of hon. Members is for the immediate introduction of standardised packaging of tobacco products.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered standardised packaging of tobacco products.

First World War Commemoration

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

14:17

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr Andrew Murrison)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered commemoration of the First World War.

It is a great privilege to lead this Government debate during our season of remembrance. I would like to start by paying tribute to Warrant Officer Ian Fisher of 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment. His passing brings the events we are debating a little closer, and tragically so. Our thoughts and prayers are with the family, friends and colleagues of a truly remarkable man.

I am pleased that so many colleagues are here in the Chamber today. It shows the extent of the interest in this subject and I hope means that Members will be taking this issue to their constituencies in the years ahead and showing the leadership for which they are renowned and encouraging their communities to get involved in this commemoration. I wish to bring to the attention of right hon. and hon. Members the “Fields of Battle” exhibition, which Mr Speaker was gracious enough to allow to be displayed in Westminster Hall and the opening ceremony of which many colleagues attended on Tuesday. It is an example of how Members can take the great war centenary to their constituencies and expose this at street level to as wide an audience as possible. I commend it to the House.

[Mr David Burrowes (Enfield, Southgate) (Con)]

Is there not also an opportunity for hon. Members to highlight the opportunities, apparent when we go to our remembrance services and are before these memorials that provide a living link with those who lost their lives in our name, to support the War Memorials Trust and the “then and now” funding that aims to re-establish the link between community groups and their memorials and to teach people about the lives lost in our communities? That is important and will ensure that we can register memorials of all shapes and sizes donated by past generations. We need to continue that link in times to come.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend raises a good point and I shall underscore the importance of focusing on the personal and parochial in this commemoration, as that is the link that people have with that period. Using war memorials as the starting point is something I would encourage. I commend all those involved in that endeavour.

I would like to set out the Government’s thinking on the four-year centenary of the first world war and give a flavour of the philosophy underpinning its approach. The great war may be the keystone of our times but our understanding of it is not very good. Polling data suggests that the public know that there was a war in 1914 and have a pretty good idea of who was on what side. They know about mud, trenches and iconic things such as the Christmas truce. Thereafter, it starts to get a bit hazy. Improvement of our grasp of the causes, conduct and consequences of the first world war must be at the heart of the centenary that is about to break upon us.

As the Prime Minister said a year ago when he announced the Government’s framework for the centenary,

“Our first duty is to remember.”

But the question is, what exactly should we be remembering? The remembrance that the Prime Minister was talking about involves so much more than simply bringing to mind experiences that few of us have had or people we have never met. Remembrance is not synonymous with recollection. This Sunday is Remembrance Sunday, not recollection Sunday. It is an opportunity to acknowledge the fallen, while consciously reflecting on the nature of war and resolving to avoid it. That is what we mean by remembrance. We also give thanks that, peace restored, the great majority who served in the first world war did actually return to raise their families—our families—although, let us not forget, that all too many returned with enduring mental or physical infirmity that changed the course of their lives and that of their families to an extent that will never be quantified. That resonates with contemporary conflict, provoking I hope generosity in the 2013 poppy appeal.

The waypoints of the war sear our national consciousness; the Somme, Jutland, Gallipoli, Passchendaele, Loos and Amiens, the last so crucial as the game changer in the course of the war. We must remember that this war was also fought on the home front in the factory and the munitions depot, and by women whose lives would never be the same in a society transformed. We must commemorate this centenary because with the passing in 2009 of Harry Patch, Bill Stone and Henry Allingham, our last tangible links with the first world war are retreating into the shadows.

[Alok Sharma (Reading West) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does he share my view that we should commemorate not just British soldiers but soldiers from the Commonwealth countries, particularly soldiers such as Khudadad Khan, the first Indian to be awarded the Victoria Cross, who survived the war?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point, which I will develop in my contribution; suffice to say I agree with him wholeheartedly.

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

The one thing I regret is that I did not ask my grandfather more about the first world war and now, of course, it is far too late. In 1921, we gave a posthumous VC to the unknown soldier in the United States. As we now commemorate 100 years since the beginning of the first world war, is it not appropriate to at least consider awarding a VC to the unknown soldier who lies in Westminster Abbey, as suggested by a constituent, Tony Ormiston, who is an expert on the VC?

[Dr Murrison]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the suggestion. Over the four-year period, there will be plenty of opportunities to mark appropriately those who fell during the great war and those who served and sacrificed. On Monday there will be a delivery of sacred soil from Flanders fields to a memorial garden at the Guards chapel not far from here; a very fitting tribute and one that will bring this country and Belgium—two key players—very much closer together. I hope people will take note of all this, and the whole point is for them to reflect and better understand what happened 100 years ago.

There are those who are asking what the point of it all is, but if we do not do this we risk disconnection from the defining event of our time. There is an opportunity perhaps to balance the “Oh! What a Lovely War”/“Blackadder” take on history that, sadly, has been in the ascendant for the past 50 years. In its place, we will have a richer, deeper and more reflective legacy. But we should acknowledge that some will interpret the centenary in different ways, holding and contributing their own views. Some within that patchwork may discomfort some of us. We may individually or corporately disagree with them but find expression they must. The role of Government in the centenary is to lead, encourage and help make it all happen, while avoiding the temptation to prescribe. It is emphatically not the place of Government in our 21st century liberal democracy to be handing down approved versions of history.

[Mr Nigel Dodds (Belfast North) (DUP)]

Will the Minister acknowledge that many soldiers from the Irish Republic, as it now is, served during the first world war? The Republic of Ireland is no longer a member of the Commonwealth, of course, but it is important that their sacrifice is part of all this. Will he join me in welcoming the fact that there are seemingly positive discussions with the Government of the Irish Republic to ensure that, in relation to those who won the VC, the paving stones will be laid in counties in the Irish republic? Certainly that good work needs to continue and we welcome it very much.

[Dr Murrison]

I am absolutely delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. As he would expect, we have spent a great deal of time in debate with Dublin on this matter. As I have been going through this work, it has been something of a revelation to me as I have understood fully the great work that Her Majesty the Queen did when she visited Dublin. Ever since then there has been a huge appetite in both countries to improve the relationship between the two countries, which has been extraordinarily uplifting. Of course the Republic of Ireland is engaged in its decade of commemoration, within which falls the centenary of the great war. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that I have had extraordinarily positive feedback from Dublin regarding their engagement with this period of shared history and I look forward, as part of the legacy of the centenary, to moving the relationship a little further forward, with all the sensitivities that it of course contains. However, I see this very much as an opportunity and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point.

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

Many of the Irish nationalist Members of this House fought in the war, which they never thought they would be doing, on behalf of the united Great Britain and Ireland, including, most famously perhaps, Willie Redmond. He has a shield in the House, but one Irish nationalist MP who died in active service who does not have a shield is Captain Esmonde. Will the Minister make sure that he gets one?

[Dr Murrison]

I suspect that that is a matter for Mr Speaker rather than for me, but I suspect that Mr Speaker will have noted the contribution of the hon. Gentleman. I know that the House itself is working hard to determine what it will do to mark the centenary of the great war and no doubt the hon. Gentleman will be able to reinforce his point with the appropriate authority.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I was pleased to hear the Minister say that the Government will not dictate how we should commemorate the tragedy of the first world war. I hope that, in the promotion of serious discussion on the subject, he will recall the soldiers who died in all theatres of conflict, be they German, Russian, French or British. I also hope that he will recall the significant degree of opposition to the war on both sides, in Germany and in Britain. That, too, is part of our shared history and should be commemorated and discussed.

[Dr Murrison]

It is rare for me to agree with the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with him on that point. I note that the Heritage Lottery Fund, which has been at the centre of all this through providing a great deal of the underpinning finance, has recognised that and been making grants accordingly. I hope that the hon. Gentleman approves of that.

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

I concur with the sentiments expressed about the Irish Government. Is the Minister aware that the Commonwealth War Graves Commission is working closely with the Irish Government to erect headstones in the Republic and that it has been involved in the re-siting of the wall of remembrance at Glasnevin cemetery?

[Dr Murrison]

Yes, I have been to Glasnevin recently. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight that point, because it is a special place in the history of the Republic of Ireland. None of us should underestimate the enormity of the totemic things that are happening around this in Dublin right now. I see that as part of the improvement in relationships that is happening independently of the centenary. I hope that the hon. Gentleman, as a Commonwealth war graves commissioner, will see these events as part of that process.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

In the context of the Irish dimension, may I point out that the Royal Irish Rifles also fought at the Somme, with massive losses? The Minister might be interested to know that the first Victoria Cross in the first world war was awarded to someone by the name of Dease, who was at Stonyhurst—the same school that I had the honour of attending—and that its first recipient in the second world war was also from Stonyhurst. Also, in relation to the second world war, I should like to pay tribute to Doug Lakey, who is in the Gallery this afternoon. He was awarded the military medal and he was with my father on the day he was killed in July 1944.

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend will be delighted to hear that I did know that, not least because the great-nephew of Lieutenant Dease is a constituent of mine, and he has lost no opportunity to impress upon me the importance of his great uncle. My hon. Friend will also be delighted to hear that on 4 August, the first day of the commemoration, there will be an event at St Symphorien, where Lieutenant Dease is interred. His part in the conflict will certainly be commemorated appropriately, and I am delighted that my hon. Friend has brought him to the attention of the House.

I would like to tell the House what the Government are planning to do over the next four and a half years. First and foremost, and most obviously, there will be national events to capture the moment and set the tone. They will have an identifiably Commonwealth look and feel, reflecting the historical reality. We have been working with our international partners and with the devolved Administrations to that end. A centrepiece of the commemorations will be the reopening of the Imperial War museum in London next year, following the £35 million refurbishment of its first world war galleries. There will be an enduring educational legacy, funded by £5.3 million from the Department for Education and the Department for Communities and Local Government, to enable a programme based on, but not confined to, visits to the battlefields.

The Heritage Lottery Fund will provide at least £15 million, including a £6 million community project fund, to enable young people working in their communities to conserve, explore and share local heritage from the first world war, epitomised by yellowing photos of young men posing stiffly in uniform, possibly for the first and last time. Much of the public interest in the period is personal and parochial, and this will provide a non-threatening entry point to the wider story. There will also be at least £10 million in the programme of cultural events taking place as part of the centenary commemorations over the four-year period.

Work with organisations and across government will continue to generate initiatives that will find and engage people under the umbrella of the centenary partnership. I shall name-check just a few. They include: the centenary poppy partnership between the Royal British Legion and B&Q; the commemoration of great war Victoria Cross recipients at their place of birth; football matches to mark the Christmas truce; mass participation in volunteering in the Remember 100 project; street naming for the centenary to inculcate memory in the heart of our towns and cities; a British adaptation of the excellent Europeana digital archiving initiative, capturing previous memories and artefacts that would otherwise turn to dust; and the National Apprenticeship Service centenary challenge. All this has the common theme of bringing history to life for everyone in all communities, even those that might feel, right now, that this has nothing to do with them.

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

I am sorry that we do not have more time to debate this important subject this afternoon. Does the Minister recognise the important role that hotels played in the first world war? Many were converted into hospitals, including the Mont Dore hotel, which is now the town hall in Bournemouth. The great estates were also used in that way, including Highclere, which is now better known as Downton Abbey. It will be taking part in the commemorations next year when it will be converted into a first world war hospital for one week, thanks to the work of Lady Carnarvon.

[Dr Murrison]

The project that my hon. Friend describes is exactly the sort of thing that will engage people locally. We have to understand that different people will approach the events in different ways. Our overarching aim is to improve understanding of the causes, conduct and consequences of the war, but we really need to do that in ways that people will find approachable and non-threatening. The initiative that he has described will be interesting and inspiring for many, and I certainly look forward to visiting it.

I am afraid that some of our more shouty newspapers are salivating at the prospect of the Government attempting a grotesque impersonation of Basil Fawlty, in which we do not mention the war for fear of upsetting Germany. Disappointingly for those newspapers, the history is untweaked by the Government and will remain so. We are indebted to Sunder Katwala of British Future for commissioning YouGov to inform us of public attitudes to the centenary. The survey found that 77% of the public see it as an opportunity for reconciliation with former enemies. We know from comments made by Harry Patch—the “last Tommy”—in the final years of his life that he would agree with that wholeheartedly. The history stands, but the Government will of course seek reconciliation not only with the former central powers but with partners in Europe and the former empire, wherever we share a complex and nuanced history.

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

In the context of Germany, will my hon. Friend pay particular attention to the large number of German prisoners of war who died as a result of their wounds while imprisoned in England? Many of them were re-buried in Staffordshire in the 1960s, but there are currently no headstones to commemorate them. Will he look into whether that could be corrected?

[Dr Murrison]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Perhaps that is something that we could usefully raise with the German Government, with whom we are of course in contact on these matters, as he would expect. There are Germans interred in the churchyard of Sutton Veny in my constituency, and their resting places are instantly recognisable by the nature of their markers. That is a positive suggestion, and I think that matter could reasonably be addressed with Germany.

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Dr Murrison]

I am going to make some progress, because I am conscious that a lot of right hon. and hon. Members would like to take part in the debate.

It is worth pointing out that the centenary courts controversy. None of us should be under any illusion about that. Indeed, we should welcome it. Opinion is already stretched between those who hold that the war was a futile wasteful tragedy and those who believe it was entirely necessary, notwithstanding the cost, and even that victory was as important in 1918 as it was in 1945. I believe that most of our countrymen going to war in 1914 did so with a firm sense of “doing the right thing”. Anyone familiar with the doctrines of St Thomas Aquinas and St Augustine would have said—and I agree—that our countrymen were marching or sailing to a just war. I know my own grandfather felt that way.

Even as Foreign Secretary Sir Edward Grey was observing lamps going out across Europe that would not be re-lit in his time, the bulk of Britain’s political class, under a Liberal Prime Minister, were confident that resisting a militaristic aggressor in the way proposed satisfied the moral preconditions laid out for a just war. I doubt whether those who stood here in 1914 deserve their reputation as the willing consigners of other men’s sons to hideous death. People should read Hansard for 3 August 1914 and touch those politicians’ agony; they should compare the quality of that pre-conflict debate to ours on Syria in August this year; and they should count off the shields around this Chamber and the names of Members of this House and their sons inscribed in Westminster Hall.

Few of our predecessors in the long expectant summer of 1914 foresaw the consequences or the terrible cost, but finally, after military victory, came political failure—a lesson for all of us who have the privilege and responsibility of sitting here.

I am grateful to the many Members on both sides of the House who have contributed to our preparations and continue to do so. I hope we have set a framework for a fitting centenary—commemoratively, educationally and culturally—that will, with the most profound respect, mark the seminal moment in our modern history for the benefit of all parts of the community, and particularly for the custodians of the legacy: our young people.

14:42

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and of course I join him in paying tribute to Warrant Officer Ian Fisher from 3rd Battalion the Mercian Regiment, who tragically lost his life in Afghanistan. It is the responsibility of all of us to ensure that his sacrifice is never forgotten.

It is an honour to open this debate on behalf of the Opposition, and it is heartening to know that there is such widespread interest across the House in the 100th anniversary commemoration of world war one. I look forward to what I know will be a good debate and to the eloquent and no doubt poignant contributions from Members of all parties. It is fitting that we will hear from Members representing every corner of the United Kingdom, expressing their interest in plans for the centenary commemorations and illustrating the huge impact that world war one had on the whole of Britain. Our commemorations here will also be part of what will be a truly global event, which will include contributions from our friends in the Commonwealth and events that are taking place around the world.

Let me take the opportunity at the outset to pay tribute to the Minister for the calm, measured and dedicated way in which he has prepared for the centenary commemorations. We look forward to continuing to work closely with him, with the Government and with all in this House to ensure that world war one is commemorated in a fitting manner.

The Minister has outlined some of the Government’s plans to commemorate the centenary anniversary next year. Aside from the multitude of events that will take place up and down the country, the Government have pledged over £50 million, which will be put towards the centenary anniversary commemorations. The plans include a refurbishment of the world war one galleries at the Imperial War museum; a nationwide scheme that will allow school students from across the country to visit world war one battlefields; community projects funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund and designed to educate young people to conserve, explore and share local heritage of world war one; and a grant from the national heritage memorial fund to support HMS Caroline in Belfast—the last surviving warship from the world war one fleet. We support those plans and will work with the Government to ensure their smooth delivery.

Additionally, a huge number of other organisations are planning their contributions to the commemoration. There are too many to mention by name, but I would like briefly to mention, of course, the First World War Centenary Partnership, led by the Imperial War museum, which will present a programme of cultural events and activities to commemorate the centenary. Also as part of the commemorations, the BBC has commissioned over 1,000 programmes across various platforms, helping to inform and educate the public about the events and the impact of world war one. The Woodland Trust will launch a project in May 2014 to commemorate British and Commonwealth great war heroes through the simple, yet poignant act of planting a tree. I look forward to hearing from Members about how the commemoration will be marked in their constituencies.

As we commemorate the centenary of world war one, there will be those who say we should seek to understand the fundamental question of why Britain went to war in the first instance. A recent poll for British Future asked how much people knew about the war. Its polling showed that 66% of people knew that world war one began in 1914, that 47% knew that the war was in part sparked by the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and that 9% knew that Herbert Asquith was the British Prime Minister at the start of the war.

What polling will not capture, however, is the extent to which the public understand the original motivations for the war. A student of history might conclude that, aside from the strategic rationale, Britain’s motives for entering world war one demonstrated a conscientious effort to uphold international law and a desire to defend smaller, more vulnerable nations. There will be those who will seek to have this informed debate, but there should be no doubt about the profound impact of this war.

Many people may know that between 1914 and 1918, 1.2 million volunteers came from around the globe to serve alongside the allies, answering the call of “Your Empire Needs You”. Many people appreciate the scale of the loss of life that was to follow, and many people know something of the 750,000 British soldiers who died or the 1.5 million soldiers who returned home injured. They may have heard something of the 20,000 British soldiers who were killed on the first day of the Somme or they may recall Wilfred Owen’s imagery of choking soldiers drowning in a sea of chlorine gas. They will also understand that sacrifice on this scale must always be remembered—it must always be commemorated.

It is important to remember world war one for more than just the industrialisation of death that it brought with it. The war paved the way for numerous world events, including, of course, the outbreak of the second world war—events that have ultimately shaped the world we live in today. The war had a profound impact on Britain too, and many countries in the Commonwealth sought independence after it ended. Britain lost its place as the world’s largest investor, and the role of women changed for ever. By 1931, 50% of women remained single, and 35% never married while of childbearing age.

The other great social change that came from world war one involved voting. Before the war, neither working men nor women had votes. The sacrifice of men from all classes, combined with the fact that women were taking on jobs that had previously been seen as a male preserve and with the campaigning of the suffragists and suffragettes, compelled politicians to change the position.

In the light of that, Labour Members consider it essential for us to ensure that the right tone is struck when we are remembering world war one. I believe that we are all clear about the fact that this is not a celebration, but a commemoration. War should never be celebrated; instead, it should be remembered, and we should learn from it. Getting the tone right is therefore imperative. We agree with the Government that there should be no flag-waving, that there should be an absolute right to remember those whose opinions differed, and that there should be no rigid Government narrative. It is right for us to give people the facts, and then to let them conduct their own analyses and form their own judgments.

However, it is important that, as a country, we do not shy away from addressing some of the war’s complications. There is a strong public perception of what it was like, formed partly by war poets and reinforced by the 1960s production of “Oh! What a Lovely War” and television programmes such as “Blackadder Goes Forth”. Those cultural representations stand as powerful and eloquent testimonies to the savagery of world war one, but if they are all that we know of the war, they are poor history.

Those who have been schooled in stories of the “lost generation” may be surprised to learn that the fatality rate in the British forces overall was 12%. That is a terrible figure—and some communities were affected much worse than others—but the figure is not as high as people tend to imagine. Nor are public impressions of daily life during the war always accurate. Blackadder lived for years in a dugout, but in reality infantry battalions spent an average of about one week of every month in the trenches. There were notable exceptions, but they do not disprove the generality of soldiers’ experiences.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I am glad that my hon. Friend has mentioned “Blackadder”, which, although obviously very amusing, constitutes something of a misrepresentation of events during world war one. One example is the idea that senior officers were not part of the action. In fact, nearly 70 generals and major-generals died in action on the western front and in other conflicts.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that important intervention. Let me be clear: I think that “Blackadder” is an excellent programme. It is very funny, and Members in all parts of the House will remember the very moving scene at the end of the series in which Blackadder and others advance into no man’s land. That certainly serves as a powerful testimony to the savagery of world war one. However, my hon. Friend is right to point out that it is not a strictly historical account. I think that the commemorations that will begin next year will give us an opportunity to revisit some of the history, to look carefully at the detail, and, perhaps, to promote a better factual understanding of it.

We believe that, in order to ensure that world war one is remembered and commemorated appropriately and its complications are addressed, those involved in the centenary events should be mindful that—as the Minister rightly pointed out—there will be debates about the history. Some will say that we should go further than the western front. Some of the bloodiest battles may have been fought in western Europe, but battles fought in other parts of the world are also important in the overall context of the war, and it is therefore right for us to recognise the huge contribution of British Empire forces from around the globe.

Some will say that we should address the gap between the “pointless futility” narrative and what soldiers actually believed that they were fighting for, both during and after the war. Today our forces in Afghanistan rightly take pride in the job that they do and the bonds of service that they form, and the same applied to those who fought in world war one. During those years, soldiers fought for much. They fought because of a belief that their country was threatened, but ultimately, when it came down to it, they fought for their regiments, and for the man standing next to them in the trench. If we want to pay proper tribute to the war dead—as I know that we do—and also to those who came through the war, we should seek to remember that.

Some will say—and, as the Minister said, there are clearly sensitivities in this respect—that we should recognise that the British military, along with their allies, defeated Germany militarily in the war, with the final period marking one of the most effective in the history of the British Army. For many decades, historians have pointed to military tactics developing and improving between 1914 and 1918, which eventually enabled the allies to break out from the stalemate of the trenches. Although that is little consolation to those who lost ancestors in the war’s early years, it does explain why there was so much public grief at Haig’s funeral in 1928 from the veterans who had served under his command, surprising though that is to us now. It is important that we get this right and we will work with the Government to ensure that we do so.

Around the country, I have been privileged to meet scores of people and I have seen at first hand the coming together of people and communities. I have seen the passion and the interest that the commemoration has already invoked. In my constituency of Barnsley Central I have been struck by the amount of enthusiasm for the commemorations, led by individuals such as Aubrey Martin-Wells and Goff Griffiths from the central branch of the Royal British Legion. I am sure other Members will echo similar sentiments from their constituencies. I urge Members from across the House and from around the country to continue to encourage and spark debate in their own constituencies, to ensure that their communities come together to commemorate the war.

In my constituency, it is the bravery of the Barnsley Pals who formed the 13th and 14th Battalions of the York and Lancaster Regiment that will be remembered. Both Barnsley Pals battalions were part of the attack on Serre on the first day of the Somme campaign. On that one day, 1 July 1916, the 1st Barnsley Pals lost 275 men, while the 2nd lost 270. It is in such events that the true impact of world war one can be understood—when we think of the countless husbands, fathers, brothers and sons who never came home, and the unassuageable loss suffered by those families and their communities.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend rightly comments on the fathers, husbands, brothers and sons who did not come home, but there were also women who did not come home—women who worked in dressing stations in hospitals that were shelled and women who worked in armaments factories in the UK. We must recognise that a lot of women also lost their lives fighting to ensure victory in the war.

[Dan Jarvis]

I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, because she is absolutely right to highlight the incredibly important role women played in this conflict. That is precisely why we must work together to seek to get the tone of these commemorations right next year—that we come together as a House to reflect and commemorate the broader social change of which she speaks.

In conclusion, there is no doubt that the importance of world war one cannot be counted in terms just of battlefield casualties or military innovation, as my hon. Friend has very eloquently illustrated. By dint of its influence and its timing, and the wider social change it brought about, it is the single most significant event of the 20th century. As such, it is something we must commemorate, we must learn from and we must educate our children about, but above all we must remember, because it is only through remembering that we will truly understand the impact that world war one has had on British society and, in so doing, understand what it means to be British.

All Members will have heard the phrase, “Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori”, often referred to as “the old lie”. Well, it is not glorious to die for your country, but it is now comforting to know that where once there were landscapes of war, there are now landscapes of peace.

With the passing of Florence Green, from King’s Lynn in Norfolk, who served as a mess steward at RAF bases in Marham and Narborough, and who died in February 2012, and with the passing of the world’s last known combat veteran of world war one, Briton Claude Choules, who died in Australia aged 110 in May 2011, and, of course, with the passing of the final three world war one veterans—Bill Stone, Henry Allingham and Harry Patch—who all died in 2009, world war one is no longer a war of memory: it is now a war of history. It is our solemn responsibility to ensure that we remember and honour those men and women who have laid down their lives for our country, and that is what we will do.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call hon. Members from the Back Benches, I have to tell the House that in order to give an opportunity to the very large number of Members who wish to speak this afternoon I have had to impose a time limit of six minutes on speeches. Obviously, I will not impose that limit on the first hon. Member to speak, but I know that he will adhere approximately to that length of time. I call Keith Simpson.

15:00

[Mr Keith Simpson (Broadland) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I first congratulate both Front Benchers on their moving and informative speeches? We are all the sons and daughters of history. I am conscious of the fact that 99 years ago today, on 7 November 1914, the old British Army with the Territorials was dying, literally, in the area of Ypres in Belgium. Both my grandfathers were there—both survived—one in the Royal Flying Corps and one who had volunteered in August 1914 because he could drive, and then found himself in the Army Service Corps. As an old man, he told me that he had not expected to be toting a rifle and bayonet with the infantry, but such was the desperation of the defence that they were needed.

My generation is the lucky generation. I know I do not look it, but I am 64, and I am of the generation that missed a major war. My grandfathers fought in the first world war, and my father and uncles fought in the second world war. I lived through the cold war. However, a younger generation—my son and his friends—might ask why we are commemorating the first world war when we should perhaps be commemorating the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars, which had just as major an impact on history. I suggest that the reason is not least because of the scale of the suffering and involvement, but also because we have an empathy towards the people involved and we can understand them far more. A very literate group of men and women fought, and we have images of them. In addition, the war is still controversial today.

I have to declare an interest, as I have written books about the British Army and the first world war. Along with the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who is about to resume his place, I am a parliamentary commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission. I am also a member of the Prime Minister’s advisory board on commemorating the first world war, along with the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson). What I briefly wish to talk about relates to the fact that, along with Lord Wallace of Saltaire, I am the joint chairman of the parliamentary committee looking at commemorating the first world war.

Why should Parliament commemorate the first world war? It is because there is a political element, a commemorative element, a learning and knowledge element and a personal element. The political one is that to engage young people today, we need to get them to think about the fact that big political issues were being debated before and during the first world war. Let us be under no illusion: Britain was not a peaceful, pastoral, “Downton Abbey” kind of place in the spring of 1914. We were nearly faced with a civil war in Ireland, there were mass industrial disputes and there were major social problems of one kind or another. In some respects, the war prevented domestic violence on a large scale.

We also have to recognise that Parliament did count. Of course, the Prime Minister did not have to come to Parliament to get a vote in support of his declaring war, but he was conscious of taking the temperature. The legislation that Parliament passed during the first world war, some of it pre-dating the war, is still with us today. Examples of that include the setting up of the intelligence and security aspects of British government, and legislation on licensing. The debates on conscription broke the old Liberal party, and debates took place here on whether or not we should seek a negotiated peace. Those things are not just a walk down memory lane; if we face young people today with all that, they will understand the importance of it. That is one thing that the advisory committee is hoping to get Parliament, and, in particular, the Youth Parliament, involved with.

Secondly, let me deal with the commemorative aspects. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the point that there was no badge here for one former MP who died—

[Chris Bryant]

Two.

[Mr Simpson]

I am sorry. I will make sure that the officials in Parliament take note of that.

That is an important aspect, because large numbers of MPs and peers, and their children, were killed or badly wounded in the first world war and we commemorate them. Let us remember that both Asquith and Bonar Law, the leaders of the two major parties, lost sons in the first world war. It was not an academic war for them. Large numbers of staff served in the first world war. One of the waiters in the House of Commons Dining Room was killed in action in 1917. The war came home literally to this place.

As for the question of learning and knowledge, it is important that we will provide, via websites and the internet, a lot of information about Parliament and the memorials in Parliament that will be available to the public. We will link that to the project on lives of people in the first world war that is being established by the Imperial War museum.

More than anything else, this all has a personal aspect. One thing that my noble Friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire has done in the House of Lords, which is something that we will do in the House of Commons, is to send a questionnaire to every peer and peeress asking what their families did during the first world war. He has received some fascinating replies. People had relatives who served not only in the British armed forces, as one might expect, or on the support side, but in the Commonwealth armed forces and the Indian army. He has received replies from people whose relatives fought on both sides: the father’s side of the family in the British Army, and the mother’s side in the Austro-Hungarian or German army. I would like to think that we would be able to get such information from colleagues in this place and from the staff, too. We would be able to put that into the public domain to contribute to the commemoration.

We must also consider the fact that we will not stop in 2018 with the commemoration of 1918. The first world war did not end there; its legacy continued. There were big debates in this House about how we were going to honour the dead. The establishment of the Imperial War Graves Commission in 1917 was controversial. Up until then, bodies had been brought home, so the decision to bury the dead where they had fallen was controversial. Political upheaval followed the end of the first world war. Ex-soldiers from Irish regiments became members of the IRA or, on the other side, of the auxiliary division of the Royal Irish Constabulary. There was a civil war there.

There was also the disillusionment that grew in the 1920s and 1930s, and the legacy of pacifism and appeasement that affected minorities in the Labour, Liberal and Conservative parties. It is difficult for us now to think that while Harold Macmillan, whom I remember meeting in 1978 as a very old but fully alert man, was the British Prime Minister in 1963, which is well within my lifetime, his most moving experience was serving in the first world war. He tended to judge men and women by how they had acted and behaved in that war.

I hope that what we are doing, with the help of Members, to get Parliament to consider how to commemorate the first world war will not only interest us, but involve the wider public and young people, which is one of our greatest aims. I suspect that all those men and women who were lucky enough to survive the war and live on would approve of what we are trying to do and of the fact that we are going to consider the matter in a non-prescriptive way. Instead, to use that old expression, we will let a thousand flowers bloom and have a proper debate.

15:09

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

Today I want to remember the 11th Battalion East Lancashire Regiment, universally known as the Accrington Pals. The battalion’s horrific losses stand as a reminder of the gratuitous barbarity of the warfare, particularly trench warfare, during the first world war. The history of the battalion is as known now as it was in the years of suffering that followed. The tragic waste of human potential during the first world war was quite simply shocking. Young men died in horrific and frightening circumstances. Modern cinematic productions allow us occasionally to glimpse that horror and, each and every time, any thought of this being a reality is frightening to me.

Many people in Hyndburn signed up not to the Pals, but to other regiments. I was fortunate enough to find a piece of information from Kew about my great-grandfather’s record. He served in the Royal Ambulance Medical Corps. While I knew him before he died, I recall my grandfather occasionally speaking of his father’s time on the front line, carrying off young men who had lost body parts and whose bodies had been mutilated by shells, mines and bullets—some alive, some dying, many dead and many screaming out as they died. That my great-grandfather rarely spoke of those horrors, paralysed by his fearful memories, is testament to the torturous experiences many of the combatants faced. I am grateful to the Hyndburn historians Walter Holmes, who worked as an apprentice alongside my grandfather, and the late Bill Turner, for their lifelong dedication to the history of the regiment and the fallen soldiers, and personally for helping me find my great-grandfather’s limited Army record.

There were, of course, many Pals regiments. My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) has talked about the Barnsley Pals. I applaud the successful work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr Hoyle) in building a monument to be proud of and a museum in Chorley. A large number of memorials celebrate the sacrifices of the Pals regiments in the borough.

The particular tragedy of the Pals regiments is that their members were all friends and family from the same area, formed as a result of Lord Kitchener’s desire to boost morale through the creation of a voluntary army and the belief that people would be more willing to sign up if they were able to fight alongside their community. Hundreds of people from Accrington and surrounding towns joined up together to defend this great nation.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman with interest. Is he aware of the magnificent memorial at the misleadingly named Sheffield memorial park in Serre on the Somme? The Accrington brick memorial pays a very good tribute to that regiment.

[Graham Jones]

I am well aware of it, and with the help of Cath Holmes, one of the granddaughters of someone who fought in the war, I helped to get a sign in Serre pointing the way for relatives to the cemeteries where soldiers from Accrington and other places in the borough are buried. We need to make more of that memorial.

The Pals regiments were incredibly popular and, by 1914, 50 towns had them. The Accrington Pals honoured by playwright Peter Whelan remind us of the devastating impact of the first world war. The great sadness is the colossal waste of human life. In their very first assault during the battle for Serre on the first day of the Somme, 584 of 720 Pals were killed, wounded or declared missing. The fighting started at 7.20 am and by 8 am, just 40 minutes later, a generation of young men from in and around Accrington had laid down their life or had it altered for ever. What Lord Kitchener did not foresee when designing a policy intended to boost morale was that if the regiment suffered substantial losses, the whole community would be devastated.

Percy Holmes, the brother of one of the Pals who fought that day, recalled:

“I remember when the news came through to Accrington that the Pals had been wiped out. I don’t think there was a street in Accrington and district that didn’t have their blinds drawn and the bell at Christ Church tolled all the day.”

The reason why the Pals are so important, and why they must not be forgotten, is that they were identifiably part of the community. Helped by Hyndburn council, the Accrington Pals centenary commemoration group has a programme of civic, cultural, religious, musical and even horticultural themes across the next few years that will pay tribute to the Pals, including concerts, exhibitions, films, visits to Serre to lay wreaths, and the planting of poppies. I hope that Members will reflect for a moment on those 40 minutes of madness when they are able to sample the Accrington Pals ale in Strangers bar next year.

Recently, I have worked with a constituent, Cath Holmes, on getting signs put up and trying to get people to go and see the cemeteries at Serre and the other great sites. It seems like only a little thing, but to have a plain sign put up in a field in France is important for the people of Accrington and the wider area, because it is a symbol of their past and it commemorates those who gave their lives.

15:15

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and belated congratulations on your elevation.

As part of the commemoration, recollection and thinking about history that we are all going to talk about this afternoon in the Chamber, I want to speak about the Sikh contribution in the great war. I know that much has been made of the contribution of all Commonwealth forces, but the Sikh contribution is sometimes overlooked. I will also refer to the contribution of Wolverhampton. It would be remiss of me not to do so. If I cannot do this as a Sikh Member of Parliament for Wolverhampton South West, I am not entirely sure what my purpose is in this place.

At the start of the war, Sikhs made up a tiny percentage of an undivided India, yet they were contributing 22% of the British Indian army. More than 138,000 Indian troops fought in Belgium and France and over a quarter of these would, unfortunately, become casualties. After the bloody battle of Neuve Chapelle in 1915, the Sikh regiments had lost nearly 80% of their men, with three regiments standing at just 16% of their original complement. The valour and courage of Sikh soldiers was rightly commended by British generals. General Sir Frank Messery, commenting on the Sikh contribution in both world wars, noted that the only physical protection that Sikhs had was their turban—a symbol of our faith.

General Sir James Wilcox, the Commander of the Indian Corps, stated that the Sikh regiments responded with only

“their valour, their rifles and two machine guns per battalion”

to the heavy German bombardment of mortars, hand grenades and high explosive shells.

What intrigues many is what would motivate these men to fight in a war thousands of miles away, for a cause that did not seem too relevant to them. For some it may have been the financial reward, but for many it was their duty to bring honour to their clan by fighting bravely like warriors. Perhaps their motivation is best captured by Indar Singh, a Sikh soldier fighting on the Somme in September 1916, who wrote home:

“It is quite impossible that I should return alive. Don’t be grieved at my death, because I shall die arms in hand, wearing the warrior’s clothes. This is the most happy death that anyone can die.”

Those are strong words and, in the modern context, perhaps difficult to understand, but when we think of that young man, thousands of miles away from home, they show something of his psyche and his values and beliefs.

More than 4 million men and women from British colonies volunteered in the first and second world wars. For many Members here, I know this is a matter of great pride, and indeed it is for me personally. My own maternal great-grandfather, Jawala Singh Khela, fought in the still-relevant theatre of Basra during the great war.

I am proud, too, of the contribution that was made to the war effort by the town, as it was then, of Wolverhampton. At the outbreak of war in 1914, many men enthusiastically flocked to the town hall to sign up, eager to help the national effort in a war they believed would be “over by Christmas”. As a bustling industrial town, Wolverhampton was ready to contribute to the provision of resources for the front line. Villiers Engineering Company produced ammunition, and Guy Motors became the largest manufacturer of firing mechanisms for depth charges in the country. H. M. Hobson Ltd manufactured carburettors for engines, and the Sunbeam Motor Car Company produced staff cars and commercial vehicles for the military, ambulances for the Red Cross and engines for aircraft and high-speed naval craft. It is ironic that the Villiers Engineering Company and its Sunbeam motor manufacturing unit, which was on Upper Villiers street, is now a Sikh temple, of which I am a trustee.

Wolverhampton showed its proud, hospitable credentials in the great war by providing accommodation for displaced Belgian refugees. In September 1914, the local refugee committee and Roman Catholics in the area offered to accommodate 25 refugees, and the offer was accepted by the local authority. The following month, two hostels were established in Finchfield and Pennfields, and by March 1915 a further three hostels had been set up.

Wolverhampton is noted for its generosity. I am proud to represent a city that displays an outward-looking and accommodating attitude to those most in need. I am proud not only of our city’s industrial contribution, but of its many war heroes. I will highlight one individual in particular. Douglas Morris Harris was a wireless telegrapher on board an Italian drifter, the Floandi, which was being used to blockade the port of Kotor and prevent the Austrian navy from accessing the Adriatic sea. In May 1917 the drifter was attacked by the Austrians, but Harris remained dutifully at his post and unfortunately lost his life at the age of just 19. For his bravery he was awarded one of Italy’s highest honours, and his bust still stands proudly in the grounds of St Peter’s church in Wolverhampton, adjacent to the cenotaph, which I have the pleasure of being able to see from my constituency office window.

It was no surprise that when the war came to an end in 1918 the people of Wolverhampton greeted the news with relief, happiness and thanksgiving, as well as sorrow and reflection on what, and indeed who, had been lost. It was certainly a sorrowful time for the Belgian refugee Peter van Cleven, whose son had been killed on the battlefield just a few days before the war ended. In 1919 the local authority established a war memorial committee to create a roll of remembrance to honour over 1,700 men from Wolverhampton who left home to fight but never returned.

On Sunday I will be standing at the cenotaph at St Peter’s church, shoulder to shoulder with veterans of previous conflicts, to honour the gallantry, bravery and sacrifice of all those who have laid down their lives so that we can enjoy our freedom. I will remember poignantly the contribution of Sikh regiments and the esteem in which they were held by British generals, and I will reflect on the heroic sacrifices of the city of Wolverhampton, both on the home front and the front line. The coming weekend will be a great time for reflection across our nation. I hope that we will never neglect our duties in remembering the fallen.

15:21

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

I think that we all agree that the first world war was a truly terrible conflict. There can be no doubting the bravery of the millions who fought for their country, many of whom lost their lives—nearly 1 million soldiers from the British Army and over 700,000 from the British isles. But I believe that we should also acknowledge the conscientious objectors to the war. They, too, were people of courage who stood up for what they believed in and experienced enormous public opprobrium as a result. They also experienced huge personal hardship and discrimination after the war ended.

Caerphilly has a two-fold distinction in that respect. First, two of its MPs, Morgan Jones and Ness Edwards, were conscientious objectors. Ness was the Member of Parliament from 1939 until 1968 and served as Postmaster General in the 1951 Labour Government. He was preceded by Morgan Jones, who served as an Education Minister in the Labour Governments of 1924 and 1929. Secondly, Morgan Jones was the first conscientious objector to be elected to the House of Commons—he was elected in a by-election in August 1921—and it is about him that I would like to say a few words this afternoon.

Morgan Jones was born in May 1895 in Gelligaer in the Rhymney valley. He came from a modest background, his father being a coal miner. He left the valley to receive an education at Reading university but returned to become a local councillor. He was elected as a socialist and a member of the Independent Labour party. He was a man of principle, courage and conviction. He did what he thought was right and held firmly to his principles throughout his life.

From the moment Britain entered the great war in August 1914, Morgan Jones was a vocal opponent of the war. Like many in the ILP, he believed that the war was unjustified and unnecessary, a nationalist conflict that set worker against worker. He therefore opposed the war as a socialist and as an internationalist. But he also adopted a Christian pacifist position and declared his opposition to all forms of warfare, believing that the destruction of human life should not be a means of solving international disputes. His unequivocal views led him quickly to join the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was appointed to its national committee in 1914.

In the early part of the war, until 1916, the British Army consisted entirely of volunteers, and south Wales was a particularly important recruiting ground. However, it soon became clear that relying on volunteers was not enough, so the Government introduced the Military Service Act 1916 and conscription. Under the Act, local tribunals were established to determine cases of exemption for men who could best contribute to the war by continuing in their civil roles. One of the effects of the Act was to create two kinds of conscientious objector. The absolutists were those who adopted a maximalist position of being opposed to the war but also refusing to accept any kind of alternative work. The other type of conscientious objector was the alternativist. These individuals were wholly opposed to the war but prepared nevertheless to accept some form of alternative employment, mostly in transport or mining. Morgan Jones was one of those conscientious objectors, and he eventually came to accept membership of this voluntary scheme.

Early in 1916, Morgan Jones received his call-up papers. At about the same time, Gelligaer urban district council, of which he was a member, was informed—

[Mr Kevan Jones]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech that shows how we are going to look at all aspects of the first world war in the coming years. Is he aware that some 7,000 conscientious objectors went to the front and some were killed as a result of doing stretcher-bearing and ambulance work?

[Wayne David]

Yes indeed. Those who became stretcher-bearers were probably at the greatest risk of all those in the armed forces, and the casualties among them were particularly high.

Morgan Jones was a member of Gelligaer urban district council. His own council, at a full meeting in February 1916, voted by 10 votes to eight to empower the chairman and the clerk to convene a special meeting wherever necessary to take appropriate action to consider the cases of those who were making conscientious objections. Such a meeting was convened in his case, but it was inquorate, and it seems very likely that the Labour members absented themselves to make it so. Nevertheless, the local tribunal was eventually convened and Morgan Jones appeared before it to put his case.

Interestingly enough—I have done some research on this matter—the minutes of Gelligaer urban district council have mysteriously disappeared from the Glamorgan record office, as have the minutes of the local tribunal, and nobody seems to know why. However, we know from the local press that when the tribunal was convened, Morgan Jones put a robust case, declaring himself a socialist and someone who was

“resolutely opposed to all warfare”.

He argued that the war was the result of wrongheaded diplomacy. Predictably, however, the local tribunal concluded that he would not be excluded from military service. He therefore appealed to the tribunal in Cardiff, but his appeal fell. At the same time, action was being taken against the No Conscription Fellowship, and he was found guilty in that regard as well.

In essence, after all was said and done, Morgan Jones went to trial and went to prison, and, as a consequence, suffered a great deal of physical and mental hardship. However, at the end of the war, when he was eventually released, an opportunity arose for him to stand for election to this Parliament in 1921. He was successfully elected and, as a result, made his true imprint on history by being the first conscientious objector to be elected to this House.

15:29

[Sir Bob Russell (Colchester) (LD)]

I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Minister not only on the measured speech that he gave today but on all the hard work he has done over a long period as the Prime Minister’s special envoy to ensure that this country gets this right. I also congratulate the hon. and gallant Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) on his speech. They both got it right. This is not a celebration; it is a commemoration. The language is therefore very important, and we are off to a good start. This debate is also about the relevance today of what happened 100 years ago. It was, of course, the last time that cavalry went into a major battle. Those four years saw the emergence of tanks and aircraft, so there was a complete change.

What happened then is relevant to what followed. The Chavasse rehabilitation centre in Colchester is named after Captain Noel Godfrey Chavasse, VC and Bar and recipient of the military cross, who died aged 32. He was the twin son of the Bishop of Liverpool. The battle of Guillemont saw acts of heroism by Captain Chavasse, the only man to be awarded the Victoria Cross twice during the first world war. In 1916, Chavasse was hit by shell splinters while rescuing men in no man’s land. He performed similar heroics in the offensive at Passchendaele, gaining his second VC to become the most highly decorated British serviceman in the war. Sadly, he died of his wounds in 1917. The rehabilitation centre, which opened two or three years ago at the Colchester garrison, is funded by Help for Heroes and the Royal British Legion.

My interest in the great war—it only became known as the first world war in 1939—started when, as a 14-year-old scout on my first class hike, I was required to do a task on a topic and I chose war memorials. As I went around the villages on the Essex-Suffolk border, the sheer numbers of those who died between 1914 and 1918—or was it between 1914 and 1919?—quickly dawned on me. The question of why some war memorials have different dates has to be explained. Why is it that in certain areas the war ended in a different year?

All the memorials referred to the men, never the women, of a particular village or town. I have only ever seen one memorial mentioning women from the first world war and that was in Hamilton, Ontario in Canada. That needs to be addressed.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is delivering a very interesting speech. He has mentioned the number of young men and, indeed, women from some of the villages who were struck down during the great war. In my constituency, Northlew is in the tragic position of having proportionately suffered the most casualties of any community in the country. To commemorate the great war, poppies will be planted all the way from Northlew to the nearest town of Okehampton, which is seven miles away. Will the hon. Gentleman join me in saluting all the men and women in local communities throughout the country who will do so much to make sure that those who died in the great war are not forgotten?

[Sir Bob Russell]

I endorse the hon. Gentleman’s words. I think he has read my mind, because I was going to go on to say that, while this is a national and international event, it is what happens in our local communities that is important in terms of bringing it home to today’s generation.

The BBC’s world war one centenary season will be the biggest and most ambitious pan-BBC season ever undertaken. There will be four years of programming and events spanning 2014 to 2018, more than 130 specially commissioned programmes and about 2,500 hours of programming.

Others also need to be praised. The Imperial War museum has already done a fantastic amount of research. It is asking people around the country to search in the attic for diaries, memorabilia and artefacts that belonged to their granddad, great-granddad or great-granny. In the past week, I have been advised of a constituent who has in his loft a wing mirror from an Army vehicle that was situated less than a mile from the front line somewhere in France. A German sniper took out the wing mirror and, significantly, the driver of the vehicle was a woman. We need to recognise such memorabilia and stories.

Returning to the local theme raised by the hon. Member for Central Devon (Mel Stride), the War Memorials Trust has said:

“As we approach Remembrance Sunday we are all aware that next year the nation will mark the centenary of the start of World War I. The following five years will see ceremonies remembering significant moments of that conflict. War memorials will play a central role.

Yet, apart from Remembrance Sunday, how often do we look at our local war memorials? When was the last time you stopped and read those names, or went further and looked at the condition of the memorial?”

It continued:

“Simple steps, taken by you and members of your community, can make a significant difference in ensuring our local war memorials are preserved. It is vital we act to stop names and inscriptions fading and disappearing, prevent deterioration due to a lack of maintenance and deter those who contemplate vandalism and theft.”

In my town, we have an avenue of remembrance, where trees were planted in the 1930s that name individuals from Colchester who lost their lives. In the 1st Colchester scout headquarters, there is a stone memorial to the boy scouts who went into the Army from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th Colchester troops and lost their lives. It is such things that localise the war.

What about the blessed or thankful villages, of which there are 32 in England and Wales, but sadly none in Northern Ireland or Scotland, where not a single person lost their lives? There is just one in Essex, the village of Strethall. Today, it has a population of 26. It is arguably the smallest parish in Essex, and possibly in the whole country.

To conclude, the Government’s project will see thousands of schoolchildren visiting the first world war battlefields to ensure that the bravery and suffering of the fallen is not forgotten. Those youngsters will be the great-great-grandchildren of those who lost their lives in the great war, the first world war.

15:36

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

John Morris said that all history is local. If ever we should respect that saying, it is during the commemoration of the great war.

Last weekend, I was asked by Andrew Hillier and David Swidenbank to visit my local museum in Porthcawl because it is facing closure. They showed me around rooms full of uniforms and artefacts that they had collected in preparation for the commemoration of the war. Sadly, the local council is facing £36 million of cuts over the next two years. There will be cuts to school transport and other essential services. Unfortunately, the museum also faces closure. I hope that the Heritage Lottery Fund will come to the rescue and that that tragic loss to the community of Porthcawl and the history of south Wales will be avoided.

The other reason I visited the museum was that Ceri Joseph, who was taking a history walk that weekend, had often been in touch with me. My inbox is full of communications from Ceri, who has a passion for history that is reminiscent of an amateur detective. I have talked to her over many years about the names on the Porthcawl war memorial. She has spent months and years researching the stories and uncovering who the people on the war memorial were. In the words of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, she has brought them “in from the cold”. Some of them were local and some had relatives who lived locally. It is not necessarily just local people who are named on war memorials, because anybody could put a name forward. Some people appear on several war memorials. The names of some local people who died do not appear at all.

[Mr Gray]

What the hon. Lady is describing strikes a chord with the work that is being done by my constituent Richard Broadhead to research the lost dead of the first world war. About 60 men from Wiltshire and no doubt many from south Wales died shortly after the end of the first world war of wounds and other causes associated with the war, but are not commemorated on war memorials or on Commonwealth War Graves Commission headstones. That is something we ought to correct.

[Mrs Moon]

I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has seen the information that has been sent out by the war heritage all-party parliamentary group this week, which identifies where there are war graves in our constituencies, but I have found it very moving and extremely helpful. I was grateful to be able to pass that information on to my local history society. The museum intends to do a lot of work with schools, present exhibitions around the town, and put together a world war one trench so that people can get some idea of what local people and volunteers experienced.

Ceri also helped me personally with my family history. I have lived all my life with two faded photographs of Albert Edward Ironside, my grandfather. Apart from a small pocket diary written during active service in France and Belgium, I have his “Soldiers’ Small Book”, the two photographs, his will, and the King George memorial penny that was sent to the families of those who served and died on the front line. My grandfather was a member of the Royal Engineers and responsible for providing signals communication. Ceri and her husband plan to visit all the graves of those from Porthcawl who died, and they have generously offered also to visit my grandfather’s grave. I, too, have visited that grave, mainly because I wanted to take my son and so that my grandfather would somehow know that his life had carried on with four grandchildren and, to date, eight great-grandchildren and nine great-great-grandchildren—none of them mine so far.

The first world war was declared on 4 August 1914. My grandfather left his wife and son—my father, then aged 18 months—and went to Ireland in preparation for the war as part of the British Expeditionary Force. On Thursday 13 August he embarked on the SS Matheson, and arrived in Le Havre on 14 August. The next diary entries for the next few days record lots of rain and a unique experience of the first train journeys to the front:

“Station platforms were all crowded with people to see us go by. We got chocolate and cigarettes in galore and splendid reception.”

On 23 August he records:

“We rested for the day. The war commenced around here at 12 o’clock, the firing was terrible to stand all day and all night. We are about 2 miles from the firing line. Saw 2 German aeroplanes above our head.”

This was the start of the first battle of Mons, and in the next few days the British Army was in retreat. He records:

“Passed through Mons at Bavay stayed at Wwaso for a rest, we were exposed to shell fire for 3 hours before we retired. The shells fell in the town as we were leaving it. We had to leave everything behind us, cables and communications lines as we could not pick them up on account of the closeness of the Germans. We were lucky to get away at all.”

Then the diary jumps.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Most people retreated from the battle of Mons, but two battalions did not—the Norfolks and the Cheshires. They were surrounded and they fought to the last. Even the commanding officer was killed.

[Mrs Moon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that moving information.

It is less well known that the soldiers who fled lived without food and water, their boots filling with blood from bloated feet. When they arrived at Monthyon, my grandfather records that they

“stayed there for the night properly knocked out both horses and men. We found this place upside down with the people, their houses its terrible to see these poor people on the road in a large cart and they don’t know where to go for safety. It’s heartbreaking to see them.”

We need to remember all those civilians who suffered horrific experiences during the first world war.

The entry for 17 October is revealing:

“Very fine morning, all my chums congratulated me on my birthday. We got a blanket served out to us. We have had nothing to cover us since we came out. Severe fighting is going all along the canal.”

On 29 October he says:

“Terrific firing all day and night. The Indian troops came here to relieve us. They look a fine lot of men—Ghurkhas, Sikhs and Punjabs.”

The diary covers only the first year of the war, and I knew little of the rest of his experience. Ceri, however, helped me uncover more information, and I hope that that is the sort of work that local museums and societies will do for many, bringing their family members back to them.

Ceri also brought to my attention the fact that my grandfather’s first world war medal had recently been sold. I thank the hon. Members for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron) for their help in trying to get Britannia Military Antiques and Collectables to bring that medal back to the family. Sadly, despite all the efforts, including letters, e-mails and telephone calls, so far I have not been successful.

Families need to take ownership of the family members who died on behalf of their communities and their country. This is a chance for the country to honour those people and bring them back from the cold.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I regret to say that time is against us this afternoon. Thirteen more hon. Members wish to speak so I am reducing the time limit to five minutes. I am loth to take it lower than that, but I would ask all hon. Members to give some consideration to their colleagues and try to make shorter, pithier speeches so that we can ensure that everybody is able to contribute. Perhaps hon. Members could also be sparing with their interventions unless they are really helpful to the debate.

15:46

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

The great war resulted in death and carnage on a previously unknown and unimagined scale. Not surprisingly, there was an enormous and justified outpouring of public grief that resulted in a major public arts programme in Britain to design and erect memorials to those who had died, and the Imperial—now Commonwealth—War Graves Commission was founded in 1917. We are fortunate to have two commissioners among our Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones).

There are now roughly 36,000 memorials to the dead of the great war in Britain which reflect that unprecedented expression of public grief. What they almost all have in common are the inscriptions of the names of those who died. Those names are essential to the act of remembrance—

“Their name liveth for ever more”.

War memorials are everywhere urging remembrance. Not surprisingly many of the war memorials are in churches or within the curtilage of church buildings.

The centenary years of the great war will hopefully stimulate considerable interest in war memorials and monuments and the histories of the names of those inscribed on those monuments. Clive Aslet, the former editor of Country Life, recently wrote a book called, “War Memorial - the story of one village’s sacrifice from 1914-2003”. It took a typical village—Lydford in Devon—and traced the individual history behind all the names on its war memorial. Clive Aslet has commented:

“What I would really like to do for the Centenary of the First World War in 2014 is to set up a project for each village to find out about its own dead. There is so much you could do and it would be a fantastic national and local resource. This book threw up such a richness of material and it really got me up every morning because I became so utterly absorbed by the story of these people’s lives.”

Other communities are already taking up the challenge. Michael Allbrook and Robert Forsyth have written a history of “A Parish at War”—a military record of three villages in my constituency, Deddington, Clifton and Hempton. They say in the preface to their book:

“When the ‘Deddington’ War Memorial was erected in 1922, it was sufficient for the inscription to be simply a name and an initial. Everybody knew them. Now more information is necessary to tell us about these men of Deddington. You will see that the names include men who had emigrated to Australia Canada and New Zealand and still they volunteered to support the land of their birth.”

As my hon. Friend the Member for Broadland has said, it was Government policy that all those who died overseas would be buried where they died, irrespective of their rank. The graves were located overseas, and back home there was a memorial bearing the names of those who had died. It is difficult now to imagine what it must have been like and the enormous grief when, some few years after the great war, memorials were unveiled with the names of those engraved, the memories of whom were still clear and sharp.

Of course, every community had to design, commission and erect its own war memorial. As early as 1915, a newly formed civic arts association was distributing advice about appropriate ways to remember the dead. In 1919, the Victoria and Albert museum put on a war memorials exhibition organised by the Royal Academy of Arts with the intention of directing groups, communities and committees in the right artistic and architectural direction. As early as 1916, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission made the important decision that no distinction was to be made in the formal nature of the memorials between officers and men lying in the same cemeteries. All were equal in death.

Most of us have heard of Mick Jagger, of Rolling Stones fame, but not so many will have heard of his uncle, Charles Sargeant Jagger, who designed both the Royal Artillery memorial in London’s Hyde park corner and the first world war memorial in Paddington station. Driving around Hyde park, one finds it all too easy to take the Royal Artillery memorial for granted—something that one sees all the time but does not always notice. I hope that during the next four years, we will notice all our war memorials and ensure that by 2018 we learn as much as we can about the lives of the men whose names are inscribed upon them, and that every war memorial is restored and remains kempt—memorials to those who died in the great war protecting and guaranteeing our freedoms.

15:51

[Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab)]

I will speak only about MPs who died in the first world war, and the couple of MPs who died in the second world war, because sometimes in all the talk about how politicians are out of touch and how we are not all in it together, we forget that at many of the key moments in Britain’s history, Members of this House have been very much in it together.

Within the first few months of the outbreak of the first world war, 139 Unionist MPs and 41 Liberals had signed up. At a time when it was still voluntary, that was a very high percentage of those of service age. All the big political families lost somebody. William Ewart Gladstone’s grandson, Lieutenant William Gladstone, who was 29 and MP for Kilmarnock, died in the Royal Welch Fusiliers on 15 April 1915. Captain Neil Primrose, the Liberal MP for Wisbech and Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury, was only 35 and the second son of former Prime Minister Lord Rosebery. He was awarded the military cross in 1916 and led his squadron into battle in the third battle of Gaza, and died.

Raymond Asquith was a barrister and the only son of the Prime Minister at the beginning of the first world war. He was killed on 15 September 1916, leading 4 Company in an attack on Ginchy in the battle of Flers-Courcelette. Within months, of course, his father lost office. In many ways, perhaps it was easier to oust him, because he was so upset by the loss of his son. Arthur Henderson, the Leader of the Labour party, lost his son, David. As the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) said, Bonar Law lost not one but two sons, Charlie and James, and it is perhaps no wonder that his other son, Dick, fought so hard against appeasement in the 1930s, given that so many of his family had already gone.

I want to talk about two particular cases. The first concerns the Cawley family. Harold Cawley was Liberal MP for Heywood and Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Home Secretary. He was the second son of another MP, Frederick Cawley, and was sent to Gallipoli in May 1915 as an aide-de-camp. His younger brother, who was not an MP, died at Mons the day before he set sail. Harold Cawley hated being in a headquarters job, and wrote:

“I have always felt rather a brute skulking behind in comparative safety while my friends are being killed”.

Four of his friends from Rugby were killed on the same day in Gallipoli. He got his wish and of course was killed on 23 September 1915. Ironically, because his letters to his father were from one MP to another MP, they had parliamentary privilege, so the Government could not prevent their being made public. That is one reason we know about the disasters of the Dardanelles campaign. Even more sadly, his other brother, Oswald—this is now the third son—who became an MP when his father was made a peer in 1918, was also keen to fight, became a captain in the 10th King’s Shropshire Light Infantry, was shot in the arm on 22 August, got his wound dressed, went back into the fray and was later shot in the jaw, this time fatally.

There are three shields from the first world war that I think are missing from the Chamber. The first is for Dr John Esmonde, who was the Irish nationalist MP for North Tipperary from 1910 until his death on 17 April 1915, when he was serving as a medical doctor in the Army medical corps. It is true that, in one sense, he was not a combatant and, according to his death certificate, died from pneumonia and heart failure consequent on the strain of overwork, but several other MP casualties are commemorated in the Chamber who died as a result of accidents rather than as combatants.

The second is Lieutenant Tom Kettle, who was an ardent home rule MP for East Tyrone between 1906 and 1910. He was gun-running for the national volunteers in Belgium when the war came, but reckoning that it was the war of civilisation against barbarians, he spent several weeks in what he called

“the agony of the valiant Belgian nation”.

Then, despite poor health, he applied time and again for active service on the western front in one of the Irish regiments. He was killed.

The third is Charles Lyell, who died of pneumonia in 1918 as assistant military attaché in Washington having served two periods as PPS to Asquith, the Prime Minister, and devoting himself wholeheartedly to the war effort. I think it is a shame that these three are not commemorated in the Chamber. I have written to the Speaker and I hope that this will be taken up.

With that, I echo all the comments of the many others who have spoken.

15:55

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

I hope that this will be the first of a number of occasions on which we are able to debate the causes, conduct and consequences of the first world war. The causes are many and include: the Austro-Hungarian empire’s desire to control the Balkans; the German desire to continue Bismarck’s work on expansionism; the French desire to gain revenge for Germany’s victory in battle in 1871; and Russia’s anxiety after its defeat in Japan and its civil war problems. Compounding that were the interrelations between the royal families across Europe and the agreements and ententes cordiales that existed.

As an officer I am keen to understand the details and the importance of the conduct of the war to learn lessons for the future. We have not asked why the war lasted so long. Britain was certainly not prepared for the war; the Crimea was the last main one, and then there were colonial adventures, if we can call them that. The Russo-Japanese conflict was a bad influence on us; the impact of firepower was then understood but the wrong examples were taken from the use of the bayonet, which I am afraid influenced our senior commanders.

It was those senior commanders who were not ready to be engaged in modern warfare. They were looking through the prism of the 19th century. War was seen as noble, structured and decisive; decision-making was very much controlled from the top in an hierarchical, autocratic structure, mostly, dare I say, by cavalry officers, which I am glad to say is no longer the case. It is no wonder that this Army—trained as much for the sports field as the battlefield, bred from narrow regimental and Army loyalties and led by a higher command that was a stickler for tradition and suppressive of criticism— took far too long to defeat the enemy.

The British commanders expected to win through their offensive spirit, the mobility of attack and using phrases such as “at all costs” and “regardless of loss”. Indeed General Smith-Dorrien, Commander of II Corps, was relieved of his command for daring to ask permission to retreat. We are now very familiar with the locations of these battles; Mons, Ypres, Passchendaele, Loos and so forth. The fundamental problem across all of them was that the antiquated command structure actually prevented battalion and brigade commanders from exploiting wins—unwilling to leverage any success until new orders arrived.

Those artillery barrages that we learned so much about and have seen in footage did not cut down the barbed wire or destroy the enemy trenches to give the foot soldiers an advantage when charging across no man’s land. As has been said, the most vivid example of that is the battle of the Somme on 1 July 1916, when 57,000 casualties were suffered in a single day; the biggest number ever in the British Army. Not until new tactics emerged—with battalion and brigade commanders given freedom in decision-making and combined warfare developed, with greater use of the tank and the aeroplane— was that stalemate broken in the battles of Hamel and Amiens.

We are still in fingertip touch with that war through the memories of our parents, grandparents and other relatives. My grandfather was a survivor of the battle of the Somme, from the Manchester regiment. He was blinded in one eye and throughout his life bits of shrapnel came to the surface and had to be removed.

The consequences of that war are still evident today. Britain as a nation was broke, and its place in the world changed as the map of Europe was redrawn to create something close to what we know today. Socially, every town, city and village had to come to terms with a loss of life on a scale that is hard to comprehend today. The war was entered into with enthusiasm but bitterly questioned in retrospect as Britain was robbed of a generation of men and had to adapt to a new world order.

I hope that the commemorations, 100 years on, will not be an exercise in brushing up our history and dates. I hope that we as a nation, in every city, town and village, will reflect on the scale of the sacrifice, given so resolutely by our own relatives only two generations ago, that has helped to define who we are today.

16:00

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

This Sunday, like many colleagues, I shall be at my borough’s annual presentation of wreaths at the war memorial. Our memorial is a circle on Islington green. It was designed to show how people can come together after conflict, not in a spirit of victory but through a desire for no more war to take place. Later that day, we will lay wreaths at the site of the casualty department of the former Royal Northern hospital. To commemorate the thousands of local people who lost their lives in world war one, there was a public collection that resulted in the building of an accident and emergency department there, on the basis of a need for something tangible that people could live from, rather than die from. It is a very appropriate memorial.

When we look at the war memorials—and when we remember the Pals regiments that colleagues have mentioned—we see dozens of names from the same family. We see how one generation was completely wiped out, with many brothers dying alongside each other. I recall looking at a huge war memorial in Sospel in southern France. It commemorated the people of that town, and it was clear that many members of the same families had died in the Franco-Prussian war, the first world war and the second world war. That series of wars wiped out generations.

As a child growing up in a small village in Wiltshire, I recall talking to old men who breathed with enormous difficulty. They told me that they had suffered “the gas” in the first world war. We have to remember those who suffered and those who died. We remember them with poetry and with hope. Many brilliant poems have been written about the first world war, as well as brilliant pieces of music such as Ralph Vaughan Williams’s “The Lark Ascending”, which he dreamed up in the trenches. In the lull between the fighting, he could see the larks above the fields; their song was drowned out as the guns started up again. Nigel Kennedy played it brilliantly at the last night of the Proms earlier this year.

In commemorating all those who died, we must remember that there were also many who opposed the war, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) pointed out. There were massive anti-war meetings in Finsbury Park in my constituency well into the first world war. The international women’s conference against the war and in favour of peace took place in The Hague in 1915. It obviously did not stop the war, but it did influence President Woodrow Wilson and the 14 points that he later produced.

The first world war was a culmination of the rivalry between nations and empires; it was a commercial war in many ways. It was envisaged in J. A. Hobson’s brilliant work on imperialism in 1902, in which he predicted that there would be a war between the European nations because the tension and the arms expenditure were so great. There are serious lessons to be learned from that.

The map of the middle east was drawn as a result of the first world war. The Sykes-Picot agreement, which was revealed during the war, after the Russian revolution, showed the intention of Britain and France to carve up the middle east for themselves. The League of Nations was unsuccessful, but it represented an attempt at the end of the first world war to work out an international order that would prevent the same level of carnage from befalling another generation. In many ways, the League of Nations was doomed before it even started, because of the behaviour of the powers at the negotiations that resulted in the treaty of Versailles. Instead of bringing about a peace, those powers sought to impose a victors’ justice so, for example, the people of New Guinea stopped being subjects of the German empire and became a mandated people under the power of Australia, while the people of the middle east came to live under mandated territories of Britain and France. Many of the problems that the world saw later arose from the first world war.

During the years of discussion about the war, let us try to ensure that, in memory of them, we talk about those who opposed it and those who died in it. Above all, we should bring up our children to try to look for a world of peace—a world where we can settle grievances and differences, rather than feeding an arms race all around the world that can lead only to another war, such as the tragedies of the Congo, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan. Let us try to look to a world of peace and hope, not another war.

16:05

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

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). For once, I agree with him, given what he says about commemoration. I add my congratulations to the Minister who, as the shadow Minister said, has shown such dedication in getting us to this stage. He has dealt with many sensitivities, and we are genuinely grateful for his work.

We are commemorating something that is, in a sense, still alive. As the hon. Member for Islington North made clear, for the middle east, the Sykes-Picot agreement and the Balfour declaration are still live issues. The issues of the war became more personal for me four years ago when, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), I visited Bosnia and Herzegovina to work with Bosniac refugees. I recall being sat down in the biggest mosque in Sarajevo to meet the grand mufti, the head of the Muslim faith in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I remember him saying in really good English, “The last time this country was run properly was under the Habsburg monarchy, and we still call this mosque the Emperor mosque because the Emperor Franz Joseph restored it.” We should think about what has happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina since that time, which suggests that there is an element of truth in that. We are officially to start our national commemorations on 4 August, but we should not forget 28 June 1914, when the Archduke was shot, and what happened subsequently. We still have responsibility to mend those terrible events that happened in Bosnia and Herzegovina.

As someone who was a history teacher, I was a little perturbed by the Minister’s comment about how few people knew much about the first world war and who fought it. Given that I taught for 28 years, I hope that none of those people were in my classes. If the Minister has names, I would like to see them.

Much of the first world war is still with us, so that must be a key aspect of understanding and education. As my hon. Friends the Members for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) and for Reading West (Alok Sharma) pointed out, imperial troops made an unbelievable contribution to the war. There is a Sikh memorial in Belgium. The Indian memorial at Neuve Chapelle commemorates 4,742 Indian troops of no known grave. I saw Jewish graves at Lijssenthoek military cemetery, and I have seen Muslim graves organised in line with Mecca. I have seen a grave for seven people from a Chinese labour battalion who died in the first world war.

Given the diversity of people who live in Britain, we have an opportunity. As a teacher in Tottenham in 1972, I faced the question of how to teach the first world war to classes of pupils from different religious backgrounds and ethnicities. Of course, such teaching could be done, because a huge number of the grandfathers of such pupils would have been there. It has been calculated that about 1.2 million non-white soldiers fought across the first world war theatre. We therefore have an opportunity to use these commemorations to bring people together in a practical way, as people realise that their family histories of the war might not be much different from those of families who live next door.

I pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission for all the work it has done. Incredibly, I was able to discover my great uncle, William Ollerenshaw of the Lancashire Fusiliers, who died on 27 June 1916. I was also impressed by the commission’s recent work on the “In From The Cold” project. It has sent me a chart showing that, in Lancaster and Fleetwood alone, there are 161 war graves scattered across different churchyards. For instance, two soldiers are buried in Glasson churchyard, three in Pilling churchyard, and 38 in Fleetwood cemetery, and they will be remembered. I am extremely grateful for all that detailed work, of which the commission should be proud.

There is still a memorial village in Lancaster and Fleetwood, and Fleetwood has a memorial park, which has just received money so that it can be maintained and brought back into use. That will not be forgotten in the constituency.

I am grateful for the debate, but I am particularly grateful for the hard work done by the Minister over a number of years. I hope that he is proud of where he has got to as a result.

16:10

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

It is my honour to be the chair of the Northern Ireland world war one centenary committee. I also serve, along with other Members, on the national advisory board. I join others in commending the Minister for the excellent work that he has done in preparing for next year’s commemorative events, and I have greatly enjoyed working with him.

The hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) spoke of looking out of the window of his constituency office. When I look out of the window of my constituency office in Lisburn, I can see the war memorial, on the front of which is the word “Thiepval”. Thiepval is, of course, synonymous with the battle of the Somme, and it was the 36th (Ulster) Division that emerged from Thiepval wood on that fateful day, 1 July 1916, and charged towards the German lines. Indeed, the Ulster division was the only division of X Corps to achieve its objective that morning, but it paid a terrible price in doing so: 5,500 soldiers were killed, wounded or missing in action.

The war memorials in my constituency commemorate those men. There are war memorials in Lisburn, Hillsborough and Dromore, and there is a war memorial hall in Lower Ballinderry. Northern Ireland is no different from other parts of the United Kingdom in that respect. However, the battle of the Somme left its mark on that small community. Captain Wilfred Spender, who was an officer in the 36th (Ulster) Division, wrote these words:

“I am not an Ulsterman but yesterday, the 1st July, as I followed their amazing attack, I felt that I would rather be an Ulsterman than anything else in the world.”

We remember the valour of those men. Of the nine Victoria Crosses given to British soldiers who fought in the battle of the Somme, four were awarded to soldiers in the 36th (Ulster) Division, and the division won nine VCs during the course of the war.

While remembrance will be an important theme for us in Northern Ireland, another will be reconciliation. As hon. Members have reminded us, during the first world war, the island of Ireland was united under the Crown as part of the United Kingdom. The 10th and 16th (Irish) Divisions fought alongside the 36th (Ulster) Division. We think of regiments now extinct such as the old Royal Irish Regiment, the Connaught Rangers, the Royal Dublin Fusiliers, the Prince of Wales Leinster Regiment, the Royal Munster Fusiliers, and the South Irish Horse. We also think of existing regiments such as the Irish Guards, and of the current Royal Irish Regiment, along with its antecedents, including the Royal Irish Rifles, the Royal Inniskilling Fusiliers and the Royal Irish Fusiliers, and of course the North Irish Horse, the first regiment in which my brother served when he joined the Army. He now commands the Royal Yeomanry here in London.

Earlier, I quoted Captain Wilfred Spender. Let me now quote another brave soldier: Captain Willie Redmond, who was a Member of this House. He was an Irish nationalist, the brother of the leader of the then Irish nationalist party. Willie Redmond fervently and passionately advocated that nationalists should join the British Army and fight for freedom on the western front. In December 1916, he wrote to his friend Arthur Conan Doyle:

“It would be a fine memorial to the men who have died so splendidly if we could, over their graves, build up a bridge between North and South.”

We cannot change the history of the century that followed the first world war, nor can we alter the constitutional realities today on the island of Ireland. I am a proud Ulsterman and a proud Unionist, but I will say this: the time has come to build those bridges. The time has come to use this shared history of the first world war to build bridges across the island, built on tolerance and mutual respect, in recognition of the brave men who went out and fought for this country and for our freedom, and who sacrificed their lives. Their memory is no less worthy of remembrance than the soldiers of the 36th (Ulster) Division who died alongside them at the Somme and Messines, and other battle places. That does not mean that people have to stop believing in what they believe—that I have to stop being a Unionist, or that my fellow islanders who live in the Republic have to stop being nationalists—but let us together share the history and the remembrance of those who died in that fateful war.

16:15

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

I am very grateful to have been called to speak in this debate on the commemoration of the first world war.

I am delighted to report that both my grandfathers, having served as gunnery officers on the western front and at Jutland, survived. If they had not, I would not be here. My paternal grandfather, Kenneth Colvile, was a member of the Royal Garrison Artillery, while my maternal grandfather, Charles Neate, served on board HMS Valiant, a Queen Elizabeth class battleship, at Jutland. It is a real privilege for me to be able to pay tribute to those members of the Royal Navy and Royal Marines who served in the Devonport fleet, which played such a significant role in the first world war.

Five of the 14 ships lost at the battle of Jutland were Devonport-based ships. I am most fortunate that both my grandfathers left eye-witness accounts of their experiences, and I would like to share a little bit of one of them, from my grandfather who was on the Valiant. He said:

“I went on watch at 12.30 pm for the afternoon watch over the 6" anti-submarine guns; during the latter part of that watch signals began to fly round a good bit, steam for full speed, action stations and so on and then it became known to me that the enemy wireless signals were growing very loud and strong and the Bridge passed down that our light cruisers had got in touch with two enemy light cruisers and seemed likely to cut them off and destroy them.

Just as I was about to be relieved we closed up and got ready for instant action. The usual preparations such as changing into clean clothes, provision of fresh water and food in turrets and other places had to be left undone and we had bare time to get the ship herself ready...

On arrival at my lofty station we saw the Battle-Cruisers on our starboard bow and at about 4.45 pm the Hun battle-cruisers appeared on the port bow and the two squadrons opened action.

We did not open just yet. To realise our difficulties you must try and visualise the light and position. The range was about 10-11 miles. Behind the enemy were blue-black clouds and a low lying mist and behind us was the sun and a sharp clear horizon with no mist. The actual sun was behind clouds high in the sky so they had no glare in their glasses. Thus you will see that the Germans were almost invisible and we were silhouetted against a bright clear background so they could get good readings from their range finders and also mark their fall of shot.”

I am delighted to be able to report that Plymouth will be playing a very significant role in commemorating the first world war, and we will be taking that very seriously. Apart from next year’s national Armed Forces day taking place on Saturday 28 June, on Saturday 4 August we will be having prayers on the Hoe with speeches and the reading of the declaration of war followed by a gun salute from the citadel with a two-minute silence and laying of wreaths. That will be followed by the “Last Post”. Both those days will provide all of us in Plymouth with a real opportunity to express our gratitude to all those brave servicemen and women, and to demonstrate our thanks for their sacrifices.

We all have some real lessons to learn from this most savage war. On election to this place three years ago, I gave a commitment that I would campaign for better treatment for our veterans. I am very grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) has done so much in that regard. May I also pay tribute to the previous Government’s decision to allow those people who were shot for desertion when they were suffering from shell shock and mental health challenges to be pardoned?

I represent a naval garrison city so I see and hear at first hand the real stresses and strains that our veterans face. Indeed, this week, I heard from an Afghan veteran who told me that he is not looking forward to Sunday because he will have to remember many of his friends and his fellow servicemen who died on active military service. That is why we must remember.

16:20

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

First, may I declare an interest, in that I am a commissioner on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, along with my friend the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson)? I consider that to be a great privilege, as I know he does. The CWGC commemorates the 1.7 million people who died in the two wars. I wish to record my thanks to Alan Pateman-Jones, its director general, and his staff for the work they do in more than 153 different countries. I also thank the Governments of New Zealand, India, Australia, Canada and South Africa for their contributions, all of whom will be joining in the commemorations of the 1914 to 1918 war.

I wish to mention a fact that not many people recognise. We all see the iconic sites in France, but we also have 170,000 graves in this country, as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) mentioned. Every community will have CWGC graves in their local churchyard or municipal cemetery, and I am pleased that the CWGC, along with the all-party group on war heritage, has broken these down by constituency. One thing that I have been working closely on with the CWGC is raising awareness in communities of those graves. One initiative has been to erect Commonwealth war grave signs and, in some cases, information boards, so that local people know that the graves are there and are aware of why they are there.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the good work that the CWGC does. He will know that many graves of Victoria Cross holders across the country are neglected and that only those soldiers who died in battle have their graves covered by the CWGC. May I commend to him the work of the Victoria Cross Trust, a charity, of which I am a patron, that does such good work in restoring the graves of VC heroes across the country?

[Mr Jones]

I commend that body. The CWGC’s remit is defined by its charter, but the important point is that the CWGC does look after all those graves in the UK that come under its charter. We are talking about either the traditional stones that people will recognise or private memorials. I pay tribute to councillors in the north-east of England, all of whose areas have now erected these green signs. I ask hon. Members of any party who wish to have them erected in their local cemeteries to contact me or the hon. Member for Broadland, as we will be only too willing to help. We have had a bit of a glitch with the Church of England—I am sorry that the Second Church Estates Commissioner, the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) is not here for this—which seemed to offer a protracted and bureaucratic reason for why we could not put these signs up. I am glad to say that some progress has been made, including in Durham, where the Archbishop of Canterbury, the former Bishop of Durham, seemed to cut through the red tape of the Church of England. It would be nice to see those tasteful signs on all churchyards, just to raise awareness, so that local people know that the graves are there.

Let me now deal with the issues raised by the Minister. I congratulate him on the work he has done on them, because I think he has got this right. There was a real danger that this could go wrong. As he said, it is right that there will be national and international commemorations, but the real focus has to come from below—I totally agree with him on that; local communities have to get involved. I pay tribute to the Heritage Lottery Fund, which is providing grants for local communities, a few of them in my constituency, including Park View school, which has just received a grant for doing a world war one project. I know that there are many others. Pelton Fell memorial park is applying for a grant and a number of other villages want to hold events. Sacriston, for example, wants to hold a village at war event.

I am passionate about ensuring that those who lost their lives are remembered, but another important aspect is what happened in local communities. In the north-east and County Durham, for example, the role of coal mining in the first world war was important, as were the roles of women in munitions factories and the munitions industry in Tyneside.

I am pleased that my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Wayne David) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) mentioned conscientious objectors, because the war was divisive. In the early parts of the conflict, members of the Independent Labour party were very much against the involvement of Britain in the war. There were some notable exceptions and some people broke away, including Clem Attlee, who fought bravely at Gallipoli. One of my predecessors, Jack Lawson, the Member for Chester-le-Street—who, by coincidence, was a member of the Imperial War Graves Commission in the 1920s—fought on the western front, even though he was an ILP member.

There are opportunities for communities not only to remember the first world war but to do some good things about their own history and to ensure that people remember the contribution that everyone made to the war effort. When I was the veterans Minister, I had the privilege of meeting Harry Patch, Bill Stone and Henry Allingham. Sadly, I also attended their funerals. As the Minister said, they were the last living link to the first world war, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis) said, has now passed into history. This is a great opportunity to ensure that future generations not only do not forget but know of the important role that their local communities played in that important part of our great nation’s history.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I shall have to start the wind-ups at 4.48 and there are five speakers left. It is almost impossible. I am going to take the time limit to four minutes, but I implore hon. Members to make room for their colleagues to speak, too, by not necessarily using the full time, short as it is. The time limit is now four minutes, because I think that it is important that every Member gets to speak.

16:27

[Damian Collins (Folkestone and Hythe) (Con)]

It was a pleasure to listen to the speech by the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and I commend him for the work he has done. I am sure that he would agree that the stated desire of the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach Enda Kenny to visit a war grave together during the run-up to the centenary is an excellent way of marking the fact that Irishmen, both Unionist and nationalist, fought together for a good cause in the first world war and we should not forget that.

The first world war has captured the imagination of the public. It might have passed from living memory, but people’s desire to find out about it, to walk in the footsteps of the soldiers by visiting the battlefields and to gain an insight into what it must have been like is as keen now as it has probably been in living memory. Perhaps that is because we want to challenge ourselves. In the same circumstances, would we be as brave as people were then?

Throughout the debate, people have mentioned the “Blackadder” version of history and asked whether we are too cynical now as a nation to make the sacrifices that people did then. Through the course of the first world war centenary years we will remember the sacrifices of those who gave their lives and of those who served, both on the front line and to support the people on the front line. It is a reminder of the incredible sacrifices people make and the incredible endurance people have in extreme circumstances. People rise to that challenge generation after generation and it is right that we should remember the sacrifices of the first world war, which were on such an enormous scale.

I remember reading the remarks of my predecessor, Philip Sassoon, who was an MP during the first world war. He felt that the battles at places such as Waterloo seemed Lilliputian compared with Neuve Chapelle, as it was such a totally different experience from anything anyone had seen before.

I want to mention the Step Short project in my constituency, of which I am chairman. I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), who has been to Folkestone to visit the project and see what we are planning: to tell a local story based on rediscovering the role the town played during the war. Folkestone was the major port of embarkation for troops to and from the trenches of the western front. It is estimated that 10 million servicemen came through the town during the war and our major project is to create a memorial arch over the route that they marched down to the ships in the harbour waiting to take them to France. The arch will commemorate not just those who lost their lives and for whom that journey was their last on home soil but everyone who served in the war—soldiers, nurses, people in the supply chains, everyone who was part of the national contribution to the first world war. I hope that people will come and experience what Folkestone has to offer and see the arch, which we will unveil on 4 August next year as our commemoration of the centenary of the outbreak of the war.

I also thank the National Army museum, which will bring an exhibition to Folkestone that will run from June next year for 10 months. It will help tell the story of the home front and the journey to war. Many stories will be rediscovered as part of the first world war centenary.

Another local story I will touch on is that of Walter Tull, whose story was rediscovered by the Dover war memorial project. He was the first black soldier to be commissioned in the British Army, as well as having been the first black professional footballer to play in an outfield position in the professional football leagues. Many such stories will be rediscovered.

Another Folkestone story that is important to us is the role that the town played in accommodating tens of thousands of refugees from Belgium in the first weeks of the war. We gave succour and comfort to people who had been dispossessed of their homes. That is an incredible story of the war, and we will discover more such stories as we go through.

In his poem “Aftermath”, Siegfried Sassoon said:

“Have you forgotten yet?

For the world’s events have rumbled on since those gagged days.”

Next year we have a chance to demonstrate that we have not forgotten.

16:31

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

On the morning of 22 May 1915, 227 people were killed in what is still Britain’s worst rail disaster when a troop train and two other passenger trains collided at Quintinshill near Gretna. Almost all those who died were men from the Leith Battalion of the Royal Scots, who were killed before even reaching the battlefields of Gallipoli that they were heading for on their first posting after training. The vast majority of those who were killed were obviously from Edinburgh and Leith. Of course, in the time before and after hundreds more from the community of Edinburgh died in various battlefields and at sea, but the impact of that rail disaster, because it had such a dramatic effect on one day on people who did not even get to Gallipoli, where they had been expecting to fight, was both dramatic and traumatic.

The disaster is now remembered every year on its anniversary at a war memorial in a cemetery in the centre of my constituency. At one of those commemorations a few years ago I met a grandchild, the great-grandchildren and the great-great-grandchildren of a victim of that disaster who were pleased that the local community was now remembering their ancestor. I am glad to say that the Quintinshill disaster is recognised by both the UK and Scottish Governments as one of the Scottish national events to be remembered in the commemorations of world war one. It reminds us that the way in which the war impacted on individuals and communities was not just at the front and at sea but in places a long way from the battlefield and in ways that we do not always appreciate.

The bodies of those who died in that disaster were brought back to the Drill hall in Leith. That building is now the Out of the Blue centre, a successful arts and cultural centre. Appropriately, in that very building a couple of months ago, I was privileged to take part in the launch of one of the community projects funded by the Heritage Lottery Fund. It was a project organised by the Disability History Scotland group, which aims to look at how the experience of disability caused directly or indirectly by world war one had consequences for families and communities, for social policy, disability groups and disability rights campaigns for generations until now.

That is again a reminder of how the consequences of war extend far beyond its original participants in all sorts of ways and down the decades. Besides the project that I mentioned, I know that others in my community have sought, and I hope received, funding from the HLF. I have encouraged them to do so and I hope that the publicity about today’s debate will encourage other groups to come forward with projects for their community.

Another ceremony that has recently been revived is at the war memorial at Newhaven village in my constituency, a fishing village in the past and a very small fishing community now. It takes place every year at the war memorial attached to the local school. It brings together the wider community and the young people at the school to remember what their forefathers fought for in the first world war. It is an opportunity to remind young people of what happened at that time and to look, as many colleagues have said, at reconciliation and work for peace so that future generations will not have to go through what so many went through in the first world war.

16:34

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. I shall make a brief contribution.

I was born on Remembrance day and I have always attended Remembrance day services—those cold November mornings, the leaves falling on the ground, the sound of Elgar’s “Nimrod” and the stories of my grandparents. That may explain my long-standing interest in military history. I believe that the only way we can shape a better future is by understanding and honouring those who have fallen for this country.

I have been struck by the respect and solemnity with which the public regard Remembrance day and have been raising money for poppies across my constituency over the past few weekends, as have many hon. Members. I ran the London marathon earlier this year, raising money for the Royal British Legion. I pay tribute to my constituents. We are raising money for the Todger Jones VC bronze statue. Todger Jones was a Cheshire Regiment lad who won his Victoria Cross at Morval on the Somme in 1916.

War is an inescapable truth and to leave any conflict saying that it is the last would be either naive or wilfully misleading, but what we can do is recognise the importance of what is done, ensure that the skills and requirements protect the armed forces as much as possible, and remember those who have made such sacrifices in our country’s name. That is why I am so proud to speak today and take part in the commemoration service across Weaver Vale this weekend. Those who have fought for Britain may be gone, but they are always in our thoughts and in our memories.

We pay tribute to Tommy Atkins—Tommy Atkins, like Todger Jones and my grandfather, who, being a Manchester lad, wanted to join up in 1914 but was not old enough. The recruiting sergeant knew that he was not old enough so, along with his mates who were under age, he hot-footed it to Manchester Piccadilly station, got on the west coast line down to London Euston and joined up at the first recruiting office, which just happened to be the Middlesex Regiment. I make that same journey every Monday morning down to this place and I never fail to remember those brave Tommy Atkins from all parts of the country who made the ultimate sacrifice.

16:37

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On Saturday, in common with many other Members of Parliament and millions of people throughout this country, we will commemorate and remember those who died in the first and the second world wars. In particular, in my constituency we commemorate the North and the South Staffordshire Regiments with their VCs and those who did not attain great gallantry medals but who fought the battles, fought the war, saved this country and saved our democracy.

I pay tribute to the Royal Irish Rifles because, as has already been mentioned, it is remarkable that despite all the troubles between us and those who live in the southern part of Ireland, so many people are now touched by the fact that we are coming together. We commemorate people who fought—people like Vincent Cullen—because they were loyal, they were real and they were brave. They fought with our people and we should never forget them.

Finally, I should like to put it on record that Doug Lakey, who came here this afternoon and was the only person in the Special Gallery, as far as I know, was with my father on the day he was killed in the second world war. He is a constituent of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and I thought he would like to know that. Doug Lakey is 93 now. He has had a fantastic day and it has been a wonderful occasion for me to be able to have him here for the first time in the House of Commons.

16:38

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

Madam Deputy Speaker, I am very grateful for your permission to contribute to this debate, particularly as the first ever televised session of the Intelligence and Security Committee meeting today prevented me from attending by far the greater part of the debate. I shall just make a few very brief remarks and hope that I am not unwittingly repeating things that others have already raised.

We all have our different methods by which we have been in contact with or affected by the first world war. Mine dates back to my days as a schoolboy, when I became friendly with a veteran of the Royal Navy, Mr Leslie Horton, who served from 1915 to 1945 in just about every variety of royal naval ship. He served on the destroyer HMS Landrail in the first world war, for example, and the S-class submarine HMS Seadog in the second world war. The force of character and personality of all those people who have been through these vicissitudes, ordeals and dangers cannot help but transmit itself to people of a younger generation.

In the brief time available I want to make one point for the Minister to consider in his reply. It will not come as a surprise to him, because we have discussed it privately previously. I want to be certain that when, in the course of commemorating the events of the first world war, we focus on particular spikes in the history of that catastrophic conflict, we do not end up focusing solely on those events that marked terrible mistakes and defeats. It is a reality that the generalship behind the battle of the Somme was sadly lacking—some would say it was grossly negligent. It is a fact that the mistakes made at the battle of the Somme were repeated at the battle of Passchendaele, but it is also a fact that by the time we got to 8 August 1918, the lessons of those disastrous earlier offences had been learnt, however belatedly. The battle of Amiens, which hardly anyone has heard of by comparison with the earlier battles, was a stupendous victory for which our forces gain too little credit.

Of course commemoration is about reconciliation, but we must not blind ourselves to the fact that those battles took place not on the territory of a country that did the invading, but by definition on the territory of countries that had been invaded. It should be a matter of pride for the people of this country that we fought on the right side in the first world war. Indeed, the failure to draw the right lessons from what happened at the end of the war had the consequence that after the second world war we were determined there would have to be unconditional surrender—so that next time nobody could argue, as they had done after 1918, that they had not really been defeated. Let us of course reach out the hand of friendship and remember the terrible mistakes made, but let us remember the victories, too, and the justice of the cause for which British soldiers, sailors and airmen fought and died.

16:42

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me at the end of the debate; I was in a Committee meeting and so was unable to contribute earlier.

Burton can take the credit for having been home to the most decorated non-commissioned soldier of the first world war, William Coltman, who won not only the Victoria Cross but the distinguished conduct medal and bar and the military medal. He won those amazing medals as a pacifist. He was a stretcher bearer because his religious beliefs prevented him from fighting, but he was a brave men. He is a man that Burton is very proud of.

I speak as a patron of the Victoria Cross Trust. As has been mentioned, there are hundreds of graves of heroes across the country, including VC winners, that are not tended by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission because those brave servicemen died after they had been decommissioned and when they were no longer in the Army. It is a terrible shame for our country. In my opinion it is a national disgrace that the graves of those men who did such great acts of bravery and valour on behalf of this country and democracy are not tended. We see these crumbling gravestones and overgrown memorials to such brave men, and it is time that we looked at what we can do about them.

The Victoria Cross Trust is a charity that was established by a gentleman called Gary Stapleton. With no public money, he and his band of volunteers have restored very many graves, up and down the country, of VC heroes. It is time that we looked at what we could do as a Government to try to support them. They do not ask for huge amounts of Government funding, but I am sure there must be ways we can help. This is the big society in action—people going out in the community, raising money to restore the graves of some of the bravest men of this country. We should commend them and do all we can to support them.

16:45

[Clive Efford (Eltham) (Lab)]

This has been a very fitting and moving debate. I always feel that the House is at its best on such occasions. I cannot, in the time available, do credit to all the speeches. We heard from the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson), the hon. Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson), my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal), my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David), the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell), my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs Moon), the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant), the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the hon. Members for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) and for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile), my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), the hon. Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins), my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), and the hon. Members for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), for Stone (Mr Cash), for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), and for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). All I can say is that it is an honour to have taken part in this debate with them.

How we should approach this commemoration is symbolised by Harry Patch’s insistence that German and British veterans should carry his coffin. For the past 20 years, long before I became a Member of Parliament, I have been attending the remembrance service in Eltham. Over the years, it has become a much more diverse affair. In fact, the people who attend nowadays represent the diversity of the armed forces who took part in the first world war more than they ever have in previous years. It is a real community event with everyone coming together. More recently, we have been happy to welcome a large contingent of the Gurkha community, and it is a pleasure to see how their presence is warmly welcomed by the entire community. British Future’s publication about the first world war refers to

“the graves…of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus lying side by side, just as”

they

“had fought side by side”.

It is often at these times in the field of human conflict that humanity shows its greatest attributes. Whether it is the brotherhood of those diverse cultures or the symbolic events that took place in no man’s land at Christmas 1914, there is more in human nature that binds us than divides us. When Harry Patch sadly passed away in 2009, we lost one of the last direct connections with the British soldiers who fought so bravely in that war. Our generation will be the last to have had direct contact with these soldiers. We must therefore reflect on how the 150th anniversary might be remembered.

When this Chamber suffered a direct hit from a German bomb during the second world war, Winston Churchill instructed that some of the rubble from the bomb damage be incorporated in the renovated Chamber of the House of Commons to remind us not only of the fortitude of those who fought in that war but the damage and harm that was inevitably caused by wars. So this Chamber itself, in a way, has a form of remembrance. That is a reminder that we, as politicians, must exhaust every political and diplomatic avenue before we ever consider sending our armed forces into harm’s way. War is a breakdown of the political process and, as such, can only be the last resort in any conflict.

It has been an honour to take part in this debate. In particular, I pay tribute to the work of the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), and what he has done to bring us to this point. I also pay tribute to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, to the Imperial War Museum, to the BBC for what it has planned over the next four years, and to all the countries of the Commonwealth that will be doing so much to help us to mark this important event in our collective history.

Forty-one million British people lived through the first world war while what was described as the flower of British youth went off to fight. Nine million soldiers lost their lives and 16 million people died overall. For them, we must be a nation at our best when commemorating these events. We must lay the foundations for future generations to go on learning the lessons of just how devastating war can be. If we can achieve that, we will have achieved something that is worthy of those whom we aim to remember.

16:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

I thank all Members who have taken part in this very important debate and I am sorry that there is so little time to respond fully to all the important issues and moving stories that have been mentioned.

More than anything else, the Government want engagement with this commemoration. Almost every one of us has discoveries to make about the first world war and our various personal links to it. The issue is important to me: as the mother of a Royal Marine Commando, I understand and appreciate the courage, tenacity and skill of our armed forces. I also understand the pride and anxiety that families feel when those they love go away to serve.

Today’s speeches and interventions by Members stemmed, understandably, from their own interest in the time and their genuine concerns for how war is commemorated. I sensed considerable consensus in the Chamber this afternoon.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), and the hon. Member for Colchester (Sir Bob Russell) and others raised the issue of the tone of the commemoration. I absolutely agree with them that this is not a celebration; it is a commemoration. There are no surviving veterans from the first world war, but it is up to us to pay respect and to ensure that future generations do not forget and that there will be no triumphalism or jingoism.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry), the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mrs Moon) and for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr Donaldson) and my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Damian Collins) spoke about the importance of war memorials and the various plans for research, restoration and having these important structures listed. Those are exactly the sorts of projects that the Government programme is designed to support and I wish those concerned every success.

On the issue raised right at the end by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), when my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence opened the debate he mentioned the battle of Amiens, which was a victory. I think my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East may have missed that reference.

The role of women has been raised by several Members and it will certainly be commemorated. Women played an essential role in the war. We need to recognise the huge impact that the war had on women, their place in society, the suffragette movement and employment.

My hon. Friend the Member for Broadland (Mr Simpson) and others spoke about the importance of engaging with our young people. One of our key objectives for the centenary is to engage with them by making connections between young people today and young people who fought and died a century ago. Our battlefield visit programme will connect young people with battlefields and, I hope, offer them a special experience that they can share with their classmates.

It was humbling to hear about the Barnsley Pals, and about the Accrington Pals from the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), and about the valiant Todger Jones, William Coltman and Tommy Atkins. It was also moving to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton South West (Paul Uppal) about the bravery of the Sikh regiments, and from my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) about the importance of diversity. I reassure Members that this commemoration will help us mark such contributions. It will also make future generations aware of the history of the war so that we can continue to learn from the lessons of the past.

It is clear from what has been said today that many Members have already encouraged their constituents to become involved, and I thank them very much for their efforts. If Members have not already done so, I ask them to tell those in their area about what is being planned and encourage them to find their own links to the first world war, a conflict that, though it took place 100 years ago, remains deeply ingrained in the fabric of our society, our churchyards, our memorials and our heritage buildings, and in the hearts of our families.

Although our Government commemoration is proudly led by the Government, the spirit is rightly owned by all of the people of this country. I hope that what we have said this afternoon has assured Members from all parties that we are working hard to make sure that the UK’s first world war centenary commemoration will be solemnly, respectfully and properly remembered.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered commemoration of the First World War.

Redevelopment of the old Royal Ordnance Factory site (Puriton, Somerset)

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

16:55

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

I am presenting a petition of 1,298 signatures from the Bridgwater and West Somerset constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Puriton, Somerset,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the proposed redevelopment of the old Royal Ordnance Factory site is unacceptable on grounds of air pollution, noise, village access, visual impact and the overall character of the development.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons take note of the plans in advance of consideration by the local planning authority.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001275]

Group B Streptococcus (Newborn Babies)

Thursday 7th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

16:56

[Nadine Dorries (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I am delighted and honoured to have secured this debate on group B streptococcus, which is also known as group B strep or GBS. GBS is the most common cause of serious infection in newborn babies. In the UK, it is the most common cause of meningitis in babies in their first weeks of life. With prompt and aggressive treatment, most sick babies will recover from GBS infection, but even with the best medical care, about 10% of them will die, and some of the survivors will suffer lifelong problems, including 50% of those who recover from GBS meningitis.

The subject was last raised in the House 10 years ago by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron), who is now Prime Minister. There has been some progress but, given his current position, it would be encouraging if we could see more. I shall quote his words at the end of my speech.

The rate of confirmed cases of group B strep infection in newborn babies increased by almost 50% between 1991 and 2010. The true rate of infection, which includes cases that are not confirmed through the identification of the bacteria, but in which GBS is strongly suspected by clinicians, is likely to be several times higher. The issue is therefore not only serious, but one that is becoming more serious.

We have known for a long time that the key risk factor for a newborn baby in developing GBS is the mother carrying GBS at delivery. The UK guidelines state that if GBS has been detected during the current pregnancy from a swab or culture from a pregnant woman, she should be offered intravenous antibiotics in labour to minimise the risk of GBS developing in her newborn baby.

The UK’s risk-based strategy to reduce GBS infection in newborn babies was introduced by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in 2003, but there is no evidence that it has appreciably reduced the incidence of this devastating infection. In 2003, there were 229 reported cases of GBS infection in babies aged nought to six days; in 2011, there were 281 cases. On that evidence alone, I suggest to the Minister that the risk-based strategy has failed demonstrably and that we need to consider new alternatives.

One UK case study found that 21% of women carried GBS, and that 22% had risk factors for GBS infection developing in their newborn baby and would therefore be offered intravenous antibiotics in labour. However, only 29% of women with risk factors actually carried GBS. Using risk factors alone means that a high proportion of women not carrying GBS will be offered intrapartum antibiotics, while many actually carrying it will not.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

[Nadine Dorries]

Researchers stated:

“The most striking finding that has implications for clinical practice and policy is the low sensitivity of risk factor based screening, compared with PCR or culture tests in predicting maternal and neonatal GBS colonisation—”

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

I warmly commend my hon. Friend on bringing the issue before the House. I have a constituent who lost a child as a result of it, so it is something that I take seriously. Is my hon. Friend pleased, as I am, to see that Public Health England is now adopting gold standard enriched culture testing in its eight regional laboratories? Does she welcome that as a small advance in this important area?

[Nadine Dorries]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s intervention, and I will go on to talk about the gold standard culture medium.

The researchers continued that the sensitivity of such screening was

“below that which we considered to be a minimally acceptable sensitivity for our study—which calls into question the validity of the current UK policy. Moreover, consistent with previous evidence of practice variation, the risk factor-based screening policy was poorly adhered to, with one-third of women with indications for IAP not treated.”

Despite those authors and numerous others recommending routine screening as cost-effective in the UK, the UK national screening committee continues to recommend the risk-based approach.

Most countries that have national strategies against GBS infection offer routine antenatal testing for GBS. Those countries have seen the incidence of early onset disease fall dramatically, such as by more than 80% in the US and Spain. That compares favourably with the result of the risk-based approach in the UK under which, as I have said, the number of infections has increased. If we know that the risk-based strategy we are adopting is not working because infections are beginning to increase, yet countries such as Spain are seeing an 80% reduction, should we not consider the cost-effectiveness of moving to a system that we know will reduce the number of poorly babies in our intensive care units that have GBS-induced meningitis and other complications?

Studies show that testing for GBS in late pregnancy, as well as offering tests to women found to carry GBS or who have other recognised risk factors, is more cost-effective than the current risk-based strategy. A risk-based strategy is poor at predicting women who will be carrying GBS in labour, and therefore women for whom antibiotics in labour would potentially prevent devastating infections in their newborn babies.

Recently published research shows that although women want to be informed about GBS and offered testing for it during pregnancy, that is not happening. At less than £12, the tests are not that expensive, and the antibiotic recommended during labour if a woman is found to carry GBS in pregnancy is cheap and cost-effective. It is penicillin, which is shown to be exceptionally safe, as well as being a narrow-spectrum drug that is unlikely to cause greater resistance later.

Most NHS pathology services currently use culture media that are general purpose and identify GBS in only about 60% of carriers. At the request of the chief medical officer, Dame Sally Davies, the enriched culture medium test that my hon. Friend mentioned will be made available throughout England from 1 January 2014. That will identify about 90% of carriers, and it is the gold standard for that purpose, under Public Health England’s regional laboratory standard operating procedure. The results of the GBS test are about 85% predictive of carriage status for up to five weeks. It should be used to identify GBS carriage wherever there is an indication. These sensitive tests have not previously been widely available within the NHS when requested by the health professionals and pregnant women.

I have some key questions for the Minister. Will he use this debate as an opportunity to make a statement welcoming the gold standard enriched culture medium test for group B strep carriage, which is being made available from January 2014 and which can be used to assess carrier state if there is an indication? From this point on, how does the Minister plan to reduce the incidence of GBS infection in newborn babies when the current risk-based strategy, introduced in 2003, has been shown not to be effective? Is there a target rate for GBS infection in newborn babies? I have always derided targets, but in this case setting a target for the reduction of GBS infections may be a way to introduce routine testing.

Will the Minister confirm that the audit of practice suggested by the UK national screening committee to establish how well the new guidance is being implemented at a national level will study the actual practice taking place in maternity units, rather than simply being an audit of policies without any check on whether they are being applied in practice, because we know that these policies are not being put into practice in maternity units? What is the time scale for the feedback and advice to trusts about how they can further improve their adherence to the RCOG and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines on the prevention of neonatal GBS disease? What provision is being made for telling pregnant women about the risk of GBS infection in their babies? What provision is being made to educate relevant health professionals about the prevention of GBS in newborn babies and the forthcoming availability of the gold standard ECM test? Do midwives and practitioners in maternity units even know that this gold standard test is being introduced in 2014?

UK guidelines recommend that when GBS carriage is found by chance during a pregnancy, it should trigger the offer of antibiotic prophylaxis in labour. Why should a woman with unknown GBS carriage status be denied the opportunity to find out if her baby is at risk?

I would like to pay tribute to the tireless work of Group B Strep Support, the charity and campaign group that has been working to raise awareness of this issue and reduce the death toll. I also have a constituent who has sadly lost a baby to GBS. The group has been a great help to me in preparing for this debate following a meeting with my constituent. Ten years ago, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his Adjournment debate:

“Group B Strep Support’s aim, which I support, is for the routine test to be offered to all pregnant women, with those who are found to have GBS at the 35 to 37-week stage being automatically offered intravenous antibiotics.”

He said to the then Minister:

“I hope that the Minister will show great urgency over the issue”.—[Official Report, Date; Vol. 408, c. 267WH.]

My right hon. Friend supported the introduction of routine testing: I echo his sentiments exactly.

17:08

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Dr Daniel Poulter)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) on securing this debate and raising this very important issue. The death of a baby is devastating for parents and their families. It is important that we do all we can to minimise the risk of such deaths. My hon. Friend has presented a strong case, but, as I shall set out later, it is equally important that we are guided in our decisions by professional, evidence-based advice to ensure that any action taken does not lead to potentially greater adverse outcomes or unintended consequences.

Group B streptococcus is one of many bacteria that can be present in the human body. It is estimated that about one pregnant woman in five in the UK carries GBS. Around the time of labour and birth, many babies come into contact with GBS and are colonised by the bacteria. Most are unaffected, but a small number can become infected.

If a baby develops group B strep less than seven days after birth, it is known as early-onset group B strep. Most babies who become infected develop symptoms within 12 hours of birth, and it is estimated that about one in 2,000 babies born in the UK develop early-onset group B strep, or about 404 babies a year—my hon. Friend made these points earlier. Most babies who become infected can be treated successfully and will make a full recovery, but even with the best medical care, one in 10 babies diagnosed with early-onset group B strep will unfortunately die.

The infection can also cause life-threatening complications, such as septicaemia, pneumonia and meningitis. One in five babies who survive the infection will be affected permanently. Early-onset group B strep can cause problems such as cerebral palsy, deafness, blindness and serious learning difficulties, and rarely can cause infection in the mother—for example, an infection in the womb or urinary tract, or more seriously an infection that spreads through the blood, causing symptoms to develop throughout the whole body.

It is worth reflecting on how the UK compares internationally on rates of group B strep. The reported rate per 1,000 births is 0.38 in the UK; in the USA, where there is testing, it is 0.41; in Spain, 0.39; in France, 0.75; in Portugal, 0.44; and in Norway, 0.46. Even in comparison with countries where there is routine group B strep screening at 35 to 37 weeks, therefore, the UK has relatively low levels of group B strep.

It is also worth setting out some of the general improvements in maternity care that are helping to reduce group B strep and improve the quality of care available to women. We all agree that women should receive high-quality and safe maternity services that deliver the best outcomes for them and their baby. Maternity services feature prominently in the key objectives set out in the first mandate between the Government and NHS England. As set out in the mandate, we want all women to have a named midwife responsible for ensuring she has personalised, one-to-one care. To help deliver that, there has been significant investment in the maternity work force. Since May 2010, the number of full-time equivalent midwives has increased by 6.5%—just under 1,500—and in addition there are currently in excess of 5,000 midwifery students in training. There has, therefore, been considerable investment in maternity services to ensure much more personalised care and, consequently, much safer care for women and their babies.

[Nadine Dorries]

For the reasons I highlighted, we know that the risk-based strategy is not working effectively. Does the Minister not agree that in countries that have routine testing the chances are greatly improved? He drew comparisons with the US, France and other countries, but we do not know what their figures would be if they were using our risk-based strategy. The fact is that they are routinely testing, so does he not agree that only if we were also routinely testing could we make a like-for-like comparison with other countries? Also, why specifically does the UK, a sophisticated country with sophisticated maternity services, not routinely test?

[Dr Poulter]

I will come to those points a little later, but I will try to reassure my hon. Friend. Given that the majority of babies who die from group B strep are born prematurely, testing at 35 to 37 weeks would not benefit them. Tragically, they would have died in any case, so the screening test to prevent them from dying would not have been effective. I will say a little more about that later, if she will allow me to make some progress.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this issue, because the first challenge is to raise general awareness of group B strep among the health care work force and women more generally. The Department of Health is working with the NHS, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of Midwives, the National Institute for Health Research health technology assessment team and the pharmaceutical industry to raise awareness of group B strep and reduce the impact of this terrible infection. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists has produced an information leaflet for women who are expecting a baby or planning to become pregnant, and this sets out information about group B strep infection in babies in the first week after birth and the current UK recommendations for preventing group B strep in newborn babies. In addition, information is also available on the NHS Choices website.

As hon. Friends will agree, the focus must be on preventing early-onset group B strep infection from occurring in the first place. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published updated guidelines on prevention of early-onset group B strep infection in neonates in July 2012, which takes into account the latest evidence. It is important that services undertake local clinical audits to ensure the effective use of intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis as recommended by the guidance. Following the publication of the revised guidance, the UK national screening committee suggested a formal audit of practice to establish how well the new guidance is being implemented at a national level.

The RCOG, in partnership, with the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, has now appointed a clinical research fellow to carry out a one-year audit across the UK, which will undertake a review to see how units have revised and updated their local protocols since 2006, using well-designed case studies to gather specific information about maternity unit policies by asking clinicians whether they would screen for group B strep and/or other intrapartum antibiotic prophylaxis in the circumstances described. It will also assess the extent to which current maternity information systems are able to provide data on whether women have had an antenatal culture for group B strep, whether women have been given intrapartum antibiotics and, if so, the antibiotics prescribed, the dose and duration and whether the women had particular risk factors such as intrapartum fever. The audit aims to provide feedback and advice to all participating trusts about how they could further improve their adherence to the RCOG guidelines on the prevention of neonatal group B strep disease.

Clinical audit is a tool that is incredibly valuable in improving the quality of patient care. It is something that trusts do very often on an ad hoc basis. The fact that we now have a national audit focused on group B strep disease will help to standardise practice across all maternity settings and improve the quality of care that is available, so that we can look at which women are more vulnerable and susceptible to developing group B strep and, therefore, reduce infection rates.

[Nadine Dorries]

That is encouraging news but again the focus is on women who are at risk of group B strep. I am advocating that all women should be tested for group B strep. I recommend that every pregnant woman I meet now buys a kit to test for group B strep. It is encouraging and positive to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying but it is still focusing on the at-risk women, which is what the risk strategy does now. We need to move from that and away from the at-risk women. We need to move from 35 to 37 weeks and forward to full-term and routine testing of all women for group B strep.

[Dr Poulter]

I am hopeful that the audit by the RCOG nationally—something I discussed with the group B strep groups and the chief medical officer at a meeting this time last year to progress the work at a greater pace—will put us in a better position to understand in particular which women are at high risk, whether birth units are picking up on those women in a timely manner and how we can improve the situation throughout the country. In the past there has been quite a lot of variation in practice, broadly based on the RCOG guidelines, but it is important—knowing the devastating effects of this illness—that we put together a comprehensive audit tool that gathers data at a national level so we can spread good practice and good guidance throughout. If my hon. Friend will be patient I hope to address some of the broader issues about screening later.

[Andrew Selous]

Earlier, my hon. Friend said that some countries that screen have higher rates of group B strep than we do. Does he have any data—he could perhaps write to my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Nadine Dorries) and myself—to show what the progression has been since testing was introduced in those countries? I think my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire said that it was falling in Spain but it would be interesting to see how it is moving following the introduction of widespread testing.

[Dr Poulter]

I would be delighted to do so. It is important to consider the confounding factors that arise in any research. For example, there is some evidence of different rates of carriage of group B strep among different population groups. Also, the clinical treatment of the disease in hospitals—which is separate from the screening process—can vary from country to country. We have to set the data alongside other practices that take place at local level in order to interpret them in the right way. I would be delighted to write to my hon. Friends, and to any other hon. Members who are interested, with that broader general information.

I shall turn now to the question of routine screening for group B strep. The UK national screening committee advises Ministers and the national health service in all four countries on all aspects of screening policy, and supports implementation. At its meeting on 13 November 2012, the screening committee recommended that antenatal screening for group B strep carriage at 35 to 37 weeks should not be offered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire has pointed out. That is the reason for the debate. The reasons given included the fact that the currently available screening tests cannot distinguish between women whose babies would be affected and those that would not. As a result, about 140,000 low-risk pregnant women would be offered antibiotics in labour following a positive screening test result. The overwhelming majority of those women would have a healthy baby without screening and treatment. In other words, a woman who had screened positive for group B strep at one point in her pregnancy might not necessarily be carrying it at the time of delivery, and up to 140,000 women a year could be given antibiotics during labour even though they did not need them.

On the back of the evidence, concern was also expressed, understandably, about resistance to some of the antibiotics used to prevent early-onset group B strep, about the long-term effects on the newborn and about the potential for anaphylactic reactions in labour. Many of us will recall the report of the chief medical officer for England, in which she expressed particular concern about the risks posed by antibiotic resistance because of overuse. The use of antibiotics on that size of population could create a risk of resistance developing, which would have adverse consequences.

[Nadine Dorries]

I am interested in what the Minister has just said. As I mentioned in my speech, we are talking about a penicillin, a narrow-spectrum antibiotic. I know the Minister’s background, and he will know that GPs would prescribe it for a throat infection. This is a widely and commonly used antibiotic. Does he not think that these expressions of concern are over-egging the pudding slightly?

[Dr Poulter]

In the report that the chief medical officer published earlier this year, she made the point graphically that the overuse of antibiotics among people who do not need them can lead to resistance developing in bacteria. We know from hospital super-bugs such as MRSA and VRSA that many other resistant strains of bacteria are developing. Part of the challenge is to see responsible prescribing adopted more broadly across the NHS, to ensure that antibiotics are being targeted at the people who will benefit directly from them. The chief medical officer’s concern is that the screening that my hon. Friend is proposing could lead to many tens of thousands of women being given antibiotics inappropriately at the time of delivery, because they were not carrying group B strep at the time, and that that could result in resistance developing. We already know about the devastating consequences of group B strep infection, and the development of further resistant strains could be an unintended consequence of such screening that none of us would want to see. We need to be mindful of that possibility, as I believe the national screening committee was when it made its recommendations.

The majority of babies who die from early-onset group B strep are premature and are, sadly, born too early to be helped by screening at 35 to 37 weeks. Data from 2001 show that, in that year, there were 39 deaths due to group B strep, of which 25 occurred prematurely—that is, before the 35th week of pregnancy, when any screening would have been carried out. Those deaths would therefore not have been prevented by a screening programme.

It has been estimated that up to 49,000 women carrying GBS at 35 to 37 weeks of pregnancy may no longer be carriers when receiving treatment during labour. Studies of the test suggest that between 13% and 40% of screen-positive women will no longer be carriers at the point of delivery. There is also a potentially detrimental impact on maternity services, increasing the medicalisation of labour, with the increase in hospital births and increases in the birth rate that we are seeing. We know that once there is one intervention in labour, it can lead to other interventions and a high rate of Caesarian section when it might not have been necessary in the first place. I am not saying that that would always be the case and absolutely not with GBS—far from it—but we know that when a woman enters a medicalised pathway in a maternity unit, it can often lead to interventions that might otherwise have been unnecessary and that are sometimes quite distressing for the woman during labour. This is particularly the case when many of the women potentially put on prophylaxis would no longer be carriers of GBS.

The advice from the UK national screening committee is consistent with that of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. I believe we have talked through a number of the issues about why that recommendation was made.

In the brief time remaining, it would be worth mentioning some of the research that is going on. It is estimated that a vaccine for GBS is approximately five years away from development. First-stage trials have now been undertaken, and wider population-based studies for safety and efficacy are in place in high-prevalence areas such as South Africa. I am sure we would all agree that a vaccine would be a very effective solution to GBS, and I shall certainly do all I can to push and nudge to make sure that such a vaccine is brought forward in as safe and appropriate and as timely a manner as possible.

[Nadine Dorries]

Is the Minister informing us that that vaccine would be widely available? Let me ask him once more—after everything he has said today, for which I am incredibly grateful—why does he think countries like Spain, the United States and others have introduced routine testing when we still seem to be opposed to it?

[Dr Poulter]

It is sometimes difficult to explain variations in clinical practice and the care of women during maternity services between different states or within regions of countries like Spain and to understand why they are different from what we have in this country. Here we have robust guidelines in place for trying to identify at-risk women and we are trying to tighten them through audit while we have low rates. I am not sure whether the same can always be said elsewhere in the world. That is why other countries might have wanted to introduce a cruder tool through a screening test to help them reduce their rates. As I have said, I will look further into this matter and write to my hon. Friends in order better to inform them.

Research and clinical audit are important. We want to make sure that we have a proper national audit programme to carry out and develop good and better practice guidelines for GBS. Looking forward to a vaccine, we hope that that will be a long-term answer to this devastating disease, not just for the UK but throughout the world. Prioritising other research studies is also important. At the moment, a study is being carried out by the maternal health and care policy research unit. It is looking at women with GBS sepsis, which will help us understand the physical impact that GBS has on women’s health. A second study looks at providing information at a national level on the numbers of women and babies affected by anaphylaxis due to antibiotic use in labour for GBS or presumed GBS infection. As I mentioned, one concern about a blanket prophylaxis would be the potential anaphylactic reaction that we know can occur when someone is allergic to penicillin or other antibiotics.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire once again for raising this important issue. I hope I have been able to clarify some of the reasoning behind the national screening committee’s decisions. I will write to and engage further with my hon. Friend and others to reassure them again that the Government take this issue very seriously. Together, I know we will get to a better place so that fewer families are affected by this tragic illness.

Question put and agreed to.

17:29

House adjourned.

Petition

Thursday 7th November 2013 Petitions

Thursday 7 November 2013

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Thursday 7th November 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001286]

Westminster Hall

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 7 November 2013

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Relevant documents: Energy prices, profits and poverty, Fifth Report from the Energy and Climate Change Committee, HC 108, and the Government and Ofgem responses, HC 717, and the oral evidence taken before the Energy and Climate Change Committee on 29 October 2013, on energy prices, HC773.]

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

13:30

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

I inform Members that this debate was listed on the Order Paper earlier in the week as finishing at 3.30 pm, but that was removed from the Order Paper yesterday. The transport debate will start at 3 pm, when this debate finishes.

[Sir Robert Smith (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries. I remind the House of my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests involving the oil and gas industry, particularly a shareholding in Shell. In addition, I have a non-financial interest as the honorary vice-president of Energy Action Scotland—a fuel poverty charity.

The Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change is pleased to have been granted this debate on our report. It is timely, given the issue’s high profile and in the context of the price rises recently announced by most of the six largest energy companies. The subject has come to the fore again just as the winter weather has started to set in and people face the challenge of keeping their houses warm. The Prime Minister has made a number of interventions to try to reduce energy bills, by suggesting that environmental levies will be rolled back and, more recently, that transmission costs can be reduced. However, the Energy and Climate Change Committee considered the subject in detail, including profits and poverty, well before the recent spate of interest. Our inquiry was launched on the Floor of the House in December last year, and we reported at the start of this summer.

Our report’s opening conclusion was that energy bills are rising and are likely to continue to rise. The wholesale price of fuel, driven by rising global gas prices, has been the largest contributory factor. Several other factors also contribute, including the need to invest in and finance the UK’s electricity and gas network and energy and climate change policies. The extent to which energy supply companies are actively working to reduce their operating costs remains unclear. The Committee had hoped to uncover the real story behind energy company profits, but alas, that is significantly more difficult than it should be. At the time of the report, the Committee stated its disappointment that

“energy supply companies have not gone to greater lengths to explain to their customers the reasons behind energy price rises”

and highlighted that poor communication by energy companies

“has resulted in deep mistrust from their customers.”

At a time of rising prices, it is crucial that consumer trust is restored if we are to get the investment that we need. Just last week, the Committee held a session with energy companies to find out what was driving the recent price increases. Following that session, we asked the energy companies to set out information about their profits in a standard format. We published that information on our website today, although it still does not provide a complete picture. Bringing forward the information is an ongoing process, and the Committee will continue to consider how to improve the transparency and comparability of energy company prices and profits.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the difficulties in working out what prices ought to be, based on the wholesale cost, is that whereas Ofgem looks at past prices in projecting what it thinks costs ought to be, energy companies project forward to see what prices might be? That is one reason why there is a mismatch.

[Sir Robert Smith]

That is certainly one factor. Obviously, the energy companies’ hedging ahead could be to consumers’ benefit in smoothing out future peaks and troughs in energy prices, but an additional problem is trying to get transparency on what wholesale prices the companies are facing. To give confidence to the consumer that the margin is right, we need greater improvements in clarity. In particular, the companies’ trading operations need to be examined more specifically, and more analysis is needed on the impact of their trading arms.

The Committee recommended that the Department of Energy and Climate Change should lead a full and frank conversation about the contribution that consumers are being expected to make towards ensuring that we have safe, secure and affordable energy supplies. It is crucial that the public are made aware of the challenge that we face in meeting our energy needs. In its response, DECC said that it had been up front about the fact that energy prices will continue to rise and told the Committee that the combined impact of decarbonisation and energy efficiency policies led it to estimate that household energy bills will be 11% lower on average by 2020 than they would be in the absence of Government policies.

The Prime Minister has said that how the policies will be funded is subject to review. We urgently need to know what that means in practice. Is the review about the outcomes of the funding wished for or the desirability of the measures being funded? Our report highlighted that general taxation may be a fairer funding mechanism than the use of levies, but it also emphasised how crucial it is to tackling fuel poverty that we have an effective insulation programme. Fuel poverty is exacerbated by rising prices and income, but it is crucial to our long-term work on tackling fuel poverty that we improve our housing stock and ensuring effective insulation.

In our report, we highlighted factors contributing to price rises. DECC set them out in its response to us. The percentage breakdown for a typical dual fuel bill is 50% for wholesale energy costs, 20% for transmission and distribution charges, 19% for

“other supplier costs and margins”

and 5% for VAT. The remaining 6% is presumably related to Government policies. DECC itself stated in its reply to the Committee that, in 2013, Government policies to achieve energy savings, provide support to vulnerable consumers through the warm home scheme and incentivise the shift from fossil fuels were estimated to account for 9% of household energy bills. The figures do not quite add up. Perhaps that has to do with where the carbon price is allocated in the breakdown of those percentages; it could have been included in the wholesale cost of energy.

I highlight the Committee’s conclusion:

“The extent to which energy supply companies are actively working to reduce their operating costs remains unclear.”

The Government’s answer to the Committee on that point was:

“Competition between energy suppliers will put downward pressure on their costs and Government and Ofgem are taking steps to increase competition in the market.”

The crucial simplification of tariffs to improve competition and people’s ability to switch is certainly a helpful step in putting pressure on companies to compete effectively to reduce their margins and operating costs, but it seems that the Prime Minister is not completely confident that the steps to increase competition are working, or working quickly enough. Otherwise, he would not have announced a review of the competitiveness of the market.

It is a pity that Ofgem rejected our recommendation that it publish targets for improvements in the market as a result of its retail market review measures, which were designed to reform the market to deliver greater competition. It would have been good if Ofgem had set out criteria for judging the effectiveness of its measures, but Ofgem does not think it appropriate to set specific quantitative targets for success. The Prime Minister’s new competition review appears to be in addition to the new state of the market reports that Ofgem has agreed to produce in direct response to the Committee’s recommendations. We expect Ofgem to publish the first of the reports in spring next year.

Ofgem said in its response to the Committee that it doubted whether using metrics such as “profit margin” and “rate of return on capital” would help it to determine whether the market is competitive. However, measuring profits and the rate of return on capital, and their movement, would show whether the market was bearing down on costs or allowing them to rise. I repeat the Committee’s assertion that excessive profit margins are a symptom of poorly functioning markets, which underlines the need for complete transparency in what the profit margins are.

That brings us to the fact that we need greater transparency regarding energy companies’ finances. The Committee discovered that, although segmental statements had gone some way to improving the transparency of profit making in the big six’s retail and generation businesses, there was still a lot of information missing. That was acknowledged by the accounting firm BDO, which led a review of the statements commissioned by Ofgem. BDO made a number of suggestions for improvements. Surprisingly, Ofgem took none of them forward in their original form, arguing that their costs outweighed their benefits.

We made a number of specific recommendations about how energy companies could improve the way that they report their profits, based on BDO’s recommendations, including reporting trading activities, which, as I mentioned earlier, is a crucial part of trying to establish the boundaries between wholesale and retail and whether the consumer is getting a fair deal; having consolidated segmental statements independently audited, to provide confidence that they are a true and fair reflection of the allocation of costs; and requiring companies to align their financial reporting periods.

The Committee was not convinced by Ofgem’s assertion that the implementation of those recommendations and others that were suggested by BDO would place an unnecessary burden on the energy companies. The Committee requested that the cost-benefit analysis underpinning that assertion be published, but we still have not seen it. Ofgem needs to recognise that, given the breakdown of confidence, the benefit of restoring confidence and providing clarity makes the costs a worthwhile incentive to produce a better understanding of the companies’ profits. However, Ofgem remains unpersuaded that there is a case for full implementation of BDO’s recommendations.

Ofgem has launched a new consultation on transparency, but is it really necessary to have another consultation to find out whether a full independent audit of energy companies’ statements would help to provide reassurance that those statements are robust? I think that the evidence to the Committee spoke for itself.

Regarding the transparency of bills, it is disappointing that the Government and Ofgem have not taken up the Committee’s recommendation that energy companies should be compelled to identify the various components that make up their energy bills, including profits, on the bills themselves. The Government and Ofgem have rejected this proposal for fear of confusing customers, and because the information is available elsewhere. It is a shame that the Government and the regulator do not credit the British public with the ability to digest this information if it is clearly set out on bills, and to say that it is available elsewhere suggests that they have some confidence that the public can understand it. It would seem to make sense that in one item of correspondence—when the bill comes through—people receive the breakdown of how that bill was established.

Do the Government not recognise that consumers can understand complex information if it is presented effectively? Is there not something to be gained through the discipline of making energy companies state the breakdown of bills, including profits, on the bills themselves? That would certainly contribute to the honest conversation about energy prices that the Committee has been calling for, not only in this report but in our previous report, “Consumer Engagement with Energy Markets”.

When the Minister responds to the debate, it would be helpful if he said what the Government are doing to promote this necessary conversation with the public about rising energy prices and the need for investment. Why will the Government not support the full implementation of BDO’s recommendations on consolidated segmental statements to help to deliver the transparency that is so badly needed? Also, it would be extremely helpful if the Minister said what form the Prime Minister’s competition review will take and what the consequences will be if it discovers that competition in the energy industry is not effective? Finally, can he outline the time scale and process for conducting the levy review and say whether it is on the outcomes or on the funding mechanism? When can we expect to see that review, and how can people make an input into it?

Our energy supply needs investment that is paid for by profits—that is an inevitable reality of life—but effective competition and transparency are crucial if consumers are to have confidence that they are paying a fair price for that vital investment.

I commend the Committee’s report to the House.

13:45

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

I begin with an apology to the House: I am on a Bill Committee that, to some extent, requires my presence, so I may not be present for the entire debate, but I was anxious to make a contribution to it. I particularly apologise to the Minister, because I may not be present to hear his response; I had been very much looking forward to hearing it.

As our present Select Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), said in his opening remarks, the report represents the best attempt yet at seriously shining a light on one of the central issues in the widening discussion about what is happening with energy bills, what might be done about them and what might be done on levies relating to bills. It attempts, as far as it can, to get to the bottom of what exactly goes on as far as energy companies’ profits are concerned. Clearly, if it is concluded without possible contradiction that energy companies are making what one might term excess profits, the conclusion may be drawn that the bills that stem from those companies’ activities do not bear the appropriate relationship to those companies’ activities, and action may then follow, either through regulation, through the companies themselves, or through further light being shone on the relationship between those two things.

We have seen—most recently in debate in the House yesterday—a considerable difference of opinion about what might best be done about bills, and indeed what might be done on a wider basis, and how the market could be reset if it is considered that the market is dysfunctional, given the way that companies that are vertically integrated—that is certainly the case for the big six—undertake their generation, trading and retail activities.

I imagine that the starting point for a number of those questions is in the table in the report that sets out the aggregate profit margin for the big six companies’ generation and supply. The bald figures are that in 2011, the aggregate margin for profit in generation was 24.4%, and the aggregate margin in supply was 3.1%—a very substantial difference in aggregate profit margin. Bearing in mind that the aggregate profit margin from generation is related to the aggregate profit margin in distribution—one eventually, by one means or another, sells to the other, and there is a retail outcome—we should certainly ask why the two are so different.

Part of what I think the Committee was trying to do in its deliberations and in the report was answer at least some of those questions—questions that I think everyone who took part in the inquiry will agree were extraordinarily difficult, regarding what happens between the generation of electricity and wholesale trading arrangements, and the purchasing of clips to balance supply and demand at a time of gate closure. How that all works along the line is opaque.

The Committee tried to look at how the accounts put forward by companies are presented. The difficulty is that the accounts are presented in different ways and have different internal arrangements. In some instances, they are presented by companies that are not based wholly or partly in the UK and therefore refer, at least in part, to subsidiaries in the UK, which may or may not have a relationship with parent companies outside the UK. It is difficult to say to what extent it is possible to produce the sort of transparency that one might expect and hope for in ensuring genuine accountability with regard to electricity companies.

Ofgem is not the least of those preoccupied with such issues. As the Chair has mentioned, Ofgem had commissioned a consulting company, BDO, to investigate what sort of changes might be made to accounting practices and trading arrangements to ensure greater transparency. As he recorded, the Committee felt disappointed that BDO’s recommendations—to align statements in the same year-end, to require the reporting of trading function results, to produce further work to assess current transfer pricing policy, and so on—were simply not taken up by Ofgem and have not informed Ofgem’s subsequent consultations on wholesale power market liquidity. We feel that it would be a good idea to revisit, even at this stage, what BDO said to Ofgem about those arrangements and to take the recommendations forward more concretely.

I refer to Ofgem’s more recent wholesale power market liquidity document, which came out at about the same time as the Select Committee’s report. That document received considerable mention in yesterday’s debate on energy on the Floor of the House as a document that could substantially deal with the question of transparency in markets and trading.

Trading appears to be one of the most opaque areas that we considered. One of BDO’s recommendations is to require

“the reporting of trading function results, including disclosure of the risk each trading function assumes”.

Ofgem had a go at looking at that, but from what I have observed about the process, it has fallen rather short of producing proposals that can get to grips with the issue of trading, which seems fairly central in trying to find out exactly what is happening. A vertically integrated company will inevitably have a trading arm, which may purchase for its retail operation, and may conduct trade with regard to its wholesale operation. By and large, it will trade on a bilateral basis with itself.

One of the practices we heard about, which appears to be wholly without transparency, is netting off. A number of activities, particularly those further down the curve—further out than what might look like trading —do not appear as trading at all and are netted off in the company’s accounts. We heard recently that varying percentages of the big six energy companies’ activities appear to be based on netting off. That appears to be outside the purview of what Ofgem had to say about wholesale power market liquidity.

There are other arrangements that struck me that remain outside the mechanisms that may enhance transparency in trading. There is the practice whereby one side of an organisation realises, near to gate closure, that it is unbalanced in terms of its previous purchases. It will effectively phone itself up to balance itself on the other side by creating trade—that is, creating generation that would not otherwise have taken place. That may appear as a trade, but it is not; it is a pre-order to prevent the company from going out of balance and incurring costs that it might not like to at the point of gate closure.

There are also mid-stream trading arrangements, which a number of the big six operate; they bring under their wing small independents, which act as if they were trading on behalf of the larger company. The trades made by the larger company are offered to the smaller, independent company. It is a little like some south American countries using the dollar as their currency while technically being independent. That may bring considerable benefits to those smaller companies, but it means that a number of the trades that take place do not look quite what they are.

We seem to need to go a lot further to establish how the various flows within vertically integrated companies take place, and how the outcomes of those flows either benefit or disbenefit customers. Certainly, there is the argument that some of the issues, such as netting off and gate closure balancing policies, may benefit customers, inasmuch as they save money, even though they appear to be anti-competitive in terms of the way in which trades are arranged. Getting full disclosure right may have the consequence that some costs go up rather than down. Indeed, one needs to be clear and careful about what those effects look like, and how they pan out, in terms of the relationships between companies.

I endorse the report’s recommendations on the necessary clarification of trading and company reporting arrangements. I would go a little further: I believe that the Committee has the appetite to continue investigating how to overthrow the trading arrangements that appear to take place within those vertically integrated companies, albeit in the context of ensuring that above-the-table arrangements are increasingly transparent.

The Committee also considered the relationship between prices and poverty. Interestingly, the Committee considered the role that levies might play; that was rather prescient, in the context of the levy review that has been announced. I am now clear on what is and is not in that levy review. What are essentially regarded as green levies are not in the green levy review, and what are essentially not regarded as green levies are in the green levy review. The levies that one can determine to be true green levies on bills, such as the renewables obligation, feed-in tariffs and the upcoming contract for difference, are not going to be reviewed. Levies such as the warm home discount, the energy companies obligation and the earlier levy on smart meters, however, remain to be reviewed. They are not green levies, and neither is the carbon floor price, which looks like a green levy but does not actually save any carbon and goes entirely to the Treasury. When those levies are reviewed, exactly what will the review consist of, and what will be its objectives? If the review simply asks to what extent we can remove those levies, a number of the issues raised by the Committee—how the levies continue to be important in combating fuel poverty, undertaking energy efficiency and insulating homes of the fuel-poor—will be overthrown.

The Committee concluded, somewhat presciently in light of the recent debate, that

“the increasing use of levies on bills to fund energy and climate change policies is problematic since it is likely to hit hardest those least able to pay. We note that public funding is less regressive than levies in this respect.”

Would a review of those particular levies—we concentrated, among other things, on the energy companies obligation—consider moving some of the obligations into general taxation? Or is the purpose to reduce the overall impact of the energy companies obligation on bills? I understand that, in recent days, No. 10 has issued a target to the Department of Energy and Climate Change on the expected outcome of the energy levy review. I am interested to hear whether that target exists, what it looks like and in what form it will be met.

The Committee also concluded that as it stands, the ECO is not sufficient to fulfil the targets of energy efficiency, demand reduction and combating poverty that the various programmes within it were set up to do. Indeed, the Committee concluded that the ECO falls far short of that ambition. Removing a substantial part of the ECO because of a levy review when it is already established that the obligation falls far short of its ambitions would be a retrograde step. I am anxious to hear more about the relationship between those levies and fuel poverty. Are the Committee’s points on fuel poverty and the levies well made? How will the Government address that in the context of the levy review?

I conclude by commending the report, as far as it goes, which was produced under difficult circumstances. I freely accept, as I am sure everyone does, that it is extremely difficult to shine a light on the subject accurately and unwaveringly without all sorts of considerations being raised that may or may not be germane to the direction of that light. If we can shed better light on all the arrangements, our debates will proceed much more objectively. If the Select Committee continues its work, I hope we will do a service to the debate.

14:00

[Dan Byles (North Warwickshire) (Con)]

According to DECC, average gas and electricity prices have risen by 41% and 20% respectively in real terms since 2007. There has been a lot discussion in the past couple of weeks on the most recent price rises—on average, 10% per company price rises, which we all saw in a very short space of time—and a lot of the debate focused on how much the energy companies could or could not blame the preceding year’s rise in wholesale prices.

The Committee had a discussion with the companies, and there was some disagreement on exactly what had happened to wholesale prices over the previous year. The figures from 2007 show that we should not consider the problems of one year in isolation. We should not consider in isolation an individual set of price rises put in place by the companies because the problem has been ongoing for many years. There are continuing upward pressures on prices.

In some ways, perhaps the Committee has once again demonstrated its prescience by pre-empting this debate by conducting our inquiry before the most recent—perhaps “hysteria” is not the right word—strong interest in energy prices, which is a result of the most recent price rises. The price rises are important because they have crystallised the debate. Energy prices are now a rapidly increasing concern, and energy policy is dominating the news for reasons that those of us who want a coherent, long-term energy policy probably wish it was not.

All sorts of odd things have been thrown into the debate in the past few weeks, from a potential Government-imposed price freeze to a potential windfall tax and, most recently, potential changes to the management of green and social levies. To a large degree, I am concerned that many of those solutions are reactive and potentially temporary. The nub of the problem with energy policy is that, for multiple reasons, we face ongoing upward pressure on prices. For too long, politicians of all shades have not been willing to have an honest debate on why that is and what the implications are.

In particular, through our collective rhetoric, politicians have persistently fuelled the myth that Governments can control the cost of energy to a much larger degree than they can. We are all guilty of that. It is tempting to have a pop at the Opposition for what I believe is an incoherent price freeze policy, but politicians of all parties have tended to point to the other lot and say, “When you were in power, prices did x.” That fuels the expectation that Governments can pull a lever, push a button and control such things.

In some ways, it is hardly surprising that the natural conclusion of all that rhetoric is—I will say it—the incoherent policy of the Labour party, suggesting that it can pull a lever and freeze prices. Neither a price freeze nor a windfall tax would do anything to address the root causes of energy price rises. Both would be short-term sticking plasters to address the symptoms.

Prices have risen for many reasons. In spite of the argument over the past few weeks about what has happened to wholesale prices during the past year, it is true that increasing international wholesale prices are a key medium-to-long-term driver of why consumer prices are rising. It is hard to see therefore how the wholesale price over the past year can justify the large price increases that we have seen in the past few weeks. The UK is now a net importer of gas, so we are a price taker; we have to pay the going rate for the marginal cost of gas—whether for liquefied natural gas or shipped or pipeline gas, whichever is setting the marginal price at the time.

Prices are also increasing owing to significantly rising network and transmission costs. Those costs are getting off scot free, to a certain extent, because we do not talk about the transmission costs as much as we should—up 10% this year. We do not see them discussed in the media or in the House to the same degree as we discuss gas prices and wholesale prices.

Furthermore, some of the price rises are clearly the result of Government levies, which are there for different reasons; DECC, however, has estimated that energy and climate change policies will add 33% to average electricity prices by 2020. It is true therefore that an artificial price rise has been put on bills by politicians. The Government are absolutely right to review the impact of such levies and whether the different policies can be managed in different ways.

I do not want to sound as though I am excusing the big six and saying that they are not to blame, because they have a lot to answer for. In our inquiry, we struggled to pin on them so many of the legitimate questions that we had to ask—Members who spoke earlier have gone through some in great detail, and I will not repeat what they said—but, clearly, a lack of transparency and competition have allowed us to get into the situation in which the big six have such highly complicated structures that they appear to be overcharging themselves. To a degree, the high profits at the generation end and the low profits at the distribution end smack of the big six overcharging themselves and each other somewhere along the line. I urge the Government to reconsider asking Ofgem to implement the BDO recommendations, as the Committee suggested.

For politicians in the House to point at the big six and say, “It’s all their fault,” is dishonest and simplistic, however, because the situation is much more complicated than that. As a matter of policy, we are in fact switching off the cheapest ways of generating power and replacing them with more expensive ways of doing so. We are doing that deliberately, with a large degree of consensus, and for sound reasons if we believe that climate change is a real problem that needs to be addressed. I do believe that, and most people in this place—though not all—probably agree.

In a sense, however, we have not even started on that process. Right now, we are still sweating old coal assets as if there were no tomorrow—burning cheap coal in old coal-fired power stations, for which the capital costs have long since been paid. When those power stations start to come off line over the next few years and are replaced with newer generating assets, we really will see the structural cost of energy starting to rise as a result of many of our policies. The levy control framework, for example, will have risen to almost £6.5 billion by 2018-19, whereas all big six energy companies made a total of £3.7 billion in earnings before interest and tax last year.

There is a growing problem with the cost of what we are doing. I am not necessarily making a plea not to do those things—I will come on to that—but I am making a plea for a honest debate about the impact and the implications. I have said it before and I say it again: I regularly find myself sitting around a table with Government officials, scientists, academics, politicians and the industry to discuss energy policy, but the person who is usually missing from the table and the discussion is Mrs Jones of Acacia avenue, who ultimately has to pay for everything that we are doing.

The Government and politicians cannot simply wave a legislative magic wand and wish into existence the ideal energy mix that we might want to see in 2030 or 2050. We need a credible and investable road map for how to get from where we are now to where we are going. That would include a sensible energy mix, including new nuclear—I strongly welcome the recent decision on Hinkley Point—and we must not be frightened of moving from coal to gas. The Government’s gas strategy has, in fact, demonstrated that they recognise that.

We need to explore shale gas; we have a potentially enormous resource on our doorstep. It must be done safely and with the consent of local communities, but we must not allow fears that are in many cases built on myths to prevent us from exploring and exploiting that domestic resource. We must also have a much stronger focus on carbon capture and storage, because gas will be part of the mix for a long time and we need to mitigate that by moving much further forward on CCS.

The argument for moving some of the levies, which are social as well as green, from energy bills into general taxation is a sound and interesting one. I welcome the review, because I want to see more analysis of the figures and numbers for what that might mean for the average energy bill, for the average income tax bill and at the different bands. We can do a lot of what we are doing much more progressively; the regressive nature of how we do things—through energy bills—has been a problem.

We also need much greater focus on energy efficiency, which is always called the elephant in the room. Interestingly, when I go into a room to talk about energy policy, someone will say, “The elephant in the room is energy efficiency.” I am sorry, but it is no longer an elephant, because we all know it is there and we all talk about it.

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. I am sorry, Mr Byles, but I have been working out the timings. For everyone to have a reasonable amount of time to speak—seven minutes—is it possible for you to wind up in the next few minutes? That will allow for the Front-Bench speakers as well.

[Dan Byles]

No problem at all—I will wind up in less than a few minutes, Ms Dorries. Thank you.

We have an enormous challenge in keeping our energy costs down, in decarbonising and in attracting the huge amount of investment that we need. The fourth part of the trilemma—the right word should be “quadlemma”—is the investment needed. We must come up with a way of keeping energy costs down and decarbonising without frightening away the investors we need to put hundreds of billions of pounds into our energy infrastructure in future to keep the lights on.

My plea to politicians on all sides of the debate is that, although we can discuss and hold each other to account, we should not allow energy to become a political football or a party political issue—I see a smile on the face of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, so he will not be making energy a political football, I hope—because it is far too important for that.

14:17

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

The BBC news on Radio 4 at 1 o’clock today said—I did not hear the whole story, because I had to be in the Chamber—that there was one wind turbine in Wales that had cost £48,000 to put up, but was producing £5 of electricity a month. That is beautifully symbolic of some of the things that are wrong with the existing energy policy.

I was not a member of the Committee when the report was written, but I have read it and it is a good one. It calls for greater transparency and more competition and its conclusions rely on the presumption that fossil fuel prices will carry on rising, therefore making renewables worth using and more financially efficient. The next report by the Committee, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) said, should look at some of the fundamentals. The reason why electricity prices are going up is simple: the cost of production and the levels of demand. Looking at that, as the hon. Gentleman indicated in parts of his speech, is worth doing.

The example I gave at the beginning of my speech is an extreme one, but it is a strange policy that decides to invest in energy sources that provide guaranteed income for the generators at three times the current market rate for energy, as is the case with offshore wind farms. As has been said, the reason is fear of climate change and induced global warming because of the increased production of carbon dioxide. We could have a long debate about that, but I do not intend to go into it now.

What is rarely said is that the current policies are having a perverse impact. How many times do we hear Government spokespeople say that the carbon footprint of the United Kingdom and Europe is increasing as emissions go down? The reason is simple. We have exported our production to China, India and elsewhere, where production processes are less efficient and we have to pay the carbon price of bringing goods here.

The cost of electricity production from offshore wind farms is three times the market price for an intermittent supply, and at the same time we are increasing our carbon footprint. That is not sensible, and the policy is not working. It will work only if everyone signs up to an international agreement on carbon, and it is highly unlikely that the United States, India and China—the major carbon producers—will do that.

The fact that our carbon footprint is increasing is not often mentioned, and some Ministers do not seem to understand anything about the issue. When the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), was asked to define climate change, he gave the useless definition that climate change was climate change. He repeated that twice. When a Minister of State has that level of understanding, it is not surprising that we do not have useful policies.

The other basis of the policy is that the people in the Department of Energy and Climate Change know that the price of fossil fuels will rise over the next 10 or 15 years. If they could predict the market, I suspect they would not be working in the Department because they would all be rich. The fact is that there is a super-abundance of fossil fuels in the world; there are trillions of cubic metres of shale gas in this country and sufficient coal to supply the world for hundreds of years. That is not the problem, although there are constraints on supply at particular times.

The price of oil and gas now is about the same as in 1974, when exactly the same predictions—that the price of gas and oil would continue to rise—were being made. It may, or it may not. It cannot be predicted, and we must focus on reducing the price of energy production instead of increasing it, as we are doing at present. We need huge investment in research to find more efficient forms of energy, probably renewables.

After our previous debate, I sent the Minister, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle, an analysis of the market showing that the extra cost—not the cost—of replacing our power production facilities was about £226 billion, and that was for renewables: wind farms and other forms of alternative energy. If 20% of that went into research into fusion processes, incremental improvements in the current technologies and improvements in batteries and storage instead of wind farms, that would probably affect prices more, whatever the international price of fossil fuels. That would be better than putting all our eggs in one basket, as we seem to be doing.

The other side of the equation is demand. There are some complicated schemes. The green deal is not working and has a very low take-up among people who are not well off and want a better energy deal to insulate their homes. I referred to the extra £226 billion needed to replace energy kit in this country. If my arithmetic is correct, if we gave £1,000 to households—it could be done on a needs basis and would not necessarily involve every household—that would cost £30 billion, which is about 15% of the extra cost. That would dramatically improve the position of people living in fuel poverty and it would reduce demand, although probably not on a one-to-one basis because when demand is reduced people tend to use the money to buy extra electrical goods and so on. However, it would have a significant impact on what is going on.

I am glad that the Labour party decided to introduce a freeze on prices after the next general election. That will not be a solution to the problem of energy prices in the long term, but it will give us a chance to take a much closer look, as the hon. Member for North Warwickshire said, at what we are doing about energy.

Many people with good motives have said that the world is going to fry and that we had better build windmills. Most of that policy is not working. It is expensive and it is putting people into fuel poverty. I am not on the side of people who want to destroy the planet—quite the reverse: I am on the side of people who cannot afford to pay their fuel bills. We must take a serious, long-term look at how we can produce energy at lower cost and provide a secure supply, which we do not have at present.

14:27

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

I am grateful, Ms Dorries, to have the Floor. I was not planning to speak—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

You are on the list of speakers.

[Christopher Pincher]

As I am on the list, I will take the opportunity to speak briefly about the report, which I commend. I also commend my hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), Chairman pro tem of the Select Committee, for bringing its report to the Chamber.

The issue is not so much a quadrilemma, whatever band that may be—my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles) referred to it—but a dilemma. It is how to keep bills low for our constituents while ensuring that investment flows into our energy infrastructure, which is in dire need of replacement. That is not an argument between political parties; it is a fact.

Our discussions over the past few weeks have been fuelled by this report and the decision of the big six energy companies to raise prices. They have been about fixing prices, and the Labour party’s proposed price freeze. That would take us down a path that is dangerous for energy infrastructure investment. I made that point yesterday during the Opposition debate on energy prices.

During that debate, my fellow member of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr Whitehead), who is not in his place, said that the big six energy companies invest significantly in energy infrastructure. The fact of the matter is that at our Select Committee sitting of a week or so ago, Tony Cocker from E.ON made the point that E.ON has invested more than £7 billion in that infrastructure over the past five years. If we are to invest something like £110 billion over 10 years in infrastructure, we can work out that E.ON is spending about 10% of that cost. Extrapolate that over the other energy companies in the big six, and we are talking about £60 billion’s or £70 billion’s worth of investment from the total of £110 billion that is required to build our new power stations, put in our pipelines and build pylons to keep our lights switched on.

We have to be careful in our energy proposals that we do not spook the markets or frighten off the private sector investment that we need in our generating capacity and downstream piping—otherwise, the poor old taxpayer will have to foot the bill. I simply make this plea, which echoes what my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire said: we want to keep prices low, but let us not do anything that ends up costing the taxpayer and consumer more in taxpayer-funded infrastructure investment as a result of the private sector’s being frightened off by Government policy or pronouncements by would-be Governments.

I have made my plea, and with that, Madam—I was going to say “Madam Deputy Speaker”. With that, I commend you, Ms Dorries, for so admirably calling me to speak when I did not think I was going to be called. I hope that Mr Speaker and the Deputy Speakers start to do the same.

14:31

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow colleagues who work together very diligently on the Energy and Climate Change Committee. I begin by paying tribute to the Clerks and staff of the Committee for their work in putting such good reports together, so concisely. This debate is very important, and as other Members have said, a number of issues that are now in the mainstream of politics were initially raised by the Committee and put into the report.

I want to take one issue up with the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Dan Byles), with regards to what he said about incoherent policies; I shall get my own back and then move on in a more consensual way. I think there is incoherence in the policy at the moment—not in the Labour party’s policy, but in the Government’s policy—of bringing in additional tariffs in January this year, then bringing in additional carbon prices in April this year, and then saying in November, “We are going to have a review”. The Government need to stop and think whether to hold back on bringing in such levies or whether to think the issue through in the long term. They cannot have it both ways.

I want to concentrate on two areas that were in the report briefly, but have been missing from the debate. We have discussed extensively wholesale prices and levies—and quite rightly, because they make up large components of the bill when put together. However, another section of the bill is transmission, which, again, the hon. Gentleman touched on.

If we look at the table in the report, when we break down the bill, the cost of transmission and distribution of energies to our homes contributes between 19% and 25% for the companies. There is a variant of some 6% and some regions are paying that extra cost. Given that we have a national grid, I do not see why that should be the case. One such area is mine, which generates a lot of energy through nuclear and renewables. We need to look at that point.

I am not sure which Government Front-Bench Member will wind up, but I hope that we will get some answers on whether the energy review will look at transmission costs, because they make up a huge amount. We did not get them yesterday, because the Secretary of State was not around for long, but we need those answers rather than having the question knocked about.

I have a suggestion, and if the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley) catches your eye, Ms Dorries, I know that he will endorse what I am saying from a different perspective: we need to look at the grid infrastructure and see whether we need another model of delivery for transmission and distribution in our country.

In Wales, the water industry has a not-for-profit organisation running pipes to homes and it invests all its profit back in infrastructure. That reduces costs to the customer at times, but the company is honest and open when it needs to do big maintenance and additional work on the infrastructure. Exactly what that company is doing is clear and transparent, because it produces its reports, and it has members on the relevant committee who are not from the industry.

Before anybody suggests that such an approach would in some way inhibit competition, within that model, companies go out to tender to get the work, so there is competition within that non-profit organisation. We could consider such a way forward for our national grid; at the moment, I do not believe that National Grid is acting in the national interest—I think it is acting in the interests of shareholders, first and foremost, because of the nature of the company. That is wrong for such an important issue as utilities and transmitting electricity, heat and fuel to our homes. We need a different model.

I understand the time constraints, so I shall conclude on the very important topic, which was in our report, of fuel poverty—rural fuel poverty, in particular. I make no apology for having this debate now. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) said that this is not only about a price freeze; it is deeper than that. It is about regulation and looking at the whole market.

The issue has been clouded by the energy price freeze, but that would allow a pause, and the Government are very good at pauses. They paused on the Health and Social Care Bill, and they are now pausing on the gagging Bill—the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. We need a pause with regards to price rises in the energy sector, so that we can have a proper review of the regulator.

I have argued for some time in the House that we need to be fair to the off-grid—those many residents in the UK who are not on the gas mains and who are paying more for their fuel than those who have dual fuel and are able to get discounts from the energy companies. Many of my constituents are in that position and pay a lot more—some 30%, 40%, and 50% more—for their heating than those who are on the gas mains.

I know that the Minister, who is not in his place now, is moving in the right direction and looking at the issue, but so was his predecessor but one, and so was Malcolm Wicks when the previous Labour Government were in power. I totally disagree with the energy companies when they ask for the Competition Commission and the Office of Fair Trading to look at the issue. That will take a long time, and when they have looked at the self-regulated off-grid market—they have reviewed it many times—they say, “Competition is there.”

In theory, competition is indeed there, and in practice it is there on some occasions, but it is still pushing prices up, and many families and households in this country cannot afford to heat their homes. It is very important that we look at those issues rationally and that we stand up for our constituents.

Finally, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire asked why we are having the debate now and said that fuel prices have been going up since 2007. In the past three to four years, people have had pay freezes and their household incomes have flatlined. Inflation is only 2.7%, but food inflation and energy inflation is far more than the basic rate of inflation, so people are suffering. Their incomes are going down in real terms and they are struggling to pay their bills.

That is why I am proud of this report. We have highlighted some very good issues that are now in the mainstream of political debate. We should move forward to a conclusion, where we are helping to ease the burden on our constituents and get the right investment for the future, without the excessive profits. We all need utilities. We all need heating and electricity in our homes. We want to get a coherent policy for the future, and this report will help shape that.

14:38

[Mr Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden) (Con)]

Rising energy bills are hurting our constituents; we all know that. The public suspect that those increases in energy bills are driven by rising profits. Politicians and environmental campaigners have a vested interest in fanning that suspicion to divert attention from the increases in the cost of energy that the political elite are planning in the move to increasingly costly renewables, with the added costs that they impose on the transmission network.

The Select Committee’s duty is to investigate the public’s concerns and, if we establish that there are excess profits as a result of monopoly power, suggest ways of bringing the big six energy companies to heel by strengthening competition and through stronger regulation. In the report before the House, the best figure that we could establish for the aggregate level of profit for the energy companies—generating profits, wholesale profits and those downstream—was something like 7.6% of the household energy bill. That is not itself an obviously excessive figure, and it certainly cannot explain the very large price rises. The main factor clearly has been rising fuel costs in the past.

However, before the Committee held our hearings last week, we shared the public’s suspicion, at least as far as the current round of tariff increases was concerned, because we could not see how they could be explained by rising fuel costs; they certainly had not risen by 8% or 10%. We therefore planned to ask the companies forensic questions: if they had raised their tariffs by 8%, how much had their costs gone up by over the same period? When they fudged and prevaricated, we would come back with searing criticisms and indictments. To our surprise, they did not fudge. They gave concrete figures on how much their costs had gone up, company by company, and element by element of their costs. The main factor was not rising fuel and wholesale prices. It was two other factors: rising transmission costs, because the regulator had allowed a 10% increase in transmission tariffs; and, in many cases, policy costs—the costs of social and environmental subsidies as a result of our switch to renewables.

Naturally, the factual conclusions that we established went largely unreported, because they did not play into the prevailing narrative. Of course, the fact that we established what we did does not mean that the profits at the beginning were not excessive and did not contain an element of monopoly profit. Conservative Members are all in favour of profits, as long as they are earned through increased efficiency and increased investment. We are strongly against monopoly profits and if, in our inquiries with Ofgem and the inquiry that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has established, we find that there is a monopoly element, we will be the first to support returning that excess profit to the consumer, and we will certainly welcome any steps that can increase competition and reduce unnecessary costs. As the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said, that should not exclude our looking at other models for the downstream element—he says that that applies in Wales; it certainly applies in places such as New York—if that could reduce the costs to the consumer.

However, the big factor driving energy costs in the past has been rising fuel costs and, essentially, rising gas costs, which drive up both the cost of electricity and, directly, the cost of gas bills; and the big factor in the future will be the switch to renewables. The hon. Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) is a distinguished addition to our Committee, and his contributions to our debates will be of great importance. As he mentioned, onshore wind will double the cost of electricity; offshore wind trebles it. The figures for other renewables are of a similar order of magnitude. There is no way switching from fossil fuels to renewables will do anything other than increase the cost of energy to both households and industry. We should remember that only one third of the cost of renewables goes on to household energy bills. Two thirds go on to industry, but ultimately those costs, too, are borne by households. The pain that people are feeling from their energy bills is only one third of the total cost that will be imposed on them.

What shall we do about this? Knowing that the main cost driver in the past has been the rising cost of gas, we should be going hell for leather in drilling for and exploiting shale. Over little more than six or seven years in the United States, the shale gas and shale oil revolutions have brought down prices by two thirds. If we do the same in this country and overcome the obstacles that the environmental non-governmental organisations such as Friends of the Earth and so on are trying to put in the way, and the obstacles inadvertently imposed by European law, we can enjoy similar success. Either we will bring down gas costs in this country or, if they remain high because we are linked to the European gas grid, the profit on that gas will generate huge tax revenues, which will enable us to relieve other burdens on households. Either way, we should be doing that, and I urge the Government to tackle that with renewed vigour. I know that my right hon. Friend the Minister is personally keen to achieve that, and to make good the unnecessary 18-month moratorium that Chris Huhne imposed on this country; I think that was a greater crime than his speeding issues.

We should recognise that the transmission costs are going up in large measure because of the need to link up the transmission network to distant places. Huge subsea transmission cables are being built. Some £24 billion is to be spent on renewing and extending the transmission network. That is equivalent to £120 per household every year between now and the end of the decade.

We should go for shale and have a pause—a moratorium —on the switch to renewables; there are still enough costs coming through from that to make life very painful for our constituents. The German Government are thinking of doing that. The Spanish Government have done something like it. We should not be ahead of the field in penalising our constituents and our industry by imposing unnecessary and excessive costs on them. I urge Ministers and the Opposition to think again about a commitment that, whatever they pretend, will be the ultimate cause of problems for our constituents and businesses in the future.

14:46

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and it is a particular pleasure to be here today to discuss the Select Committee on Energy and Climate Change’s report entitled “Energy Prices, Profits and Poverty”, and the responses to it.

I commend the Select Committee on producing such a thorough and authoritative report. On behalf of the Opposition, I welcome the tone and tenor of the conclusions and recommendations. They mirror our criticisms of the energy market and reflect our desire to see that market improved for the benefit of British consumers and British businesses. The conclusions were ably set out by the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith), in his opening speech. The Committee is fortunate to have on it a number of hon. Members who possess real expertise on, and insight into, energy policy in the UK, and who command widespread respect in the House. We have heard from many of them today, but unfortunately I do not think that I will be able to go through each of their speeches, because of the short time that we have to wind up the debate.

As is well known, the Labour party is not satisfied with how the energy market is functioning. We have therefore laid out plans for ambitious reform of that market, involving separating the generation and supply sides of the big six energy companies, establishing a new regulator and, crucially, freezing prices for 20 months while we get that job done. The evidence for the need for that reform package is visible to all of us in our constituencies, day in, day out, but this report has added to that list of evidence. I would like, in the remainder of the debate, to draw the House’s attention to some of the conclusions that I feel are particularly relevant.

One thing that comes across very starkly from the report’s conclusions is the dissatisfaction with the regulator, Ofgem. Several recommendations demand more activity from Ofgem, but conclusion 16 on page 73 seems particularly frank. In it, the Committee states that it is “astonished” at how long it has taken Ofgem to act on improving wholesale market competitiveness to ensure that customers are paying a fair price for their energy. In the rarefied language of parliamentary reports, that stands out as particularly hard-hitting, and it is our belief that Ofgem needs to be replaced with a much more effective regulator that has powers to force energy companies to reduce their prices when the wholesale cost of energy falls.

Yesterday, in the Opposition day debate, the Secretary of State attacked the Labour party over its plans to reform Ofgem before claiming, in a somewhat contradictory fashion, that he himself was seeking to reform Ofgem. Some people would say, “That’s the Liberal Democrats for you,” but I would never think of being so cruel.

Much of the Government’s response to the problems of the energy market has been to encourage people to switch their supplier. Of course people should ensure that they are getting the best deal that they can, and of course we should ensure that switching supplier is as simple as possible. However, from the consumers’ perspective, there is little point in making the effort to switch supplier when they are just switching from one company that is overcharging to another that is overcharging.

As is noted in conclusions 8, the low-level of switching between suppliers is a symptom, not a cause, of a lack of competition. It is difficult to see how any policy to make switching easy could have a significant effect if underlying problems in the market are not addressed. The Government seem to be deliberately ignoring the fact that switching has actually halved in two years, with only 340,000 people switching in June this year; that is down from almost 800,000 in summer 2011. The Government have to accept that fundamental flaws in the market have caused that lack of competition. Structural reform to break the stranglehold of the big six and introduce transparency into the market is the only way to fix those problems.

On the subject of green levies, I agree with recommendation 4 that there needs to be

“a full and frank conversation about the contribution that consumers are being expected to make”,

and many speakers today echoed that point.

There was a moment in the Opposition day debate yesterday when an MP on the Government Benches—I do not wish to embarrass them by name—gave a speech praising the Government’s subsidies for nuclear power and low-carbon generation, which they said had an effect on power stations in their constituency. They also praised the ECO scheme and the Government’s efficiency measures. However, they then said, very directly, that green levies must be rolled back. If MPs do not have a sound understanding of what these green levies are, it does not make things easier for the public.

[Mr Lilley]

Will the shadow Minister explain how rising green levies would be coped with, were he ever to get the opportunity to freeze tariffs?

[Jonathan Reynolds]

I am about to discuss a part of those green levies in which I am very interested: the ECO, particularly as it relates to fuel poverty. I was pleased to see that the Committee’s report focused on that in some detail. I know there will be widespread agreement among Members that fuel poverty, whatever measure the Government use, is far too high in this country. The news that, in the whole of Europe, only Estonia has a higher proportion of households in fuel poverty than the UK should set all our alarm bells ringing.

From our exchange at the Dispatch Box yesterday, it seems that the Minister of State, Department of Energy and Climate Change, the right hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), and I have substantially different views on the performance of the Government’s flagship ECO scheme. I simply do not believe that the ECO is ambitious or effective enough to meet the fuel poverty challenge in this country. In answer to the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr Lilley), the chances are that the ECO’s cost will rise out of proportion to the success of the measures being delivered.

The Government’s objective is to try to lift one in 10 —or, in the worst-case scenario, one in 20—of the households in fuel poverty out of it. That is not a sufficient response to the scale of the crisis. To that end, I especially welcome the Committee’s recommendation 24 —the recommendation that ECO expenditure be focused more heavily on fuel-poor households.

I will not have time to go into the detail I had hoped to. In relation to the green deal, it is clear that only Government Ministers believe that the scheme is still working. If we were to focus the ECO more heavily on the fuel-poor, as the report requests, the green deal would need to work far more effectively to tackle carbon reductions, which could be paid for by people who would be willing to pay if there was an attractive enough package.

In conclusion, the Select Committee should be commended for producing a report of this quality. All of us who want to see the energy market reformed and a better deal secured for consumers and businesses need to engage with its recommendations. We believe that the report endorses our case for serious structural reform, a tougher regulator, the reform of the green deal and the replacement of the ECO. I thank the Committee members for their diligence and insight, which is a credit to their constituents, to the House and to the public debate on these issues.

14:54

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

I repeat to the House the apology that I gave privately to the Chairman of the Committee and the shadow Minister for having had to leave in the middle of this debate. I, too, congratulate the Committee on its inquiry. This has been a useful debate, and I welcome the opportunity to add to the conclusions that we have already published, and to comment on the recommendations.

We agree with one of the central points of the report: that transparency around the price that consumers pay is crucial—a point made by the Chairman of the Committee, the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir Robert Smith). We have already been taking action to help people and businesses who are struggling with their energy bills, and we are taking steps to make the retail market simpler for consumers.

[Albert Owen]

I think that was the first time that business was mentioned; I omitted to do so, too. Would the Minister consider in the energy review looking at switching for businesses, so that they can break their contracts more easily, or have a comparison website where they can look for bargains in the marketplace?

[Michael Fallon]

That is an important point, and I would like to reassure the hon. Gentleman that work is going on to make it easier for small businesses to escape some of the higher tariffs under the contracts they are placed on, and to encourage more collective purchasing among small businesses. There is an organisation called Lumina that covers small businesses in my county of Kent, and I think there are others. That is a very important point.

Consumers will get the best deals only when suppliers face tough competition, and that is what the Government and Ofgem are working to achieve. We are committed to tackling the problem of fuel poverty; I note what the Committee has said about that. I was pleased to see what it had to say about the new definition of fuel poverty that we are bringing in through the Energy Bill. We are committed to helping people, especially low-income vulnerable households, to heat their homes more affordably.

We have already introduced some immediate help: 2 million vulnerable households will get £135 off their energy bills this winter, thanks to the warm home discount. Around 12.5 million pensioners will get the winter fuel payment: £200 for the under-80s and £300 for those over 80. There are cold-weather payments that are available if needed, and last year, they delivered £146 million to help cut bills for the most vulnerable. This year, we have added to those policies with more direct action. The Big Energy Saving Network is training 500 volunteers to go out into communities to help people get better deals from their energy suppliers and reduce their energy bills.

Energy efficiency remains a central part of our strategy, to help the fuel-poor and to deliver permanent energy savings. I am well aware of the serious concern among colleagues in the House for those consumers who are off-grid. I have chaired two meetings of our round table on that, in conjunction with the all-party group on this issue, and we have now established a code of conduct for the suppliers to ensure that—again, as the Committee would wish—prices are properly transparent at the point at which they are delivered, in a way that matches the transparency at the point at which they were ordered. More than 230,000 low-income households will be warmer this winter, thanks to energy efficiency measures that have been installed through the energy companies obligation.

Let me turn briefly to retail market reform. Competition is the key tool in exerting downward pressure on prices. Companies that do not compete effectively will lose customers. We are using the Energy Bill to ensure that Labour’s big six companies now place consumers on the cheapest tariff that meets their preferences, and give those consumers clear information to help them shop around.

I was also asked about the review of levies that is going on. We are looking hard at how we can get people’s energy bills as low as possible, to help hard-pressed families, just as we have done with the fuel duty and the council tax. I was asked specifically when we would see the result of that work. I hope that will be around the time of the autumn statement in a few weeks. That work includes some of the network costs. Ofgem has yet to establish the distribution costs for the next period. There is plenty of work to be done there to ensure that we bear down on those costs that form a considerable amount of the bill.

I would like to give the Chairman of the Select Committee a few seconds to reply. In closing, I thank the Committee for its work and the inquiry it has led. We are acting to help those most in need to keep warm this winter. We are also acting to ensure that everybody will get a better deal from the energy companies.

14:59

[Sir Robert Smith]

Perhaps the Minister could write to us with more detailed answers to substantive questions. I would like to echo the thanks to the staff of the Committee for the excellent support they have given us in producing this report. It is a matter that we will have to keep at, in order to get transparency and effective scrutiny to ensure that people do not pay more than they have to for their bills at such a difficult time.

Motor Insurance (Whiplash)

Thursday 7th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[John Robertson in the Chair]

[Relevant documents: Cost of motor insurance: whiplash, Fourth Report from the Transport Committee, HC 117, and the Government response, Cm 8738.]

15:00

[Mrs Louise Ellman (Liverpool, Riverside) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate the Transport Committee’s recent report on whiplash claims. It is the third report that we have produced on the cost of motor insurance since the 2010 election. Our work in the area started because of complaints about rising motor insurance premiums. In April 2012, the average quoted premium reached more than £1,100 and the premiums paid by young men and women were particularly high, at more than £2,000 for men aged between 17 and 24 years old. Although premiums have fallen recently in cost, they remain high, particularly for young drivers.

Many people need to use a car to get to work, to college, to hospital appointments or to visit family and friends. Public transport is not always available for such journeys, particularly outside towns and cities. The high cost of motor insurance can prevent people from owning a car, seriously affecting their work lives, education or social activities. It can also encourage people to drive without insurance or to commit other forms of fraud. The high cost of motor insurance is also a factor in the cost of living squeeze, which affects households across the land. Our reports have shown that there are a number of factors that influence the cost of motor insurance, including the high accident rates for young drivers, organised fraud, the merry-go-round of referral fees, uninsured driving, cold calling and the growth in whiplash claims. We have pursued all those issues, and most of them are being addressed.

We have repeatedly asked the Government to do more to improve the safety of young drivers—in particular, by making the driving test more rigorous or by introducing graduated licensing. It is appalling that 27% of 17 to 19-year-old males are involved in collisions within a year of passing their test. In 2011, 148 young drivers died. I look forward to the Government’s Green Paper on the issue, which is due soon.

The Competition Commission is examining possible anti-competitive practices by insurers on the cost of car hire and car repair, and I will be interested to see its recommendations and the Government’s response in due course.

[Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady agree that more could be done in schools? Teaching “The Highway Code” is not a compulsory part of the curriculum and what is taught from school to school is patchy. We could do more to educate young people about the dangers on public highways.

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Young people’s attitudes before they are behind the wheel should be addressed as well. That might be done in schools or in after-school clubs.

Another area of concern that we identified, which is within the Minister’s remit, relates to the activities of claims management companies and, in particular, cold calling. We are told that cold calling is illegal, but the problem seems to be growing. We have all received phone calls or text messages urging us to make a claim because of an assumed or real recent accident. What action is being taken to clamp down on cold callers? Have any firms been prosecuted?

In our most recent report, we looked at another factor that explains the rise in the cost of motor insurance: claims for whiplash injuries. A whiplash injury is a soft tissue injury to the neck caused by a sudden, forceful jerk, such as can be caused by a road accident. Symptoms can last for a few weeks or months. In a minority of cases, symptoms can last for longer, especially if exacerbated by a pre-existing condition. There is no generally accepted test for a whiplash injury. They do not show up on X-rays or MRI scans. However, the medical evidence that we received confirmed that the injuries are real and can have debilitating consequences for those who suffer from them. There are about 500,000 motor insurance claims for compensation arising from whiplash injuries each year, although the number is coming down.

The official figures on road safety show a welcome reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured. In 2012, there were a total of 195,723 casualties in all the road accidents reported to the police, which was 4% lower than in 2011. Some 1,754 people were killed—an 8% decrease from 2011—and 23,039 were seriously injured, down 0.4% from the previous year. Those reductions are welcome, but every individual serious accident is a tragedy for the individual and the family concerned. It is not clear, however, exactly how the number of claims relates to the number of accidents, as the statistics on road traffic accidents are not comprehensive. There is widespread agreement that a significant proportion of the claims are fraudulent or exaggerated, but there is no authoritative data, perhaps because of the very nature of the issue. The Government are right to be looking seriously at the problem.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the reasons why the cost of motor insurance has gone up is that insurance companies have irresponsibly paid out claims without any evidence that the person is suffering from whiplash?

[Mrs Ellman]

I fully agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I will shortly refer to that issue.

The Government proposed whiplash claims of up to £5,000, which would cover most of them, should be dealt with in court by using the small claims track. That approach was strongly backed by insurers, but rejected by most solicitors. The Transport Committee opposed that change, because many people who use the small claims track would have to represent themselves, and we thought that that would impair access to justice, especially as insurers would, of course, be legally represented. It was also not clear how expert evidence would be accommodated in the system. I am pleased that the Government accepted those arguments and rejected making that change at present.

We recommended the accreditation of independent medical practitioners to provide medical reports on whiplash claims. There have been claims that reports are of variable quality and that the doctors who issue them are not up to date with current requirements or are sometimes biased towards the claimant. I am pleased that the Government have accepted the recommendation in principle, although they have stated that they will enter into further discussion on implementing it.

We did, however, ask a number of other questions that have not yet been answered. For example, is there a role for existing regulatory bodies, such as the General Medical Council, in auditing or peer reviewing reports or dealing with complaints? Should practitioners who prepare reports be provided with information about the accident and the claimant’s medical record? We have written to the Ministry of Justice about those issues, but I welcome answers today if the Minister can give them.

We were disturbed to find that insurers frequently offer to settle claims before any medical evidence is submitted. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackley and Broughton (Graham Stringer) made that point. It would be hard to imagine a clearer incentive to making a fraudulent claim. The Government have said that they will consider prohibiting the practice. Can the Minister tell us what work is being done on that and whether it requires legislation?

We also recommended that the Government look at ways to make whiplash claimants provide additional information at the time of their claim, such as proof that they saw a medical practitioner shortly after their accident. Will the Minister give us his view on that? Will he also comment on the debate arising from the Summers case about whether the courts can strike out claims where exaggeration is proven, but where there has also been a genuine injury?

Those complex issues have been created by the dysfunctional motor insurance market. It cannot be good practice for insurers to settle whiplash claims without medical evidence. It is unacceptable that ways are still found for insurers, solicitors, doctors, garages, car hire firms and others in this merry-go-round to make money out of claims, often by inflating the work necessary to address them. For years, insurers have found ways to increase the costs paid by their rivals, and the result has been higher premiums for the ordinary motorist.

[Sir Greg Knight]

The hon. Lady’s Committee has produced an excellent report. Will she say something about the limitation period? At the moment, someone who suffers personal injury has three years within which to bring proceedings to a court. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a strong argument for reducing that limitation period?

[Mrs Ellman]

I agree. Indeed, the Committee recommended a reduced period, but it appears that the Government response to the consultation and our report rejected that. That is an important point, and I would be interested to hear any comments the Minister can make about it.

I thank the Government for responding to our various reports and for accepting many of our recommendations, but there is more to be done. That includes effective working between a number of different bodies, including the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Transport, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and the Department of Health, as was agreed in the debate that we held in November 2011. Will the Minister explain what cross-departmental arrangements currently exist?

It is important for recommendations such as those from the Transport Committee to be based on evidence from all the interested parties. It was a mistake for the Government to listen only to the insurers at the summit that they held in February 2012, which excluded the views of those who represent the genuinely injured; indeed, as we pursue the issue of fraudulent claims, we must never forget the rights of genuinely injured people to compensation. The decision not to pursue the small claims track proposal shows that the Government’s summit, with its concentration solely on the insurers, was in fact a misjudgment.

Now that the Government have acted on whiplash, will the insurance companies be held to their promise to reduce motor insurance premiums? How will that be monitored? That promise was made at the summit the Government held at No. 10. When the Transport Committee asked the insurers who appeared before it about that promise, they said it had, indeed, been made. Will it be honoured? How will it be monitored?

We will continue to pay close attention to the cost of motor insurance, and we intend to report again early next year on the action that the Government are taking. Fraud and exaggeration should be minimised, but access to justice for the genuine claimant should not be impeded. Motorists want better-value car insurance and confidence that the system treats them fairly, as well as fair compensation if they are genuinely injured. We want to help that become a reality.

15:13

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I had not anticipated being on this early—I see faces falling around the room—but it means that I have sufficient time to develop my argument. It is a shame that more Members are not taking part in the debate, because this is an important issue. The report that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) has just spoken to is important and authoritative, and it has had a significant impact for the good on Government policy.

As I will explain, there was a danger that the Government’s consultation on whiplash would be another stitch-up on behalf of the insurance industry, but what has emerged in their response is far less damaging and, in some ways, positive. I do not know whether the new Minister had a hand in developing it—I would like to think he did—but he brings a breath of fresh air with him. Having dealt with his two predecessors over the past three years, I have, sadly, become used to there being a lack of evidence to support the Government’s conclusions and to a disconnect between their policy and their soundbites, particularly on this issue.

I may be being over-optimistic as far as the Secretary of State, although not the Minister, is concerned. I say that because the Government response to the Select Committee report and the consultation was announced in a peculiar way—it was certainly new to me. The evening before it was announced, there was an embargoed press release, which then featured in the morning papers, before the report itself had been considered. Therefore, the report—rather like this debate—did not get the attention it perhaps deserved.

It is fairly clear why that happened. Suddenly, when he took up his post, the Secretary of State for Transport started talking about MOT prices and motorway fuel prices. The reason for that is that the centrepiece of the Government’s consultation, which they intended to adopt —the increase in the small claims limit from £1,000 to £5,000 for personal injury—had been jettisoned, primarily due to the evidence in the Select Committee’s report, and the Government were left with not very much to say on personal injury and whiplash.

In fact, the only thing the Government were left with to talk about were the medical panels. The medical panels are interesting, and I will come on to them a bit later, but they are hardly revolutionary—they are hardly going to make the major changes to personal injury law or the processing of claims that the Government, with the usual bombast that surrounds the Secretary of State, led us to believe they would. We had a bit of clever pre-spinning on this issue, but the substance, which we will talk about this afternoon, is that the Government simply backed off from a very unwise proposal.

As I said, I have had three years of having to deal with rhetoric that simply is not supported by the facts. “Compensation culture” is one of the buzz phrases the Government have used to mount a wholesale attack on personal injury law, despite the phrase being disowned by their own experts and reviews. It has been a cover for cherry-picking the Jackson reforms and implementing only those parts the insurance industry thought favourable. It has also been used as a cover for extending the portal scheme, which is not a bad scheme in itself, to cover higher amounts and to include public liability and employer liability to a high level. That was before we had really seen whether the scheme was working in relation to road traffic. All those factors have tipped the balance very much in favour of defendant insurers and away from claimant victims.

Whiplash is another catch phrase that has been used substantively to tarnish the reputation of all personal injury claimants, and particularly road traffic personal injury claimants. It was something of a cloak for the belated attempt—now abandoned—to raise the small claims threshold to £5,000. That would have taken at least 90% of personal injury claims on to the small claims track, so they would not have been subject to cost regimes or representation. Many victims, some of whom will have quite substantive injuries—a £5,000 general damages claim in a personal injury case represents quite a severe injury—would therefore be on their own, as litigants in person or as prey to insurers or claims management companies, in trying to settle a claim.

The evidence shows that those who are represented in such claims tend to get awards of about three times what they would have got if they had been unrepresented. The average whiplash claim that is paid out is about £3,000 for represented claimants and about £1,000 for unrepresented claimants. That is a significant difference.

It is clear that there are problems with whiplash. Soft tissue injuries will by definition be more subject to fraud than injuries where damage can be clearly seen and assessed. That fact, with insurance sector spin, becomes the view that all whiplash claims, or a very large number of them, are fraudulent, or even, effectively, that soft tissue injuries do not exist at all. That must be wrong.

I think I saw a figure in the report that estimates of the proportion of claims that were fraudulent ranged from less than 1% to 60%. The insurance industry’s own assessment is that about 7% are fraudulent. That is a significant number of claims, and it should cause us all to pause to think and worry, but let us not forget the 93% of claims that are genuine instances of people in pain and suffering, perhaps unable to work or with additional needs and costs. They are entitled to compensation.

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

I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) for missing the beginning of her speech.

Has the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter), had a chance to make his own assessment of the accuracy of claims?

[Mr Slaughter]

It is difficult. There is a lot of rhetoric out there, and I have said what I want to say: that we should be concerned about fraud per se, and, in the context of personal injury actions, about soft tissue injuries, because it is easier to make fraudulent claims on them. The issue is how we deal with that.

I am delighted that the Committee’s report highlighted two issues. One of those is third-party capture, which is an open invitation to fraud. We know why insurance companies use it. They think they can settle a claim quickly and cheaply by offering a sum of money that is probably a fraction of what a genuine injury is worth. Usually because the victim does not know what it is worth, or needs money in a hurry, or perhaps because they do not want to have the case tested in court, they will settle for the sum—perhaps a few hundred pounds or £1,000—offered in an unsolicited phone call from the insurers. That must be wrong. Lawyers and medical experts have been saying that for a long time.

I am glad that the issue has been highlighted, and even more pleased that the Government appear to have accepted it. I hope that the Minister will say a bit more about what action will be taken. I have tabled parliamentary questions, and the Minister has answered some of them, but I do not think that he dealt with that issue, and it would be useful if he would.

The other issue that I was pleased to see highlighted in the report was how often fraud is pleaded by insurers defending claims. The answer is rarely. I cannot give a percentage, but from talking to practitioners—I do not think that this is denied—I understand it is rare to raise the issue of fraud in defence. If that is not being done, it is difficult for insurers to claim that they are aware of fraud.

Fraudulent claims can and should be challenged, and not only for the sake of the individual cases; if that happened more commonly it would, one might think, discourage fraud. What the insurance industry has been looking for, which the Government were going along with until recently, is a quick and dirty solution, which might deal with the problem but would throw out the baby with the bathwater. It would also prevent victims from getting fair compensation and encourage bad practice. It would encourage third-party capture and would also be likely to encourage the intervention of claims management companies.

Right hon. and hon. Members present will probably all be clear about the noxious effect that the claims management industry has had in its expansion in many areas of public life in the past few years. Having been restricted in some areas, it is looking for others to expand into, and it has its eye on the one that we are considering. If the small claims limit had been raised, with the result that claimants could no longer get representation, they would have been easy prey for claims management firms, who would say, “Let us handle it for you. We will take 30% or 50%,” and would purport to negotiate with the insurers on the claimant’s behalf. I hope that resisting the temptation to raise the limit will deal with that.

I have no particular problem with independent medical panels, if they work. However, I do not think that they will make a dramatic difference, and I am not sure that they are the simplest or right solution. Neither am I sure what evidence the Government have about fraudulent and dishonest practice by medical practitioners at the moment. The Minister might want to explain that.

When the panels have been used in other countries—Australia is the obvious example—they have rather become the captives of the insurance industry. I hope that that will not happen here and that they will be genuinely independent. Also, they seem like a bit of a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will be a great new piece of bureaucracy and I am not sure that we could not have achieved the same objective of being sure we were getting reliable, robust and testing medical reports simply through registers of medical practitioners who were accredited as independent. That would have been cheaper, probably as effective or more effective, and more independent. We shall see where the approach leads.

There has been a progressive erosion of claimants’ rights in personal injury. I do not believe that personal injury claims, on the whole, can be brought by litigants in person. If 90% of claimants had been unable to get representation, it is likely that their claims would have been settled disadvantageously to them.

That is not just my opinion—that was the Government’s opinion last year, three months, I think, after they decided not to proceed with any change to the small claims limit for personal injury claims. They started a new consultation in April. I think it was in February that the previous report found against going ahead. The Government decided to go ahead and raise the limit to £10,000 for non-personal-injury cases, and that is probably right. We can argue about the exact figure, but it was somewhat overdue.

I do not think that, if the Government had decided, to allow for inflation, to raise the personal injury limit to £1,500 or £2,000, anyone would have had much of a quarrel. It is somewhat perverse that, having wanted to raise the limit to £5,000, they have now decided not to increase it at all; after they dismissed the matter in February there cannot really be any explanation for their proposing consultation in April, other than that they wanted to go ahead and have now been dissuaded.

However, it was not just that report: every report in the past 15 years, under the Labour Government as well as the present Government, that has considered small claims limits, as well as independent judicial reviews of the matter, found that it would not be sensible to increase the limit as the Government proposed. I think that, having got everything it wanted through the insurance summit at Downing street and so forth, the insurance industry decided it was on a roll. Having got the Jackson concessions and similar things, it was looking for an opportunity to go further. This was the prize that insurers really wanted, because they thought that it would almost entirely destroy the personal injury lawyers, save for catastrophic and major injuries.

If one looks at other countries to learn lessons, with Australia being the obvious example, one can see that such changes lead to wholesale restrictions on the rights of claimants. In Australia, there is something called whole-person impairment that has quite a high threshold below which no personal claims can be made. In other words, a person has to be substantially injured before they can bring a claim. There is also no-fault compensation, under which the onus is effectively passed to the state rather than being on insurers.

There is a proposal in Australia, not due to come in for another five or six years, simply to ban the common law right to sue for personal injury. I find it perverse that a Conservative Government might start to walk down that track. The losers would be not only the victims, but the state, which will end up picking up the tab through the increased costs of the NHS and benefits, and in other ways. The proposal would effectively nationalise the liability for personal injury.

The winners here are clearly the insurers, whose shareholders and profits are the major driving force. Are motorists winners? So far, there is no evidence that they are. Although the Minister’s predecessors said—it will be interesting to hear whether he repeats this—that insurance premiums will come down as a consequence of the measures, the insurance industry never says that. It says that it hopes that insurance premiums will come down. They have come down, I think, by 12%.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

I respectfully suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at what the AA has said—that average insurance premiums for comprehensive cover have gone down.

[Mr Slaughter]

I think that there is a misunderstanding. No one denies that insurance premiums have been going down. They have been going down for some time, and were doing so before any of the Government’s changes were implemented in April. I refer the Minister to an answer he gave. I asked,

“with reference to his…announcement of 23 October 2013, how much of the 12 per cent reduction in motor insurance premiums over the last year is attributable to the reforms to civil litigation funding and costs brought in April 2013.”

I am afraid that the answer was that it is

“too early to assess the full impact of the reforms”,

but that AA Insurance has ascribed the reduction

“to anticipated savings to the Government’s reforms.”—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 255W-256W.]

But we are asking for evidence, which was my starting point.

[Mr Vara]

With respect, the shadow Minister has slightly moved the argument. The first comment to which I replied was simply that insurance companies do not say that insurance premiums have gone down, and I gave him a simple response—that the AA has specifically said that insurance premiums have gone down by an average of about £80 for comprehensive cover. That was all I was addressing, but he has moved on to a slightly different point.

[Mr Slaughter]

With respect to the Minister, my point was whether insurance companies say, whenever changes are implemented, that insurance premiums will go down. If he has evidence of an insurance company saying, “We expect insurance premiums to fall by 10% in the next year as a consequence of proposals introduced by the Government in response to the whiplash consultation”, I will be sceptical, but impressed, and I will monitor that to see whether it is true.

I asked the Minister a series of questions about where the Government were going on the announcement, specifically in relation to medical panels and fraudulent claims. I am grateful to him for today’s answers, but I am not sure that they take us much further. I asked when he proposes to implement the new independent medical panel scheme for whiplash claimants, and he replied that there was “no set time frame”.

I asked the Minister whether the scheme would apply to all personal injury claims, to which his reply was that it

“will apply to similar road traffic accident soft tissue injury claims”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

With respect, that is a bit vague. I take from that that it will not apply to all personal injury claims, but to those for whiplash and similar claims. The Government need to be more precise and to define exactly what the medical panel will deal with. It would be helpful if the Minister did that today, but if not, I am sure that he will write to me about the issue.

I asked what steps the Minister was taking to ensure that insurers did not make offers to settle whiplash claims without medical evidence. I made that point earlier, and he may have misunderstood me, but I do not think that he has replied to it, specifically in relation to third-party capture and how that can be prevented. There could simply be a ban—for example, on unsolicited approaches by insurers, without the benefit of medical evidence. That issue was not covered in the answers I received today, so I would be grateful for that reply.

I asked the Minister how the new independent medical panel scheme for whiplash claimants will be funded. I am afraid that his answer was:

“We are keen to talk to stakeholders about funding opportunities which would meet the costs of setting up and running the new system”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

I take that as, “I don’t know at the moment,” but if I am wrong, will he let me know?

[Mr Vara]

I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but I hope that he agrees that it is very important to get this measure right and, in doing so, to consult all the relevant stakeholders. That is what we propose to do, rather than shoot from the hip. I gave a frank and honest reply, in the expectation that we will come up with the right answer for the public, for whom this is an important matter.

[Mr Slaughter]

This early in the Minister’s tenure, I am perfectly happy to accept his answer as it stands. However, we need to know at least the timetable for where this is going. To me, the response has the smell of a climbdown. I am sure that the Minister is absolutely sincere in wanting to tackle fraud in this area, but having gone along with how it was presented by the Secretary of State, we now need to know, factually, where we are going. The issue is important not just to victims—and to motorists and insurers—but to how the system works. Many hard-working practitioners are now scratching their heads about how things will change.

I asked the Minister what further proposals he was considering to reduce fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims, which was alluded to in the announcement. The answer was that the

“primary focus is on…implementation of the measures outlined in the 23 October announcement”.—[Official Report, 6 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 259W.]

I think that that means there are none at the moment.

I also asked the Minister what steps he was taking to ensure that insurers shared more of their data on suspected fraudulent or exaggerated whiplash claims. Again, I take it that the answer is that he is looking at the matter and will come back with further proposals. Finally, I asked him for how long he has deferred any increase in the small claims threshold for personal injury claims. I take from his other answers that there are no plans to do that, at least until there has been a full review of the Jackson proposals, to which he has linked the issue, and that will some three to five years hence.

I do not want to put the Minister completely on the spot, because I appreciate that such things are not an exact science, but some certainty is needed. As I said, there has been a huge amount of rhetoric in this area, with puff stories in the Sunday papers for many years—the Government are entitled to do that—but the serious business of litigating and settling injury claims must be dealt with.

If the Government say, as they clearly now are saying, that they will not increase the limit, but might do so in future, they should state at least a minimum time that will have to pass before that can happen. I take it from the answers that until there has been a full review of the current changes—Jackson, the portal and so on—we will not return to that subject again. The fact that the Minister answered those questions has shortened my contribution, but I would be grateful for any further clarification.

In conclusion, the Government need to be more even-handed in relation to this matter. If they are, they will get a better response from all sides. The insurers feel that they have been on a roll so far. We must have no more summits with the Prime Minister or anybody else to which only one side is invited. I think we can all agree that that was a serious error of judgment; only listening to one side is never a good idea if we are to make sensible policy. The Conservative party needs to place less reliance financially on the insurance industry, which is a very substantial donor, because that is not a helpful way to go.

All of us want motor insurance premiums to continue to decline. I think the figure of £90 in the average premium is given in relation to whiplash and soft tissue injuries. That is a substantial sum, but it is far smaller than the amount spent on repair costs, car hire costs and many other areas that are open to abuse. I hope the Government will turn their attention to that matter and not be put off by the fact that the insurers are often complicit in those areas. Credit hire and inflated repair costs are a scandal. They cost far more than personal injury costs in relation to insurance premiums, and that is something that should be tackled.

One reason why there are a lot of soft tissue claims is that car safety has improved immeasurably over the past 20 or 30 years. I am talking about the structure of vehicles, the compulsory use of seat belts and other matters of that kind. People are suffering moderate soft tissue injuries where previously they would have suffered catastrophic injuries. That improvement is to be welcomed, so let us not throw the baby out with the bathwater. Let us bear down on fraud, whether it is in the area of whiplash or credit hire, and on excessive profit taking, whether that is done by claims management companies, insurers or lawyers.

We must also ensure that victims’ voices are heard. I am sure that the Minister, in many other areas of his brief, would be the first to say that that should be the case. We must not prevent the victims of road traffic accidents or of other personal injuries from being able to mount a claim and get representation, proper redress and fair compensation. The Government have been singing from one side of the hymn sheet, and it is about time they took into account both sides.

15:43

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Robertson, to speak in a debate that is chaired by your good self. I congratulate the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman) on securing this timely debate. Indeed, this is my second debate as a Justice Minister and the second debate that I am replying to that has been secured by the hon. Lady.

On 29 October, the hon. Lady asked a number of questions in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice. I will try to address some of those issues in my remarks today. If there is any shortfall, I will expect her to have a reply very soon.

I was a little disappointed that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) was so critical of everything that the Government seek to do, particularly as this is something that will actually benefit the public. He asked me who the winner will be. Let me assure him that, at the end of the day, it will be the public. I hope that when I have finished my comments, he will be slightly persuaded that this is actually a good news story, rather than a negative one.

There have been some real challenges for the Government in seeking to put right some of the imbalances in the criminal justice system. Such imbalances have led to a disproportionate growth in personal injury claims, especially whiplash claims, and in the considerable costs of dealing with them. Too many claims are being brought inappropriately. We know that reported road traffic accidents have fallen from 190,000 in 2006, to 150,000 in 2012—a reduction of more than 20%. Yet at the same time, the number of personal injury claims resulting from road traffic accidents has risen from 520,000 to 820,000—an increase of almost 60%. That is a clear indication that there is a problem.

[Mr Slaughter]

I will not interrupt the Minister every five minutes, but does he accept that whiplash claims fell by about 60,000 in the last year that figures were available, which is, I think, 2012-13? They are now down to the sort of levels of 2008-09.

[Mr Vara]

If the hon. Gentleman would give me the opportunity to speak, he will find that I address a little bit later the disparity of numbers and what is a genuine whiplash claim now compared with what it was before.

It is worth noting that the proportion of road traffic accident claims that relate to whiplash has dropped to 58% recently. However, further study of Department for Work and Pensions statistics suggests that that is misleading and that a change in claims labelling may be responsible. Many claims are now labelled as soft tissue neck injuries when notified to the DWP. When those claims are considered with those labelled “whiplash”, the figure increases to around 87% of claims. Even though the number of accidents is falling, there has been a large increase in the number of personal injury claims, which is real evidence of a system crying out for reform.

[Sir Greg Knight]

As the effects of whiplash are normally felt within seven days of the accident and usually do not last more than a year, will the Minister address the point raised by the Transport Committee, which suggested that the period of limitation in such cases be reduced from three years to one year? If he cannot cover that matter today, will he write to me on that specific subject? There is a case for reducing the limitation period for these claims.

[Mr Vara]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his comments. The Government did indeed consider that recommendation, but we do not intend to take any action on it. The limitation period is of long standing and applies to wider personal injuries than just those in road accidents. It is important to bear that in mind. This debate is specific to whiplash claims.

The Government accept that many claims may be genuine, but many speculative, exaggerated or even outright fraudulent claims are clearly being made. It is not right that people who cheat the system should get away with it and force up the price of insurance for honest, hard-working motorists. I make no apology for targeting the exaggerated claims of whiplash fraudsters to drive down premiums.

People seemingly now claim for whiplash injuries sustained in the most minor of incidents, and Government data show that more than 1,900 claims a day are made. According to the Association of British Insurers, the cost to the industry from whiplash claims is £2 billion, resulting in £90 being added to the average motor insurance premium. That is why the Government were committed to reducing the number and cost of whiplash claims at the Prime Minister’s insurance summit last year. We need to take action to tackle speculative, fraudulent and exaggerated whiplash claims, but we must not lose sight of the needs and legitimate expectations of those who have suffered a genuine injury. A reduction in the number of such claims will lower the costs for insurers, which will in turn allow them to continue to reduce motor premiums for consumers.

Motor insurance premiums are beginning to fall. Figures published by the AA’s British insurance premium index in October, as I said earlier, show that quotes for annual comprehensive car insurance have fallen by 12% over the past year. Incidentally, regarding some remarks made earlier by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, I refer him to what the Association of British Insurers said in oral evidence to the Transport Committee. The ABI said that it expects savings from the Government reforms that have been implemented to result in a decrease in insurance premiums.

That is a good start, but the Government fully expect insurers to continue to meet their commitment to pass on the savings from the Government reforms that are driving down the costs of civil litigation. In December last year, the Ministry of Justice launched a consultation seeking stakeholder views on the creation of independent medical panels to support better diagnosis of whiplash and options for increasing the small claims threshold for personal injury claims to £5,000.

The consultation closed on 8 March. I thank all the individuals and organisations who took the time and trouble to contribute. A healthy 292 responses were received from a wide range of stakeholders, providing the Government with a strong evidence base to inform our decisions for reform.

The Government published our response to the consultation and to the Transport Committee report, “Cost of motor insurance: whiplash”, on 23 October. Our response detailed the Government’s direction of travel on whiplash reform and announced a number of reforms to the medical evidence and reporting system for whiplash claims. Exaggerated and speculative compensation claims have helped force up insurance premiums, and such unnecessary and costly claims will be targeted by the Government’s new and robust medical evidence scheme.

The new system will ensure that only evidence from fully accredited medical professionals qualified to carry out thorough medical examinations can be considered when pursuing a claim, so people who aim to cheat the system will be deterred, while victims with genuine injuries can still get the help that they need. Improvements to the system to support medical experts will include an approved accreditation scheme, new best practice guidance, better accident information and access to medical records, where appropriate, and an improved medical report form to speed up settlements.

The Government are particularly pleased that representatives from the insurance, legal and medical sectors have put aside their differences and submitted a consensus approach to improving medical evidence and reports. Such a consensus can only be positive for all involved and provides the Government with a clear mandate for our reforms. We look forward to working closely with stakeholders to build an effective and rigorous new system on that solid base of agreement. Ministers plan to meet representatives from key stakeholder groups to outline the way forward and identify experts to work with officials on the detail of the new system. It is both important and sensible to involve industry experts when designing the detailed changes. Such input will be invaluable as we work up an appropriate and effective accreditation process, methods to control the use of pre-medical offers, robust examination techniques and best practice guidance and an improved medical reporting process and report form.

Details of the most appropriate funding method for the new scheme are still to be developed, but the Government believe that there are areas of common ground with the industry. We will talk to stakeholders about funding opportunities for meeting the costs of setting up and running the new system and for ensuring that the Government achieve our intention that such costs should not fall on the taxpayer. We aim to work at pace with stakeholders on those and other issues, and we intend to start implementing improvements to the system next year. I assure the hon. Member for Hammersmith that we are actively considering a timetable for implementation.

In addition to the work on the new medical reporting scheme, the Government will also work with stakeholders to improve the provision of data relating to whiplash. As the Committee indicated in its report, accurate data and statistics are needed to have a baseline to work from. Ministry of Justice officials will be working with colleagues in other Departments and with representatives from the insurance and legal sectors, including Claims Portal Ltd, to identify and compile baseline data. That will ensure that future work in this area can be underpinned by a robust evidence base.

[Mr Slaughter]

I appreciate all that, but in considering the cost of insurance premiums, will the Minister also consider insurance company profits? Admiral has just said that it is delivering £80 per policyholder to its shareholders—a sum equivalent to whiplash costs—and Direct Line has just announced that its overall operating profit has risen 73% in the past nine months.

[Mr Vara]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that we want to get this right, and we are speaking actively with all stakeholders: insurance companies, lawyers, claimants, defendants and the judiciary where applicable. I hope that there will be consensus, and that we will get it right. If he wishes to have any input other than this debate, I will certainly welcome it. He is welcome to write to me, as indeed he has done with all the questions that I have helpfully answered in this debate.

The Government are also keen for the insurance sector to work with the claimant lawyer groups to share available data on fraudulent claims. Doing so would enable many such claims to be stopped at source. Ministry of Justice officials will work with stakeholders to assess the work undertaken so far, consider the issues on both sides that are slowing agreement and identify solutions to enable both sides to reach agreement on this vital issue.

The sharing of data on fraudsters will be of immeasurable help to claimant lawyers when considering whether to take on a case and will be a considerable step forward in the fight against fraudulent claims. However, the Government consultation document contained a further proposal on whether the small claims threshold for personal injury claims should be raised from £1,000 to £5,000. Right hon. and hon. Members already know that, following a thorough assessment of the evidence submitted to the Government from both consultation responses and from other sources, we decided to defer the raising of the small claims threshold for now. For the moment, more work is needed to support litigants in person, consider how best to regulate the personal injury claims sector, mitigate any impact on the online portal used to process road traffic accident claims where liability is admitted and assess the impact on the market of other Government reforms.

As Members will also be aware, the Government have undertaken a major programme of reform to civil litigation and costs with significant impacts on the personal injury litigation sector. The implementation of part 2 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 on 1 April introduced major changes to no win, no fee conditional fee arrangements, the provision of after-the-event insurance and a ban on the payment and receipt of referral fees in personal injury cases.

Those reforms, and the subsequent changes to the road traffic accident pre-action protocol and associated fixed recoverable costs, have already begun to have an impact on the personal injury market. However, the Government believe that time is needed for the changes to bed in completely and for the savings that they will create to be fully realised before further reform to the sector is undertaken. I ought to make it clear that the Government have not ruled out further reform to the personal injury market. The consultation document and the Transport Committee inquiry both highlighted areas where further reform would be possible, and the Government may wish to consider such proposals in due course. However, our primary focus for now is on the effective implementation of the measures outlined in the announcement by my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor on 23 October.

It is also our desire to identify and eradicate dysfunctional behaviour by those who operate in this sector, and we would like all stakeholders to work together with us to address this issue. In addition, we await with interest the Competition Commission’s forthcoming report and recommendations on the personal motor insurance market.

There is an opportunity now for insurers, claimant lawyers and others to build on the recent spirit of co-operation that was shown in agreeing a sensible consensus position on medical evidence. I call on all interested parties in this market to come together to build a personal injury process that deters speculative and fraudulent claims, while providing the genuinely injured with the help and support that they need to recover from an accident.

I thank the Transport Committee for its valuable inquiry and report on the cost of whiplash claims on motor insurance premiums. The report was well-balanced and thought provoking, and it provided much useful evidence that helped to inform the Government’s final decisions on whiplash reform.

As Members are no doubt aware, Ministers helpfully agreed to defer the publication of the consultation response to allow the Committee’s recommendations to be considered in full. The Committee published its recommendations on 31 July, and my predecessor wrote to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside on 25 September to propose that a combined response to the consultation and the Committee should be published. I understand that the Committee was content with this approach, and the response was published on 23 October.

As I have already mentioned, the Government agreed with a number of the Committee’s conclusions, such as those on improvements to medical reporting, data sharing and evidence gathering and on whether to raise the small claims threshold for personal injury claims, so I will not go into them again now. I should point out that the Committee’s report addressed areas where the Government felt, on balance, that change was either not required or not appropriate.

Whiplash is a complex issue and all options, including whether it would be proportionate and appropriate to make changes to primary legislation, were looked at before final decisions on the way forward were made. For example, the Government considered the Committee’s recommendation on whether to amend the limitation period for whiplash claims, and I have already dealt with that issue. As I said, the limitation period is long-standing and applies to all personal injury actions arising from negligence or breach of duty. However, the Government decided that the available evidence did not at present support such a change.

As I said in my opening remarks, we have received the letter of 29 October from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside, and we hope to reply to her more substantively very shortly.

I conclude by noting that the Transport Committee issued a further call for evidence on Tuesday relating to the publication of the Government’s response document. The Government will, of course, provide an appropriate contribution, and I look forward to the Committee’s further report.

16:02

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the Minister for his reply. It was indeed very helpful of the Government to decide to give a joint answer to the general consultation and the Transport Committee’s report, and some of the decisions that the Government made reflect the wealth of evidence that we were able to provide in our report. However, a number of issues remain outstanding.

I was encouraged to hear the Minister say that he would consult further with all stakeholders. I hope that does indeed mean all stakeholders, and not singling out insurance companies as having some special preference. When debating this issue, it is important to remember that although we wish to root out fraud, we also want to protect the genuine claimant, and where insurance companies have promised to reduce their premiums, we must make sure that they do so without jeopardising the rights of those who are genuinely injured. I look forward to the Committee continuing its work on the subject. We will still seek answers to the specific questions that I put during the debate, but I thank the Government for their response to our report.

Question put and agreed to.

16:04

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 7th November 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 7 November 2013

Electricity Market Reform (Contingencies Fund)

Thursday 7th November 2013 Written Statements

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

The Department of Energy and Climate Change requires a cash advance of £4,069,000 from the Contingencies Fund to support urgent preparatory work to fund external advisers in relation to transitional arrangements for early investors and to fund an interim panel of technical experts before parliamentary approval of both the specific enabling legislation and the necessary estimate.

Contracts for difference (CfDs) are designed to ensure sufficient investment comes forward in time to replace old generating plant due to close from 2016 onwards with new low-carbon plant, thus ensuring continued security of supply for the UK and contributing significantly towards achievement of our legally binding EU renewable energy target.

The Energy Bill will, subject to Royal Assent, make provision for transitional arrangements to enable developers to take investment decisions, where required, ahead of full implementation of electricity market reform. The Department needs to engage external advisers before the Bill receives Royal Assent to support the negotiation of any such arrangements to ensure they represent value for money for consumers. Accordingly, parliamentary approval for additional resources of £4,069,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £4,069,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Gas Market Update

Thursday 7th November 2013 Written Statements

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

Almost a year ago I informed Parliament that my Department and the Treasury had just been notified about allegations of manipulation of the UK gas market. As I said at that time, I take these allegations extremely seriously. Market abuse is always wrong, and where it exists it must be identified and the full force of the law applied.

The specific allegations were that there had been manipulation of the gas market in Great Britain on 28 September 2012. These allegations concerned trading on that day in the period leading up to 4.30 pm, when price reporting agencies produce a benchmark price for the day. Such benchmark prices are often used in a range of other contracts. It was alleged that gas was sold at a lower price than necessary, in order to manipulate downwards the benchmark price produced by price reporting agencies.

As is right and proper, these allegations were scrutinised by the independent regulators for the affected sectors. Ofgem has the lead responsibility for the physical energy markets, with the FCA leading on financial markets. The reviews entailed detailed analysis of relevant information in order to understand the market conditions and the trading positions of relevant market participants, including contracts priced by reference to price reporting agencies closing prices. Both reviews have now concluded.

Both regulators concluded that they could find no evidence in this instance of market manipulation, and Ofgem considers that the interests of energy consumers were therefore not harmed. They consider that the explanations provided by the sellers for the relevant trades are credible, and they have not found evidence which disputes the explanations provided. In light of this, they conclude that no further action is required in connection with these allegations.

Regardless of the outcome of these particular allegations I am fully committed to ensuring we have a transparent energy market where the risk of abuse is reduced. If any abuse does take place, it must be identified and robustly dealt with. The Government have a strong record of providing regulators with the powers they need to tackle market abuse, and we will continue to take further action where necessary.

We took a leading role in developing the EU regulation on wholesale energy market integrity and transparency—known as REMIT. REMIT prohibits insider trading and market manipulation in wholesale energy markets across the EU and has been in force since 28 December 2011. The UK was one of the first countries to implement REMIT in full, when we put in place civil powers to allow the regulator to tackle manipulation of the energy markets, in June 2013. In view of the importance of the energy markets set out in the annual energy statement I now plan to consult on the introduction of criminal sanctions for energy market manipulation activities.

Ofgem continues to monitor wholesale energy markets, and has an established whistleblower policy to encourage people to bring any examples of market abuse to its attention. REMIT already requires those organising transactions in wholesale markets to report suspicious trades to Ofgem. Ofgem is also working with European colleagues to further develop our cross-border REMIT market monitoring systems.

The allegations in this case were that prices used by price reporting agencies were manipulated. We need confidence that there is a rigorous price assessment process, providing a fair assessment of the market. Ofgem therefore ran a call for evidence on benchmarks in gas and electricity sectors on: potential risks; whether the current processes are fit for purpose; and whether further action is necessary. Ofgem is currently analysing the responses received. It will be for Ofgem to set out its approach, but if action is warranted its responses could range from facilitating effective self-regulation by PRAs, to more significant regulatory interventions. Whatever approach is adopted must take account of international initiatives in this area. PRAs are already implementing principles for oil benchmarks developed by the International Organisation of Securities Commissions (IOSCO) at the G20’s request. We are working within the EU to ensure that any new regulation of PRAs under their proposed benchmarks regulation enhances the robustness of energy benchmarks

Transparency in the energy market is another important element of our overall approach to deterring market abuse. That is why I have asked Ofgem to carry out a detailed assessment of energy suppliers’ financial reporting practices and set out the necessary steps to improve transparency. This assessment will be delivered by spring 2014. In addition, the Prime Minister has announced that Ofgem, OFT and the new Competition Markets Authority will lead a new annual review into the state of the competition of the market.

Ofgem and FCA work independently of Government to ensure that regulations are not being breached. In this case, they have concluded that they could find no evidence of manipulation and Ofgem considers the interests of consumers have therefore not been harmed. But it is right and proper that they continue to be vigilant and we will continue to support them by ensuring the right regulatory framework is in place and that there are appropriate deterrents.

Transforming Management of Young Adults in Custody

Thursday 7th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation “Transforming Management of Young Adults in Custody”.

This Government feel that current provision for young adults in custody, who are 18 to 20, does not adequately meet their needs and does not make the best use of available resources for this age group.

With that in mind, this consultation document outlines the Government’s proposed fresh approach to managing young adults in custody, which moves the focus from age-specific institutions to looking at how we can better meet their rehabilitation and resettlement needs.

We have already taken substantial steps towards reforming how we manage adults in custody, particularly in terms of ensuring that prisoners are better aligned towards release into their home communities. We want to ensure that young adults can fully benefit from our proposals around transforming rehabilitation, including resettlement prisons and through the gate provision. We want to make sure that young adults who are on longer-term sentences are allocated to the most suitable institutions to meet their rehabilitation needs.

The Government accept that some young adults have complex needs, and we want to target our resources more effectively to meet these. We strongly welcome the views of those with an interest in young adult offenders, which will inform this work as it moves forward.

The consultation period will last for six weeks during which time the MOJ will actively engage with stakeholders.

Copies of this Government consultation will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

An online version of the consultation will be available at: www.gov.uk/moj.

Workplace Pensions

Thursday 7th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

Today I am publishing the Command Paper “Reshaping Workplace Pensions for Future Generations”. This sets out proposals to enable new forms of risk sharing in pension schemes. It builds on our strategy “Reinvigorating workplace pensions”, published in November 2012.

The current defined benefit and defined contribution pension arrangements place risk at polar extremes. In defined benefit schemes the risks are home by the employer who sponsors the scheme, whereas in defined contribution schemes the risks lie with the individual scheme member.

The shift away from traditional defined benefit is a long-term trend which, given the very different social and economic environment we are now in, is not going to change, unless we act now.

Automatic enrolment and the single-tier state pension will provide a firm foundation for saving for retirement. But if the current forms of defined contribution pension saving become the default alternative to traditional defined benefit pensions, scheme members will face uncertainty over the level of income they can expect in retirement.

Over the last year we have worked closely with employers and with representatives from across the pension industry to explore options for creating a new defined ambition pension category where risks (including inflation, investment and longevity) can be shared between a number of parties.

The consultation sets out our proposals for defined ambition pensions. These include:

Creating a new pensions regulatory framework that would allow for greater risk-sharing between parties, which could include employers, members, and insurers and investment managers.

Deregulating to allow a new flexible form of defined benefit pensions, that will enable employers to continue to offer pensions to members with a high level of certainty, but with much greater flexibility over the nature of benefits provided.

Enabling the development of new forms of defined contribution schemes that could provide more certainty for members without adding to employer liabilities.

Enabling new models of collective defined contribution schemes that could provide for risk sharing between members.

The Command Paper will also be available on the gov.uk website and the consultation closes on 19 December 2013. Subject to the outcome of the consultation, we aim to consult on draft legislation in the new year.