House of Commons

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 12 November 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business before Questions

London Local Authorities and Transport for London (No. 2) Bill [Lords]

Third Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 19 November (Standing Order No. 20).

Hertfordshire County Council (Filming on Highways) Bill [Lords]

Second Reading opposed and deferred until Tuesday 19 November (Standing Order No. 20).

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

1. For what reasons he has decided to sell the site of HMP Wellingborough.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The Government should manage the prison estate in the most efficient and effective manner. As my hon. Friend is well aware, Wellingborough prison closed in December last year. Since then, we have looked carefully at whether the site should form part of our long-term capacity plans, and we have concluded that it should not. It is therefore in the taxpayer’s interest to avoid unnecessary holding costs and to dispose of the site.

[Mr Bone]

I thank the Minister for his response, but he is completely and utterly wrong. Wellingborough prison is on a brownfield site, and there is massive room for expansion. People want an expanded prison there, and millions of pounds have been invested in the prison. Will the Minister meet me to look at this again to stop him making a disastrous mistake?

[Jeremy Wright]

The answer to the last question is yes and, indeed, I am scheduled to do so on Monday next week. I look forward to discussing this with my hon. Friend in more detail. I am afraid that I do not accept that this was the wrong decision—we will discuss it in more detail on Monday—but the original decision to close the prison, as he knows, was based on the fact that substantial financial investment would be needed to bring it up to the required standard. The decision not to retain the site was, as I say, made after careful consideration. Looking at the estate as a whole we concluded that the prison simply did not fit our strategic needs, but I am happy to discuss it with him in more detail on Monday.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

On the subject of the Ministry of Justice selling sites, I have raised many times the issue of Fenton town hall, for which the Ministry of Justice and its predecessors have never paid a penny to rent or to purchase. Will the Minister now have a change of heart and give that building back to the community of Stoke-on-Trent?

[Mr Speaker]

The hon. Gentleman has stretched the elastic beyond snapping point. The question was broadened by the content of the Minister’s answer, but not broadened beyond the prison estate—that is the subject matter with which we are dealing. The hon. Gentleman is very visible courtesy of his moustache so he can try his luck later.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In commending my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) on his energetic campaign to save Wellingborough prison, may I gently suggest to the Minister that Government papers must have become muddled on this prison, because it is extremely cost-effective? It has one of the lowest costs per prisoner across the prison estate. The Minister says that lots of money is needed to improve the site but, having gone round it myself, I simply do not think that that is the case. May I urge him to take my hon. Friend’s advice and look again at this wrong decision?

[Jeremy Wright]

First, I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that our hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) has done a first-class job in advocating for his constituents, as he always does. That is his job, but my job is to look at the prison estate across the country. I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is not correct about the costs of running a prison, which are made up of several components, and a significant one is the cost of maintenance and the cost of maintaining accommodation standards. On our estimates, it would cost £50 million to bring that up to standard, which is why we concluded that it was right to close the prison. There is a separate consideration about whether it is right to retain the site, but for reasons that I have explained we have decided that it not the right thing to do.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

Can the prisons Minister reassure the House that he and the Justice Secretary know the figure at which Operation Safeguard kicks in, and that their officials have not advised them to introduce it and that it will not be needed?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that we are nowhere near requiring the provisions of Operation Safeguard. I have to remind him that his Government needed to use Operation Safeguard which, for those who do not know, is about using police cells because we have run out of prison cells. Not only did the previous Government need to do that but they had to let people out early because they so mismanaged the prison population. It takes some cheek for him to ask whether we are properly prepared.

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

Like Wellingborough, Reading prison has closed. Can the Minister reassure me and my constituents that any disposal of the site will be undertaken in consultation with me and the local community?

[Jeremy Wright]

I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is important that when we look at the disposal of these sites, we work together with the local authority and other key stakeholders to make sure that that is done properly. As he will appreciate, what happens to the site now is predominantly a matter for the local planning authority, not for us, but we will co-operate in any way we can.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

2. What assessment he has made of the potential effect of his planned probation reforms on the rate of reoffending.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Extending statutory supervision and rehabilitation to every offender released from custody, introducing an unprecedented nationwide through-the-gate prison service, and bringing in innovation of a diverse range of providers will help to reduce stubbornly high and rising reoffending rates.

[Paul Blomfield]

The Secretary of State will know that South Yorkshire probation trust is a high-performing organisation that has delivered five years of significant reductions in reoffending against predicted rates. Its performance is described as excellent by his Department. He also knows that his Department’s internal risk register warns that there is a more than 80% chance that his proposals to privatise the probation service will lead to an unacceptable drop in operational performance. Will he recognise the risk, face the facts, put public safety first and think again?

[Chris Grayling]

The real risk would be not to accept the fact that reoffending is rising in this country, and that each year thousands of people are victims of crime committed by people who leave prison unsupervised and unguided. That is what this Government intend to change.

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

Will the Minister look carefully at the evidence session that the Justice Committee held this morning and some of the practical difficulties that were raised there for achieving the objectives of his programme? Will he look with similar care at any recommendations that the Committee eventually makes, as the Department has clearly done in respect of our report on older prisoners, to which he responded today?

[Chris Grayling]

I can happily give my right hon. Friend that assurance. The reason that we have built into our plans a dry run-in period in the public sector of more than six months after the initial structural changes have taken place is precisely because we recognise the need to ensure that the transition is smooth and extended and that we iron out any wrinkles. I will look carefully at the evidence session and I look forward to giving evidence to his Committee and discussing these matters in greater depth.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am a little hurt, Mr Speaker, that you have not seen fit to mention my moustache, although it has been there a while.

On a very serious point, the much-heralded Peterborough pilot has delivered a 6% cut in reoffending, whereas the integrated offender management project in Surrey and Sussex probation trust has achieved a 55% cut in reoffending. Does such evidence have no relevance to the right hon. Gentleman?

[Chris Grayling]

The right hon. Gentleman will have to extend his moustache somewhat sideways if we are to give him credit in Movember.

If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what has been achieved at Peterborough, he will see that the most recent figures published two weeks ago showed a 20% reduction in the number of crimes committed by that cohort, by comparison with a comparable cohort elsewhere, that the Peterborough pilot is making genuine progress, and that the integrated offender management schemes around the country are also making good progress. It is not an either/or. Our plans do not exclude—indeed, will actively encourage—the continuation of such schemes, but the reality is that reoffending is still rising.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the current probation system is not perfect, which is the picture being painted by the Opposition? In that light, will he release the internal inquiry report by the probation service into the case of Stephen Ayre who, after leaving prison, abducted and raped a 10-year-old boy in my constituency as a result of some appalling failures both in the parole system and in the probation system?

[Chris Grayling]

In normal circumstances in a serious further offence the family will see the report that is carried out. I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss the issue. He rightly highlights the very real challenge we face with reoffending in this country, because when it does take place, families are the victims of what happens and sometimes go through terrible circumstances. Some 3,000 very serious crimes committed by offenders who get no supervision is something that we all need to stop.

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

3. What steps he has taken to reduce reoffending and relieve pressure on the courts system.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

15. What steps he has taken to reduce reoffending and relieve pressure on the courts system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The best way to reduce pressure on the criminal justice system is to reduce reoffending and we seek to achieve this in prisons and in the community. For example, under our transforming rehabilitation reforms every offender released from custody, including those sentenced to less than 12 months, will receive statutory supervision and rehabilitation in the community. This is a step towards reducing high reoffending rates which is widely welcomed, including by the Labour party, though I note that Labour Members voted against it last night.

[Nigel Mills]

With employment being key to preventing reoffending, what steps is my hon. Friend taking to ensure that offenders in prison are engaged in purposeful work or learning new skills that they can use on the outside?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is entirely right to say that work plays a crucial part in the task of reducing reoffending. He will be reassured to know that we are having considerable success in raising the number of prisoners who are working and the number of hours that they are working too. We have already achieved a 25% increase in the hours worked in prison since we came to power.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

A reduction in reoffending rates is a key ambition across the House, and it is crucial to engage all potential partners. What assessment has my hon. Friend made of how the third sector groups can engage with expertise in new probation contracts?

[Jeremy Wright]

Again, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The third sector—voluntary organisations—has a huge amount to offer us in this context, and already does to a large extent. Our proposals to transform rehabilitation will bring more of those organisations into the job of providing rehabilitation. We think that they have a first-class offering in many cases, and are likely to be a large part of what we go forward and do.

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

21. Surely the Minister has read the Ofsted reports on the quality of what happens to prisoners in prison. It is appalling that so many prisons fail to do the job of working, educating and training people for release. That is the problem—complacency on the Government Front Bench.

[Jeremy Wright]

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency whatsoever. It is exceptionally important that prisoners learn literacy and numeracy skills, which many of them lack. It is also important that they develop vocational qualifications, because we know that gaining those qualifications leads on to higher chances of employment, and maintaining a job is the best way we know of keeping someone away from crime. That is hugely important.

The hon. Gentleman will also be reassured to know that we are looking carefully at how we can improve education within the youth estate. As a former Chairman of the Education Committee he will recognise the importance of our duty to educate those young people properly, and when the contracts come up for renewal next year, we will expect better.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

How does the Minister reconcile the competing demands of tier 1 providers in reducing reoffending and disseminating good information with the retention of data on intellectual property? How will he reconcile those two competing issues?

[Jeremy Wright]

There will be a number of contractual requirements on tier 1 providers, as indeed on other providers. But the key point that the hon. Gentleman must recognise is that we will reward tier 1 providers for succeeding in reducing reoffending, and the way in which they will do that is to look holistically at all the many factors that affect the likelihood of reoffending. Education is one, training is another, and there are many others.

[Mr Speaker]

I am deeply obliged to the Minister.

[John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)]

19. Will the Minister meet me and representatives of the Amber Foundation, which achieves a reoffending rate of 26% compared with the average of 70% for the age group that they deal with? It is essential that Ministers understand the variety of experiences of smaller charities that have a lot to contribute in this area.

[Jeremy Wright]

In principle, of course I am happy to meet my hon. Friend and the Amber Foundation. He will recognise that as we proceed with our reforms and with the competition process, there are restrictions on whom I can and cannot meet. Certainly I agree with him that such organisations have a huge amount to contribute to what we do, and even those that are not specifically criminal justice charities also have a part to play.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I am frankly not reassured by the Minister’s earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman). Surely he is aware that not a single prison was rated as outstanding by Ofsted, and 65% were rated as not good enough. Is that not a shocking indictment of his rehabilitation revolution?

[Jeremy Wright]

Something tells me that the hon. Gentleman was planning not to be reassured. None the less, let me try again. There is no complacency here. As I said to his hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman), there is a huge amount more to do on the education and training of prisoners, but he must recognise that this is something that we inherited from the Labour party. The situation was not perfect in 2010, and both sides of the House have more to do to understand the importance of this and to provide more of it.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that the needs of vulnerable witnesses are properly considered in court.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

The Government are committed to putting victims first at every stage of the criminal justice system. We are implementing a wide range of reforms to make sure that victims and witnesses get the support they deserve and to ensure that their voice is heard. This includes work to improve awareness of, and access to, support services and special measures in court, and the piloting of recorded pre-trial cross-examination of vulnerable and intimidated witnesses.

[Helen Jones]

Despite what the Secretary of State says, vulnerable witnesses, who are also often victims, still find themselves meeting perpetrators of the crime in court, are still accused by barristers of being predatory and still see people accused of serious offences released on bail near their home. Why does he not agree with Victim Support, victims themselves and his own former Victims’ Commissioner that a victims Bill is needed to enshrine their rights in law?

[Chris Grayling]

I am slightly surprised that the hon. Lady adopts a partisan tone in this regard. As I have just said, we have introduced pre-trial examination as a possibility for giving evidence for vulnerable witnesses. That measure was introduced in a Bill in 1999, but the Government she supported did nothing about it for 11 years. This Government have introduced it and it will come into force next month. It is a practical measure to help vulnerable witnesses, which her Government legislated for and put out the press release but then did nothing about, as was typical.

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

The Secretary of State will know that some of the most vulnerable witnesses are those involved in cases of stalking and harassment. Will he welcome the establishment of the all-party group on stalking and harassment, chaired by the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd), and agree to meet him and me—I am the vice-chairman—to discuss the issues facing witnesses in such trials?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with the points made by my right hon. Friend. I welcome the establishment of the new all-party group and would be happy to meet her and the right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd).

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

5. What steps he has taken to reduce motor insurance fraud to help motorists with the costs of driving.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

8. What steps he has taken to reduce motor insurance fraud to help motorists with the costs of driving.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

On 23 October the Government announced a package of reforms to ensure the availability of good-quality medical evidence in whiplash cases. Our reforms will create a robust system that deters speculative and fraudulent claims. They will lead to reduced costs for insurers and lower premiums for honest motorists.

[Andrew Jones]

I thank the Minister for that reply. How will he ensure that the medical panels are independent and will help to stop bogus claims?

[Mr Vara]

I can assure my hon. Friend that our reforms will see experts commissioned jointly by both the claimant and the defendant and paid regardless of the outcome of the claim. The measures will help ensure independence, and the new examination and reporting scheme will result in fewer speculative and fraudulent claims.

[Margot James]

A constituent of mine was involved in an accident in which the car in front of her made an emergency stop. She swerved to avoid it and the two vehicles made contact without significant impact, yet her insurers agreed to pay out a £4,000 claim for whiplash, which could not possibly have resulted from the accident, without informing her, let alone consulting her. Will my hon. Friend look into the case to see whether there are wider lessons to be learnt?

[Mr Vara]

My hon. Friend will appreciate that I am unable to comment on individual cases and am not aware of any plans by the insurance industry to make information of that sort available. However, I can say that I very much hope that the reforms we are putting in place will ensure that fraudulent and speculative claims of the sort she refers to are weeded out in the first instance.

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

Has the Minister made any assessment of the different levels of fraudulent claims in the regions of the United Kingdom? Has he discussed the issue with the Northern Ireland Executive, particularly given that many of the insurance firms are based in the rest of the United Kingdom, rather than Northern Ireland, where it is a major issue?

[Mr Vara]

I am aware of certain figures showing that some areas have a higher propensity for claims than others. We are in the process of consulting a broad spectrum of stakeholders. If there are any we have missed, I am more than happy for the right hon. Gentleman to contact me so that we can include them.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

Did the Minister read the e-mail sent to us both yesterday by the victim of a whiplash sting? His insurer, without consulting him or any medical evidence, paid out £2,700, £1,600 of which went to a claims management company, and then more than doubled his premium. Rather than blaming genuine victims for the cost of motor insurance, why has the Minister not tackled the claims management companies and insurers whose actions encourage fraud? Is it because of the millions they give the Tory party every year?

[Mr Vara]

The hon. Gentleman is clearly out of date. If he did his research properly, he would be aware that since January this year 800 CMCs have closed. This is an issue where we are trying to do good and where all stakeholders are working together for the greater good of the public. It is regrettable that he is resorting to type and cannot recognise that he should be working to do good rather than being his usual destructive self.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

6. What steps he has taken to increase the voice of victims in the criminal justice system.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

13. What steps he has taken to increase the voice of victims in the criminal justice system.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

This Government are committed to putting victims first and we will give them a voice at every stage of the criminal justice system. The new victims code published on 29 October will provide extra support for victims and witnesses by offering them greater protection throughout the criminal justice process, a louder voice, and better redress. Victims will now be able to say whether they would like to read out their victim personal statement in court to explain how the crime has affected them.

[Harriett Baldwin]

The Justice Secretary has been to Hanley Swan post office and met my constituents, Alan and Ros Davies, whose lives were devastated by a cruel attack from a prisoner on early release. Can he assure them, and other victims, that their voices and support needs will always be considered ahead of those of violent criminals?

[Damian Green]

I am aware of the terrible consequences of what was a very serious crime. It is precisely for such victims of crime that we are now providing a voice in court. If they so wish, they can read a personal statement to the offender, looking the offender in the eye, and many victims have said that that would have made a very big difference to them in the past.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I was pleased to hear that the new victims code will automatically inform victims of their right to make a statement in court. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important that services for victims of crime are not only commissioned locally but that we maintain our existing courts structure? As a justice of the peace, I specifically include magistrates courts, which help to safeguard a local perspective.

[Damian Green]

I agree that it is important for victims to be able to inform the court directly, through the personal statement, about how a crime has affected them. I also agree about the great importance of magistrates for local justice; indeed, that is precisely why I am leading work to broaden and strengthen their role in delivering justice.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Given that the Minister has broken up the funding for victim support and devolved it down to police and crime commissioners, and refused to make it mandatory in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, what guarantees can he give that some new scheme in future will provide uniform victim support services across the United Kingdom?

[Damian Green]

Some services will continue to be provided nationally, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman is aware. The bulk of the funding is indeed being devolved to police and crime commissioners, who are all enthusiastic, across party boundaries, to maintain and improve victim services. Those who are closer to the specific problems of a local area are likely to be more sensitive to the needs of that area than the old top-down, centralist system that the right hon. Gentleman still clearly hankers after.

[Dan Jarvis (Barnsley Central) (Lab)]

Why are victims of crime not entitled to a full-time Victims’ Commissioner?

[Damian Green]

I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his post and regret that his first question attacks the Victims’ Commissioner, who is doing an extremely good job. She is helping us with the victims code, and she has made a significant difference. She has reviewed the operation of the probation service’s victim contact scheme. She will, I think, show that the terrible experience she has had herself will contribute to her role as Victims’ Commissioner. I hope that across the Floor of this House we can get behind the Victims’ Commissioner.

[Mr Gary Streeter (South West Devon) (Con)]

7. What progress is being made on reducing illegal drug use in prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

We are making good progress. As a result of effective prison security measures and working closely with health services to reshape drug treatment in prisons, the proportion of prisoners testing positive for drug misuse is the lowest it has been since 1996.

[Mr Streeter]

Many of my constituents remain baffled about why we cannot make prisons drug-free zones; successive Governments have not been able to do so. None the less, I welcome the recent through-the-gate reforms that my hon. Friend has introduced. Will he explain how they will help offenders to come off and stay off drugs?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. On his first point, he will recognise that one of the emerging challenges is the misuse of drugs that are not in and of themselves illegal. In that regard, I commend to him the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Margot James), which I think answers that problem very effectively and I hope the House will pass it.

On the through-the-gate reforms, again my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter) is right that it is important that we undertake to all those providing drug treatment in prisons that what they begin will be properly completed; otherwise, they will not begin what may be long-term drug treatment programmes. That is why through-the-gate matters, and why our rehabilitation reforms will support people not only in custody but in their transition into the community and for some considerable time thereafter.

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I commend to the Minister as his recess reading an excellent book, “Doing Time: Prisons in the 21st Century”, by the hon. Member for Hexham (Guy Opperman)? In chapter 2 he talks about 50% of those in prisons having a drug problem. As the Minister knows, the Home Affairs Committee has recommended mandatory testing on arrival and exit. Are we any nearer to that?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I do not agree with him that the right way to deal with drug testing is to have a mandatory point at entry and exit. He also knows that the main reason I disagree with him is that everyone knows where the points are and can see them coming. What I think is much more effective is mandatory random testing, which is what we do now, but, as I explained in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South West Devon (Mr Streeter), we must all recognise that the problem that is emerging is less about illegal drugs, dangerous though they are, and more about legal drugs that are being misused in our prisons. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will support the private Member’s Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

We might learn more about the book later, but we must move on now. I am saving the hon. Gentleman up; he should not worry.

[Paul Maynard (Blackpool North and Cleveleys) (Con)]

9. What steps he is taking to facilitate mutual ownership of probation trusts; and if he will make a statement.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

The transforming rehabilitation competition process has been designed to allow a range of entities to bid to deliver rehabilitation services. This could include alternative delivery vehicles and mutuals designed by individuals within existing probation trusts.

The Cabinet Office’s mutuals support programme has made some of its £10 million funding available to support mutuals interested in participating in the competition. This has included access to coaching and capability-building from experienced commercial mentors and leaders in the field.

[Paul Maynard]

I thank the Secretary of State for that reply. Will he reassure me that, while we have examples of good practice in local probation trusts and individuals who want to transfer to a mutual status, those moves will not be opposed by the Ministry of Justice but, rather, facilitated?

[Chris Grayling]

I can absolutely give my hon. Friend that assurance. Indeed, we held in this House a week ago, while we were all waiting for the Europe votes, a forum with potential bidders. It was gratifying to see among those in attendance a large contingent from the potential mutual bidders. I am very keen to see them make good progress in this process.

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

Will the Justice Secretary look again at the geographical boundaries affecting Cheshire, because there seems to be inconsistency with regard to how he, the Home Office and the police are thinking, and that is causing confusion among potential bidders?

[Chris Grayling]

I can certainly do that. If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me with his specific concerns, I will take a look at them.

[Simon Danczuk (Rochdale) (Lab)]

10. What assessment he has made of the prevalence of mishandling by the Law Society of complaints against solicitors.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

The Law Society is one of 10 approved regulators for which the Legal Services Board has oversight responsibility. It is independent of the Government. The Solicitors Regulation Authority is responsible for investigating alleged breaches of its conduct principles.

[Simon Danczuk]

I raise this question because my constituent Paul Cowdrey now risks losing his home because the Law Society advised him that if he raised his complaint he would not be liable for costs. He has now been ordered to pay more than £100,000 to the solicitor whom he complained about. The Solicitors Regulation Authority condemned the solicitor’s actions as morally reprehensible, but claimed it was unable to take action. Does the Minister agree that a regulator that is unable to prevent solicitors from abusing their position is not fit for purpose, and will he investigate this case on behalf of my constituent?

[Mr Vara]

I am well aware that this is an ongoing case about which the hon. Gentleman corresponded with my predecessor. However, the legal regulators and the legal ombudsman are independent of the Government and neither the Justice Secretary nor any of his Ministers have the power to intervene and it would be inappropriate for us to do so in any individual case. The hon. Gentleman’s constituent, Mr Cowdrey, needs to take independent legal advice.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the primary role of the Law Society is to represent solicitors, and that the proper channel for consumer complaints is the Legal Ombudsman?

[Mr Vara]

Various channels are available for those dealing with the conduct of solicitors, as well as the service provided by them. Yes, there is provision and appropriate methods that need to be pursued.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

11. What his policy is on the future of the probation service.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

We are creating a new national probation service that will work alongside 21 new community rehabilitation companies to manage offenders in the community. The national probation service will be tasked with advising the courts and protecting the public from the most dangerous offenders. It will be responsible for risk assessing all offenders who are supervised in the community.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Local service providers have expressed concerns to me about how a fragmented service will manage changes in offenders’ risk levels. Given that risk levels change in about a quarter of all cases, it will be common for offenders to transfer between providers. How will the Secretary of State ensure that the continuity of offender management does not suffer as a result?

[Chris Grayling]

The most important part of the way the new system will work will be the co-location of individuals in the national probation service who are responsible for risk management and the new community rehabilitation companies, to ensure that where risk does change there is a swift transition from one to the other.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

In the Secretary of State’s target operating model for probation there is welcome mention of restorative justice. Can he say anything more to ensure that awareness of restorative justice across the system is so embedded that it becomes an option to be considered on all occasions, particularly to deliver much-improved victim support as well as the rehabilitative effect it has already demonstrated?

[Chris Grayling]

We very much recognise the importance of restorative justice. We are providing funding to police and crime commissioners to enable them to source restorative justice services locally, and give them the option of working closely with providers who will look after offenders in the future. We are keen to see that partnership work well at a local level, and for that resource to be used to good effect in mitigating the impact of crime on victims in the way restorative justice can do so well.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Last night, when the Justice Secretary was not here, the prisons Minister assured the House that

“if Serco and G4S do not come out satisfactorily from the audit processes…they will not receive any contracts”—[Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 744.]

for probation. The Minister is well regarded across the House, and I am sure he will want to be clear about that. Does he mean the conclusion of the Cabinet Office investigation or the investigation by the Serious Fraud Office? It will be of great concern to Members of the House if the Serious Fraud Office investigation is not concluded before contracts are awarded.

[Chris Grayling]

We must treat that issue carefully because a potentially criminal investigation is taking place at the moment. I will make an appropriate statement to the House in due course about the way forward, but in the meantime, because of the nature of the investigation, I do not think it right for us to enter into discussion about it.

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

12. What steps he is taking to increase the number of offender behaviour programmes in English prisons.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

Our priority is to provide accredited offending behaviour programmes, which evidence suggests are most likely to reduce reoffending and protect the public. The National Offender Management Service has begun the process of negotiating programme provision for 2014-15, and intends to maintain at least the current level of investment.

[Steve Rotheram]

Will the Minister ensure that data are collected on the length of waiting lists for programmes such as the offender behaviour programme, better to target resources and facilitate prisoner release when they pose no further danger to the public?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Gentleman is right that we want people to have such programmes as quickly as we can get them. He will recognise that the statistics we might collect—statistics on this issue are collected locally—will mask the fact that some offenders need such programmes urgently while some can perhaps wait a little longer. I understand the point he is making, and we will always try to supply as much information as we can. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s written question on this matter, I pointed out that such information is not collected centrally, which makes it hard for me to give him a figure.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

14. What his policy is on funding victims services in London.

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

More money than ever before is being made available for services to support victims of crime, with a potential total budget of up to £100 million—double the Ministry of Justice’s current spending of around £50 million. That means that more will be spent on victims of crime in London, with the Mayor of London making decisions on how the majority of the money will be spent.

[Mike Freer]

The figures I have from the Mayor of London show that victims in my constituency and across London will receive a 40% cut in victim support. Will the Minister agree to a capital city uplift so that my constituents are not disadvantaged?

[Damian Green]

It is simply not the case that there will be cuts in funding to London. As I have said, nationally, we are increasing funding considerably. Our current estimate is that, under the current indicative budget, London will receive more funding than is estimated to be spent under current Ministry of Justice funding arrangements. We are determined to continue to provide quality services to victims of crime both in London and in the rest of the country.

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

It is accepted that there will be more money overall but, from all the figures, it looks as if Greater London, which has more than one in four of all victims of crime and more than one in five of all crime referrals to victim support, will receive a much smaller percentage. Is the Minister willing to accept an all-party group of London MPs to put the case for victims to be funded properly?

[Damian Green]

I am always very happy to meet my right hon. Friend and London colleagues from both sides of the House. Indeed, I met the Deputy Mayor for Policing and Crime to discuss the subject yesterday, so I am well aware of the situation. I repeat that there will be more money for London than there is under the current arrangements.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Nevertheless, my right hon. Friend will be aware that victims of crime in North Yorkshire will receive £166 per head, but that victims of crime in London will receive only £24 per head. The fact is that £3 million extra is required to change that anomaly. Will he agree to an uplift for the capital, rather than victimising the victims?

[Damian Green]

I reject the thought that victims are being victimised. I can only repeat that, in London, as in the rest of the country, victims of crime will have more spent on the services available to them under our new system than under the current one. I would have hoped that London Members welcomed that increase.

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

17. What assessment he has made of the most recent quarterly statistics on knife possession sentencing under the new offence of aggravated knife possession, published in September 2013.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

Knives on our streets are a social scourge, and that is why we introduced new mandatory minimum sentences for threatening with a knife. Few offenders have been sentenced so far, but the majority have received custodial sentences. We are keeping this whole area under close scrutiny and I have raised how the offence is being sentenced with the senior judiciary and the Sentencing Council.

[Nick de Bois]

I am grateful for the Secretary of State’s reply, but does he agree that Parliament has spoken, that the offence should carry mandatory sentences, and that sentencers should bear in mind the will of Parliament? Will he use the opportunity to press the case for introducing mandatory sentencing for possession as well?

[Chris Grayling]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work in this area. I also pay tribute to the work done by members of his community in Enfield, whom I have met and spoken to. I fully understand the nature of the impact of knife crime on their community and on communities around the country. I assure him strongly that we will keep the issue under review. The clear will of Parliament is that such offences should be dealt with with great severity. I hope that those presiding over our courts recognise the will of Parliament. I also assure him that I continue to look at this area extremely carefully.

[Mr Dominic Raab (Esher and Walton) (Con)]

18. What steps he is taking to curb the scope and volume of human rights claims.

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

As my hon. Friend knows, we continue to implement the work completed in the Brighton declaration, but he is aware that, as a party, the Conservatives are considering further measures that we would introduce as a majority Government to reduce the scope of the Court in Strasbourg to impose unwelcome judgments upon us.

[Mr Raab]

After Qatada and prisoner voting, the latest ruling from Strasbourg demands that all lifers have the chance to be released. Does he agree that that latest shifting of the human rights goalposts offends the rule of law, erodes democratic accountability and only strengthens the case for that overhaul of our relationship with the Strasbourg Court?

[Chris Grayling]

I very much agree with my hon. Friend. The decision on whole-life tariffs was entirely regrettable and should not have been taken, and certainly not at the level of an international court. I assure him and all colleagues that the decision simply redoubles my determination to deliver a strategy, which I will do next year, for our party to go into the next general election with a clear plan for change.

[Mr David Ruffley (Bury St Edmunds) (Con)]

On 4 November in the Chamber, the Home Secretary said that we should consider replacing the Human Rights Act 1998 with a British Bill of Rights. Given that the relevant commission reported to the Secretary of State last December, when can we expect draft legislation to abolish the Act in this Parliament?

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend an assurance that we will publish proposals for change in the new year, and they will include a replacement to Labour’s Human Rights Act 1998. I can also assure him that we, as a party, will publish a draft Bill later next year. Whether the coalition and this Parliament will choose to accept such a Bill, or whether it needs to wait for a majority Conservative Government, is something I suspect we will discover then.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Dr Pugh. Arise.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

20. What progress he has made on his reforms to the treatment of whiplash claims; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

On 23 October, the Government announced a package of reforms to ensure the availability of good-quality medical evidence in whiplash cases. Our reforms will create a robust and independent system of accredited experts to help the genuinely injured, and deter dishonest claimants from making claims.

[John Pugh]

I congratulate the Government on all they have done, which has been encouraging, but when will the number of whiplash cases in the UK reach anything like the EU average?

[Mr Vara]

The purpose of the measures is to try to ensure a reduction in the number of whiplash claims. At the moment, we have the highest whiplash claims in Europe. Given the quality of driving in some other countries—I will not name them—we have to accept that the number of whiplash claims is seriously flawed. That is what we are trying to address, and that is why we are introducing these measures.

[James Morris (Halesowen and Rowley Regis) (Con)]

23. What steps he has taken to reduce reoffending and relieve pressure on the courts system.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

As I mentioned earlier, we believe that the best way to reduce pressure on the criminal courts is to reduce reoffending, and we seek to do that both inside prisons and out in the community.

[James Morris]

What role does he see for new generation GPS tagging in tackling reoffending?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right that new generation GPS tags have huge potential. They will help us to enforce more effectively various provisions of community orders and conditions of licence. We have only to imagine the potential of GPS tags to enforce both curfews and exclusion zones to see what they might be able to do. We seek to take full advantage of that new technology.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

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

[The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Chris Grayling)]

In 2015 we will mark the 800th anniversary of the Magna Carta. To mark that defining moment in the development of modern legal systems, the lord mayor of London and I are shaping a major programme of events and seminars to celebrate our justice system, and to promote the UK as a centre of legal services. The sector contributes £20 billion a year to the UK economy, and the global law summit will bring together leading practitioners from around the world to show what our legal system can offer, share expertise and open up opportunities for collaboration in new business. My Department has brought together the City of London, the Law Society and the Bar Council to plan the event under the stewardship of the former lord mayor Sir David Wootton and my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (Mr Bellingham). I hope and believe the summit will be a great moment to celebrate our proud legal traditions in the Magna Carta and to look to the future to promote our legal services, secure growth and win the global race.

[Henry Smith]

I welcome the celebration of the great Magna Carta. In 2008, my constituent Carrie-Ann Wheatley was brutally attacked by three men who should not have been in this country. Her family are concerned that article 8 of the European convention on human rights might be used to stop their deportation on their release from prison. I seek reassurance that the Government will properly reform article 8.

[Chris Grayling]

I can give my hon. Friend the absolute assurance that both the Home Secretary and I are looking at ways of tightening the rules. There are provisions relating to article 8 in the Immigration Bill, and I am hopeful that our proposed reforms to human rights laws will strengthen the position of victims of crime in the terrible situation that his constituents have found themselves in. We will make sure that the offenders do not get away with it.

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

As a number of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members have commented, the Justice Secretary is cutting and changing the funding for innocent victims of crime. For example, spending in Surrey and Hertfordshire will be £21.14 per victim, while the average in England and Wales will be £15 per victim. Why, under his plans, will spending per victim in London, at just £10.11 per victim, be 41% less than the national average?

[Chris Grayling]

It is nice to see the right hon. Gentleman launching his London mayoral campaign. I follow his Twitter feed, and for every tweet about justice, there are six about London. I will tell him simply and straightforwardly that under this Government the funding available for victims of crime in London has increased significantly, as it has across the whole country.

[Sadiq Khan]

It is funny that the Justice Secretary says that, because I used the Mayor of London’s figures for that question. According to the Mayor, the reason for the cut in London is that the Justice Secretary has decided to use a formula based solely on population, while failing to take into account crime levels and the number of victims in police force areas. That means that London loses more than £3 million a year, according to the Mayor of London. As the Justice Secretary said, our justice system relies on the confidence of victims and witnesses, so he should be aware that the Metropolitan police have the lowest victim satisfaction rate of any police force in the country. What impact does he think his decision will have on that?

[Chris Grayling]

I wish the right hon. Gentleman well with his campaign, but I know that the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy) is the frontrunner at the moment, so he has a bit of catching up to do.

Only in the world of Labour party mathematics and economics could an increased budget be described as a cut.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

T3. The modern scourge of human trafficking is still with us. What action is my right hon. Friend taking to bring perpetrators to justice and to compensate the victims?[Official Report, 20 November 2013, Vol. 570, c. 6MC.]

[The Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims (Damian Green)]

My hon. Friend will know that the Home Secretary will shortly be publishing a modern slavery Bill that will deal with many of the issues that he rightly raises. Since July 2011, every trafficking victim has received Government funding, via the Salvation Army. The figures last year were about £3 million, with about 928 victims having received this vital support over the past year.

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

T2. The Secretary of State will know that 12 years ago five children and three adults were murdered by a gang of wicked men. Recently, the Parole Board, against the advice of probation and forensic psychologists, released one of those men before his minimum sentence had been served. What is going on in the Parole Board that it is releasing such men into the community?

[Chris Grayling]

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Parole Board and its decisions are independent, but I hope that one benefit of the establishment of the national probation service, with expertise in dealing with the highest-risk offenders, will be a greater degree of expertise sitting alongside the Parole Board to advise it on when it is appropriate to release someone and when it is not. I share his concern about ensuring it is safe to release people on to our streets and that they do not continue to pose a threat to society.

[Stephen Phillips (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)]

T4. My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has previously been considerable disquiet within the country over the effectiveness of community penalties, in both marking the gravity of offences and ensuring the effective rehabilitation of offenders. I know that he is alive to those concerns, but I would be grateful if he told the House what steps he is taking to ensure they are met.

[Damian Green]

I entirely share my hon. and learned Friend’s concerns about public confidence in community sentencing, which is precisely why we have changed the system so that in the future every community order must contain a punitive element. Indeed, the Offender Rehabilitation Bill creates a new flexible rehabilitation activity requirement to aid the rehabilitation of offenders while they are doing some community activity.

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

T7. Companies such as G4S and Serco have lucrative, multi-million-pound contracts to provide public services. When will the Secretary of State adopt Labour’s plan to extend the Freedom of Information Act to these companies, so that the public have an equal right to know?

[Chris Grayling]

I said I would not comment—and I will not comment—about the current investigation. I will simply point out that the issues regarding G4S and Serco relate to contracts let by the last Government.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

T5. Does the Secretary of State agree that we have a most excellent prisons Minister who has many superb qualities? One of the best of his qualities is that when he has made a decision and new facts are put to him, he has the courage to reconsider and change his decision.

[Chris Grayling]

The Under-Secretary of State for Justice, my hon. Friend the Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) certainly has those qualities, and he will undoubtedly look at all the issues carefully. Another quality he has is that, when he needs to take a difficult decision in the interests of the country, he will do so.

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

The Justice Secretary intends all those who are given short prison sentences to be supervised on release. How many will be allocated to the national probation service, and what funding is he making available?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jeremy Wright)]

The right hon. Gentleman will know, because the matter came up during last night’s debate, that the national probation service will carry out a risk assessment for all short-sentence prisoners. It will then decide whether to retain them because they are high-risk offenders or to pass them to community rehabilitation companies. So I cannot give him a figure, because each case will involve a judgment for the national probation service.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

T6. Are the Lord Chancellor’s proposed reforms on judicial review intended to reassert the primacy of Parliament over the courts, or to save money, or both?

[Chris Grayling]

First and foremost, those reforms are about ensuring that the justice system in this country is there for those who need it, and not used for purposes other than genuine redress. My view is that judicial review is being used at the moment as a delaying tactic and as a PR exercise. It does indeed undermine the will of Parliament and the will of the Executive, and it costs the taxpayer money. It should be used only when it is appropriate to do so, and not for trivialities.

[Valerie Vaz (Walsall South) (Lab)]

Will the Justice Secretary confirm that there will be no further court closures, which could undermine the administration of justice?

[Chris Grayling]

We will continue to review the court estate on an ongoing basis, but at this time I have no plans for substantial court closures. There might be occasional changes in the system, such as those we have seen recently in Liverpool, but I am not planning major changes to the court estate at this time.

[Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)]

T8. What steps is the Department taking to tackle reoffending among female prisoners? Has the Minister come across the excellent social enterprise called Working Chance?

[Jeremy Wright]

My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the excellent work that is being done with female offenders by various organisations in the voluntary sector. Those organisations make a huge contribution in this regard. We are seeking to ensure that we recognise the particular characteristics of female offenders, that we address the significant problems caused by distance from home, which can have knock-on effects for family life, and that female offenders have an opportunity to work outside prison and to re-engage with lawful society. That is the basis for our reforms.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

A previous Justice Minister announced in a Westminster Hall debate that I secured just over a year ago that the Office of the Public Guardian had launched a fundamental review of the supervision of court-appointed deputies. Will the Minister tell us what changes will be made as a result of that review?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Mr Shailesh Vara)]

This is an ongoing matter, and we are looking into it. I am happy to take on any comments that the hon. Gentleman might have, and I will look into it.

[Sarah Champion (Rotherham) (Lab)]

South Yorkshire probation trust has reduced its reoffending rate by 13.4% over its target, and it attributes that in part to its use of impact teams. However, privatisation is likely to blow apart that collaborative working. Why are the Government pushing ahead with that plan?

[Jeremy Wright]

The hon. Lady might be referring to the local adult reoffending rate. The difficulty with that measurement is that it measures reoffending only over a three-month period. It is much more reliable to measure it over a longer period. She has heard me say many times that I recognise that much good work is already being done within the probation service, but that does not mean that there is no case for change. The case for change is that we still have very high reoffending rates, and we think it is necessary to do something about that. Our proposals will do so.

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

One of the really bad ideas from the previous Labour Government was the so-called Titan prisons. The Attorney-General, the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) said so, as did the Justice Select Committee, and I might even have said so myself. So will the Secretary of State tell my why that really bad idea might now be considered a good idea?

[Chris Grayling]

We are not building Titan prisons. The proposed new prison in Wrexham, for example, will be a campus prison with a number of separate small units for 250 to 300 prisoners. It will benefit from the economies of scale achieved by shared facilities, but we will not create a single monolithic institution in which people are detained.

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

In 2004, 16-year-old Robert Levy was murdered in Hackney Town Hall square. His parents, Pat and Ian, gave evidence to the murderer’s parole board this summer. Just recently, they received an insensitive and bureaucratic letter from Victim Support, requiring them to go through several hoops and to provide a lot of paperwork in order to claim the train fare. Let me quote Mr Levy:

“We are tired of jumping through hoops whilst on the face of things it appears the perpetrator has it all done for them without much trouble to them.”

We have a code and a commissioner, so when are we going to see an approach that will make it easier for victims?

[Jeremy Wright]

As the hon. Lady knows, I have met her constituent, Mr Levy, and I have to say that I was extremely taken with his courage and dignity. I am very disturbed to hear what she says; if she gives me the opportunity, I will look into it.

[Stephen Lloyd (Eastbourne) (LD)]

Last week, a devastating report entitled “The Payment of Tribunal Awards” was published. It found that less than 50% of people received full payment of an award following a successful employment tribunal. Does the Minister agree that more needs to be done to enforce these claims? Will he meet me, my colleagues on the all-party parliamentary group on citizens advice and representatives from Citizens Advice to find ways to resolve this shocking injustice?

[Mr Vara]

I am, of course, happy to meet my hon. Friend and his constituents. I would say, however, that in the context of the tribunal, there are two individual parties and none of the damages is owed to the state, so we have to be careful. We can provide advice and, where possible, assistance, but at the end of the day, enforcement has to be dealt with by the two parties concerned. As I say, I would be happy to see my hon. Friend.

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

A constituent had her name touted around Plymouth by a woman taking part in a custody case who, because of the cuts, had no legal aid and no support. This woman did not know that what she was doing was a contempt of court. What steps is the Justice Secretary taking to review the impact of his cuts and the potential rise in contempt cases as a result?

[Chris Grayling]

We will, of course, continue to review the impact of the changes we have made to legal aid, which were necessary because of the huge financial challenge we inherited in 2010. If the hon. Lady wants to write to us about the specific case, we will of course look at it.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

How many foreign national offenders do we have in our prisons, and what steps are being taken to send them back to secure detention in their own country?

[Jeremy Wright]

I am ready for this one this time! The answer is 10,833, and my hon. Friend and I are in agreement that that is far too many. As we have discussed before, the answer is that we need to make more use of compulsory prisoner transfer agreements. I can tell him that, as he knows, we have a compulsory prisoner transfer agreement with Albania, and 77 Albanian nationals have been referred to the Home Office for immigration enforcement and deportation. He knows, too, that we are part of the European Union prisoner transfer agreement—another compulsory PTA—under which 277 EU nationals have been referred to the Home Office. We are making progress, although it is not as quick as either of us would like.

[Mr Speaker]

I hope the hon. Gentleman now feels fully informed.

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

Can the Justice Secretary explain why the Mesothelioma Bill is cited in the Ministry of Justice review of the mesothelioma exemption as one of the recommended criteria for bringing into force sections 44 and 46 of the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012? Those sections have nothing to do with the Mesothelioma Bill.

[Chris Grayling]

Off the top of my head, no, but I will happily trade letters with the hon. Lady and we will find out.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree with me that the comments by Frances Crook of the Howard League for Penal Reform—that magistrates should not be able to send people to prison at all—are typically idiotic? Does he further agree that the only Howard worth listening to on criminal justice matters is Michael Howard and not the Howard League for Penal Reform?

[Chris Grayling]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. It is always important for long-standing influential pressure groups to make sure they take a measured and responsible view in the discussions they have both in public and with Government.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

My moustache and I are most grateful, Mr Speaker. More seriously, I remain optimistic that the Secretary of State will have a change of heart over Fenton town hall, which was used by the magistrates, and give it back to the people of Stoke-on-Trent. If he does not, what assurances can he give that the buyer that we think is waiting in the wings and subsequent purchasers will protect the first world war memorial that is located in that building? Many thousands of people are concerned about its future.

[Mr Vara]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his patience. I can assure him that, in the event of any transfers of the building, there will be a covenant to ensure that the new owner preserves that very important and historic monument, which is a tribute to all who paid the ultimate price in the first world war.

[Mr Speaker]

I call Sheila Gilmore to ask her question, lastly and very briefly.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

In May, the now Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Mrs Grant), announced a new pilot in which tribunal judges would give detailed explanations to the Department for Work and Pensions of their reasons for allowing employment and support allowance appeals. When can we expect an evaluation of that pilot?

[Chris Grayling]

We are engaged in detailed discussions with the DWP. We are now providing it with much more detailed information, and paying close attention to the lessons that are learnt from that information.

Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting, Sri Lanka

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of my constituents Sam Morris and Mr T. Murugadas and 357 other residents of Ealing North, I wish to present a petition concerning the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting due to be held next week in Sri Lanka.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of the Ealing North Constituency,

Sheweth,

That the island of Sri Lanka is still experiencing the after effects of the recent war.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House formally state their opinion that this country should not be represented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting while so many issues are unresolved and so many people are still displaced as a result of this conflict.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001284]

Development of a Public Open Space near Astro Grove (Longton, Stoke-on-Trent)

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have a petition signed by 1,000 or so constituents who are concerned that land given to Stoke-on-Trent city council by the Highways Agency to compensate for public open space taken by the A50 when it was built is now under threat. The land, near Astro grove and Power grove in Longton, has become a wildlife sanctuary but, sadly, the local authority is unwilling to rule it out for possible future development.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that this land is not to be sold for any development, and is only to be kept and maintained for leisure purposes, in line with the requirements of the Public Open Space order.

Following is the full text of the petition;

[The Petition of residents of Stoke-on-Trent,

Declares that land transferred to Stoke-on-Trent City Council by the Highways Agency in 1997, to compensate for the loss of public space from the construction of the A50 road, should retain its intended usage and function as a public space. The land in question, near to Astro Grove, in Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, exists as a Public Open Space (POS) and thus restrictions are in place to limit its usage and to prevent development on the site. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has also received funding to carry out appropriate landscape treatment on this site in order to retain its function.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that this land is not to be sold for any development, and is only to be kept and maintained for leisure purposes, in line with the requirements of the Public Open Space order.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001285]

Safety of the A682 (Barrowford, Lancashire)

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I want to present to the House of Commons a petition from the residents of Barrowford, Lancashire.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Barrowford, Lancashire,

Declares that the petitioners believe the A682 next to Barrowford Primary School presents a danger to the safety of the children that attend the school and others who live nearby, as the road gets busy during the times that children are picked up and dropped off to go to school.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Lancashire County Council to place a zebra crossing on the A682 near to Barrowford Primary School, perpendicular to Rushton Street and opposite the nearby Spar shop.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001288]

Planning Applications for Solar PV Farms on Greenfield Land (Braintree, Essex)

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

Solar photovoltaic farms are a blight on the English countryside, never more so than in the northern part of my constituency, where up to 300 acres of solar PV farms are being considered. I therefore present this petition on behalf of the residents of Foxearth and Liston, Belchamp Saint Paul and Belchamp Otten, and Pentlow parishes in the great and beautiful county of Essex.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Energy and Climate Change to refuse all planning applications to build on sites where Solar PV farms will be developed.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Foxearth and Liston, Belchamp Saint Pauls and Belchamp Otten, and Pentlow Parishes, Essex,

Declares that the Petitioners object to the siting of Solar PV farms because they will exceed the 50 megawatt limitation as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 thus requiring consideration by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; further that these sites involve Grade II agricultural land which is within the top 21 per cent of agricultural land in the country and protected as such under the National Planning Policy Framework; further that the Department of Communities and Local Government issued in July 2013 planning guidance which referred to the requirements to consider technology and potential impacts on the local environment; further that there is an absence of locational need and a site search has not been fully carried out; further that the impact of the developments will be extensive and will include a two metre security fence on Greenfield land with significant consequences on the surrounding countryside; further that on two of the proposed sites a Grade I listed church and several Grade II listed houses will be overlooked; and further that the proposals are intended to last for 25 years but during that time they will effectively preclude agricultural use and will degrade the land and will impact upon the sites and surrounding areas.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Energy and Climate Change to refuse all planning applications to build on sites where Solar PV farms will be developed.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001290]

Dudley Magistrates Court

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

The petition calls on Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to drop proposals to close our criminal courts, which would leave Dudley the largest town in the UK without a criminal court. The fact that 2,000 people have signed our petition in just a few weeks shows how strongly local people feel. I record my thanks to magistrates and former magistrates, including Colin Knipe, Chris Smith and Barbara Sykes, for their help and advice. Magistrates, victims, witnesses and others directly involved with the court tell me that closure would make it harder for local victims to testify, harder for local people to volunteer in court and harder for the press to deter crime by reporting on local cases. Local people want to see criminals held to account for the crimes they commit in Dudley.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Ministry of Justice to stop criminal cases moving from Dudley Magistrates Court to criminal courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Dudley,

Declares that there are plans to move all criminal cases from Dudley Magistrates Court to courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall; further that the Petitioners believe justice should be seen to be done locally as it will be harder for local victims to testify, harder for local people to volunteer in court and harder for the press to deter crime by reporting on local cases; and further that moving the work of Dudley Magistrates Court may lead to current employees being made redundant or forced to move.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Ministry of Justice to stop criminal cases moving from Dudley Magistrates Court to criminal courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001291]

Safety of Headland Road, Leicester

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to present my first petition under your watchful eye?

Last Friday, in the company of Councillor Baljit Singh and Councillor Deepak Bajaj, I met Linden primary school and nearby residents who were concerned about traffic calming measures outside the school. They presented me with a petition with 414 signatures urging the Department for Communities and Local Government, with Leicester city council, to implement a 20 mph speed limit.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the proposed traffic calming measures on Headland Road in Leicester are vital in ensuring the safety of local school children at Linden Primary School.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government and Leicester City Council to implement the proposed measures, including the 20 mile per hour speed limit without delay and before the next designated review of traffic calming measures.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001292]

Urgent and Emergency Care Review

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

12:35

[Andy Burnham (Leigh) (Lab)]

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will update the House on Professor Sir Bruce Keogh’s urgent and emergency care review following this morning’s briefing to the media.

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

In January this year, the board of NHS England launched a review of urgent and emergency care in England. Urgent and emergency care covers a range of areas, including accident and emergency departments, NHS 111 centres and other emergency telephone services, ambulances, minor injury units, and urgent care centres. The review is being led by Professor Sir Bruce Keogh, NHS England’s medical director. A report on phase 1 of the review is being published tomorrow, and it is embargoed until then. [Interruption.] This is an NHS England report, and NHS England is an independent body, accountable to me through the mandate. The report that will be published tomorrow is a preliminary one, setting out initial thinking. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There are highly charged feelings on this matter, but the Secretary of State has been asked a question, and his reply must be heard.

[Mr Hunt]

I should underline the fact that this morning’s briefing was under embargo, an embargo which, to my knowledge, has been respected. The final version will be published in the new year.

Sir Bruce has said that he will outline initial proposals and recommendations for the future of urgent and emergency care services in England, which have been informed by an engagement exercise that took place between June and August this year. There will be further consultation on the proposals through a number of channels, including commissioning guidance and demonstrator sites. Another progress report will be produced in the spring of 2014.

Decisions on changing services are made at a local level by commissioners and providers, in consultation with all interested parties. That is exactly as it should be, as only then can the system be responsive to local needs. It is vital to ensure that both urgent and emergency care and the wider health and care system remain sustainable and readily understandable to patients. A and E performance levels have largely been maintained, thanks to the expertise and dedication of NHS staff. A and E departments see 95% of patients within four hours, and the figure has not dropped below the 95% target since the end of April. However, urgent and emergency care is falling behind the public’s needs and expectations.

The number of people going to A and E departments has risen historically, not least because of an ageing population. A million more people are coming through the doors than in 2010. Winter inevitably challenges the system further, which is why we are supporting the most under-pressure A and Es with an additional £250 million. Planning has started earlier than ever this year, and the NHS has been extremely focused on preparing for additional pressure.

We will look at Sir Bruce’s report extremely carefully. Reform of the urgent and emergency care system may take years to complete, but that does not mean that it is not achievable. We are exceptionally fortunate in this country to have in the NHS one of the world’s great institutions. NHS staff are working tirelessly to ensure that the care that people need will continue to be available to them, wherever and whenever they need it.

[Andy Burnham]

Rarely has this House been treated to a more disrespectful and complacent reply. There are new reports today of 12,000 patients spending 12 hours or more on trolleys in A and E. A and E is in crisis according to the College of Emergency Medicine, and this is before the winter has even started. People are increasingly asking, “Where are the Government and what are they doing about it?” So far all they have heard is, “Crisis? What crisis?” But behind the scenes it is a different story. Such is the panic in Whitehall, the Prime Minister has apparently taken personal charge and this morning the media were given a private briefing on a major review of emergency care. What is going on and why is the Secretary of State running scared, blaming NHS England and trying to keep this House in the dark? It should not be for us to drag the Secretary of State here to give Members information already passed to journalists.

Let me remind the House what the Secretary of State said at Health questions in July. He said that Bruce Keogh’s review

“will report this autumn, precisely so that we can make sure we learn any lessons we need to learn for this winter”.—[Official Report, 13 July 2013; Vol. 566, c. 902.]

To hear him now, it was all about the long term. Let me ask him: what are those lessons, and what immediate action is he now taking ahead of winter?

Weekend briefings suggested Sir Bruce emphasises alternatives to A and E, such as walk-in centres and 111, but Monitor reported yesterday that one in four walk-in centres have been closed and others are today under threat of closure. We need a clear answer. Will the Secretary of State stop further closures of walk-in centres? Does he now accept that his 111 helpline is flawed, and will he put nurses back on the end of the phone, rather than call handlers? And what of the recruitment crisis in A and E? There is a shortage of senior A and E doctors and, according to the Royal College of Nursing, 20,000 too few nurses. Will the Secretary of State give a clear commitment to bring all A and Es back up to safe staffing levels?

Last week, a complacent Prime Minister stood there, told us everything was fine, and even claimed that the average waiting time in A and E had gone down to 50 minutes, but that is not true. I have here a written reply from the public health Minister telling us it has gone up to over two and half hours. When are the Government going to show this House and the country some respect, cut the spin, and give us the real picture about a crisis that is happening right now?

[Mr Hunt]

Mr Speaker, I will tell the right hon. Gentleman what complacency is: it is refusing to have a public inquiry into Mid Staffs, where staff in A and E departments were bullied and harassed when they tried to speak out. He did not think it was worth having a public inquiry into the poor care that his Government swept under the carpet and which we are doing something about. There is one figure that he refused to mention: the A and E performance figures published last week of 96.4%—hitting the target, higher than the previous week, higher than this time last year. That sums it up: in a good week he wants to run down the performance of hard-working staff whereas this Government are backing them.

Why are we having an A and E review? It is to clear up the mess and confusion caused by 13 years of Labour mismanagement of our emergency services. The right hon. Gentleman talks about walk-in centres. Why were they introduced? Because of the disastrous mistake over the GP contract. The brave thing for his Government to have done would have been to admit they got that wrong and reverse it, but they did not. They introduced a whole new raft of services, which confused the public: A and E, walk-in centres, GP surgeries, telephone helplines. Tomorrow we will sort out those problems. Yes there are difficult decisions, but they are decisions his Government ducked and left the public exposed as a result.

Before the right hon. Gentleman runs down our A and E services, let me just gently remind him that he talked about a recruitment crisis, but we have 300 more A and E consultants than when he was Health Secretary, we have nearly 2,000 more people—[Interruption.] I am sorry that this is difficult for those on the Opposition Front Bench to listen to. We have nearly 2,000 more people being seen within four hours every single day than when the right hon. Gentleman was Health Secretary —that is some 700,000 more people every year. We have more hospital doctors, more hospital nurses, more treatments and fewer long waits than when he was Health Secretary, and he should celebrate that improvement in our NHS’s performance, instead of trying to run down the people on the front line.

I will tell the right hon. Gentleman something else we are doing. We are tackling the long-term causes of pressure in A and E that his Government absolutely failed to do: not just the GP contract but also the integration of the health and social care system, the lack of which means that hospitals are not able to discharge people from their beds on time, causing huge pressure. Today, the shadow Health Secretary has shown his true colours. The man whose Government made so many wrong decisions about A and E is exposed as trying to make political capital while this Government sort out his mess.

[David Tredinnick (Bosworth) (Con)]

How many extra lives does my right hon. Friend expect to save through consolidating the A and E facilities in London, by having a smaller number of hospitals with more doctors? Does he expect to replicate that across England?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The changes we announced in north-west London will save hundreds of lives, by using principles that we will hear more of from Sir Bruce tomorrow. In particular, we are putting 800 extra people into out-of-hospital care, which will help the frail elderly, many of whom should never go to A and E—it is the most confusing place that someone with advanced dementia can go. If we can treat them at home, it is better for them and for our hard-working A and E departments.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

May I assure the Secretary of State that the people of Exeter are not confused about their walk-in centres, but appreciate them and have been using them in ever-increasing numbers? These centres are now under threat, so will he at least admit that closing NHS walk-in centres and scrapping Labour’s GP access targets has been a dreadful mistake?

[Mr Hunt]

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman might like to hear what the British Medical Association said yesterday about walk-in centres. The BMA is not known for its support of Government policies, but it said that urgent care centres

“were often opened in places with little patient demand…The result has been a lot of money being spent on these facilities with some now closing because commissioners have found there is not sufficient demand”.

That is the problem we are sorting out.

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

One long-term cause of pressures in our A and E departments is the lack of parity of esteem between physical and mental health. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is unacceptable that two thirds of people experiencing a mental health crisis do not get access within four hours to a psychiatric assessment? Was it not a failure of the previous Government not to set access standards for people with mental health problems? Is it not time, as the mandate does today, to deliver just that?

[Mr Hunt]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right about that. We do need parity of esteem between mental and physical health. The situation puts particular pressure on A and E departments, including the one closest to this House, at St Thomas’s hospital, where people said that the biggest single worry they have and the biggest single thing that makes it difficult for them to meet their targets is the lack of quick access to psychiatric services. We are looking at this matter and he is right to highlight it.

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

The Minister said that changes taking place in urgent and emergency care are done locally for local need. What does he think of the following statement made by Sir David Nicholson last week before the Select Committee on Health? He said:

“We are bogged down in a morass of competition law…we have competition lawyers all over the place telling us what to do, which is causing enormous difficulty.”

Does the Secretary of State not agree that the Government were warned about that when they brought in the Health and Social Care Act 2012? They were told that competition law was going to create chaos in the NHS, and it is doing exactly that.

[Mr Hunt]

I think the right hon. Gentleman will find that some of the competition law powers that are being used and are causing Sir David worry were actually from the Enterprise Act 2002, which we are now looking at to see whether we can sort it out.

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

Is the Secretary of State aware that hospitals in Norfolk have recently made it clear to MPs that one of the key drivers of a big increase in people going to A and E is the fact that many people are not going to their doctor? Does he agree that it is essential that the GP contract of 2004 is rewritten so that doctors provide that 24/7 cover? When will he be able to sit down with the BMA and make real progress to right a serious mistake that the Opposition made?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks wisely. The most senior A and E doctor in the country, Professor Keith Willett, said that he thought that between 15% and 30% of the people attending A and E could be looked after in the community. This is a root cause of pressure. I am afraid that the Labour party needs to show some humility before it starts whipping up public concern about problems that it had a very big part in making. I am in the process of discussions with the BMA, and I hope my hon. Friend will not have to wait too long for some good news.

[Glenda Jackson (Hampstead and Kilburn) (Lab)]

Will the Keogh review genuinely examine the lack of parity in respect of those who are physically ill and those who are mentally ill? We are already suffering from a crisis in emergency mental health beds in London and we are seeing an increasing use of A and E departments for those who are mentally ill. Surely we should be looking at an increase in walk-in centres for the mentally ill, which have proven to be remarkably effective in helping those on the brink of a serious fall.

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the urgent emergency care we offer to people with mental health problems is not up to scratch and needs to be a great deal better. Different solutions will be appropriate in different parts of the country, but often going to a normal A and E is not the right approach. We need to consider whether, when people have such conditions, there can be better access to people who know them, their medical history and their condition and who are in a position to advise them in a way that means they do not end up doing what I have seen happening time and again in A and Es, where people end up as frequent fliers, going again and again to an A and E just because there is nowhere else to go. That is one thing that we are trying to sort out tomorrow.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

We have heard a lot today about NHS A and E services in England. Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether there are any lessons to be learned from A and E services in Labour-run Wales?

[Mr Hunt]

Wales has not met its A and E target since 2009 because the Welsh Government followed the advice of the shadow Health Secretary and cut the NHS budget by 8%.

[Mr Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) (Lab)]

This Government have been in power for three and a half years. They could have chosen to remedy some of the continuing problems in the health service, but what did they do? They decided to reorganise it from top to bottom. Is there any wonder there is a crisis this winter? Instead of closing A and Es and walk-in centres, why does the Secretary of State not walk away? It would give him more time to count his money.

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that thanks to the reorganisation that he is so bitterly against, we have 5,500 more doctors on the front line and 8,000 fewer managers. We would not be managing to hit our A and E target today if we had not taken the difficult decisions that the Leader of the House took when he was doing my job.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Geography dictates that my Montgomeryshire constituents depend on A and E services in hospitals in England. Will my right hon. Friend reassure us that devolution will not be allowed to create a health care iron curtain between England and Wales, and will he ensure that decisions on A and E services in Shropshire take account of the interests of my constituents?

[Mr Hunt]

We will absolutely ensure that there is no iron curtain, but I must say that the increasing number of people coming from Labour-run Wales to seek treatment in England is an indication that people are voting with their feet because they know where the NHS is being better run.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

On repeated occasions in this place, the Health Secretary has claimed to be saving A and Es when his proposals would remove intensive care units in many hospitals and allow blue-light ambulances to go sailing past their doors. Will the Health Secretary tell me what his definition of an A and E is?

[Mr Hunt]

That is exactly what tomorrow’s report is designed to clarify. It is not for me—[Interruption.] Let me say very straightforwardly—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I can scarcely hear the Secretary of State’s answers, and I want to hear them. Let us hear the response.

[Mr Hunt]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The hon. Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) will know that her constituents have some of the best stroke survival rates in England because we reduced the number of hospitals in London offering stroke services from 32 to eight. I am not going to stand in the way of those changes if they save lives.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

I very much look forward to the review, which is urgent. Given that accident and emergency departments do not operate in isolation, will the Secretary of State assure me that the review will consider the whole system, including support services, critical care units and the availability of specialist consultants—particularly those in paediatrics—who need to be available for an A and E to function effectively?

[Mr Hunt]

No one has campaigned more assiduously than my hon. Friend for his local hospital, despite the incredible tragedies and difficulties that it has been through and the pressures that has created for the people of Stafford. He is absolutely right: if we are going to solve the problem, we must consider the system holistically and consider how different A and E departments can specialise services. We need much more of a hub-and-spoke system, rather than one where every A and E has to offer exactly the same menu of services. If we do that, we will save more lives and that has to be the right thing to do.

[Mr Pat McFadden (Wolverhampton South East) (Lab)]

Following Monitor’s report yesterday on the closure of walk-in centres, is it not the case that at the heart of the Government’s NHS reforms is a massive shift in power from the consumers—the patients—to the producers of services? When the Government’s slogan is, in effect, “All power to the producers”, it is not surprising that services have been reorganised in a way that does not benefit patients. May I suggest that instead of sticking up for the BMA, the Secretary of State starts to stick up for patients?

[Mr Hunt]

After what happened at Mid Staffs, we will not take any lessons on sticking up for patients—none whatsoever. We are taking the power out of the hands of the managers in PCTs and SHAs and putting it into the hands of doctors on the front line who are seeing patients every day. That is the best thing we can possibly do.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My constituents tell me that they much prefer to go to their doctor than to any other centre. Will the Secretary of State try to get more doctors involved in out-of-hours care?

[Mr Hunt]

That is the tragedy of what happened in 2004, when the personal link between doctor and patient was broken because the previous Government abolished named GPs for every patient. My hon. Friend speaks very wisely, as that is exactly what most members of the public want—they want to be able to get in and see their own GP quickly and easily. That is at the heart of the problem that tomorrow’s review of A and E will seek to address.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

Notwithstanding the brilliant local work of nurses and doctors, hospitals like those in the Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust face real challenges, including bed shortages and people having to wait for many hours for tests such as X-rays and so on. Sometimes, people wait in A and E for 12 hours for a bed. Does that not demonstrate how reckless and dangerous it is for the Secretary of State’s Department to impose cuts of £30 million on that hospital trust this year and next year, and will he reconsider?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me gently remind the hon. Lady that we have protected the NHS budget—we took a very difficult decision—but how the NHS budget is spent in local areas is a matter for local discretion. It is challenging for all hospitals, because if we are to address the long-term stability of the NHS we need to spend more money out of hospitals, which means finding efficiency savings in hospitals. We do not want to duck those challenges, which is why we are having the review that will be published tomorrow.

[Angie Bray (Ealing Central and Acton) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will be aware that there are concerns about whether blue-light ambulance services will continue to define what an A and E is. Does he agree that for some years now victims of stroke, trauma and other serious problems have not necessarily gone to their local A and E but to specialist hospitals, and that that has been the reason behind the excellent improvement in outcomes?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. We have talked about stroke, so let me give another example, which is trauma. We have cut mortality rates by 20% as the result of a strategy to specialise trauma care. Those are the difficult decisions that the Government believe that we should not duck and that we need to face up to. If I may say so, when the Opposition were in power, they took a slightly wiser approach to the issue than the party political posturing we are getting today.

[Graham Jones (Hyndburn) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State earlier quoted the suggestion that GP walk-in centres were in the wrong places, where there was little demand. Last year, 33,000 people used the under-threat Accrington Victoria hospital walk-in centre, and now there is deep anger with the Conservative party. Will he explain how 36,000 people going to overstretched Royal Blackburn hospital A and E will help the situation there?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me extremely eloquently. Under the previous Government, we had a top-down, ham-fisted policy of opening walk-in centres everywhere as a sticking plaster solution to the disasters with their GP contract. Sometimes they were valuable services, sometimes they were not. We are clearing up the mess, but sometimes, when those centres are useful and important for the public, we will keep them.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

The origins of the recruitment crisis in A and E obviously predate this Government. Will Sir Bruce Keogh’s review highlight the local trusts, like that in Gloucestershire, which appear to have significantly worse recruitment and retention records than neighbouring trusts and have used it as a rationale for downgrading services—such as, in this case, those at Cheltenham general hospital?

[Mr Hunt]

I hope that it will. I hope that it will give clarity about the long-term future for A and E departments, which has been a difficult issue for this Government and for the previous Government. What people want is stability, and they want to know that there is a Government who are prepared to face up to difficult decisions. They want to know that they have a future, and I hope that tomorrow’s review is the first step towards providing that security.

[Mr Khalid Mahmood (Birmingham, Perry Barr) (Lab)]

Is the Secretary of State aware that the A and E crisis is creating a huge backlog in specialist procedures, and will Sir Bruce Keogh’s review take that into account?

[Mr Hunt]

The number of people waiting more than a year for an operation has gone down from 18,000, when the hon. Gentleman’s Government were in power, to fewer than 1,000 now. We have reduced long waits at a time of great pressure on the NHS, so I do not recognise the hon. Gentleman’s figures at all, I am afraid.

[Mr Lee Scott (Ilford North) (Con)]

My right hon. Friend will have seen the disastrous reports that have come in about Barking, Havering and Redbridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, with some of the most alarming things including a report of a baby being put in a stationery cupboard. I am sure that, as he said in a recent debate, he will conduct a full review of King George hospital. Can that be done urgently, as we are now in a very serious situation?

[Mr Hunt]

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising both publicly and privately his concerns about the hospital provision that his constituents face. We shall of course make sure that there is a proper review before any service changes are made. I hope that he will be reassured by the big change that happened this year with the introduction of an independent chief inspector of hospitals, who is going round the country rooting out poor care, not sweeping it under the carpet, as happened so often under the Labour Government.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State regret the loss of 6,000 nursing jobs since the last election?

[Mr Hunt]

The number of hospital nurses has gone up since the election, and as a result of the changes in the Francis report—the hon. Gentleman’s party refused to have a public inquiry many, many times—I hope that the NHS will recruit many more nurses.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The three Members for north Northamptonshire— the hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford), my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) and I—have come together on a cross-party basis, and are working with local clinical commissioning groups and Kettering general hospital to try to attract more investment to our local A and E because of the increase in the local population. May I share with the Secretary of State the fact that all agree that up to a third of attendees at A and E could be better treated closer to home, particularly in excellent urgent care centres such as that in Corby?

[Mr Hunt]

My hon. Friend speaks extremely wisely. He invited me to visit Kettering hospital, and I saw for myself that it was a very, very busy hospital. In the end, if we just stick with the current model we will reach bursting point, which is why we need to look at new models. That is why tomorrow’s review is important, and part of that—in fact, the bulk of the work in tomorrow’s review—is about how we transform out-of-hospital care, which is the big strategic change that we need to make in our NHS, and on which I am afraid the previous Government made so little progress.

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

Tomorrow’s review is supposed to deal with issues to do with this winter. Will the Secretary of State give the House an assurance that there will be no crisis of A and E on his watch this winter?

[Mr Hunt]

A and E departments are under huge pressure. We are seeing about 1 million more people every year than three years ago, and we have done more this year than has ever been done in NHS history to help to prepare the NHS for winter, including giving £250 million to 53 local health economies where the pressures are greatest. We continue to monitor the situation very, very closely to give more support where we can.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

The crisis in nurse vacancies and recruitment highlighted today by the Royal College of Nursing affects the North Tees and Hartlepool NHS Foundation Trust, which tells me that it has been forced to recruit trained nurses from the Philippines, as there are insufficient UK nurses available. What is the Secretary of State doing to address that particular part of his failure?

[Mr Hunt]

I have to gently say to the hon. Gentleman that recruiting nurses from the Philippines did not happen for the first time under this Government. One reason why those nurse vacancies have gone up is that the Government decided to conduct a public inquiry into what happened at Mid Staffs. The system reacts to that by wanting to hire more nurses, and I think that he should welcome that, not criticise it.

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

The report by the Health Select Committee on the A and E crisis found that only 16% of hospitals had the right level of consultant cover in A and E. Yesterday, we learned that half the vacancies for senior A and E doctors are unfilled, as doctors move to work overseas. The issue of staffing in A and E has been understood for the past three and half years, and there have been repeated warnings and reports. What has the Secretary of State done to address it and make sure that A and E wards have sufficient staff cover?

[Mr Hunt]

Recruiting 300 more A and E consultants than when the hon. Lady’s Government were in power.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

What has the Secretary of State got to say about the fact that in my area, compared with four years ago, it is harder to get a GP appointment. We no longer have NHS Direct, and cuts in adult social care mean that patients are not making room for other patients to go to A and E. The person raising that with me is the chief superintendant of Darlington police, who is fed up with his officers being held up by taking patients to A and E, as those patients would otherwise wait more than an hour for an ambulance?

[Mr Hunt]

The hon. Lady makes some important points, and I congratulate her on being the first Opposition Member to raise the fact that it has become harder and harder to get an appointment with a GP. [Interruption.] I know that it is hard to accept, but it is a fundamental problem, and a challenge facing our A and E departments that the Government are determined to sort out.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Before tomorrow’s report on the urgent and emergency care review, may I tell the House that in Northern Ireland, we treat urgent referrals by direction to the doctor on call and linking up with the chemist. Emergency referrals are done through hospitals, showing good practice and delivery. Is the Secretary of State prepared to contact the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Minister responsible to see how best practice works?

[Mr Hunt]

I am in regular contact with the Northern Ireland Minister for Health, Social Services and Public Safety about good practice in Northern Ireland, and I am delighted to hear that they are doing some good things in urgent and emergency care. We should be open to all good practice, not just in our country but all over the world.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State may have seen the report in The Sunday Times at the weekend about the dispute between the medical director for London, who said that 20% to 30% of blue-light A and Es should close, and Sir Bruce Keogh, who said that less than that should close. Disgracefully, the Secretary of State has not told us what is in Sir Bruce Keogh’s report, but we know that it is below that figure, so why did he announce to the House two weeks ago that four out of nine—45%—of blue-light A and Es in west London would close, pre-empting the Keogh review?

[Mr Hunt]

Because it is going to save the lives of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents; it will mean that 800 more people are employed in out-of-hospital care; it will mean three brand-new hospitals for the benefit of his constituents; it will mean seven-day working; and it will mean seven-day opening of GP surgeries. That is why.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

On reflection, does the Secretary of State regret the fact that he described people who felt ill enough to have to go to A and E on a number of occasions as “frequent flyers”? And would he like to apologise?

[Mr Hunt]

I am sorry, that is a completely ridiculous thing to say. I was using the phrase to talk about people who have to go back to the NHS time and again. The whole purpose of the reforms is to make sure that we give a better service to people who regularly use the NHS, and he should understand perfectly well what I was talking about.

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

What discussions has the Secretary of State had with his colleagues across government about the need for urgent additional investment in social care? Surely he appreciates that the savage cuts to local authority social care budgets have only added to the pressure on accident and emergency units.

[Mr Hunt]

I find it a little difficult to take a lesson from the right hon. Gentleman, as his Government cut social care funding per head when they were in power and when the economy was in much better shape than it has been since the financial collapse that they caused. If he looks at what we announced this summer, he will know that the Chancellor announced an extra £2 billion of support for the NHS budget going into social care to deal with precisely the problems that he raised.

[Mr Virendra Sharma (Ealing, Southall) (Lab)]

Last week, the Secretary of State assured—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but there was a lot of noise. I am sure that the House will wish to hear his question—let him start again.

[Mr Sharma]

Last week the Secretary of State assured me that A and E at Ealing hospital is safe, but since then we have heard very confusing and contradictory statements in the local area. First, will the Secretary of State reassure us today that the A and E department at Ealing hospital is safe in the future? Secondly, will he meet me and my colleagues from the west London area—I have written to him—to discuss our concerns and so that we can express our feelings?

[Mr Hunt]

I am always happy to meet colleagues if they have concerns about what is happening in their constituency, but I absolutely stand by what I said. There will remain an A and E at Ealing. That was the decision that I made because I wanted to give clarity, but I also said that the shape and size of that A and E may change in accordance with the announcement that is being made tomorrow by Sir Bruce Keogh. I hope that will give the hon. Gentleman further clarity and further certainty to reassure his constituents.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State has already acknowledged that keeping people in their own home is one important way to relieve the pressure on A and E. I do not understand why, if he wants to make a real difference, he will not reinvest the NHS underspend to make up for the cuts in local government and put it into social care.

[Mr Hunt]

We have put in an additional £2 billion—that makes a total of £3.8 billion being invested to support the social care budget. That is significant because it is recurring expenditure. We have shown our commitment by continuing to support the social care system through this Parliament. The trouble with underspends is that they depend on how many resources we have in any particular year. It is therefore much harder to invest off the back of them.

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

The Secretary of State has spoken about the importance of continuing care from one’s own GP to limit admissions to A and E, yet in Hackney, when GPs tried to take over and run the out-of-hours service, the commissioners were paralysed by the fear of legal challenge and, rather than putting patients’ interests first, put the rich lawyers’ interests first.

[Mr Hunt]

If I may say so, it was the Government whom the hon. Lady supported who removed the responsibility for out-of-hours care from GPs. I welcome and want to help any GPs who want to take it back.

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

This Secretary of State has been forced to answer more urgent questions in the House than even the Prime Minister about Mrs Bone. When will he stop blaming others about the mess he has made of our NHS, take some responsibility for the top-down reorganisation and get on with the job that he has been over-promoted to do?

[Mr Hunt]

Let me tell the hon. Gentleman how well the NHS is doing. If one listens to the rhetoric from the Opposition Benches, one could completely underestimate the hard work of people on the front line. There are 800,000 more operations being carried out every year in the NHS than ever happened under Labour. At the same time, long waits for operations have gone down. I think that is something to be proud of.

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

The response that the public health Minister gave to my written question showed that ambulance response times have increased over the past two years in 11 out of 12 trusts in England. Why is this happening?

[Mr Hunt]

Just as there is more pressure on A and E departments, there is also more pressure on ambulance services. We are treating that as very much part of how we support accident and emergency services over the coming period. There are particular pressures in the London area, the east of England and the east midlands, and we are doing everything we can to put those problems right.

[Helen Jones (Warrington North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State referred to the Chancellor’s recent announcement about money for social care, yet this is only a tiny fraction of what the Government have already taken out of the social care budget through their 30% cuts to councils. Did he not realise the impact that that would have on A and E, or did he just not care about it?

[Mr Hunt]

I am very conscious of the pressure that having to sort out Labour’s deficit is creating on all Government Departments, but the Opposition cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that they are in favour of fiscal responsibility and then complain about every single cut. The difficult decision that this Government took was to protect the NHS budget. That is something that the Opposition did not agree with. They wanted to cut the budget from its current levels.

Points of Order

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

13:14

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Last night at 9.9 pm, as the Prime Minister was addressing the lord mayor’s banquet in the City, the Chancellor announced that the autumn statement would be moved from Wednesday 4 to Thursday 5 December, to accommodate a prime ministerial trip to China and get the Prime Minister out of answering Prime Minister’s questions again.

Aside from the spectacle of major announcements to the House being arbitrarily shifted around to avoid inconveniencing the Chinese communist party, is it appropriate that the Chancellor announced this change on Twitter and not to the House? Even today, it has not been confirmed by a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper; nor was it mentioned during last week’s business questions. Given the fact that the Chancellor announced the original date by Twitter, too, will you rule on whether the Chancellor’s conduct is in order?

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her point of order.

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

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

The Leader of the House can come in in a moment, with pleasure. I am obliged to the hon. Lady for giving me advance notice of her intention to raise the point of order. The original date of the autumn statement was announced to the House during an earlier business question. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful for the long notice given. However, if something has been announced to the House about its future business, I would consider it courteous for the House to be informed formally of any change before the wider world was informed. A written statement would usually suffice if there were not sufficient occasion or urgency to justify a supplementary business statement. That is my very clear sense of the matter. I am obliged to the Leader of the House for his presence. If he wishes to rise to his feet, we are keen to hear him.

[Mr Lansley]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for raising the point of order, as it gives me an early opportunity to confirm to the House that the autumn statement that was previously announced during business questions as taking place on Wednesday 4 December will now take place on Thursday 5 December.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that. He will, I hope, have heard the statement from the Chair. To put it very candidly and bluntly, these announcements should be made to the House, not by the mechanism of Twitter. I think it is pretty clear.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You are used to the Government making announcements to the press before they come to the House to make them. What happened this morning is different. The press have been privately briefed and the Secretary of State for Health has come to the House still not prepared to tell the House what is in the Keogh review. Is this the first time this has happened? Do you agree that it should not happen again? Will you now order that the Keogh review is put in the Library today, so that we do not have to wait till tomorrow to find out what is in it?

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point of order. He asks whether this is the first time that this has happened. There are very few firsts in this place; most things have happened before at some stage or another. I am not sure that it is within my bailiwick to insist upon the deposit of the report today, as the hon. Gentleman rather earnestly beseeches me to do. I hope that he will not take offence when I say that he is rarely satisfied about anything. He is an experienced parliamentary hand and he knows that Members apply for permission to put urgent questions, and it is for the Speaker to decide whether to grant the urgent question. I did grant the urgent question, which carries its own message about my sense that it was important that the issue should be aired in the Chamber today. The hon. Gentleman took part, I believe, in the exercise, and I think we will leave it there for today.

Permitted Development (Basements)

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

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

13:18

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

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to regulate the construction of new basements and extensions to basements; and for connected purposes.

In a growing city, where house prices are enough to make grown men cry, what could have made more sense than amending the permitted development regulations in 2009, to allow residents to use their space more effectively and to build an extension, an attic conversion or a basement to provide more room for a growing family? Such is the logic that underpinned the amendment of those regulations, and the trend has been accelerated under this Government.

What no one could have foreseen is the impact that that would have in certain neighbourhoods in my constituency, and particularly elsewhere in central London, which is shocking even the most zealous advocates of planning deregulation. The grounds for such deregulation have literally, as well as metaphorically, been cut from underneath the feet of those advocates.

In my own borough of Westminster, the number of approvals given for basement excavations almost trebled between 2010 and 2012, while the number of applications that were refused fell: 518 basement applications have been made in the past four years alone, with only one in seven being refused. My understanding is that the figure for Kensington is closer to 1,000 applications, with 800 accepted. We should be in no doubt about the extent to which this trend will ripple outwards, particularly into more affluent communities.

Two factors make this picture even starker. First, basement excavations are overwhelmingly concentrated in a small number of postcode areas—Bayswater and St John’s Wood in my constituency, with the same pattern emerging in Kensington, Hammersmith, Camden and Brent. As the south-east Bayswater residents association says,

“Due to high property values there is inexorable pressure to build on every inch of spare space—now mainly by excavating basements, often with the loss of a garden—because building upwards is well controlled.”

Secondly, and crucially, we are not talking about the modest adaptation of a home for a growing family, or at least the kind of growing family that does not need a ballroom. Basement excavations have included ballrooms, swimming pools, spa complexes, gyms, gun rooms, private cinemas and garages with lifts and turntables for cars. They are not so much basements as vast subterranean pleasure palaces. Some people call them icebergs. I have likened looking down into one such scheme in St John’s Wood as being on the deck of an aircraft carrier.

One development in Kensington was recently described as being eight times the size of a typical London house. A Westminster example was described thus in the Evening Standard:

“Two mansions in Mayfair back on to each other,”

and the owners’ plan

“is to link them with a tunnel, creating a 14,000 sq ft underground area, with an enormous games room, sauna, pool, media room, car park and a plant room. Above that will be further bedrooms, staff rooms, two suites, a laundry room and security rooms. If and when it is completed, the combined home and its underground area will be marginally smaller than Westminster Cathedral.

In another case, four extra underground storeys include twelve bedrooms, seven bathrooms, a huge ballroom, a swimming pool, a hot tub, sauna and a massage room…carved out, going deeper into the London soil than the neighbouring buildings are tall. The Duchess of St Albans, a neighbour…has described the plan as ‘absolutely monstrous and unnecessary’ because ‘no one needs that much space’.

It is estimated that this scheme will involve shovelling 1,375 skipfuls of earth from under the house.”

Serious incidents arising from these excavations are, thankfully, still rare, but even so a skip fell through the road in a development in Belgravia last year, while a builder was buried alive in excavation works in Fulham. Worryingly, the Health and Safety Executive has delivered a damning verdict on the lack of safety in building sites across west London neighbourhoods where downward extensions were taking place. In April, the HSE reported that one in three of these luxury bunkers is being built with reckless disregard to the safety of the builders. It made unannounced visits to 110 domestic basement extension sites in the capital in March. It served 50 prohibition notices and stopped work at 34 sites. Poor excavation or structural support was found to be a recurrent problem, along with unsafe working at height, which is perhaps ironic for sites below ground level. The inspectors also visited 291 other sites during their month-long blitz, and of those 59 failed to meet approved safety standards—a failure rate of 20% compared with the basement failure rate of 31%.

What matters here is not just the impact of the individual project, but the cumulative impact of so many basement excavations on their neighbours and local communities. The fact is that residents are increasingly feeling under siege. Constituents of mine come to me reporting that first one immediate neighbour and then another are embarking on months, sometimes years, of excavation work, leaving them as islands in a sea of filth, noise, damaged roads and pavements, and worse. One constituent wrote last week to tell me:

“I know that two hundred year old houses do need work done on them but have a look at Hamilton Terrace”—

in NW8—

“It will be a building site and a development opportunity forever. A fine Georgian street has been turned into a greed magnet.”

Sometimes, works are carried out with sensitivity and consideration, often they are not, and it is not uncommon for the whole project to be managed through a company with which interaction is impossible. Sometimes, party wall agreements can be negotiated and are adhered to, but often residents found themselves massively outgunned by the companies and their lawyers, left in legal limbo or hugely out of pocket. As my constituent, Sir Hugh Cortazzi put it in a recent letter,

“Developers in their pursuit of profits generally do not seem to care about the convenience and amenities of local residents and neighbours.”

It is not just about near neighbours. We all have a common interest in the preservation of our trees, many of which face being compromised by the thin soil of gardens dug up and relaid over basement excavations. We have a shared interest in the preservation of our water table and the need to preserve soakaway capacity. The St John’s Wood Society says:

“Our planning committee is fully committed to doing all we can to preserve the character, gardens and historic buildings of the Conservation Area. We are…constantly thwarted by the lack of adequate planning policies to support our objections to excessive basement applications which are submitted, more often than not, by developers who have little or no interest in the area.

Unfortunately, current planning policy does not provide case officers with robust grounds for refusal which can be successfully upheld on appeal. Not only do these works take a long time to carry out…several schemes are being developed either simultaneously or consecutively and the situation has become intolerable for an ever increasing number of…residents. We are not against anyone improving and extending their homes…but the new brand of home extension in the shape of vast excavation works needs addressing urgently.”

Councils have found themselves unable to resist the rising tide of basement development, so now, four or five years in, they are developing local policies to restrict what can and cannot be done. But here is the rub, and the purpose of my Bill today. There is a real risk that their policies will turn out to be unenforceable. Already, Kensington council has had to delay the introduction of new, tougher policies, amid fears that they will not withstand a well-funded appeal. And well-funded appeals there will definitely be, since developers are investing, and hoping to gain from, sums of money that make the planning enforcement capacity of even a Kensington or Westminster council look puny. Westminster council is consulting on its new basement policy, too, but it recognises that there is only so much that it can do within the law as it stands.

The fact is that only a change in the law can help local councils do what they want to do to protect their residents. They need—our urban neighbourhoods and their residents need—statutory protection to underpin policies that would, for example, limit excavations to one storey and ensure that they are not built under listed buildings, that they do not take up more than 50% of gardens, that traffic management plans are in place, that the amount of space that is taken up is reduced from the current 85%, that they require the compulsory installation of pumps to prevent flooding from sewers, and much more.

Writing in his Evening Standard column, the Kensington resident and writer, Simon Jenkins, lamented that

“Giant diggers are advancing along the stucco terraces of Westminster and Kensington like monsters in H G Wells’ ‘War of the Worlds’. London’s guts are being ripped out. Its water table is subsiding into a gigantic marbled sump. No one is doing a blind thing about it.”

It is time to do something about it.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ms Karen Buck, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, Mark Field, Glenda Jackson, Frank Dobson, Barry Gardiner, Mr Gareth Thomas, Clive Efford and Mr Andy Slaughter present the Bill.

Ms Karen Buck accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 November and to be printed (Bill 127).

Opposition Day

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[11th Allotted Day]

Housing Benefit

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

13:29

[Rachel Reeves (Leeds West) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the social housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes; calls on the Government to end these deductions with immediate effect; furthermore calls for any cost of ending them to be covered by reversing tax cuts which will benefit the wealthiest and promote avoidance, and addressing the tax loss from disguised employment in construction; and further calls on the Government to use the funding set aside for discretionary housing payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation.

This is an important debate, which is why it is so good to see so many Opposition Members on the Benches behind me and so disappointing to see so few Government Members on the Benches opposite. I am also sorry that we will not be joined today by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who apparently has more urgent and important business at an intergovernmental conference in Paris. Some might welcome the fact that one of Parliament’s more dedicated Eurosceptics has suddenly developed such a passion for discussing his problems with our European partners—perhaps he has had a second epiphany—but those affected by his policy will be disappointed that he has chosen not to be here today to answer for the distress and disruption his policy is causing up and down the country and to explain himself to his victims, the more than 400,000 disabled people, as well as their families and carers, as many as 375,000 children forced out of their homes or pushed deeper into poverty and debt, and the foster carers and families of those serving in our armed forces who have also been hit. Those people are at the sharp end of the Prime Minister’s cost of living crisis. They are already struggling to survive and to do their best for their loved ones, yet they have been treated with callous disregard by this out-of-touch Government.

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Before the hon. Lady moves on from her remarks about the Secretary of State, is she really suggesting that he should not be discussing youth unemployment with other Heads of State? Is that what she will say the next time we discuss youth unemployment?

[Rachel Reeves]

Rather than going to a conference to discuss youth unemployment, he should be doing something about it in this country.

I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will have a chance to meet some of the people who have come to Parliament today, many of whom have travelled across the country, to tell their story and hear the debate. But even as they got off their trains and coaches in London this morning, the Secretary of State was already scuttling across the channel on the Eurostar.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

One of my constituents who could not be here today has a terminal illness. I wrote to the Minister about his case but was told that there could be no guarantee that he would not be affected by the bedroom tax. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Secretary of State has shown the same callous indifference by not being here to try to defend this indefensible policy?

[Rachel Reeves]

It is the same callous disregard that has been shown to over 400,000 disabled people in all our constituencies across the country. It is incredibly disappointing that the Secretary of State is not here to hear those stories today.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

In Brighton and Hove there are now 300 council tenants in arrears who were not in arrears before the bedroom tax was introduced, and 205 of them have disabilities. Does the hon. Lady agree that this is a despicable policy brought in by a Government who simply do not care and that it is having a disproportionate effect on people with disabilities?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. That is the story we are hearing in all our constituencies from people who are being hit by this policy and have nowhere to turn. Is not the truth that the Secretary of State does not want to answer for the waste and chaos in his Department, his failure to deliver the great welfare reform he promised, his failure to get more people into work and his failure to get the benefits bill down? He does not want to answer to this House, or to the British people, for the distress and damage he is causing, with desperate measures designed not to control costs or build a fairer system, but merely to distract from his own incompetence.

[Philip Davies (Shipley) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State promised that she would be tougher on welfare than this Government. Given that it was the previous Labour Government who introduced this policy in the first place, it seems that she is going to be not only not tougher than this Government on welfare, but not tougher than the previous Labour Government.

[Rachel Reeves]

We have been very clear about how we would pay for this policy, if indeed it costs as much as the Government have said it will: we would crack down on bogus self-employment in the construction industry, reverse the tax cut for hedge funds introduced in the Budget earlier this year and cancel the Chancellor’s failed “shares for rights” scheme. We have called this debate to bring the Government to their senses and to ask Members on both sides of the House to consult their consciences and their constituents and call a halt to the havoc this heartless policy has unleashed.

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

Is not the essence of that heartlessness the extent to which the policy affects carers? Carers UK has said that three quarters of the affected carers it surveyed were cutting back on food and electricity as a result, and one in six face eviction. How do the Government justify that?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, because many of the spare bedrooms are used by carers supporting some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies. We think that the time is now right for each and every Member of this House to show where they stand, because we know the facts. Stories of the hardship and heartache that the Secretary of State is causing are streaming in from every part of the country and every constituency.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

I commend my hon. Friend for bringing this motion before the House today. In Tameside, New Charter Housing has seen the number of people in arrears rise by two thirds as a result of being clobbered by this pernicious bedroom tax, yet Tameside council’s discretionary housing payments go nowhere near tackling the real problems families are facing. This is not creating new capacity in housing; it is clobbering the poorest the hardest.

[Rachel Reeves]

As in Tameside, two thirds of the budget for discretionary housing payment in my constituency has already been used, despite the council adding £250,000 to the budget.

I have heard heart-rending testimony about the tax. I have heard about a man who received worrying letters about rent arrears while in hospital for a triple heart bypass because he suddenly had to find another £18 a week to keep the specially adapted home he had lived in for most of his life. I have heard about a woman with young children who had found another flat with a family and wanted to swap, but she was in a Catch-22 situation because she could not move until she had paid off the arrears she had built up as a result of the bedroom tax. I have heard about a family with a disabled son who have discovered that the room that carers stay in is now designated as a spare bedroom with a charge of £14 a week.

In so many cases, local authorities and housing associations are put in impossible situations, trying to minimise the impact of this badly designed policy on local people. Decent people in tough situations who are doing their best and trying to survive are being trapped by an absurd policy that makes no sense. They are terrified of losing their homes or sinking deeper into poverty and unmanageable debt.

[Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is demonstrating through individual cases just how unfair this appalling policy is, but does she agree that it is also unworkable? Only last month in the borough of Sefton there were 4,963 people registered for a one-bedroom property, but just 10 such properties were available. Does that not demonstrate just how wrong the policy is?

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As well as being cruel, the policy is unworkable. I know that hon. Friends have heard many such stories, as many have already testified today, about people in their constituencies. I know that we will hear more this afternoon. We know that around 660,000 households across the country have been hit by this punitive tax. All the people affected are in this country, rather than in Paris, where the Secretary of State is today. Many of them have conditions that mean they need to sleep separately or accommodate carers or special equipment. A large number are families with children and they are already at or below the poverty line.

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I join my colleagues in commending my hon. Friend for securing the debate. She is listing the people affected. A constituent came to see me the other day, a father whose children stay with him at weekends. It is the only chance he gets to see them. One of the conditions is that they have a separate bedroom. He will be stopped having his children to stay as a result of these cruel measures.

[Rachel Reeves]

It is an anti-family policy as well as an anti-disabled people policy.

The average hit per household is £14 a week, or £720 a year. It might not sound much to members of the Cabinet, but it is more than the cost of a daily school meal. It is almost the entire cost of feeding a growing child for a year, or equivalent to someone losing all their child benefit for a second child.

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

Does the hon. Lady honestly think that the founders of the welfare state intended it to be used by single people to live in two, three or four-bedroom houses while families are living in overcrowded flats?

[Rachel Reeves]

When a Labour Government introduced the welfare state it was a safety net for some of the most vulnerable people. The 400,000 disabled people who are going to be hit by the bedroom tax are exactly the people who Beveridge’s and Clement Attlee’s welfare state were designed to protect—and shame on you for taking that safety net away.

Many of the people affected by the bedroom tax have nowhere else to go and no choice but to take the financial hit, making impossible choices between feeding their children, paying the gas and electricity bills, and paying the rent.

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

The hon. Lady talks about affected families. What does she say to the almost 400,000 families who are living in overcrowded situations when they look over their shoulders at the almost 1 million spare bedrooms in Britain?

[Rachel Reeves]

I say that instead of presiding over the lowest rate of house building since the 1920s, this Government should get on and build some houses.

No wonder the Trussell Trust—[Interruption.] Government Members do not want to hear about food banks, and nor does the Prime Minister, but they will hear about food banks. The Trussell Trust cites the bedroom tax as the key driver behind a threefold increase in the use of food banks since April this year. No wonder more people are turning to payday lenders and to food banks. No wonder the Samaritans are training up staff to help people left desperate and distraught by the Secretary of State’s bedroom tax. Those who do not move may end up in less suitable housing—homes without adaptations for people with disabilities, or where children have to change school or live further away from family or support networks.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that people who have dialysis at home, who have moved into homes with a spare bedroom specifically so that having the dialysis equipment in a sterile environment will allow them not to use hospitals, are being expected to pay bedroom tax for a room that is actually a hospital at home? This is an appalling waste of public money, because hospital care costs more.

[Rachel Reeves]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Hospital care costs more, but so does making adaptations to a new property, which is what will have to happen if people are moved.

People up and down the country are asking why. Why are we putting vulnerable families through this? Why are we hitting some of the hardest-pressed households in our country? Why are we hitting disabled people like this? Why did the Prime Minister introduce this policy on exactly the same day as cutting taxes for millionaires? It shows how out of touch this Prime Minister and his Government are.

The Government would like us to believe that the bedroom tax is cutting the benefits bill and dealing with under-occupancy in social housing, but it simply does not add up.

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

The shadow Secretary of State is providing a litany of cases, half of which are exempt under the legislation while many others will be beneficiaries of the discretionary housing payment, which this Government have trebled to £190 million per year. Did not her party in government introduce the local housing allowance to cover tenants in the private sector? Why is it one rule for them and one rule for others?

[Rachel Reeves]

First, as the hon. Lady knows, the Government’s policy is retrospective whereas in the private sector it is not. Also, the discretionary housing payments are not nearly enough to cover this. In my constituency in Leeds—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady has asked the question; perhaps she will listen to —[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is far too much noise—a complete cacophony of noise—on both sides of the Chamber, such that the Chair cannot even hear what is being said. I recognise the strength of feeling on both sides, but I appeal to Members, as I have said many times before, to have some regard for the way in which our proceedings are viewed by people outside this place, who would hope for some seemly conduct.

[Rachel Reeves]

Thank you, Mr Speaker.

In Leeds, where I am a Member of Parliament, two thirds of the budget has been used with less than half the year gone, despite the fact that the council has topped up the discretionary housing payment pot to help as many people as possible, so that money is not nearly sufficient to help all those who are hit, particularly disabled people.

[Huw Irranca-Davies (Ogmore) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this is not just a callous policy but a downright stupid one, because in my constituency we now have two and three-bedroom properties lying empty and unable to be modified, while housing associations throughout south Wales have rising levels of bad debts on their books that are jeopardising their financial security?

[Rachel Reeves]

I could not agree more. It is putting housing associations and local authorities in impossible situations where they potentially have to condemn housing that is perfectly fit for people to live in because people cannot afford the rent.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Can we nail the issue of dialysis, because these situations do happen? In my constituency, David Holdsworth is in renal failure and attached to tubes. He cannot occupy the same bedroom as his wife, and the other bedroom is occupied by their adult disabled daughter. They do not qualify for DHP—they have been denied it. This is more evidence of how pernicious this tax is and how out of touch this Government are with the most vulnerable in our society. [Interruption.]

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend. It is a shame that of instead of just shouting that he is wrong, no Conservative or Liberal Democrat MPs came to visit today’s lobby of Parliament by people who are affected by these policies. It is also a shame that the Secretary of State is in Paris rather than listening to these stories and hearing about the impact of his policy.

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

Obviously it was the Labour party in government that introduced the bedroom tax—in the private sector. On 19 January 2004, Labour Ministers said:

“We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector”.—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1075W.]

The question for the shadow Secretary of State is, “When did you change your policy?”

[Rachel Reeves]

It will be interesting to see which way the hon. Gentleman votes this evening given that his own party conference has said that this is an unfair tax. Will he vote with the Conservatives or with his own party? Let me be very clear: if I am Secretary of State in 2015, the first thing I will do is reverse this unfair and pernicious tax. It is a shame that his party and his Minister will not do likewise.

There is a contradiction at the heart of this policy that shows how disingenuous the Government’s justifications are for it. On the one hand, they say that it is necessary to deal with under-occupation and overcrowding, yet on the other that the benefit savings they are claiming assume that nobody moves. So which is it to be, because it cannot be both? Is this a policy to cut costs by getting social housing tenants to pay more, or is it a policy to move people out of their housing to avoid paying the tax, in which case it does not raise any money? It just does not add up.

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

Government Members have been calling out that this is a legitimate policy response to help with overcrowding, but the Government’s own impact assessment says that

“the highest rates of overcrowding are also those with the lowest percentage of under occupiers…this mechanism for encouraging the more efficient use of social housing may make less of an impact in those regions most affected.”

So the Government’s own impact assessment states that this policy is a nonsensical response to dealing with overcrowding.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. The justifications for this do not stack up. People are not moving but they are not paying either. More and more people are falling into arrears. As many as 50% of them, hit by the tax, are now behind with their rent. The loss to local authorities and housing associations is already running into tens of millions of pounds, and the cost of evicting all those who have not paid their rent and then dealing with the resulting homelessness could cost many times more. While the Government preside over the lowest level of new home building since the 1920s, their answer is to make the housing crisis even worse by making it harder for housing providers to meet local housing need by blowing another hole in their budget and destabilising their fragile finances further.

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

My hon. Friend will be aware of the research done by the centre for housing policy at York university on the lack of any financial benefits accrued from this policy. Does she agree that it is almost unheard of for such a policy to inflict so much misery on some of the most vulnerable in our society for so little financial benefit to the rest of the country?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Indeed, analysis by York university’s centre for housing policy suggests that this will cost £160 million, because the Department for Work Pensions has underestimated the impact on the housing benefit bill of people moving to the private rented sector.

According to the National Housing Federation, 100,000 disabled people—some of whom we have already heard about—live in properties specially adapted for their disability, but the average grant issued by local authorities for adaptations to homes stands at £6,000. The total cost of doing the adaptations all over again could run into tens of millions of pounds.

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

They’re exempt.

[Rachel Reeves]

Would the hon. Lady like to stand up and say they are exempt, because that is not Government policy?

[Heather Wheeler]

What I would really like the hon. Lady to explain is how, out of the 77,000-odd properties in Leeds, only 36 have been swapped. What this is about is making sure that people who are in overcrowded accommodation can live somewhere decent. Would the hon. Lady like to address that?

[Rachel Reeves]

The hon. Lady said from a sedentary position that disabled people are exempt, but she would not say it when she was on her feet because she knows it is not true.

Many of those who move will end up in the private rented sector, meaning that the housing benefit bill may be much higher. The National Housing Federation says that families removed from a two-bedroom home in the social sector to a one-bedroom home in the private rented sector would end up claiming an average £1,500 more in housing benefit. How can that make sense? How do the sums stack up? They do not.

To cap it all, we have learned of the absurdity—the complete and utter travesty—of housing associations looking to demolish homes that the Government now refuse to house people in, while the families being forced out by this policy are left to the private sector, where rents are higher and conditions are poorer.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

A young man who lives in Earls Court has total renal failure. His spare bedroom is a dialysis unit, but he has been told that he now has to pay the bedroom tax. He is very happy with the efforts of his Member of Parliament—who is not of my political persuasion—to attempt to free him from the chains of the bedroom tax, but my brother faces losing his home of 20 years for being a kidney patient. Does my hon. Friend not agree that this is beyond disgraceful?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that moving intervention. So many of us can give examples from our constituency surgeries. If Government Members were honest, they would say that they hear the same sorts of stories at their surgeries. They know that these people are not exempt.

This is not a housing policy or a way to get the benefits bill down. It is an attempt to victimise some of the most vulnerable families and most vulnerable people in our country, and it is making the housing crisis worse.

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

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. May I make a small plea? Traditional families and communities where people lived by their grandchildren, looked after one another and had mutual concern are being broken up throughout this country.

[Rachel Reeves]

I can think of another example from my constituency, where a gentleman has lived in his house for 30 years. He brought up his family there, but the estate he lives on is made up of three-bedroom properties and if he is forced to move he will be moving away from the people with whom he went to primary school and secondary school, and from his children and grandchildren. How can that be fair and right, and how will it help foster the big society that we used to hear so much about?

[Alison McGovern (Wirral South) (Lab)]

I pay tribute to the contribution my hon. Friend is making. Before she moves on from talking about personal cases, I think we should pay tribute to all those people who came and told us their personal stories. That is a hard thing for some people to do. They are the people who have really fought this campaign and we support them in this House today. Does my hon. Friend agree that we must pay tribute to the bravery and courage of people such as my constituent, Ms Davis from Bebington, who came forward and told their story?

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. Surgeries can be difficult when we discuss these issues with constituents and they break down in tears. It is people who have done the right thing, gone out to work and tried to support their families, but who have fallen on difficult times, done nothing wrong and whose children have left home or gone to university who will be saddled with this tax. I pay tribute to them for sharing their stories and to those who came to London this morning to tell us their heart-breaking stories.

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Is my hon. Friend aware that, in Islington borough, 3,100 families will be affected by the bedroom tax? The local authority is making a stupendous effort to build as much social housing as possible—the joke is that if someone moves their car, they will return to find that a flat has been built in its place—but even it has been able to let only 1,600 flats in the last year and it cannot keep up with the demand of people who need to move because of the bedroom tax, let alone because of the general housing crisis.

[Rachel Reeves]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

We say that it is time to stop this cruel and mad policy. It is time for Members on both sides of the House to take a stand. It is time to stand with the desperate families who are being forced out of their homes or forced into debt, and time to stand with anyone who knows anything about housing or homelessness, the plight of disabled people or the lives of children in poverty, who are all warning that this policy is fast becoming a fiasco. Indeed, it is time to stand with the father of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury and chair of the Lochaber housing association, Mr Di Alexander, who says that the policy is

“particularly unfair in that it penalises both our tenants and ourselves for not being able to magic up a supply of smaller properties.”

It is a shame that the Chief Secretary listens to the Prime Minister instead of to his father.

It is also a shame that the pensions Minister does not listen to his own party, which only last month, at the Liberal Democrat party conference, voted overwhelmingly against the bedroom tax, saying that it is

“discriminating against the most vulnerable in society”,

and noting that the Government have shown

“a lack of appreciation of the housing requirements of children and adults with disabilities and care needs”.

I am afraid that that is what we get with the Liberal Democrats: they say one thing at their conference and when they are out on the doorsteps, but they vote another way here when it really counts. When they could make a difference, they turn the other way. While the Secretary of State scuttles off to Paris, he gets his Liberal Democrat pensions Minister to defend a policy that is not even part of his brief and that is in contradiction with his own party’s policy. I say shame on him and shame on his party.

We know that tough decisions are needed to build a social security system that is fair for all and to bring the benefits bill down, but this policy does neither. It may well cost more than it saves, but to be absolutely certain that its reversal will require no extra borrowing we have identified the funds that could more than cover the costs. They will be raised by cracking down on bogus self-employment in the construction sector, reversing the tax cut for hedge funds announced in this year’s Budget and cancelling the Chancellor’s failed shares for rights scheme, which according to the Office for Budget Responsibility has opened up a tax loophole of up to £1 billion.

The Labour party is committed to reversing the bedroom tax, if elected in 2015, but we know that for many families that is too long to wait, so I hope that Members on both sides of the House will vote with us tonight. If the Government stick their heads in the sand, let no one be in any doubt that this will be the beginning, not the end, of our campaign to cancel this unjust and unworkable tax. If this Government do not repeal it, the next Labour Government will.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In a moment I shall call the Minister to move amendment (a) in the name of the Government. Before I do so, I remind the House that, in recognition of the enormous number of Members seeking to catch the eye of the Chair in this debate, I have imposed a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches. Let us first hear the Minister move amendment (a).

13:59

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Steve Webb)]

I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:

“notes the substantial structural deficit which was inherited from the previous Government and the need to get the nation’s finances back into shape; further notes the need to bring expenditure on housing benefit under control; further notes that the proposed reversal of this policy would cost the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year; regrets any exaggeration and misrepresentation of the effects of the policy; recognises the inequality of allowing social tenants to receive benefit for a spare bedroom whilst denying this opportunity to private tenants; supports the Government’s action to deal with this unfairness whilst protecting vulnerable groups such as pensioners and providing substantial funding through Discretionary Housing Payments to local authorities to support other tenants who would otherwise be adversely affected; further notes the Government’s continuing commitment to monitor the effects of the policy and the use of Discretionary Housing Payments; and welcomes the potential beneficial impact of this policy on those living in overcrowded accommodation and the 2.1 million families on waiting lists.’”

I begin by reasserting that the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is meeting European leaders at a long-arranged summit to tackle the vital issue of youth unemployment. The hon. Member for Leeds West (Rachel Reeves) might not think that a priority use of his time, but we do.

The hon. Lady’s motion did not mention people living in overcrowded accommodation. Indeed, the voice of those in overcrowded accommodation has not been heard from the Labour Benches, and it is the coalition Government who are speaking for those people. This policy will help to address those long-standing needs.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way in a moment, but I want to make a little progress. Let me take the first line of the Labour motion and change one word so that it reads,

“this House regrets the pernicious effect on vulnerable and in many cases disabled people of deductions being made from housing benefit paid to working age tenants in the private rented housing sector deemed to have an excess number of bedrooms in their homes”.

The Opposition position seems to be that this is pernicious and evil when it affects social tenants, yet not merely acceptable but policy when it affects private tenants. There are two coherent positions: one is the Government position that asks anyone on benefits to contribute towards the cost of an extra bedroom, and the other is to state that anyone on benefits will receive housing benefit, regardless of the size of house they need; that would cost a lot of money but it would be coherent. The Labour party’s position is incoherent. It states that social tenants should not have to pay towards an extra bedroom, but that private tenants should. We have heard cases of people who need extra bedrooms, for example for dialysis machines. Social tenants need an extra room for that machine, but private tenants should have to pay for it. Surely some mistake.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of the strangest things in this argument about the private rented sector is that during the passage of the Welfare Reform Bill I never once heard the Government mention it—it is one of those later justifications. The problem is that people in the private rented sector were not suddenly told one day, “Your house is too big; you have to start paying for the extra rooms regardless of whether you can move.” That is a huge difference and the two things are not comparable. If we want to talk about equalising, perhaps we should equalise rents.

[Steve Webb]

I am interested that the hon. Lady mentions rents, because if we compare private and social tenants, she is saying that social tenants, who already benefit from subsidised rent, should not have to pay for an extra bedroom, whereas private tenants paying a market rent should pay for it. That does not seem fair to me.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way in a moment. In an intervention on the hon. Member for Leeds West, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) pointed out something that has not hitherto been flagged up—Labour’s intention to extend the principle of the local housing allowance to social tenants. Let me quote Hansard from January 2004 when the late Malcolm Wicks stated:

“We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector…We aim to extend our reforms to the social rented sector as soon as rent restructuring and increased choice have created an improved market.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1075W.]

Interestingly, the Labour party planned to do that, yet when this Government do it, suddenly it is somebody else’s problem.

[John Hemming]

From what the Minister has said, the Labour party was quite happy to have a bedroom tax, not just in the private sector but also in the social rented sector as soon as rents had gone up.

[Steve Webb]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on drawing the House’s attention to the Labour party’s plans. Not only did the Labour party invent the principle of paying for an extra bedroom, it intended to extend it.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

What research did the Government do into the flexibility of the housing market, in both the private and public sectors, before introducing this policy? Was it a case of introducing the policy now, researching it next year, and reporting on it in 2015?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the flexibility of the housing market because to hear Labour Members one would imagine the market was static. When they talk about the availability of one-bedroom properties—someone said a moment ago that there were 10 available or something—those are empty one-bedroom properties. If one looks, for example, at social housing swap websites, significant numbers of social tenants are looking to free-up small properties and exchange with those looking for family-sized accommodation. There is plenty of evidence of fluidity. Tens of thousands of social tenants move house every year; this is not a static market.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

The Minister said that we are ignoring the potential benefits of his policy on overcrowded accommodation. Will he tell the House why his amendment includes the words “potential beneficial impact” and say how many people have been helped to date?

[Steve Webb]

I am pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman refer to overcrowding, because strangely that was an omission from the Labour motion. It is almost as if the voice of the overcrowded has not been heard. To give him a sense of scale, based on the English house condition survey we estimate that more than a quarter of a million households in social accommodation are overcrowded. Census data, which offer a different definition, suggest there are getting on for 400,000 overcrowded households. The research the Government are undertaking as the policy is rolled out will monitor the extent to which people are trading down and moving from overcrowded accommodation, and the extent to which they take jobs, take in lodgers or use discretionary housing payments. People can respond to the policy in a whole raft of ways, but the idea that we can have hundreds of thousands of people in overcrowded accommodation while there are free spare bedrooms does not seem fair.

[Mr Ellwood]

There is a sense of déjà vu in this debate because we discussed this issue in 2008 with reference to the private sector. Going back to 2008, one major problem is the lack of housing stock and new builds. Just 30% of new houses are single dwellings, although the demand for that is 60%. Does the Minister agree that that imbalance needs to be addressed?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. Labour Members say there is a mismatch between housing stock and housing need, but who was doing the house building for 13 years? Why do we have that mismatch? On the volume of social housing construction, I was shocked when I saw that in many years of the previous Labour Government, fewer than 25,000 new units of social housing were built per year. Even in these difficult economic circumstances, the coalition Government are already building more social housing every year than in most years of the Labour Government, and that will only increase.

[Mrs Main]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent point. Perhaps he would like to extend it by inviting the Labour shadow Minister to apologise for the failure to build social housing—a failure that Labour’s own spokesperson identified as woeful, bleak even.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is right. The level of new housing association properties built was well below 25,000 in 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and 2006. The Government are already building well over 25,000 social houses a year, and have further plans for expansion.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman began his contribution by talking about overcrowding, which is something Labour feels very strongly about, certainly in my borough. Part of the problem, however, is empty nesters—elderly people whose families have grown up. If the principle behind the bedroom tax is to free up homes and move people to smaller units, why does it not apply to pensioners?

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure whether the hon. Lady is encouraging us to apply the policy to pensioners.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Gentleman will be surprised to hear that I am doing my job and probing the Government to find out the purpose of this policy. He began with the justification of dealing with overcrowding—something I feel very strongly about after what I have seen in my surgeries—but my borough authority has always had a policy of speaking to people as they retire, and encouraging them to move onwards, not doing this.

[Steve Webb]

At least an Opposition Member is talking about overcrowding, which is a start—we might be making progress. The hon. Lady is right that we need to do more to assist and support older tenants to move into more suitable accommodation. One thing we have discovered in the course of doing that work is how little many social landlords knew about their tenants. We were shocked to discover that. Part of the process is social landlords engaging with their tenants and helping them to move to the right sort of accommodation.

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

My hon. Friend mentioned the mutual exchange service, otherwise known as HomeSwapper. Is he aware that 56,000 one-bedroom properties, 147,000 two-bedroom properties and 104,000 three-bedroom properties are available?

[Steve Webb]

We often hear from Opposition Members the refrain, “There aren’t the properties,” but my hon. Friend has exploded that myth. Significant numbers of people want to move from one-bedroom properties to two-bedroom properties, and from two-bedroom properties to three-bedroom properties. That will be facilitated by our measure.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I will give way to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Lochaber (Mr Kennedy).

[Mr Charles Kennedy (Ross, Skye and Lochaber) (LD)]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way—it is characteristically generous of him, particularly because he knows my past record and that I have been unable to give my support to his policy. I have a specific question on how the policy will develop. The Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs recommended some time ago that communities of fewer than 3,000 people could be exempted from the impact of the policy. I represent the largest geographic constituency in Britain, and that question is of great interest to the Highland council welfare committee. Will he please look at it?

[Steve Webb]

My right hon. Friend and his hon. Friends have been effective in lobbying for the needs of remote rural communities. That is why we specifically made available this year an additional £5 million, focused exclusively on remote rural communities, which face difficulty because of the distance people might have to travel to alternative accommodation. I hope that that Government decision this year has helped to address those concerns.

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

What solution does the Minister suggest for a Hebridean island where there are 105 houses, 50% of which are single occupancy, but only 20% of which have one bedroom? If people live on such islands, what is the solution?

[Steve Webb]

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman was listening a moment ago when I referred to the specific additional funding we have allocated to remote rural areas to respond to that problem.

[Philip Davies]

Does the Minister agree that the spare room subsidy is one reason why we do not have the right mix of housing? Social housing providers could build houses as big as they wanted, knowing that the Government would cover the full bill irrespectively. In that respect, does he deplore the social housing provider in my area, of which a Labour MP is a director? It complains on the one hand that it has too many three-bedroom houses—

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. Just to help hon. Members, we need shorter interventions. Many hon. Members wish to speak and the matter is important to all our constituencies, so we need short interventions.

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend raises an important point on the responsibility of social landlords to build housing stock to meet the needs of local people. For too long under the previous Government, that did not happen.

My hon. Friend made the point that some social landlords have worked the system. One or two hon. Members have shouted, “No, that cannot be the case,” but I want to refer to the oral evidence given by Fife council to the Scottish Affairs Committee. Fife council saw the arrangements as a nice little earner. Apropos of two-bedroom properties occupied by a single person, Fife council said:

“we have under-occupied them to maintain an income from them”.

It also stated that the

“progress that we had made in maintaining our income by allocating properties with perhaps a spare bedroom is under risk now.”

I do not apologise for that. The purpose of housing benefit is not to subsidise social landlords who are using the system; it is to help people who are in need.

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

The extra money that the Government have given to sparsely populated councils for discretionary housing payments has been welcome. It has helped Argyll and Bute in particular and other sparsely populated councils. Can my hon. Friend give me reassurances that it will continue in future years?

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend has been a doughty campaigner for his rural constituency. I cannot commit the Government to a further £5 million—that is the amount allocated this year for remote rural areas—but I am aware that the Chief Secretary to the Treasury tends to be quite sensitive to the needs of remote Scottish constituencies.

Let me address the amendment, because the shadow Secretary of State did not mention the state of the nation’s finances—she used to be an economist, so I am surprised she did not mention the subject. The context of the debate is a deficit in 2009-10 in excess of £150 billion a year. The previous Government were spending £4 for every £3 they raised in taxes—that was not investment for the long term, but borrowing money to pay today’s bills. There is nothing progressive or fair about asking our children to pay the costs of current spending to benefit ourselves. That is why the context needed to be addressed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I am going to make progress.

The deficit was £150 billion. How can we address that? The biggest area of public spending is the Department for Work and Pensions. More than half of that budget goes on pensioners and pensioner-related benefits, which we had pledged to protect. That meant that a very substantial budget—the working-age welfare budget—had to be addressed. The biggest income-related benefit is housing benefit. The biggest group of housing benefit recipients comprises social tenants. We are told that the Labour party would have sought to address the budget deficit, but if we are looking to do so, housing benefit for social tenants must be looked at. If we have to make savings in that, where do we do it? We look at spare rooms in the social housing sector.

However, some people legitimately have a need for an additional room or should not be asked to move. The issue of adapted accommodation was raised. We could have dealt with adapted accommodation in two ways. First, we could have written in a long, complicated statutory instrument what is and is not adapted accommodation. Clearly, just a hand rail would not constitute adapted accommodation and a whole extension probably would, but what about the properties in the middle? Given that there are often no records of how much has been spent on adaptation, trying to write that into the law of the land would not have been an effective way to help those in need.

We therefore decided that we would estimate the cost of protecting those with substantially adapted properties—our estimate was £25 million—and allocated the money to local authorities to assist those in need. [Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) says that it is not enough. Last year, we were told, if I remember rightly, that the discretionary housing payments we had made available for other housing benefits changes were “not enough,” but, at the end of the year, local authorities repaid to the Government £10 million of unspent discretionary housing payments.

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

I can absolutely guarantee that the Minister will not be getting any of his money back this year from any of the local authorities, and certainly not from Manchester. My constituency has among the highest number of people affected by the bedroom tax in the country. The money is fast running out, if it has not already run out, because there are far more people with adapted homes than there is money to go around. I can guarantee that he will not be getting any money back from Manchester city council this year.

[Steve Webb]

We have estimated £25 million to cover adapted properties. The hon. Lady might have better statistics than the Government on adapted properties, but I suspect that the default position of Labour Members is to say, “It’s not enough; it should be more.”

Let me address the issue directly to respond to the hon. Lady’s point. In 2012-13, we made available £60 million of discretionary housing payments. This year, we have trebled that amount to £180 million. That money is what we might call hard cash for hard cases—the cases to which hon. Members have referred. I say this sincerely to hon. Members: those who raise individual cases should be holding their local authorities to account. The Government have given local authorities the money to help people in need. In fact, we have gone further. Within year, we have allocated an extra £20 million for local authorities to bid for. If they have exhausted, or if they anticipate exhausting, their discretionary housing payments budgets, they can come to the Government for a top-up. So far, barely a dozen local authorities have asked for additional funding.

The hon. Member for Leeds West mentioned the strain being putting on her local authority’s discretionary housing payment. Leaving aside the fact that Leeds has an extraordinarily low rate of home swaps—in other words, is the local authority doing the right thing by its tenants?—it has not asked the Government for a share of the £20 million. If Leeds is so cash-strapped for DHPs, why has it not asked us for the money it says it needs, rather than turning away people it thinks are vulnerable?

[Robert Flello]

The Minister talks about cash-strapped authorities. Stoke-on-Trent has been the third hardest hit by cuts every year and simply cannot mop that up. He made a point about swaps. In Stoke-on-Trent, approximately 11,000 people are on the waiting list. Where are the one-bedroom flats? Where are the two-bedroom places? They do not exist in Stoke-on-Trent. Will he tell me where they are?

[Steve Webb]

The hon. Gentleman misses the point. He mistakes the issue of empty properties for properties that are currently accommodated. The social housing swap website indicates tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people in smaller properties who want to trade up, while people in larger properties want to trade down.

In response to the hon. Member for Manchester Central, I am rather startled by this figure, but it appears that last year Manchester local authority sent back to the Government £595,000 of unspent DHPs.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend and his colleagues for the extra allocation of money. My local authority has bid for an extra £600,000, which I hope it will receive. I supported the motion at the Liberal Democrat conference arguing for changes in this policy. [Interruption.] I will take no lessons from Labour Members. Will my hon. Friend look at exempting those who have applied and are eligible for a smaller property, and are waiting to be allocated?

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for referring to our policy motion, which is a darn sight better than the one we have been asked to consider by the Opposition. The Government are addressing many of the elements in our conference motion. For example, the motion calls for

“an immediate evaluation of the impact of the policy”

which we are undertaking, and

“A review of the amount allocated to local authorities for the Discretionary Housing Payment Fund”.

[Lucy Powell]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Minister incorrectly gave figures for last year—the bedroom tax was introduced only in April. I was talking about money that will come back this year. I can guarantee that the Minister will not be getting any money back from Manchester this year—the year of the bedroom tax.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. We do not need any help from those on the back row. That was not a point of order, but the hon. Lady has put her point on the record.

[Steve Webb]

I will come back to that in a moment.

I can assure my right hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) that we are addressing many of the points raised in the conference motion, not least because the motion congratulates our colleagues on their role in securing additional discretionary housing payments—something they can all be proud of.

The hon. Member for Manchester Central says that I referred to last year’s figures. I did, because we have not got to the end of this year yet. Last year, we stood here and other Opposition Members said about last year’s budget exactly what she has just said. We allocated DHPs for other changes to housing benefits. They said there would not be enough money, but at the end of the year substantial amounts were repaid.

[Lucy Powell]

rose—

[Steve Webb]

I have no idea what that gesture means, but last year we allocated just under £1 million to Manchester, of which more than £500,000 was repaid. This year we have allocated nearly £2 million to Manchester to address those concerns. If it finds that it is still short of cash, despite sending back £500,000 last year, we will of course consider an application to our top-up fund, which we have not so far received.

We have heard nothing from the—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. In fairness, a lot of people want to listen to this. All of our constituencies are affected and it is better if we all listen. The Minister has given way a lot. Hon. Members should indicate that they want the Minister to give way, but please accept it if he does not want to

[Steve Webb]

I am grateful, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am aware that a large number of hon. Members want to participate in the debate, so I will sum up the Government’s position.

The Opposition do not talk about the £150 billion deficit, because they are rightly embarrassed and are ashamed of the state in which they left our finances. They would have had to deal with the same deficit that we had to deal with, but we have no idea how they would have done so. The idea that they could reverse this change by finding £500 million from obscure corners is implausible. They could not raise anything like the sort of amounts they are talking about. We recognise that it is not appropriate to expect every person to move to a smaller property, which is why we have trebled the budget for discretionary housing payments. I say to Opposition Members and all my hon. Friends that if someone comes to see them with a legitimate reason not to trade down—they do not have an option to work, to take in a lodger, or to do the other things people do —the local authority should be asked to explain whether it has spent its cash and, if it has spent it, whether it has asked the Government for more cash. We can then have a conversation. Until that point, we need fairness between—

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

Order. I said that hon. Members should indicate if they want to intervene, but do not continue to stay on your feet, Mr Burden. It is for me to judge and for the Minister to give way. Please do not take advantage of the situation. That is not good for this Chamber.

[Steve Webb]

We need action on overcrowding, we need fairness between social and private tenants and we need action on the deficit. Those are the things we need. The Labour party has no answer to those problems. The coalition has addressed them. I commend the amendment to the House.

14:27

[Dame Anne Begg (Aberdeen South) (Lab)]

Let me begin by putting on record that I think that the bedroom tax should be abolished. This is a pernicious and vindictive measure that blames people and is causing a huge amount of distress. It blames, then punishes, people who very often have had little control or choice over the house in which they live. It punishes people whose crime is not to earn enough money to afford their rent. It punishes people who have lived in their council house for most of their lives but have temporarily lost their job and are now deemed as having an extra bedroom. It punishes the victims for a failure of housing supply, and punishes those who would like to move to a smaller property but cannot because none is available.

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

The hon. Lady says that the bedroom tax should be abolished. Does she agree that it should be abolished for private sector tenants, too?

[Dame Anne Begg]

There is a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of social housing. When my parents got their first council house, they thought that that was their home for life. That is not the same for people who rent in the private sector as a stepping stone to buying a house. My parents never had that expectation, and anyone who has lived in a council house would understand that.

The bedroom tax hits the most vulnerable, many of whom do not qualify, despite everything that has been said, for discretionary housing payments. In Aberdeen, I have been hearing the stories of people who have fallen on hard times and become victims of drug or alcohol abuse. They are now trying to get their lives back together but cannot, because they are being hit by the bedroom tax. For example, a 37-year-old merchant seaman sustained injuries in a car accident, and he therefore needed a ground-floor flat. He was allocated a two-bedroom flat because that was all there was, and he has now been hit by the bedroom tax. A 47-year-old disabled man, who, after his parents died, continued to live in the two-bedroom flat that he had been born in, has been hit by the bedroom tax.

[Caroline Lucas]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful case. Does she share my concern about the scale of debt being created by the Government’s brutal policy? Freedom of information figures show that one in three council house tenants are being pushed into rent arrears. Given that not enough smaller properties exist, how is that possibly fair or progressive?

[Dame Anne Begg]

And in many of my examples, people’s situations have been made worse, because they now have housing debts, so they cannot be re-housed and have to return to the very hostels that they thought they were escaping from.

Also hit by the bedroom tax is a 52-year-old woman who suffers from depression and chronic anxiety and who depends on her neighbour and so cannot contemplate a move. I know of many more examples. Some people would move but cannot, because suitable properties are not available, while others cannot move because they would lose the support that they depend on to lead independent lives.

Even if the Government do not accept Labour’s proposal to scrap the tax—I always live in hope—they must extend the exemptions. I shall propose just two very modest ones that they should accept, if only because, given how they have been shouting this afternoon, their Back Benchers obviously think these things are exempted already. The first exemption should apply to homes specifically adapted for disabled families, about which I really do not accept the Minister’s argument: this is a man who thinks that he will change the whole pensions system in Great Britain, yet he is not clever enough to come up with a definition of an adapted home. I don’t think so! The second exemption is for situations where it is unreasonable to expect a couple to share a bed or room because one or both have a disability.

On the first exemption, it is incredibly difficult and expensive for someone who needs adaptations to their house to move. Council tax regulations recognise that people who need extra room because of a disability pay council tax on a lower band, so it is ridiculous that this space requirement is not recognised in housing benefit regulations. I know from personal experience how difficult it is to find suitable housing and how long adaptations take to make, and this is an exemption that the Government could easily include.

On the second exemption, whoever in government thought it acceptable to expect a couple, one of whom is disabled, to share a bedroom clearly has no idea of the size of the average council house bedroom. It is certainly not big enough for a hospital bed, possibly some lifting equipment and a second bed for the other person, and such an arrangement would not give a good night’s sleep to someone who might also have an important caring role. Discretionary housing payment is not a solution. It is meant to be transitional—to get people from where they are now to where the Government want them to be —whereas the situations that I am describing are permanent.

I could talk about disabled children, but those two situations should certainly be exempted, and those people should not have to apply year on year either. No matter how much money is made available, it is wrong that they must apply for a discretionary payment, and the word “discretionary” is the key, because it means that they will not necessarily get the money. If Ministers do not accept the need to get rid of this measure, at least they could extend the exemptions; these modest measures would not cost more either, if what the Government say is right, because these people are already getting discretionary housing payments. The exemptions would alleviate a great deal of anxiety and make this appalling measure a bit more bearable for some of our constituents. But I stand by my original comment: it is time that this measure was abolished.

14:34

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

It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, opposing the main motion but supporting the amendment in the name of my right hon. Friends. It is also a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chairman of the Work and Pensions Committee. We might disagree on elements of the policy, but I appreciate that she holds her opinions very strongly.

Government Members are keen to create a fair housing market. It is astonishing to hear Opposition Members talk of the criteria, given that they voted for them with the introduction of the local housing allowance. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Robert Flello) talked about divorced families, but that situation happened before and still happens now. Why should those in the private sector or people who own their own homes be treated differently? I recognise the point about the retrospective nature of the policy, but the Government are trying to fix problems left unfixed by the last Government, and although some of these necessary changes might seem difficult, overall fairness is what truly matters.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

What would the hon. Lady say to Mr and Mrs Goodwin of Caerphilly borough, both of whom are registered blind, yet have to pay the bedroom tax? Where is the fairness there?

[Dr Coffey]

I do not know the details of the hon. Gentleman’s case, but I am sure that he is taking it up with his local council. Rather than responding to individual cases, however, I would prefer to stick to the principle of why we believe this to be fair and right. I will come to my reasons in a moment.

On social housing, as the Minister said, it would be wrong to expect thousands of homes to sit empty waiting for people to move in. I took up such a case in my own constituency recently. The local council said that it was not getting as much new homes bonus as it had expected, and I wondered whether that was because Suffolk, thought to be prosperous, was missing out. We looked into it and discovered that 120 of the homes sitting empty belonged to the local housing association. I found that extraordinary. So we brought the association in to find out what was being done to maximise the use of those houses—whether they were one, two or three-bedroom homes. Not only will Flagship have to pay more money council tax, if those homes are not used, because we have allowed councils to charge 100% for empty homes after a certain time, but maximising their use would help the council to keep more of its new homes bonus.

Of course, the market can operate in social housing, as has been eloquently explained, via house swapping. I understand that 392 house swaps have been arranged in north Kensington, compared to only nine in Doncaster. It is incumbent on Members to work with their councils to understand what they are doing to facilitate house swapping. From what I learned this morning, my own area is not doing enough, and I will pursue that matter in the future.

[Sheila Gilmore]

The problem is that the hon. Lady and her Front-Bench team do not seem to know what the policy is for. We hear that it might be about making savings, but if everyone slots into the right-sized house—according to the Government’s criteria, which I do not necessarily accept—there will be no saving. Is it about making savings or making better use of properties? If it is about making better use of properties, there are lots of better ways to do it.

[Dr Coffey]

The beauty of Government Members is that we think we can achieve both. We believe we can save the taxpayer money and put it towards the affordable homes programme. Our estimate—I appreciate that it is only an estimate and that we will have to wait and see—is that it will save £500 million a year. Meanwhile, we have set aside £4.5 billion for the affordable homes programme to build houses in this Parliament and are already arranging the programme for the next Parliament.

[Hywel Williams]

rose—

[Mr MacNeil]

rose—

[Dr Coffey]

I will not give way. I have given way already and lots of people want to speak.

With this policy, we are trying to achieve multiple aims, by making better use of the housing stock and working to get more housing built. It is worth noting that Labour voted against the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013, which is one of the things that we introduced to unblock housing developments.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen South and the Minister mentioned adaptations for disabled people. More than a quarter of my constituents are over 65, so hon. Members will not be surprised to learn that my constituency has a fair number of adapted houses and flats. It is appropriate that local councils should make an assessment and decide whether it is better for someone to stay in their home, rather than having to redo the adaptation somewhere else. I understand the point that the Minister made about this. If a wet room needed to be recreated, for example, there might well be merit in deciding that instead of someone having a three-bedroom house with a wet room, they should move to a one or two-bedroom apartment, as appropriate. We are saying to councils and housing associations that, instead of Whitehall setting those criteria, they should look after their housing stock together and ensure that people’s needs are met.

Listening to the stories that have come out today—I appreciate that they are personal stories about what people are experiencing—anyone would think that we in government had done nothing about this. However, we have allowed councils to retain the underspend in discretionary housing payments from previous years, and we have put in extra money for those payments. It is not as though we are sitting on our hands and doing nothing.

The last sentence of the Labour motion talks about using

“the funding set aside for discretionary housing payments to deal with under-occupation by funding local authorities so that they are better able to help people with the cost of moving to suitable accommodation.”

In an answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister has told me that a £20 million fund was set aside for new ideas for councils working together. At that time, only five councils had applied for that funding, and I would encourage our colleagues to speak to their councillors about that.

The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) talked about pensioners. There might be some people who can work an extra three hours to capture that extra £14 a week. [Hon. Members: “What?”] The Government are fixing the problems of the past. This debate reinforces the fact that we in government want to fix the problems, and that Labour remains the party of welfare.

14:41

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

I intend to use the term “bedroom tax” today and not “under-occupancy penalty” or “single room subsidy”. If that offends anyone, I can assure them they will not be anywhere near as offended as thousands of my constituents have been by this repulsive Government attack on disadvantaged and disabled people. The conflict surrounding the description of this despicable act reminds me of Margaret Thatcher’s attempt to force the term “community charge” down the throats of the British people. Not surprisingly, she failed, and history damned it as the poll tax. The same fate awaits the single room subsidy.

The policy itself will also fail because, like the poll tax, it is based on mean-mindedness and political dogma. It will be also rejected by Conservative and Liberal leaderships yet to come, and once it has gone—as it will do after the next election—it will be disowned. Even as Margaret Thatcher was being driven away from Downing street in tears, John Major was planning to ditch the poll tax. He had remembered what Mrs Thatcher had clearly forgotten: that, regardless of how big someone gets for their boots, if they want to win elections and stay in power they should keep in touch with public opinion. They should also bear in mind that our electorate are, I am proud to say, for the most part decent and fair-minded people who know a pig in a poke when they see one. John Major understood that, which is why he went on to win the next election in 1992.

Prime Ministers have their albatrosses, however: John Major’s was the exchange rate mechanism; Margaret Thatcher’s was the poll tax; Tony Blair’s was Iraq; and Jim Callaghan’s was the winter of discontent. The bedroom tax will belong to the present incumbent. As with the ancient mariner, it will hang round his neck in shame.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Gentleman might wish to check the recent opinion polls. We would appreciate it if he were more consistent about changing the rules for people on local housing allowance. If they were so bad for private sector rented flats, why is the situation so different for the public sector?

[Mr Crausby]

I do not think that my political principles have changed, to be perfectly honest. I would have put forward these same arguments prior to the election as well.

On a more serious point, nearly 2,500 people back home in Bolton have been affected, and more than 75% of them have fallen into arrears since April—so much for this being a money-saving measure.

[Sir Tony Cunningham (Workington) (Lab)]

On the difficulty of moving, I have a constituent who has got into arrears because of the bedroom tax. The only way in which she can get out of arrears is to move to a smaller property but, guess what, she cannot move because she is in arrears. Does not this demonstrate the madness of this policy?

[Mr Crausby]

Absolutely. I will come to that point in a moment.

The fact is that millions of pounds will be lost. That represents much-needed cash that needs to be spent on making living conditions better, not worse. The demand for debt advice and financial service advice is bound to soar, and housing staff will concentrate most of their efforts on chasing rent arrears and helping people to move—when they can, that is. Legal expenses will escalate, and the potential cost of evicting decent families is enormous. This additional expense might not come directly from the Government’s coffers, but it will come from British people’s pockets and, frankly, we have better things to spend it on.

One example of the measure’s inflexibility involves constituents of mine who have two children, a boy and a girl. The girl was nine when they moved in, just before the bedroom tax was implemented. They were not entitled to live in a three-bedroom house until she was 10, when she could no longer be expected to share a room with her brother. As a result, the family were penalised for months until she was 10. The problem with this cruel measure is that it is focused on punishing people, and not on dealing with the problems of under-occupancy.

Under-occupancy is plainly a problem, but the bedroom tax is definitely not the solution. Where is the justice in denying tenants the opportunity to move to smaller, more energy-efficient properties when there are hardly any available—that is certainly the case in my constituency —and at the same time penalising them financially? The sensible solution involves helping people and building affordable homes for rent. It also involves giving tenants an incentive to downsize, not making them suffer because they are poor and in receipt of welfare benefits. Back in Bolton, the Conservative and Liberal councillors actually get it, and they have voted for a council motion to abolish the bedroom tax—then again, maybe they understand what John Major understood when he abolished the poll tax.

14:48

[Heather Wheeler (South Derbyshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bolton North East (Mr Crausby). In my five minutes, I shall explain why what is going on in Labour-run councils is so different from what is going on in Conservative-run councils. I had the honour of being the leader of South Derbyshire district council when the Conservatives took control from the Labour group in 2007. In 2008, we implemented the Labour policy of the local homes allowance and we managed fine. That is coming along, and I am delighted to say that the present leader of the district council is my beloved husband. He is also managing fine. In our retained stock, 318 families are affected by the measure, and we have immediately adopted a policy of appointing a specific officer to talk to each of those 318 families.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Heather Wheeler]

I am not giving way; I have only five minutes.

The important issue is what we are doing about under-occupancy and what we are doing about the 1,700 families on the huge waiting list as a result of no new properties being built. I can say that in South Derbyshire—

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

rose—

[Heather Wheeler]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.

We saw this policy coming along in South Derbyshire for some time. What did we do? We built 88 new units of one and two-bedroom properties. Immediately, the council was able to swap 18 families, and Home Swappers was able to swap a further 86 families. We are proactive in South Derbyshire. We saw what was coming and we talked to the 318 families. The amount is £11.88 a week. Some 44 of the 318 families have said that they want to pay that £11.88.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Heather Wheeler]

No, I am not giving way to the hon. Lady.

That is what a proactive council does. I ask Labour Members: what are you doing talking to your Labour leader; what are you doing talking to your housing chairman; what are you doing talking to the Homes and Communities Agency; what are you all doing? The answer is, “Not enough”.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. The hon. Lady says “you”, but I am not responsible and I have no wish to be responsible for what she says.

[Heather Wheeler]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I apologise. What are Opposition Members doing about it? Clearly not enough.

I shall finish. This motion is despicable. Thank goodness for the reasoned amendment, which I shall vote for with great pleasure.

[Barbara Keeley]

rose—

[Heather Wheeler]

I will not give way.

Mr Deputy Speaker said that everyone in this Chamber is responsible for what goes on in their constituencies. For goodness’ sake, Labour Members should start leading in their constituencies.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

I do not think I quite said that, but I call Jessica Morden.

14:52

[Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.

The bedroom tax hits Wales the hardest, which is why it is good to see so many Members from Welsh constituencies on the Opposition Benches; I see that, on the Government Benches, Wales is represented by the lone voice of the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies).

[Barbara Keeley]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jessica Morden]

I will.

[Barbara Keeley]

I thank my hon. Friend, but it is a pity that the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler), who put questions to Labour Members, did not let any of us intervene. In my constituency, 280 households affected have been able to move—close to the hon. Lady’s 318—but 85% of affected households, which means 4,500 in Salford, cannot move. The hon. Lady should think a bit more about those figures: 300 is nothing in comparison with the work load of Opposition Members.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and she is exactly right. The bedroom tax particularly hits people in Wales—a point to which I shall return. The policy affects proportionally more housing benefit claimants in Wales than elsewhere in the UK, with 40,000 households affected by the bedroom tax—46% of working-age social housing tenants, when the UK average is 31%, and 25,000 of those have a disabled person living in the household. These are huge figures.

A little under a year ago, social housing tenants in my constituency received their letters telling them that, thanks to this coalition Government’s changes, they would have to pay more rent or move home—that is effectively their choice. Opposition Members warned then of the terrible impact the bedroom tax would have on some of our most vulnerable families, and of the fear and uncertainty it would bring. I hope the Minister does not underestimate in any way the palpable fear and anxiety felt out there among the disabled communities and families with small children.

[Mrs Moon]

Does my hon. Friend also appreciate the humiliation and the distress caused for many people with disabilities who have been forced to claim the discretionary housing payment? They have to fill in several pages of a claim form—the claim will often last only for six weeks—detailing, for example, how often they wet the bed, how often they need the bedding changed, how often they put the heating on, and so forth. That is a personal invasion, which they found humiliating.

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. That is not the only process they have to go through, either. The cumulative effect of the Government’s different benefit changes, particularly on disabled people, makes things all the more arduous for them.

The warning from Opposition Members was that far from saving money, this policy could end up costing money. The warning was that the very notion of tenants moving to smaller homes was clearly absurd, as there were nowhere near enough smaller properties for them to move into.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend recall the Government’s 2012 impact assessment, which said:

“Estimates of Housing Benefit savings are based upon the current profile of tenants in the social rented sector, with little tenant mobility assumed. If a significant number of tenants wished to move, this would reduce direct savings and place extra demands on social landlords.”

Does she agree that this confirms that the Government’s real intention was to balance the books on the backs of the poor and vulnerable?

[Jessica Morden]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is clear that the Government will save money only if people stay put and pay up, which is the fundamental point.

The shortage of housing is no more acute than in Wales, where traditional three-bedroom properties predominate and there is a huge shortage of smaller social properties. Again, the warning back then was that discretionary housing payments were not enough to help the disabled and that housing associations would be left with a burden of debt, and unenviable choices.

All those warnings were ignored by the Government coalition parties. Government Members said that debates such as this one were characterised by exaggeration, that we were painting too bleak a picture and that our predictions were inaccurate. Tragically, those predictions were not wrong.

All Members have constituency cases to quote, so here are just a few of mine from the last couple of weeks. The mother of a disabled child who up to now used the third bedroom as a sensory room for her autistic son, as recommended by a paediatrician, is now struggling to find the extra rent. A divorced father whose two sons normally stay with him during the summer months has had to move because he cannot afford to keep his current home and will no longer have that access to his children. The largest group is the numerous families with disability adaptations to their properties who have no prospect of being moved to smaller accommodation that fits their needs because it would cost far too much to adapt the new properties. It is now clear that the financial “assistance” provided to already cash-strapped local authorities is not enough, as I see every day in my case work.

[Lucy Powell]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Jessica Morden]

I would love to, but I am running out of time.

Local housing associations are working hard and using their creativity, doing their best to lessen the impact. From the work I see in my constituency, I realise that they know their tenants and have been in contact with them in the years preceding this situation. The simple fact remains that the vast majority of people hit by the bedroom tax have nowhere to move to within existing social housing provision.

A BBC Wales report earlier this year found four local authorities in Wales, including Monmouthshire, had no one-bedroom properties at all. In Wales, Shelter Cymru has argued that the chronic shortage of one and two-bedroom properties will drive many households into the private rented sector, where the local housing allowance for smaller two-bedroom properties outstrips the rents of three-bedroom social property. The difference is as much as 46% across Wales, and in Newport private rents are 36% higher. One Gwent housing association pointed out that every single private rented property is more expensive than the social rented property.

More damningly still, over the summer my office conducted some research on housing associations in Wales, showing that more than 50% of affected housing association tenants previously not in arrears—these people were always up to date with their rent—have now been plunged into debt and fallen behind on payments, with housing associations in Wales shouldering over £750,000 of extra debt. These are people who were up to date with their rent before April. When even the hon. Member for Monmouth commenting on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee report admitted publicly that the bedroom tax is simply not working in Wales due to the dearth of smaller properties, we know just how badly judged this policy is.

The bedroom tax is a bad and cruel policy. It is forcing people who cannot move into debt. I am thus very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) tabled the motion before us today.

14:58

[David T. C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Since we have heard a lot of anecdotes from Labour Members, perhaps I should tell one or two myself. I was contacted by the BBC—not an organisation known for its right-wing reactionary views—and asked to meet and talk to people affected by the spare room subsidy. I went along and heard some very interesting stories. I met a lady in her late 50s who had worked her entire life. Her family had left and she lived on her own in a house with too many bedrooms. She was going to have to move. Having been made redundant, she had gone out and got herself another job in an area where it was difficult to do that. I had a great deal of respect for that lady, and I still do. I feel sorry for her. I think one would have to have a heart of stone not to feel sorry for somebody in that position. However, when a system is spending billions of pounds and looking after millions of people and that system then changes, there will always be people with unfortunate stories to tell, and I believe that she was one of them.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

I will give way once, and once only, to an Opposition Member. If the hon. Gentleman wants me to give way now, I shall be happy to do so.

[Ian Murray]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity. There is a point that he and his hon. Friends continually miss. I have a constituent who is disabled and lives in a two-bedroom council property. Given that 660 people in my constituency are affected by the bedroom tax and 25,000 are on the housing list, the only way in which he can move to a one-bedroom property in Edinburgh is to go into the private sector. Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that that will cause the housing benefit bill to rise?

[David T. C. Davies]

Let me return to what I was saying. The BBC took me to meet three groups of people, whom it had chosen. The second lady whom I met was looking after four children. They were not her own children; she was their grandmother. The mother, because she was not the main carer for the children, was going to lose out on housing. What those people wanted were two large houses to look after the same family. While I felt sorry for everyone involved, including the children, I have to say that the state is not there to provide not one, but two sets of very large houses for people with large numbers of children.

Another question arose while I was meeting that lady, and it is a frank question. I never use the term “single mother” because I think that it is pejorative, and it has affected people in my own family. I think it is a generalisation. However, I have absolutely no hesitation in talking about feckless fathers. Those children had been brought into the world by a group of different males, and those males, having brought those children into the world, had disappeared and left the two ladies to try to bring them up themselves.

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[David T. C. Davies]

No. I said that I would give way only once to an Opposition Member.

I think it absolutely outrageous that so many young men in our society feel that they can go out, get women pregnant, allow them to have children, make them bring up those children by themselves—often on benefits—and then just disappear. That is utterly shocking. I hope that Ministers will note what I am saying, and that they will get hold of some of those feckless fathers, drag them off, make them work—put them in chains if necessary—and make them pay society back for the cost of bringing up the children whom they chose to bring into this world.

I also met a young couple, 17 years old, both of whom had never worked in their lives. They were living in a two-bedroom or perhaps a one-bedroom flat, and were being expected to suffer some inconvenience—perhaps to move into a studio flat. Let me say to Ministers that, in many instances, they are being far too generous. Why should the state pay for two people to set themselves up in what is frankly a teenage love nest? When I was 17 years old, if I wanted to see my girlfriend I would go and see her on a park bench in Newport. Why are the Government paying for those young people to have a flat all by themselves at all, regardless of whether it contains one bedroom or two?

I got into a lot of trouble, because I suggested to the young man that perhaps he should go out and find himself a job. He said that there were no jobs, which, incidentally, contradicted the example of the lady whom I had seen before him: she had found work. I said, “Why do you not move to where the work is?”, and immediately received a whole load of criticism.

I was even sent an e-mail from someone who wrote “You are a Christian. You should be serving the Lord. One day you will stand by the Lord and account for this hardship.” I wrote back to him saying, “I read my Bible. I do not see anything in the Bible that says that 17-year-olds should be given a flat, but I see plenty of examples of people who have had to move to find a better way of life: Abraham going off to the promised land, or Moses, or the disciples, who toured all over Europe. They all moved.”

Victoria station is a prime bit of expensive real estate. There is Boots, Costa Coffee and Starbucks, and there is an office which is recruiting people to work for Pret A Manger. I went there one day last week, and saw that there were 100 vacancies at Pret A Manger in central London. It was just waiting to take people on. Young people with an attitude and an ability to go out and do a bit of work can find a job with no problem whatsoever, and I do not think that we should be supporting them in the way that we are.

Opposition Members have heard a few anecdotes from me, because they have liked giving anecdotes themselves. What we have not heard from them is anything with much substance. They do not want to talk about the fact that they introduced a measure like this for the private sector. None of them will answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey). They do not want to talk about their disgraceful record on house building, which has led to a disgraceful level of overcrowding. Most of all, they do not want to talk about the fact that by borrowing hundreds of millions of pounds which they did not have, they created the financial crisis that forced us into this situation in the first place.

I am very happy to be here supporting the Government —the coalition Government—on this important issue today. I have only one criticism of the Front Bench, and that is this: the next time we are expected to come here and defend a policy with which all of us on these Benches agree, they should issue us with umbrellas, so that we can shield ourselves from the shower of crocodile tears that are raining down upon us from Opposition Members.

15:04

[Stephen Twigg (Liverpool, West Derby) (Lab/Co-op)]

I am not sure how to follow that, Mr Deputy Speaker, but I shall do my best.

I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), and also to other Government Members, including the Minister. At the end of the Minister’s speech, I concluded that they just did not get it. Almost a decade ago, the Secretary of State, who is not with us today, set up the Centre for Social Justice. He said then that his aim was to put social justice at the heart of British politics. What could be more opposed to that aim than this appalling, cruel and unjust policy of the bedroom tax?

The hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) said that 300 families in her constituency were affected by the tax. In a single ward in my constituency, Norris Green, more than 1,000 families are affected by it, and 2,500 are affected in the constituency as a whole. It is a totally different situation. One in six households in a ward that suffers enormous social and economic deprivation are faced with the cruel and unjust policy that she defended.

However, it is not just the cruelty and the injustice to which I am objecting. The bedroom tax also undermines the good work that is being done by social landlords working with local communities. We are seeing increasing amounts of rent arrears, and increasing numbers of void properties. Many people who are finding the money to pay this tax are having to give up other essentials as a result. As others have pointed out, they are going to food banks and to payday lenders. Two in three of those affected have disabled people living in their households, and—again, others have mentioned this—many of them have adapted their homes to meet the needs of their disability.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) said, the policy also undermines communities. Why should people who have lived in communities for decades, who have been born and have grown up in those communities, be forced to leave them?

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

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for highlighting some of the injustices of this policy. Does he agree that Labour councils such as the one in my patch in Carmarthenshire should introduce a no-evictions policy?

[Stephen Twigg]

I do not want to see people evicted, but I think that there is a more intelligent way of achieving what the hon. Gentleman and I want to see than merely adopting a slogan. I think that Labour and other councils all over the country are doing their very best to prevent evictions

In Merseyside a year ago, there were 1,378 empty properties run by social landlords; the figure is now 1,956. That is a 40% increase. In Liverpool, rent arrears have already risen by 12.5%, and we are only six months into this policy. We heard a great deal from the Minister about discretionary housing payments. The pot for Liverpool is £1.6 million, but the housing benefit shortfall that has resulted from the introduction of the bedroom tax is £7.5 million. In other words, less than a quarter is available through discretionary housing payments. A lady who came to my surgery last week had just received her second discretionary housing payment, with my support. It will last her until January, but the money simply will not be there in January for her to receive a third payment.

[Lucy Powell]

We heard about Manchester city council’s discretionary housing payment pot. I now have the figures. Manchester has been allocated £1.9 million, and £1.2 million of that has already been spent. Did my hon. Friend gather from the Minister, as I did, that he was guaranteeing that all those who qualified for money from the discretionary housing fund would be able to receive it later in the year?

[Stephen Twigg]

I listened carefully to what the Minister said, and it seemed to me that he was saying exactly that. I should appreciate an answer to my hon. Friend’s question from the Minister. If the needs of the lady in my constituency whom I have just mentioned are the same in January and there is no longer any money left in the pot in Liverpool, will the Government come up with the additional funds that are needed to ensure that those discretionary payments continue?

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

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stephen Twigg]

I have given way twice, so I shall not do so again.

I have also noticed a perverse effect of this policy on the constituents who come to see me. Often now, people who have been on the social housing waiting list for some time and who are entitled to a larger home are reluctant to move to a larger home. That is sometimes because they would have to pay more. However, I am meeting families who would not be subject to the bedroom tax but who are nervous of taking the larger property because they think their situation might change in the future—they might lose their job and therefore have to go on to housing benefit, or their sons or daughters might move away and suddenly they have spare bedrooms.

The result of this is not just a general increase in the number of empty properties, but, in particular, an increase in the number of empty larger properties. Liverpool Mutual Homes has had a brilliant programme over recent years of improving its properties so the standard is very high, yet it is finding it very difficult to fill those properties. In April last year LMH had just 18 vacant three-bedroom properties; that number has now trebled to 54. How can that be right, and in the name of dealing with overcrowding how can it make any sense to have an increase in the number of empty larger family properties in Liverpool and other communities around the country?

We heard earlier from the hon. Member for South Derbyshire about leadership. The Opposition are showing real leadership. This is an enormous issue in the city of Liverpool, in my constituency and across Merseyside. It is directly affecting families and communities across my constituency.

The Prime Minister said at last year’s Conservative party conference:

“Conservative methods are not just good for the strong and the successful but the best way to help the poor, and the weak, and the vulnerable.”

Where is the social justice in the bedroom tax? There is no justice. Where is the compassion we used to hear about from this Government? There is no compassion.

The promises we have heard—the words of the Minister today, the words of the Prime Minister last year—ring very hollow in my constituency, not just to those affected by the bedroom tax, but to others who care about the communities in which they live. This is a tax that hits the poor, the weak and the vulnerable. It is a symbol of the social injustice for which we know the Conservative party stands. I urge colleagues on both sides of the House, including the Liberal Democrats, to vote with us tonight against this cruel, unjust, unworkable bedroom tax.

15:12

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

I voted against this policy before and I will again be voting against the Government today, but I have to say that the Labour motion is tortuous and convoluted and not very well argued. My hon. Friend the Minister who opened the debate for the Government is right that the Labour party is incoherent in that it brought forward policies introducing a bedroom tax in the private sector yet opposes it, on the basis of a principle it claims to abide by, in relation to this measure.

[Ms Buck]

I want to nail that argument, which we have heard time and again from the Conservative party. The fact is that the local housing allowance did not apply to existing tenants. That is the fundamental difference.

[Andrew George]

The point still applies because ultimately the previous Government were seeking to achieve exactly what the current Government want to achieve in respect of the social rented sector.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Andrew George]

I will not give way again on that point.

The debate has thus far largely focused on talking about a ghetto—or, rather, reservation—of people who live in social rented accommodation. It is, however, important to place this debate in the context of the way in which the whole housing market works and the important role social housing plays in relation to that.

In my constituency, many properties are sold as recreational investments to wealthy investors to be used as a second home or holiday home. Meanwhile, some hard-working, low-paid families will be evicted from their council houses because the Government believe they have one more bedroom than they deserve. I voted against this policy previously and my opposition to it is, if anything, even stronger now that I have met many of my constituents who are affected by it.

This policy will not increase the stock of desperately needed affordable homes for local people. The spare room penalty or bedroom tax victimises the most marginalised in our communities, undermines family life, penalises the hard-working low-paid for being prepared to stomach low-paid work, and masks the excessive cost and disruption to the disabled who have to move from expensively adapted homes. It is, in my view, Dickensian in its social divisiveness. It is an immoral policy.

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman is making a good speech and I am glad he will vote with us tonight. Does he agree that one of the most vindictive aspects of this policy is the way it penalises carers? I have mentioned the Carers UK research on how carers are being affected. It found that among the households affected, one in six carers—people who cannot get more hours of work because they have given up their jobs to care—had rent arrears and faced possible evictions.

[Andrew George]

The hon. Lady makes a very good point. I think this policy has been introduced in such a headlong rush that some of the inconsistencies and consequences have not been thought through carefully enough. The issue has been approached from entirely the wrong angle. If there is a problem with the housing stock, it is wrong that people in the social housing sector who are apparently over-housed should, in effect, be blamed by people elsewhere in the local community who are rather under-housed. They are being blamed for the effects of the failure of successive Governments to build enough affordable homes of sufficient size to give communities the flexibility to be able to ensure that local families have accommodation of adequate size and to meet the range of needs that exist.

The Liberal Democrats have proposed a mansion tax. That has been opposed by some people with large mansions who are quite happy to impose a bedroom tax on people who are clearly going to be severely affected by that. Furthermore, in rural areas like mine, many of the people who are affected and who are prepared to uproot themselves and move—in many cases from long-standing family homes to a smaller property—cannot find a property within 20, 30, 40 and sometimes 50 miles. In order for many rural areas to be able to comply with this policy, people have to uproot themselves from their community and place of work, their children’s schooling, their church, and their social and family networks—from everything—and go to alien places. Even in Cornwall there are places which many Cornish folk would find alien to them. That is the only option for them, however, other than having to face extremely penal charges in order to carry on living in their current home.

I was involved in building affordable homes for local people before I was elected to this place. We tried to introduce new schemes with sufficient three and four-bedroom accommodation to ensure that the community would in future have the flexibility to meet the range of needs that might arise. That was important because these properties would be available for decades. This tax will discourage housing associations and others who want to build housing in years to come from making sure they build a broad range of properties and thereby provide the flexibility to meet future needs. They will instead build smaller properties, which will result in increased overcrowding in future. If we go in that direction, we will end up with further ghettos. The ghettos of the future will be built as a result of this policy. That will be the consequence of going forward on this basis. If this policy is not based on a prejudice in respect of some of those who are marginalised, many of whom do not vote, I am sorry to say that it is based on an indifference to the most vulnerable families in our communities.

15:19

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

I rise to support the motion, but before I do so, I would like to express my deep appreciation to all hon. Members who have expressed their condolences on the death of Eddie McGrady; their sympathy is deeply appreciated, and I thank them for it.

The bedroom tax is a pernicious and cruel tax that is causing untold hardship to the most vulnerable in our society. This crude and ill-thought-out levy is perhaps the least palatable part of the Government’s welfare reform programme. Only parties so detached from the lives and struggles of ordinary people could be so heartless as to inflict this tax, which is causing so much hurt to people whose only crime seems to be that they cannot afford to buy their own home. The fact that the Government—or, more correctly perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister—have been dragged kicking and screaming into undertaking independent research into the impact of it all tells its own story; in his heart, he must know that this tax is wrong.

[Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab)]

While recognising that the Deputy Prime Minister has been dragged kicking and screaming into this, does the hon. Gentleman find it regrettable that the review of the bedroom tax will not come through until 2015?

[Dr McDonnell]

Yes, I do, and I am deeply concerned about that. However, we do not need any more research to tell us that this tax is wrong and that it will inflict an inordinate degree of hardship that shames us all, and the Government in particular. Those who are suffering from the impact of this tax—they are some of the very weakest in our society—do not want research on how it will affect them; they want these cruel deductions in housing benefit stopped, and stopped now.

I represent a constituency in Northern Ireland where the bedroom tax has not yet been introduced, and my colleagues in the Northern Ireland Assembly and I are fighting tooth and nail to prevent it from happening. That is because more than 32,500 households in Northern Ireland are bracing themselves for the pain and suffering this tax would cause. They look at what is happening on this side of the Irish sea and they are deeply fearful. A couple of aspects of this bedroom tax make it an even crazier proposition for us in Northern Ireland: we quite simply do not have the required housing stock for people to downsize, and the stock we do have is, sadly, segregated.

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

I welcome everything that the hon. Gentleman has said. Does he agree that there are times in this House when things are so profoundly wrong that those on both sides of the House recognise it, but the trouble is that some cannot get around to admitting simply that they were wrong? Will he urge those who have not yet been convinced to say exactly that?

[Dr McDonnell]

I agree entirely with the right hon. Gentleman The point about this tax is that when it was introduced it looked bad, but with every week that goes past it looks worse. We have to do what we can. With all honesty and all integrity, I can say that I think it is damaging, and I will come on to say why.

Given the number of people on disability payments in Northern Ireland, the lack of alternative housing and the complicated matter of segregated housing, which I have mentioned, the bedroom tax poses us unique challenges that are currently being overlooked here. These issues do not particularly affect this side of the Irish sea, so let me go into them in some detail.

The Northern Ireland Housing Executive manages mainly three-bedroom homes that were built 20 to 30 years ago, because that is what we needed then, and it is facing unique pressures because of these benefit reforms. Even if some of the 32,500 households affected request to be rehoused in smaller properties, the smaller properties they require simply do not exist at this stage and it will take us 10 years at least to get them built. Northern Ireland does not have enough small homes to cater for people forced to downsize.

The unique and sensitive situation of segregated housing in Northern Ireland makes things even worse and needs to be taken into consideration. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission has come out against the bedroom tax, highlighting the pockets of deep poverty and the fact that more than 90% of public housing is segregated along religious lines—that is a hangover from the troubles, whereby people are segregated for safety. Northern Ireland is facing unique, exceptional challenges that would be severely worsened by the tax. It is failing the most vulnerable in society and no Government could or should be very proud of that.

Not only would the bedroom tax be cruel and savage in Northern Ireland, but it would be illogical. Research has shown that implementing the bedroom tax in Northern Ireland would cost more than it would save or was designed to save. The Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations and the Chartered Institute of Housing have published figures showing that implementing the tax would cost the housing associations and the Northern Ireland Housing Executive £21 million per year, but would save only £17 million per year, so the mathematics of this brutal tax do not make sense either. I draw the House’s attention to the following words from Cameron Watt, chief executive of the Northern Ireland Federation of Housing Associations:

“It’s clear that the numbers don't add up on bedroom tax. Northern Ireland cannot afford the human or economic damage this policy would inflict.”

The Social Democratic and Labour party, which I represent, has social justice as a core pillar of its purpose and its existence as a political organisation. The bedroom tax is a clear assault on social justice, as was demonstrated clearly by the Housing Rights Service, which provides independent housing advice and training in Northern Ireland. The HRS has told us how it is already being contacted by many social housing tenants who are living in fear and dread of the bedroom tax. Many of those tenants have lived in the same home, as secure tenants, for a lifetime and cannot understand why they should suddenly be asked to pay more or get out. The HRS has told us about

“clients with disabilities who need an additional bedroom to store medical equipment”,

and we have heard about that again today. The HRS has also spoken of

“single fathers who require more than one bedroom to facilitate overnight access to children.”

The introduction of a bedroom tax and the implementation of the under-occupancy penalty can only result in increased hardship, confusion and the erosion of community cohesion. This is a bad tax, a pernicious tax, and it is my fervent hope that, like the poll tax, it is consigned to the dustbin.

15:27

[Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con)]

Before I make my speech, let me say that I listened to the passionate remarks made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), who was really unhappy about the impact of the benefit changes. However, perhaps he would like to speak to his Labour-run Liverpool council and ask why, when it received £892,000 in discretionary housing payments last year, it actually sent back £337,000. Perhaps he could take that up when he leaves the Chamber—

[Stephen Twigg]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not take an intervention—[Interruption.]

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order—[Interruption.] Order. That means you, too, Mr Rotheram. Let us calm down. The hon. Lady has made a statement and I think Mr Twigg would like to have caught her eye, but it is up to the Member who has the Floor whether they want to take an intervention.

[Mrs Main]

Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I think that Mr Twigg can just ponder for a while—[Interruption.] I am going to shock the Opposition, who obviously want to shout me down. Unicorns do not exist, fairies do not exist and a bedroom tax does not exist.

[Stephen Twigg]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady did not show me or the House the courtesy of allowing me to intervene after she referred to something that I had said. Does she accept that the figures that she has given are from before the bedroom tax was introduced? This year, Liverpool city council will certainly spend the entire discretionary housing pot.

[Mr Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order, but it was certainly a point of clarification.

[Mrs Main]

As I was about to say, unicorns do not exist, fairies do not exist and—it does not matter how often Opposition Members say it—a bedroom tax does not exist. I found it very interesting when we all looked at our Order Papers yesterday and there it was: we were going to discuss a bedroom tax. Funnily enough, however, we are not discussing a bedroom tax, because it does not exist and it would be procedurally out of order for us to debate it. The mishmash of today’s debate has been rushed through because the Opposition realise that by closing their eyes and saying the wishful words “bedroom tax” they cannot conjure one up—it does not exist. If they consult Tolley’s tax guide, they will see that they are being financially illiterate—

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way. The hon. Lady can make her own remarks.

It appears that in trying to garner support for the incoherent policy that tried to level the playing field with the private rented sector—I thought that was a good idea as a Labour party policy—Labour started the process that should have been continued by ensuring that people paid for the accommodation that they were using. I have not heard from Opposition Members—perhaps they can illuminate the House and the public on this point during their speeches—what, if they choose to get rid of the inequality of a bedroom tax, which obviously does not exist, but let us go with the fantasy for a moment, they will do when they are in power. Will they allow the anomaly, or will they pledge, at goodness knows what expense, to reverse the proposals that they introduced in 2008?

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, I will not give way to the hon. Lady.

The Opposition should also address overcrowding. As yet, they have not done what Mr Tom Copley says that they should do and apologise for the fact that they never addressed the dire need to build more social housing to allow—

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

rose—

[Mrs Main]

No, the hon. Lady will have her time at the end.

Mr Copley said:

“As a Labour politician one of the things that really galls me is that there’s this statistic that more council homes were built in the last year of Thatcher’s government than were built in the 13 years of Labour government, and that’s something I think as a Labour Party we need to apologise for.”

The apology needs to be made because the dearth of social housing that we inherited was a direct result of Labour’s inability in the good times to deliver sufficient adequate social housing. The Labour party should be ashamed of itself and it should apologise.

I do not think that the Opposition has a coherent policy. They want to penalise people in the private rented sector. They are not making any commitment to redress the imbalance, yet they wish to have what they see as a core vote that might be deserting them in droves. We helped the aspirational working class during Thatcher’s era under the right to buy, but unlike us, they introduced a policy to penalise only the private sector. Labour is the party of inequality, not the party of equality. I congratulate the coalition Government on all their efforts to level the playing field for more people both in social and private rented housing.

15:28

[Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab)]

I invite the hon. Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) to come to my constituency and ask my constituents whether the bedroom tax exists or whether they are away with the fairies.

[Mrs Main]

rose—

[Sandra Osborne]

I am happy to give way.

[Mrs Main]

I am delighted that the hon. Lady wishes to give herself another minute, although her colleagues might object. Would she like to explain how Labour was prepared to level a tax on the private rented sector and why they believe another tax is being introduced in the social rented sector when no such tax exists? Why are they shroud waving?

[Sandra Osborne]

The hon. Lady’s question has been answered by colleagues on numerous occasions today and it is an absolute red herring.

We can all accept that welfare reform is necessary, but it must be based on what is fair and what best protects the most vulnerable. In other words, it must provide a secure safety net. Plenty of people are plummeting to the ground right now in my constituency. The Government’s reform is based on pure populism; they are picking on the poor and turning one section of the community against the least well-off, many of them disabled, while having the bare-faced cheek to say that we are all in it together.

When was it decided that only those with means have the right to a stable and loving home environment, never mind the fact that smaller social rented homes are not available? I am tempted to ask, “Hands up all hon. Members who have at least one extra bedroom in their home,” or perhaps even, “Hands up those who have one extra house.”

The cost of living is the main concern in my constituency, and we all know that the use of food banks is rocketing. The local citizens advice bureau tells me that the number of people coming to it with problems connected to payday loans is increasing. I am worried about tenants getting into debt as a result of the bedroom tax, but, in some ways, I am more worried about the people who pay the bedroom tax. Where do they find the money, as they cannot possibly afford it? How many of them are sitting silently at home, feeling that there is nowhere to turn? It may come as a surprise to some Members who do not understand working-class values, but getting into debt or seeking discretionary housing payment, even if people are entitled to it, is anathema to many of them.

I challenge the Government to have the courage and honesty to admit that the measure is not about under-occupancy at all. It is part of a regime of sanctions on those who dare to be poor. The Government should also have the courage and honesty to admit that this is an attempt to shift responsibility for this shambles on to underfunded local councils and housing associations, which have been left to pick up the pieces.

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

Although the bedroom tax is disgraceful and its impact on residents who are affected is absolutely shocking, I hope that my hon. Friend will make a point about its impact on housing associations and councils that have built up arrears and will not be able to deliver good housing in future.

[Sandra Osborne]

Indeed. Councils face massive cuts in their budgets and daily increases in the demand for services, and they are inadequately funded to provide discretionary assistance to those who face bedroom tax arrears. That is not helped by the kind of council beauty contest that the Scottish National party has encouraged between Labour-led and SNP-led councils, or any other combination of council leadership, about who is doing most to protect tenants from eviction. All councils, I am sure, are doing their best to protect tenants in difficult circumstances.

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one thing that could be done in Scotland would be the enactment of the Member’s Bill introduced by my former colleague, Jackie Baillie MSP, in the Scottish Parliament?

[Sandra Osborne]

I am going on to refer to that.

In East Ayrshire council, 2,300 tenants are caught by the bedroom tax, and more than 1,400 are already in arrears as a result—that is 62%—and the figure grows every month. The council estimates that it will have £500,000 of arrears by the end of the financial year as a result. In Scotland, as my hon. Friends have said, we have the added dimension of an SNP Government on pause, while they throw everything into their referendum campaign.

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Sandra Osborne]

I do not have time, sorry.

Even scrapping the bedroom tax is relegated to a “things to do after independence” file—a very fat file indeed. The SNP boasts that it will abolish the bedroom tax after independence. People should not hold their breath waiting for that day to come, but nor should they have to wait for a Labour Government to scrap the tax. The Government should have the decency to scrap it now, and they would do so if they had an ounce of decency.

We need action here and now, and if the coalition Government are not prepared to act others must do so. That is why Labour has introduced a Bill in the Scottish Parliament to ensure that any social tenant who is genuinely unable to pay the bedroom tax will not be evicted. The Church of Scotland said in support of the Bill:

“Whilst we recognise that local authority budgets are being continually squeezed, forcing those who cannot afford these additional payments to carry the burden for this flawed policy is not fair.”

It is for times like these that the Scottish Parliament was created. The bedroom tax is a perfect example of just how the Scottish Parliament could act to make a real difference to tenants across Scotland, when the UK Government refuses to listen, but that would mean making devolution work for vulnerable Scottish families, and the SNP cannot allow that to happen. When it comes to the bedroom tax, the SNP, like the Tories, has its own agenda and priorities. This Government see nothing wrong with the bedroom tax, as we have heard. In fact, some Government Members do not even think that it exists. The SNP see it as an opportunity for building resentment. Only Labour sees it for what it is—a social injustice which must be scrapped.

15:39

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

Having sat through 90 minutes of a Westminster Hall debate last week ostensibly on housing supply, where housing supply was barely mentioned, I am not surprised that housing benefit has barely been mentioned in today’s debate. We have had the same old stories as we heard last week and in previous weeks trotted out yet again. The Labour party is still fiscally incoherent and still policy incoherent.

Thirteen years of Labour created the problem. For 13 years, the Labour Government did nothing about it. They created the perfect storm of insufficient house building, record overcrowding and housing benefit out of control. This is a Labour problem and even a Labour solution, as we heard earlier today.

[Mrs McGuire]

Is it the Government’s case, then, that they inherited a bad situation and have set about making it worse?

[Mike Freer]

No. The crux of the matter is that we inherited a bad situation and we are setting about putting it right. That is what this is about. At least the Labour housing spokesman on the London assembly had the honesty to stand up and say that the Labour party got it wrong and that it should apologise, as my hon. Friend the Member for St Albans (Mrs Main) mentioned. He also pointed out that every Conservative Government have built more social housing than any Labour Government in recent history. Even in Mrs Thatcher’s last year, the then Government built more social housing than was built in all 13 years of the Labour Government, so we do not need lectures on housing supply and social housing from the Opposition.

[Gareth Johnson (Dartford) (Con)]

Is not the central issue of this debate the fact that it is wrong to ask the taxpayer to pick up the bill for some people who have accommodation that they simply do not need?

[Mike Freer]

My hon. Friend is right. My casework is about families living in overcrowded accommodation who cannot get into the right accommodation. That is what we need to put right.

With reference to London, as that is the most populous part of the UK, let us not forget how Labour’s Ken Livingstone destroyed social house building at a stroke when he was Mayor. His arbitrary thresholds ground social house building to a halt because builders built to the threshold and then they stopped.

[Emily Thornberry]

rose—

[Mike Freer]

No, I am sorry. I have given way once and I am running out of time.

Under that policy, we got no social housing at all on smaller developments because builders built to the threshold. That was Labour’s legacy in London. Of course there are difficulties, as the population makes the transition to the new arrangements, but, as I mentioned, I cannot be alone in the Chamber in having to deal with constituents in accommodation that is too small for them, where children and parents are sharing bedrooms, where children of different sexes approaching puberty have to share bedrooms, or where living rooms are doubling up as bedrooms.

What about the families consigned to emergency accommodation? We do not hear much about that from the Opposition today. That is a problem forgotten by Labour and being dealt with by the Government. It is argued that it is cheaper to subsidise spare rooms than to move people or adapt homes, yet the overall costs of converting larger properties to smaller accommodation would be repaid by the savings on emergency accommodation alone.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mike Freer]

No. I have given way once already and we are running out of time.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Mike Freer]

You can bob up and down as much as you like. I have given way once.

The capital cost of adaptions for disabled people moving into smaller accommodation is also likely to be offset by the savings in rehousing those who are in temporary accommodation. In my authority, the average cost of adaption for a disabled property is £7,000, yet my council spends on average on emergency accommodation £14,000 for one placement. So one placement would pay for two houses to be adapted. Again, the fiscally incoherent Labour party argues that the cost of downsizing is offset by the housing benefit, but what about the larger families already in the private sector who may then be rehoused in those properties that become vacant? Little is said of that saving.

This is a completely one-sided debate. What about the private rented sector? People in such accommodation do not get spare rooms. What about the people in my office? They work, yet they do not even get a flat of their own. They have to share. You are quiet on the private sector. Let us make it fair. This was your policy. You were quite happy to tax the private sector spare rooms, but now you say no.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman should calm down and stop accusing the Chair of everything. He repeatedly uses “you” when he should be directing his accusations to Opposition Members, not the Chair.

[Mike Freer]

I would never be rude to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as you well know, but I feel passionately about this. I was raised in a two-up, two-down, with no outside toilet—[Interruption]—with an outside toilet and no inside bathroom. Opposition Members might laugh, but I know what it is like to live in poor accommodation and I do not need lectures from them about what it is like to live in poor accommodation. The Conservative party is the party of aspiration; it is the party that is solving the mess; and I will vote for the amendment.

15:45

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

In powerful speeches from the Front and Back Benches, we have heard arguments against the bedroom tax, all of which were predicted and laid out by the Government in their impact statement. The impact statement made it clear that if this policy worked, in so far as it allowed people to downsize and their properties to be occupied by other social tenants, it would not save money, and that savings would come about only if the policy did not work. Contrary to the statements from some Government Members, those two objectives are mutually incompatible.

The impact statement showed that an estimated one in three of those affected would go into arrears. The Government knew that arrears were the likely consequence of this policy, and that is what we have seen. What we have not heard is another truth, which is that two thirds of those people affected by the bedroom tax are also affected by the Government’s cuts in council tax benefit. Out of their very low incomes of £75 or £105 a week they are having to make a contribution of £14, or in some cases £20-plus, for their bedroom tax and their council tax.

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

Is not one of the big problems the lack of accommodation? It is ridiculous to try to move people from large to small accommodation when we do not have it. Will that not contribute to the housing bubble?

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I was about to make that point. The impact assessment also told us—as has been mentioned already this afternoon—that the distribution of properties across the country does not match the two objectives of downsizing and dealing with overcrowding. In the north-west, in Yorkshire, 43% of social tenants are affected by the bedroom tax, and I think the figure is worse in Wales. That is more than double the rate for London, yet it is London that has the most serious problem of overcrowding: one in six properties is overcrowded. So the policy is predicated not just on people moving from one property to another in their neighbourhood or community, which might have some sense to it, but on people moving from one part of the country to another, from one end of the country to another. Frankly, that is not how people live. People are not sticks of wood. People are not crates of dry goods that can be put in a container and taken from London to Liverpool or Wales, because that is how the distribution of property suits their needs.

[Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab)]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that this will lead to the mass movement of vulnerable people around the country. What impact does she think that will have on seaside towns, which have many hundreds of houses in multiple occupation, which are not fit to bring children up in, or for anybody to be living in?

[Ms Buck]

My hon. Friend is right. We are already seeing some of the impacts of this and other housing and welfare policies impacting detrimentally on seaside towns, in the same way as happened in the 1980s and 1990s. But the fact is that this policy simply cannot achieve the objective of tackling overcrowding because the larger properties are in the wrong place, and the numbers demonstrate that. It will work only if people do something that they do not want to do, which is to leave their homes, communities, networks, grandchildren, and families—to leave the people for whom they provide care.

That is also why those Government Members who have repeatedly made the argument that the Labour Government introduced a local housing allowance that applied a restriction on bedrooms in the private sector are so fundamentally wrong. A third of all private tenants across the country have lived in their homes for less than a year. Whether we like it or not, and whatever changes we might want to make to it, the private rented sector is highly mobile. Some 40% of all social tenants have lived in their homes for 10 years or more.

People went into a social property believing that it was a home for life. They believed that they would be able to bring up children, look after elderly relatives, care for people, live in their communities and contribute to them because they had a home there. That has now been removed, and it has been removed—this is the absolute cruelty of the bedroom tax—retrospectively. The situation simply cannot be compared with the private rented sector, because people in that sector move around much more and they are not impacted retrospectively.

[Dr Coffey]

I agree with the hon. Lady that this is retrospective, unlike her point about local housing allowance, but the principle is the same, although it might not have been applied retrospectively when it was introduced by the previous Government. On her point about private mobility, it is we on the Government Benches who are trying to help people buy their homes.

[Ms Buck]

There is no attempt to do anything of the kind, otherwise people would be looking at longer-term tenancies and introducing that. The fact is that there is no principle in this. The principle of a tax being retrospective, as it is in this case, is the only principle that matters.

Even within the Conservative-led London borough of Westminster, which has a serious overcrowding problem, people are still unable to move. They are unable to move within the borough, let alone to Liverpool or Wales. Of the 405 families affected—it is a small number, because London is not the most affected by the bedroom tax—only 40 have been able to move. Half of them are in arrears and half of them are disabled.

I will conclude my remarks by referring to one of the many difficult cases that have been brought to my attention. A gentleman e-mailed me at the weekend. He wrote:

“I’m a 50-year-old single man living in a two-bedroom flat and have been hit by the so-called Bedroom Tax. I’m on employment support allowance and have been suffering from Chronic Depression and Anxiety for several years now and I’m now finding these latest attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable in society very difficult to deal with. I have little money and now find my rent arrears total nearly £800 as a result of the Bedroom Tax. I’m continuing to pay the previous level of rent, but the council have now sent me a letter saying that the next step will be to serve me with a Notice of Seeking Possession if I don’t pay the arrears in full. I simply can’t do this.

I’m loth to downsize for several reasons. My main reason is that I’ve lived at my present address for over 29 years and there is a lot of sentimentality connected with my home… because I lived here with my brother, who sadly passed away… This is my last link to him and I really couldn’t envisage living anywhere else. I’m feeling increasingly fatalistic and helpless and my thoughts are turning more and more to ending my life, which is something I’ve successfully avoided since my brother’s death. This latest setback just seems so insurmountable and there really doesn’t seem to be any sympathy or understanding… I no longer have anywhere to turn.”

He asked me to vote against the bedroom tax this afternoon, and I will be very proud to honour an obligation to him by doing so.

15:52

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) and my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), both of whom illustrated the passionate arguments on both sides of the debate. On one side, there are the concerns about overcrowding, and many constituents have come to see me about that. One constituent, in particular, has been trying for 10 years to move out of her two-bedroom house with her partner and three children and into a three-bedroom house. On the other, there are concerns about people who find themselves in the position the hon. Member for Westminster North has just outlined.

Housing policy in this country has been in a bit of a mess for years, under many Governments. I remember the attempt at housing market renewal in north Staffordshire, when the previous Government tore down hundreds, if not thousands, of perfectly good houses in an attempt to boost house prices. What a misguided policy.

[Emily Thornberry]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is a sensible policy to interview people in social housing as they reach retirement or as their children leave home and discuss the possibility of their moving into homes for life so that they can give up the three or four-bedroom houses in which they have brought up their families and hand them over to families who need them?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

That is an eminently sensible policy and I am glad that the hon. Lady has raised it.

The Government’s amendment

“notes the Government’s continuing commitment to monitor the effects of the policy and the use of Discretionary Housing Payments”.

I welcome that openness. Indeed, this debate is a good opportunity, about seven months into the policy, for the Minister to hear about what is taking place on the ground. Having yesterday met local authorities from the area that I represent, I want to give a few figures and describe a bit of the experience that they set out to me.

As of 30 September this year, in just a small part of my constituency and in one of the social housing providers, 371 out of 467 affected households were in arrears—over three quarters. Another provider had 19 affected households that were at “notice seeking possession” stage. That has arisen only since April, although, importantly, I understand that those 19 households are now being sorted out through the application of discretionary housing payments.

[Chris Ruane]

I believe that £100 million has been set aside for DHP, but that it is going to be cut by 33%. What impact does the hon. Gentleman think that cut will have on the tenants he is talking about?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I will come to that later in my speech. Discretionary housing payments are extremely important because they provide flexibility; indeed, I would wish for a bit more flexibility.

My authority is working very hard to assist people who are in difficulties as a result of this policy. I want to draw out a number of things from its experience. First, it is vital, as the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) said, that local authorities work with social housing providers to help all those affected.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

This will be my third intervention, but as it is the hon. Lady, I will.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I wonder how it will be possible for local authorities to help all those who are affected. Nottingham was allocated £696,000, and over 6,000 tenants in the city are affected. Its total missing housing benefit amounts to over £4 million. It is no surprise when Nottingham City Homes tells me that over half its tenants are in arrears. There is simply not the money to assist all those who are affected.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am sure that the Minister has heard that. He mentioned the extra £20 million, which I should hope that Nottingham would bid for. Perhaps that sum could be increased; in fact, that is something I would ask for.

Discretionary housing payments are extremely important, as shown by the experience of my local council. As the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), said, the system needs to be administered more flexibly so that, perhaps, hard cases that are currently excluded are included. Again, I am sure that the Minister is listening.

We have heard about tenants getting into debt and therefore being unable to move. That Catch-22 situation has to be dealt with. People who are in arrears must be able to move if they are in arrears as a result of this policy and not of historical arrears. The Government could consider the rates that are charged, which are set at 14% and 25% for one-bedroom and two-bedroom properties. Perhaps there could be a lower rate that was increased gradually over the years as additional appropriate housing was provided. This must not result in evictions. Some councils have no-eviction policies, and that is a very commendable approach. I would look for all possible measures to be taken prior to eviction being enforced.

Many unintended consequences of the policy were mentioned by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) and, particularly in respect of rural areas, by my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives (Andrew George). Those need to be looked at very carefully, and am sure that the Minister will do so.

The Government could also look at the costs of administering social housing. Let me put this in perspective. In South Staffordshire, the discretionary housing payment pot is £90,000, and people are working very hard to make the system work. I was therefore a little surprised to read that the salaries and benefits of the directors of one of the local social housing providers were £223,000, £160,000, £149,000, £136,000 and £139,000. Given that those salaries are paid from the earnings and taxes of hard-working people, perhaps the Minister will look at how housing associations that pay such salaries could themselves contribute to discretionary housing payments.

The Government have committed to monitor the effects of the policy. This debate is a good chance for the Government to listen to reasonable suggestions for changes to the policy in the interests of all our constituents.

16:00

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

As time is short, I refer the House to my speech on this matter in Westminster Hall last week and to a speech I made in February, when Plaid Cymru, the Scottish National party and the Green party called a debate on this very issue. I am glad that the Labour party has asked for this debate and I will support it as it supported us in February. I also refer the House to my amendment (b).

The aim of the under-occupancy penalty is allegedly to free up the logjam in available housing, but one of my fundamental objections to it is that the Government are using tenants as a battering ram to do so. That is unacceptable. I asked the Secretary of State a few days ago,

“what estimate he has made of the number of people in Wales who will move house as a result of the social housing under-occupancy penalty.”

The answer is interesting:

“The Department is not able to reliably estimate the number of people in Wales who will move house as a result of the Removal of the Spare Room Subsidy due to the small sample sizes involved.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 95W.]

Clearly, the Government do not expect huge numbers of people in Wales to move. They do, though, expect to make substantial savings on housing benefit. That is the reality—not moving people on, but making savings on benefits. The direct experience of my constituents is that they cannot move on. There is nowhere for them to move to.

Earlier this year, I asked the Government what research had been undertaken on private market elasticity—the ability of the market to provide—in response to the bedroom tax in rural Wales. I was told that no such research had been undertaken before the charge was brought in. There would apparently be research in 2015, and reports would be published in 2016, a full two and half years after the charge was introduced.

More fundamentally, I am concerned about the effect on estates. I was brought up on a council estate. It was a very stable area, with a mix of people from a variety of backgrounds. Many of them were the sort of people who had seen their children move on, but who still lived in three-bedroom houses and provided such estates with the anchor and stability that we believe to be so important. They knew the difference between a house and a home—a distinction that has eluded the current Government.

I will end by referring briefly to funding for hardship and to my amendment—I regret that it has not been selected—which also stands in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards).

My own local authority of Gwynedd has a review group on hardship payments. It brings together people from the voluntary sector, Shelter, the Department for Work and Pensions and even the Member of Parliament. Gwynedd county council, to its credit, has added substantially to the fund, with the result that the number of people in arrears is fairly small at present.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

In my constituency, some people who originally were successful in getting the hardship fund are being told when they reapply that they cannot have it because they are not showing sufficient hardship or because they have not shown that they are doing enough to rebudget. Is the hon. Gentleman familiar with that experience? This week a constituent told me that they now have to choose between heating and eating because they are not getting the fund payment.

[Hywel Williams]

The hon. Lady makes a telling point and the group in Gwynedd is certainly concerned about that. It goes to the very heart of the cash-limited nature of the fund, which is something that I objected to when the social fund was introduced: it pitted one payment against another, bringing an element of competition to something that should be there to fulfil people’s basic needs, and that is one reason why I object to this policy. I hope there will be no evictions and that the Minister will clear up uncertainty about the fund’s future.

I would also like to hear those on the Labour Front Bench pledge to adopt a “no evictions” policy—the subject of my amendment—where they have the power to do so. Labour’s policy of abolishing the bedroom tax will not come into force until at least 2015, should it win the general election. However, Labour is in power in 77 councils, and the Welsh Labour Government have power to adopt a “no evictions” policy with immediate effect.

If Labour is serious about scrapping the bedroom tax, it should also be serious about preventing the worst effect it can have on tenants. For me, that is particularly true for the Welsh Government, where the Welsh First Minister has the power to stop evictions. For example, Labour in Rhondda Cynon Taf voted with Plaid Cymru for such a policy. The Scottish National party in Scotland has pre-eviction procedures, and I understand that Labour colleagues in the Scottish Parliament are proposing a Bill to bring in a “no evictions” policy—I think they are; possibly they are not. Perhaps they are not sure themselves.

In the Welsh Assembly, Jeff Cuthbert AM said:

“We cannot undo the bedroom tax. We can seek to reduce its impact and we are trying”—

all very laudable. Lesley Griffiths AM said that

“there would be a very high cost, not just a financial cost, but also in terms of the quality of life of people in relation to eviction and then rehousing.”

Plaid Cymru’s Jocelyn Davies asked Carwyn Jones, the First Minister:

“Will you tell us which social landlords in Wales are also going to adopt this no-eviction policy?”,

and he replied:

“That is a matter for local authorities to decide. I can well understand the thinking behind the no-eviction policy, but it is for each local authority to decide how it wishes to approach this inequitable situation.”

With all due respect to the First Minister of Wales, he is wrong. It is in his power to decide. It is time for those in power in Wales, long on rhetoric and slow to act, to give a lead. If he will not give a lead in Wales, might he not be led by Labour here in Westminster?

16:06

[Graham Evans (Weaver Vale) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), and I declare at the start that I have more experience of council housing than many colleagues. Similar to the hon. Gentleman, I too grew up on a council estate, in south Manchester, with my mother, father and four siblings. It was not big, but it was home. We lived there because we needed to and because the state was able to help us find a home that we could fit into and was affordable to my hard-working parents.

Social housing is there for those in need. Housing needs change as families expand and contract. The needs of a family with four children are different to those of a divorced empty-nester. The hon. Gentleman used the example of a council estate where a house is also a home and a place to live. In my personal circumstances, when my father died 30 years ago and my mother was on her own in a three-bedroom house, she moved out and now lives in a one-bedroom flat, thus releasing that property back to the housing stock.

[Mr MacNeil]

How often does the hon. Gentleman envisage that people should move homes during the course of their adult lives?

[Graham Evans]

I cannot really answer that because it varies so greatly. I have moved several times but I am now settled with a family and envisage not moving for a while. It varies due to individual circumstances.

[Chris Ruane]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the three great stresses in life are death, divorce and moving house, especially if someone is being evicted or forced out? What effect does he think the bedroom tax will have on the mental health and well-being of people forced out of the homes they love?

[Graham Evans]

The hon. Gentleman raises a very good point and he is right to say that moving house is one of the most stressful things in life.

In my constituency, a disabled lady who lived in a three-bedroom property had to sleep in the lounge and was not able to get upstairs. An appropriate home was found for her with one bedroom on the ground floor and she is very happy. Her old house is now filled by a young family with two children and one on the way. Moving house is very stressful, but sometimes it is the right thing to do.

The debate is a rare example of when I can use Karl Marx as a policy template. We can consider the social housing market using the phrase:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!”

That is to say, what people can afford is what they need. It is a simple enough concept to support low-income families but, in reality, housing policy has moved far away from it.

First, let us consider the ability to pay. Housing benefit payments almost doubled from £11.2 billion to £23 billion under the previous Government. That is a cost of £900 per household per year. If hon. Members ask my constituents whether paying £900 per year to pay for other people’s rent on top of their own is reasonable, they will get a short response. In fact, if the Government had not taken action—this Government are prepared to take the tough decisions when Opposition Members are intent on driving Britain to economic ruin—the cost of social housing would have risen to £25 billion in the next financial year.

Secondly, let us consider the need element. As I have set out, I understand the importance of social housing and why the country needs it. Let me be clear that the right type of housing should be available to those who need it. A quarter of a million families are in overcrowded accommodation, and 2 million households are on social housing waiting lists. In part, that is because of the lowest housing growth since the 1920s, and that was under a Labour leadership. Some who do not need social housing insist on remaining, blocking families who have urgent need.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman gave the House some statistics, but will he concede that, unfortunately, many of the vacant properties he describes are in the wrong places for the people who need them?

[Graham Evans]

There is an element of that in various communities. In my area, people like to live within their own communities. I accept that. The problem is not straightforward, but it is not insurmountable either. People can swap homes within local communities, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman that that is a problem. The problem is not insurmountable for good local housing trusts or local authorities. It might not happen overnight, but with a little bit of creative thinking, moves can be accommodated—people can downsize and upsize.

[Mrs McGuire]

The hon. Gentleman accepts that the situation cannot be changed overnight, but does he believe it is fair that people should be caught in the trap of having to pay the bedroom tax? He is contradicting his own argument.

[Graham Evans]

I am sorry I gave way to the right hon. Lady.

I want to make one final point. Opposition Members have had nothing to say about someone earning £140,000 a year who uses social housing, not least because the person in question is Bob Crow, the leader of the National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers.

Unless we reassess ongoing housing needs, we will be unable to support those who need it the most. The changes need to happen, and it is important that they happen now, to restore fairness to the social housing sector in line with the private sector.

16:13

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

There is no doubt that the bedroom tax is a brutal, callous and unfair policy that affects some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in our communities, not least those who are disabled. They have been forced into arrears and further debt, and forced to go to food banks. The policy is having a major effect on many people in our communities.

I want to address some of the points that Government Members are using to justify what they are doing, such as the cost. We do not know whether the cost savings are achievable. Some hon. Members argue that they are not, but there is a great deal of doubt. For instance, the Government would have to take account of the £65 million increase in discretionary housing payment budgets that has already been set aside for 2013-14; the additional costs of fitting aids and adaptations for disabled tenants who move; the significant additional costs to housing associations that face increasing rent arrears, re-let times, rent collection and tenant support costs, and the impact of lost development capacity, at a time when the Government are trying to drive increased supply; and the additional indirect costs to other public services, such as homelessness, health, social and advisory services, of coping with the knock-on effects and consequences of tenants moving or accumulating debt. All need to be taken into account, which undermines the Government’s case for savings.

The Government’s amendment mentions

“the potential beneficial impact of this policy on those living in overcrowded accommodation”.

It is worth noting the word “potential”. I asked the Minister to provide figures, or any evidence, to justify the claim that there would be a significant “beneficial impact”, but he was not able to do so.

Government Members have been talking all afternoon about the private rented sector. It is important to understand the difference between sectors, and it is clear that some people do not. The method for calculating housing benefit in the private rented sector is local housing allowance, which is entirely different. It is a fixed allowance paid depending upon household size and circumstances, with no reference to the size of home occupied. A tenant can choose to use the fixed allowance to under-occupy a larger home in a lower-value area without any reduction in benefit. Rents in the private rented sector are not regulated. It is necessary to impose tighter benefit restrictions to curb excessive market rents. Social rents are regulated and are approximately 40% lower. The private rented sector performs a different role from the social rented sector, as hon. Members have made clear. In general, it provides shorter-term accommodation for younger households. Some 28% of household heads in the private rented sector are over the age of 44, compared with 60% in the social sector. That is a significant difference. What is being asked for is a retrospective change.

The Government’s brutal changes are affecting real people in my constituency. I spoke to Mrs Knight on Saturday morning. She has had adaptations throughout the house to ease difficulties that her husband is experiencing: a walk-in shower, a bio bidet, a wheelchair access door leading outside, hand rails on the doors, a drop rail in the bathroom, a rail fitted to the bed, raisers on the seat, and a through-floor lift into the bedroom. They are losing a significant amount of money—£700 a year. They have lived in the house for 29 years and brought up their family in it.

[Chris Ruane]

My hon. Friend has just given a comprehensive list of the improvements made to his constituents’ home. If they move to other accommodation, will the council have to pay again to put in those facilities again?

[Derek Twigg]

As usual, my hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course the council will have to pay again, and it is significant expenditure.

What about large families that have split up, where some of the children stay with their father for three or four days a week but he has been hit by the bedroom tax? How is that helping families? How does that help parents to stay in touch with their children? The excuse given by the Minister at the time was that it would depend on who had responsibility for the children, but it is causing problems for families.

What about a single man who has lived in a house all his life and has recently become unemployed, finding himself having to live on £70-odd a week and trying to find the difference for the bedroom tax? We talk about the discretionary payment system, but they are temporary payments and finding a job in my area is not easy.

In response to a question I put to the Prime Minister earlier in the year, he said:

“Let me be clear…pensioners are exempt, people with severely disabled children are exempt and people who need round-the-clock care are exempt.”—[Official Report, 6 March 2013; Vol. 559, c. 949.]

That turned out not to be true and I challenged the Leader of the House on it the following day. On the Monday, the Government dropped their appeal to overturn the decision of the Supreme Court on the exclusion of disabled children. People with a disabled child and two spare bedrooms are hit by the bedroom tax. When universal credit comes in, pensioners with one person in the household under the pension age will be hit by the bedroom tax. Disabled people, unless they have a full-time or part-time live-in carer, are not exempt. Disabled people whose family members or friends are supporting them are not exempt. This is a terrible policy. It needs to be changed quickly.

16:19

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who has given a reasoned and reasonable speech, and my hon. Friend the Member for Weaver Vale (Graham Evans), who provided a different perspective. I start from the principle that it is morally indefensible that 1 million families are waiting for a council property and that 250,000 families live in overcrowded accommodation while at the same time 1 million empty bedrooms are allowed in the social rented sector. Anyone who tries to defend that is extremely foolish.

There is a fundamental philosophical difference between the Opposition and the Government. People in social rented accommodation cannot expect to live in the same home for life without any change to their circumstances being recognised. People in social rented accommodation should stay there for a period and then move on and up when they can. My mother and father started in council accommodation and were the first in our family to buy their own home. Then, during the Thatcher revolution, the rest of my family were able to acquire their own homes, and we became a proper property-owning democracy.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept, however, that that was not the initial purpose of social housing? The initial reason for social housing and building council houses was not to deal with social need, as he and other Government Members have said, but to improve the standard of housing in this country? Is that not what council and social housing is about?

[Bob Blackman]

During the second world war and the 1950s, there was clearly a need, which was why the Conservative Government in the 1950s built record numbers of council properties—to enable people to live in decent accommodation. I agree about that. Clearly, however, social housing should be based on need, not expectation for life, and as people start new careers and move on, they should vacate social housing for the benefit of others in greater need.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

I am not giving way again.

The Labour party clearly does not recognise this fundamental change that needs to take place.

[Sheila Gilmore]

rose—

[Bob Blackman]

The hon. Lady can keep popping up and down, but I am not giving way.

The Labour party would hand out £500 million of taxpayers’ money while presiding, as it did, over record low levels of housing development. It failed to provide the housing needed during its term of office, and this Government are now trying to turn that around after many years of neglect. The last Government allowed social rents to increase, knowing that housing benefit would pick up the costs for the vast majority of tenants: about 80% of tenants were receiving the maximum housing benefit. That is fine while people are fully occupying those properties—they will be in need, because they will have been assessed as being in need—but once they are under-occupying those properties, it becomes right and proper for Governments and councils to say, “It is time for you to move on and for a family who need that property to move in.”

Earlier, someone challenged the position in the private sector. On average, home owners occupy their property for seven years before choosing to move on, but of course some people fall on hard times and have to sell their property in a rush or lose everything when they lose their job or become disabled. We have to have sympathy and ensure supply for those people across the board. In the private rented sector, on the other hand, we need longer tenancies, because currently they are often for six months or less. Clearly, however, we need some equalisation between the private and social rented sectors.

There are other courses of action that councils can consider. My own local authority has brought in incentives for people who under-occupy to move out. It will give them cash incentives to enable them to buy their own property or move to a smaller property when their families have moved on. That is the right sort of approach. There should be a carrot and stick approach. If someone chooses to under-occupy, they will get less benefit. If they choose to occupy a property that they no longer need, they should not expect the public sector—the taxpayer—to fund them.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. It is hard to know where to start in responding to what he is saying. If this were a matter of choice, it would be a very different issue. Why is it appropriate to apply a financial stick to people who do not, by definition, have the financial capacity to move on because they are on benefits? In those circumstances, there is no choice to be made. An amendment was tabled to the Welfare Reform Bill which would have resulted in this measure applying to people who had been made a reasonable offer but refused it. Does the hon. Gentleman regret the fact that the Government did not accept that amendment?

[Bob Blackman]

I thank the hon. Lady for her rather long intervention, which I thought became more of a speech. We need to be clear that people do have a choice. People can choose to under-occupy, and if they so choose, they should not expect the taxpayer to pick up the cost through housing benefit. There must be a clear incentive for people to move on.

[Mr MacNeil]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Bob Blackman]

I am not giving way a third time.

The Opposition need to accept the principle of the change, which is that anyone who under-occupies should bear the cost. All afternoon, we have heard a series of heartbreaking stories of people being required to move from properties that they have lived in for a long time. I have every sympathy with people who have been fed the story that they have a home for life, that they can expect to live in it for ever and that the taxpayer will always pick up the cost. The reality is that that is the story that Labour has always sold people.

That illustrates the difference between the parties. Labour would rather have everyone working for a public authority, being dependent on public housing and not being aspirational. We believe in helping people to achieve their aspirations and get to a decent position. We believe in improving the situation in the private sector and enabling people to work and to aspire to being the best that they can be. That is the difference between us. We are the party of the hand-up; Labour is the party of the hand-out.

16:24

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

I draw the House’s attention to my entries in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, including the chairmanship of a social housing provider.

This is a cruel policy, based on an unsound and in some respects fraudulent premise. It is cruel because it is causing anxiety, fear and misery to large numbers of people who have done nothing wrong. It is cruel because it is deepening poverty and deprivation in an arbitrary and unfair way, and because the large majority of those who are adversely affected by it can do nothing to mitigate its impact.

The policy is also cruel because it conflicts with basic human instincts, such as the instinct of a parent to have their children to come to stay at the weekend if they normally live with a former partner elsewhere. There is also a basic human instinct for a disabled person to have a carer stay overnight from time to time, or to have a spare bedroom for medical needs such as dialysis.

[Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine is unable to share a bed with his wife due to his painful disability. The bedroom tax will leave his family £9.52 a week worse off. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the bedroom tax pays scant regard to the pain that it causes?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend makes an obvious and clear point that illustrates one of the deeply unfair and cruel impacts of the policy.

The policy runs against basic human nature when teenage children are told that they cannot expect to have a bedroom of their own, particularly at a time when those in charge of education are emphasising the importance of children having a bedroom in which to do their homework, so that they can do well at school.

[Ian Mearns]

I have seen an estimate that 375,000 children could be affected by the bedroom tax. Is it the Government’s deliberate policy that up to 375,000 children might have to move school because of moving house as a result of the bedroom tax, so disrupting their hard-earned education?

[Mr Raynsford]

My hon. Friend, along with many other colleagues, has forcefully made the point about the destructive impact on communities and the impact on people who are unfairly forced to move because of the bedroom tax and other measures.

I have talked about the cruelty of the policy. I shall now show that it is unsound and in some respects based on a fraudulent premise. That premise is that the bedroom tax is about making better use of the social housing stock. This is simply wrong when the supply of smaller lettings available to those adversely impacted is hopelessly inadequate. It is wrong when, according to the Local Government Association, less than a quarter of those hit by the tax have the option of mitigating it by moving into smaller accommodation. It is clearly wrong when the largest single group of people known to be under-occupying social housing—notably those who are over retirement age—are exempt from the tax.

I can understand why, politically, the Government do not wish to be seen to be penalising elderly people, but they cannot on the one hand claim that these measures are about achieving better use of the social housing stock and then entirely ignore the largest group of people known to under-occupy accommodation. Recently visiting a 91-year-old pensioner living in a four-bedroom property brought that home very clearly to me. The council is giving priority for a move locally not to people like her, although that would be logical, but to people who are hit by the benefit cut of the bedroom tax, because it is only right that those people should be given priority, to protect them from the tax. We thus get these absurd and perverse consequences where the policy works against the very objective that it is supposed to achieve.

We have heard about the other perverse consequence—the extent to which the policy is leading not to better use of the housing stock, but to increased vacancies among larger properties in areas where people simply cannot afford to occupy and pay the bedroom tax, and to increases in rent arrears, which is not just bad for the affected tenants, putting their tenancy at risk, but bad for the landlords who require rental income to fund increased investment in social housing.

On all the bases, then, on which this policy is being promoted, it is not succeeding and it is having perverse and damaging consequences. The hard truth is that this is not a policy prompted by a desire to make better use of the country’s social housing stock. If that were the real intent, pensioners would not be exempt, and the Government would be increasing, not cutting, investment in new social housing. Indeed, if the impact of the bedroom tax were, miraculously for everyone affected, to find alternative smaller accommodation, the policy would fail because the Department for Work and Pensions would be left with a half a billion pound hole in its budget.

The whole wretched policy emerged not out of an evidence-based study of patterns of occupation, need and mobility in social housing, but out of a crude cost-cutting imperative that was introduced in total disregard of the human consequences. It is a deeply flawed and cruel policy, based on unsound premises, for which all those who are responsible in the Government should be ashamed. The sooner this wretched tax is abolished, the better.

16:33

[George Hollingbery (Meon Valley) (Con)]

It is an honour to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), with whom I have sparred on a number of occasions on similar issues.

We need to pose ourselves a question: what is dealing with the spare room subsidy about? Is it about reducing the housing benefit bill? Yes, of course it is. The Government propose a £500 million saving, which is important. Let us not delude ourselves, however. We face a structural problem with housing: there is too little of it, and what there is of it is too expensive. The only way meaningfully to reduce the housing benefit bill is to increase the supply of housing hugely—something that we all know will not happen overnight. It did not happen on the watch of the previous Government, but it is happening at least in part on this Government’s watch. Although an important saving is being made, reducing the housing benefit bill is not the principal thrust of the reductions in spare room subsidy.

[Jonathan Edwards]

May I take up that point, which is raised in the Government amendment? Notwithstanding the bedroom tax, the cap on benefit and the annual real-terms reduction in the uprating of benefit, the Office for Budget Responsibility still predicts that the housing benefit bill will rise. This is a failed policy.

[George Hollingbery]

What the hon. Gentleman says demonstrates that, as I have just pointed out, what we need is a massive increase in the amount of housing that is built. That was a failure on the part of the last Government, and it has not been easy for this Government to rectify it during the current recession. I believe that we are doing a great deal to try to rectify it, but the real answer is to build a very large number of new houses. That cannot be done in an instant, which is why the housing benefit bill is almost bound to rise in the short term.

This is, in my view, a policy about behavioural change and about the chronic underuse of publicly owned housing assets. Those who live in social housing have no incentive to downsize, because they have tenancies for life. I understand the motivation behind that: as has already been pointed out today, these are not just tenancies, but homes. However, the position is not sustainable given such a limited supply of stock. The Government have, of course, taken action to end tenancies for life, but that will take a very long time to feed through the system. Meanwhile, there are vast numbers of people on housing waiting lists and large numbers living in overcrowded homes, while 1 million or more dwellings have an extra bedroom. That cannot be right.

[Katy Clark]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[George Hollingbery]

I will, but by doing so I shall take time away from Opposition speakers.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that that there is a complete mismatch between the types of homes that are available and what the Government want people to do? In North Ayrshire, for example, 2,260 council tenants are affected by the policy, but only 59 tenants in under-occupied properties have been able to move since April.

[George Hollingbery]

The point is well made. I entirely accept that there is indeed a mismatch in many parts of the country. However, it is not impossible for people to move between local authority areas. That happens in the private sector, and there is no good reason why it cannot happen in the public sector. Certainly, it is more difficult, but there is no reason why it should not happen.

I recently visited a young family in Wickham, which is in my constituency. The couple had one child and another on the way. There was one bedroom upstairs, with a small bathroom, a kitchen-sitting room-dining area downstairs, and that was it. The child was living in a cot in the sitting room. Just yards away were two and three-bedroom homes under-occupied by lifetime tenants.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. I must apologise to the hon. Gentleman. The clock is wrong, and I should warn him that he does not have five minutes and four seconds left; he has only four minutes and one second.

[George Hollingbery]

Thank you for that warning, Madam Deputy Speaker.

The situation that I have described cannot be right, either in terms of the use of resources or in terms of plain fairness. According to the switching site HomeSwapper, those who have successfully moved as a consequence of these changes often say that their understanding of the unfairness of the situation was a significant part of their motivation. However, it is also important to note that the potential reduction in housing benefit payments was what made them actually do something about it.

The unfairness is, of course, only exacerbated by the rules governing the private rented sector, under which only the space that is needed is paid for. That has been referred to at length this afternoon. Presumably, if the principle of ensuring the right number of bedrooms is unfair in social housing, it is also unfair in private housing. That point too has already been made. The motion

“calls on the Government to end these deductions with immediate effect”.

I can only imagine that the Opposition will propose similar changes in the private sector, as the same principle applies. If so, how much will it cost, and if not, why not?

It is clear that the Opposition’s thinking on this matter has been, to say the least, inconsistent. In 2011, I was a member of the Committee that considered the Bill that became the Welfare Reform Act 2012. We had a long discussion, and a number of amendments were tabled to clause 68, which established the principle of the spare room subsidy reduction. All the points that were made were salient, the amendments—most of which were tabled by the hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), who is no longer in the Chamber—were perfectly sensible, and, in large part, the Government have introduced provisions to deal with them. Interestingly, however, no Division was called on a stand part motion, and no attempt was made to remove the clause on Report. I am a novice in these matters, but my interpretation of what happened is that the Opposition accepted the principle. If that is not the case, I should like to hear why it is not.

The Opposition’s difficulty with welfare reform as a whole is clear. Recently, the hon. Member for Westminster North, who very ably took large parts of the Welfare Reform Bill through Committee, including clause 68, was reported as saying that the Opposition had not won the public debate on welfare, and it appears that she is right. Ipsos MORI carried out a survey of 2,000 people in late August this year from which it concluded that:

“By a margin of 3 to 1, the majority of the British public believe that the benefits system in Britain is too generous.”

Interestingly, it also revealed that the public broadly supported the Government’s position on the spare room subsidy.

Back in April, Peter Watt, former general secretary of the Labour party, wrote on the “Labour Uncut” website:

“I don’t know what Labour’s position on welfare reform is”,

and added,

“Labour has in the past also talked tough on welfare and that it would like to reduce welfare bills. The problem is that it is currently fighting a battle in which it is opposing the government’s attempts to achieve this. So Labour appears confused.”

Today, in this motion, we see yet another example of this confusion.

It must be right, at a time of acute overcrowding co-existing with a great deal of under-occupancy in the social housing sector, for the Government to take action to encourage change. A broad policy of this sort will inevitably throw up real-life difficulties when applied in the particular, but the Government have been very careful to deal with as many of them as possible and have made many exceptions to the general rule. They have also made substantial amounts of money available through discretionary housing payment to ease the transition for those who are affected.

Furthermore, evidence shows that over 10% of those who have been affected by the change so far have come off benefits entirely, which must surely be welcomed by all. Change of this sort is never easy to implement, but that does not mean it is not fair in principle and that it is not necessary. In this case, it is both, and I will certainly vote for the Government’s amendment this evening.

16:39

[Lucy Powell (Manchester Central) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), who made an excellent contribution.

I am pleased to be called to speak in this debate and I am proud that the Labour party now has a commitment to axing this appalling policy. I am proud of Opposition Members’ contributions to this debate, which stand in stark contrast to some of the drivel we heard from the Government Benches, much of which showed a lack of understanding of and basic research into how this policy is being delivered on the ground.

One example of that was in the contribution of the hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), who said people should simply work an extra three hours a week to pay for this. If she knew the policy, she would be aware that those in work and receiving housing benefit who work an extra three hours a week will lose 85% of that extra income to pay for their rent and council tax. Therefore they would still have to pay the bedroom tax.

I am the MP for Manchester Central and my constituency has the highest number of people affected by the bedroom tax in the country—over 4,000. That is not just a number; it is people struggling desperately as a result of this unjust policy.

I have three main criticisms of this policy, and they build on the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich: it is a morally wrong and corrupt policy; it costs more than it saves; and it does not even work. By any measure, that is a pretty damning indictment of a policy.

It is morally wrong because it is such a blunt instrument and it is punishing all sorts of vulnerable people who have done nothing wrong. We have heard many examples from colleagues, charting the human cost of this disastrous policy. I want to highlight one other.

Elizabeth has a very disabled son, Ryan. Their case has been highlighted by the Manchester Evening News and the Daily Mirror, both of which have been running excellent campaigns against the bedroom tax. Ryan is a disabled adult and requires around-the-clock care, including overnight care. He is not excluded from the bedroom tax policy, however, because he is not the tenant of the property. Therefore, they are subject to the bedroom tax. After many weeks and months of anxious worrying, Elizabeth finally, after my intervention, was awarded the discretionary housing money. However, this does not take away from the fact that she is not sure what is going to happen next year or the year after that. That is the kind of anxiety people are facing. On the discretionary housing payment, I am delighted that the Minister has today said that if more claimants qualify but the £1.9 million that Manchester city council has received is not enough, the Government will guarantee those payments.

This policy also costs more than it saves, as is highlighted by the case of my constituent, Alan. He is in his late-50s and he has worked for most of his life. He lives in a two-bedroom property because no one-bedroom properties were available for him. He was made redundant and is now on benefits of £71.70 a fortnight. His social housing costs £60 a week and he has been asked to pay the bedroom tax out of that money. If he wants to move to the private sector, which is the only real option for him, that will cost him at least £100 a week in rent, which the housing benefit bill will have to pay. So that is going to take costs up, not down.

The final point I wish to make is that this policy does not even work. Many Government Members have talked about how it deals with overcrowding and people on the housing waiting list. In Manchester, 19,000 people are on that list and that figure has not moved one jot since this policy was introduced, because all the slack of available property is being taken up by people doing housing swaps. The only properties becoming available are two-bedroom properties in blocks of flats, which are unsuitable for families with children. So those properties are going to people in band 5—people who are not most in need. Those who are most in need are being pushed further and further down the waiting list.

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making a strong speech, in which she mentioned families with children. Did she share my shock at Lord Freud’s comment that families who are separated should get a sofa bed to deal with the problem of being hit by the bedroom tax? Was that not a shocking thing to say about the situation of families in this country?

[Lucy Powell]

It was a shocking thing to say. It showed a complete failure to understand what family life is like and to understand that many fathers—I thought the Conservatives claimed to be the party of the fathers—have contact with their children only if they have a spare bedroom for them to stay in, so they will be losing that contact. That is a disgraceful aspect of this policy.

Perhaps if the Government had done a little more research, analysis and modelling before introducing this proposal, they might have foreseen some of these knock-on consequences. Labour Members are all for looking at how we can deal with some of the issues relating to under-occupancy and housing shortage, but this sort of brutal, blunt instrument does nothing to address that—in fact, it does quite the opposite. We need a long-term strategy bringing together the housing associations, other policy makers and tenants to work out how we can best use a carrot and stick approach to deal with under-occupancy. What we have from this Government is a morally corrupt policy that does not work and is going to cost the taxpayer even more.

16:47

[Margot James (Stourbridge) (Con)]

In debating today’s motion, it is instructive to look back at the manifesto on which Labour Members stood at the last election. They talked about the need for “tough choices on welfare” and stated:

“No one fit for work should be abandoned to a life on benefit, so all those who can work will be required to do so.”

They also promised reforms to housing benefit so that the state does not subsidise people to live on rents that working families could not afford. As we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming), when they were in government they intended to introduce the very same measure. So what happened?

Labour has reverted to type, defending those who are getting more than their fair share out of the system, to the detriment of hundreds of thousands of others who are worse off through no fault of their own. They include the 6,687 households on my local authority of Dudley’s housing waiting list. That is why Labour has opposed every single measure this Government have taken to reform the welfare state.

The public know that the catalyst for the reforms we have introduced was the ballooning deficit left to us by the previous Government. The overriding mission behind the reforms had a much wider moral purpose: to make work pay, to end the something for nothing culture, to ensure a strong safety net for those who cannot work and, in the case of the reforms to housing benefit, to reduce overcrowding and homelessness.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady is talking as though the only people in social housing are those on benefit or not working. It is an in-work benefit. More importantly, many people in this country who work for the minimum wage and work very hard will never be able to afford to purchase a property. That is why we have social housing and why we have homes for life for those people.

[Margot James]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I agree with much of the principle behind it. Of course, some people will never be able to afford to buy their own homes—although this Government are intent on helping as many people as possible to own their own homes—and that is the purpose of social housing and housing benefit. There is no argument with that principle, but we must be cognisant of the number of people who, at the moment, cannot even get council housing or privately rented social housing. That is one of the driving purposes behind the reform.

The subsidy has become something of a totemic issue for the Opposition. They want to position the end of the subsidy and the creation of a level playing field between all recipients of social housing support as a modern day poll tax. Whatever the merits or otherwise of different systems of raising taxes locally, there is no doubt that the poll tax lacked public support. That is the difference, and it is worth exploring why the policy we are debating today enjoys public support.

The MORI poll that my hon. Friend the Member for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) mentioned found that 78% of respondents supported the need to reduce under-occupation and overcrowding in social housing, whereas 54% of them agreed that people of working age who live in social housing should receive less housing benefit if they have more bedrooms than they need. Some 60% of those polled believed that those affected should seek work or work longer hours if they could.

[Emily Thornberry]

The hon. Lady drew a parallel between the bedroom tax and the poll tax, and said that the difference between the two was that the poll tax was not popular. Does she therefore accept that the bedroom tax is a tax?

[Margot James]

I certainly do not. It is not a tax. A tax is a Government levy on somebody’s income, whereas we are clearly talking about reducing a subsidy.

Let me return to the subject of work. Many groups are exempt from the measure, including people in receipt of state pensions, families with disabled children, foster carers and other groups. Those who are in a position to seek work or extra work should either do so or try to swap their property for accommodation that meets rather than exceeds their needs. If their accommodation exceeds their needs, that is not a tenable or fair position for the long term. We are talking about only a few extra hours of work a week at the minimum wage. Instead of conducting a campaign of misinformation against the reforms to housing benefit—reforms that Labour accepted were necessary at the last election—local authorities should instead be helping people to downsize to accommodation that meets their needs, freeing up much-needed housing stock for the 2 million families on housing waiting lists.

I commend the Government for taking the tough decisions and, moreover, for their commitment to build 170,000 new social houses by 2015. In addition to this measure, that will help to ease overcrowding in many homes. I also hope that the Government will take a lead in encouraging housing associations and local authorities to convert some of the excess of large properties at their disposal so that we can begin to meet the needs of the 60% or so of people applying for social housing for single occupancy. I hear far more complaints from constituents who endure overcrowded accommodation than I do about ending this spare-room subsidy. I find the contents of my postbag quite instructive in that regard, so I shall support the Government amendment.

16:55

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

In the lead up to the 2010 general election and in a desperate attempt to detoxify the brand, two words were bandied about to persuade the electorate that there would be a different kind of Tory if the Conservatives were elected. Those two words were “compassionate conservatism”, whatever that is. Wolves in sheep’s clothing—that is what I call it. No one standing on a Tory ticket in the next general election should be in any doubt whatsoever that once again it will be two words that will define their heartless brand of ideological politics—“bedroom tax”.

What happened to the Prime Minister’s mantra that we are all in this together? What happened to the Chancellor’s claim that he would not balance the Budget on the backs of ordinary people? Whatever happened to big society? Almost two thirds of those affected by the bedroom tax in my part of the world are disabled—that is 21,000 people hit the hardest while millionaires get tens of thousands of pounds every year in a Tory tax bung. Before the inevitable accusations of being feckless or unemployable are levelled against any of my constituents by Members such as the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies), whose rant should be videoed and played to anyone who doubts that it is the same old Tories, let me point out that 6,000 people on Merseyside who are now in rental arrears had never missed a payment in their life until the coalition’s welfare changes. The majority of those clobbered by this Con-Dem con trick are ordinary working people on low wages. This is entirely a Tory and Lib Dem-manufactured hardship imposed on those who need help the most, driven not by fiscal constraints but by political dogma.

I want to concentrate on three consequential areas of this policy. First, the Government have not given sufficient regard to the impact that it has already had on housing associations.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is right that there is a significant impact on housing associations. The Home Group, a large housing association that has many properties in my borough of Gateshead and thousands of properties across the north of England, has seen a 53% increase in arrears in the past 12 months, mainly as a result of the bedroom tax.

[Steve Rotheram]

My hon. Friend is right. In areas such as Liverpool and other major UK cities, rent arrears have increased dramatically, which means that housing associations have to find a way to combat the decrease in income while, at the same time, they are expected to commit to building more one and two-bedroom houses. That has the potential to affect their asset base and their ability to borrow money to build those houses.

Secondly—again, colleagues have mentioned this—this is a policy that will cost the Exchequer more than any potential savings. On Merseyside, housing demand is inversely proportionate to supply. As a consequence of not having enough of the right housing type it is virtually impossible for people caught in the bedroom tax trap to move into suitable social housing, so they are forced to consider renting in the private sector, even if that costs more than staying in their existing property and even if no one wants to move into the house that they are kicked out of. It is the economics of the madhouse, and it is our neighbourhoods that are suffering, decimated by a reckless and irresponsible Government inflicting poverty, creating urban blight and breaking up established communities. They are carrying out Thatcher’s legacy by causing instability that destroys the very fabric of society on which established communities are built.

My final area of contention is the social engineering that this Government are imposing on the poorest areas. Moving house may mean kids moving school, as has been mentioned, but it is also about families moving doctor and dentist, and mothers and older children who used to live within walking distance having to travel many miles to see each other. Many families have been forced out of the homes that were theirs for many decades. If they had been paying a mortgage instead of rent, which they could have done, they would have owned the property outright by now. For many they are homes, not houses. Hard-working families have been penalised simply because they could not afford a deposit. Surely that is not what is meant by “compassionate conservatism”—an oxymoron that will be consigned to the annals of political history alongside “Lib Dem principles”.

Be in no doubt that the overwhelming majority of the British people will not support a policy that punishes the poorest, the disabled, our armed forces, those riddled with cancer, the suicidal, the frail and the vulnerable. As the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Margot James) alluded to, this is the Tory poll tax of the 21st century. To think that this policy is a vote winner is severely to underestimate the compassion of the British people. I will always put my trust in the real people outside this place, rather than in a bunch of born-to-rule Tories who have no concept of what ordinary people have to contend with on a daily basis, and a Lib Dem party that has long since sold its soul.

17:01

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

I was getting flashbacks to 1970s socialism during that contribution—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) is very proud of that; that is good to hear.

It is said that a lie can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, and such is the case with Labour’s bedroom tax. I am pleased that the name of the debate has changed, and I welcome the chance to clarify the details of the policy. I am sorry that the debate has been somewhat binary. Some good points have been made by Members on both sides and some pertinent questions have been asked. The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) posed a very important one: how does somebody who is told to go out and work in order to pay for that second room manage to do that? I hope the Minister will elaborate on this, but the universal tax credit system will come in to address that.

The debate has illustrated the cultural divide that exists between this Government and Labour. On one side there is an attitude of responsibility and holding welfare reform to account, and on the other there is a continuing concept of offering welfare as a lifestyle choice. That is no longer possible. After 13 years of Labour the cost of housing benefit doubled to £21 billion. That is unacceptable. The cost to taxpayers was £900 per household. The system was getting out of control. There was no house building programme, leading to overcrowded accommodation, and there was no management of the housing stock, which left some families receiving housing benefit of more than £100,000.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the reason that housing benefit has gone up is the rising cost of rent in the private sector? Does he not accept that this Government’s policy of trying to force house prices up is putting rents up, which will make the housing benefit problem even worse?

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Lady makes an important point. I cannot accept that a doubling of housing benefit to £21 billion is accounted for by the private sector alone. There are other aspects, such as the type of housing we are building. We were building the wrong type of houses—60% of new houses built needed to be for single occupancy, but only 30% were. That is Labour’s legacy. It raises the fundamental question of today’s debate: in these financially tough times, should those on housing benefit be allowed to stay in accommodation with more bedrooms than they really need? This Government say no and Labour says yes, even though it said no in 2008 when we had exactly the same debate on private sector housing, proving that a little inaccuracy sometimes saves a ton of explanation.

[Mrs McGuire]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

Very briefly; we are eating into other Members’ time.

[Mrs McGuire]

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman was in the Chamber for the earlier clarification, given by my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck), that the local housing allowance was not retrospective. This tax is retrospective and it penalises people for not changing their circumstances.

[Mr Ellwood]

I welcome the hon. Lady to the debate. It is clear that Labour still has not learned from its mistakes. In the last eight years of government, Labour lived beyond its means. In 2002-03, it spent £26 billion beyond its means. Four years later that rose to £33 billion. In its final year of office, the deficit rose to £156 billion. That always accumulates, which means that by 2010 when Labour departed office we had a debt of more than three quarters of a trillion pounds. Where are these benefits that Opposition Members endorse? Where will that money come from? To date, Labour has refused to support a single reform to the benefit system put forward by the Government. Aside from failing to recognise, first, the need for reform of our complex system, and secondly, the consequences to society in promoting a something-for-nothing culture, Labour has voted against £83 billion-worth of welfare savings introduced by the Government, proving that it has yet to learn the lessons of the past.

Labour owes the taxpayer an explanation as to how it would afford to keep its complex, costly and broken benefit system in place. The challenge is simple. Thanks to the housing shortage, created under Labour, some 400,000 people are in overcrowded housing. Yet there are almost 1 million spare rooms throughout the UK paid for by the taxpayer at a cost of around £0.5 billion a year. This policy better matches our housing stock, but also protects the most vulnerable, such as pensioners, those in foster care, disabled children and those requiring overnight care. They are all exempt, as indeed are those who have served in the armed forces.

Those affected by the policy, as others have made clear, who are living in larger than necessary housing have four choices. First, they can participate in a house swap scheme, which has not really been embraced by all councils. Secondly, they can pay the reduction in housing benefit, which equates to about £14 a week for a room. Thirdly, they can sub-let that room. Finally, they could apply for the hardship scheme, and a couple examples have been given of that. I am pleased to hear the announcement today that if councils run out of that hardship funding, they can apply for more. That is a message that needs to be sent from both sides of the House, to ensure that councils do not run out of this important support.

The policy already exists in the private sector, introduced, as I say, by Labour in 2008. I welcome this policy and the debate, which I hope will help Labour Members to recognise how inaccurate and misleading some of their comments have been. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) is in her place. I have a lot of respect for her, but she spoke eloquently about a council home being a home for life. I cannot agree with that analysis. A council home should be there as a method of support for those trying to get on in life and for those in a difficult period of their life. It should not just be given to somebody as a gift, early on in their lives, never to move away from. That is the distinct difference between the two sides of the House, on which we will have to agree to disagree.

I welcome the policy and the debate, and I look forward to the Minister clarifying some of the many points that have been made by Members on both sides of the Chamber.

17:09

[Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op)]

I rise to speak on behalf of approximately 2,000 people in my constituency who are affected by this iniquitous and cruel bedroom tax. I have listened to the whole debate, and if anything shows the dividing line between Government and Opposition Members, surely it is this issue. My constituents watching this debate in the hope that the Government will be persuaded to change tack and admit that they have got this wrong will be horrified at just how out of touch Government Members appear to be: not only do they not understand their own policy, but they simply do not understand the impact it will have or how housing benefit works. The notion that people can simply go out and get extra hours of work to pay for the bedroom tax, or deal with the reduction in working tax credits or the fact that wages are not rising, shows just how out of touch the Government are.

The Government are also out of touch because they appear to have no idea of the circumstances in which ordinary people live. Listening to Government Members, one might think there was a swathe of empty rooms across the whole UK, but my constituents who have come to speak to me about the bedroom tax are the grannies who help with the child care and often have the kids at the weekend—[Interruption.] Someone says, “Pensioners.” It might have escaped the Government’s notice, but not all grannies are pensioners yet. My younger sister is a granny, but I am not at that stage quite yet.

There are also the kinship carers, who are not covered in the way foster carers are, particularly those who provide informal care in families that are having difficulties. There are also people trying to do the best they can to bring up their families after relationships break down. One of the cruellest things about this policy is the fact that the needs of children do not appear to have been taken into account at any level whatsoever. How can we say to a child who has been used to living with their mother but going to stay with their father at weekends or during the holidays, “You’re no longer entitled to sleep in a proper bed when you visit.” That is the result of this iniquitous bedroom tax. I wrote to Ministers about that and received a response that seemed completely out of touch with the way families make those arrangements. It is also unacceptable, in my view, simply to suggest that families should take in lodgers. Would Government Members be happy to do that in their family homes?

I do not have time to talk about all the issues, but I want to point out the problems for disabled people. Many disabled people in my constituency took the homes offered to them by the council, even if they were not ideal or in the areas they wanted, because they were on the ground floor and could be adapted for their needs. It makes no sense at all to take them out of a two or three-bedroom flat that has been perfectly well adapted and move them to an area where they will not necessarily have the same care and support systems in place simply because that is what this Government believe is the right way to go about things. It does not make economic sense, and it makes no sense with regard to communities or the provision of social care.

As I said at the outset, I think that there is a clear dividing line here. Some hon. Friends have said that there is no longer any compassionate conservatism, but I am not sure that there ever was. If anything, this debate shows that the Government are out of touch and have no ideas how to solve the problems, and this afternoon they have certainly shown that they simply do not care.

17:14

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

I feel slightly unhappy about being told that I am out of touch. Yes, I was a millionaire by the age of 27, but I was on benefits in 1981 and both of my parents were born in Birmingham council houses, so I understand the importance of social housing and that there is a value in security of tenure. I find it rather sad when, as has happened in Birmingham, people are evicted from their family houses for under-occupying, perhaps because their parents have died. That is sad. However, we find ourselves in a society with problems. A lot of families live in overcrowded conditions. Those people come to see me and I cannot just ignore them. It is not a bedroom tax; it is a bedroom rent. People are paying rent for the spare bedroom. If somebody buys a house and it has an extra bedroom, they pay for it. If somebody rents a property, they pay the rent for the property. If they have a property in the private sector and they are on housing benefit, the local housing allowance sets limits based on the number of bedrooms.

On 19 January 2004, a Labour Minister said:

“We hope to implement a flat rate housing benefit system in the social sector, similar to that anticipated in the private rented sector to enable people in that sector to benefit from the choice and flexibility that the reforms can provide. We aim to extend our reforms to the social rented sector as soon as rent restructuring and increased choice have created an improved market.”—[Official Report, 19 January 2004; Vol. 416, c. 1075W.]

That is in Hansard; anyone can get hold of it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[John Hemming]

When I am down to two minutes, I will take interventions.

The Labour party in government recognised that there was a problem with pressure on housing. We cannot suddenly magic up 1 million more rooms overnight. The reason there was not a lot of pain when the local housing allowance was introduced is that it did not affect anyone who was already on housing benefit; it only affected new claims. The hon. Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) was very good on that point. To be fair, if we applied the same approach now, or had done so back in April, so that this did not affect anyone until they got a new tenancy, nobody would really bother about it. The problem with that is that we have a deficit. [Interruption.] Labour Members seem to forget the deficit, but we need to deal with these issues. However, we have found £180 million of the £500 million savings, so for over a third of people this need have no effect. To get my support, the Government will have to deliver more on discretionary housing payments, because that is the area I am concerned about.

[Mrs McGuire]

Let me deal with the consultation document. I shall quote from Hansard:

“Yes, it was in the consultation document, but we listened to the consultation responses and recognised that it would be inappropriate to roll it into the social housing sector.”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 2 November 2006; c. 453.]

That was the response of the Minister in the debates on the Welfare Reform Bill to which the hon. Gentleman is referring. The reason I know it was said and can confirm it is that I said it.

[John Hemming]

It was an idea that the Opposition produced when in government because they recognised there was a problem. [Interruption.] I quoted precisely; I do not know what else was said in the debate.

Because of the situation with the bedroom rent, three tenants in my constituency have found a way in which they can all three exchange properties so that no bedroom rent is paid, an overcrowded family has found somewhere comfortable to live, and everybody is happy. The problem is that the council is saying that one of the doors in one of the properties is a bit distorted, so the transfer cannot happen. That is complete nonsense. It is like the nonsense of saying that someone cannot move if there are housing arrears. We had a case like that in Birmingham before the bedroom rent was introduced. People knew beforehand that it was coming in, so they planned for it and arranged transfers to avoid it. We had a case when someone was told they could not move because they were in arrears, and we managed to sort that out.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) asked about people with children in the house accepting lodgers. I have had children for many years, and we have had lodgers. We even had four refugees from Croatia as lodgers. There was a slight problem one day when one lodger used the milk and found that it had been expressed for the baby the previous night—that was a bit of a surprise for the lodger—but we got on with it.

Lodgers are not necessarily strangers. There are four options. The fact is that the Government have changed the rules so that people keep the first £20. If a single man who lives in a three-bedroom flat takes in two lodgers—I deal with such real cases—they can end up £40 a week better off and without any bedroom rent. That would be far better for them financially than their current position. Those arguments need to be put to people so that they can best decide whether they should move in order to get the discretionary housing payment. I emphasise again that I want to maintain the discretionary housing payment, which deals with the issues.

17:20

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

I am not sure how many lodgers the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (John Hemming) keeps, but he certainly seems to be in favour of the principle. The lodgers in his house no doubt put him in a better financial position.

I do not plan to detain the House for long. When the bedroom tax is viewed in an island context, it can be seen for what it really is: an attack on the living standards of the poorest. On an island, the poorest can be almost anyone’s neighbours, friends or relatives. In the social rented sector in my constituency, fuel poverty is between 33% and 61%, depending on how it is measured and counted.

On the island perspective, I am grateful to John Maciver of the social housing landlords’ Hebridean Housing Partnership for supplying me with figures. In Na h-Eileanan an Iar, 188 people are affected by the bedroom tax and there are more than 2,000 properties. On one island, the Hebridean Housing Partnership took over the housing stock from the council a number of years ago, and of the 105 properties, 50% are occupied by single people, but only 20% of the stock is designed for single occupancy, so some people will always be penalised by the bedroom tax. There is no solution on the island to this policy from Westminster and this Government.

[Katy Clark]

Does the hon. Gentleman support Scottish Labour’s proposed Bill in the Scottish Parliament that says that there should be no evictions and that the Scottish Government should provide full funding to Scottish councils for the costs of the bedroom tax?

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Lady should know that the underlying problem is that Scotland has a Government whom it does not elect. If the hon. Lady joined me, we would not be in this situation in the first place.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr MacNeil]

No. I have given way once, but I might give way again later.

Importantly, the number of those on the islands who are suffering from the bedroom tax can vary throughout the year as a result of seasonal work. Some people need to move house every six months due to the seasonal nature of employment. To those who say that they should move to other islands, I say that the reality in the Hebrides has always been difficult. Indeed, I was 17 years old before I first crossed the sound of Barra to South Uist. In fact, I spent two years in school in Lewis before I went to South Uist. Communities are distinct and far away from each other. Therefore, a move would be socially isolating for people initially, and of course they would lose whatever employment they had on the original island that they lived on.

To answer that bureaucratic problem by building houses would definitely be inefficient, because the needs and variations of people’s lives change all the time. In fact, the bigger the house, the better in many ways, except for the bureaucratic problem that is being created here.

I will give an example of the difficulties involved in moving from place to place on the islands. I once flew to Stornoway and beside me on the plane was Michael MacKinnon, an elderly gentleman from the island of Vatersay who has since sadly passed on. He was travelling to a hospital appointment and I asked him by way of conversation—in Gaelic, of course—when he had last been to Stornoway. He said it was his first time and, had it not been for his hospital appointment, he would have been very much looking forward to it. I was surprised. Michael was a well-travelled merchant seaman. I said to him, “I suppose you’ve been all over the world, Michael.” “Yes,” he said, “I’ve been to Pitcairn island in the middle of the Pacific 13 times, but not to the other end of the Hebrides.” One thing I can say for Pitcairn island is that it does not have the bedroom tax, although perhaps the Government might want some of my islanders to move there.

That is an illustration of how the bedroom tax can affect local people in the Hebrides. It does not and cannot work. It penalises the poorest and those in our society who circulate money the fastest. Some people have wealth, while others have the cash flow and they have it by necessity.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman accept that one solution to the problem would be to offer Scotland the same opportunity as Northern Ireland to exempt all existing tenants from the bedroom tax? I understand his unwillingness to accept the principle of the bedroom tax, but if parties in Northern Ireland can agree to that, surely those in Scotland could agree to provide such assistance to our constituents.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman should know that welfare is devolved in Northern Ireland, but I am glad that he supports the principle of devolving welfare to Scotland. In fact, we can devolve everything to Scotland by voting yes on 18 September next year.

The chairman of the US Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke, once said that the best form of quantitative easing for Japan about 10 or 20 years ago, when it was going through its economic travails, would be to pile cash in a helicopter and shovel it from above over any Japanese city, down on the citizens below. What is happening at the moment is the opposite of that because the Government are taking money from those who circulate it in the economy. The quickest way to stimulate demand in the economy is to put money into people’s hands; the Government are taking money out of their hands.

The money that people are losing would quickly end up in the hands of small businesses, yet in Scotland alone, £54.5 million has been taken out this year. Trickle-down economics never worked, but hoover-up economics certainly does work. Quantitative easing in this country has been a welfare subsidy of epic proportions to bankers and those who are already rich, yet this afternoon we are discussing how to take even more money from those who can ill afford it.

There are further complications with the bedroom tax. Discretionary housing payments have two important conditions. People cannot claim retrospectively and must apply for a housing transfer, but many people in my island constituency feel that is dishonest and do not want to do it for the simple reason that they do not want to move house. They also know that they might be moved to another island if the policy was to go through to its ultimate logical possibility. Of those 188 people in the Hebrides, only 80 or 90 have so far claimed discretionary housing payments. Hebridean Housing Partnership is in rent arrears, and more worryingly, 20 people have not engaged with, responded to or acknowledged the process at all. They are reckoned to have drink, drugs or mental health problems, and ultimately the tax could end up further destabilising their lives. At the very least—I make this plea to the Department for Work and Pensions —we should allow retrospective claims. Some people are currently trying their best to manage, but I feel that they may fail in their attempts and need support. That support should be retrospective.

Further complications are added by seasonal work, and the small amount that people earn from jobseeker’s allowance while having to pay for essentials such as food and big annual demands such as the TV licence. Losing £10 from 70-odd quid a week is quite a lot and a huge hindrance in life.

Some people watching this debate probably begrudge what other people have, but they should look to countries such as Norway and Denmark where the unemployed do far better, society is far healthier and unemployment is far lower. To those who are still begrudgers I say, “Look at the wealth disparity in the United Kingdom, the fourth most unequal country in the OECD, where sadly the super-rich are getting richer.” That is where the real societal flaws are.

I have known the father of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Mr Di Alexander, for 10 or 15 years, and he has worked in social housing. He is, of course, very proud of his son, but he has stuck to his principles. I strongly admire what he has said about the bedroom tax, which was absolutely spot-on. If we listen to anybody on or connected to the Government Benches, it should be Mr Di Alexander.

17:28

[Ian Swales (Redcar) (LD)]

I previously opposed this policy not because I think we should necessarily pay money for spare bedrooms, but because the consequences that we have heard about today were highly predictable, and I shall speak about some of them. It is no wonder that we have a crisis in rents and social housing availability when 421,000 social houses were lost under the Labour Government—a truly shameful record.

We have also heard about the different effects of the policy in different parts of the country, and I find myself identifying most with the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg), given the characteristics of my constituency. Social housing is in reasonably plentiful supply and regeneration is required in many areas, but we are now getting housing blight because of the availability of three-bedroom houses that people do not want to take. Previously, smaller family units were put into those houses, but people will not take them now.

As most hon. Members have said, there is a suitability of stock problem. My constituency made the front page of the newspapers after a calculation that said it would take 37 years to make available one-bedroom accommodation to all those who need it.

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

The hon. Gentleman is making some interesting points. I recognise that situation in Newcastle. Given that Government policy is punishing people for a problem—the stock available—not of their making, will he vote with the Opposition?

[Ian Swales]

I worry that housing policy tends to be dictated from inside the M25. It becomes less appropriate the further away from the M25 that we go.

My constituency has a discretionary housing payments problem. The last figures that I have seen show that there were 1,307 applications, but that only 358 awards were made. That happened because the money ran out, not because the applications were inappropriate.

We also have a one-size-fits-all penalty in the calculation for the amount of the spare room subsidy. In my constituency, the cost of an extra bedroom is about £7, but people are penalised by about £11. Therefore, people who should move from a three-bedroom property to a two-bedroom property get less housing benefit than they would get if they were in a two-bedroom house, which is deeply immoral.

Like many hon. Members, I have campaigned on various issues. I am pleased to welcome the Government’s concessions on foster parents, serving military personnel and disabled children. I also welcome the trebling of discretionary housing payments, but there is a lot of unfinished business. The hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg), the Chair of the Work and Pensions Committee, made some good points. I would make a plea for the exemption of disabled adults. Children are exempt when they need separate bedrooms for medical reasons. Let us do that for adults, instead of making people go through the demeaning process of applying. In my local council, people have to apply every quarter, and the application form is deeply intrusive.

As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) has said, many people are perfectly willing to move to right-size accommodation, but it simply does not exist anywhere in their area. In the north of England, we have a shortage of one-bedroom accommodation. In fact, some one-bedroom accommodation is being demolished in my constituency.

[Steve Webb]

My hon. Friend is making a thoughtful speech. I assume that he has a Labour-run local authority. If it has told him that the money for discretionary housing payments has run out, will he ask it why it has not applied for our additional funding? It appears not to have done so.

[Ian Swales]

I thank the Minister for that response. His announcement of that extra funding is the first I have heard of it. I will ask my local authority why it has not applied.

We need to recognise that some people simply cannot afford right-size accommodation and that it does not exist in their area. The Government should seriously consider a policy of treating those people as willing but unable to move and give them concessions in the system.

In my area, there have been some helpful consequences. I have been thanked by a number of families who have managed, owing to the policy, to get a bigger house in the area where they want to live. One social housing provider I met was surprised by the number of large families moving into their houses from overcrowded private rented accommodation. I do not know why that provider was surprised; surely, we ought to have expected that. Only the week before last, I was in an excellent hostel run by Coatham House, a charity in my constituency for homeless young people. It has said that it has seen a dramatic fall in the number of homeless young people. It put that down to the policy. Hon. Members might think there are bad reasons for that—I can think of those, too—but there might also be good reasons.

Many points have been made in the debate. The hon. Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) mentioned the financial stability of some of the stock transfer social housing providers. Some of them are highly leveraged and threatened by arrears, which will increase when direct payments begin. They could find themselves financially unstable.

I welcome the Government’s efforts to free up the system. One of the first cases that I dealt with as an MP was that of a single man living in a three-bedroom house. He wanted to downsize, but the system was so rigid that he was told that he would be moved to the bottom of the waiting list, with no guarantee of how and when he would get his next social house. Guess what? He did not move. I welcome that the system has, to an extent, been freed up and that exchanges are happening more often.

I welcome the continued commitment to review the policy, as it does need continual review. Despite the views that I have expressed in my speech, it is hard to welcome the hypocrisy evident from the Labour party on this issue. I look forward to the Minister’s response.

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am sorry to disappoint the House, but speeches have tended to be at the limit, with lots of interventions taken. I have to reduce the time limit with immediate effect to four minutes, otherwise colleagues will not get in. People do not have to take the full time, but they can.

17:35

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Dumfries and Galloway council does not have any housing, so in my constituency we depend on three or four registered social landlords. The two biggest social landlords are Dumfries and Galloway Housing Partnership and Loreburn Housing Association. Opposition Members have been good enough to explain the human consequences of this measure: its impact on disabled people and their carers, and on the access fathers from broken relationships have to their children. While foster carers have been supported, kinship carers have not. For single homeless people in my area, the situation has become very difficult indeed, as no one-bedroom properties are available. I also have to say, in case it has passed people by, that the cost of moving home for the poorest in society comes at a price that many cannot afford to pay.

I have two or three points I would like to raise with the Minister. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), who laid out how the local housing allowance came into being. The big difference between what has gone before and what we are faced with is the simple fact that when this legislation came into effect people were trapped—they had nowhere to turn. The idea that 1 million empty bedrooms and 250,000 overcrowded households could all of a sudden be put right is totally wrong. Last year, my Tory-run council wrote to the coalition Government to tell them to rethink the bedroom tax, because one-bedroom properties simply were not available. I have to ask: why do the Government not listen to their own?

The Minister of State, who opened the debate, is consistent—he always comes out with the usual nonsense about it being everyone else’s fault. On the complaint about the inherited position, not once did I hear anyone on the Government Benches talk about a school that we built that they did not want, a hospital that was built that they did not want, or infrastructure we put in that they did not want. Investment was not the problem for this nation—it was the banks. Government Members want to forget that.

I am amazed that we still have this legislation. Whatever lies behind it, there must have been Government targets. Was it about saving money? Seven months in, how much money have the Government saved? Was it about swapping people around in the system to make sure that those who were under-occupying moved out and that those who needed larger homes got them? Has that succeeded? Will the Minister tell us how many families have been able to downsize? How many social tenants have moved into the private sector because no social housing was available? I say: bring forward that review. As we have heard time and again from Government Members, the Bill was introduced because it was populist, and for no other reason. It is about kicking people in society when they are down. That is the true face of compassionate Conservatism.

17:39

[Mr George Howarth (Knowsley) (Lab)]

Much of my speech will be about facts, figures and statistics, but contributions thus far, certainly from the Opposition, have focused on the real impact of this policy on people’s lives. Be they people with disabilities, people with access to children at weekends that they cannot maintain or others—there are many more—these are real people, and this has real consequences for their lives, so this debate is about not just facts, figures and statistics, but how this policy affects people’s lives.

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

For precisely that reason and because Northern Ireland will be worse affected than any other region of the UK, does the right hon. Gentleman welcome the fact that the Northern Ireland Executive and political parties there are joining together to prevent this from hurting the vulnerable people of Northern Ireland?

[Mr Howarth]

Absolutely, I applaud what is happening in Northern Ireland.

Since the introduction of the bedroom tax, rent arrears in Merseyside have increased by £2.2 million—not to £2.2 million, but by £2.2 million—representing a loss of income that could have built 125 houses in the region, creating jobs and bringing all the other consequences. Some 60% of those in the Liverpool city region in arrears because of the bedroom tax are in arrears for the first time. It is not a habit of theirs, but a direct consequence of the bedroom tax.

[Barbara Keeley]

We have some frightening statistics in Salford, too, but those are very large numbers, particularly the loss of spending power. Do those figures cover the Minister’s constituency and will she be explaining to people in the region how these things came about?

[Mr Howarth]

They do indeed. I hope the Minister will respond to these statistics, because her own constituents will be interested to hear.

We have experienced a 30% increase in void—empty—properties, including a 130% increase in three-bedroom houses. This is not, therefore, just a matter of releasing unused bedroom space for those on the waiting list; there is no demand for three-bedroom properties, which is why they become void properties. Staggeringly, the result has been a loss of rent to local landlords of £616,622 per month, compared with £397,000 in the same period last year. Those are the direct consequences, in one city region, of the bedroom tax.

Where are our people supposed to go? In my city region, we have an excess of three-bedroom properties and a shortage of two and one-bedroom properties. We can debate all day who is responsible for that, but it is a fact, so where are people to go? There is a shortage of social housing for them to scale down to. Interestingly, York university’s centre for housing policy report, which has been referred to frequently in this debate, concludes that 41.5% of people losing money because of the bedroom tax and having to move will enter the private rented sector. That is the conclusion of an unbiased, peer-reviewed report.

Now, here is the rub. This measure is supposed to be saving some money. The average rent for a three-bedroom housing association property in Knowsley is £74 a week, compared with £132 for a three-bedroom house in the private rented sector. If someone were to scale down from the three-bedroom housing association property to a two-bedroom house in the private sector, they would be paying £115 a week, compared with the £74 they were paying before.

As my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford) said earlier, this policy is morally bankrupt. It is also incompetent. It presumes that people can just move around at will, and that a property that is right for their circumstances exists somewhere in their area. That is not the case. There is growing evidence that, rather than saving money, this policy is costing more.

17:45

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

I apologise for not having sat through the whole debate; I was in the Gambling (Licensing and Advertising) Bill Committee. However, I have to say of those speeches that I have heard from the Labour Benches: I have heard it all before. Initially, Labour Members dubbed the measure the “bedroom tax”—

[Chris Ruane]

Initially? It still is.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

They still persist in calling it that. We have to remember why the legislation was brought in, and the serious nature of the economic position in which we found ourselves. One of the great things that this Government have achieved is a measure of welfare reform. Labour Members vigorously opposed the housing benefit cap, but it has proved to be an incredibly popular and well-regarded policy. There were prophecies of ethnic cleansing in London and absolute devastation, but the policy has largely worked and welfare reform is on course.

It is a misrepresentation to talk about the spare room subsidy as a tax. It is not a tax, by any definition. There is also a serious problem of overcrowding. About 1.8 million people are living in overcrowded conditions, yet there are literally millions of spare rooms. What are we, as a country, going to do about that? Are we going to continue to subsidise people living in larger accommodation that they do not necessarily need, or are we going to try to achieve a fairer distribution of accommodation?

[Barbara Keeley]

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned millions of extra rooms and the benefit cap. To many disabled people and their carers, those are not spare rooms. They are needed by people who need to sleep apart, or who have hospital beds or medical equipment. Five thousand carers are being hit by the benefit cap, and a large number will also be hit by this measure. The hon. Gentleman needs to reflect on that fact, if he thinks the measure is working.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

If that were indeed true, why is there a discrepancy between privately rented accommodation and social housing in this context? I hope that the Opposition will enlighten me on this. The last Labour Government might have wrecked the economy, but they at least had some sense of responsibility—unlike the current Opposition. Why did that Labour Government believe that there was a perfectly good reason to equalise the treatment of the private and social sectors?

[Sheila Gilmore]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

I will not; I have only a short time in which to speak.

Labour Members talk about fairness, but is it fair that someone on a low income who is in privately rented accommodation should pay taxes in order to subsidise someone else’s spare room? Is it fair to raise taxation from low-paid workers to subsidise other people’s accommodation?

[Ian Mearns]

The hon. Gentleman has not recognised that people with disabilities often get priority when it comes to public housing. That is why there is a predominance of people with disabilities and greater levels of ill health in publicly provided housing.

[Kwasi Kwarteng]

It is an issue of principle—equality between socially provided housing and private sector rents. At the moment, there is a discrepancy that the Government—perfectly fairly and perfectly wisely—are trying to equalise.

It is, I think, very irresponsible of Labour to persist in peddling these half-truths about the nature of what the Government are trying to do, and many people in this country think so, too. It is apparent that this Government measure enjoys a wide body of support. It is exactly on this issue where the Labour party is on the wrong side of public opinion. On welfare, the public are consistently behind the coalition parties in the polls—and this debate shows why.

Labour Members who are sitting rather lemming-like in their places have absolutely no idea about fiscal responsibility and no idea about trying to reform a system that cannot be sustained. The notion that Labour would be tough on welfare has been shown to be untrue. It is not the case that Labour is tough on welfare. On the basis of the bits of the debate that I have had the pleasure—or, rather, misfortune—to listen to, I felt I was back in 1974. We have gone back to an early-70s, socialist-style model, in which there is no sense of responsibility, no sense of any fiscal constraints under which Governments have to operate and not even any sense of fairness when, as I mentioned, the taxes of people on lower income are being used to subsidise the spare room.

What is particularly frustrating for Government Members is to have to listen to the same old debates, the same old primary-school name calling of “the bedroom tax” and all the rest of it, which are completely lacking any grounding in reality. We have said that we want fairness. Councils are able to use discretionary payments, and we hear anecdotally that councils are refraining from using them. These are the anecdotes that we hear. It is now time for the Labour party to wise up and get realistic about the nature of the challenges we face and the overcrowded nature of much of this country’s social housing.

17:52

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

As dawn broke on a May morning, a 53-year-old grandmother, Stephanie Bottrill, went to the table in her house—a house she had lived in for 18 years—and wrote notes to her son, her daughter, her mother, her friends and the grandson on whom she doted. She locked up, left the cat behind, went across the street to her neighbour, put the keys in the neighbour’s door and then walked through a silent estate three miles to the M6, threw herself under a lorry and committed suicide. The note that this lady, driven to desperation, left for her son Steven, 27, said:

“Don’t blame yourself for me ending my life. The only people to blame are the Government.”

Days earlier, faced with having to find £20 extra a week, she had said to her neighbours, “I just can’t go on.” Mr Speaker, what kind of country do we live in, and what kind of Government do we have that drives a decent woman like her to suicide? Once in a generation, there is a tax that is so bad that the next generation looks back and asks. “Why did they do it?” Such was the poll tax; now the bedroom tax.

The bedroom tax is an iniquitous, immoral and unjust measure—cruel in its impact on the one hand, and presenting cruel dilemmas on the other. As for cruel in its impact, three years ago, I helped David O’Reilley, his partner Nikky Cunningham and their daughter to get into a council home. It had three bedrooms—a box room for the daughter and two other bedrooms, one of which Nikky cannot sleep in because, tragically as a result of an operation that went wrong, her loving husband David is a paraplegic. With the special bed and special equipment in the room, it is impossible for her to sleep in it too, so she sleeps in another room—but they have to pay the bedroom tax.

[Chris Ruane]

To what extent does my hon. Friend think that the Government’s policies are being pursued out of political spite rather than in the pursuit of efficiency?

[Jack Dromey]

I shall come to that very point shortly.

This tax is presenting cruel dilemmas. “Move,” they are told—but who are they? Two thirds of them are disabled. Move where, in Birmingham? There are 13,736 people who are affected by the bedroom tax, and there are 130 one-bedroom properties available to accommodate them. If they stay, they sink into debt. The Government say “Ah, but we have the discretionary housing payments.” The Government gave £3.77 million to Birmingham and the council topped it up by £2 million, but there are 350 new claimants every week. If the current trajectory continues, the fund will run out by Christmas, and thousands of desperate people in Birmingham will face an unhappy Christmas and a bleak new year.

Not only is this an unjust, iniquitous and immoral tax; it is also the economics of the madhouse. If a disabled man or woman is moved from a house that has been adapted to a house that has not been adapted, the adaptations must be paid for. If someone is moved from a two-bedroom council home to a one-bedroom home in the private rented sector, housing benefit will typically cost £1,500 more a year. There is also the impact of bad debt and administrative costs on house building. Housing associations throughout the country are saying, “Just when we need more social homes, fewer of them will be built.”

I know that there are some honourable Members on the Government Benches, and I pay particular tribute to the excellent contribution made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George), but let me say this to Government Members more generally. Have they no sense of shame about the pain that they are causing to war veterans, children, the disabled and carers, three quarters of whom have said that they are having to cut back on heating and eating as a result of the bedroom tax? Have they no sense of shame when they hear about Nicky Cunningham, the wonderful wife of David, her paraplegic husband? She said to me yesterday, “Jack, they treat us as if we are good for nothing and contribute nothing to society. Us a burden? We are already living with a burden. Why do they do this to us?” There is no answer to that question, other than to do what a Labour Government will ultimately do, and confine the bedroom tax to where it richly deserves to be: in the dustbin of history.

17:57

[Alison Seabeck (Plymouth, Moor View) (Lab)]

I must draw the House’s attention to my indirect interests in the interests declared by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford).

This policy was obviously introduced with no clear idea of whether the people affected could be moved or could downsize, and certainly no consideration was given to their ability to pay if no other option was available. Coming on top of the wider cost-of-living crisis, it is causing untold misery. As the impact assessment showed and as my hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) rightly emphasised, it does not make sense, it will not work, and it will not save money. Government Members have been well schooled and tell us that it is all to do with the deficit, but this is not a policy that will save the Government money.

There are 1,200 people affected by the tax in Plymouth Community Homes, which is in my constituency, and which was working for months before the tax was introduced to try to educate people and help them to think about how they would cope with it. However, it has been able to move only 118 households, and almost half of those were mutual exchanges. That is the tip of the iceberg. Plymouth Community Homes has personal contact with every one of those people every week. The cost of that is enormous, and it is now worried about the impact of the maximum benefit cap, which it thinks could be even more devastating for some families.

People in my constituency are borrowing money from relatives, from payday lenders and from loan sharks, but now they are finding that the money has run out. Mum and dad cannot afford to sub them any more, the payday lenders want their money back plus 100%, and the loan sharks want their pound of flesh. This simply is a diabolical policy and the impact on my constituents is devastating.

My local authority has stepped in in exceptional cases, but arrears are mounting, and it will not be long before we start to see evictions. One of my housing associations has already issued 144 possession notices, despite it doing everything it can to keep those people in those properties.

On specific cases, the Government must act to ensure that safe rooms for victims of domestic violence are exempted. The numbers are not high, but for victims of domestic violence to lose that room—that safe space—would be devastating, and the result could be tragic. We have to remember that the housing provider will have spent a lot of money putting that room in place, as they will have done for those who need specific and major adaptations because of disability.

One of my constituents e-mailed me at 2.30 in the morning in a suicidal state. I opened the e-mail when I woke at 7 am and feared the worst. This disabled lady with two disabled children had been moved into a three-bedroom house because her needs required it. She could not pay and she was terrified.

There is another family. The husband and wife separated years ago, but she continues to live in the house because she is his carer. He has severe mental illness; she is disabled. It would cost the council a disproportionate amount to give them both separate properties and provide a carer for him.

I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey): this is a pernicious and divisive measure. My constituents are saying to me, “Why am I being treated like this? What have they got against us?” I am proud that the Labour party has taken a strong stand and made the decision to abolish it.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In recognition of the fact that the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark) was not here for the bulk of the debate, he has generously volunteered to address the House extremely briefly, and I know he will expect to be held to that standard.

18:01

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I was not expecting such generosity so early on, Mr Speaker, and I apologise for not being present at the beginning of the debate; unfortunately, I had a ministerial meeting. I have been listening to much of the debate, however, and, notwithstanding some of the emotional hyperbole from Opposition Members, at its core the Opposition motion is in effect saying that the Government spare room subsidy is somehow not fair. Well, what is not fair is that 2 million households are on the social housing waiting list. What is not fair is that 250,000 tenants are living in overcrowded conditions. What is not fair is that every family in this country is somehow paying £900 a year to subsidise the benefits bill of £23 billion. That is what is not fair.

What is fair, however, is that if a taxpayer-subsidised council house has a spare room, the occupier of that house should pay an extra £14 per week or, effectively, the equivalent of three hours’ work. That is not a big ask. That is not beyond the reach of most tenants. What is fair is that we exempt disabled tenants and partners in need of overnight carers. What is fair is that we exempt those in supported “exempt” accommodation. What is fair is that we exempt disabled children who are unable to share a bedroom. What is fair is that we exempt approved foster carers. What is fair is that we exempt armed forces personnel who are living with parents. All this the Government do because that is, indeed, fair.

Further, the Government are doing all they can to address a number of the issues raised by Opposition Members, including providing discretionary housing payment to give a safety net to help to support vulnerable residents, as well as making the welfare reform changes that have been introduced. In particular, in the 2013 Budget the Government announced that £35 million extra a year would be allocated to help councils provide support for vulnerable tenants, especially those living in isolated rural areas.

The Government have a responsibility to deliver both fairness and value for money for taxpayers. The spare room subsidy does just that by addressing the mismatch between overcrowded housing and those living in houses with empty bedrooms, subject to the exemptions I outlined. Therefore, I support the Government’s amendment.

18:04

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

I have been sitting here for several hours stewing about the opening statement by the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). He said that the Government identified their largest area of spend—the Department for Work and Pensions—and decided that pensions were not going to be touched and so looked at the welfare budget, where they saw that people on housing benefit were the most expensive and so that was the area they were going to target. That says that the Government have deliberately targeted people in the greatest need of support and help. The Government may call it welfare, but I still call it social security, because that is what it is: it provides social security for people who need it. The Government have identified the people who most need that social security and they are going to take it away from them.

That is a big admission of the big differences between Government Members and Labour Members—the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) called them “philosophical differences”, but we call them ideological differences. As many Opposition Members have said, those differences relate to the fact that the only crime these people have committed is to be too poor to afford to buy a house. That is the crime for which the Government are going to be punishing them. In my constituency, 60% of the people affected by the bedroom tax since April—only half a year ago—are now in housing arrears. The Minister, in his opening statement, admitted that the cost of the discretionary housing payment has trebled. What I want to hear from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Esther McVey), who is responding to the debate, is if the cost of the discretionary housing payment has trebled, is this not also taxpayers’ money? It is, indeed, also money that the Government are spending, not saving, and they are giving it to the people we have already identified as being in the greatest need. As many Opposition Members have said, this policy neither saves money nor does anything about overcrowding.

I have read the opening pages of the Government’s impact assessment to consider the savings that are going to be made, and the best estimate is £930 million. It says that figures will be gathered to make sure that there can be a policy review, and I would like to know when it will take place. I would also like to see the breakdown of the amount of money spent as against the amount saved. One saving that the Government are making relates to people who will “float off Housing Benefit”: the assessment estimates this to be £5 million. That is so to misunderstand this area of the housing market as to be cruel and incompetent, as Opposition Members have said. Not only is it cruel and incompetent, but it has been especially designed to be so.

18:08

[Nic Dakin (Scunthorpe) (Lab)]

North Lincolnshire Homes is a social housing provider for my constituency, and I wish to share some of its observations about this tax, which is bad in principle and bad in practice. First, it told me that the worst aspect of the tax is that it is retrospective and that 95% of the problem flows from its retrospective nature. There are not enough smaller properties for affected households to downsize to in our area. North Lincolnshire Homes has about 10,000 homes, with 1,500 households affected by the tax. If it were to move them to properties that became available, it would take six years to move all the households affected.

Some people are already moving into more expensive private rented properties to escape the bedroom tax. Oddly, a two-bedroom property in north Lincolnshire can rent for £92.41 and rent on a typical three-bedroom property is £78.35, so the £92.41 will be paid by housing benefit when people have moved into the private sector, rather than the other way round. The impact of this tax on the public purse is thus absurd. People are falling into arrears. Rent arrears among the 1,500 affected households have increased by about £150,000 since April. The policy is not working financially and it is not working for the people in my constituency who are suffering as a result.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Barnardo’s today expressed grave concern about the effect that the bedroom tax is having on families and, in particular, on children. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that families and children are experiencing worse times because of the tax?

[Nic Dakin]

Many people have given examples of how families are being affected. Carers, people with disabilities and people who have access to their children overnight for short periods are all being affected. All Members on the Opposition Benches have had those people coming to our surgeries, so while listening to the contributions from many Government Members, I wondered whether they live in the same country as us. I really do not know the answer.

North Lincolnshire Homes is having to spend £200,000 a year on providing additional help to try to get people to move. That is an additional cost, and the money would be better spent on building new houses better to address the problem. North Lincolnshire Homes has seen a 150% increase in the number of properties that it is struggling to let, with many larger properties lying empty. These are the economics of the madhouse—it does not make any sense at all.

Let me highlight the case of one constituent to illustrate again, through a story, how the tax impacts on individuals. Richard lives in a three-bedroom house and has suffered a severe stroke. He is completely wheelchair-bound, has lost the use of the left side of his body and is without speech. His only means of communication are his laptop and text messages. In late 2012, £30,000 of public money was spent on converting his house to meet his needs, including a full wet room and a downstairs living area. Since the introduction of the bedroom tax in April 2013, he no longer receives full housing benefits to meet his rent and is struggling to make payments. He, like many others, has fallen into arrears. Adapting another property to meet his needs would involve a substantial cost. The situation is causing him massive stress and worry and contributing to his poor health.

I hope that the Minister is listening, as she appears to be. The sadness is that there are many Richards up and down this land who are suffering in the same way. I do not think it is proper for the situation to continue. Today has given people the opportunity to listen to the strength of the debate in this Chamber, which echoes the strength of feeling outside it, and for us to do something about the issue before it is too late.

18:12

[Emily Thornberry (Islington South and Finsbury) (Lab)]

Let me begin by informing Ministers here that Islington borough council used all its discretionary housing payment last year and will certainly use all its discretionary housing payment this year. People are under attack not only from the bedroom tax but from the limits on housing benefit, and a large number of those in private accommodation can simply no longer afford to live where they live at the moment. While we try to find them somewhere else to live, they need assistance with their rent, which is paid through the discretionary housing payment. I know that that was a point of debate earlier and I want to ensure that if there is any discretionary housing payment going for a song it is given to us, because in Islington we could certainly use it.

I ask the Minister to imagine living as part of a family of four in a three-bedroom flat. She is unemployed and living on about £240 a week. Her benefits went up 1% this year, and she is now paying council tax for the first time because of changes to the rules. The prices of food, heating, fares and clothing have gone up, and she has the disadvantage of a son who is nine and a daughter who is seven. She had been in a three-bedroom flat, but now she has to downsize; if she does not, she will lose £18 a week out of her £240 benefit. Such people exist: they come to my surgery and ask how they can economise. I would be grateful to hear from the Minister whether she has any ideas.

The bedroom tax affects 3,100 families in Islington. In 2012-13, despite the frenetic building attempts by the borough council, only 609 two-bedroom flats were let through the waiting list, which is already under huge pressure with 19,000 families looking for accommodation through it. Now, many more people need to be moved very quickly as they are being attacked by the bedroom tax. Islington tenants with an additional room, as the Government would say, pay £14 to £20 a week because of the high rents, which causes great hardship, and they face the disruption of moving, which is expensive and stressful.

A fifth of those 3,100 social housing tenants are sufficiently disabled to receive disability living allowance—not the higher-rate DLA awarded for overnight care but the lower-rate DLA. They have special equipment such as hoists and wheelchairs, or they are couples who cannot sleep together because one of them has a condition such as anxiety or some form of disability—it is difficult to sleep with that partner—or perhaps one of them wets the bed.

[Barbara Keeley]

Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most invidious things about this tax is that couples have to declare whether they sleep together? How invasive is that?

[Emily Thornberry]

In Islington, given how small the flats are, people simply cannot put two single beds in one room, which makes it difficult in those circumstances for couples to be able to cope. One of the unintended consequences of the bedroom tax is additional pressure on the tribunal service. People who appeal their benefits have to wait a year, and another 30 tenants from Islington are appealing the bedroom tax. Our housing system is under huge pressure, and we can do without this.

Of course, people under-occupy—I fully acknowledge that. I was brought up in a council house. When we all moved out, my mum was under-occupying, and she had the great benefit, frankly, of having a professional daughter who bought her a flat. That house was given back to the stock. Many elderly people are under-occupying, and, as I have said throughout the debate, I do not understand why the Government have not augmented the plans of many local authorities. In my local authority, people about to go into retirement are interviewed and are asked whether they would like to move somewhere else, like a flat that is available to them for the rest of their life and that would be appropriate for them. Even though, strictly speaking, they are entitled only to a one-bedroom flat, the council will give them a two-bedroom flat so that they can move out of a house and a family can move in. Indeed, they might be given compensation if they wish to move.

Why not work it that way? If this is really about under-occupancy and over-occupancy and getting people into the right flat, we should work with them. We should not just punish them, which is what the Government are doing. Why does the nation need to wait? We need to build more. Why should the nation wait for my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband)? Why should the nation wait for a Labour Government in 2015, because when we are elected we will build 200,000 homes every year, and we will really begin to address this problem?

18:17

[Dr Eilidh Whiteford (Banff and Buchan) (SNP)]

I have a very simple message for the Government in today’s debate. Six months after its introduction, their bedroom tax is driving up rent arrears across Scotland; it has caused immeasurable distress to low-income families; and it has created financial problems for local authorities and housing associations. What it has manifestly not done is meet its objectives: it has not tackled overcrowding; it has not delivered better use of housing stock; and it has not saved taxpayers any money at all. In Scotland, 82,500 households are affected by this policy, and 80% of them are the home of a disabled adult.

The Government seem to think that it is okay to take money out of the pockets of some of the most disadvantaged people in our communities—but it is not okay. It symbolises just how out of touch the Government are with the values of decent people in Scotland and elsewhere who recognise that this is a profoundly unfair and iniquitous measure.

Most social housing tenants have a lot less choice about where they live than the rest of us, and they are already living in the cheapest housing available to them. Across Scotland, 60% of tenants need a one-bedroom house, but only 27% of the social housing stock is one-bedroom accommodation, so there is a fundamental structural mismatch that cannot be fixed by crude social engineering. There are simply not enough smaller houses to go round, and I do not believe that it is right to punish the poorest tenants for the structural problems of our housing stock supply.

We have seen significant hikes in arrears over the past six months. According to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities, all but one of Scotland’s local authorities have reported increases in arrears that are attributable to the introduction of the bedroom tax, yet relatively few tenants have moved house. Given that eight out of 10 households are affected by disability, that really should not surprise us, because people do not want to move away from their family and their support networks. More than that, they do not want to leave their home, as my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams) eloquently put it.

We have heard that the Government’s idea of fairness is to bring housing benefit in line with the local housing allowance available to private sector tenants. I put it to the Government that that is a flawed premise and a false comparison. Social housing is allocated not on a market basis, but is prioritised on the basis of need. Most social landlords operate systems that take account of a range of factors when allocating tenancies, so that the most vulnerable, disadvantaged and low-paid people in our society have a stable place to live. I understand that the Government want to cut the housing benefit bill, but squeezing half a billion pounds out of disabled tenants is the wrong way to achieve that.

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

My hon. Friend, as usual, is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that Scotland has been hit particularly hard because of the sheer quantity of socially rented housing that we have in Scotland?

[Dr Whiteford]

That is true, and we also have a disproportionate number of disabled people in social housing. That suggests to me that social housing is going to the people who need it. Those are the people who find it hardest to access the labour market.

When we look closely at the increase in the housing benefit bill over the past decade, we see that 31% of it—almost a third of the whole UK increase—is attributable to the city of London alone. By contrast, in Scotland, the total housing benefit bill has increased by 22% in inflation-adjusted terms over the past 10 years, while in the social rented sector, the increase has been only 6%. A 6% increase in 10 years is hardly out of control, but we know that rents in London are out of control. Why should disabled tenants in Scotland pay for a rental system in the private sector here that is completely out of control and eye-watering for anybody who has to rent a home?

To illustrate the point, although Scotland and London are estimated to have about the same number of people affected by the bedroom tax—around 80,000 each—this year Scotland has received only £15.25 million in funding for discretionary housing payments. That includes the extra rural funding. I am glad that the Scottish Government have topped that up to the very peak of their allowance under the current terms of the Scotland Act 1998, by putting in £20 million this year and next year to mitigate some of the worst impacts; but fundamentally, we need to scrap the policy.

People in Scotland did not vote for the bedroom tax. It is a nasty policy from a nasty party that they did not elect. It has been propped up by Liberals, who should know better. The Scottish Government have made it clear that, with independence, the bedroom tax would be confined to history. I commend them not just for their efforts to mitigate this policy, but for the other aspects of welfare reform—the protection that they have given to my constituents and others from the effects of council tax benefit increases and the welfare fund that people can access to deal with the impact of the loss of crisis loans.

I urge the Government this evening to admit that they got it wrong, accept that this policy is not working and is not doing what they intended and do the decent thing by repealing this toxic piece of legislation.

18:22

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

The debate this afternoon has alarmed me. I listened to the huge divide between the two sides here in the Palace of Westminster. I am amazed at some of the contributions. As a Labour representative and as a member of the public, I resent Members of Parliament saying that I am foolish and my colleagues are foolish because we disagree with them, when all we are doing is looking to support the most vulnerable people in society.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) was outrageous in his comments. He attacked people in council houses because, he said, they lack ambition. That is so untrue. It is unbelievable. Some of the people in my constituency who live in council houses have lived there all their lives and for generations, and they have been working all their lives as well. So to think that people in council houses do not count, and that the council or anybody else can just come and move them on when they think there is a crisis, is outrageous.

This pernicious tax impacts on 600,000 people, of whom 400,000 are disabled. Some 375,000 children will suffer as a consequence of the tax. This is not about under-occupancy. It is not even about saving money, because the Government have admitted that they will not save as much as they had hoped. This is solely about Conservative ideology. It is about dogma. It is about throwing red meat to Back Benchers. It is about flexing powerful financial muscles. It is a class issue between those who have and those who have not. It is about people letting other people know where they are in the pecking order. That is what we have seen today.

[David T. C. Davies]

rose—

[Ian Lavery]

The hon. Gentleman seeks to intervene. I have never heard such outrageous comments as we heard in his contribution today in my three and half years in the House.

The bedroom tax will mean more child poverty and more people looking to pay off payday loans. There will be spiralling debt and people made homeless because of the bedroom tax. This is not simply about the bedroom tax. That is just a single part of the wider welfare reform, which the Government have seen falling down around their ears. The personal independence payment has huge problems. Universal credit has hit the buffers. There are problems with employment and support allowance, and hon. Members should look at the situation that Atos is causing, with, in the main, the same sort of people.

The people we are talking about today live in homes where they have lived all their lives in many cases. It is about time that people understood that. These are homes where people and children were brought up, where families lost their loved ones and where tears of joy and sadness have been shed.

[David T. C. Davies]

Crocodile tears.

[Hon. Members]

Withdraw!

[Ian Lavery]

That is what this is about: moving people from their houses. It is outrageous, but at the end of the day, I would like to think that the Government will—

[Mr Speaker]

Order.

18:26

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to follow the passionate speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery), who took on some of the outrageous and absolutely extraordinary comments that we have heard.

As we have heard today, the policy is iniquitous, unfair and economically illiterate. We have heard fantasy claims about the savings that will be made and the transfer of liability—the financial consequences for councils and registered social landlords. We have also heard some quite extraordinary boasts from the Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the hon. Member for Thornbury and Yate (Steve Webb). He talked about the wonderful rise in discretionary housing payments. Such claims are like telling someone that both their arms will be broken, but they will be given a sling for one of them. The policy is not working, but they will have some crumbs off the table to sort it out afterwards. That is extraordinary, and it reflects the local story of pressure and pain that I have seen with the rise in food banks. The Trussell Trust says that 45% of that increase is due to policies such as the bedroom tax and the cost pressures that come with energy bills, leading people into the embrace of loan sharks.

There is also the mental strain. We have heard some tragic tales today, in particular from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) about suicide. I similarly have had constituents come to me. One in particular handed me a letter that he could not bear to read to me, which literally said, “I would rather kill myself, then there would be one less mouth to feed.” Those are the real stories and Ministers would do well to listen to them.

One family in Llanrumney in my constituency lives in a four-bedroom council home with two severely autistic sons. They moved in 15 years ago and had important adaptations made on medical grounds. Their daughter then moved out, and they are now considered to have a spare room and have been hit by the bedroom tax. The council is doing everything that it can to help, but there will be a massive cost in moving to another house and adapting that, let alone the additional strain put on two autistic children. Changing their lives will mean significant damage to them. The suggestion of some Government Members that such circumstances are lifestyle choices is frankly offensive.

Ministers would do well to listen to some of the financial facts. I have spoken to both my local authorities this week. Cardiff has told me that it is now dealing with more than £1 million-worth of arrears. That is up £360,000 since the same period last year, largely due to the bedroom tax. It has five times more tenants looking to move to one-bedroom properties than exist in the city, and in the Vale of Glamorgan, my neighbouring authority, there are more than 16 times more people looking for one-bedroom properties than exist. Again, 41% of their accounts are seeing increasing arrears.

It was a shame today to hear the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) refer to feckless fathers and putting them in chains and other things, because he and I have had some sensible and reasonable discussions on these issues, most notably in preparing a report that was agreed by the Welsh Affairs Committee. I urge Ministers to look at that because it shows the disproportionate impact of this policy on people in Wales, where it has hit 40,000 people, more than anywhere else in Britain, 25,000 of whom are disabled.

We also heard some real gems in that inquiry, most notably Lord Freud’s suggestion that people should buy sofa beds or go out and get some work. He did not recognise that most of those people are in work and claiming housing benefit because they are on such low incomes. Also, extraordinarily, given the stories about suicide and mental health issues that we have heard today, neither he nor the Department had even considered the mental health impacts.

It is therefore really galling to have a Liberal Democrat candidate wandering around my area of Cardiff, where many hundreds of people are affected by the bedroom tax, and sticking leaflets through the doors stating that the Lib Dems are on the side of a fairer society. I am sorry, but I find that absolutely extraordinary. I hope that the voters of Cardiff South and Penarth show them exactly what we think of them in a few weeks’ time.

18:29

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

I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

I last spoke about the bedroom tax in another Opposition day debate in which we called on the Government to look at the overall impact of their policies on people with disabilities. I remember macho Government Members asking me what Labour’s position on the bedroom tax was. I told them that I would push our leadership to abolish it. I am proud to stand here today and say that that is Labour’s position in opposition and that it will be our position in government.

We have had more luck in getting our leadership to listen than have the poor Lib Dems, who today have not managed to secure from the Minister any reassurances on future support for some of the most vulnerable people in society. I urge them to find the necessary anatomical attachments and vote against the Government’s amendment. The Government have not only a mean policy, but a mean amendment. It talks about “exaggeration and misrepresentation”. I would like the Minister to tell us which of the stories we have heard today has been a misrepresentation, or about “crocodile tears”, as the Prime Minister’s own Parliamentary Private Secretary chuntered earlier from a sedentary position.

I have never been more disgusted by the language used by Government Members in a debate. They showed a complete lack of understanding of what poverty is. Daily in my constituency office I hear from people in real poverty, poverty of a kind we have not seen in this country since the 1930s. They are unable to heat their homes, unable to put food on the table and unable to clothe their children. If they were in prison it would be a breach of their human rights. It is a disgrace that this Government are adding to that poverty by imposing a bedroom tax.

Government Members are keen on calling on the Opposition to apologise for our mistakes in the past. I hope that the Minister will apologise to the parents of severely disabled children who had to go to the highest courts in the land to get justice. Let us not forget that Government Members voted for the bedroom tax in its original form. They, too, owe an apology. They talk about people who take too much out of the system, but the carers of this country give more than they will ever take out.

This morning we said bon voyage to the Secretary of State. Roll on 2015. Vive la différence between those on the Government side and those on the Opposition side. Let us say au revoir to the adulterous and mean coalition Government. Let us say au revoir to the Secretary of State. Let us say au revoir to the bedroom tax.

18:33

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Homeless people are refusing to accept a home and get their families off the street as a direct result of the Government’s bedroom tax. If they take a house with an extra room—they might not have any other choice—they believe that they cannot stretch their food budget, their energy budget or any other budget to pay the bedroom tax, so they and their children remain homeless, and it is the coalition Government who are to blame. Working families will not take on larger properties in case their circumstances change. We have examples of both councils and housing associations with houses standing empty, so we have empty houses and homeless families. It is incredible that the Government could get this policy so drastically wrong.

Let us consider the high-rise Prior and Melsonby Court in my constituency. Some £4 million was spent on improving properties there, yet 10% of them currently remain empty. The reason is that young single people cannot take on two-bedroom properties because they cannot afford to pay the bedroom tax and the properties are no use for families.

It is often said that a Prime Minister can be defined by his policies, so it is telling that at the same time as this Prime Minister gave a tax cut worth £100,000 to 13,000 millionaires, his Government introduced a measure that unfairly hit 660,000 people. It is unfair because it targets the most vulnerable, unfair because the charge is arbitrary and does not allow for consideration of the ability to pay, and unfair because it is incurred despite no smaller properties being available in the vast majority of cases. In case we are in any doubt, the Government’s own impact assessment was based on families being unable to move to avoid the bedroom tax, identifying mismatches in many areas that would result in insufficient properties being available. Put simply, the Government knew from the outset that the bedroom tax would result in families having no alternative but to pay up or face eventual eviction.

How are people advised to cope? They are told to work extra hours or take in a lodger: absurd indeed. Our people are groaning under the cosh of part-time, low-paid jobs that leave them dependent on housing benefits—if they are in work at all—and how many housing associations or local councils allow sub-letting to lodgers? I challenge Government Members to come and be a lodger in one of the council houses in my constituency for a week and find out all about the reality they need to find out about.

The largest housing association that serves my constituency, Tristar Homes, currently has 1,725 tenants classed as under-occupying their property. Almost two thirds have accrued rent arrears, with 85% being subject to increasing amounts. This means that since the introduction of the bedroom tax, tenants with Tristar Homes have amassed arrears of £100,000. However, even that is not reflective of the true cost of this Government’s policy, because it is on top of the additional costs borne by Tristar Homes in dealing with the increased levels of debt and efforts to help tenants back into work, and £50,000 that it has invested in its own money advice service. This still does not take into account the £265,000 discretionary fund established to provide some support to tenants impacted by the loss of housing benefit. In total, the cost to Tristar Homes of dealing with the bedroom tax and its effects has surpassed £500,000.

This expensive failure to address the many symptoms of the housing crisis is the reason we must repeal the bedroom tax without hesitation. We have already pledged to do so. The Prime Minister should beat us to it and end this misery for countless families.

18:37

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

In my two minutes on this policy it is very hard to decide where to start because there is so much wrong with it. There is the terrible situation of separated parents sharing child care while children are expected to sleep on camp beds or sofas or to share with their parents. There are people who are not choosing between heating and eating because they are having to go cold and hungry, disabled people whose health is deteriorating because of stress and distress, and people who have committed or are contemplating suicide.

Government Members have made the frankly ridiculous and desperate claim that this is Labour policy, but the local housing allowance was not applied retrospectively. Indeed, in Bolton there are still 1,000 tenants on the old scheme because their circumstances have not changed—the trigger for local housing allowance to be applied. This Government decided to introduce carnage, with no account taken of the nature of housing stock in each area, no account taken of the needs of disabled people or separated families, and no trialling, unlike the four years of trialling done before the local housing allowance was introduced. Instead, they have created chaos and heartache.

Like everybody, I have surgeries full of desperate people. I would like to talk about their cases, but unfortunately time is so limited because so many people are so angered by this Government’s policy that I cannot. I will finish by asking a few questions. Who in this place thinks it appropriate for a 15-year-old to share a bedroom with a toddler? Who thinks it right that boys and girls approaching puberty should have to share a room? Who thinks it right that two adults should be forced to share a bedroom irrespective of their health needs? Who thinks it makes sense to force families to move from a three-bedroom house with an eight-year-old and a nine-year-old and then force them to move back to a three-bedroom house a year later? It is a disgraceful policy that shows that this Government do not have a clue about the lives of ordinary people. They are out of touch and heartless. It is a cruel, senseless and stupid policy, and it should be repealed now.

17:37

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

The Opposition are proud to have called this debate. The testimony we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members from England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has shown again why this policy is both a moral and a practical failure. It is cruel, unworkable and perverse. It is not reducing overcrowding and it is not saving money as intended. It is causing fear and misery, and it is time it was scrapped.

I want to respond to as many of the points that have been raised as possible. I appreciate that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends who wanted to participate this afternoon have not been able to do so. One or two of them have notified me of their concerns and I hope to be able to raise them.

Let me start with an issue that was raised repeatedly by Government Members, who made comparisons with the private rented sector and said that the situation there is appropriate for the social sector. A whole raft of arguments against that position were made by my Opposition colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) pointed out that the social market is a very different market with very different rental structures from those in the private sector. The hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) pointed out that we allocate social housing predominantly on the basis of need, not market forces.

My hon. Friend the Member for Westminster North (Ms Buck) pointed out that there is a significant difference between this Government’s implementation of the bedroom tax and Labour’s implementation of the local housing allowance. The local housing allowance was not implemented retrospectively and people were not trapped. My right hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs McGuire), who was a Minister at the time so she ought to know, pointed out that it never became our policy in the social rented sector.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) was right to say—this was also highlighted by Government Members—that our aspiration for social housing is very different from theirs. We see it as fulfilling a role of offering high-quality, stable accommodation to strengthen families and communities. We cannot understand why a Government who proclaim their commitment to a big society would not agree with us on that.

The hon. Members for Meon Valley (George Hollingbery) and for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) suggested that the policy is popular with the public and pointed to the recently published Ipsos MORI poll. I suggest that hon. Members look a little more closely at the poll, because it shows that the public become more sceptical about the policy the more they know about it. The public are not in favour of the policy if there is no alternative home for people to move to or if it means that people cannot meet basic living costs, which they cannot. As the Real Life Reform research is beginning to show, the policy is causing human misery and leading to arrears and debt, to mental health problems and stress, and to families cutting back on fuel and food.

[George Hollingbery]

Having looked at the poll this afternoon, I think I am right in saying that the hon. Lady may have a point on the issue of requiring people to move out of the area in which they live, but that there was an approval of more than 45%—I think it was 48%—for expecting people to move within the area in which they live. Is that correct?

[Kate Green]

That may be the case, but as my Opposition colleagues have repeatedly shown, in many areas there is a mismatch of suitable properties for people to move into. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to acknowledge, as we have said, that expecting people to move up and down the country would not command the same popular support.

As many of my colleagues have pointed out, the policy is especially cruel towards those affected, including 220,000 families with children, lone parents and separated families and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) has said, those fleeing domestic violence. As my hon. Friend the Member for Halton has said, some pensioner couples will be affected under universal credit if they are not both over state pension age. Most crucially, two thirds of those affected are disabled—420,000 disabled people are affected by the bedroom tax.

Contrary to what Government Members appeared to believe at the beginning of the debate, not all disabled people are protected from this policy. Adults with an overnight carer are protected, but children who need an overnight carer are not. Children with medium and high-level care needs will now be protected—following the Government conceding that they need to take action in light of the Burnip and Gorry cases—but children with higher rate mobility needs are not protected, contrary to the advice of the Social Security Advisory Committee, let alone there being protection for all disabled children.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) pointed out, and many colleagues reinforced, there is no protection for a couple if they are unable as a result of health or disability to share a bed or bedroom. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton South East (Yasmin Qureshi) highlighted to me the case of her constituents, Mr and Mrs Wilkes, who have been particularly harshly hit by this measure.

There is no protection if someone needs extra space for equipment or because they have had their home adapted, as was the case for the Rutherford family who were required to install a hoist, wider doors and a wet room for their 13-year-old son, Warren, yet are not protected from the bedroom tax. Mr Randall from Basildon has been told by his council that it will not move him to a smaller property as it has not been and cannot be adapted, yet he is being hit by the bedroom tax in his current property on which adaptations have been made.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a very good case. As I understand it, the Government have two arguments, the first of which is that the policy will relieve overcrowding. When larger properties are freed up in my constituency, they are sold on the open market. If families move into private rented accommodation, that costs five times as much as social housing. Neither argument works.

[Kate Green]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Let us remember that disabled people’s options are more limited. A number of hon. Members have said that people should work, or work a few more hours a week. Often for disabled people it is particularly difficult to work or to do extra hours, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Worsley and Eccles South (Barbara Keeley) pointed out, that is a particular challenge for carers. One point that I do not think has been made, but which is extremely concerning for disabled people, is that many local authorities are treating disability living allowance as income when calculating someone’s entitlement to discretionary housing payment. That is a disgrace. I have challenged the Minister on that before, but he has declined to take action to ensure that all local authorities of whatever political colour have clear guidance on how they should treat the DLA.

As colleagues have pointed out, the policy will not achieve the savings that have been expected and scored by the Government because of the extra cost of having to adapt, readapt or undo adaptations to homes and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr Slaughter) pointed out, because of the extra high cost of rent and therefore housing benefit in the private rented sector. There are the implications of higher levels of arrears and the extra cost of advising people in arrears, and of collecting and managing arrears. There is also, of course, the impact on the financial standing of housing associations. The policy is damaging their credit rating and cash flows, and makes it more difficult for them to undertake the new builds we desperately need.

As colleagues have said, we will see extra costs for local authorities, children’s services, the health service and so on, and we also highlighted the utter perversity of the fact that being in arrears means someone will not get another tenancy in a small property unless and until those arrears have been cleared. That is simply not possible for many families.

We were pleased—surprised, I think—to hear the Minister of State say at the beginning of the debate that if it turned out that the discretionary housing pot in a local authority was fully committed, more money would be made available. That was encouraging, and we would welcome his colleague repeating that commitment. Let us remember, however, that the discretionary housing payment is temporary, transitional and—as its name suggests—discretionary. In many cases, we have instances of local authorities denying people access to that pot of funding, and actively discouraging people from going to appeal.

The most cruel part of the policy is the lack of suitable alternative homes for people to move to. There is a lack of one-bedroom properties in certain parts of the country and, increasingly, three-bedroom properties are left lying empty. How can that be sensible? People are being forced to leave sheltered accommodation that, by definition, cannot be taken up by families who do not have the special needs or meet the criteria to live in those homes.

Hon. Members on both sides of the House have rightly said that the answer to the problem is to build more housing. I am proud that Labour has committed to building 1 million new homes—[Interruption.] Let me address Labour’s record on housing. Between 2000 and 2007, the Labour Government increased the number of additional net new homes in every single year. The Department for Communities and Local Government figures from last week prove that. The number of net new homes has declined in every year since 2007, including under this Government.

[Ian Swales]

rose—

[Kate Green]

I will not give way.

In 1997, when Labour returned to power, the Labour Government inherited an urgent priority to deal with the appalling quality of the housing stock. Our priority was to bring it up to decent standards. Of course, it would have been good to build more homes, but we had to bring existing homes up to a decent standard.

It is time to call a halt on the Government’s policy. A review in 2015 is too late. Labour will act as soon as it comes to power to abolish the policy, but I hope the Government commit to abolishing it now.

18:51

[The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Esther McVey)]

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this lively and, at times, loud debate. We have heard many speeches in the past five and a half hours and many issues have been raised. Labour Members have passed much speculation as certainty. They all called for the spare room subsidy to remain. There has been much passion—[Interruption]—and much shouting out like that. However, unfortunately, Labour Members have given us no answers—they have given not one single answer to the problems left by the previous Labour Government. Not one Labour Member confronted the nub of the problem or tackled the issues at hand, or addressed the many interdependent issues that have made the removal of the spare room subsidy necessary.

Let us therefore remind hon. Members of the complex mix and the delicate balance that we must get right, which we are doing. Some 400,000 people are in overcrowded accommodation, and nearly 2 million people—[Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is too much noise in the Chamber. Members must not shout at the Minister. The Minister’s response to the debate must be heard.

[Esther McVey]

Just like I am being shouted down now, the voices of nearly 2 million people on waiting lists have been shouted down and, unfortunately, the 400,000 people in overcrowded accommodation are not being listened to.

We have two different legal systems within one—it does different things for people in the private rented sector and for people in the social rented sector. Opposition Members want to remove the reversal of the spare room subsidy, but I want to throw a question out there. If they retain the spare room subsidy, I believe a legal challenge is on the way from people in the private sector, who want the same policy to apply to them. If Labour reverses our policy, that is not tough on fiscal responsibility. Instead, Labour will spend yet more, which is typical Labour: spend more and increase benefits, and ignore the problem altogether.

Hon. Members have asked whether the policy was about saving money, getting the housing stock right or getting the right people into social houses. Actually, we must do all those things. That is why, as we are solving those problems, £4.5 billion will be put into new building, so we will have 170,000 new houses by 2015. A further £3.3 billion will mean we have another 65,000 houses by 2018.

The hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Cathy Jamieson) said that Members on each side of the House are different and she is quite right: those on the Opposition Benches deliver problems and those on the coalition Government Benches have to solve them. The hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) asked what the difference is between the Government side and the Opposition side of the House. The Opposition drove us into recession, never thinking about what they were spending and never living within their means. We are digging them out of that recession.

[Yasmin Qureshi (Bolton South East) (Lab)]

What would the hon. Lady say to my constituents, Mr and Mrs Wilkes? Mrs Wilkes has a back problem and is disabled. Her husband cannot share a bed with her, much as he would like to, and has to stay in the second room. They are having to pay the bedroom tax. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Interventions must be brief. I think we got the gist and we are grateful to the hon. Lady.

[Esther McVey]

We have listened to all of those issues and trebled the discretionary housing payment. That is why people have a responsibility to help those people.

The Opposition’s figures—surprisingly—do not always stack up. We talked about how we are going to find new homes for different people and how we are going to support them to move into accommodation—all the things we should be doing. Yes, 660,000 people are affected by these changes, but only earlier today I spoke to one of the biggest online home swap companies. It has 320,000 accommodations for people to move to. By the way, it has only 6.7% market share, so we are easily able, should we be working in this way, to find houses for people to swap. [Interruption.]

[Mr Speaker]

Order. There is simply too much noise in the Chamber. It is not possible to hear what the Minister is saying. [Interruption.] Order. The Minister must and will be heard.

[Esther McVey]

I would like to raise the example of Susannah from south Yorkshire. She had had four children and did not necessarily want to move. In the end, she looked around for six months and moved. She said, “Actually, I wished I’d had that support earlier, because now I am in an area I prefer. I have downsized. I have a smaller house, which means that my cost of living is less. I am paying less on cleaning and less on heating, and I can live within my means.” I have a list of people like that. I ask Opposition Members to work with their local authorities and their constituents to help them downsize so they can live within their means. I know that living within one’s means is not something Opposition Members understand, but that is what we all have to do as a country.

[Sheila Gilmore]

At what point, when the costs of this policy outweigh the savings, will the Government admit that they have simply got it wrong?

[Esther McVey]

We are planning to save money and move people into the right houses, something the Labour Government failed to do. They left people in the wrong houses and never supported them, and lived beyond their means.

[Mr Alan Campbell (Tynemouth) (Lab)]

claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).

Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.

Question agreed to.

Question put accordingly (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.

18:59

Division 126

Ayes: 226

---

Labour: 209
Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Green Party: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1
Conservative: 1

Noes: 252

---

Conservative: 219
Liberal Democrat: 31
Independent: 1

Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 31(2), That the proposed words be there added.

19:14

Division 127

Ayes: 253

---

Conservative: 219
Liberal Democrat: 32
Independent: 1

Noes: 222

---

Labour: 206
Scottish National Party: 6
Plaid Cymru: 3
Democratic Unionist Party: 2
Liberal Democrat: 2
Green Party: 1
Social Democratic & Labour Party: 1

Madam Deputy Speaker declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to (Standing Order No. 31(2).

Resolved,

That this House notes the substantial structural deficit which was inherited from the previous Government and the need to get the nation’s finances back into shape; further notes the need to bring expenditure on housing benefit under control; further notes that the proposed reversal of this policy would cost the Exchequer around half a billion pounds a year; regrets any exaggeration and misrepresentation of the effects of the policy; recognises the inequality of allowing social tenants to receive benefit for a spare bedroom whilst denying this opportunity to private tenants; supports the Government’s action to deal with this unfairness whilst protecting vulnerable groups such as pensioners and providing substantial funding through Discretionary Housing Payments to local authorities to support other tenants who would otherwise be adversely affected; further notes the Government’s continuing commitment to monitor the effects of the policy and the use of Discretionary Housing Payments; and welcomes the potential beneficial impact of this policy on those living in overcrowded accommodation and the 2.1 million families on waiting lists.

[Mr William Cash (Stone) (Con)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This afternoon in the High Court, there has been a ruling that the charter of fundamental rights is part of domestic law, irrespective of the European Union (Amendment) Act 2008 and despite what was said at the time. What can be done to stop this coach and horses going through Acts of Parliament, invading our supremacy, and what can you and Mr Speaker do to defend this Parliament?

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

The hon. Gentleman makes his point very well, as ever. However, as he knows, that is not a matter for the Chair.

[Mr John Redwood (Wokingham) (Con)]

Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it not a matter for the Chair if the fundamental rights and liberties of this great House of Commons are damaged by a foreign court and we can do nothing about it?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have just said that it is not a matter for the Chair. It may be a matter for debate at some other time, but it is not a matter for the Chair and that was therefore not further to the point of order.

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

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Given that it was described by the judge in the case as a ruling of constitutional significance which cannot be underestimated, has a Minister offered any indication that they will come to make a statement about this very grave matter?

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

I have ruled that this is not a matter for the Chair. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not a matter for the Chair. The point will undoubtedly be brought to this Chamber at another time.

Deferred Divisions

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 41A(3)),

That, at this day’s sitting, Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply to the Motion in the name of Mr David Lidington relating to the EU and Ukraine.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

European Union Documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

The EU and Ukraine

That this House takes note of Unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, dated 9 October 2013, on a draft Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, and provisional application of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Ukraine, with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party, a draft Council Decision on the signing, on behalf of the European Union, of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Ukraine as regards the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party, a draft Council Decision on the conclusion of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Ukraine, with the exception of the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party, and a draft Council Decision on the conclusion, on behalf of the European Union, of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States and Ukraine as regards the provisions relating to the treatment of third-country nationals legally employed as workers in the territory of the other party; and supports the Government’s aim of using the Association Agreement between the EU, its Member States and Ukraine to embed sustainable reform, security and prosperity in Ukraine and the eastern neighbourhood.—(Mark Lancaster.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

19:26

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, and on behalf of my constituents Sam Morris and Mr T. Murugadas and 357 other residents of Ealing North, I wish to present a petition concerning the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting due to be held next week in Sri Lanka.

The petition states:

The Humble Petition of residents of the Ealing North Constituency,

Sheweth,

That the island of Sri Lanka is still experiencing the after effects of the recent war.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House formally state their opinion that this country should not be represented at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting while so many issues are unresolved and so many people are still displaced as a result of this conflict.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.

[P001284]

19:28

[Robert Flello (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)]

I have a petition signed by 1,000 or so constituents who are concerned that land given to Stoke-on-Trent city council by the Highways Agency to compensate for public open space taken by the A50 when it was built is now under threat. The land, near Astro grove and Power grove in Longton, has become a wildlife sanctuary but, sadly, the local authority is unwilling to rule it out for possible future development.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that this land is not to be sold for any development, and is only to be kept and maintained for leisure purposes, in line with the requirements of the Public Open Space order.

Following is the full text of the petition;

[The Petition of residents of Stoke-on-Trent,

Declares that land transferred to Stoke-on-Trent City Council by the Highways Agency in 1997, to compensate for the loss of public space from the construction of the A50 road, should retain its intended usage and function as a public space. The land in question, near to Astro Grove, in Longton, Stoke-on-Trent, exists as a Public Open Space (POS) and thus restrictions are in place to limit its usage and to prevent development on the site. Stoke-on-Trent City Council has also received funding to carry out appropriate landscape treatment on this site in order to retain its function.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons ensures that this land is not to be sold for any development, and is only to be kept and maintained for leisure purposes, in line with the requirements of the Public Open Space order.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001285]

19:30

[Andrew Stephenson (Pendle) (Con)]

I want to present to the House of Commons a petition from the residents of Barrowford, Lancashire.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Barrowford, Lancashire,

Declares that the petitioners believe the A682 next to Barrowford Primary School presents a danger to the safety of the children that attend the school and others who live nearby, as the road gets busy during the times that children are picked up and dropped off to go to school.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge Lancashire County Council to place a zebra crossing on the A682 near to Barrowford Primary School, perpendicular to Rushton Street and opposite the nearby Spar shop.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001288]

19:30

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

Solar photovoltaic farms are a blight on the English countryside, never more so than in the northern part of my constituency, where up to 300 acres of solar PV farms are being considered. I therefore present this petition on behalf of the residents of Foxearth and Liston, Belchamp Saint Paul and Belchamp Otten, and Pentlow parishes in the great and beautiful county of Essex.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Energy and Climate Change to refuse all planning applications to build on sites where Solar PV farms will be developed.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Foxearth and Liston, Belchamp Saint Pauls and Belchamp Otten, and Pentlow Parishes, Essex,

Declares that the Petitioners object to the siting of Solar PV farms because they will exceed the 50 megawatt limitation as set out in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 thus requiring consideration by the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change; further that these sites involve Grade II agricultural land which is within the top 21 per cent of agricultural land in the country and protected as such under the National Planning Policy Framework; further that the Department of Communities and Local Government issued in July 2013 planning guidance which referred to the requirements to consider technology and potential impacts on the local environment; further that there is an absence of locational need and a site search has not been fully carried out; further that the impact of the developments will be extensive and will include a two metre security fence on Greenfield land with significant consequences on the surrounding countryside; further that on two of the proposed sites a Grade I listed church and several Grade II listed houses will be overlooked; and further that the proposals are intended to last for 25 years but during that time they will effectively preclude agricultural use and will degrade the land and will impact upon the sites and surrounding areas.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department of Energy and Climate Change to refuse all planning applications to build on sites where Solar PV farms will be developed.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001290]

19:31

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

The petition calls on Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service to drop proposals to close our criminal courts, which would leave Dudley the largest town in the UK without a criminal court. The fact that 2,000 people have signed our petition in just a few weeks shows how strongly local people feel. I record my thanks to magistrates and former magistrates, including Colin Knipe, Chris Smith and Barbara Sykes, for their help and advice. Magistrates, victims, witnesses and others directly involved with the court tell me that closure would make it harder for local victims to testify, harder for local people to volunteer in court and harder for the press to deter crime by reporting on local cases. Local people want to see criminals held to account for the crimes they commit in Dudley.

The petition states:

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Ministry of Justice to stop criminal cases moving from Dudley Magistrates Court to criminal courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall.

Following is the full text of the petition:

[The Petition of residents of Dudley,

Declares that there are plans to move all criminal cases from Dudley Magistrates Court to courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall; further that the Petitioners believe justice should be seen to be done locally as it will be harder for local victims to testify, harder for local people to volunteer in court and harder for the press to deter crime by reporting on local cases; and further that moving the work of Dudley Magistrates Court may lead to current employees being made redundant or forced to move.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons to urge the Ministry of Justice to stop criminal cases moving from Dudley Magistrates Court to criminal courts in Wolverhampton, Sandwell and Walsall.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.]

[P001291]

19:33

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

May I say, Madam Deputy Speaker, what a pleasure it is to present my first petition under your watchful eye?

Last Friday, in the company of Councillor Baljit Singh and Councillor Deepak Bajaj, I met Linden primary school and nearby residents who were concerned about traffic calming measures outside the school. They presented me with a petition with 414 signatures urging the Department for Communities and Local Government, with Leicester city council, to implement a 20 mph speed limit.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the proposed traffic calming measures on Headland Road in Leicester are vital in ensuring the safety of local school children at Linden Primary School.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Department for Communities and Local Government and Leicester City Council to implement the proposed measures, including the 20 mile per hour speed limit without delay and before the next designated review of traffic calming measures.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001292]

Hearing Loss in Adulthood

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Mark Lancaster.)

19:34

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

I am glad that we are debating an issue that affects all our constituencies, and I know that it is a matter of real concern to many Members in this House and in the other place.

I would like to begin by paying tribute to the work of the Ear Foundation, a cochlear implant support charity in my constituency. I was glad to secure the debate, and I hope that it will draw attention to the vital work it does to support adults and children with hearing loss.

One in six people in the UK experience hearing loss, and seven in 10 can expect to be affected by the time they reach their 70th birthday. That means that 10 million people live with hearing loss, and an ageing population means that that number will rise in the years ahead. To communicate is to be part of society. Losing one’s hearing is not just about the absence of sound—if not addressed, hearing loss can result in the loss of our social life, cutting us off from family, friends and work.

Deafness in adulthood is linked to depression, unemployment, poor mental and physical health and an increased risk of other conditions, including dementia. Hearing loss is a constant condition, and in most cases there is no cure. It is no exaggeration to say that it can destroy lives. People with hearing loss can find it difficult to negotiate everyday challenges in the workplace, on the bus, at the supermarket, or in the local doctor’s surgery, leading to isolation, exclusion and frustration.

Research carried out by Action on Hearing Loss has found that adults who lose their hearing are likely to withdraw from social activities. When they do take part, communication difficulties can result in feelings of loneliness. Hearing loss can also damage personal relationships. Many deaf people find it difficult to join in with family conversations and jokes. Couples say that they feel more distant from their friends, and partners of people with a hearing problem describe feelings of loneliness and frustration. Travelling on public transport becomes a challenge, and a platform alteration or a delayed connection can be a major problem if someone misses the announcement. That can leave deaf people feeling anxious and vulnerable when travelling, and worried about being stranded or lost. The debate among policy makers focuses mainly on quality-of-life issues, but failure to address hearing problems has implications for society as a whole.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I have sought the hon. Lady’s permission to intervene in the debate. In Northern Ireland, 300,000 adults experience deafness or tinnitus—a sixth of the population, which is similar to the rest of the United Kingdom. Does she agree that a UK-wide strategy—and perhaps the Minister would respond to this—would benefit the core of the community across the United Kingdom, especially people with deafness?

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is quite right: these are issues that affect the whole of society, and I hope that the Minister will respond positively to his suggestion.

A 2006 study estimated that unemployment resulting from hearing loss cost the UK economy £13 billion a year. Too many people are forced to resign, retire or face redundancy as a result of their disability. People with hearing impairment report that their employers often have a passive attitude, providing adjustments and support only when prompted, and a significant number face outright discrimination.

Of the 300,000 people of working age with severe hearing impairment, 20% report that they are unemployed and are seeking work. Another 10% report that they cannot seek work as a result of their condition. As the state pension age rises and more jobs depend on communication skills than was the case 20 or 30 years ago, that vulnerability to unemployment is a growing problem. It represents a worrying underuse of the economic capacity of the nation.

Despite the scale and impact of hearing loss in the UK, adults with profound and severe hearing problems face major challenges when accessing health services. For many people, even seeing their GP can be a challenge, especially when surgeries rely on telephone booking systems and do not use visual display screens. One in seven respondents to an Action on Hearing Loss survey reported missing the call for their appointment while sitting in the waiting room. Poor deaf awareness among health professionals, such as not looking directly at a patient to allow for lip-reading, can lead to patients with hearing loss feeling unclear about the medical advice or information provided. According to the same survey, 28% of people with hearing loss have been unclear about a medical diagnosis and 19% have been unclear about their medication.

Diagnosis of hearing loss among adults is too often down to chance. Many are reluctant to seek help, and evidence suggests that people wait an average of 10 years before doing so. Stigma is a key factor in this delay in taking up hearing aids, which makes some people unwilling to tell others about their hearing loss. An Action on Hearing Loss report found that one element of stigma is the fear that deaf people are seen as less capable. A 2005 MORI poll of more than 20,000 people showed that one in five expressed concern about being treated differently.

Earlier diagnosis is essential to ensuring that people with hearing loss can access the support and services that can help them best manage their condition. A hearing screening programme for people aged 65 would help to overcome some of the barriers that prevent people from addressing their hearing loss. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who has led the Hearing Screening for Life campaign. Research by the consultancy London Economics suggests that such a programme would represent good value for money, so will the Minister consider establishing a pilot hearing screening programme?

There are approximately 4 million people with undiagnosed hearing loss in the UK who could benefit from hearing aids or, in a smaller number of cases, a cochlear implant. However, research suggests that GPs are often reluctant to refer patients for assessment or lack the knowledge to do so. Forty-five per cent. of patients presenting hearing loss symptoms are not referred, so something is clearly amiss. GPs’ lack of awareness of the impacts of deafness in general and a lack of knowledge of the benefits of cochlear implantation in particular give rise to concern. Greater education of GPs and audiologists on hearing technologies and the potential benefits of cochlear implantation for adult patients is therefore vital. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on the Government’s plans to ensure that training and updating on hearing technologies is provided consistently across the country.

Despite the obvious need, there is relatively little recognition of the impact of hearing loss or of the latest technologies that can improve hearing. We know that hearing aids improve adults’ health-related quality of life by reducing the psychological, social and emotional effects of hearing loss. For those who are severely or profoundly deaf, and for whom hearing aids offer little benefit, cochlear implants offer the chance of useful hearing.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way; she is being very gracious. One of the issues that have come to my attention as an elected representative is that hearing aids are sometimes thought of as a big thing attached to the ear, but thanks to the advance of technology hearing aids are very small now. Perhaps that means that cosmetically they are less noticeable, and people can have the implant and lead a normal life. Is that one of the things that the hon. Lady feels should happen?

[Lilian Greenwood]

My hon. Friend is right. There is a need to increase awareness of what a cochlear implant is, how it operates and even what it looks like.

Despite the digital revolution in the NHS, in which high-quality hearing aids are now routinely fitted, there remains an under-utilisation of implants for adults, notwithstanding comparable advances in implant technology. One person who has benefited is Abigail from Nottingham, who found her implant an enormous benefit to her life. She was born deaf and grew up wearing two hearing aids until her hearing deteriorated, and doctors told her that hearing aids were no longer of benefit to her. Following detailed and intensive assessment she was approved for an implant, and when this was switched on it gave her new-found confidence. It rebuilt her self-esteem, enabling her to communicate more comfortably with her husband, family, friends and colleagues. Having a cochlear implant has given her a new lease of life, without having to rely on others to help her with communication, such as by telephone. It has also helped her immensely at work, where she can now communicate with colleagues on an easier level. It has helped her gain promotion and do a job that she enjoys. The cochlear implant has enabled her to get on with life at home, at work and socially, and with her hobbies, including music. She also does volunteering work in the community.

A cochlear implant stimulates the hearing nerve by means of rapid electrical impulses, which bypass the non-functional inner ear in people who are severely or profoundly deaf. Sounds heard with a cochlear implant are not the same as those heard with a human ear, but with the right support a person with a cochlear implant can adapt to the novel signal and use their implant to understand speech and other sounds, much like normal listening. One cochlear implant recipient said:

“I feel that so much of my previous life and true self has been restored, regaining my pride and ability to contribute actively in society on an equal basis.”

The late Lord Ashley, who is remembered and was rightly held in extremely high regard by many in this place, was known to call his cochlear implant a miracle. Surely it is time that everyone who needs a cochlear implant had access to their own miracle. There are an estimated 100,000 people with profound hearing loss, and 360,000 with severe loss. Although it is difficult to determine the exact number of adults who need an implant, on any of the current measures of profound deafness the current level of provision for cochlear implantation would appear to be significantly below any predictions of need.

The Ear Foundation suggests that as few as 5% of adults who might be able to benefit from an implant are currently getting one, and the UK is fitting only half the number of implants in adults as Germany and Austria. Speaking at last month’s Westminster launch of the Ear Foundation report “Adult Cochlear Implantation”, Dr Andrew Dunlop, a GP who suffered sudden hearing loss himself, described his own experience of deafness, undergoing assessment and receiving a cochlear implant. He said:

“I was fortunate, that as a healthcare professional, I knew my way around the system and was not overwhelmed when dealing with fellow doctors, audiologists and consultants. Sadly, the story for less informed individuals is not quite the same. My return to Practice emphasized to me just how much of an iceberg of unmet need is within the community at large, with many very able individuals assuming wrongly that they have no options after optimal provision of hearing aids and seem reduced to a second class life of social isolation, loss of self-esteem and frequently unemployment.”

Today’s debate is my attempt to chip away at that iceberg.

The criteria for implants are set by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, with guidance last reviewed in 2011. However, the criteria are based on evidence from patients who were predominantly wearing technology from the late 1990s, and since then there have been significant advances in cochlear implant technology. Many clinicians would argue that the criteria do not reflect real world listening, and that more realistic tests should be deployed instead.

Since the last review, there have been supportive studies on the effectiveness of bilateral implants—one implant for each ear—which NICE believes provide too little benefit for adults to justify NHS funding. One patient who was refused implantation described the process as follows:

“The conditions they did the testing in were ideal. It was perfect but they made no allowance for the difficulties you get if somebody is talking from the side, or if there is any background noise…and of course under those circumstances you do very well and it makes no allowances for the problems you run into in real life.”

In addition, the use of sentence tests, rather than monosyllabic words, enables deafened adults to use their previous linguistic knowledge to complete the test, thus appearing to have hearing that is too good for cochlear implantation. Brian Lam and Sue Archbold, authors of the Ear Foundation report, conclude that there is an urgent need to look at the deployment of a wider range of tests. They also argue that testing in noise and assessment of performance with monosyllabic words would be more appropriate. This would reflect current practice in Germany, where criteria are more flexible.

A growing body of evidence indicates that bilateral implants provide added improvements in speech perception in noisy environments over unilateral implantation, and better sound localisation, leading to improved quality of life. The Ear Foundation has recommended that NICE review its current guidance on cochlear implantation, and in particular on the criteria for unilateral and bilateral implants for adults. Will the Minister look into this matter and consider asking NICE to conduct such a review? Does he agree that where a clinician believes that it is in the best interests of an individual patient, there should be some discretion in applying these guidelines?

Charities in the field have welcomed the Department of Health’s development of a national hearing loss action plan, but they are disappointed that it has been delayed by a year. I join those charities in urging the Government to prioritise its publication. Last month the noble Baroness Jolly stated in the other place that the Government aim to publish the action plan as soon as possible. I would be grateful if the Minister updated the House on when it will be published and how its implementation will be monitored. Has he assessed the suggestion of establishing a lead commissioner for audiology so that there is greater focus on good commissioning across all clinical commissioning groups?

The right hon. Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce), who chairs the all-party group on deafness, last month challenged the Government, and any Government who come after them, no longer to leave deaf people behind. Today I echo those words. I hope that the Government can help move this issue, which affects all our constituencies, beyond debate and ensure that action is taken to address it.

19:50

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, Madam Deputy Speaker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) on securing the debate and championing this cause. I will state at the start that I am very happy to maintain a dialogue with her on this, because she has made a powerful case and clearly a lot of progress could be made not only by the Government, but across the health and care system. I am happy to assist in that regard. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd), who has done a lot of work in championing this cause, as the hon. Lady mentioned, and the Ear Foundation for its work on this important issue.

The hon. Lady made a good case for why this is so important. She talked about the importance of basic communication and the fact that hearing loss can affect mental health as well as physical health and lead to withdrawal from social activities. She talked about the cost to society, the impact on employment and the fact that there is poor deaf awareness among health professionals and that better training is needed. I absolutely agree with her on all those points.

Over 10 million adults in England are living with hearing loss. Some of them will have been among the one in 700 babies in England born with hearing loss, but many will be among the growing number who develop a hearing impairment during their lifetimes. For some people that will be the sort of age-related hearing loss that many of us will experience as we grow older and that will become increasingly common because of our ageing population, but for many others hearing loss is acquired and should therefore be avoidable.

The World Health Organisation considers half of all cases of hearing loss to be preventable—for example, by immunisation, early treatment or reducing exposure to noise. In fact, it identifies exposure to excessive noise as the major avoidable cause of permanent hearing impairment worldwide. In developed countries, it is at least partially responsible for more than a third of all hearing impairments. As a result of the UK’s ageing population, the impact of working with noisy machinery and exposure to loud music and other loud noises, the World Health Organisation predicts that by 2030 there will be an estimated 14.5 million people in the UK with hearing loss, and adult-onset hearing loss will be among the UK’s top 10 disease burdens. That demonstrates the scale of the concern.

We have to take hearing loss seriously, which is why we are currently looking to develop the action plan on hearing loss, which the hon. Lady mentioned, so that we can achieve better outcomes for all those with hearing loss and related conditions. The action plan will identify key actions that will make a real difference in improving health and social care outcomes for children, young people and adults with hearing loss and generally improving the hearing health of the population.

The Department of Health is engaging with a range of organisations in developing this action plan, and as Baroness Jolly mentioned, we aim to publish it as soon as possible. I will get back to the hon. Lady with an indication of the likely publication day. It is time that we set a target date and then focused minds on getting it published.

[Jim Shannon]

We have a UK-wide diabetes strategy, and in my intervention on the hon. Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) I suggested a UK-wide strategy on deafness as well. Will the Minister consider that?

[Norman Lamb]

My responsibilities stretch only to England, but clear co-ordination and joint working with the devolved Administrations absolutely make sense on an issue that transcends borders, so I agree with the ambition that the hon. Gentleman sets.

This cannot just be about prevention because that is not always possible; it is also about dealing with the consequences of hearing loss. The Government are committed to delivering health outcomes that are among the best in the world for people with hearing loss. We are developing measures to identify those with hearing loss as early as possible, including the roll-out of a national hearing screening programme for newborn babies that enables the early identification of deafness, providing a clear care pathway for services and allowing parents to make informed choices on communication needs.

Today, however, we are focusing on adults with hearing loss. I realise that there is currently considerable interest on hearing loss screening for adults, which the hon. Lady mentioned. The UK National Screening Committee advises Ministers and the NHS in all four countries on all aspects of screening policy. Using research evidence, pilot programmes and economic evaluation, it assesses the evidence for programmes against a set of internationally recognised criteria. In 2009, the committee recommended that routine screening for adults’ hearing loss should not be offered because of a lack of evidence to warrant such a screening programme. However, as part of its three-year review policy cycle, the committee is reviewing the evidence for a national adult hearing screening programme. A public consultation will be held shortly and details will be available on the committee’s website. I encourage the Ear Foundation and many others to contribute to that consultation.

We welcome the recent report by the Ear Foundation, which clearly sets out the benefits of cochlear implants for children and adults. Abigail’s story, as told by the hon. Lady, demonstrates what a massive impact that can have on an individual’s life. It completely transformed her life, and no doubt that experience is repeated very many times around the country. The report will be of enormous use to NICE if it decides to update the technology appraisal that it published in 2009. I encourage the Ear Foundation to engage with NICE. I am sure that it is already in touch, but it is very important for it to provide any emerging evidence to NICE to help it to update, if necessary, the guidance provided on implants.

A large number of services are already commissioned for people with hearing loss, and a number of specialist centres in England provide implants for children and adults. It is important that GPs understand the criteria for referral, as well as the obvious benefits of this technology for people with hearing loss. That touches on the hon. Lady’s point about the importance of health professionals, whether GPs or anyone else in the health system, gaining a better understanding of the potential for this technology. There have been considerable improvements to services for people with hearing loss in recent years, including reduced waits for assessment and treatment to within 18 weeks—a significant advance.

[Lilian Greenwood]

I thank the Minister for his positive response to the questions that I posed. What will he personally do to ensure that such training and updating on hearing technologies by health professionals and GPs takes place?

[Norman Lamb]

I do not want to give a bland answer, but I take this issue very seriously. I have noted what the hon. Lady has said. Health Education England is responsible for the training of health professionals. I will pursue the hon. Lady’s point and would be very happy to report back to her.

There is now a greater choice of hearing aid services through independent high street providers—which are easily accessible for members of the public—and the new any-qualified-provider commissioning model offers even greater choice and convenience.

We have also asked NICE to produce clinical guidelines and related quality standards for the assessment and management of adult-onset hearing loss and guidelines for the assessment and management of tinnitus, which the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) has referred to in the context of Northern Ireland. Those guidelines will be scheduled into NICE’s development programme over the coming months.

Enabling those with hearing loss to have the same opportunities and to live as independently as everyone else is essential. It is therefore vital that public services are geared up to help and support them. Public authorities, including health and social care bodies, are required by the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments for disabled people, to ensure that they can use a service as close as is reasonably possible to the standard usually offered to everyone else. The Department of Health has agreed to explore with its partners what more can be done to accommodate the communication needs of disabled service users.

Work is going on across the Government to support the needs of people with hearing loss. The Department for Transport’s Access for All programme has delivered access improvements at 1,100 stations since 2006, including induction loops at ticket offices and help points on platforms. The hon. Member for Nottingham South mentioned the specific problems that people face when travelling and the anxiety caused by worrying about not hearing an announcement. There will be facilities on platforms for deaf users and systems that show train information on LED display screens. Last year, a further £100 million was announced to extend the programme until 2019.

Courthouses have been provided with hearing loops since December 2012. In policing, police link officers for deaf or hard-of-hearing people use and are qualified in British sign language and work with the community to raise awareness of how to access the police. Staff in Derbyshire have passed level 1 of their training with Action on Hearing Loss, and they accepted an Action on Hearing Loss charter mark, “Louder than Words”, recognising the efforts they have made to communicate more effectively with deaf people. I pay tribute to those parts of the public sector that have made the effort to improve the way in which they communicate. Far more needs to be done, but they are the exemplars that others should follow. For those who do not use BSL, text relay, which enables deaf and hard-of-hearing people to text the police, is in place in most emergency call centres.

I hope that those examples give a flavour of some of the work that is being done across the public sector and confirm the Government’s continued commitment not only to preventing, but to treating hearing loss and promoting and protecting those affected.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Will the Minister give way?

[Norman Lamb]

The hon. Lady is just in time.

[Lilian Greenwood]

Before the Minister concludes his speech, will he address my specific suggestion to establish a lead commissioner for audiology, to ensure that there is a focus on good commissioning across the health service?

[Norman Lamb]

I will discuss that suggestion with NHS England, because that is its responsibility under the new design of the health system.

Let me end by congratulating the hon. Lady again on raising this really important issue, and I repeat that I am happy to engage with her to try to make progress.

Question put and agreed to.

20:03

House adjourned.

Petition

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Petitions

Tuesday 12 November 2013

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Petitions

The Petition of the residents of Macclesfield,

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.

[P001293]

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 12 November 2013

[Mr Peter Bone in the Chair]

East Coast Main Line

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

[Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Sunderland West) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. It has been brought to my attention that today’s debate coincides with the beginning of a new documentary series on Sky about East Coast trains and the staff who work on them, so I want to assure you that the only interest I have to declare is as a regular traveller on East Coast trains and as an MP whose constituents are similarly frequent travellers; I definitely do not have an interest as a public relations executive for East Coast or BSkyB. The reason why my colleagues and I wanted this debate was not to promote that programme, but to discuss developments in a process that will have a significant impact on the staff and travellers featured in it.

It has been just over five months since we discussed the plans in a debate in this Chamber called by my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald). As I did then, I pay tribute to hon. Members who have led the campaign in Parliament so successfully, particularly my hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), who is in her place, and for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods). I thought and hoped that the strength of feeling and argument shown then, and in debates since, might have caused the Government at least to enter one of their now trademark pauses. There is still time for them to do so. In fact, we have not seen a pause, a rethink or any evidence that they are listening to the chorus of opposition to their plans, even among their own voters.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

I am sure my hon. Friend will make a powerful speech in favour of the east coast main line. Is it not a fact that only about one in five—21%—of the general public supports the re-privatisation of the east coast main line, so why is Tory dogma prevailing?

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is a very good question, which the Minister will perhaps answer. For all of us here and our constituents, that is the question, and our only answer is that dogma and ideology are forcing re-privatisation to go ahead. The Government have pressed on regardless, and the tendering process is well under way, which is why my colleagues and I thought it was time for another debate.

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. The hon. Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) made an interesting intervention in which he mentioned that the Opposition are blaming the current Government. Will the hon. Lady tell me exactly how many train companies were renationalised in the 13 years of the Labour Government?

[Mrs Hodgson]

We are not talking about the renationalisation of the east coast main line—it has already been nationalised—but about how to stop it from being re-privatised. The point is that it is already in national ownership.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I suggest that there have been many changes at East Coast in the past few years. In fact, for the first time in a long time, it seems to be working well, to the point that the east coast main line has a record level of customer satisfaction. The company has won 13 industry awards since 2012, including as Britain’s top employer. It is surely endorsement enough that so many Opposition Members who travel on East Coast trains week in, week out want to fight for it to remain as it is and against changing it again.

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is the point—the east coast main line does not need to change. The process might ultimately lead to a significantly worse deal for all our constituents, as well as for the Exchequer, when there is absolutely no need to go down such a path.

As I and others said in the last debate, East Coast is doing very well under the current arrangement, both for passengers and the Exchequer. Since the failure of National Express, thousands more services have been timetabled; hundreds of thousands more passengers have used services; significant investment has been made in passenger comfort and stations, including at Newcastle; customer satisfaction has been at record highs, notwithstanding the recent blip; and complaints have been handled in a timely way 98% of the time, compared with 73% of the time under private ownership.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

No, I will not. I will make some progress, because many hon. Members want to speak.

This is the people’s railway. It is delivering real improvements for our constituents, unencumbered by the primary purpose of having to pay dividends. That is not to say that Directly Operated Railways is squandering millions on such trivial things as improving the experience of their customers and therefore winning more of them; it is also chipping in a lot of money to the Exchequer. By the end of this financial year, it will have returned £800 million to the Treasury and put the rest of its surplus of nearly £50 million back into the service. It of course gets the lowest rates of public subsidy of all the train operators, except London commuter services.

Ministers have always talked about the need for a private operator to bring in extra investment, but have failed to make clear how much will be brought in by this process. What investment we know about appears to come from the public purse. Just as with Royal Mail, Ministers seem to be privatising the profit, while keeping the ongoing costs on the public books.

The Minister will say that decisions should not be taken on the basis of ideology, and to an extent I agree, although I must of course confess to having a default opinion when it comes to the ownership of public services. However, the returns to the Treasury and the improvements in services provide the business case in support of our argument that the line should remain directly operated. Perhaps that is why nearly half of Tory voters oppose the Government plans. If anyone is guilty of ideological decision making on this issue, it is surely the Government.

As if the west coast main line shambles, which cost taxpayers £55 million, was not bad enough, the contract extensions for other franchises—the Government have had to negotiate them so that they could bring forward the east coast main line tender—will cost taxpayers millions more in lost revenue. For example, First Great Western paid £126 million in premiums last year, but will pay only £17 million next year, as a result of the extension terms it has been given by the Government. Ministers are actually throwing money away hand over fist, just so they can make a point of privatising a franchise that they know is doing perfectly well in public hands.

[Ian Mearns (Gateshead) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. Is it not ironic that the Government want to return the east coast main line to the private sector when it is clearly succeeding very well in the public sector, while the private sector has failed twice on that line?

[Mrs Hodgson]

That is exactly the point. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the Government clearly do not think that a state-owned company can run the franchise viably and deliver the investment in service improvements that we want.

How ironic it is that many of the probable bidders for the service are subsidiaries of state-owned railways. Eurostar and Keolis have confirmed that they will team up to bid for the franchise. As the Minister will be aware, those two companies are majority-owned by the National Society of French Railways—SNCF—which is France’s state-owned operator. Arriva, which already operates so many franchises, including the Tyne and Wear Metro in the north-east, and has received much Government investment over the past few years, will probably throw its hat into the ring. It is of course owned by Deutsche Bahn. Abellio, which, with Serco, runs Northern Rail trains in my area, might well be tempted. It is a part of the Dutch state-owned rail operator. The Government are therefore quite happy for the east coast main line to be run for public benefit—just as long as the British public do not benefit.

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

Does not the way in which contracts are handed out to such foreign, state-owned companies mean that taxpayers in the Netherlands, France and Germany will gain at the expense of British ones?

[Mrs Hodgson]

Yes, I agree. That is exactly the point. Instead of profits generated by the franchise benefiting British commuters through investment in service improvement and dividends to the Treasury, the Government prefer profits to be channelled to other European countries, in some cases to subsidise fares in those countries. If we are to achieve the modal shift from cars to rail that we need to ease pressure on our trunk roads and to reduce carbon emissions, we must have the investment and the ambitious targets and standards in place to ensure that services are reliable and can carry on improving. Unfortunately, it appears that the Government intend to put that improvement into reverse over the next few years.

It was brought to my attention yesterday that in the past couple of weeks, the Office of Rail Regulation has published a document setting out the desired outputs for the whole rail network for the next five-year control period. That document makes it clear that the standards expected of whichever company wins the east coast franchise will be significantly lower than the national average, and possibly even lower than those of most European routes. For example, the national standard for cancelled or seriously late trains—which I have had some experience of on the east coast over the past month: the fault for that lay not with the company but with all the storms and so on—is no more than 2.2% of journeys. The east coast’s standard will be 4.2%.The national standard for just mildly late trains, which can be anything between 10 minutes and two hours, will be 8.1% in the first year. For the east coast, it will be 17%, which is more than double the national standard, and equates to more than one in six journeys. That rate will be required to come down to 12% by 2018-19, but it will still be much higher than the national rate of 7.5%.

Over the control period, we could see an additional 15,500 trains officially late and more than 2,500 trains cancelled without the operator being deemed to be breaching its required standards. Why should the east coast be given a lower standard? It is way below what the public would expect, and way below the standards set by Labour for the current control period. The apparent loosening of the required standards does not appear in any of the preceding documents on which the public have been consulted, but has now appeared at a point when they can no longer have their say. Will the Minister explain why the standards are set so low and have been revealed in a document on which the public will not be consulted? Will he give us an assurance today that that is in no way linked to the tendering process, or the Government’s desire to get the most money for the franchise to hold up as a sign of success? If we move the goalposts and make things easier for whichever train operator comes in, it makes the deal more attractive to them, and that is what seems to be going on here.

If the Government are to go through with the privatisation, it is important that the Exchequer get as much cash as possible now and over the course of the contract. However, we cannot sacrifice performance standards to achieve that goal, because people will just give up on trains that are allowed to be late on one in six, one in seven or even one in eight journeys.

If the proposal is not linked to the tendering process, perhaps it is related to the fact that investment in tackling congestion over the coming control period will be less than half the £500 million that the Labour Government allocated. That investment has resulted in improvements in north London, flyovers at Doncaster and Hitchin, and the upgrading of a parallel route for slow freight between Doncaster and Peterborough. Will the Minister assure us that service standards are not being lowered to match the investment the Government are prepared to make? Our constituents rightly expect not just a punctual service but a decent service, particularly when they might be on the train for three or four hours or more when travelling to or from the north-east or Scotland—it can take up to six hours to get all the way up to Inverness.

Will the Minister rule out the introduction of a lower-tier or third-class service, which is allegedly in the prospectus that was sent to potential bidders? Indeed, will he rule out any degradation of standard-class service in a three-class system by a future operator?

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

There is no suggestion of a third-class service in the prospectus. One version of the document was leaked, but even that did not refer to a third class, but to the possibility of a service between standard and first class. Some might like to call it premium economy. No one has ever called it third class. Can we just lay that myth to rest?

[Mrs Hodgson]

I am sure the Minister is aware that the National Society of French Railways introduced a “no frills” service in France this year, below standard class. If Keolis and Eurostar win the contract, will he guarantee that we will not see the same here? I am happy to give way to the Minister if he wants to make that guarantee now; perhaps he will make it in his closing remarks. By way of assurance, perhaps he could place a copy of the document in question in the Library. I know he said that such a claim was never in the document, but if there is such a document, could he place it in the Library so the public can see that we are not being sold down the river—or in this case down the railway line? The Government are always keen to bolster their transparency credentials, and this would be an excellent way of conducting themselves in an open and honest way.

[Stephen Hammond]

This Government are so open and transparent that all those documents are available for the hon. Lady to see now. I am surprised she did not choose to read them before the debate today.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I will go away and look more closely at the matter. I may have missed the part to which the Minister refers. Perhaps he could write to me about it, so we can be assured that there will not be a third-class rail service.

I will conclude because many Members wish to speak in the debate. I leave the Minister with the words of one of his departmental predecessors, the noble Lord Adonis. He was regularly cited by Ministers as being against public ownership when he was Secretary of State, and that was correct. However, given the success of Directly Operated Railways, he recently had this to say:

“In the last four years East Coast has established itself as one of the best train operating companies in the country, both operationally and commercially…This has fundamentally changed the situation, and it is right and proper that East Coast should be allowed to continue as a public sector comparator to the existing private franchises.”

Lord Adonis is a wise man. He had an opinion. He looked at the evidence that contradicted his opinion and, like many a wise man before him, accepted that his opinion had been wrong and changed his mind. There is still time for the Minister and his colleagues to demonstrate similar wisdom and halt this process before more money is spent by the Department and the companies that might bid. They should accept that this experiment in public ownership, forced upon a reluctant Secretary of State at the time by the failure of a private provider, has been a success and can continue to be a success.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Mrs Hodgson]

No, I am just winding up. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will get his chance to speak in a moment.

Most importantly, it is time for the Government to put British passengers and taxpayers first, before taking profits out of the system—especially where such profits then go to subsidise passengers in other countries. As I said in June, I hope the Minister will listen to what parliamentarians are telling him here today. We have already had the shambles over the west coast main line. It is in everyone’s interests for the Government not to make the wrong decision on the east coast main line as well. Let us call off the tender and give Directly Operated Railways the stability and support it needs to carry on improving services and sending much-needed cash back to the Treasury. At the very least, let us allow it to bid to run the service again in the coming years, and weigh up the public benefit that that would provide in a fair and open way. Come on, Minister: it is public versus private. Surely he is up for that.

09:49

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

It is a pleasure, Mr Bone, to serve under your chairmanship. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing and leading the debate today.

This is not the first Westminster Hall debate on the east coast main line and, unless the Government change their position, it will probably not be the last. The Government might not like to have such repeated debates, but the Opposition make no apologies for bringing the issue back for discussion time and again. We will do so until the Government change their policy, because there is an overwhelming case against forcing East Coast trains back into the private sector without even giving the public sector a chance to offer an alternative.

My hon. Friend reminded us of the positive financial record of East Coast trains and that the public are clearly against the return of the east coast service to the private sector. The staff on the line, and the cities up and down the line, do not want the service to return to the private sector, and public opinion is overwhelmingly against the proposals that the Government seem determined to push forward.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I give way to my hon. Friend, whose constituency neighbours mine.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend and I have spent a considerable time campaigning on this issue in Edinburgh. Does he agree that the overwhelming response of the people we have spoken to while we were gathering signatures has been that they do not want the line to be re-privatised?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Absolutely. As my hon. Friend has said, she and other colleagues have spent quite a bit of time with me outside the railway stations in Edinburgh and at other locations, and not one person has come up to us and said, “Yes, we want East Coast trains to be re-privatised.” They have all recognised the value of this service being in the public sector.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this very timely and important debate and on making some excellent points. On the point about the value of having the east coast main line within the public sector, are there not lessons to be learned from what is happening with gas and electricity companies? When the private sector has no benchmark of public sector provision, does the consumer not get ripped off? Is there not an overwhelming argument for retaining at least one main line in public ownership, by which we could benchmark the other lines?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

That is a very good point. Let us be clear—we are not calling today for a renationalisation of the entire railway operating network.

[Grahame M. Morris]

We are! [Laughter.]

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend might be, but that is not the issue today. What we are talking about today is giving an alternative to the private sector. He just referred to other industries, and one of the issues about those industries is this: to what extent is there real competition?

One of the problems is that within the railway sector in the UK, a very limited number of UK companies are able and willing to put in a bid for a line. On the east coast and west coast lines, we all know that the major UK bidders will always be drawn from Virgin, First Group, National Express and possibly Stagecoach.

Of course, Virgin also runs planes to Edinburgh and Aberdeen, and First Group and the other companies operate other rail services. Some of them also operate bus and express coach services. So the issue is ensuring that there is at least some competition in the system, which the existence of Directly Operated Railways on the east coast main line would certainly provide.

[Ian Mearns]

rose—

[Mark Lazarowicz]

I will give way to my hon. Friend and then I will move on, to ensure that I make some progress.

[Ian Mearns]

It is ironic that, despite the number of Eurosceptics on the Government Benches, the Government are clearly in favour of state ownership—but Dutch, German and French state ownership of UK railways, not UK state ownership of UK railways.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

Indeed. However, my hon. Friend is being perhaps a bit too restrictive, because I understand that one of the companies shortlisted for one of the Scottish railway franchises is the mass transit railway system—MTR—in Hong Kong, which I presume is ultimately owned by the Chinese Government. It appears that although the Chinese are able to build our nuclear power stations and run our railways, the British state is unable to do so.

I come to the essence of the argument. The Government say that one of the reasons why the east coast line should go back into the private sector is the success that there has been since the railway system was privatised. One of the oldest logical fallacies in the book is to say that because event B followed event A, event B must have been caused by event A.

What the Government are saying, of course, is that because passenger numbers have gone up since the railways were privatised, that must be because they were privatised. However, the fact is that we have not been able to establish that link between the two. For example, I can look at the local bus company in Edinburgh, my home city, which is municipally owned. The number of bus passengers has gone up dramatically in the past 20 years. That company is in the public sector, but I will not say that the rise in passenger numbers is just because of that.

Equally, however, saying that the rail network’s being in the private sector is why the number of passengers has gone up seems a very weak argument. In fact, the number of passengers on other state-owned railways in other parts of the world has gone up as well. The argument about privatisation seems very weak.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West pointed out, Lord Adonis, when Transport Secretary, made references to privatisation that are continually mentioned by the Government in defence of their policies. However, he has made it clear that he has learned from experience and is approaching this issue in a non-dogmatic fashion, in a way that the Government are signally failing to do.

Let us not forget that it was a Conservative Government who privatised the railways in the first place, against the wishes of the Labour party. Labour colleagues in Parliament at the time voted against that privatisation. Of course, the Labour Government after 1997 had a large number of priorities and I can certainly see why the issue was not, at that time, their No.1. However, as I have said, we are talking about the situation here and now. We have an opportunity to judge from experience and to ensure that the public get the best value for money and the best service, which, in my and my colleagues’ view, would be obtained by ensuring that the east coast line stays in the public sector.

Reference has been made to the way in which foreign companies are able to bid for the franchise. I will not develop that point any further, given that it has already been made by other colleagues. However, I will again make the point that there is a real issue about the lack of genuine competition within the rail franchising sector in the UK, including among British-based companies. Also, the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) made about comparing rail with the utilities was very well made.

One of the points made by Ministers when they have argued why the east coast main line should go private again is that—as I think one of the Minister’s predecessors, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), said—the record of East Coast trains on punctuality had “plateaued”. Again, that is another example of desperation and of the Government trying to grab arguments to support a weak case.

The fact is that East Coast trains has a good record on punctuality. As we all know, the main reason why there have been problems with train punctuality in recent times is certain factors—first of all, the recent storms, which were clearly beyond anyone’s control. Above all, however, they have been due to problems with infrastructure, which have not been the fault of East Coast trains.

I asked a parliamentary question on the issue a while ago. I received an answer about the 2012-13 split in responsibility for delays on East Coast trains: 18% of them were due to East Coast itself, 13% were due to “Other Train/Freight Companies” and 69% were due to Network Rail. We know that one of the reasons why 69% of delays were due to Network Rail was problems with the overhead line system, which was, of course, put in place on the cheap, and for which—again—a previous Conservative Government clearly have to take responsibility.

My hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West referred to the new targets from the regulator regarding punctuality. One of the things that the regulator said in its recent report was that there is a problem with reliability on the east coast main line, and I welcome the fact that it did. However, like my hon. Friend, I am concerned about how the performance measurements for the east coast service have been reduced by comparison with those for many other lines in the country.

I know that it only sounds like a marginal reduction if the performance target is reduced from 90% to 88%, but of course what we want to aim for is 100% reliability. Obviously, we will never get 100% reliability, but every time the target is reduced—even by 1% or 2%—we release the pressure on that operator to ensure that, as far as possible, all their trains arrive on time.

The fact is that the new target for cancelled or seriously late trains was set at a rate that would allow 4.2% of east coast line trains to arrive more than two hours late or not at all. That does not sound like much, until we put those figures in another context and say that one in every 24 trains could be cancelled without any penalties whatever being imposed on the operator responsible.

As my hon. Friend has said, there are concerns about the fact that that change was not referred to in draft proposals for the new punctuality performance targets; it was a change that people could not be consulted on. The Minister should give an explanation as to why that was the case. Bluntly, if he cannot provide one today, he should go away and look at the issue, because it was a major defect in the process.

It is time for the Government to drop their dogmatic approach to the east coast line and to give the public sector operator a chance. Let Directly Operated Railways put forward an alternative model and we will see what represents the best value for money and the best service for the public. Please, Minister, do not come forward with the argument that I heard from one Minister some time ago, which was, “We couldn’t do this because the law wouldn’t allow us to do it, and we had to put it out to the private sector.”

As a Back Bencher, I cannot speak for those on the Labour Front Bench, but were the Government to come forward and say, “Yes, we will change the law to allow East Coast trains to continue to operate the franchise,” I cannot think that my party would oppose that. Perhaps the Minister will make that offer today. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) would be happy to respond to that.

It is time for the Government to change their policy. It is not what the public want, what the staff want or what the communities want—and it is not in the best interests of the public purse, either.

10:00

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate. It is important that we continue to raise and debate the issues on the east coast main line, with a view to persuading the Government, I hope, that they have gone down the wrong track. It is not too late to go into reverse. I am a regular railway traveller, but this is one time when I will be more than happy for the train to stop and go backwards.

It was not such a joy to arrive at Newcastle station a couple of weeks ago and be told that the best advice was to get off the train and go home. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) and I were so determined to get here that we ignored that advice and soldiered on to Peterborough. That delay was due not to the train operator, but to the stormy weather; the line was certainly not the only one affected on that date. Some might suggest that East Coast let us down, but we were clear that that was not the case. Indeed, when we tried to take other lines to get from Peterborough to London, we discovered that they were all affected, whether they were privatised or not.

Things like that will happen in any travel system, but the service has—many regular travellers will say this—improved over recent years. People enjoy their journeys. I have said this before and I will say it again, because it is important from a Scottish perspective and an environmental perspective: the improvements are making inroads into getting those important business travellers, who otherwise might always travel by air, to use rail. If we are serious about creating a modal shift in transport, we have to make rail both attractive and reliable to get that kind of traveller. That is one thing the service has done extremely well.

I have taken part in at least four of the several debates that we have had on the east coast main line. As well as the Westminster Hall debate referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West, we had a Backbench Business Committee debate in the Chamber in which many colleagues spoke. We have had many opportunities to ask oral questions, and we have all taken them up. At this stage, one might think that we should find something new to say and look at the matter from some new angle, but the problem is that our questions have never been answered. It is important that we go back over those questions. Perhaps on this occasion we will get responses to some key points.

[Ian Mearns]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Ministers might ask why the public have so little confidence in the re-privatisation of the east coast main line, and the answer is simple: for the bulk of the time since the railways were privatised, the franchise has been in the hands of the private sector. The orders for new rolling stock on the line have only been secured since the franchise has been in the public sector. Much of the existing rolling stock is 35 or 40 years old. For the bulk of that time, it has been in private hands with little investment, apart from a lick of paint.

[Sheila Gilmore]

I thank my hon. Friend for making an important point on East Coast that speaks to how we run the railways. A lot of the public assumed that privatisation would mean that investment would be brought in and that everything would be brought up to scratch. That was the selling point.

The track investments are necessary and we need to see considerable improvement in the infrastructure on the east coast main line, particularly with the overhead lines, which have caused a lot of the recent problems. We need to see that crucial investment and we need to see the rolling stock upgraded, but none of the onus will be put on those who are being asked to tender for the service. Whatever investment there is will come from all of us as taxpayers.

The notion that we have to privatise to get investment was the selling point at the beginning, which people perhaps swallowed. They probably thought, “Yes, if that is a way of improving things, we will at least give it a try,” but that investment is not happening and will not happen in this case either. All the things that desperately need to be done will not get done through this privatisation process, which is, in many ways, a distraction from the measures that could lead to a real step change. We have talked about improvements and we are not complacent. We do not think that everything is perfect. We want to see a step change in the line, but it will not come through this process.

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

I have been listening carefully to the hon. Lady, but would she care to speculate on whether the very investment that she and her colleagues are looking for in the east coast main line could be diminished once the Government get their way on HS2? Does she share the fear that such vast amounts will go into this bright, shiny new railway that, as in France, the existing lines might fail to get the investment that she and her colleagues desperately want?

[Sheila Gilmore]

I think the right hon. Lady knows that I do not share her views on this matter. We should not cast one railway line against another, because one of the advantages of HS2 is that it provides an opportunity to improve some of the other services, not least by dealing with the capacity question.

One issue is the opportunity cost of prioritising East Coast over some of the other long-distance franchises. Under the original franchising timetable from August 2011, a new contract for the west coast main line was due to start in October 2012, with Great Western starting in April 2013 and the east coast main line thereafter. However, following the debacle of the west coast main line bidding process, a new timetable was announced in March this year. The east coast main line, which was previously the last in the trio of inter-city franchises to be let, was brought forward to be the first. That was only made possible by the current operator of the west coast main line, Virgin, being given a franchise extension of four and a half years to April 2017. At the same time, the Great Western operator, First, has been given an extension of two and a half years to September 2015. In total, that is 77 months’ worth of extensions.

The Government justify prioritising East Coast by referring to the Brown review, which was carried out after the problems with the west coast main line. They are restating their belief that competition in the bidding process should drive down the subsidy required or drive up the premium payments offered. They say that that will push operators to be more efficient and innovative, and prompt investment in new services. One can argue that franchise competitions might achieve these goals, but the one thing that certainly will not achieve those goals is franchise extensions. That is because the Government, by setting up this arrangement, have no option but to negotiate with the existing operators on other lines. The only bargaining chip that Ministers can use is to threaten to call in East Coast’s parent company, Directly Operated Railways, but they are reluctant to do so, as is highlighted by their desperation to extract DOR from the east coast main line. How are the other franchisees threatened by Ministers saying, “If you don’t agree reasonable terms, we’ll take you into the fold of Directly Operated Railways,” when Ministers are running as fast as possible in the opposite direction with the east coast main line?

[Mark Lazarowicz]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech. When there were problems with East Coast trains, as there were with Southern some years ago, Directly Operated Railways was able to step in and provide an alternative when the private sector failed. If Directly Operated Railways is taken off East Coast trains—I do not know what will happen to the organisation, but I presume that there might still be a shell company—the nucleus that allows it to operate an alternative may disappear, so there might not be an alternative even if a future private sector operator fails.

[Sheila Gilmore]

My hon. Friend gives a helpful example of where, instead of increasing competition and providing opportunities for the Government to exercise some control over the rail companies, that possibility might be being reduced.

The contract extensions, which were made necessary by the Government’s determination to pull East Coast forward, will cost the taxpayer a lot of money. In 2011-12, Virgin paid the Department for Transport a premium of £165 million, and First Great Western paid £110 million. Will the Minister confirm that there will not be payments of anywhere near those sums during the extension period? Will he also confirm that, apart from the roll-out of wi-fi on First Great Western, which all train operators are beginning to offer, the two extensions offer no improvements for passengers? There is less money coming in and no improvements; the extensions need not have been given had the Government stuck to their original timetable.

If the east coast main line had not been prioritised, the extensions simply would not have been necessary. There could have been fresh competitions, if that was the Government’s will, for the west coast main line and the Great Western main line. If East Coast had been performing badly in the public sector, there might have been some justification for what has happened—the imperative of turning East Coast around would have trumped other disadvantages of negotiating extensions on the west coast main line and the great western main line—but East Coast is performing well, so that reason simply does not apply.

The Government clearly hope that they can get to the next election with all the main line routes back in the private sector. The Government could take credit for that in the hope that it would be extremely difficult for any incoming Government to do anything about it. If that is not the motive, the Government have to say what is their real motive for proceeding in that way.

Public opinion has changed. People have seen the reality. Some people, although not necessarily all of us—there are always some critics—warned that privatisation of rail might be a step too far. Members of the public who were prepared to give privatisation a chance now see Directly Operated Railways as an opportunity to have a rail service in public ownership that brings money back to the Treasury. As I said earlier, when we talk to people, they enthusiastically support our campaign. The Government sometimes say that they listen to public opinion, and on this occasion I suggest that they do indeed listen to public opinion and stop the process before it goes any further.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

I call Graeme Morrice.

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

10:14

[Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)]

People wait all day in Westminster Hall for one Graeme Morrice to turn up, then two turn up at the same time.

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate on the future provision of the east coast main line rail service. She mentioned that she is a regular user of the East Coast service to London King’s Cross, and I travel regularly on the service from Edinburgh Waverley. We are both aware, as I am sure are many other hon. Members, of the benefits provided by the service to Scotland, the north-east of England, Yorkshire and beyond.

I note that, like me, my hon. Friend appreciates the general reliability, frequency, excellent customer service and value for money the service provides to all passengers. As a state-owned operator, the ethos of putting the customer first and ensuring the most effective and efficient use of public resources is the company’s prime objective. Private companies can be just as good, of course, but their foremost loyalty is to their shareholders and any profits not reinvested go on share dividends, often to already wealthy people.

The difference with East Coast being a subsidiary of Directly Operated Railways, a holding company owned by the Department for Transport, is that its surpluses are paid back to the Exchequer. As my hon. Friend has already mentioned, £800 million has been returned to the taxpayer since 2009. Moreover, East Coast has invested some £40 million in infrastructure and asset improvements in that period.

East Coast also has the best punctuality on the line since the service was privatised, and all passenger surveys and polling indicates that the overwhelming majority of people are satisfied with East Coast and wish it to remain in public ownership. So why are the Conservative-led coalition Government, supported by their compliant fellow travellers in the Liberal Democrats, intent on re-privatising what is evidently a most successful, lucrative and popular public service? Has re-privatisation been proposed for the right financial and service reasons, or is there another, perhaps more partisan, explanation? From the evidence available, it is apparent that that privatisation is born of ideology, not necessity.

Indeed, in answer to a parliamentary question in April, the previous Minister with responsibility for railways, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), implied that investment in the east coast main line’s infrastructure is not dependent on re-privatising passenger operations:

“Funding for the 2014-19 upgrade of the east coast main line will be delivered through the Office of Rail Regulation approving a £240 million increase in the value of Network Rail’s regulatory access base. Network Rail may then borrow up to this amount to fund the upgrade works.”—[Official Report, 15 April 2013; Vol. 561, c. 2W.]

For the sake of clarity, it would be helpful if the new Minister with responsibility for railways stated whether any elements of replacing and upgrading the electrification on the east coast main line are dependent on the transfer of the operation of passenger services to the private sector. Similarly, it would be useful if he explained how that investment will be delivered more swiftly if privatisation takes place. Finally, will he provide details of the increased investment, over and above the taxpayers’ money being put into the line, that would be delivered as a result of privatisation?

The past, current and planned public investment in the east coast main line has been and continues to be highly effective. If further investment is required, however, it could easily be provided by public means, given that the service returns far more to the Exchequer than it receives in subsidy. Furthermore, given the thoroughly negative history of private involvement in the east coast main line, it is highly probable that, if the East Coast service is privatised, taxpayers will be left to pick up the tab, as we have seen in so many other botched franchise deals, including, not least, on the west coast main line.

The British taxpayer has funded the east coast main line service successfully since November 2009, following 12 years of declining profits and eventual failure under Great North Eastern Railway and National Express. The service became hugely profitable almost immediately after re-nationalisation and has returned its soaring profits to the Exchequer every year, with the estimated total returned by the end of this financial year in excess of £800 million.

It is unfathomable that the coalition Government’s response to that success, which came about so quickly after years of failed management by the private sector, is to decide that this is a good time to give the private sector not just a second, but a third chance. It is appalling that the Minister and his Department are so eager to overlook the clear demonstration of the high quality of our public rail service management, the dedication of train staff and the co-operation of rail unions.

Rather than continue with this charade, the Minister should focus his efforts on sorting out the debacle of the west coast main line and other, similar franchise fiascos. It is ill-advised for the Government to create an issue out of nothing and to waste resources trying to solve a problem that does not exist, when they struggle to deal with real problems and real issues, often of their own making. I can conclude only that political dogma is driving this agenda, which I hope will ultimately be derailed.

10:21

[Karl MᶜCartney (Lincoln) (Con)]

I will make a short speech, because a number of Opposition Members want to get in before the shadow Minister and the Minister reply. I did not say this in my intervention earlier, but I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate.

There has been some striking ideological dogma from the Opposition, and it smacks of having a brass neck to accuse the Government of dogma.

[Grahame M. Morris]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

No, not at this point. I would like to make some progress, if I may, and then I will certainly give way.

I liked the fact that the hon. Lady started her speech completely against re-privatisation, but seemed by the end to be quite content to support it, albeit only in a way that she wanted and that benefited her constituents. Of course, that is what we would all want as Members of Parliament: we all want the best for our constituents.

The hon. Lady claimed not to be a PR cheerleader for East Coast. Indeed, like her, not one Opposition Member—I waited until quite a few had spoken—declared an interest. Since 2009, however, they have seen a real increase in services for their constituents. That is to be welcomed, and I am sure Opposition Members are pleased. However, some of us represent seats that have not seen services increase to the level we were promised they would be once East Coast was taken back into the public sector. Lincoln was promised seven trains down to and up from the capital a day, but we have ended up with one. Members can now see why I am perhaps not as big a cheerleader for East Coast as some Opposition Members.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

No, not at this point.

The real elephant in the room is perhaps the fact that Opposition Members are worried that re-privatisation might bring some change to services. Although I agreed with some of the points made by the hon. Members for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) and for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), they might consider the fact that seats to the south of theirs are not just “and beyond”, as they were referred to. Lincoln is not “and beyond”; it is my constituency, and I will fight for it as hard as I can and as hard as Opposition Members, I am sure, do for theirs.

I would like to see better services from Lincoln to our capital city, as I am sure Opposition Members would from theirs. However, I am also aware that if trains on the east coast main line stopped at Edinburgh, and passengers then had to cross a platform to catch another train to go further north, people south of Edinburgh would see a vast improvement to their service. That is something a private operator might consider, although I am not saying it will. In Lincoln’s case, however, I would certainly like to see more direct trains daily and even at weekends.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

rose—

[Graeme Morrice]

rose—

[Grahame M. Morris]

rose—

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I am being surrounded. I will take all three Members on if they like, but I will give way to the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris).

[Grahame M. Morris]

The hon. Gentleman argues there is an evidence base that suggests that the east coast main line is better off privatised. However, whatever measure is used—whether customer satisfaction, profitability or prices—the evidence is that the line is better off as part of a directly operated public service, and I heard nothing to contradict that. The profits that are being made can be reinvested to improve the service or they can be used elsewhere by the Treasury.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that erudite and timely intervention, which is typical of the interventions he might make, but I would refer him to my first intervention. If he and the Labour party feel that way, why did they not re-nationalise the rail service across the whole country in their 13 years in office? They did not do that.

[Mark Lazarowicz]

May I respectfully point out that the private operators did not provide the direct service the hon. Gentleman is calling for to his constituency in the 13 years or longer they operated the line? The private sector did not offer his city any improvements when it was in charge. That is surely an argument for saying that Directly Operated Railways should offer an alternative. The hon. Gentleman can then decide whether he wants Directly Operated Railways and East Coast or the private sector. Surely he can accept that there should at least be a choice.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I accept that different changes might be made. I thank my predecessor in the constituency, who, as a Transport Minister, perhaps secured the promise of seven trains a day down to and up from the capital. Ultimately, I was the lucky recipient of more votes in the 2010 general election, and I replaced her. Unfortunately, at that point, unlike some Labour Members who have retained their seats, East Coast decided not to follow through with its promise. That is to the disbenefit of my constituents. As I said, I will always stand up for them to secure the best rail services I can.

[Graeme Morrice]

The question I was going to put has already been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), but given the discussion earlier about the public view on this issue, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the overwhelming majority of the public, including passengers, oppose privatisation? Is he aware that the Government have actually consulted on the issue?

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I am, and I am happy to accept that the majority of people in his constituency, and the passengers who use the rail station he uses, might, like him, not want to see any changes to the level of services they enjoy. However, some of us, in seats that do not receive such a regular service, might feel differently, and that might be where the ideological difference is.

[Ian Mearns]

Unfortunately, a couple of weeks ago, we had the wrong sort of trees on the line, and my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) and I had to get off a train at Peterborough. We had a chat with quite a lot of residents and people who work on the railway there, and I have spoken to lots of people from Peterborough since. It is quite clear that the vast majority of them do not want the line to be taken out of public ownership and re-privatised. That is not Gateshead—that is Peterborough.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

I will take those comments with quite a large pinch of salt. I would probably take on board a little more the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) on behalf of his constituents. However, like him, I am pleased to see the new rolling stock on the east coast main line. Lincoln might—perhaps with hybrid locomotives—see better, more regular rail services, including at weekends. As I said, I have been fighting for that for my constituents.

The hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith managed to bring nuclear power stations into the debate and mentioned that in 1997 there were other priorities for the Labour party. Obviously there were, because you did not sort out any power stations and certainly did not sort out the rail system. You were all busy spending money our country did not have.

[Mr Peter Bone (in the Chair)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman is using the word “you” a little too much. He should not be doing that.

[Karl MᶜCartney]

Indeed I should not, Mr Bone. Thank you for that reminder.

I never refuse any opportunity to have a dig at the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West mentioned talk—although it has been refuted—of a third class on the east coast. I ask her not to tell IPSA, because I am sure it would try to make us all travel on it.

10:30

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone, as always. I want to compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing the debate, one of several about the east coast main line that we have had in Westminster Hall and the main Chamber.

The Government have yet another opportunity to listen to what the overwhelming majority of the British public—not just in Easington or the north-east—are saying. Polling evidence shows that they believe that the east coast main line should remain a publicly operated service.

The last time we had a debate on this matter, the Minister’s predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), referred to me—and, if I recall correctly, my hon. Friends the Members for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) and for Gateshead (Ian Mearns)—as dinosaurs for believing that public services should be run for the benefit and in the best interests of the public.

I do support the renationalisation of the railways, and I certainly oppose the re-privatisation of the east coast main line—especially when there is evidence that Directly Operated Railways is providing a better service and returning more money to the taxpayer than the private sector. Furthermore, on two occasions when the private sector was operating the franchise, it failed. If my view makes me a dinosaur, so be it.

In numerous surveys, 70% of the public have regularly supported calls for the railways to be completely publicly run. That applies throughout the country and even in the south and south-east. Trains there are very congested, and there are similar concerns about the fact that private sector franchise holders are not delivering.

We have been given an example, in the success of the east coast main line under Directly Operated Railways, of how a public rail operator can work and deliver for the taxpayer. As my hon. Friends have said, more than £800 million in premiums will be returned to the Exchequer by Directly Operated Railways. The east coast main line receives the lowest net subsidy of any operator—only 1% compared with an industry average of 32% or more than £4 billion. The numbers tell the story. Let us not forget what happened previously, when National Express ran the service. It returned only £370 million in premium payments and turned its back on the franchise, leaving the taxpayer to pick up the pieces. Directly Operated Trains had to step in.

We have had private sector failures on the line and the operators have not delivered on their commitments, but the Government will not prevent National Express or other failed operators from bidding for the rail franchise. Labour Members have raised queries about that. The right hon. Member for Chelmsford confirmed in an answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn):

“National Express and its subsidiaries are permitted to submit for the pre-qualification process”—

that is, the bidding process—

“to run passenger rail services in all franchise competitions including the East Coast Main Line.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2013; Vol. 563, c. 970W.]

We should ask questions about that, given that the private operator has a track record—if hon. Members will excuse the pun—of failure.

[Ian Mearns]

Given the statistics that my hon. Friend has reeled off about the public subsidy going into private sector franchises, there is a good argument that the new rolling stock in the private sector franchises has been put in not by private sector investment, but by public sector subsidy. The public pay for private profit.

[Grahame M. Morris]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. We are privatising the profit and nationalising the cost and risk of the investment. That is a bizarre approach to the public finances. In my view, companies in either sector that fail to deliver on commitments or promises to the taxpayer should not be allowed to take over franchises—they have shown that they are not competent to run them.

It is very expensive to travel by rail in the United Kingdom, compared with other countries. British train tickets are now the most expensive in Europe. A typical season ticket costs 14p per kilometre in the UK, compared with just 8p per kilometre in Germany. Holland and France are the next most expensive countries. A day return in the UK costs 26p per kilometre compared with 17p per kilometre in Germany. As to season tickets into the capital, a 24-mile commute into Paris would cost £924 a year; a similar commute would cost £705 to Berlin and £654 to Madrid—but for someone travelling to London it would cost £3,268 a year. Those are huge sums, and after a decade of price increases. Those are never welcome, but at a time of austerity when wages are effectively frozen and, in many cases, falling, an intolerable strain is being put on family budgets.

While fares have been shooting up, dividends to shareholders in the big five transport companies contracted to run UK rail services reached nearly £2.5 billion. When people ask, “Where is the money going?” the answer is that a big chunk of it is going there—in dividends to private train operators. There are examples of excessive boardroom pay. Some of the highest paid directors receive more than £1 million.

East Coast offers a genuine alternative, with all profits reinvested back into services—money that otherwise would go as dividends for shareholders. I hope that the Minister will listen to the concerns expressed by hon. Members and the British public and end the failed franchise bidding policy.

10:38

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Bone.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) on securing this important debate. She made a compelling case against the privatisation of east coast inter-city services, and there were other strong speeches, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore). She rightly said that Ministers have consistently failed to justify selling off the east coast line, and hon. Members who attended previous debates may feel a sense of déjà vu. However, while I share their frustration, I make no apology for the persistent questions from the Labour Benches about an unnecessary, unwanted and wasteful privatisation. The answers have changed each time, but the absence of a credible case has remained constant.

We were told first that East Coast had to be privatised because punctuality had plateaued; better punctuality rates, however, have been achieved than under the previous, failed private operators. We were also told that we had to sell off East Coast to secure outside investment, but Ministers then had to admit in answers to written questions that the cost of track upgrades and rolling stock procurement would in fact be met by the taxpayer.

Then we were told that privatisation would lead to better value for money, but since 2009 East Coast—as we heard—has been virtually subsidy-free; all profits have been reinvested in the service and £800 million will have been returned to the taxpayer by the end of the financial year. Finally, the Minister told us in an answer to a written question last Monday that it would never be appropriate to compare any franchise to another, even though the former Minister, his colleague the right hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns), had frequently contrasted east and west coast inter-city services.

The same confusion was at work in the leaked east coast franchise prospectus—the document that raised the prospect of third-class travel. It is clear that at a late stage a decision was taken to alter or remove positive references to East Coast performance since 2009. One statement, that

“staff engagement is at an all time high”,

was altered to:

“staff engagement has been improved”.

Then there was a reference to “the current, successful business”, which was downgraded to only “the current business”.

Some facts were erased completely. I shall share a few examples. On page 19:

“East Coast Main Line’s public reputation has remained consistently high”;

on page 20:

“Since the beginning of 2011/12 East Coast Main Line has been the recipient of 35 industry awards”;

on page 27, it was stated that East Coast’s passenger satisfaction was

“higher than the 89% for all long distance operators”;

and page 31 said:

“Over the last two years East Coast Main Line has developed a genuine choice for customers in terms of fares and customer offering.”

All were deleted, but we do not know who ordered those changes. Perhaps the Minister can tell us today.

The Secretary of State may believe that he speaks on behalf of passengers, as he told the House at Transport questions last week, but I am sure that they would not want to see Ministers rewriting history in such a way. Has the Secretary of State not seen the passenger satisfaction statistics? Since 2009, East Coast has achieved the highest ratings on the route since records began. The 2011 timetable changes introduced the equivalent of 3 million more seats a year, bringing improved services to communities along the line. Industrial relations have been improved, with employee engagement up and sickness absence down, from 14 days per year in 2009 to nine and a half days last year. Furthermore, polls show that twice as many people oppose the sell-off as support it. Even half of Conservative supporters are against it.

Perhaps we should not be surprised that Tory Ministers are rushing through a botched privatisation of rail services; they have form, after all. However, the Liberal Democrats—unfortunately, none is present today—need to be reminded of their position in opposition. At the time, the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), said:

“My view on the franchise agreements is clear…if a franchise is handed in to the Government—handed back—it should be held in the public sector as a public interest franchise, not least as a comparator for other franchise agreements currently operating.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2009; Vol. 493, c. 83WH.]

Nevertheless, in government, the Liberal Democrats have voted in favour of privatisation without a word of protest. So this is not only a Tory sell-off; it is another Lib Dem sell-out.

There is an alternative. As a not-for-dividend operator, East Coast has invested all its profits—some £48 million—back into the service, instead of splitting it with shareholders. It has proved excellent value for money and will have paid back almost £1 billion by the middle of 2015, combining better services for passengers with improved value for the taxpayer. That is why we have suggested that, if the Government press ahead, at least East Coast should be able to bid for the new franchise.

As hon. Members have recognised, it is nonsense to say that the German, French and Dutch state operators will be able to bid, but that the current, successful British operator will be barred. It is also remarkable that Conservative Ministers have come before the House to tell us that they are not in favour of that additional element of competition. By doing so, Ministers have made it clear that this is about politics, not the national interest. They are content to watch profits being spent on foreign rail networks, and they have also said that they would allow National Express, which walked away from the franchise in 2009, to bid again.

Meanwhile, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Graeme Morrice) said, instead of clearing up the mess caused by the collapse of the west coast franchise competition, progress on other lines has stalled as Ministers desperately try to complete East Coast’s sale before the general election. The collapse of franchising has already cost the taxpayer at least £55 million, and the Government have been forced to seek costly direct extensions—in one case, for more than four years— to free up enough time to push East Coast out the door.

As a result, First Great Western will pay only £17 million in premium payments next year, compared with £126 million last year. When combined with the similar deal to extend Virgin’s west coast contract, taxpayers will lose out on £173 million in franchise payments in 2013-14. That is before taking into account the loss to the wider economy, as orders have been put on hold, hurting the supply chain and threatening jobs and skills.

Does the Minister really believe that those wasted millions could not have been put to better use? They could helped to alleviate the cost-of-living crisis by holding down the cost of tickets, but instead the Government are allowing some fares in January to rise by more than double the rate of inflation.

In fairness to the Government, they did announce one interesting policy: a £500 cap on the cost of a standard return. It was interesting for the wrong reasons, however, because the policy will benefit no one—there are no standard return fares that cost more than £500. When the rail industry proposed the cap, were Ministers aware of that fact, or were they duped? I would be happy to take an intervention on the point—but perhaps the Minister will address it in his speech.

After months of delay, the Government’s fares and ticketing review offered only cold comfort to passengers. East Coast passengers, however, will be feeling the impact of disruption, as despite the operator’s best efforts, infrastructure failings are an all-too-regular occurrence on the line. The previous Labour Government committed £500 million to the line in the current control period and a further £247 million is due to be invested in control period 5, but that pales by comparison with the billions spent on the west coast, and poor asset knowledge compounds the problem.

Network Rail is due to carry out a review of civil structures by March 2015, but the Government intend to award the new franchise in October next year. Will the Minister confirm that without adequate knowledge of the disruption ahead, the successful bidder could walk away with millions in preventable compensation payments? Is that cost to the taxpayer not reason enough to slow the reckless pace of this privatisation?

The truth is that the current operator has won national awards for the way in which it manages disruption, and its management have drawn up a five-year plan for managing upgrade work and the introduction of the inter-city express trains. They should be entrusted to deliver the plan, just as they delivered record punctuality and passenger satisfaction ratings.

We all know, however, that the sell-off is not about improving services; it is about ideology and the Government’s determination to bring to an end this successful alternative to franchising. It is not too late for Ministers to halt the process, but if they continue, they will be putting privatisation before passenger interests, which would say everything about the priorities of this out-of-touch Government.

10:49

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

It is a great delight to see you in the Chair this morning, Mr Bone. I thank the hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West (Mrs Hodgson) for securing the debate, which provides yet another opportunity to present the benefits of rail franchising and to talk about the east coast main line franchise.

I have listened to a number of Members speak this morning, and I hope to address some of what they have said and asked for on behalf of their constituents. Regrettably, I cannot deal with all the points, because we are engaged in a commercially confidential and sensitive procurement exercise to appoint the right service delivery partner for this vital and historic railway. On 25 October, we began the competition for the inter-city east coast main line franchise by publishing a notice in the Official Journal of the European Union, and publishing the inter-city east coast prospectus and the pre-qualifications documents, so that prospective bidders can apply to take part in this important competition. The prospectus set out some of the new policies to be included in the new franchise, such as capitalisation requirements and the GDP support mechanism to mitigate the kinds of failures we have seen in the past. The Government have learned the lessons from the west coast main line and put in place new procedures and policies. I am confident that the competition will run smoothly.

We are now in the pre-qualification stage of the competition, so it is only right that I am careful in my comments this morning not to prejudice the competition. As is normal, the Department has set up clear processes, which I must follow, for the transmission of information to the market throughout this competition.

[Mrs Hodgson]

The Minister mentioned the prospectus that is in the public domain. Will he explain the difference between that and the leaked prospectus to which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) referred and from which I obtained information about the proposal for third-class rail travel? Where did that leaked prospectus come from, and does it even exist? It was printed in The Daily Telegraph, which I am sure he thinks is a jolly good paper that would not print something that did not exist.

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is drawing me into commenting on The Daily Telegraph, and I would rather not do that at the moment, for obvious reasons. The Government rightly do not comment on leaked documents. If the hon. Lady wants to rely on it, it is for her to do so, but the Government rely on the prospectus that we have issued.

I shall pick up some of the questions asked this morning. There has been a whiff of mischief in this debate. Much has been said about political dogma and the hon. Member for Easington (Grahame M. Morris) gave himself away when he said that he supports renationalisation of the railways. That is what this debate is about. It is not about securing the best deal for passengers, the railways or the east coast main line. It is about renationalisation.

The whiff of mischief continued from the Labour Front-Bench spokesman who was keen to point out what she believes is the benefit of nationalisation, but failed to point out that the previous Labour Government saw the benefits of the franchising system and privatisation, and continued with that process throughout their 13 years in office. Moreover, I gently remind the hon. Lady that when she starts a catalogue of failures, she might remember who had not done enough work on the franchising process in 2007 when National Express took it over.

[Mrs Gillan]

On the spirit of mischief, does my hon. Friend find the attitude of Labour Members rather odd? I understand that Labour is considering supporting HS2 if the Secretary of State raises the extra private sector funds by selling a 30-year concession on HS2 for £10 billion. Does that not sit rather oddly with the arguments that have been deployed today?

[Stephen Hammond]

My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point and alludes, as I did, to the whiff of mischief that we are hearing from Labour Members today.

The hon. Member for Washington and Sunderland West asked about the prospectus and where she might find it. It is available in the Library—and I have a copy here—but I will ensure that a copy is sent to her. She commented on performance, and I refer her to page 67, which states that the franchise agreement will include three levels of benchmarking for the performance metrics that any franchisee will have to meet.

The hon. Lady referred to third class. I intervened to say that we will not specify that and have not specified it, but I gently guide her to Eurostar, which has a standard premier class to make better use of off-peak first-class coaches. If someone wanted to make better use of first-class coaches during off-peak times, I am sure that she and her constituents would regard that as a benefit.

[Ian Mearns]

The Minister is generous in giving way. If a franchise runs a first-class, a standard premium class and a standard class, does not standard class, de facto, become third class?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman would argue that with British Airways, and I am not sure why he should do so with the franchise. His point is nonsense.

[Mrs Hodgson]

I know that I cannot tempt the Minister to discuss the existence of the leaked document, but page 66 of the publicly available document states:

“We would be open to variations in the ratio of first to standard class accommodation…We would be unlikely to consider any variation which delivers a worsening of passenger experience”,

which I believe third class would. Will he confirm that no third class will be allowed under the franchise?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady is dancing on a pinhead. I have made it clear that in the document we will not and have not specified a third class. I would have thought that she and her colleagues supported utilising first-class coaches, so that more passengers can have a better experience.

I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz) who told us that it was impossible to argue that the decline in ridership on the railways between the early 1900s and the 1990s was due to public ownership, or that the benefits of privatisation, which has seen ridership double, could be established. He then proceeded to use exactly those arguments for the east coast main line, which was slightly surprising.

I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore) who referred to securing new rolling stock under the public sector. The inter-city express programme has been running for some time. The trains will be procured by Government and will also be used by Great Western, and that is currently being operated by First Great Western. To suggest that the IEP process was not running beforehand was wrong.

It is equally odd that some hon. Members sought to suggest that the Government have been panicked into the inter-city east coast main line refranchising. What they forget is that the franchise consultation had already been held prior to the west coast franchise being stopped. It had already been announced back in 2011 that the intention was to publish the invitation to tender in January 2013. To contend that this is a rushed privatisation—we may discuss the word “privatisation” in a moment—is simply nonsense.

[Sheila Gilmore]

Does the Minister accept that the original plan was for the east coast main line to be the last of the three lines to be refranchised, so the only reason that it now seems to be in line with the original date is that the whole thing was put on hold due to the complete debacle of the west coast main line?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady cannot argue that we are rushing it through when she has just said that we are keeping to the original timetable. The then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr Hammond) announced a timetable and we had already started the consultation prior to the west coast refranchising process being stopped, so it is nonsense to argue that this is rushed.

[Graeme Morrice]

I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I appreciate that time is running out. Will he confirm what public consultation there has been with passengers and passenger groups, and what the outcome was?

[Stephen Hammond]

We followed the absolutely standard procedures. We had a public consultation between June and September 2012, and there will be further consultation when the ITT has been finalised. The Government are putting in place the refranchising process that will deliver the best partner to deliver the best benefit for all customers on the east coast main line. That is the way forward.

Premier Motor Auctions

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Austin Mitchell (Great Grimsby) (Lab)]

May I say what a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship for the first time ever, Mr Bone? I want to tell the story today of the theft of a profitable Yorkshire company by the mafia—I do not mean the criminal mafia that we often speak of, but Britain’s dark-suited mafia, which in this case is represented by Lloyds bank and PricewaterhouseCoopers, both acting in collusion and neither of them subject to police controls, because both regulate themselves.

The company is Premier Motor Auctions, which had a turnover of £160 million, had 160 staff, and was profitably selling 50,000 cars a year in 2008, which was one of its most profitable years. It was described by Lloyds as a “great auction business”. However, the company had an overdraft facility of £1.75 million, because the chief executive, Keith Elliott, was pushing the limits to expand the company. That included the costs of due diligence on an aborted takeover, the purchase of a new site in Birmingham and a proposal to establish a business in the United States. The overdraft facility gave the bank the idea of taking it over and it introduced Irving Warnett of PricewaterhouseCoopers to the company as a non-executive director. He called himself, as he came in, a critical friend, and he worked for Ian Green, who was the northern leader of business recovery services for PricewaterhouseCoopers.

Warnett went through the accounts and insisted on creating a £2 million account for a Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency contract that the company held. That turned out to be unnecessary—it was not even required by the DVLA contract—but it created a hole in the company’s finances, which Lloyds agreed to fill by increasing the borrowing limit to £3.75 million, in return for which it demanded vigorously and robustly that the company be sold via an administration in which PwC would, amazingly to me, act for both parties. That was in September 2008. It was to be sold to Lloyds Development Capital under what was called Project Tic, which was headed by the takeover specialist Matthew Packham.

Elliott fought back, and he got the support of a venture capital firm called Endless, which described Premier Motor Auctions as an excellent business. It was prepared to refund the £2 million borrowing that had been unnecessary, but Lloyds, in return, insisted on owning 50% of the business and proposed to put the business again into administration. That was described by Lloyds as Project Toc, and PwC was to handle the administration, at the end of which Lloyds was to buy the business for £1. To ensure that that happened, Lloyds then threatened to withdraw funding on 4 December, which was the day before the deal was completed. It said, in internal documents, that this was its attempt to crystallise the position and to do a deal without Keith. PwC was proposing to act for both sides, which, again, I would have thought was a conflict of interest on its part.

Elliott, not to be beaten—resourceful man as he is—did a deal with Scottish Motor Auctions, which agreed to put up £2 million and avoid administration, which, as it pointed out, would have shattered confidence in the business. That was a good deal from the point of view of Elliott and Premier Motor Auctions, but not from the bank’s point of view, and in 24 hours, the deal, on 11 December, had been aborted and a new deal was reached between Scottish Motor Auctions and Lloyds, over Elliott’s head. Lloyds and Scottish Motor Auctions would now take over the company, so the bank was still achieving its aim, despite Keith Elliott’s resourcefulness in getting the £2 million paid off.

The central question, therefore, becomes who aborted the deal with Scottish Motor Auctions. A director of Scottish Motor Auctions said that it had been given a very clear steer that SMA’s bid would be unacceptable—unacceptable, presumably, to the bank. I have had a considerably long letter of explanation from the bank, and I am grateful for that. It has given me an explanation some of which is actually correct. The bank says that it did not abort the Scottish Motor Auctions deal, and it points to PricewaterhouseCoopers. PwC has refused to answer any questions on the issue, so I do not know whether the deal was aborted by Mr Warnett or by his boss Ian Green—they both worked in the same office and shared the same secretary—but I do know that aborting the Scottish Motor Auctions deal made the difference to PwC’s fees, which went from £10,000 for the SMA deal, if it had gone through, to £500,000 for carrying out the administration, which Lloyds wanted to do. The total cost of that administration, including lawyers’ fees and everything, came to £1.2 million.

In some respects, that is the end of the story. Keith Elliott was forced out, and to get his overdraft, he had been forced to sign a warrant to the bank, which is something banks tend to force on customers now, giving it the option to purchase, which it now proposed to exercise, excluding Keith Elliott entirely. That was what he was told by post earlier in December. Therefore, a company that was making, that year, £2.5 million, before interest and tax, was put into administration by PwC and bought back by Lloyds and Scottish Motor Auctions. It is now functioning again and generating considerable profit for them. Elliott has been forced out, and Scottish Motor Auctions, Lloyds bank, and presumably PwC, which handled the administration, are laughing all the way to the bank, having made a very considerable, generous profit out of the deal—out of effectively stealing the company. Elliott is left owing £2 million on a warrant that he signed to get the £2 million from Lloyds in the first place.

In my view, the way in which the company was taken over does not just smell—it stinks. It is a monstrous theft of the company. The Independent Banking Advisory Service, which Keith Elliott consulted, has confirmed that this is happening elsewhere to other companies taken over by banks in this fashion. IBAS says that the banks are being protected by Government and have a “special relationship” with them. I quote from a letter of 28 September 2012 in which IBAS states that that special relationship

“has allowed the banks and other professionals with whom they have conspired—to plunder and gain control of very profitable business, which the banks had marked as targets”—

as Lloyds had marked Premier Motor Auctions—

“…deliberately using the insolvency industry as a shield to conceal many acts of deception and fraud.”

I hope that the Department will inquire into that, because if it is happening on a bigger scale than at Premier Motor Auctions, it is an appalling practice to impose on businesses that want to compete, prosper and grow, and it is a threat to businesses besides Keith Elliott’s.

What smells even more and is even more worrying is the lack of redress for a company director and company in this situation. Neither Lloyds nor PwC has answered the specific questions—about who aborted which deal, why and when—that I and Keith Elliott have put to them. Lloyds has been helpful in giving its side of the story, but it still has not answered the questions and it will not agree to an independent investigation by a liquidator that Elliott will fund personally to prove that he was right. It has also prevented disclosure by six directors after he won a court order for disclosure of their internal papers.

PricewaterhouseCoopers—a distinguished name—has been even less helpful. Elliott’s inquiries were answered by a lawyer’s letter, saying that his queries were

“calculated to cause annoyance and inconvenience to our client”.

That’s a nice one. PwC has not answered my questions, either. It will not correspond further. It has told Elliot to sue it. All that is, to me, as clear an admission of guilt on the part of PwC as we are going to get. It can get away with it, because the regulation of accountancy and insolvency is handled by the regulator, which is the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales. That would better be renamed the “society for the prevention of cruelty to the big four accountancy houses”, which manage the institute’s staff, provide time off for their partners to serve the institute, dominate its proceedings and make it judge and jury in their own case. It has not investigated Elliott’s claims. It has told him that his redress is now by means of judicial review, which it is not, of course, because that is out of time.

The Financial Reporting Council, which is the regulator of regulators, will not investigate because, it says, the number of people affected is small and doing so is not in the public interest. Well, if investigating the theft of a company is not in the public interest, it beats me what is.

The Minister and the Insolvency Service both say they have no standing in the matter. The problem that we are talking about is the theft of a viable, profitable company by one of the big banks, in close co-operation—conspiracy, one might say—with PricewaterhouseCoopers. What I am asking this morning, therefore, is, first, that there be an official inquiry into this company theft, which should cover the question whether this is going on with other banks—whether other companies are being taken over by the banks, in collusion with accountancy houses, in the same way. It is in effect the theft of companies.

I am asking secondly for effective independent regulation of accountancy, audit and insolvency. Regulation by the Institute of Chartered Accountants, the protective body for the big four, is just not enough, and it means that the big four are in effect their own masters and take their own decisions. That is a totally undesirable situation. The public and companies must have some right of redress and right of appeal—some knowledge that there will be an independent inquiry into such abuses.

I am asking thirdly for the effective regulation of the banks to ensure that they do their job, which is lending to support small and medium-sized enterprises, rather than using the power that they have from granting overdrafts to take them over.

I am asking, as a general issue, that the enormous power of those big beasts the banks—banks that are too big to fail and are in effect protected by the Government —and the enormous power of the big four accountancy houses, which are too big to control and in effect regulate themselves through the Institute of Chartered Accountants, be restrained. We need a healthy, vigorous and open environment for business and we need institutions such as the banks and the big accountancy houses to be accountable and effectively regulated in the public interest. Everywhere, great power such as exists in the hands of the banks and the accountancy houses must be accountable, and it should be in this instance.

11:15

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

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) on securing the debate. He has been a tenacious advocate on behalf of his constituent, Mr Elliott, and his concerns about the administration of the companies of which he was the managing director. I applaud the hon. Gentleman’s work on behalf of constituents generally, which we all wish to undertake as MPs in our own constituencies.

I hope to be able to address some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised on this specific case, although he will appreciate that there are limits to what I can say—and, indeed, do—on this case. However, he has also raised his concern that these issues exist more widely, so I will also touch on what the Government intend to do to address issues in the insolvency market more widely.

[Mr Philip Hollobone in the Chair]

The concerns that the hon. Gentleman has outlined regarding this case include the alleged conflict of interest involving the administrator, the accountancy firm PwC and the bankers, Lloyds. Mr Elliott has made it clear that he considers that the close relationship between PwC and the bank enabled his companies to be sold in an inappropriate and irregular way. The hon. Gentleman described that as, in effect, the theft of the company. I appreciate that his constituent feels very strongly about this issue, not least because this was his livelihood and his company. We all understand that.

The hon. Gentleman also outlined his concerns about the wider context of the banks acting with the big four accountancy firms to sell businesses at a profit for themselves, to the detriment of creditors and those who had been running the companies. I recognise that people are worried about the independence of insolvency practitioners and I will come to those matters, but I should perhaps try to manage expectations. I may be unable to satisfy the hon. Gentleman on the specifics of this case, because I do not have the power to intervene in individual insolvencies. The issue is not whether I am willing to do so; it is simply that I am not able to do so.

The hon. Gentleman will inevitably be more familiar with the intricate details of the case than I am, but my understanding is that Irving Warnett was introduced, he says, as a non-executive director and a critical friend of Premier Motor Auctions. My understanding is also that, whatever discussions took place, he was never actually appointed as a non-executive director, so the legislation on directors’ responsibilities does not specifically apply to him. The issues about a conflict of interest have been investigated, and I will come to the way in which that complaint was handled.

The hon. Gentleman also highlighted the two different deals that seemed to be on the table in December 2008. One was much more appealing to Mr Elliott. The other, which ultimately was the one undertaken, was clearly not as acceptable to Mr Elliott. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s concern about where that decision was made, but I do not have the power to secure that information.

That said, I strongly encourage any company receiving correspondence from a Member of Parliament about a constituency case to engage with that Member of Parliament and answer their questions. After all, we elect 650 MPs to represent everybody up and down the country, and the office of Member of Parliament should not be disrespected by any individual company. It would be helpful if the relevant companies found it in themselves to engage a little more constructively and answer some of the questions that the hon. Gentleman understandably put to them on behalf of his constituent.

The hon. Gentleman highlighted a couple of deals, which go by the interesting names of Project Tic and Project Toc. In August 2008, Lloyds were apparently insisting that the company went into administration, which he referred to as Project Tic. Project Toc involved Endless LLP and Lloyds buying the company out of administration through a specially created new company. It is difficult to comment on those specifics, because the sale did not take place under either of those projects.

Mr Elliott complained to the ICAEW, which is the insolvency regulator of the administrator, Mr Green. As the hon. Gentleman knows, it investigated the complaint, which involved the potential conflict of interest around Mr Green becoming administrator when previously, it is alleged, there was a material relationship between PWC and the companies involved.

The ICAEW investigation concluded that no conflict of interest arose, on the basis that PwC was acting as investigating accountants for the bank prior to the administration, and therefore it was not contrary to the code of ethics with which all insolvency practitioners must comply. The ICAEW also looked at PwC’s negotiating to sell the business in the days before Mr Green was appointed and stated that that likewise did not breach the code because PwC was trying to maximise asset realisations, which was compatible with Mr Green’s duties as administrator.

Every insolvency practitioner should be aware of potential conflicts of interest. There was an investigation in this case, because there clearly should have been awareness of that, but if an insolvency practitioner works for a particular firm, a conflict of interest is not automatically inevitable. The investigation found that there was no conflict of interest in this circumstance.

[Austin Mitchell]

In fact, as the Minister pointed out earlier, Mr Warnett was not appointed as a director, but the letter from Lloyds specifically said that he was to be a non-executive director. On that basis, he was received by the company and gave advice to create the £2 million hole in the accounts.

The ICAEW investigation was only a partial investigation of part of the complaint. The complaint, which put three headings together, had to be treated as a whole to show the conspiracy, but the ICAEW said that it could not be treated in that fashion and that it would investigate only part of it. That investigation was certainly far from thorough, because it has left open the question whether PwC could act for both the company and the purchaser in the administration.

[Jo Swinson]

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, Mr Elliott was unhappy with the investigation and therefore also asked the Insolvency Service to use its oversight role to review whether the ICAEW had dealt with the case properly in its investigation of the complaint. The Insolvency Service concluded that the ICAEW had adhered to its complaints processes and that the finding of the investigation committee was not unreasonable.

I have not seen the letter of engagement from August 2008 on the appointment of a director, but whatever is in that letter, if somebody is to be appointed as a director, a formal process must be undergone through Companies House. That did not happen, so there was no status as non-executive director, even if it was supposed to happen. The investigation took place and was looked at by the Insolvency Service, and that is where the powers we have get us to in this circumstance.

I am absolutely sympathetic. I understand the concerns of Mr Elliott and the hon. Gentleman. It is important that those who deal with the insolvency of a company are seen as independent, and I understand why on this occasion there is not necessarily confidence that that was the case. I stress to all insolvency practitioners that they need to look long and hard at their position when they take on the administration of a company, to see whether there is any potential conflict. They should take appointments only where they feel that they are able to act with independence.

The hon. Gentleman placed the issues raised by the case in the wider context. It is helpful to look more generally at what we are doing for companies that find themselves in a similar situation. The Insolvency Service is taking an increased interest in conflicts of interest. It is focusing its oversight regulation work on the specific issue of insolvency practitioner independence. When it goes out to monitor insolvency regulators, it looks at how those regulators consider alleged conflict of interest cases and whether the current code of ethics is robust enough.

For example, the Secretary of State recently wound up a number of introducer firms that had inappropriate relationships with insolvency practitioners. Creditors and complainants continue to express concerns about the effectiveness of the regulatory regime for insolvency practitioners. Stronger oversight powers would help to improve confidence in the regime. We will therefore bring forward proposals, when we can find time within the legislative programme, to strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State as the oversight regulator.

The case brings to mind issues more generally. Many hon. Members have expressed significant concerns about the pre-pack process. In July, I announced that Teresa Graham would be appointed to undertake an independent review of the pre-pack procedure. The review is under way and is considering, among other things, whether pre-packs provide value for creditors and how confidence in the procedure can be improved. We have passed on the concerns that Mr Elliott raised to the review team, as part of its evidence-gathering process, so that it can look at a variety of different cases where people have been worried about what has happened. The review is expected to conclude by spring next year—in just a few months’ time.

The Insolvency Service has also worked with the regulators to develop a revised standard for pre-packs, known as SIP16—statement of insolvency practice 16. It requires insolvency practitioners to provide earlier and more detailed information to creditors about valuations, marketing and the justification for a pre-pack.

Importantly, where there is evidence of abuse by an insolvency practitioner, creditors can now use a new single complaints gateway. It is a single point of access for complainants and therefore much easier to use, given the fragmented regulatory regime with different regulators. It will also make it easier for the Insolvency Service to oversee the progress of complaints. Common sanctions guidelines have been introduced by the majority of insolvency regulators, to create more consistency in disciplinary standards.

In conclusion, I shall turn to the role of banks. Banks will undertake reviews to assess the viability of a company for continued or enhanced financial support. As a fundamental feature of our financial and insolvency law, lenders that have valid security must be able to appoint an agent, such as an investigating accountant, to protect the value of that security. Banks also need to act responsibly and consider the implications of any decision they ultimately take.

The Government recognise the problems that there have been in the banking sector, which have done a considerable amount to undermine people’s faith in the banking system. We recently responded to the report from the Parliamentary Commission on Banking Standards, which marks the next step in the Government’s plan to improve confidence and build a banking sector that upholds high standards of ethics and professionalism. We will continue to strengthen standards in banking, by working with the regulators to strengthen corporate governance and ensure that firms have good systems in place to maintain standards on ethics and culture. Such issues are important.

I appreciate that what I have outlined on insolvency and banking will not necessarily help in the specific case brought to us today, but I hope that it provides reassurance that we are aware of the important general issues and are taking action.

11:30

Sitting suspended.

Iran’s Nuclear Weapons Programme

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

[Jim Sheridan in the Chair]

14:30

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

I remind colleagues that although there are a number of issues involving Iran that could be discussed, today we are talking about its nuclear weapons programme.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Thank you for your presence in the Chair, Mr Sheridan, and I thank Mr Speaker for granting this debate. May I say how pleased I am to see a Minister from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office here at a Defence-allocated debate? I see it as good evidence of joint working between two important Departments. I am also delighted to see so many other eminent parliamentarians in the Chamber. I welcome interventions, hostile or friendly, during my remarks.

Iran’s nuclear weapons programme poses the greatest threat to global security that we face. Surprisingly, the issue is not being taken seriously enough in Parliament, or indeed by the international community. All eyes seem to be focused on Syria, Afghanistan or Somalia, when actually the greatest risk of a global conflagration comes from Iran. Iran simply cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon. There are elements within the regime who are mad and bad enough to use it, and their target could be Israel, Saudi Arabia or any number of other countries in the region or further afield. I contend that we must take the issue far more seriously, and that the longer it goes unresolved, the greater the risk that Iran will get a nuclear weapon or weapons and develop the ballistic technology to project the weapon not only in the region but further afield.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is generous in promising to give way, although he might regret it. He and I had an interesting week in the delegation to Gaza, and he is well aware of Israel’s behaviour concerning the encirclement of Gaza and the treatment of the Palestinian people. Israel, of course, is a nuclear-armed power. Does he not think that the key to the issue in that region is for Israel to divest itself of nuclear weapons to remove the potential for a nuclear arms race in the region?

[Mr Hollobone]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question, and I enjoyed our joint visit to Gaza. He and I agree on many issues involving the Palestinian Authority and Israel. We can certainly agree that the situation must be resolved quickly and that the current US-led negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians offer perhaps the best chance of resolving those issues since the state of Israel was founded.

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Hollobone]

I will happily give way. In answering this intervention, I will also try to tackle the previous intervention.

[Mr Clappison]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Does he not agree that Iran has shown ample evidence of its hostility towards a peaceful solution to the situation between the Palestinians and the Israelis and that Iran’s aggression is in fact directed towards the existence of Israel?

[Mr Hollobone]

I agree with my hon. Friend that Iran has said some unfriendly and unpleasant things about the state of Israel and its right to exist, which he and I and most Members totally abhor. The question in the previous intervention was whether Israel’s possession of a nuclear weapon was not a big issue in itself. Of course it is, but the whole Israeli mindset has to do with defending Israel’s people, not projecting aggression elsewhere.

I know that the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) is looking at me quizzically because he will not agree with much of that, but the perspective of the state of Israel is that the Jewish diaspora throughout the world, but mainly in eastern and western Europe, suffered the horrors of the holocaust, and out of that was born the state of Israel. He and I and others can agree or disagree about that history, but the fact is that half the present world’s Jewish population lives in the state of Israel, and they have found nowhere safe in the world throughout the history of the Jewish people. The state of Israel now offers the best chance for Jewish people to live in peace. They have developed a nuclear weapon or weapons because they want to defend themselves. They do not want to deploy that weapon against anyone else; they just want to be left in peace.

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I fully accept many of my hon. Friend’s arguments about an expansionist versus a defending nation, but within the United Nations and the global community, there are rules about the development and holding of nuclear or any other weapons. Iran is a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which imposes certain obligations that ultimately involve its being taken to the Security Council; Israel is not. Does he therefore recognise the disparity there, and will he join me in urging Israel to sign the NNPT, or at least to allow inspection of its sites?

[Mr Hollobone]

Yes, I agree that Israel should be a signatory, but there would be no question of Israel giving up its nuclear weapons. Enough bad things have been done to the Jewish people over two millennia that they simply will not give them up.

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

I am keen to get the focus back on Iran. One way to do so might be to point out that if Israel were led by undemocratic, tyrannical religious fundamentalists and Iran was led by a democratically elected Parliament and Government who were constitutionally capable of being removed without strife, we might be having this debate about Israel’s nuclear weapons rather than Iran’s. The key lies in democratisation, or the lack of it, in the respective countries.

[Mr Hollobone]

As always, my hon. Friend is on top of matters. He makes an extremely pertinent point, and he is quite right to bring us back to Iran.

Yes, this is about Iran’s nuclear weapons programme. Would we be having this debate if the state of Israel did not exist? Perhaps, but the threat of Iran deploying a nuclear weapon would not be nearly as great. The mad and bad people in Iran have said often enough how much they despise the state of Israel. There has been argument about whether they have said that Israel should be wiped off the map, but that is clearly the intention of some people in positions of authority in Iran.

Iran is the biggest state sponsor of terrorism worldwide, not just in the middle east but in Europe and further afield, and it has an appalling human rights record. It is a very unpleasant country led by a very unpleasant regime. The idea that it should have at its disposal the ability to deploy a nuclear warhead or warheads should fill the world with absolute horror. Ever since 1945, with a brief interruption for the Cuban missile crisis, the assumption has been that nuclear weapons are so horrible that they will never be used, but I think that we could envisage a situation in which Iran, if it had a nuclear warhead, might well use it. If a future regime had the ability to manufacture a warhead and the ballistic capability to deliver it on Israel, it might well decide to take the chance to wipe out 7 million Israelis.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this most timely debate. Does he agree that although we have been talking about Israel, we must underline the fears and anxieties of many of Iran’s Arab neighbours? Should we not be concerned about reports that Saudi Arabia will look elsewhere to bolster its nuclear capability, or investigate the possibility of so doing, if Iran is given what it considers to be a good deal? A good deal for Iran would, of course, be a bad deal as far as everyone else was concerned. Not only Israel and the west but Iran’s Arab neighbours are concerned about the situation.

[Mr Hollobone]

The right hon. Gentleman knows more about religious divides than most of us in the House. In many respects, the split between Protestants and Roman Catholics is similar to that between Shi’as and Sunnis. The divides between Shi’a Iran and Sunni Saudi Arabia date back centuries. If Saudi Arabia feels that the wrong deal is negotiated in Geneva, there is a real chance that the Saudis will buy nuclear weapons from Pakistan, because they will want to defend themselves against the threat from Iran.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the situation is not just about Israel versus Iran; it is about Iran versus, frankly, the rest of the world. That is yet another reason why the international community simply cannot allow Iran to have nuclear weapons, because the likelihood of its wanting to use them in future is simply too great. That comes back to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis). Iran’s horrible regime is far removed from any process of democracy, and we can easily envisage circumstances in the near, medium or distant future in which someone in authority in the country might decide, “We have got a nuclear weapon. Let us use it.” That is a frightening prospect, which puts our worries about places such as Syria, Afghanistan and Somalia into the shade. It is the big issue on which the international community must concentrate.

I am in no way an expert on nuclear technology, but I have read enough to be convinced that Iran does not want to develop nuclear technology simply to provide power for its own people. It is hellbent on developing a nuclear weapons programme. The Foreign Secretary confirmed to me on the Floor of the House that the UK Government are convinced that Iran has enriched uranium to at least 20%. That is way beyond the 3.5% needed for civilian nuclear use, which suggests that the country is trying to develop a military capability. My understanding is that uranium for use in a nuclear warhead must be enriched beyond 90%, and although the gap between 90% and 20% might seem large, in nuclear physics terms it is actually quite small. Uranium enriched to 20% is more than half way to weapons-grade uranium. One of the worries about the potential deal now supposedly being negotiated in Geneva is that Iran might be left with a stockpile of uranium enriched to 20%, which it could bank and use to develop a nuclear warhead in the future. Any interim agreement that allows the Iranians to hang on to their nuclear stockpile is not worth having.

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

Perhaps I am wrong, but I understood the Foreign Secretary to say in a press interview that an interim agreement was being discussed, and a long-term agreement would be considered later on. I do not understand the concern about an interim agreement. Like the hon. Gentleman, I am no expert on nuclear weapons.

[Mr Hollobone]

There might be a problem here with my accent and that of the hon. Gentleman. I understood the Foreign Secretary to be talking about an interim agreement prior to arriving, we hope, at a full accord. The problem with an interim, short-term agreement is that, if I am right—I hope I am not—and the Iranians want to develop a nuclear warhead, such an agreement might give the Iranians time to develop enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear warhead. An interim agreement might, effectively, give the regime diplomatic cover to complete its nuclear weapons programme without the international community’s agreement.

[Mr Cunningham]

It is not for me to defend the Foreign Secretary, but as I understand it, he was talking about weeks rather than a long-term process that might allow Iran to develop along the lines the hon. Gentleman suggests. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman’s fears would be realised within the short period of time the Foreign Secretary was talking about.

[Mr Hollobone]

There we disagree, because my understanding is that it is not a matter of weeks. I am sure that the Minister will enlighten both of us in his response, but my understanding is that it would take months or even years to reach an interim agreement.

[Mike Freer (Finchley and Golders Green) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. The prospect of the debate clearly brought Iran to the negotiating table last weekend, so I congratulate him on his international reach. Does he share my biggest concern that all the dancing around the diplomatic handbags—talks about talks, talks about resuming talks, talks about inspectors going back in and talks about what they can inspect and when they can inspect it—is a typical conjuring trick by Iran to distract the international community while it gets across the line and builds a bomb? Should not the Foreign Office be extremely cautious about any gift horses from Iran?

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend speaks wise words, and I am not surprised because he is always on top of such important issues.

That leads me on to a point I was going to make about the new President of Iran, Hassan Rouhani, who was elected in June 2013. President Rouhani is meant to be the bee’s knees. The former Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), has said how much he admires him. Hassan Rouhani spent some time at Glasgow Caledonian university and knows this country well, but he is not a pleasant individual at all. It is not as though he has recently emerged with an unblemished record; he has been deeply involved in the unpleasant Iranian regime for quite some time. He was involved in the Islamic revolution when it started in 1978, and he helped Ayatollah Khomeini found the regime. Between August 2003 and October 2005, the now President Rouhani was Iran’s chief negotiator in nuclear weapons talks. In 2004, he gave a speech to the Supreme Cultural Revolution Council, in which he said:

“While we were talking with the Europeans in Tehran, we were installing equipment in parts of the [nuclear conversion] facility in Isfahan. By creating a calm environment, we were able to complete the work there”.

Those words reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer) that Iran may well be using the talks and the supposed rapprochement as a ruse to cover up the fact that it is quite close to developing a nuclear warhead but, critically, needs six to 12 months to finish its programme. What better way to ensure that it has the time and space to complete the manufacture of a nuclear warhead than to engage the international community in talks?

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward a debate of such great concern to us all. Does he see any grounds for optimism—or only danger—in an Iranian leader who is so much more able to enter into discussions than his predecessor, Ahmadinejad, who was clearly a danger to everybody; or is he just packaging and is there nothing at all in his greater willingness to talk with other leaders?

[Mr Hollobone]

It is difficult enough to be minor politicians in this country, as we are, having to deal with different issues and factions; it must be a nightmare being a politician in an unstable and unpleasant place such as Iran. I am sure that President Rouhani has to balance all sorts of different issues and say things he does not believe to appease one faction in relation to another.

I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect that Iran is attempting to buy space to cross the nuclear finish line, so that it can have a nuclear weapon. The prestige of President Rouhani and others in the Iranian regime would then be at its peak, because Iran would be a nuclear power, able to throw its weight around in the middle east and the world as never before. If I am wrong, that is great, but if I am right, we face the prospect of Iran being a nuclear power. Once it is such a power, it will be too late for the world to do anything about it.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is unlikely that Rouhani has any serious differences with the Ahmadinejad regime? The fact that he was one of six chosen from 3,000 potential candidates by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei indicates that he is probably completely at one with them. Is it likely that somebody who wanted to execute demonstrators campaigning for freedom shares any of the values of democracy or of the west?

[Mr Hollobone]

The hon. Gentleman speaks a great deal of sense and makes some extremely pertinent points. I hope the Foreign Office has taken note of his intervention. I suspect that, going back to the 1930s, the default position of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence is to try to arrive at an agreement to solve our problems through international accord. Of course, all of us see a lot of sense in that, but it must be stated in this case that no deal is probably far better than a bad deal. A bad deal will not solve anything. In fact, a bad deal will allow the Iranians under their present leadership, with all the other people behind the scenes, to cross that nuclear finish line. Once Iran has a nuclear weapon, the negotiating stance of the Foreign Office and the international community will be blown out of the water. This is our best chance to stop nuclear proliferation in the middle east.

[Mr Dodds]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that whatever the merits of the argument about an interim deal giving Iran the time to develop nuclear weapons, the issue is about Iran being allowed to retain the capacity to do so? That is crucial, as is the easing of sanctions. Surely one of the greatest issues for the Iranian regime is the crippling effect of sanctions, and one of its main desires is to ease that situation. It is estimated—I would be grateful if he gave us more information about this—that the easing of sanctions might be worth up to $20 billion to the Iranian regime, which is a major motivating factor and a good one. Iran’s retention of the capacity to develop nuclear weapons, rather than its willingness to do so or its actually doing so, is the key issue.

[Mr Hollobone]

The right hon. Gentleman’s powerful intervention is absolutely right. I hope the Foreign Office is better informed than I am and can give us the statistics. I am not sure, however, whether sanctions have brought the Iranians to the table; I do not know. It might well be that that is nothing to do with sanctions, but is all a ruse for Iran to buy diplomatic cover. What do I mean by that? If Iran can be seen to engage with the P5+1, it makes it much more difficult for the Israelis to take out Iran’s nuclear programme with military strikes. That is the point of the rapprochement.

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that any agreement, interim or full, that allows the Iranians to retain their capability to make a weapon—perhaps not now, but in the future—would be a bad deal that was not worth having. From the perspective of Israel and Saudi Arabia, and I hope ours, any capability left in Iran that enables the regime or a future one to develop nuclear warheads should be completely unacceptable.

Iran currently has all sorts of capability. The centrifuge capability has recently been beefed up, with IR-2 centrifuges that can enrich uranium five times faster than the old ones. There is the heavy water production plant at Arak, which nuclear inspectors have never been allowed inside. There is a facility at Fordow that is underground for one reason—so that nobody can get to it. There is also the centrifuge capability at Natanz.

[Mr Clappison]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful case about the multiple avenues Iran has to achieving to a nuclear capability, which are in addition to the Iranian regime’s history of stalling, lies and concealment. Would he welcome a statement from the Minister that the Government and the international community will be rigorous and exacting in their approach to the regime and will leave it nowhere near the threshold of obtaining a nuclear capability?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would welcome such a reassurance, but I am also looking forward to hearing my hon. Friend’s speech. I will soon sit down, because I have already spoken for far too long. Almost every Member present is more qualified to speak on these issues than me, and I am interested to hear what they say.

It seems to me that we face in Iran a country that wants to develop a nuclear warhead and that is mad and bad enough, either now or at some point, to have a high likelihood of deploying such a weapon. I do not believe that that is fanciful talk; I think it is a definite prospect, about which we should be very worried. In the next six months or so, we have a chance to negotiate a proper deal that will put Iran’s chances of making a nuclear weapon out of reach and give Israel, Saudi Arabia and every other country in the region the security they need, as we look forward to what I hope will prove to be a much more peaceful century around the world than the last one.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. I ask colleagues to keep in mind during their speeches that I intend to call the Front Benchers at about 3.40 pm.

14:58

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing the debate and on kindly taking so many interventions, which was very welcome.

I say at the outset that I do not want the continuation of any wars in the region of Iran. I want a process that will bring about disarmament, so I approach the debate from that standpoint. I also approach it from the standpoint of a representative of an inner-London constituency, in which many Iranian refugees live. They form almost a timeline of the political changes in Iran: there are refugees from the Shah’s period, the Islamic revolution period and all the later regimes. The human rights abuses of Persian Iranians as well as of Kurdish people and others are very real to me and to the people in my constituency. I am not unaware of Iran’s appalling human rights record and the continuing executions that go on. Any pressure brought to bear on Iran must be as much about a dialogue about human rights as anything else.

I am acutely aware of the history and deep ignorance of Iran in the rest of the world. Many think that Iran is part of the Arab world, which it clearly is not, and many are simply unaware of the sense of anger there is at how Iran has been treated by the west ever since the end of the first world war.

There has been the exploitation of Iranian oil by the Anglo-Iranian Oil Corporation, which later became British Petroleum. Britain has made a huge amount of money out of Iran over the decades. Likewise, the coup—a UK and CIA operation—organised against the Mossadegh Government in 1952 is remembered, and people are angry about it. The support that we gave to the Shah, and that the Shah gave to BP, resulted in a loss of national well-being.

There is a history of which we should not be unaware, and we must think about those things. The Islamic revolution of 1979 was a product of an awful lot of those issues and that pressure, including the appalling behaviour of the SAVAK secret police under the Shah, which paralleled the behaviour of the secret police under the Ayatollah after the revolution. At the time, though, they were seen to be a step forward.

Then there was the Iran-Iraq war after the break with the USA, in which the west supported Iraq against Iran. That terrible conflict cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people—possibly 500,000 people. It was an utterly useless and ghastly war. I recall visiting the border area between Iran and Iraq some years later and was taken to a glorified scrap metal yard, which was in fact heaps of old planes, tanks and armoured personnel carriers that bore the markings of every arms manufacturer in the world bar none. The people of Iran and Iraq have suffered a great deal.

We come now to the wish of Iran to develop its own nuclear power facilities. I do not think that Iran or any other country should develop nuclear power because it is an intrinsically dangerous form of power generation. I am probably in a minority in the Chamber in having that position, but that is my view. However, in law, Iran is certainly entitled to develop nuclear power for peaceful use, although it is certainly not entitled to develop nuclear weapons.

We then move on to whether Iran has nuclear weapons or the capability or intention of having them. Along with the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) and two others, I had an interesting discussion with the inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Authority in Vienna on behalf of the Iran group. It was a fascinating experience. The inspectors confirmed that, as of that time, Iran did not possess nuclear weapons and was not in a position to make nuclear weapons. It is important to make that clear.

Iran has a fatwa against nuclear weapons, imposed by the Grand Ayatollah, who said that it would be un-Islamic to develop nuclear weapons or weapons of mass destruction. Clearly, then, there are many people in Iran who are strongly opposed to the country having nuclear weapons. That is not to say that there are not people there who support them; I am sure that there are.

Iran is, and has been for a very long time, a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. It is therefore open to inspection—not necessarily under the voluntary or supplementary protocols, but certainly within the terms of the mandatory part of the NPT. Every other country in the region is a signatory to it except Israel, which is the only one that possesses nuclear weapons; apparently, despite the Foreign Secretary’s unwillingness to answer this question yesterday, it has 200 nuclear warheads, which is rather more than Britain and France.

The nuclear non-proliferation treaty review conference envisaged a nuclear weapons-free middle east and tasked Finland with setting up a conference to bring that about. That conference did not take place, and, at last year’s preparatory conference for NPT review in Geneva, which I attended, we heard speeches from all the countries of the region. There was universal anger that this nuclear weapons-free middle east proposal had not been taken further forward.

The Egyptian delegation—this was before the coup in Egypt—made it clear that Egypt was extremely angry about that, and peremptorily withdrew from the conference. As yet it has not completely withdrawn from the non-proliferation treaty system. Other countries made it clear that they were also extremely angry. It is quite obvious that unless progress is made on a nuclear weapons-free middle east, which obviously must include Iran and Israel, then clearly Saudi Arabia, Egypt and others could start to develop nuclear weapons. If anyone has nuclear power, it is not impossible for them to extend that into getting nuclear weapons. We must be well aware of that.

Since the election of President Rouhani, there has been a narrative that he is a huge reformer and a liberal compared with everything that has gone before. He is certainly different from previous Presidents; he has a wish for a relationship and an understanding with the west, and I suspect that he is feeding into the wishes of an awful lot of ordinary Iranian people who also want to have a better relationship with the rest of the world. I am no less aware than anyone else here of the human rights abuses that have happened and continue to happen in Iran. However, such considerations do not restrict British negotiations or friendly relations with Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or many other places that have totally appalling human rights records. We should be condemnatory of human rights abuses wherever they occur across the whole region.

The non-intervention in Syria by Britain and the United States has had some interesting effects. One is that within a few days of the decision there were conferences with Lavrov and John Kerry. There was a serious discussion about removing chemical weapons from Syria—and that is now happening, which is good. There have been much more serious discussions about getting a Geneva II process under way, which clearly must involve Iran if it is to mean anything.

Surely, we should be saying to Iran that we do not want anyone to develop nuclear weapons in the region, that we will push really hard on getting a nuclear weapons-free zone conference to ensure that there is no requirement on anybody to have nuclear weapons and that we will include Iran fully in Geneva II. The rather strange insistence on the acceptance by Iran of everything to do with Geneva I—it is not clear what it does and does not agree with on that—should not be used as an obstacle to getting the country involved. Clearly, if there is to be a ceasefire and a long-term peace in Syria, it has to come about with the involvement of Iran as well as of Russia, all the forces in Syria, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and everybody else, otherwise the implications of massive flows of refugees and the carnage in Syria just continue. The danger then moves on to the possibility of a war with Iran.

We must negotiate with Iran. We must respect it and its culture, build a relationship with it and recognise that it is still a signatory to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. The danger would be if it walked away from that treaty and chose to develop nuclear weapons, because Saudi Arabia would do the same and there would then be an arms race within the region. Some rather zany commentators in the US think that Iran should get nuclear weapons on the basis that it would create a regional balance and then we would move on. Balancing nuclear weapons terror is not a way to bring about peace.

I thank the hon. Member for Kettering for securing the debate, which is extremely helpful. I hope the Government will get the message that preparing to reopen diplomatic relations with Iran is welcome, as is the fact that discussions are going on. I look forward to the Minister’s reply, and I hope he will cover human rights in Iran, as well as nuclear power and the potential for others in the region to develop nuclear weapons.

I hope the Government will put serious effort into supporting the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to bring about the dream of a nuclear weapons-free zone across the middle east, because that would help to bring about a much longer-term peace throughout the region.

15:10

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this timely debate. I do not agree with all the points he made, but he made some important points about, for instance, Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium being among the considerations the negotiators must take on board.

The news that the Foreign Secretary brought to the House yesterday about progress in the negotiations, or the talks about talks, and about Foreign Minister Zarif proving to be someone whom western powers could do business with, was very welcome. We should reflect for a minute on how far we have come in a year and a half. I was looking back on some notes from May last year, and we were talking then about the risk of strikes on Iran and of a regional war being sparked by preventive strikes against Iran by the United States or by conflict breaking out over the strait of Hormuz. The situation now is not quite unrecognisable, but it has moved a considerable distance.

One crucial change is the election in the summer of President Rouhani. We may think that the electoral process was flawed, and we may think that the constitution of Iran is flawed and still gives too much power to the theocracy, but the election was undoubtedly genuinely contested, and it has undoubtedly changed the political landscape. We must therefore be a little wary of doing a reverse of the Whig interpretation of history: nobody naively believes that things will always get better, but we must never fall into the trap of thinking things can never get better. We must take advantage of the situation when someone such as President Rouhani is elected, because he is at least saying many of the right things, and he appears to be acting in many of the right ways.

In its statements over the past six months on President Rouhani and the situation in Iran, the Foreign Office has been very cautious and guarded, and it has talked about actions speaking louder than words. I have sometimes found that a little frustrating, and we could have seen a bit more enthusiasm for the reforming faction in Iran. However, if I am criticising the Foreign Office for going a bit too slowly, and others are criticising it for going too fast, it has perhaps got things just about right.

We should applaud the diplomatic efforts that have been made by British, international and, in this case, European Union diplomats. I was struck by the Foreign Secretary’s praise of Baroness Ashton in the House yesterday. She is, as a Brit, demonstrating not only the great British tradition of diplomacy, but the potential for the European Union to play a positive role in world diplomacy, not displacing, but complementing, national diplomacy. That is very positive.

There are three points that I would like to make. The first builds on my point about seeing the positive potential, rather than always accentuating the negative. I would ask the Foreign Office to be robust not only in pursuing the positive avenue of negotiations, but in standing up to anyone we traditionally think of as an ally who might try to stall the negotiations or prevent them from making too much progress.

There are two countries that I am particularly concerned about. One is Saudi Arabia. The Saudi intelligence chief, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, made an interesting comment last month. He said that following Washington’s failure to strike Syria and its entering into nuclear talks with Iran, there would be a major shift in Saudi Arabia’s relations with it. I would be interested to hear the Minister’s perspective on American-Saudi relations and on our own relationships with Saudi Arabia, in the context of the Iranian nuclear talks. I hope we will not allow Saudi Arabia to stall our progress in this area.

Through the channel of this debate, I would tell the Saudi Government that if they look back to the 1990s, to the presidencies of Presidents Rafsanjani and Khatami in Iran, they will see that there were much more cordial relations between Iran and Saudi Arabia. It has been only since the election of Ahmadinejad in 2005 and then the coming to power of King Abdullah that the two countries have got into a regional cold war and have almost been fighting proxy battles as rival regional powers from Bahrain to Syria to other places across the middle east. That is regrettable, and they should perhaps realise that the presidency of President Rouhani offers a path back to more constructive engagement.

Like the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), I also have concerns about Israel. We have not heard very constructive comments from Prime Minister Netanyahu about the E3 plus 3 talks. He has expressed real fear that they will result in a deal that

“will not work for Israel”.

However, Israel must also see its long-term interests. Surely, the most positive thing for Israel would be a process that ultimately leads towards a nuclear-free middle east and certainly one that has a realistic prospect of achieving a nuclear-free Iran.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

I apologise to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) for not congratulating him on securing the debate. Does the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) not think that the situation between the Israeli Government and the Palestinians is linked to this issue? That must be part of a solution in the middle east, because we cannot have a settlement with Iran in isolation. Does the hon. Gentleman also not think that the settlements Israel has been building have thrown some difficulties in the way of the road map to peace? Finally, despite what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said, there were demonstrations two or three years ago in Iran, and the opposition came close to winning the election. Internally, that may be motivating the regime a lot more than the hon. Gentleman suggested.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. Can we keep interventions short? I hope to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.40 pm.

[Martin Horwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes some important points, although we are also seeing positive engagement by Palestine and Israel in peace talks, so that is another area where we can accentuate the positive. My point is that we should be clear with our traditional allies in the region that we want to pursue this process with Iran robustly.

My second point relates to what the hon. Gentleman has just said: this has to be a regional process. I would therefore like to ask the Minister what the status is of the proposed plan to move towards talks on a nuclear-free middle east. That plan should include Israel as well as Iran. It could be revived in the new, more constructive atmosphere that is emerging. It might also connect with other disputes in the region. That plan was on the table quite seriously, and I would like to hear where the Foreign Office thinks the talks now lie.

My third and final point relates to the non-proliferation treaty. It is something of a rich irony that the E3 plus 3 could also be described as the N5 plus 1. Here we have six countries lecturing Iran on nuclear proliferation, but five of them hold nuclear weapons themselves—only Germany does not. It would send a positive signal if we discussed our own willingness to look at the nuclear threshold. There are countries around the world that have stopped short of it, even though, as in Japan’s case, they probably have the technological capacity to step over it. We are asking Iran to stop at the nuclear threshold or, ideally, to step well back from it, so perhaps we should be constructive in looking at whether we can step down the nuclear ladder; indeed, it is technically our obligation as a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty to look at progress towards disarmament. I will not get sidetracked into a debate on Trident like-for-like replacement, but the Liberal Democrat position is clearly that we could make a constructive contribution in that regard. I do not expect Ministers immediately to leap up to support that, but they should perhaps reflect on what we can do as part of a global process.

I agree with the hon. Member for Kettering that the talks must be robust and real, and that there must be a real negotiation that puts real demands on Iran. However, at the same time, we should reflect on the fact that all nuclear weapons are dangerous, and there are probably people in every country who are mad or bad enough to use them. The ideal that President Obama has set out of a world free from nuclear weapons and of a global nuclear disarmament process actually getting under way in the 21st century is one we in this country should do everything we can to support through our fast-improving relations with Iran and through our own attitude to nuclear armaments.

15:19

[Mr James Clappison (Hertsmere) (Con)]

I welcome the debate, which my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) is to be commended on securing. He is right about the importance of the issue, which is on a different scale from other issues that we are involved in, in the middle east or elsewhere, important though those are.

I remind the hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) that the debate is about Iran, not Israel or Saudi Arabia—still less about nuclear disarmament. Disarmament combined with unreciprocated concessions to aggressive regimes did not always guarantee a brilliant outcome in the previous century. Iran is an aggressive regime. I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) about the Iranian people and culture, which I distinguish from the regime. Many people in Iran are oppressed by it, and notwithstanding the comments of the hon. Member for Cheltenham, it is still a long way from being a democracy. It was observed that there were 3,000 possible candidates, although I was told that 678 presidential candidates were disqualified by Ayatollah Khomeini as ideologically unsound. Only six were allowed to proceed—one of whom is now President Rouhani. I agree with my right hon. and hon. Friends that an approach from any source in Iran must be engaged with constructively, and I support their way of proceeding. However, I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we must not look through rose-tinted spectacles at President Rouhani.

[Martin Horwood]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that even that flawed electoral process makes Iran rather more democratic than Saudi Arabia, which we traditionally treat as a close ally?

[Mr Clappison]

It is nothing like the democracy that I would like the Iranian people to have and that many of them would want. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering that we should not see President Rouhani as a completely new broom. We must not be naive. He has been part of the present regime since its inception and has held high office in it. He has been involved in its nuclear negotiations in the past, and, as my hon. Friend showed in the quotation he used, has stalled and used other devices to further Iran’s nuclear intentions.

I believe that it is the resolute intention of the Iranian regime to acquire nuclear weapons. Why on earth would it have put itself through what it has gone through for so many years—sanctions, international opprobrium, all that has happened in the United Nations and all the economic problems that have been caused for Iran—if not because it wanted nuclear weapons come what may? Is the international community getting it all wrong, and have all the leaders over the years been completely mistaken? I think not. We must accept that the Iranian regime is determined to have nuclear weapons. We should not let them fall into its hands. No matter who else may or may not have them, that regime has demonstrated beyond peradventure its aggressive intent in the region and throughout the world, through the export of terrorism by proxy to other countries in the region, including Lebanon and Syria; through its involvement in propping up the Syrian regime now; through its export of worldwide terrorism against Israel and Israeli citizens; and through its leaders’ aggressive statements in the past. We can have no doubts about the nature of the regime and the fact that we should not let nuclear weapons fall into those hands.

It is right, however, to engage with the regime, and I support the Government’s approach, but we must take an exacting and resolute approach in negotiations. We must not exaggerate, as I think the hon. Member for Cheltenham was in danger of doing, any progress that has been made already. We are only at the interim stage and have not even concluded an interim agreement. Let us not rush to say that there is agreement before it happens. We need to apply exacting and rigorous conditions to the regime and should take the view that if there is any doubt or anything unsatisfactory in any negotiations it is better to have no agreement than a bad agreement.

If the Government can reach an agreement that leaves Iran nowhere near the threshold of holding nuclear weapons, that rolls back the Iranian nuclear programme and that creates a framework in which peace can be achieved in the region, they deserve to be encouraged. They must have high expectations and I encourage them to be rigorous and, if necessary, cynical about the regime. In the past it has played for time, stalled and tried to reach a certain level. Iran must go back to the position it was in before it started its nuclear armaments programme; it must dismantle it and put itself far from the threshold of having nuclear weapons.

I agreed with some of what the hon. Member for Islington North said, although not all of it. Human rights are human rights anywhere in the region; but human rights in Iran are at stake. I urge my right hon. and hon. Friends, if they get a chance, to raise the issue of human rights with Iran. The regime has an unenviable record on human rights in many respects. I have in the past taken up the issue of persecution of Christians by the Iranian regime, which included death or prison sentences merely for practising their faith. We should not go into the negotiations with any illusions about the regime.

15:26

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

I am pleased to take part in the debate under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan.

This weekend, we honoured the dead of two world wars. It was the horror of the first world war that led to a huge desire for peace and disarmament in the decades that followed. During the 1920s and 1930s, there were disarmament conferences and complex negotiations leading to impressive disarmament treaties, such as the Washington naval treaties. What happened afterwards was instructive. The democracies observed the treaties. The British Navy, for example, redesigned battleships such as the Nelson and the Rodney in strange configurations, to stay within the limits of the Washington naval treaties. The Germans had a much more practical approach to the matter. They simply lied about the tonnage of their battle cruisers, the Scharnhorst and the Gneisenau, claiming to stay within the treaty terms, but actually breaching them.

We must therefore understand that, in disarmament negotiations and military confrontations, what matters is less the weapons systems than the nature of the Governments who possess them. An example of that is our attitude to the nuclear weapons that Russia holds today, compared with our attitude to nuclear weapons held by the Soviet Union. We were desperately concerned about its nuclear arsenal, because the Soviet Union was governed by a system with an aggressive ideology and a ruthless approach to what it regarded as the inevitable confrontation between communism and capitalism. Once the Soviet Union collapsed and Russia turned, however hesitantly, in a more democratic direction, we ceased to be anything like as concerned about its nuclear weapons systems. We became concerned about whether such systems would leach out of Russia into the hands of other totalitarian-inspired groups. We did not mind so much what arsenal Russia possessed—and continues to possess—provided that it remained in safe hands and not extremist hands.

That is why the comparisons between Iran’s possession of a nuclear weapon and Israel’s possession of a nuclear weapon are, frankly, unfounded. As I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), whom I congratulate both on securing the debate and on the way that he introduced it, we would be concerned today about Israel’s nuclear arsenal if Israel were governed by an extremist religious clique, and we would not be worried about Iran having nuclear weapons to anything like the extent that we are if Iran were as democratic as Israel is at present.

Having said all that, we have to operate within the boundaries of what is or is not practicable. The reality is that if Iran chooses to acquire nuclear weapons, unless some state or alliance of states seeks to intervene in some military way physically to prevent it from doing so, Iran cannot be stopped from acquiring nuclear weapons if it wants them enough. As has been pointed out, Iran is signed up to the non-proliferation treaty. I quickly conferred with my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) and I think that we both agree that ultimately if Iran chose to leave the NPT, frankly there would be nothing that could be legitimately done to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, any more than anything could have been done to prevent Pakistan from acquiring nuclear weapons in the way that it did.

I always refer to him as my hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), although we are on opposite sides of the argument. In his contribution, I believe that he was trying to suggest that Israel perhaps ought to give up its nuclear weapons and that that might improve the situation, and he ended his speech by saying that he did not believe that the balance of power, or the balance of terror, was the right way to keep the peace in the middle east. I am afraid that I disagree with him on both counts. I think that Israel giving up its nuclear weapons—and Israel is not party to the NPT—would actually encourage other countries to commit aggression against it. I believe, however, that the possibility of the balance of terror may, in the end, come to be our only resource against Iran, because—as I said before —if Iran is determined to have nuclear weapons and if it is more important to Iran to have nuclear weapons than, for example, to have the sanctions against it removed, Iran will have nuclear weapons, unless somebody wants to launch a military strike against it.

In conclusion, we lived through—what was it?—70 years or more of confrontation with the Soviet Union, and we survived that period of intense confrontation through a policy of containment. The containment policy meant that we neutralised the weapons systems of the power that could potentially attack us, and we allowed the slow development of internal political forces until that country’s system of government changed. If ever there were a country that ought to be subject to a policy of containment, it is Iran. Sometimes I get the impression that the leaders of Iran are almost being deliberately provocative, so as to incite some sort of military strike against it to bolster their position with the population at home. I have no doubt that if Iran can be contained for long enough, democracy will emerge in the country and, as I said at the beginning, when democracy emerges the question of what weapons systems a country has or does not have becomes almost completely irrelevant.

15:34

[Mr Ben Wallace (Wyre and Preston North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. May I also say what a thoughtful and principled speech my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) has just made? He is a true believer in the importance of the nuclear deterrent and of the logical application of standards that the deterrent must adhere to.

I had better declare that I have chaired the all-party group on Iran since 2006; my co-chair is now the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). In that time, I have visited Iran and made a number of trips around the world to meet Governments and officials linked to the policy on Iran.

I should start my remarks by saying, briefly, that there is a real certainty in the debate that there is a nuclear weapons programme in Iran. However, that certainty is not shared by the United States Government. The US national intelligence estimate of 2007 said that Iran had halted the programme, and in 2010 the US national intelligence estimate yet again confirmed that Iran was not on the verge of breakout. These national intelligence estimates are significant bodies of work, drawing on intelligence from around the world and on the work of different agencies, so we should not just brush them aside.

A country does not just jump from 20% to a nuclear weapon. The uranium has to be weaponised, the grade of the uranium has to be increased and the weapon must be tested, which would usually leave a very significant footprint and take some time. If we take those facts in conjunction with the US national intelligence estimate—and, indeed, with some of the reports from the International Atomic Energy Agency—we see that there is not such an urgency. Iran is not suddenly going to produce a nuclear weapon. In addition, there is the supreme leader’s fatwa that nuclear weapons are un-Islamic. I have visited Iran and if anyone wants to understand the country they have to understand its supreme leader. When the supreme leader says that about nuclear weapons, he means it. It is absolutely imperative that people follow that ruling.

That does not mean that there are not people in Iran who want a nuclear weapon; I suspect that there are plenty of people there who wish to have one, for the purposes of deterrence. If a sane-minded Iranian who represented New Forest East was living in downtown Tehran, I suspect that he would believe in the principle of deterrence, given that his neighbours are Pakistan, Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. Those are sworn enemies of Iran, ideologically different and religiously opposed—there are all sorts of issues that we could say we faced in the cold war in the late 1940s. Those differences are often brought home to Iran by the terrorist attacks across its border. We should certainly remember that the supreme leader—for now—has made that ruling and that it is not something to sniff at.

I totally agree that the nature of the regime goes hand in hand with the issue of nuclear weapons. Obviously, Iran’s record on human rights is abhorrent. It has engaged in the persecution of the Baha’is, the suppression of women’s rights and the persecution of lawyers and of people who lead strikes, including bus drivers who lead strikes and have their rights under the constitution denied. It is very important that we do something to put pressure on Iran about those issues and ensure that they are resolved.

Let us remember that the only democracy in the whole region, other than Israel, is Iran. Iran’s democracy may not be one that we think perfect, but it is a democracy that operates at all sorts of levels—the guardian council, local councils and the mayor of Tehran are all elected. Iran has an active democracy. There is no democracy in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Syria or others of our allies to whom we sell weapons systems around the world.

There is a democracy and a constitution in Iran. One of the reasons for the green movement in 2009 was the desire among the Iranian people to follow the rule of law. If someone reads the Iranian constitution, they will see that it is quite good, even though it was authored by a Belgian. One of the reasons for the green movement was the demand that the denial of rights to people should stop. Label someone a “terrorist” or a “Zionist spy” and they do not have those rights. Well, we live in a democracy that labels someone a “terrorist” and they are then locked up for 90 days, without the same rights that they would have if they were labelled a “criminal”. Iran is certainly more extreme, but let us not forget that the temptation to deny people their rights for all sorts of reasons is not just confined to Iran.

Then we talk about security guarantees. It is a rough neighbourhood down there—a very rough neighbourhood, with Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. No one has mentioned the recent discovery that in Saudi Arabia there is a ballistic missile launch-pad facility with two aiming marks: one to Tel Aviv and one to Tehran. It is a rough neighbourhood and I think that if I were there, I, too, might like to look out for myself.

At the heart of all this is trust, rhetoric and history. Let us not forget that Iranians distrust the west as much as we distrust Iran. That is at the heart of this process. Let us remember that we distrusted Gorbachev, but we did not say that because he was from the Soviet regime—the regime that was pulling people’s toenails out and torturing them—we could not do business with him and we could not find a solution. We did not write him off. I was involved with the peace process in Northern Ireland in 1994 with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who would have been appalled by the people I had to meet in the course of trying to make peace with our enemy. We do not necessarily just write people off.

The history of Iran, the great game, the fact that the BBC World Service was used in 1953 to trigger the coup against Iran’s only democratic prime minister—if we were Iranian, we might be a bit suspicious of western media, although now I think that would be wrong. Then there was the grand bargain offered up in 2003, which was the demilitarisation of Hezbollah, the offer to suspend enrichment of uranium and even a movement to a Saudi recognition of Israel, which was dismissed out of hand by the United States Administration.

We are in the business, with this peace process and the process at Geneva, of trying to build trust. We cannot indulge in rhetoric and history to rule that out. We have to give it a chance. We are not stupid and we have all been here before. No one has rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to dealing with Iran; it is a straw man argument to say that we do. We need to work on that and the Government are engaging. I am confident that we will get there, if we just give it a chance.

15:40

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

First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate. There have been five speeches in the debate, which is topical because of the past week’s events in Geneva. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)—although we disagree on nuclear weapons, I respect his position—made a thoughtful speech that put the present situation in its historical context. The hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace) recognised that much of the suspicion in Iran is down to the history that our country and others have in the region. That is important when we are looking at a possible solution to nuclear weapons in the ongoing talks.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) rightly raised the possibility of proliferation throughout the region. He mentioned Saudi Arabia and other nations that might wish to acquire nuclear weapons if the Iranians were to develop their capability. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) said on nuclear deterrents vis-à-vis this country, but I do not agree that if Iran developed a nuclear weapons capability, it would somehow offer a balance of terror with Israel. The clear way forward is to stop Iran developing that capability in the first place.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) warned the Government not to look at this process through rose-tinted spectacles, and I agree. No one should look at the history or the actions of the present regime in Iran and think that we are dealing with people who have not committed atrocities on their own people or have not exported terror to other parts of the middle east. When I was a Minister in the Ministry of Defence, I was aware of the involvement of Iran in attacks on our troops in southern Iraq and its support for insurgents against those forces.

We on the Opposition Benches see Iran as a threat—if it acquires nuclear weapons—not only to security in the middle east, but to global security. A nuclear-armed Iran would not only change the balance of power within the region, but, as the hon. Member for Cheltenham argued, it would also lead to other nations wishing to acquire a nuclear capability. Many of those nations have the funds to do that.

If Iran gained a nuclear capability, that would be a blow to the United Nations goal of a nuclear-free middle east. It would also be a step away and against the goal that we all share of ensuring that new countries do not acquire nuclear weapons. We in the UK and on the Opposition Benches—well, some of us, anyway—are committed to the retention of our nuclear deterrent, but it is important that we encourage others and ourselves to reduce our nuclear weapon stockpiles. Allowing the Iranians to have a nuclear weapons capability would be a severe blow to that non-proliferation position, which I think all parties in this country would want to protect.

The Opposition agree with the Government’s twin-track approach to Iran, with the imposition of strict sanctions and the encouragement through diplomatic channels to ensure that we can get an agreement that ensures that Iran does not acquire a nuclear capability. Much has been said this afternoon about the election of President Rouhani. I accept the points that hon. Members have made about him and some of the atrocities that have been carried out by the Iranian regime. He stood on a platform of reform, and the sanctions imposed by the international community on Iran are having an effect on the Iranian community and the Iranian people. It is important that we continue our diplomatic efforts.

My hon. Friend the Member for Islington North discussed the UK’s diplomatic relations with Iran. I welcome the appointment of the chargés d’affaires and hope we will see the embassy in Tehran opening to commence that dialogue in the not-too-distant future. That dialogue will be so important in steering the Iranians away from developing nuclear weapons and in raising some of the points about human rights and their support for terrorist activities—both in the region and more widely—that have rightly been mentioned.

This weekend’s talks were positive. It is a disappointment to us all that the next step has not been taken, but, overall, we are moving in the right direction and the Iranians are taking a more positive tone and stance. I say to hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Kettering, that there are two options. One is to allow the Iranians to develop a nuclear capacity and take some type of military action against them. The other is to have talks, to give Iran a chance to disarm and to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons. Given what the hon. Member for Wyre and Preston North said, that would be the preferred option.

Doing nothing is not an option. The Opposition support the continuation of strong and tough sanctions while, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere said, not looking at Iran through rose-tinted spectacles. We have to recognise that the negotiations on ensuring that the Iranians give up their capacity to develop nuclear weapons will be tough and hard. I wish the Government and our international partners well in arriving at that international settlement. It will make not only the middle east, but the world, a safer place.

15:47

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) on securing this debate at such an important moment in the negotiations on the Iranian nuclear issue. I also congratulate the other hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. I will address the points raised in their various contributions.

To set the scene, it is worth saying three things. First, Iran has shown over the course of recent months that it is genuinely taking a new approach to negotiations. We need fully to test that and explore the opportunity—I go no further than that at this stage—for a deal. We believe there may well be a deal on the table that would give us meaningful assurance on our immediate proliferation concerns and create the space for a comprehensive solution.

Secondly, let me absolutely clear: there is no question of our seeing this issue through rose-tinted spectacles. We approach this negotiation with our eyes wide open. We are fully aware of Iran’s history of concealment and its defiance of its international obligations. We will continue to be firm in our approach to Iran on that and other issues. Thirdly—this addresses a point raised by the hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) and others—despite the fact that progress on nuclear talks remains possible, we are not blind to Iran’s nefarious activities in its immediate region and beyond, or its terrible human rights record.

I hope my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering will take some comfort from what I have just said. He was worried about the possibility of the talks becoming a space in which the Iranians could continue to enrich. The obvious point is that, without the talks, Iran will continue to enrich anyway, so we might as well give the talks a chance. I cannot go into the detail of the negotiations and the terms around which they revolve, but clearly the basis of the deal is that Iran will take concrete and verifiable action to address the international community’s concerns about its nuclear programme, and the E3 plus 3 may consider some measure of sanctions relief to offer in return. There will not be a deal unless Iran ceases its enrichment programme.

The hon. Member for Islington North made the obvious point that human rights in Iran remain in a terrible state, and we agree with him. The negotiations in Geneva are purely about the nuclear file, and the hope is that the twin-track approach of exchanging non-resident charges d’affaires, and so on, will create preconditions that enable progress to be made in other areas.

The hon. Gentleman asked the Foreign Secretary yesterday about the middle east weapons of mass destruction-free zone, for which we argued during the non-proliferation treaty review in 2010. There has been a small amount of progress on that recently, and we hope to be in a position to make an announcement in the near future.

The hon. Member for Cheltenham (Martin Horwood) made three clear points. The first was on the international relations dynamic. Tempting though it is, it is not my position to comment on Saudi relations with the United States. Perhaps it would be helpful if he considered that in the context of Iran’s history of negative involvement across the Gulf. There are many states beyond ours that are extremely suspicious of Iranian activities, and justifiably so. There is concern across the wider Gulf—the concern in Israel is often mentioned—about many of the worries raised this afternoon. We already keep all our key allies in the Gulf fully briefed on where we are.

I hope that I have answered the hon. Gentleman’s question on the nuclear-free zone in the middle east. He mentioned disarmament here in the United Kingdom, and I can do no better than repeat the comments of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) by saying that we have a slightly different view on that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison) talked about our approach to the talks, and I hope that I have reassured him on that. The phrase “rose-tinted spectacles” has come up on a number of occasions this afternoon, and there are no rose-tinted spectacles in the Geneva talks. Everyone knows exactly what is involved, the difficulties of what we are dealing with and the backdrop against which we are trying to do this. However—one only has to talk to the Foreign Secretary, who has met the regime on a number of occasions in New York and Geneva, to get a feel for this—there is a new feel to the talks. It is important that we test that to see what can be achieved. If we are able to get over the line, I doubt there is anyone anywhere in this Chamber who would not agree that that is a good thing. The question is, to test Iran’s resolve and to see what is achievable, but we must do so with our eyes wide open.

My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) made a good and thoughtful speech, as he always does, and he is absolutely right that Iran ought to be the subject of a system of containment. In a sense, of course, that is what an interim deal before a final deal will seek to achieve, and he is right to make that point.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre and Preston North (Mr Wallace), the co-chair of the all-party group on Iran, talked about the importance of trust, which is a key component that he compared to Northern Ireland. I remember someone saying to me some years ago that, in relation to Northern Ireland, the Government of the day were in about the right place if everyone was marginally unhappy with them. I suspect that might be a principle that applies here, too. He is absolutely right about the importance of gaining trust. The hope is that, if trust builds during the negotiations, it could translate into other affairs. He has the Government’s approach in a nutshell—it is important to take the opportunity seriously but to be realistic about what can be achieved.

I thank the hon. Member for North Durham for supporting the process. I was struck in the Chamber yesterday by the level of support from Opposition Members, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and others who dealt with the issue in the past and know what is involved. I am grateful for the continued support of the hon. Member for North Durham.

I do not know whether there is anything that Members feel I have not addressed, but I will provide a brief update on where we are.

As most people know, the Foreign Secretary returned on Sunday from the E3 plus 3 negotiations in Geneva, which were the third round of talks since President Rouhani’s election in June. The talks were detailed and complex. They covered every aspect of Iran’s extensive nuclear programme, and the Iranian negotiators were, as has been reported and as the Foreign Secretary mentioned yesterday, tough but constructive. The focus of the negotiations was to reach agreement on a first step—this was the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East—that would create confidence and space to negotiate a comprehensive settlement that resolves the Iranian nuclear issue.

Talks ended without that interim agreement because some key differences remained between the parties. Disappointing though that was on one level, it might comfort people to know that we are not running into the talks with rose-tinted spectacles. The negotiations are tough and have a long history, but the gaps are narrowing. At the conclusion of the weekend, the E3 plus 3 Foreign Ministers presented a united position, which we believe gives us a very strong foundation for the next round of talks on 20 November.

Provided the conditions can be met, the Government are in favour of reaching an interim agreement. As the Foreign Secretary told the House yesterday, the agreement being discussed would have real benefits for global security, but it needs to be detailed, clear and concrete. The agreement also needs to assure all countries that the threat of nuclear proliferation in Iran is being addressed and, therefore, it is crucial that the agreement cover all aspects of Iran’s nuclear programme. We believe that such a deal is on the table and is within reach.

Sanctions have undoubtedly played an indispensable part in creating the new opening. Sanctions are putting the Iranian leadership and the Iranian economy under serious pressure. We think that the sanctions are costing the Iranian economy at least $4 billion a month or $48 billion a year. There is no question of our relaxing the sanctions pressure before we have taken action to address the proliferation concerns.

It is worth noting in passing that, while the talks are going on—this goes to the centre of what my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering said in his opening remarks—the Iranian nuclear programme continues to advance. The most recent International Atomic Energy Agency report of 28 August noted that Iran’s stockpile of near-20% enriched uranium continues to grow. Iran has installed more than 1,000 advanced centrifuges, which are capable of enriching at a significantly faster rate, and there is also the heavy water research reactor at Arak. All that represents a breach of the United Nations Security Council and IAEA board resolutions and shows why, in the interest of international security, we want the talks to succeed.

Because of the time, I will finish by saying that this afternoon’s debate has revolved around two dynamics. There is a new opportunity to do something, and I think that everyone in the Chamber would agree that, if that opportunity exists, we should take it. Rest assured that we are going into the talks with our eyes wide open. We know what we are dealing with. I do not think anyone is in any doubt that a deal will be difficult to achieve, but such a deal would be in the interest of the international community.

[Mr Wallace]

On a point of order, Mr Sheridan. Throughout the debate my seat has been referred to as Lancaster and Wyre Valley, Lancaster and Wyre or Wyre and Preston North. Given that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Fleetwood (Eric Ollerenshaw) is sitting behind me, I want to correct the record. Before the boundary changes, I was the Member of Parliament for Lancaster and Wyre, but I am now the Member of Parliament for Wyre and Preston North.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

I am sure that Hansard will have recorded the hon. Gentleman’s constituency correctly.

Sittingbourne and Sheppey Road Infrastructure

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

15:59

[Gordon Henderson (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Con)]

It is a delight, Mr Sheridan, to serve under your chairmanship. Two years ago, I took part in a general Westminster Hall debate and used it not only to highlight some of the positive business developments that were taking place in my constituency, but to set out a number of problems with the local roads that needed to be solved if we were to attract even more investment to the area. Those problems have not gone away and in some cases have got worse. I want to use my time today to repeat some of my concerns about the road infrastructure in my constituency.

In many ways, the problem has been brought about by the success of business in our area, which is ironic because the other side of the same coin is that the very same problem could hold back future investment. Sheppey has a major port that is used for the import and export of thousands of cars every year, and we have the largest prison population in the whole country. Eurolink in north Sittingbourne will, when its current expansion plans are realised, be the largest industrial and business park in the south-east. Morrison’s regional distribution centre is also situated in Sittingbourne, and next door is the largest paper mill in the United Kingdom. The thriving Kent science park is in south Sittingbourne and is at the cutting edge of life sciences.

Those success stories generate valuable employment, but also an increasing amount of traffic that is threatening to overwhelm our local roads. When I listen to BBC Radio Kent in the mornings to hear what traffic problems I will face on my drive into London, the same motorways are almost always mentioned: the M25, the M20, and the M2, as well as the Dartford crossing. On the A roads, there is occasionally a problem on the A2, the A20 and the A21, but one Kent road is mentioned every morning without fail: the A249, which happens to be the main road into Sittingbourne and Sheppey from the M2.

Anyone who witnessed the horrendous multi-car pile-up on the Sheppey bridge a few weeks back will appreciate the number of vehicles that use the A249 every day. Not only is it the only road off the Isle of Sheppey, it is also the road used by the thousands of people who commute from Sittingbourne. Traffic from the Eurolink industrial park, the Morrison’s regional warehouse and the paper mill also feeds on to the A249. That has created at least two major pinch points: one at the roundabout at the junction between the A249 and the northern relief road—I will come to that project in a moment—and the other at the roundabout where the A249 meets junction 5 of the M2. The latter is a particular problem because the congestion created at the roundabout affects not only the slip roads from the M2, but local roads.

The Kent science park also creates congestion on local roads in south Sittingbourne, which is another problem that needs to be resolved. The owners of the park, with Swale borough council and Kent county council, have plans for a link from the M2 at what would become junction 5A, but they have been stymied by current Highways Agency restrictions on spur roads from motorways. I wrote to the Minister’s predecessor about the problem and received an assurance that his Department was reviewing that restriction. Is there any update on that? I am keen to see that spur built because not only would it help to relieve congestion on a number of roads in south Sittingbourne; it could form part of what we hope will eventually become the southern relief road.

That leads me back to the northern relief road, which links the A249 to both Eurolink and Great Easthall, which is a housing development north of the A2. The problem is that the northern relief road has never been completed, so it is not much of a relief to anyone. Obviously, local businesses on Eurolink and the residents of Great Easthall want the final link to be built as soon as possible, but many other people feel that finishing the northern relief road without first building a southern relief road would be a mistake because it would simply increase congestion on the A2 and the number of vehicles using rural roads in villages such as Bapchild, Bredgar, Rodmersham and Tunstall as rat runs to the M20.

I have some sympathy with the latter view, which is one reason why I have long held the view that a southern relief road is critical to Sittingbourne’s long-term future. Not only would it open the way to completion of the northern relief road, while protecting the southern villages; it would help to reduce congestion on both the A2 and the A249.

Another pinch point on the A249 is where it joins the A250 on the Isle of Sheppey. Until it hits that junction, the A249 is a dual carriageway, but thereafter it goes into a single lane all the way to Sheerness. That part of the A249 is also the main road into Sheerness docks and we desperately need the dual carriageway to be extended at least as far as the eastern boundary of the docks to allow easier access. That would allow a major expansion of the docks, thereby creating additional employment in one of the most socially deprived parts of my constituency.

There is also a problem on Sheppey with the newly created A2500, which is the main road link between the A249 and the eastern part of Sheppey. The A2500 feeds into Minster, which is the largest community on Sheppey and has seen the largest expansion of housing. Sadly, the junction at the A2500 and Barton Hill drive, which is the main route into Minster, is simply not fit for purpose and is seriously congested daily, all year round. The A2500 is also the main road to the three prisons on Sheppey, and ironically also feeds the main holiday camps on the island, so the congestion increases still further during the summer.

The Minister has kindly agreed to come to my constituency next year to open a new logistics hub that, ironically, is being built alongside the A249 and will no doubt add to the current traffic problems at the Morrison’s roundabout. I wonder whether he would agree to meet representatives from Swale borough council and my local business community on the same day to hear at first hand their concerns about our local road infrastructure.

16:07

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) on securing this debate on road infrastructure in his constituency. I also congratulate him on the excellent progress he is making with his “Movember” moustache.

I know that the subject is of great importance to him and his constituents, including businesses in the area, and he spoke eloquently about that. I had the opportunity to have a session with my officials to update myself on the current situation and to hear some of the history of developments in this important area.

Road transport has always been important to the area. From the Roman road, Watling street, which goes through the constituency to the less evocatively named Sittingbourne northern relief road, which opened in December 2011, roads have always been important to the local economy. My hon. Friend highlighted the congestion on the major roads in the area, and he will know that this Government recognise the issues and the importance of transport infrastructure to support the economy. He also knows that we are looking at easing congestion at the Dartford crossing through a new lower Thames crossing to deliver additional capacity. We consulted on options earlier in the year and will make an announcement later in the autumn.

We have already announced increased Government funding to deliver improvements around the trunk road network, targeted at supporting economic growth. Our commitment to delivering a step change in future investment in transport infrastructure was made clear by the Chancellor in his statement on 26 June, when he announced the conclusions of the Government’s 2013 spending review. The Treasury’s Command Paper, “Investing in Britain’s future”, set out that the Government will invest

“over £28 billion in enhancements and maintenance of national and local roads”.

That includes £10.7 billion for major national road projects and £4.9 billion for local major projects. More than £12 billion has been allocated for maintenance, with nearly £6 billion allocated for repairs to local roads and £6 billion for maintenance of strategic roads, including resurfacing 80% of that network.

On future investment planning, my hon. Friend will know that the Highways Agency is conducting its route-based strategy process, which is involving local stakeholders in the consideration of future priorities. It may be useful if I say a little more about the approach we are taking, as that is the mechanism by which we will look at issues on roads such as the M2 and the A249—which, as we have heard, feature so regularly on local radio congestion reports—between Sittingbourne and Sheppey.

In our response in May 2012 to the recommendations in Alan Cook’s report, “A fresh start for the Strategic road network”, we agreed to develop a programme of route-based strategies to inform the identification of future transport investments for the strategic road network. Route-based strategies will provide a smarter approach to investment planning across the network and see greater collaboration with local stakeholders to determine the nature, need and timing of future investment that might be required on the network. We will produce a uniform set of strategies for the entire network, including the M2, the A249 and the M20, as part of the “Kent corridor to M25” route-based strategy.

The Highways Agency has recently completed a series of local engagement events to help identify the performance issues on those routes and the future challenges. I welcome the enthusiasm with which stakeholders in Kent, including those in my hon. Friend’s constituency, have participated in the progress so far. The Highways Agency and the Department will use the evidence to prioritise and take forward a programme of work to identify indicative solutions that will cover operations, maintenance and, if appropriate, potential road improvement schemes. That will then be used to inform investment plans beyond 2015.

The route-based strategies therefore provide an opportunity for stakeholders to provide evidence about problems on the A249 trunk road or the M2, so that the need for improvements can be considered, and I will certainly take my hon. Friend’s speech as part of that process. In addition, the Highways Agency continues routinely to engage with the planning system. That helps to ensure that improvements to the strategic road network are identified and delivered where they are required to mitigate the traffic impacts of local plans and planning applications.

My hon. Friend, in his support for the new junction 5A on the M2, also raised an issue of policy relating to new junctions on motorways. In that regard, the Department has recently published new policy guidance on the way in which the Highways Agency will engage with communities and the development industry to deliver sustainable development and economic growth, while safeguarding the primary function and purpose of the strategic road network.

That guidance is entitled “The Strategic Road Network and the Delivery of Sustainable Development”, and it provides that, where appropriate, proposals for the creation of new junctions or direct means of access to motorways may be identified and developed at the plan-making stage in circumstances where it can be established that such new infrastructure is essential for the delivery of the strategic planned growth. I understand that Swale borough council may be bringing forward proposals for the expansion of the Kent science park as part of its plan-making process, although it is not yet determined whether that development constitutes strategic planned growth, or whether a new junction with the M2 is essential for the delivery of that growth.

The Highways Agency recently met Swale borough council, Kent county council and the operators of the Kent science park regarding those matters, and discussions are ongoing. Decisions on whether a new junction can be accepted in policy terms will be taken in due course, and I will take a personal interest in that decision-making process. Apart from the policy deliberations, consideration also needs to be given to the technical hurdles in providing a junction that is safe and affordable and does not increase congestion on the strategic road network.

It is widely recognised that the condition and efficiency of the local road networks is also essential for economic growth. Nearly all journeys will start or finish on those networks, which are relied on by local residents and businesses alike. Maintenance and management of the networks is the responsibility of the local transport authority. In the case of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, that is Kent county council.

Local road funding, in the guise of integrated transport block funding, is available to local transport authorities in England outside London for small transport improvement projects, such as road safety schemes, bus priority, cycling infrastructure and real-time information. That funding allows local authorities to ensure that their transport networks are kept in good condition. It enables them to improve road safety and to stimulate local economies and growth by reducing congestion in their local communities. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, Kent county council will have received £39.4 million through that funding route, and the funding is set to total some £2.75 billion across England between 2015-16 and 2020-21.

Highways maintenance block funding is also given to local transport authorities in England outside London to maintain their highway networks, including carriageways, pavements, structures and so forth. The funding allows local authorities to ensure that their highway networks are kept in good condition. It enables them to improve road safety and to stimulate local economies and growth by reducing damage to vehicles and goods. Between 2010-11 and 2014-15, Kent county council will have received £105.8 million for highways maintenance, and the recent 2013 spending round commits to providing just less than £6 billion to local highway authorities over the six-year period between 2015-16 and 2020-21. Indeed, before the 2010 election, when I was in the shadow Transport role, I visited Kent county council to see some of the innovative technology it was using to identify how best to use that money, and particularly the way it addressed the problem of potholes. That funding equates to £976 million a year and highlights the Government’s commitment to the country’s most valuable public asset and to ensuring that our local highways are fit for purpose.

In addition to that funding, the Government have recently announced plans to create a local growth fund from 2015-16 onwards. That fund, among other things, will allow localities to prioritise infrastructure schemes that are deemed essential for economic growth. Those schemes are expected to include major road improvements on the local road network, such as the type of relief road my hon. Friend referred to. That LGF pot will be worth at least £2 billion a year until 2021. The fund will be devolved to local enterprise partnerships across England, and Kent is part of the South East local enterprise partnership. It is for the South East LEP to identify its priority schemes for funding as part of its strategic economic plan. I am sure that my hon. Friend will want to make the same representations he has made today to his local LEP to ensure that it understands the importance and priorities of the schemes in his constituency, not least in connection with the port and the science park.

The LEPs have already had some LGF funding allocated to them by formula to enable them to bring forward plans for local major transport projects. The confirmed allocation for the South East LEP is £65.9 million for the four-year period from 2015-16 to 2018-19 inclusive. In addition, the South East LEP will have the opportunity to bid for a lot more than that next year when submitting its strategic economic plan to the Government in March 2014.

The Government recognise the importance of an effective transport infrastructure to the growth of the economy, and there is a real commitment to enhancing our transport networks. More than half the £12 billion that the Chancellor has committed to the local growth fund over the six years from 2015-16 onwards is coming from transport budgets. That amounts to £1.1 billion in 2015-16 and a further £1 billion a year for each of the following five years for long-term planning of priority transport infrastructure. The growth deals currently being negotiated between the LEPs and Government will enable access to that funding. It is a competitive process, and the areas that present the most compelling and robust evidence-based arguments for growth strategies will be the most successful in accessing that finance.

We see the growth deal process as critical in ensuring that essential transport projects are put forward and funded. I know that Kent county council and local businesses are playing an active role in the South East LEP to ensure that the process delivers necessary infrastructure in the LEP area.

I again congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. It reminds us of the importance of an effective transport network to the economy. I have been clear that this Government are committed to, and have set out plans for, large-scale investments to improve both the local and strategic road networks. Indeed, the money we are putting into roads during the next 15 years is equivalent to the entire cost of the High Speed 2 project, including the rolling stock.

Through the funding streams set out in the spending round, and through the route-based strategies and strategic economic strategies, processes are in place to identify future transport needs, but also to consider the range of possible solutions. This morning, I was in Birmingham, looking at some of the managed motorway schemes—or smart motorways, as we now call them—which show how we are already managing to deliver better transport solutions in all parts of the country, including the north, the west midlands, the east midlands and, of course, the south-east.

It will be important for future investment proposals to be clearly supported by local stakeholders and for clear consensus to exist on what is required. Ultimately, any future investment proposals need to demonstrate a strong business case and the delivery of both transport and wider economic benefits. In that way, we can place ourselves in a strong position to make the best use of the funds available and establish a sound base for the future development of an effective transport system that can contribute to a low-carbon economy.

I very much look forward to visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency and seeing the situation at first hand next year, when I plan to visit the opening of one of his local logistics companies. I hope that at the same time, as he suggested, there will be an opportunity to meet representatives of Kent county council, the local district council and the local enterprise partnership, as they will have as key a role as Members of Parliament and other stakeholders in determining the priorities for transport investment in the south-east and ensuring that the taxpayers’ money we are investing in this way is spent wisely and in the place where we get the most biggest for our buck.

16:22

Sitting suspended.

Glenanne Gang Murders

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Westminster Hall

16:28

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

It is a pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan, even if the subject matter is sombre.

A recently published book by Anne Cadwallader, “Lethal Allies: British Collusion in Ireland”, is the result of work by the Pat Finucane Centre and work previously conducted by members of the Historical Enquiries Team in investigating a number of historical murders in Northern Ireland. The reports by the Historical Enquiries Team, of course, were made available to families, but were not published. That is the basis on which it has worked. The reports on 10 murders were made available to the Pat Finucane Centre.

The Pat Finucane Centre, through Anne Cadwallader, has worked painstakingly to spell out the narrative that emerges from those 10 reports by the HET, but also to build on the work of document recovery and evidential pursuit, which has taken the Pat Finucane Centre to the National Archives in Kew. Although the issues in the book “Lethal Allies” pose fundamental questions about the Royal Ulster Constabulary, the Northern Ireland Office and armed groups, we should not ignore the fact that it also spells out sharp questions about the Ministry of Defence—not least, but not only, in respect of its oversight of the Ulster Defence Regiment in those years.

The book dwells on the deadly, devastating work of what was called the Glenanne gang. It was more of a syndrome than a fixed gang, because, as the book points out, what was initially thought of as a gang operating in what was called the “triangle of death” or “murder triangle”, ended up being a network, able to source members in the UDR or serving in the RUC—particularly in the part-time reserve—at the time of its involvement in the paramilitary activities. It was also able to source a lot of its weaponry in raids in UDR armouries, one of which was a joint UDR-Territorial and Army Volunteer Reserve armoury. The documentary evidence shows that even the MOD suspected that the raids involved large degrees of collusion.

I shall take a selective skimming of the evidence, but I hope that it is relevant. A letter in July 1972 from Army headquarters Northern Ireland, from the civil adviser to the general officer commanding, acknowledges an earlier letter asking about UDR involvement in the UDA. The letter, to Lieutenant-Colonel J.L. Powell in the Adjutant General Secretariat at the Ministry of Defence main building in Whitehall, also says, among other things:

“The UDR has to draw a line somewhere between hard-line Protestants who can safely be contained in the UDR, and those who cannot. The UDA is not an illegal organisation, and membership of the UDA is not an offence under the military laws; it is also a large organisation not all of whose members can be regarded as dangerous extremists. One important (but unspoken) function of the UDR is to channel into a constructive and disciplined direction Protestant energies which might otherwise become disruptive. For these reasons it is felt that it would be counter-productive to discharge a UDR member solely on the grounds that he was a member of the UDA.”

The letter later says:

“Similarly, it is not formally laid down that where an applicant to join the UDR is found to be a member of the UDA, his application must automatically be rejected.”

It goes on:

“I am sure that this moderate line towards UDA supporters is the right one in view of the role of the UDA as a safety valve. In my opinion it would be politically unwise to dismiss a member of the UDA from the UDR unless he had committed a military offence; the dismissal of a member of the UDR on lesser grounds could well lead to wide-spread morale problems particularly in certain areas.”

Tellingly for MPs, it goes on to say:

“I recognise the reasons why Ministers might wish to be able to say unequivocally, in reply to Parliamentary Questions, that membership of the UDA is not compatible with membership of the UDR and that we have no evidence that any UDR member is actively associated with the UDA. But I fear it would be wrong to offer categorical assurances on either point, and indeed it might be very damaging politically if Ministers were to make a public statement which implied that the UDA was an outlawed organisation.”

That tells us that the mentality was more about sensitivity to the reputation of the UDA than to the integrity of the UDR as part of the security forces.

As we go through the various documents from the MOD in 1973, we see that it casually and frequently refers to collusion in its internal documents when describing overlapping membership between the UDA and UDR. There is also evidence from 1973 of the Irish Government, on the basis of representations and complaints from the SDLP and many other people with pastoral and other community interests, registering strong concerns with the British Government about what was going on in relation to some members of the UDR, their overlapping membership of the UDA and the seepage of weapons.

I shall not dwell on the issue here, because you, Mr Sheridan, might rule that that was about the Foreign Office side, but we have a letter from the British Government that basically dismisses the clear concerns of the Irish Government in early 1973 as mere electoral gimmicks.

A series of internal Army and Ministry of Defence reports in 1973 show the ongoing loss of weapons from UDR armouries—and, in some cases, the homes of UDR members. Those reports point to suspicions of and concerns about collusion. A significant MOD report in August 1973, called “Subversion in the UDR”, said:

“Since the beginning of the current campaign the best single source of weapons (and the only significant source of modern weapons) for Protestant extremist groups has been the UDR.”

It then sets out the details of significant arms losses for 1972-73. I do not wish to go through all the figures for the self-loading rifles, sub-machine-guns and pistols that were lost or the much smaller number that were recovered.

That internal British Government report on subversion in the UDR indicated that a significant proportion, perhaps 5% to 15%, of UDR soldiers would also have been members of the UDA, the Ulster Vanguard Service Corps, the Orange Volunteers or the UVP. Another part of that report confirms that:

“The discovery of members of para-military or extremist organisations in the UDR is not, and has not been, a major intelligence target.”

There we have wilful negligence—people recognise that there is a risk, they see that there has been a pattern of collusion, with arms being removed into the clutches of loyalist paramilitaries, and they know there is overlapping membership, but at no point does anybody make it their business to make it a serious matter and intelligence target.

That document on subversion in the UDR was circulated in government and there were a number of replies from a number of people. We will be able to present all the documents at a later date—hopefully, not too much later—to the Minister and the MOD, if it is too much to expect the Minister to reply to all the information today. We might say that it is depressing and regrettable, but those memos and letters in response to that document confirm the accuracy of the report. There was no real dispute about its assessment.

The document tried to indicate that the security vetting process had improved, so some reliance might be put on it. It is interesting to note that the Army director of security said, in response to that suggestion in a memo dated 20 August 1973:

“I would make the general point first that the process is in fact only a screening procedure and has no relationship to normal security vetting carried out on people who require to have access to classified information.”

In a subsequent paragraph in the same letter, he says:

“In order to counter doubts expressed by some MPs about the impartiality of RUC records, the check was extended to include the interview of at least one character referee ‘to establish that an applicant is of good character, is not an active supporter of any organization at one or other extreme of the political spectrum and is likely to act in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland as a whole.’”

In the next paragraph, he says:

“Although the injection of the interview has probably been successful as part of the PR exercise involved on the checks, it can have had little effect on improving the value of the screening. The applicant nominates the referee, who is almost certain to be influenced in his favour and can add little to the security knowledge of the applicant.”

We have a clear picture: the Ministry of Defence knew the concerns but was not itself concerned, and did nothing to stem members’ involvement in the UDA or the weapons leakage that went with it.

Weapons leakage happened at numerous levels. The most significant raid occurred at the Lurgan UDR and Territorial Army Voluntary Reserve base in October 1972; they raided so much that they could not carry it all away. There was another raid exactly a year later, on 23 October 1973, on the Fort Seagoe UDR base, and another major arms raid at the Magherafelt UDR base in 1975. All of them were conducted similarly, and the lack of proactive security in place showed that no lessons were learned.

What then happened to those weapons? It was not just an embarrassing lapse of security; they were then used by an absolutely ruthless killer gang network. One Sterling sub-machine-gun was stolen from the Glenanne UDR base before the other raids to which I referred. It was stolen some time between 20 and 21 May 1971, as the Historical Enquiries Team found.

The HET was unable to find any documentation explaining the circumstances of the theft, nor could it find any evidence that any investigation had taken place. The whereabouts and use of the weapon during the four-year period between May 1971 and 1 September 1975 are unknown. It did not feature in any ballistics report before the murder of Denis Mullen. After that, it was used to kill 10 other people over a period of 11 months.

On 1 September 1975, a Sterling sub-machine-gun—UF57, and then a long serial number—was used to kill Denis Mullen, a Social Democratic and Labour party branch secretary who had just won promotion to become the first Catholic ambulance controller at the new South Tyrone hospital in Dungannon. Gunmen threw a clod of mud through a window of his home at Collegeland. He went to the front door to investigate, and they opened fire, shooting him 27 times at close range. His wife Olive ran for her life through the house with bullets slamming into the walls behind her and crawled across the kitchen floor before climbing out through a window to run for help.

Their daughter, Denise, aged four, heard the shots and got out of bed to find her father bleeding and dead at the front door. She stood over his body for an hour, her nightdress soaked in blood, before the police considered it safe enough to remove her and her 11-month-old brother, who was still in his cot. A former Member of this House, Seamus Mallon, also arrived at the scene. He had heard interference on the police radio in his car, was immediately alarmed that it might be his friend and party agent Denny Mullen and went to the house. Denise Mullen, now Denise Fox, spoke about those events at her party conference this weekend, along with Seamus Mallon, to put them on record.

It should be remembered that some convictions were obtained for all 11 subsequent murders committed with that sub-machine-gun, unlike many of the other murders committed by the Glenanne gang. Those convicted included a private in the Territorial Army, a former UDR man and a serving RUC officer. That UDR weapon’s 10 other victims included Peter and Jenny McKearney, an elderly couple shot dead at their farmhouse near Moy on 23 October that year; Michael Donnelly, 14, Patsy Donnelly, 23, and Trevor Brecknell, 32, killed on 19 December; Brian, John, Martin and Anthony Reavey, shot dead on 4 January 1976; Fred McLoughlin, shot dead on 15 May 1976; and Patsy McNeice, shot dead on 25 July 1976. Altogether, that weapon rendered 19 children fatherless and orphaned five.

I am citing only one weapon as an example. The book catalogues 120 killings, all of which relate to the murderous machinations of the Glenanne gang. That is not something being said only now, with hindsight; these allegations and concerns were apparent at the time, as we know from the suggestions in the papers about how to offset the complaints and allegations being made by MPs and others, and the dismissal of active concerns from the Irish Government and at the community and pastoral level.

I am particularly struck by a quotation by Father Denis Faul two days after a bombing in Killyliss in which two men, their sister and her unborn child were blown to pieces by a gang in which the HET believes a UDR man was involved. Only a few days after those murders, on 26 April 1975, Father Denis Faul said:

“The Government are teaching a deadly lesson to the people: that power comes out of the barrel of a gun; that the ballot box is powerless against force; that police and army can betray their trust and not be the impartial servants of government and people; that the judiciary can fail to oppose tyranny and to protect life.”

Many of us tried to scream those concerns at the British Government, the British establishment and the MOD. We know that there were layers and lines of dismissal and denial and that the people offering those concerns were denounced as subversive or irresponsible.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that substantive amounts of key information and British Army records are stored in the National Archives at Kew that could help bring justice to some of the victims and survivors?

[Mark Durkan]

I thank my hon. Friend for that point, which relates not only to Kew, but to other locations as well. Sadly, our hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) cannot be with us, as her predecessor, Eddie McGrady, died yesterday. Down the years, Eddie McGrady supported Seamus Mallon in making these very allegations and voicing these concerns.

In touching on those murders, I have in no way decided that they are the worst or the most egregious. I have tried to edit my concerns in this debate to focus on angles of responsibility and irresponsibility on the MOD’s part. I doubt whether the Minister has been briefed on what exactly is in all the documents that the Pat Finucane Centre has unearthed and on which the HET has drawn, but I assure her that the Pat Finucane Centre is more than willing to assemble a thorough compendium of papers for the MOD’s fuller consideration and for the sake of a fuller response from the British Government.

An important process is under way in Northern Ireland that we hope will produce ways to address some of the wider concerns about the past. The Haass process should not be used by the British Government, particularly the MOD, to dodge their responsibility to tell a truth that they denied for so long.

16:49

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Anna Soubry)]

It is a pleasure, as ever, to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Sheridan. I congratulate the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) on securing the debate. He raised a serious issue that has been the subject of much comment over a considerable period of time. In recent weeks, the allegations that members of the security forces were part of a murderous gang that killed more than 100 people in the 1970s have been given further currency in the recently published book to which the hon. Gentleman has referred.

I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman has raised some points that I will not be able to address in my speech. I apologise for that, but I assure him that I will write to him with responses to as many as possible of those questions. The hon. Member for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) mentioned the records at Kew, and I am told that those records have been made available to researchers and feature heavily in the book “Lethal Allies”.

The hon. Member for Foyle will be aware that such serious allegations should properly be dealt with by the police, so I can say little about them. It is right and proper for me to condemn all sectarian attacks, by whomsoever they may have been carried out, but I cannot comment on the accuracy or otherwise of the allegations, and it is not for the Ministry of Defence to usurp the function of the police by seeking to carry out investigations about those who may have been involved. As I understand it, the Historical Enquiries Team has investigated several cases associated with the Glenanne gang, but I am not aware that those investigations have led to any fresh allegations of specific criminal activity by soldiers that are to be investigated further. Of course, if such evidence were found and given to the police, it would be for them to decide whether any further inquiries should be made. If they decided to pursue the matter, my Department would provide every assistance to any subsequent investigation.

It is clear to me, as it will be to most Members here today, that during the long period that we refer to as the troubles, terrible crimes and atrocities were perpetrated by extremists on both sides of the community. The account by the hon. Gentleman of a number of terrible murders and killings brought back to me large chunks of my childhood. It is easy to forget that 40 years ago, such events were almost a feature of life. Here we are, 40 years on, enjoying a period of peace that we could not foresee within our own lifetimes. There were incidents of great tragedy when members of the community were innocently and accidentally caught up in events that led to serious injury or death.

Many allegations have been made about the armed forces’ role in various cases involving violent deaths during the troubles, which remain unsolved. As I have said, such allegations must be investigated. At the same time, however, it is only right for me to make the point that some of these allegations may well be untrue. The truth can be uncovered only by painstaking and professional investigation. Although I am aware of the criticisms that have been made of the Historical Enquiries Team of the Police Service of Northern Ireland—that is not a matter for me, of course—I pay tribute to the work they have done in carrying out this necessary task over a period of several years.

[Mark Durkan]

The Minister has made the point that some of the allegations against individuals may be untrue, but does she accept that the documentation shows that the Ministry of Defence knew one thing in private but told an entirely different story in public? Does she accept that the evidence points to the fact that the MOD dismissed the concerns that were being legitimately expressed by Members of this House, by other representatives in Northern Ireland and by other Governments?

[Anna Soubry]

I am in danger of repeating myself, but those are matters for the police to investigate. It would not be appropriate for me to comment. Those matters should be investigated thoroughly, honestly and vigorously by the police. It is not my Department’s intention to shy away from acknowledging or apologising when genuine mistakes or errors have been made, or where, as a Department, we have failed in our obligation properly to manage our activities in Northern Ireland. We know from the conclusions reached by Sir Desmond de Silva in his review of the circumstances leading to the murder of Pat Finucane that the Ministry of Defence made important failures in managing important aspects of our intelligence operations during the mid to late 1980s. Some reports have suggested that that situation may have prevailed for several years. We know, for example, that some members of the security forces bore responsibility for the leaking of some sensitive intelligence information to loyalist organisations. Indeed, there have been convictions as a result, and rightly so. We also know that Army weapons, as the hon. Gentleman has described, have been stolen from military establishments and used in terrorist attacks by loyalist gangs.

Those failings were totally unacceptable and should never have occurred. Equally, however, attempts to claim that such practices were endemic throughout the security forces serving in Northern Ireland are, in our view, quite unsubstantiated. Sir Desmond goes into great detail on the matter in his report, which was based on unhindered access to the archives of the police, the Army and the Security Service. He shows, to my mind incontrovertibly, that the actions of the security forces frustrated loyalist terrorists and significantly reduced their operational capacity in Northern Ireland.

[Mark Durkan]

I want to assure the Minister and anyone else who may be concerned that in pointing to the seriousness of the allegations and the fact that they are supported by MOD documentation, I do not want in any way to traduce or hurt the memory of many other members of the security forces, including those of the Ulster Defence Regiment, who served with honourable motives and who believed that they were serving their community. They were let down every bit as much as the civilian community was by the corruption at the heart of the process.

[Anna Soubry]

I absolutely agree that we must pay tribute to the majority of those individuals who served in the way that the hon. Gentleman has described. As the Minister with responsibility for veterans, I feel strongly that we owe the security forces who served in Northern Ireland a great deal of gratitude. The vast majority served with courage, fortitude, integrity and dignity, risking their lives to bring about the conditions that eventually enabled a process to take place that allowed the people of Northern Ireland to lead peaceful lives without fear for themselves or their families. Northern Ireland has been transformed since the Good Friday agreement was signed.

Devolution has brought about many improvements for the people of Northern Ireland, and the recent positive achievements such as the city of culture award, the investment conference and improved tourism, against a backdrop of relative peace, have been welcomed by all sections of the community. Although a number of people continue to pursue their aims through violence and maintain destructive links to the past, they are, thankfully, few and there is very little public support for their actions.

[Dr McDonnell]

Is the Minister aware of, and will she comment on, an inquest that is being undertaken at the moment, which has been delayed for years, in which despite Army surveillance on the house that was attacked by the UVF—

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. I think we may be moving into the area of sub judice.

[Dr McDonnell]

The Roseanne Mallon case is very significant.

[Jim Sheridan (in the Chair)]

Order. The Minister has very little time as it is.

[Anna Soubry]

I would be quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me, which would be the proper way to raise the subject. The Chair has made a good point that the case may, in any event, be sub judice. As the representative of a Department that has, I believe, made a huge contribution to the current stable and optimistic situation in Northern Ireland, I share the hopes of many that the Executive’s invitation to Richard Haass to address a range of issues, including those arising from the past, will lead to some real progress on this difficult issue. Although we should never seek to ignore the past, I hope that there will be a great emphasis across all parts of the community on shifting our collective focus to a future shared by all the citizens of Northern Ireland. Where things have been done that should not have been done, it is right that the police carry out full, rigorous and professional investigation, and when people have done wrong, they should be brought to justice.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

Tuesday 12 November 2013

Improving Local Housing

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

I am publishing today, following consultation, a stock transfer manual for the period to 31 March 2015. The manual sets out the process for housing stock transfer and the criteria local authorities will need to meet where they propose, with the support of their tenants, to transfer their housing stock to a new or existing housing association landlord.

Following consultation, we have introduced some additional flexibility for local authorities and tenants who wish to transfer their homes and provided some further clarification on how the Government will assess transfer applications to ensure that they represent good value for money for the taxpayer. Where that is the case and a stock transfer offers opportunities for growth locally through more private investment in new and existing affordable housing stock, then Government financial support will be available.

We expect transfer proposals brought forward under the terms of this manual to complete by March 2015. Resources are available from the Department for Communities and Local Government to write off debt associated with the housing stock being transferred in this period.

It remains the case that transfers may only take place where that is the option favoured by a majority of tenants voting in a ballot. We also want to give tenants more opportunities to weigh up the benefits of transfer and lead the transfer process themselves.

The Government will shortly be laying the associated secondary legislation before Parliament. It will outline how local authorities should co-operate with tenant groups which wish to explore transfer and commence the process of transferring ownership where this is the favoured option.

Copies of the stock transfer manual and the analysis of responses to the consultation on the draft manual have been placed in the Library of the House and are available on the Department’s website.

Planning Applications

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Nick Boles)]

The Government are committed to ensuring that planning applications and related consents are processed promptly. Local people and authorities should be at the heart of planning, but where councils persistently fail to meet statutory deadlines for making decisions on time, applicants will be given the option of asking the Planning Inspectorate to decide their proposal instead.

Planning is a quasi-judicial process, and delays in making decisions are unfair both to local residents and local firms; justice delayed is justice denied. Individual applicants can already appeal directly to the Planning Inspectorate to have their application considered on grounds of non-determination (i.e. not determining an application within statutory deadlines).

In addition, section 1 of the Growth and Infrastructure Act 2013 has amended the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (“the 1990 Act”) by inserting new sections 62A to 62C. Section 62A allows a planning application, or an application for reserved matters consent, to be made directly to the Secretary of State where the local planning authority has been designated by him, provided the planning application (or the application for reserved matters consent) is for major development.

Applications made to the Secretary of State in this way will be submitted to and determined by the Planning Inspectorate, but the Act allows these to be “recovered” for Ministers’ own decision, in a similar way to planning appeals.

In the interests of transparency and consistency, decisions on whether to recover appeals are made with reference to published criteria. For planning applications made under section 62A the Secretary of State will employ the same criteria in deciding whether to recover the application for ministerial decision. A policy statement setting out these criteria has been placed in the Library of the House.

City Deals

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Greg Clark)]

Following the successful completion of the first wave of city deals in July 2012 with the “core cities”, the Government committed to work with a further 20 cities and their wider areas to negotiate a second wave of city deals in October 2012.

Over recent months I have been in negotiation with the Solent local enterprise partnership; Southampton city council; Portsmouth city council; Hampshire county council and local authorities that are members of the Partnership for Urban South Hampshire (Eastleigh, East Hampshire, Fareham, Gosport, Havant, Isle of Wight, New Forest, Test Valley and Winchester).

The Southampton and Portsmouth city deal will maximise the economic strengths of these two coastal cities and the wider Solent area, by supporting further growth in the area’s maritime, marine and advanced manufacturing sectors.

Over its lifetime, by bringing together the efforts and resources of local businesses, local councils and the Government, the Solent local enterprise partnership estimates that the deal will deliver:

Over 4,700 permanent new jobs particularly focused in marine, maritime and advanced manufacturing sectors;

Over 13,000 construction jobs;

Unlock 107,000 square metres of new employment floor space with a focus on supporting growth in the marine, maritime and advanced manufacturing sectors;

Support small and medium enterprises to grow through better business support over the next three years;

Provide £115 million of local and national public sector investment; and

Lever in over £838 million of private sector investment into the area through site development, skills and unemployment schemes; and business support services.

NHS England (Mandate)

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Health (Mr Jeremy Hunt)]

Today the Government have laid before Parliament the refreshed mandate to NHS England for 2014-15. The refreshed mandate will come into effect from 1 April 2014 and was developed following public consultation which ran from 5 July to 27 September.

The mandate sets an ambitious agenda to transform patient care and we expect NHS England to demonstrate significant progress against all the objectives by March 2015. To provide stability and enable the NHS to plan ahead, we have carried forward all existing 24 objectives. The Government have kept changes to an essential minimum to ensure the refreshed mandate remains strategic, outcomes-focused and affordable within NHS England’s budget, which is also set out in the mandate for 2014-15.

Where the Government have introduced changes, these focus on the priorities that will support the successful transformation of health and care services to meet the needs of an ageing population and the increasing prevalence of long-term physical and mental health conditions:

the vulnerable older people’s plan as a means for improving the health of the whole population and to provide excellent care for older people;

the addition of one new objective in relation to the system wide response to the Francis inquiry recommendations; and

taking forward actions to deliver a service that values mental and physical health equally.

The Government have included further ambitions on a limited number of areas to deliver the quality of care and treatment people need and expect. These areas are: reducing avoidable premature mortality; supporting people with dementia; improving patient experience—friends and family test; and making better use of resources.

The mandate also reflects the work being taken forward by NHS England to improve integrated care; addressing the failings witnessed at Winterbourne View private hospital; supporting a fair playing field for providers; improving outcomes for children and young people; and supporting innovation to improve patient care.

While the mandate sets out our vision over the long term, we also need to tackle immediate pressures. The Government previously announced their plans to handle pressures on A and E this winter and the allocation of £250 million funding to NHS England for distribution to the areas that need it most. The additional allocation requires an increase to the revenue budget for NHS England for 2013-14, and a revision to the current mandate will be laid before Parliament shortly reflecting this uplift in the budget only.

Alongside the mandate for 2014-15, we have published the Government’s response to the consultation and a refreshed version of the NHS outcomes framework 2014-15. Similar to the approach taken with the mandate, we have kept changes to the NHS outcomes framework to an essential minimum.

Copies of all these documents have been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Immigration and Visa Charging Principles

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

People who need permission to visit the UK and those who want to live, work or study here must pay a fee for their visa. It is important that we seek input into how we ensure that those who benefit directly from the immigration system and enhanced border control contribute appropriately to its costs in the future.

I am therefore launching a targeted consultation looking at charging principles which will begin on 12 November and will last for three weeks. As part of the consultation we will be seeking views on how the Home Office charges customers and the services it provides.

We will be seeking views from stakeholders who have an interest in the way fees are set, the consistency and complexity of fees and on premium services. We are also seeking views on proposals on administrative reviews and refunds and how the Home Office interacts with third parties.

A copy of the consultation document will be placed in the House Library and on the gov.uk website.

Typhoon Haiyan

Tuesday 12th November 2013 Written Statements

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

I would like to update the House on the UK’s response to typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines.

Typhoon Haiyan made landfall in the Philippines on 7 November and was one of the strongest storms on record. It has caused widespread devastation. Current estimates suggest that 10,000 have been killed in Tacloban alone and over 4.3 million have been seriously affected by the storm. These numbers are likely to increase as those responding to the aftermath of the typhoon gain greater access to affected areas.

The Government of the Philippines ordered mass evacuations in advance of the storm and pre-positioned some humanitarian assistance around the country. However, the needs in the country are overwhelming and additional assistance has been requested in order to reach those in desperate need. The situation is also compounded by the residual impact of previous crises in the Philippines, such as an earthquake in October and the ongoing conflict in Mindanao. The Government of the Philippines accepted an offer of assistance from the UN Humanitarian Coordinator.

Typhoon Haiyan has caused significant infrastructural damage. Major roads have been affected and some remain impassable, hampering rescue and relief operations. Thirteen airports across the country have suspended operations. The main seaports remain closed. Power outages and communication interruptions are being experienced across a number of provinces which has raised concerns over access to water as pumps are now ineffective. The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs has indicated that critical needs include shelter, food, health, WASH (water, sanitation and hygiene), camp management and logistics. The UN World Food Programme estimates that 2.5 million people may be in need of emergency food aid.

The Prime Minister spoke with President Aquino of the Philippines on 10 November to offer UK assistance with the humanitarian response. DFID currently has a team of seven deployed to Manila with three more arriving today. I approved a £6 million aid package on 9 November for immediate life-saving humanitarian support. This included a £5 million allocation to DFID’s rapid response facility which channels funding at speed to pre-registered non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and includes the bulk purchase of humanitarian kit with pre-approved suppliers. This will provide humanitarian aid for up to 500,000 people, including temporary shelter and clean water. The additional £1 million is for in-kind support including the provision of urgently-needed shelter and household items from the UK’s humanitarian stockpile. Five aircraft have been chartered from Dubai in order to transport this support. The funding will also fund the deployment of two public health specialists to work with the World Health Organisation to prevent the spread of infectious diseases.

On 11 November, the Prime Minster announced that the UK would increase its assistance to a total of £10 million. This includes a further £l million for aircraft handling and airlift of humanitarian supplies, as well as the provision of 4x4s and mobile deployment kits, and an additional £3 million allocation for the rapid response facility. As a further part of the UK response, HMS Daring will also redeploy to the affected region and will provide drinking water and a team of trained medics, as well as serve as a UK operating base, bringing helicopter airlift capacity.

The Philippines Department of Health has made it clear that there is an urgent need for extra medical assistance and as a result yesterday I activated the UK International Emergency Trauma Register (UKIETR). We are mobilising a 12 strong medical team of UK surgeons, doctors and paramedics.