House of Commons

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Tuesday 3 December 2013

The House met at half-past Eleven o’clock

Prayers

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Business Before Questions

Humber Bridge Bill

Motion made, That the Lords amendments be now considered.

[Hon. Members]

Object.

Lords amendments to be considered on Tuesday 10 December.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

1. What assessment he has made of the recent decision by the European Parliament to meet in a single location.

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

14. What assessment he has made of the recent decision by the European Parliament to meet in a single location.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We have been clear that there should be a single seat for the European Parliament. The current arrangements are indefensible, ludicrously expensive, impractical and one of the most striking illustrations of EU waste.

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

If there is one thing that unifies this House more than any other, it is that the European Parliament’s commute between Brussels and Strasbourg once a month, at a massive cost of over £10 million a time, is a waste of money. Is he not surprised, therefore, that one British political party abstained in the parliamentary vote and failed to protect the British interest and the taxpayer interest—the UK Independence party?

[Mr Lidington]

I am afraid that I am not surprised, because that party’s representatives are often absent in key votes in the European Parliament when significant British interests are at stake. I congratulate those Members of the European Parliament, from all political families, who supported the initiative that our colleague, Ashley Fox, led and co-ordinated.

[Miss McIntosh]

The decision on a single seat was taken under a Conservative Government and in relation to an EU treaty, so presumably it will have to be amended by an EU treaty. Which other member states support us, and should we not wait until the Chamber is ready to host the European Parliament again in full session in Brussels before proceeding?

[Mr Lidington]

What was striking about the debate and the vote a few days ago was that the clearly expressed will of a decisive majority of Members of the European Parliament was that there should be a single seat, and it seems to me that their voice should be heard clearly. The Parliament has also said that it wishes to initiate proposals for treaty change at a future opportunity to try to give effect to the change it is now recommending.

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

Given that that travelling circus costs €180 million a year, or €1 billion over the course of the EU’s seven-year budget, which is a staggering figure, does the Minister agree that those involved in the single seat campaign in the European Parliament, including Members from my party, deserve to be commended for putting an end to that kind of waste?

[Mr Lidington]

I am happy to repeat those commendations. Of course, there is not only financial waste; an unnecessary amount of carbon is emitted as the Members, their staff and the accompanying luggage are transported from one place to another.

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

2. What recent steps his Department has taken to promote trade and investment opportunities for British firms operating in Africa.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

Boosting trade and investment is one of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s major priorities in Africa. We have strengthened commercial teams throughout the region. Last month I launched high-level prosperity partnerships with Angola, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Mozambique and Tanzania. That combines expertise from the Department for International Development, UK Trade & Investment, the FCO and the private sector to create a paradigm shift in the UK’s trade relationship with those five countries.

[Mr Evans]

Does the Minister agree that with growth rates of up to 8%, a population of 1 billion and a combined GDP of around $2 trillion, and with sub-Saharan Africa being the second-fastest growing region in the world, trade is an effective alternative to aid and strengthens diplomatic ties?

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Six of the world’s top-10 fastest growing economies are in sub-Saharan Africa. Certainly, among the main focuses of African Governments are economic development and growth, wealth and job creation. They are becoming more determined to stimulate economic growth as a major focus in alleviating poverty. We need to ensure that, in addition to building trade and investment co-operation we assist in building Government capacity and ensure that UK businesses are aware of the significant opportunities that exist in sub-Saharan Africa.

[Mr Frank Roy (Motherwell and Wishaw) (Lab)]

Obtaining investment is vital to Africa. What actions is the Department taking to encourage trade and investment specifically in northern Nigeria, which seems to be left out on many occasions?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Gentleman will be well aware of the challenges that are being faced in northern Nigeria. I was there earlier in the year and saw some of the excellent work that is being done in trying to alleviate some of the conflicts and to encourage co-operation between the various religious groups. I also saw some of the work that the Department for International Development is doing to build capacity in terms of providing services and trying to create the security and stability that is the precursor to economic investment and development.

[George Freeman (Mid Norfolk) (Con)]

I congratulate the Minister on the work that the Government are doing, particularly through the FCO working with UKTI in promoting trade around the world. Does he agree that Kenya and east Africa is a particularly important market for us where we may be able better to integrate our DFID aid work and our UKTI and FCO trade work? I was there this summer, and have been there in recent years, and one sees that Kenya is on the front line of the global race, with corruption and with progressive British capitalism based in Nairobi.

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Kenya is a major trading partner for the United Kingdom. Significant UK businesses are already investing in Kenya. Only this morning I spoke to open the UKTI Kenya conference at Mansion House in the City of London, which was extremely well attended. In addition to the obvious focus on the financial services sector, we need to focus on a whole range of areas and economic sectors where the UK has particular expertise, such as the automotive industries.

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

Usually diplomatic networks are used to promote trade and export by celebrating national days, but a survey over the weekend showed that of 20 UK diplomatic and consular postings, not a single one was doing anything to celebrate St Andrew’s day. Why was that?

[Mark Simmonds]

I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be aware that the UK diplomatic missions around the world, particularly in Africa, do everything they can to promote all UK businesses, including Scottish businesses that go on UK trade missions. When I was in South Africa I promoted a Scottish trade mission to secure work for businesses in Scotland and in the rest of the United Kingdom.

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

In 2011, President Goodluck Jonathan and the Prime Minister signed an agreement to increase trade between Nigeria and the UK. Will the Minister update us on how that is progressing, particularly in certain business sectors?

[Mark Simmonds]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the Prime Minister and President Jonathan stipulated that trade needs to increase significantly by 2015. We are on track to meet those targets, not just in the obvious oil and gas and extractive sectors but across a whole range of economic sectors, particularly as in southern Nigeria the levels of affluence mean that the Nigerian middle class is growing. That is creating huge opportunities for businesses in the consumer and creative arts sectors, and that is something that our missions are supporting.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

3. What recent reports he has received on the situation in Gibraltar.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We remain very concerned by delays at Gibraltar’s border with Spain and are pressing the Spanish authorities to act on the European Commission’s recommendations to them. We continue to work closely with the Government of Gibraltar to uphold the sovereignty of the United Kingdom and the rights of the people of Gibraltar, including by challenging unlawful Spanish incursions into British Gibraltar territorial waters.

[Jason McCartney]

Having spent a short period of my Royal Air Force service in Gibraltar, I am aware of the importance of having a workable border crossing. Will my right hon. Friend urge the Commission to keep its promise to make it easier for traffic to cross the Gibraltar border and follow up this matter with Spain so that the people of Gibraltar can enjoy the EU rights that Spain owes them?

[Mr Lidington]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. We are indeed continuing to press the Spanish authorities to implement what the Commission has recommended they do, including adding to the number of traffic lanes so that cars can get through more smoothly and looking at how to risk-profile travellers crossing the border so that those who may be smugglers or other criminals can be properly identified and ordinary citizens not inconvenienced.

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

May I urge the Minister to use all his influence to temper the language that is being used in this dispute? There undoubtedly is a dispute, but the Spanish are great allies of ours: they are fellow members of the European Union and many British people live in Spain. Can we just lower the temperature and stop throwing brickbats at each other?

[Mr Lidington]

I would be only too pleased if we could lower the temperature. It is not just a matter of lowering the temperature in verbal exchanges but of expecting our NATO allies in Spain to desist from the unlawful incursions into British Gibraltar waters that have been all too common.

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

4. What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the relationship between the European Union and Ukraine.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

This was the main focus at the October Foreign Affairs Council. The decision to put on hold the signature of the EU-Ukraine association agreement is a missed opportunity. The EU’s door remains open. It is, of course, up to Ukraine to decide whether to walk through it and I strongly urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of their people to express peacefully their views on this issue.

[Mr Streeter]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Ukrainian President’s recent decision not to sign the association agreement is doubly disappointing in that it would have brought great benefits to the Ukrainian people? What more can the European Union do to help Ukraine turn its back fully on its Soviet past and embrace a democratic European family?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is right. Agreement on a deep and comprehensive free trade area would eliminate 99% of customs duties, in trade value, with Ukraine. That would save Ukraine about €500 million per annum. Economic analysts suggest that 6% would be added to Ukrainian GDP through more open trade with the European Union. The door will remain open and I believe that that message will be clearly communicated by all EU member states.

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

The situation in Ukraine is obviously intense and it is important that nothing is done by any outside parties to exacerbate it. Will the Secretary of State give some more information about what the UK Government are doing to try to get the negotiations back on course and to encourage the agreement with Ukraine to go ahead?

[Mr Hague]

It is for Ukraine to make a decision about this. The advantages of an association agreement and a deep and comprehensive free trade area are self-evident. It is for the people of Ukraine and their Government to make a judgment about that. The door remains open, as I said a moment ago. We will continue to make that point to them, including in all our discussions with Ukrainian Ministers over the next few weeks. I think the rest of the EU will do the same, but in the end it has to be their decision and their judgment.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I warmly welcome the fact that the door remains open, particularly in the light of the reaction of the Ukrainian people and the distinct possibility that there might be a change of policy or even a change of the Ukrainian Government themselves? Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the alternative would not only dash the hopes and interests of the Ukrainian people, but give a very serious boost to the dangerous ambition of President Putin to try to restore some form of Russian empire?

[Mr Hague]

Clearly, it is open to Ukraine to change its policy. As my right hon. Friend knows, there is a great deal of discussion about that in Ukraine at the moment. Again, I urge the Ukrainian authorities to respect the right of peaceful protest and to investigate thoroughly why police violence was used several days ago. I believe it would also be in the long-term interests of Russia for Ukraine to have more open trade with the European Union. The sorts of economic benefits that I have said would flow to Ukraine would go on to benefit the Russian economy as well.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

The Foreign Secretary said a moment ago that the benefits of this potential agreement are self-evident. The EU High Representative has described it as the

“most ambitious agreement ever offered to a partner country”,

yet, as we have heard, the Ukrainian President has refused to sign it. Will the Foreign Secretary set out a little more of what he believes were the main barriers to the deal being agreed and whether he still believes they can be overcome, given the external pressure on Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

One principal barrier was the pressure from Russia not to sign or make such an agreement with the European Union. As I have said, we disagree with that assessment even from Russia’s point of view. It would be in the interests of Russia and the whole of eastern Europe to have more open trade and co-operation with each other. We will go on setting out the advantages, but we will also look to Ukraine to clearly meet the criteria set out in the association agreement. Reliable studies have suggested that average wages in Ukraine would rise and that exports to the EU would rise by an estimated 6%. The arguments are very clear, but in the end it is for Ukrainians to make their judgment on them.

[Mr Alexander]

I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for the candour of his last answer, which confirms the role that Russia clearly played in the events that unfolded at the summit. Reports suggest that the International Monetary Fund has a stand-by facility of between $10 billion and $15 billion to provide emergency financial support for Ukraine should Russia take steps to increase economic pressure on the country. Will he set out the British Government’s position on that stand-by facility, and say whether he thinks there might be circumstances in which it is appropriate to make it available to Ukraine?

[Mr Hague]

If Ukraine is to make use of that facility, it is necessary for it to engage in important structural reforms. The reforms on which the IMF has made a new arrangement conditional would help to build a more stable and prosperous Ukraine, which again is important.

It is also important to note in passing that although this agreement has not been signed, deep and comprehensive free trade areas have been agreed between the EU and Georgia and Moldova, so parts of the EU’s Eastern Partnership have continued to progress.

[Mr John Whittingdale (Maldon) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the first priority must be to put pressure on the Ukrainian Government to stop the shocking violence that has been committed over the last few days against the peaceful protesters currently in Independence square? Does he, however, take some encouragement from the stated commitment of the Government of Ukraine that they still wish to achieve, in due course, closer relations with the European Union, which is clearly the overwhelming desire of the Ukrainian people?

[Mr Hague]

That does seem to be the desire of the majority of the Ukrainian people, so all hon. Members will of course hope that Ukraine is able to go in that direction. My hon. Friend is quite right to say that the first priority at the moment is to stress the need to allow peaceful protest. We have done that in the statements we issued at the weekend and in what I have said today. The incident at the weekend provoked domestic outrage and international condemnation, quite rightly, but we will keep the door open, as he and others have asked.

[Natascha Engel (North East Derbyshire) (Lab)]

5. What discussions he has had with his US counterpart during negotiations on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership on the US blockade of the Republic of Cuba and its effect on European companies doing business in that country.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has discussed the transatlantic trade and investment partnership with Secretary Kerry. Both are keen supporters of this free trade agreement, which is worth up to £10 billion to the UK economy. They did not cover Cuba in those discussions.

[Natascha Engel]

Will the Minister use all his influence to persuade the United States to lift the blockade, which is bad for Cubans, bad for trade and bad for British business?

[Mr Lidington]

We make it clear to the United States that we disagree with its approach to Cuba. We think that the blockade is counter-productive and that the way to strengthen the chances of both economic and political reform in Cuba is through engagement, including on trade.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

At the heart of this argument is a tactic that the United States has deployed in a number of different scenarios—namely, that it seeks to impose restrictions on US companies trading around the world, but also on non-US companies trading outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Will the Minister use the TTIP talks to try to persuade the United States to reconsider that tactic not just in Cuba, but more widely?

[Mr Lidington]

I am not sure that the TTIP talks are the right opportunity for doing that, but my right hon. Friend certainly makes a good point. As he knows, we have both UK and EU legislation specifically to counter the extraterritorial impact of US sanctions against other countries’ companies operating in or trading with Cuba, and we continue to keep under review the necessity for such legislation as regards other countries.

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

6. What recent assessment he has made of the likelihood of EU treaty change before 2017.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

A number of ideas being considered in European capitals would require treaty change. The President of the Commission has made proposals requiring treaty change, and the fiscal compact’s signatories hope to see the compact put into the treaties before January 2018. Europe is changing because of the eurozone crisis, and we should expect that process to include treaty change.

[Steve McCabe]

Does that mean that negotiations have actually commenced, and if so, when do they have to be concluded? What is the absolute deadline to meet the commitment for a referendum in 2017?

[Mr Hague]

No. Clearly, negotiations have not commenced, although the Government continue at all times to work on seeking a more competitive European Union that is less regulatory, and in any such negotiation we of course want an EU that will be more accountable to national Parliaments as well. The position of the Conservative party, rather than of Her Majesty’s Government as a whole, is to implement the European Union (Referendum) Bill, which was passed in this House on Friday, and that means a referendum by the end of 2017.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Would it require treaty change to ensure that the benefits paid to EU citizens are paid at the rate prevailing in their home country?

[Mr Hague]

It does not require treaty change to ensure that the concept of free movement is carried out on a more sensible basis. It should not be about exporting child benefit, for instance. The Prime Minister has set out changes that we can make without treaty change. However, it is possible to contemplate, as the Prime Minister has also set out, having new arrangements on free movement for countries that join the EU to slow the access to each other’s labour markets until we can be sure that it will not cause vast migration. Some of those arrangements would require treaty change.

[David Wright (Telford) (Lab)]

17. The Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister will have had discussions with Chancellor Merkel about the EU referendum process. Given that the new coalition agreement in Germany has no mention whatever of EU treaty change, what progress has actually been made?

[Mr Hague]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that there have been many coalition agreements in Germany—there has been one every four years for decades—that have not mentioned treaty change, but that have been followed by many changes in European treaties. Indeed, Chancellor Merkel said at a conference just last month:

“Germany is ready to develop the treaties still further.”

That is the position of Chancellor Merkel herself.

[Mr Peter Hain (Neath) (Lab)]

If the Foreign Secretary achieved his reform objectives and any consequential treaty changes in principle with European Council members, but another country subsequently rejected those treaty changes in a referendum, what would he do?

[Mr Hague]

That argument can be made about any treaty in the European Union. In respect of past treaties, including those that the right hon. Gentleman negotiated, my party would say that the people of this country should have had the right to say no in a referendum. Treaty change, of course, requires unanimous approval. As he well knows, that has not stopped many treaties over the past 15 years—indeed, over the past few decades—and it will not stop treaty change in future.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

7. What progress has been made on the preventing sexual violence initiative following his recent visit to Sri Lanka for CHOGM.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

At the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, the UK secured agreement to strengthen capacity to tackle sexual violence in conflict-affected states, to improve the monitoring and documentation of cases of sexual violence, and to empower victims to access justice. Thirty-four members of the Commonwealth have endorsed our declaration of commitment to end sexual violence in conflict.

[Paul Uppal]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. He met many civil society groups in Sri Lanka recently and spoke at length about this issue. Will he assure me and the House that we will maintain the pressure on this issue, particularly in respect of our Commonwealth partners?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, absolutely. I gave a speech on this issue at a special event in Colombo in Sri Lanka a few weeks ago. I also met local non-governmental organisations and civil society representatives to learn more about it. We will continue to raise this issue in Sri Lanka and other conflict-affected states, where such matters are controversial and sometimes historically difficult, and to gather the maximum possible support ahead of next June’s global summit, which I announced last week.

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

18. In Sri Lanka, it is not unusual for a rape case to take 12 years to be resolved or brought to court. There is little or no accountability for security forces that are involved in such violence. Will the Foreign Secretary outline the specific measures that were agreed with the Sri Lankan Government following his recent trip?

[Mr Hague]

In common with other Governments, we have called on the Sri Lankan authorities to investigate in an independent and credible manner the allegations of sexual violence, including the allegations that it was committed by Sri Lankan forces during and after the recent conflict. The Prime Minister has made it clear that in the absence of an independent investigation, we will press for an international investigation. We will continue to put that case. Sri Lanka has not yet stated its support for our declaration on ending sexual violence in conflict, but we will continue, as I am sure will Members across the House, to argue that it should do so.

[Mr Stephen O'Brien (Eddisbury) (Con)]

I warmly commend my right hon. Friend for his initiative on preventing sexual violence in conflict. To deliver the results that he and all of us want to see, what point has he found in his research to be the most incentivising on the leaders of countries that we need to encourage to make the matter a priority?

[Mr Hague]

The crucial point is that although there is an overwhelming moral argument for dealing with the issue, there are also important considerations of conflict resolution. Conflicts are not resolved unless sexual violence is tackled, because it perpetuates conflict, divides communities and pits them against each other into the long-term future. Many leaders across the world can see that, which is why countries such as Somalia and Ministers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo support the initiative that we have taken.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

21. The Prime Minister has said that if the investigation to which the Foreign Secretary has just referred is not completed by next March, he will call for an independent international inquiry. Does the Foreign Secretary stand by that statement?

[Mr Hague]

Yes, of course. I do not think the hon. Gentleman will have found any statement in recent years where the Prime Minister and I differ—I hope he has not. Opposition Front Benchers are thinking hard about that now. Of course we stand by that statement. In March, there will be a session of the Human Rights Council, of which, I am pleased to say, the United Kingdom was re-elected as a voting member last month. We will use that position to raise this issue along with many others around the world.

[Mr Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con)]

Forty-one out of 53 Commonwealth countries criminalise same-sex relationships, as documented by the Kaleidoscope Trust in a report just in advance of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. What progress was made in addressing that stain on the reputation of the Commonwealth and the personal freedom of its citizens?

[Mr Hague]

Frankly, too little progress has been made on that in recent years. The United Kingdom raises the matter, and in fact I gave a speech at the previous CHOGM in Australia specifically about the importance of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights in the Commonwealth. We raise the matter regularly with our partners in the Commonwealth, but it is an area in which the human rights record of the Commonwealth as a whole is not good enough.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I very much welcome the Foreign Secretary’s efforts on the preventing sexual violence initiative, but as he has said, he came away from CHOGM without having got a commitment from President Rajapaksa to endorse the initiative. Given that face-to-face lobbying by the Foreign Secretary, and I hope by the Prime Minister as well, failed to convince the Sri Lankan Government to sign up, what steps does he think he can take now to ensure that they make that commitment in the near future?

[Mr Hague]

We can take many steps. First, 34 countries of the Commonwealth—and 137 countries in the world as a whole—have now signed the declaration. I spoke last night to the diplomatic corps here and said that now that only a minority of countries in the world have not signed our declaration on sexual violence, it is time for them to get on with it and not be left out of that work. Of course, Sri Lanka is one of the hardest countries to convince about that, for instance because one of the provisions of our declaration is that there will be no amnesty in peace agreements for crimes of sexual violence and that there will be real accountability for what happened in the past. It is easy to see why the Sri Lankan Government do not want to embrace those issues, but we will keep on raising them with them.

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on taking important steps towards dealing with this vile problem? Does he agree that it may be necessary to amend the Geneva convention to deal with these problems, and will he look at what can be done through the convention?

[Mr Hague]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. So far, we have agreed among the G8 nations and the 137 nations that have now signed the declaration that I put forward that crimes of sexual violence in conflict are grave breaches of the Geneva conventions and their first protocol. That does not require us to change the Geneva conventions, but it does require us to get the whole world to recognise that those crimes are breaches of the Geneva conventions in any case and should be part of the rules of warfare that the whole world should accept for the future.

[Grahame M. Morris (Easington) (Lab)]

8. What steps his Department is taking to promote the humane treatment of prisoners held in the US; if he will make representations on the fairness of the trial of the Miami Five to his US counterpart; and if he will make a statement.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

The British Government work through our network of US posts and with the EU to promote the humane treatment of prisoners held in the United States. The United States Government have stated that the Miami five have had the same privileges available to them as all other US prisoners.

[Grahame M. Morris]

I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, but will he indicate his response to widespread reports that US-based journalists were paid to write prejudicial articles about the case before and during the trial? In the interests of natural justice, will he make representations to the US State Department on the issue?

[Hugh Robertson]

As the hon. Gentleman is no doubt aware, this complicated case stretches back many years. If I am correct, the trial was in December 2001—more than a decade ago. It is further complicated by the fact that there are intelligence implications and a read-across to other cases in Cuba. The UK has no direct locus in this case as it exists between the US and Cuba. If the hon. Gentleman has information that should have been made available about the case, I suggest it is made available to US judicial authorities as a matter of urgency.

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

9. What his priorities are for reform of the terms of UK membership of the EU.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

10. Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

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

12. Which EU powers and competences he plans to renegotiate back to the UK.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

In his speech at the beginning of the year the Prime Minister set out five principles for real change in the EU: global competitiveness, democratic legitimacy, powers flowing back to nation states, flexibility, and fairness between eurozone and non-eurozone. Those are our priorities for reform.

[Tim Loughton]

Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the great majority of those reforms, and those set out in the Fresh Start project manifesto and others, can be achieved without treaty change, and that when we make it clear that the new reformed EU that most of us want to achieve is not just a case of promoting little-Englander interests, but rather trying to achieve a sustainable outward-looking, globally competitive EU for the benefit of all 28 nations, we increasingly find that we are pushing at an open door?

[Mr Hague]

I warmly welcome the useful contribution that Fresh Start has made to the debate on EU reform, and I think my hon. Friend puts it extremely well. Indeed, many other countries are now also seeing that it is time to move on to new arguments and a new perspective on the European Union. For instance, following their investigation into subsidiarity, the Dutch Government said it should be ensured that EU action is taken only where necessary, with national action always pursued where possible.

[Ian Murray]

Will the Foreign Secretary tell the House his top policy priority for renegotiation, which will have most influence on him and whether he votes to stay in or leave the EU?

[Mr Hague]

I am not going to choose from among the five priorities as they are all important. Global competitiveness, democratic legitimacy, powers flowing back to nation states, flexibility, and fairness for the non-eurozone are all crucial priorities and important to this country’s future in the European Union.

[Gregg McClymont]

Well, that was as clear as mud. Can I try again and ask the Foreign Secretary which, of the five abstract principles he referred to, is his top-level policy that would persuade him to vote to stay in the European Union?

[Mr Hague]

Unlike the Labour party we are capable of thinking of more than one thing at a time. There are five themes, and since I have set out five, asking for one is not particularly helpful. We have also delivered more than one. We have already cut the EU budget for the first time, which Labour did not do, and we have protected the rebate in full, which Labour failed to do. We have put a stop to involvement in eurozone bail-outs, which Labour never achieved, and we will go on sticking up for Britain in Europe on more than one subject at a time.

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

Should reasserting control of our national borders be a priority? For example, does it make any more sense to have a single European work force than it does to have a single European currency?

[Mr Hague]

As I said earlier, I think reforming the concept of free movement on a sensible basis is the right way to think about that. Freedom of movement of workers in the European Union clearly has many benefits, including for British people, but we also know that it is susceptible to being abused. I therefore think the reforms set out last week by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister are the right way to proceed.

[Mr Gareth Thomas (Harrow West) (Lab/Co-op)]

As the Foreign Secretary reflects on the answers he has just given, he will be mindful, I am sure, of the European Scrutiny Committee’s conclusion on the justice and home affairs block opt-out that,

“there is little evidence of a genuine and significant repatriation of powers.”

Should the House believe the European Scrutiny Committee or not?

[Mr Hague]

As I reflect on the answers I have just given, I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall consider them to have been very good answers. European Scrutiny Committee reports should always be taken extremely seriously. The Committee looks at issues in great detail, the Government respond to them in detail and many are debated in this House.

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

11. What assessment he has made of recent developments in the UK’s relations with Iran.

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

We are upgrading our bilateral relations on a step-by-step basis, including through the appointment of non-resident chargés d’affaires, direct contact between the Prime Minister and President Rouhani, and meetings between officials. Our dialogue with Iran has covered bilateral relations, the nuclear issue and Syria.

[Mr Leech]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. While I welcome all efforts to improve relations with Iran to encourage peace and stability in the whole region, will he assure me that we will continue to take a tough stance on the treatment of opposition groups and minorities by the Iranian authorities?

[Mr Hague]

Absolutely. I can readily give that guarantee. We have clearly made progress on the nuclear issue, with the interim agreement we have concluded, and are stepping up bilateral relations, but that in no way inhibits us from expressing our views on human rights. Iran continues to have one of the worst human rights records in the world for the treatment of journalists and minors, and for the continued house arrest of key opposition leaders. We will always feel free to raise those issues with Iranian leaders.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I take the Foreign Secretary back to his favourite subject, a nuclear weapons-free middle east? That has now become a greater possibility with an interim agreement with Iran. Will he update us on progress on a conference that would include Israel, which of course is the only country in the region that has declared nuclear weapons?

[Mr Hague]

I do not have an update beyond the one I gave the hon. Gentleman a couple of weeks ago, but I will keep in touch with him as he is extremely assiduous on this matter. I agree with his assessment that the interim deal achieved with Iran on the nuclear issue reinforces the case for, and brings closer, a conference for which he has long campaigned and which the United Kingdom would like to see.

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

Iran, through its proxy Hezbollah, continues to support the brutal Assad regime. What leverage can the Foreign Secretary bring to bear on Iran’s role in Syria? Would President Rouhani’s recent move towards peace not have more credibility if he took a much more constructive role in attempting to resolve the conflict in Syria?

[Mr Hague]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Iran continues to play a role in Syria that in our view perpetuates the conflict and contributes to the appalling human rights abuses and oppression by the Assad regime. There have so far not been wider changes in Iran’s foreign policy, alongside the nuclear deal that we have concluded. We will of course press for those changes. Our non-resident chargé d’affaires is today making his first visit to Iran and discussion on Syria will be included on the agenda.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Following on from the Foreign Secretary’s answer, what is his assessment of the prospect of Iran accepting the terms of the 30 June Geneva final communiqué and participating in the Geneva II talks on 22 January?

[Mr Hague]

That is an important question, and one that I put to the Iranian Foreign Minister. We think it should be possible for all nations to work on Syria together, on the basis of the Geneva I communiqué. I have said to the Iranians that if they were able to do that, then many countries, including the UK, would be more favourable to their inclusion in future international discussions. While they have not ruled that out, they have yet not committed to it. We will continue to press them to do so.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

13. What assessment he has made of the effect of recent announcements of settlement building on the middle east peace negotiations.

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

Recent settlement announcements have had a detrimental impact on trust between the two parties. During my recent visit to Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories, I made clear our serious concerns about the announcements and our strong opposition to settlements.

[Duncan Hames]

Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General described Israeli settlement building in the Occupied Palestinian Territories as a cause of great concern, saying that it risked the continuation of negotiations and must cease. I am glad that our Minister shares those concerns. Will he use his influence to shape European trade policies in a manner that is consistent with our Government’s view on the illegal settlements?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes, we will. As I suspect the hon. Gentleman knows, we welcome the EU guidelines on the eligibility of Israel entities for EU funding and the agreement reached last week that, on the other side, allows Israel to participate in Horizon 2020. We will absolutely make those representations.

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

Announcements of new settlement building must be unhelpful, but does the Minister recognise Israel’s good will in continuing its programme of releasing more than 100 convicted prisoners, many of them terrorists who carried out horrendous crimes, at the same time as the Palestinian national broadcasting authority perpetuates calls for violence against Israelis and Jews?

[Hugh Robertson]

Yes. If the Palestinian broadcasting authority is perpetuating calls for violence, that is totally unacceptable, and I would have no hesitation in condemning it. It is fair to say that it was made clear to me a couple of weeks ago that the Palestinians believe that the original agreement was that there would be no push towards representation in international bodies in exchange for prisoner release and that the settlements issue should be renegotiated at a later stage.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

As the middle east peace negotiations continue, are the Palestinians speaking with one voice? What is my right hon. Friend’s assessment of the relationship between Fatah and Hamas?

[Hugh Robertson]

It is absolutely clear that those Palestinian entities involved in the peace process are indeed speaking with one voice. It is clear, however—I suspect that this is what lies behind my hon. Friend’s question—that there is a very considerable difference between the Palestinian authorities engaged in those processes and the authorities in Gaza. I would call on those authorities in Gaza to make it clear that they deplore terrorist activities of all sorts.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

When hon. Members raise the issue of, say, trade with illegal settlements, the Government say that they do not want to upset the peace talks, but 4,000 settlements have been announced—800 last week—and those are destabilising the peace talks. What are the Government going to do about that in order to support the peace talks?

[Hugh Robertson]

I am not sure that I understand the distinction that the hon. Gentleman makes, because the Government have repeatedly condemned Israel’s announcements about expanded settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. They are illegal under international law and, as I have said, they undermine the possibility of a two-state solution. We are quite clear about that.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

15. What assessment he has made of progress on the transatlantic trade and investment partnership talks.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

Negotiations are progressing well and are on track to meet our shared ambition of concluding them in 2015. There will be a third round of talks next month, followed by an EU-US ministerial stock-take of progress to be held in early 2014 to set the direction of talks for next year.

[Mr Carmichael]

I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that these talks will, because of the enormity of both the European and the US economies coming together, lead to a substantial growth in the global economy? Does he also think that this will be a catalyst to a further improvement and enhancement of the single market, justifying Britain’s membership of the European Union?

[Mr Speaker]

As Churchill used to say, one is enough.

[Mr Lidington]

I think that my hon. Friend’s hopes are very well placed. This deal has the prospect of being transformative for the world economy, bringing perhaps an additional £100 billion a year for the EU and £80 billion a year for the United States over the longer term. That would include £10 billion a year for this country.

Topical Questions

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

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

[The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr William Hague)]

I am about to join NATO Foreign Ministers in Brussels this afternoon, where we will discuss plans for the NATO summit in Wales in 2014. We will also discuss our long-term commitment to Afghanistan, building defence capabilities and work with non-NATO partners.

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the Foreign Secretary for that answer. If the Sri Lankan Government do not address war crimes and human rights by next year, will the Foreign Secretary consider setting up, along with other countries, a war crimes tribunal?

[Mr Hague]

As I mentioned a few minutes ago, we will pursue this at the Human Rights Council in March. If the Sri Lankan Government have not set up an inquiry of their own by then—so far, they have refused to do so—we would favour an international inquiry that is independent, credible and thorough. We will discuss with other countries in the Human Rights Council how best to do that and what we propose to do in detail. We will keep the House informed.

[Paul Uppal (Wolverhampton South West) (Con)]

T5. The Prime Minister recently completed his first visit to India in three years. Representing as I do a Wolverhampton constituency, I have a significant Punjabi diaspora community in my constituency. May I highlight to the Front Bench the real issue of drug misuse in Punjab, particularly among young men? Given Britain’s expertise in rehabilitation, may I urge the Foreign Office, along with the Department for International Development, to provide British expertise in this area?

[Mr Hague]

We will take a look at that. The Prime Minister’s visit to India was certainly very successful. We have greatly strengthened our relations with India with the Prime Minister’s three visits and all the other work we have done. My hon. Friend draws attention to an important issue, and I undertake to him that we will look at it in more detail.

[Mr Douglas Alexander (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)]

Can the Foreign Secretary offer the House an explanation as to why it has taken the Prime Minister three years to make his second visit to China this week?

[Mr Hague]

I think the right hon. Gentleman could have phrased the question in a slightly more positive way, for instance by asking why it is that this Prime Minister has taken the biggest ever trade delegation to China or why we now have more dialogue between the UK and China than ever before, more people-to-people exchanges, more students studying in each other’s countries than ever before, and more trade and investment than ever before. Clearly the Prime Minister gets extremely good value out of the visits he makes.

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

T6. Given Iran’s influence in the region, what prospect is there for talks other than nuclear with Iran on areas of mutual benefit and interest, including regional security?

[Mr Hague]

We are having talks today, as I mentioned a moment ago. Our new non-resident chargé is visiting Tehran today. This is the first visit by a British diplomat in more than two years, since the evacuation of our embassy, and those talks will be about various aspects of our bilateral relations. Of course that can include regional affairs and we look forward to discussing those more with Iran over the coming months.

[Paul Blomfield (Sheffield Central) (Lab)]

T2. Following the Prime Minister’s recent announcement that the UK will establish a public registry of the beneficial ownership of companies, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what the Government will be doing to ensure that the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories also establish registries, and what action the Government will take if they fail to do so?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

The hon. Gentleman hopefully will be aware that last week we held the joint ministerial council in London, which all the overseas territories’ leaders attended. All those territories which have significant financial services sectors have responded very positively to the Prime Minister’s G8 agenda of trade, tax and transparency and all of them have committed not only to join multilateral exchange of tax information, but to consult on both having central registries of beneficial ownership and on making that information public.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

T7. While warmly welcoming the interim agreement on Iran, does the Foreign Secretary agree that it will be crucial for Iran to honour both the spirit and the letter of its commitments, and is not one of the most important obligations its promise either to convert back or to dilute that part of the uranium enrichment up to 20%, because there is little or no relevance for a 20% enrichment other than for potential military purposes?

[Mr Hague]

I absolutely agree. My right hon. and learned Friend is right. It is a key part of the interim agreement we have reached with Iran that the whole stock of the uranium enriched to near 20% must be converted or diluted. In the coming weeks we will form a joint commission with Iran that will oversee the implementation of this agreement, and the implementation of it in detail—as well as in spirit, as he rightly says—will be crucial to its success and to our ability to negotiate a comprehensive and final agreement with Iran.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

T3. Many of my constituents are very keen to see justice, self-determination, peace and prosperity for the people of Kashmir. Will the Foreign Secretary update the House on the Government’s work to encourage talks between Pakistan and India? Will he come to Dudley or hold a meeting in London to meet my constituents, who have got a great deal of knowledge and expertise on how Britain could help in this area?

[Mr Hague]

I undertake that one of my ministerial colleagues will meet the hon. Gentleman’s constituents. Of course, these are important and long-running issues, and I want to pay tribute to the Governments of Pakistan and India for the recent work they have done together to improve their relations. The Prime Minister has discussed this in India, and I have discussed it recently with Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif of Pakistan. It is not for Britain to mediate or to try to determine the outcome, but we do want those two countries to enjoy the very good relations that would represent a great breakthrough in world affairs.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

T8. Given the Prime Minister’s current visit to China, does the Secretary of State share the US Vice-President’s deep concern about the new air defence identification zone that China has unilaterally set up over the Senkaku-Diaoyu islands?

[Mr Hague]

In common with the rest of the European Union, we note with concern that China has established an air defence identification zone in the East China sea. The UK, as my hon. Friend knows, does not take a position on the underlying sovereignty issues, but we urge all parties to work together to reduce tensions and to resolve issues peacefully, in line with international law.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

T4. A year ago, 13-year old Mahmoud Khousa was targeted and killed by a drone-fired missile in the streets of Gaza as he walked to the shops to buy a pencil for his sister. According to Amnesty International, it would have been clear to the Israeli military that Mahmoud was a child. Does the Minister agree that it is a travesty that, 12 months later, nobody has been held to account for Mahmoud’s death? Will the Minister use his influence to achieve justice for Mahmoud and his family and to send a strong message that nobody should be allowed to target innocent 13-year-old children?

[The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Hugh Robertson)]

I am sure there is total agreement right across the House that there is absolutely no excuse for the targeting of children in any form of military strike. I am not entirely sure how a drone could be that precisely targeted, but the hon. Lady absolutely has my undertaking that we regard this as a matter of the utmost seriousness, and we will take it up in no uncertain terms with the Israeli authorities.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

T9. In the light of the Prime Minister’s timely and very welcome visit to China, will the Foreign Secretary tell the House what he is doing to ensure that British diplomats speak Chinese and other languages vital to our success, and to reverse the decline in language teaching in the Foreign Office that he sadly inherited?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important issue. Almost unbelievably, the last Government closed the Foreign Office language school. This year, I reopened it. It has 40 classrooms and is able to teach civil servants from across the rest of Government as well. We have sharply increased the number of posts that require the speaking of Mandarin, of Arabic, and of Latin American Spanish and Portuguese. The decline in diplomatic languages that the last Government presided over is now well and truly being reversed.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Extreme brevity is now required. I call Debbie Abrahams.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

We welcome the prospect of the EU-US trade deal, but I would grateful if the Minister confirmed that the NHS will be exempt from the trade negotiations, in exactly the same way that Canada achieved such exemption in its EU trade negotiations. I have had confusing correspondence with the Government on this.

[The Minister for Europe (Mr David Lidington)]

We are seeking a specific reference in the investment chapter of the transatlantic trade and investment partnership to enable the British Government to continue to legislate in the public interest where necessary, but we also want a deal that allows our pharmaceutical and medical devices sectors to compete for more business in the United States.

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

Will Ministers take up with the Government of Bangladesh the increasing concerns of Bangladeshis in this country, and others, about the intimidation, threats, violence and persecution of minorities, both political and faith?

[Hugh Robertson]

I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that the answer to that is yes. As he knows, the next round of Bangladeshi parliamentary elections is scheduled for 5 January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke to the Foreign Minister of Bangladesh in November to find an agreeable way to run those elections—in a fair, free and satisfactory fashion.

[Ian Lavery (Wansbeck) (Lab)]

On 11 October, a constituent of mine, Mr Nick Dunn, a 27-year-old former Paratrooper who served on the front line in Afghanistan and Iraq, was taken from the MV Seaman Guard Ohio ship off the coast of Tamil Nadu. Five other UK residents were also taken, including a constituent of the Secretary of State. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Indian authorities, and what are his Government doing to secure the immediate release of Mr Dunn and his colleagues from the Puzhal prison, in Chennai?

[Mr Hague]

This is an important consular case, which the Prime Minister has raised with the Prime Minister of India and which I have raised with the Indian Foreign Minister, and we intend to have discussions in the coming weeks with the chief secretary of Tamil Nadu state, which is where the men are being held. Consular officials have been providing assistance since the men were detained, and liaising with the Estonian and Ukrainian embassies, as nationals of those countries are also involved. We have visited the men four times to confirm their welfare, and we are pressing the company they work for to fulfil its obligations and to ensure that the men have good lawyers.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

What is the probability that the Foreign Secretary will vote to leave the European Union in 2017?

[Mr Hague]

The probability is that we will be working for all the objectives that I stated earlier so that, by achieving them, we will be able to recommend that Britain stay in the European Union—but we will have to achieve them.

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

Amnesty International is warning that Gaza’s 1.7 million residents are facing a public health catastrophe, with chronic fuel and power shortages. The Foreign Secretary often says that he is repeatedly urging the Israeli authorities to ease their restrictions on Gaza, but nothing ever happens on the ground. Will he now at least call for a formal assessment of whether the human rights conditions in article 2 of the EU-Israel association agreement are being met?

[Hugh Robertson]

The British Government have made their views on this matter abundantly clear; I draw the hon. Lady’s attention to the statement that we released recently on the situation in Gaza. She has suggested that the situation is dire, but she will also be aware that part of the problem was the creation of the tunnels, which have now been blocked up. We are urging the Israeli authorities to facilitate free trade and to alleviate the appalling humanitarian situation in Gaza.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

Further to my hon. Friend’s answer to that question, is he aware that millions of tonnes of aid from Israel go into Gaza every week? Is he also aware that it would be perfectly possible for the Egyptians to open their border to let goods into Gaza?

[Hugh Robertson]

Indeed I am perfectly aware of that; the issue was discussed with the Egyptian Deputy Prime Minister only yesterday.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

Last week, at a meeting in this building, a representative of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights described the situation in Syria as probably the worst refugee crisis since the second world war. Given the fact that nobody seems to want to talk about it, including those in this Chamber, will the Government redouble their efforts to work with the international community to bring to an end the conflict that is devastating that region?

[Mr Hague]

Yes. Although the issue has not been asked about in questions today, it is actually our top foreign policy priority. It has now been agreed that a Geneva II peace conference will be convened on 22 January, and we are encouraging all concerned to attend. In the meantime, the United Kingdom continues to be one of the biggest contributors to the humanitarian relief effort and to helping to ensure the stability of neighbouring countries. We will also strongly support the donor conference being held in Kuwait next month to raise more international funds to assist the plight of the Syrian people.

[Martin Horwood (Cheltenham) (LD)]

Recent developments in the East China sea are adding to many other concerns about China, including those being expressed about cyber-attacks, Sri Lanka, Syria, climate change and intellectual property rights. Does not this suggest that the west needs a co-ordinated, holistic policy towards China, rather than just a scramble for trade and investment?

[Mr Hague]

It is important to be able to raise a wide range of issues with China, as we do. I had an excellent bilateral meeting with the Chinese Foreign Minister in Geneva 10 days ago, at which we discussed the full range of our co-operation and the Prime Minister’s visit, as well as issues such as the importance of dialogue on human rights. It is a good thing for both countries to boost trade and investment as we are doing, and we are now taking that to new levels with China, which will greatly help the prosperity of the British people.

[Mr Speaker]

Last but not least, Anas Sarwar.

[Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab)]

May I repeat the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Meg Munn) for the Foreign Secretary to keep the spotlight trained on Syria? People believe that the war is over because Assad has agreed to downgrade his weapons programme, but the conflict and destruction are continuing and people are continuing to die. Can we demonstrate not only that the UK believes in minimising the use of weapons but that we are on the side of the ordinary people who are suffering in that crisis?

[Mr Hague]

This is a very important point. The hon. Gentleman will know that the UK, through the Department for International Development, has so far allocated £500 million. That is the biggest contribution we have ever made to a single humanitarian crisis, and it requires it. It warrants it because it is, as we heard a moment ago, the biggest humanitarian crisis for decades. So we will do that and we will do more in the future, as well as trying to make sure that the political process of the Geneva peace conference has a chance of success and assisting with the dismantling of the regime’s chemical weapons. All three of those tracks of our work on Syria are very important.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am genuinely sorry to disappoint remaining colleagues. I did try to widen the envelope, but the capacity to do so is not infinite. Just before we come to the statement by the Secretary of State for Education, I must tell the House that I have a short statement to make.

Rural Fair Share Campaign

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

I have two petitions. The first is a petition of 386 residents of my constituency on the Rural Fair Share campaign.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001303]

Cardiac Rehabilitation Services at Danetre Hospital (Daventry)

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Chris Heaton-Harris

- Hansard - - Excerpts

My second petition is a very important one—not that the last one was not. This petition is about cardiac rehabilitation services at Danetre hospital in my constituency. They were removed a while ago, and a fantastic campaigner, Viv Crouch, has been campaigning ever since to get them back. She and a number of other people have raised a petition signed by over 1,200 people from across Daventry.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe cardiac rehabilitation should be introduced in Danetre Hospital to help local people recovering from heart problems.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reintroduce this service as soon as possible.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001305]

Proposed Bund Construction on Oregon Close, Kingswinford, Dudley

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)

- Hansard - - Excerpts

It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Oregon close in Kingswinford in my constituency. It relates to matters regarding the quarry that is operated by WCL Quarries and is ultimately owned by Hinton Perry & Davenhill, a major company in my constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Dudley South,

Declares that a planning application on Oregon Close (P13/1596) has been presented to Dudley Metropolitan Council; further that the Petitioners believe that the construction of bunds to a height of six metres on top of an existing four metre wall has the potential to structurally damage the surrounding houses; further that the Petitioners believe that bringing forward the construction to 2014 provides insufficient time to arrange a professional structural survey of the retaining wall and affected houses and to put movement monitoring equipment in place; further that the Petitioners object to the noise and toxic fumes which will be endured for twelve months; and further that the Petitioners believe that their quality of life and health will be detrimentally affected if the proposal in this planning application is accepted.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Dudley Metropolitan Council to reject the planning application on Oregon Close.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001304]

Speaker’s Statement

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

12:35

[Mr Speaker]

Yesterday, during the Secretary of State for Scotland’s statement a number of right hon. and hon. Members expressed a wish for a book of condolence for the victims of the helicopter crash in Glasgow to be opened. I have arranged for that to be done. A book of condolence is available now for signature in the Library, and it will remain available until the House rises for the Christmas recess. In the new year, I hope to be able to present it to the city of Glasgow. I hope that that is helpful.

PISA Results

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

12:36

[The Secretary of State for Education (Michael Gove)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for your words about the tragedy in Glasgow. Of course, the whole House wishes to associate itself with your expressions of concern and condolence.

With your permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the PISA—programme for international student assessment—league tables of educational performance published today by the OECD. Before I go into the detail of what the league tables show about the common features of high-performing school systems, may I take a moment, as I try to in every public statement I make, to thank our teachers for their hard work, dedication and idealism. Whatever conclusions we draw about what needs to change, I hope that we in this House can agree that we are fortunate to have the best generation of young teachers ever in our schools. The data show that the new recruits now entering the classroom are better qualified than ever before. I would like in particular to thank those head teachers who are, through the new school direct programme of teacher training, recruiting more superb new graduates to teach in our state schools.

Although the quality of our teachers is improving, today’s league tables sadly show that that is not enough. When people ask why—if teachers are better than ever— we need to press ahead with further reform to the system, today’s results make the case more eloquently than any number of speeches. Since the 1990s, our performance in these league tables has been, at best, stagnant, and, at worst, declining. In the latest results, we are 21st in the world for science, 23rd for reading and 26th for mathematics. For all the well-intentioned efforts of past Governments, we are still falling further behind the best-performing school systems in the world. In Shanghai and Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong—indeed even in Taiwan and Vietnam—children are learning more and performing better with every year that passes, leaving our children behind in the global race. That matters because business is more mobile than ever, and employers are more determined than ever to seek out the best-qualified workers. Global economic pressures, far from leading to a race to the bottom, are driving all nations to pursue educational excellence more energetically than ever before. Today’s league tables show that nations that have had the courage radically to reform their education systems, such as Germany and Poland, have significantly improved their performance and their children’s opportunities.

No single intervention, or indeed single nation, has all the answers to our education challenges. But if we look at all the high-performing and fast-improving education systems, we find that certain common features recur: there is an emphasis on social justice and helping every child to succeed; there is a commitment to an aspirational academic curriculum for all students; there is a high level of autonomy from bureaucracy for head teachers; there is a rigorous system of accountability for performance; and head teachers have the critical power to hire whom they want, remove underperformers and reward the best with the recognition they deserve. Those principles have driven this coalition’s education reforms since 2010.

The first reform imperative, of course, is securing greater social justice. It is notable that all the high-performing jurisdictions set demanding standards for every child, whatever their background. Germany, in particular, has improved its standing in these league tables by doing more to promote greater equity to ensure that more children from poorer backgrounds catch up with their peers. The good news from the PISA research is that in England we have one of the most progressive and socially just systems of education funding in the world, but we in the coalition Government believe that we must go further to help the most disadvantaged children. That is why we have made funding even more progressive with the pupil premium. We have extended free pre-school education to the most disadvantaged two-year-olds and changed how we hold schools accountable so they have to give even greater attention to the performance of poor children. I hope that today the Opposition will acknowledge those steps forward and give their support to our accountability reforms.

The second imperative is a more aspirational curriculum. In successful Asian nations, all students are introduced to more stretching maths content at an earlier age than has been the case here. In the fastest-improving European nation, Poland, every child now follows a core academic curriculum to the age of 16. Our new national curriculum is explicitly more demanding, especially in maths, and it is modelled on the approach of high-performing Asian nations such as Singapore. The mathematical content is matched by a new level of ambition in technology, with the introduction of programming and coding on the national curriculum for the first time.

In our drive to eliminate illiteracy, we have introduced a screening check at age six to make sure that every child is reading fluently. Our introduction of the English baccalaureate, which is awarded to students who secure GCSE passes in English, maths, the sciences, languages and history or geography, matches Poland’s ambition by embedding an expectation of academic excellence for every 16-year-old. I hope today that those on the Labour Front Bench will confirm their support for our new curriculum, the phonics screening check and the English baccalaureate. Our children deserve to have those higher standards adopted universally.

The third reform imperative is greater autonomy for head teachers. There is a direct correlation in the league tables between freedom for heads and improved results. That is why we have dramatically increased the number of academies and free schools, and given heads more control over teacher training, continuous professional development and the improvement of underperforming schools. The school direct programme, by giving heads control of teacher recruitment, has improved the quality of new teachers. The creation of more than 300 teaching schools has put our most outstanding heads in charge of helping existing teachers to do even better. The academies programme has allowed great heads, such as those in the Harris and Ark chains, to take over underperforming schools such as the Downhills primary in Tottenham. I hope today that those on the Opposition Front Bench will signal their support for these reforms and show that they, like us, trust our outstanding heads to drive improvement.

The fourth pillar of reform is accountability. Those systems that have autonomy without accountability often underperform. Accountability has to be intelligent, which is why we have sharpened Ofsted inspections, recruited more outstanding serving teachers to inspect schools and demanded that underperforming schools improve far faster. The old league table system relied too much on a narrow measurement of C passes at GCSE, which generated the wrong incentives and wrote off too many children. We have changed league tables to ensure that every child’s progress is rewarded. We have also ensured that children are not entered early, or multiple times, for GCSEs simply to influence league tables. I hope today that those on the Opposition Front Bench will endorse those changes and join us in demanding greater rigour and higher standards from all schools.

The fifth pillar of reform is freedom for heads to recruit and reward the best. Shanghai, the world’s best-performing education system, has a rigorous system of performance-related pay. We have given head teachers the same freedoms here. I hope today that we can have a clear commitment from all parts of the House to support those brave and principled heads who want to pay the best teachers more.

The programme of reform that we have set out draws on what happens in the best school systems—identified today by the OECD—because we want nothing but the best for our children. Unless we can provide them with a school system that is one of the best in the world, we will not give them the opportunities that they need to flourish and succeed. That is why it is so important that we have a unified national commitment to excellence in all our schools and for all our pupils. I commend this statement to the House.

12:43

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

I thank the Secretary of State both for making Government time available to discuss this important topic and for his statement, which I received 11 minutes ago. I am disappointed that he has adopted—both today and in various media outings—such a partisan approach to the data from PISA. Rather than throwing chum to his Back Benchers, he should concentrate on the lessons we can learn from today’s important study.

The Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. If, as he said in The Daily Telegraph, the Labour party should take its share of the responsibility for these results, would he not agree that it should also take responsibility for, in his words, delivering the

“best generation of teachers this country has ever seen”?

It is clear that for all the hard work of our head teachers, teachers, parents and learning support staff, whom the Secretary of State rightly praised, we have a long way to go in English, maths and science to match our global competitors. These findings are a wake-up call for our schools. The PISA data reveal the continuing strength of east Asian countries and although there are important cultural differences that we should seek to understand, there are also pointers to reform in our schools system. So, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the success of Singapore and Shanghai is down to the high quality of teachers in the classroom?

In Shanghai, all teachers have a teaching qualification and undergo 240 hours of professional development within the first five years of teaching. Under the Secretary of State’s deregulation agenda, the South Leeds academy can advertise for an “unqualified maths teacher” with just four GCSEs. We have seen a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies under this Government, so will he join the Schools Minister and me in working to secure qualified teachers in our classrooms?

Secondly, can the Secretary of State confirm that part of the east Asian education system is that schools work together, collaborate and challenge each other? Under their system, no school is left an island. Will he now abandon his aggressive discredited free-market reforms to schools and follow the Labour party’s lead in developing the kind of middle tier that brings schools together to work with, challenge and collaborate with one another?

In 2008, the Secretary of State informed the Daily Mail, his journal of choice:

“We have seen the future in Sweden and it works.”

Will he confirm today that that is no longer the case? In fact, no other country has fallen as abruptly as Sweden in maths over a 10-year period. Across all three measures—reading, maths and science—since 2009 Sweden has performed very poorly indeed. Many in Sweden regard the ideological programme of unqualified teachers and unregulated free schools as responsible for the drop in standards. The lesson from PISA is clear: we need freedom with accountability, autonomy with minimum standards, or else we end up with the chaos of the Secretary of State’s Al-Madinah school.

Finally, does the Secretary of State believe that a culture of zero tolerance for low expectations in other education systems produces high results across the board and that no child should be left behind? Will he use this opportunity to join the Deputy Prime Minister and me in condemning the unpleasant whiff of eugenics from the Mayor of London and instead use the opportunity provided by the PISA data to pursue excellence for all, academic and vocational, in all our schools?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He taxed me for demonstrating partisanship and indulging in personal attacks. I am glad that we had the opportunity to witness four minutes entirely free from those sins.

First, let me turn to the whole question of qualified teachers. It is the case that there are now fewer unqualified teachers in our schools than under Labour. In 2009, there were 17,400 unqualified teachers, in 2010, just before Labour left office, there were 17,800 and there are now only 14,800, a significant reduction. Indeed, those teachers who are now joining the profession are better qualified than ever before. In 2009, just before the Labour party lost office, only 61% of teachers had a 2:1 or better as their undergraduate degree. Under the coalition Government, the figure is 74%, which is a clear improvement that has been driven by the changes that we have introduced. It has been reinforced by the introduction of the school direct system, which I invited the hon. Gentleman to applaud and welcome—he declined to do so—and which has secured even more top graduates with a 2:1 or better, including a first, in our schools.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned Sweden. Unfortunately, it is the case that in Sweden results have slid, but as I said earlier, not only do we need to grant greater autonomy, as has been done for school leaders in Singapore, Hong Kong, South Korea and elsewhere, but we need a more rigorous system of accountability. We heard nothing from him on how we would improve accountability. There was no indication as to whether or not he supports, as he has indicated in the past, our English baccalaureate measure. There was no indication from him, as there has been in the past, as to whether or not he supports A-level reform, and there was no indication, as there has been in the past, that he believes in a rigorous academic curriculum for all. The terrible truth about the situation that we face in our schools is that Labour does not have a strong record to defend, and it does not have a strong policy to advance. That is why the coalition Government are committed to reform, and that is why, I am afraid, the hon. Gentleman must do better.

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

Today’s figures are extremely sobering. They are an indictment of the previous Government’s education policy. There was a massive investment in education, a huge effort was put into education, and we went nowhere. We need to hear from the Secretary of State how his reforms will ensure that in future years—probably not so early as three years from now, but six years from now—we see the change that we require. In particular, will he tell us what he can do to promote maths and science for girls, because we cannot have so many females left behind in this country?

[Michael Gove]

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee on Education for his wise words. He is absolutely right—there was a significant increase in investment and, as I mentioned in my statement, we have one of the most socially just systems of education funding in the developed world. However, we did not move forward as we should have done. My hon. Friend asks, of course, when we will see the fruits of our reform programme. As Andreas Schleicher of the OECD asked yesterday: is it too early on the basis of these results to judge the coalition reforms? Absolutely, we could not possibly judge the coalition Government on these results, he said. We are “moving from” ideas “to implementation”, and 2015 would be the very earliest.

My hon. Friend makes the vital point that we need to do more to promote mathematics and science. The English baccalaureate does that. The increased emphasis in many academies and free schools that have opened under the Government does that, but there is still more that we can do, and I shall meet representatives from higher education and our best schools just before Christmas to see what we can do to encourage more girls to do even better in mathematics and science.

[Mr David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough) (Lab)]

I think that our young people deserve slightly better than the regrettable remarks from the Chair of the Select Committee.

In the four years in which I was privileged to serve as Education and Employment Secretary, I tried to persuade the world that it would take time before change achieved results. The world decided that it would hold me to account for the measures that I took. What makes the Secretary of State, after three years and seven months, think that he should not be held to account?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely do believe that we should be held to account for the changes that we have made, which is why I look forward to Ofsted’s report in a fortnight. It will report on what has changed in the course of the past year, and it will reflect, I believe, improved teaching standards in all our schools. Earlier, I ran through some figures—I know that the right hon. Gentleman took note of them—that recorded the increased number of highly qualified teachers in our classrooms. As I mentioned, Andreas Schleicher pointed out that it would take time for the changes that we have introduced to take effect. Just as members of the Opposition Front Bench want to take account of PISA and the OECD, so they should take account of Andreas Schleicher’s comments, which seem to me to be fair and proportionate, and all of us should draw the right lessons from them.

[Mr Nick Gibb (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)]

I refer to my interests in the register.

My right hon. Friend is right to conclude that Britain’s poor standing in the PISA rankings is a reflection of Labour’s education policies and its supine relationship with the teacher unions. Does he share my view that university education faculties, which have trained generations of teachers, should take their share of blame? Should not the Institute of Education and Canterbury Christ Church, two of the biggest teacher training institutions, be held to account, not only for today’s poor figures but for the country’s long tail of underachievement? Education academics are quick to condemn much-needed reform, but there is always a deafening silence from them on days—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman. We must have short questions and short answers.

[Michael Gove]

Not for the first time, and I am sure not for the last time, my hon. Friend hits several nails squarely on the head.

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

Twenty years ago, the greatest underachievement in schools in this country was in London and other big cities, which is why the Labour Government introduced programmes such as the London Challenge and Teach First, which the Secretary of State has praised. Andreas Schleicher has talked about autonomy, but he has also talked about collaboration. What have the Government done to implement Ofsted’s report from June, “Unseen children”, which called for new sub-regional challenges modelled on Labour’s London Challenge?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman makes a number of good points. It is the case that the London Challenge was a success. Other systems of sub-regional collaboration introduced under the previous Government were less conspicuously successful. If we look at the ingredients of the London Challenge, we find that they were primarily growth in the number of academies, greater autonomy for head teachers and a rigorous approach—[Interruption] —and a greater and more rigorous approach to underperformance in schools that needed new leadership. Through the academies programme, we have ensured that schools across the country that have underperformed are under new leadership. It has been called the “forced academies programme”, and there has been no support for it from those on the Labour Front Bench. I hope that now they will show their support for this rigorous attempt to tackle underperformance, but I fear that they will remain silent, and will continue to have their strings pulled by their union paymasters.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Nearly 50 colleagues are seeking to catch my eye, but I fear that many might end up disappointed. If I am to have any chance of accommodating the level of interest, what is needed is a question without preamble—that is to say, a request for information, which might be thought to be the meaning of the word “question”.

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

Does the Secretary of State accept that instead of always looking abroad for good practice he might come to my constituency, where the quality of education is superbly high, as it is in neighbouring constituencies in Hampshire, and he could look at how it achieves the excellence from which my daughter benefited?

[Michael Gove]

I visited Eastleigh several times in the past 18 months, and I learned a great deal. It is the case, as the hon. Gentleman points out, that in Hampshire there are many excellent schools and sixth-form colleges. It is absolutely right that we should applaud success and excellence in this country as well as abroad.

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

Last week, I met Swedish journalists on behalf of the Education Committee, and it is true that they are really worried about their dramatic fall down the international league tables, which they partly blamed on the free school experiment. They told me that their equivalent of Ofsted had closed 20 such schools since September. Does the Secretary of State not agree that it is time to learn from such mistakes and puts schools and pupils before ideology?

[Michael Gove]

It is absolutely the case that there is a difference between Sweden and this country. Sweden did not have an equivalent of Ofsted until 2008, and it does not have the external system of accountability through testing that we have had in this country. Autonomy works, but only with strong accountability, which is why it is important, and why I hope the hon. Lady will encourage her Front Benchers to support the English baccalaureate.

[Mr Aidan Burley (Cannock Chase) (Con)]

The Secretary of State said that a common feature of high-performing schools is their ability to remove underperforming teachers, but between 2001 and 2011 only 17 of England’s 400,000 teachers were judged to be incompetent by the General Teaching Council. What can he do to fight trade union protectionism of failing teachers, and root out all the dead wood?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have introduced a system of more effective performance management and performance-related pay. I hope that the Labour party will support it in the interests of all students.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that the message goes out that the reaction to the PISA results is positive? The teaching profession and the people who work in and run our schools must know that we have a good education system. It is not perfect, but we undervalue the work that many of our teachers do. At the moment, however, they do not do enough for the 30% lowest-achieving students. That is where we should concentrate our activity.

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

A head teacher recently told me, “The Secretary of State is a dreadful person, and absolutely hopeless, but his policies are absolutely right and I’m implementing them with gusto.” Is it better to be right rather than liked?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is both right and liked universally across the House. If I agree with him, I hope that I am right, but I can never aspire to be as liked or as popular as he is.

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

When did the Secretary of State last meet the Minister for Education in Northern Ireland to discuss educational performance with an emphasis on the fairer distribution of financial resources?

[Michael Gove]

I had the opportunity to talk to Minister O’Dowd several months ago, when I also talked to the Welsh Education Minister. It is striking that Northern Ireland is broadly at the same level as England in these results but Labour-run Wales is significantly behind. I think that we can draw the appropriate conclusions about that. I hope to visit Northern Ireland in the new year to talk to head teachers and others about how we can work together to ensure that our examination systems are aligned in a way that promotes social mobility across all these islands in the interests of a truly united kingdom.

[Conor Burns (Bournemouth West) (Con)]

I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for yesterday meeting Kate Forbes, an excellent young English teacher from Bourne academy in my constituency, to discuss her ideas for the implementation of grammar in the secondary system. It is people like Miss Forbes, who share his determination that the child should come first, whom we should be listening to in implementing his reforms.

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It was a pleasure to meet the teacher from his constituency, who is wholly committed to implementing the reforms we have introduced, utterly committed to raising standards for every child and, to my mind, representative and emblematic of the idealistic and supremely talented young people now entering teaching.

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State think that the Singapore authorities would employ untrained teachers, and does he back their system, which sees children put under immense pressure to work from dawn to dusk and beyond to compete with their peers and with us?

[Michael Gove]

I think that we can learn a great deal from Singapore’s education system, not least the way in which its principals have great flexibility over whom they employ and how they reward them. As for working harder, I think that we have to acknowledge that we all must work harder to ensure that our children have more opportunities in future. We need to explore ways of extending the school day and ensuring that there are greater opportunities for all our children to learn more.

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

We have inherited a situation in which the best indicator of a child’s future educational achievement is the parents’ income. Does the Secretary of State agree that until the attainment gap is narrowed, the UK will be unable to make significant leaps up the international league tables?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the weaknesses in our education system, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman) pointed out, and indeed in our whole nation, is the fact that we labour under the problem of having a stratified and segregated schools system, and it is more stratified and segregated than most. One of the things that is helping to tackle that, of course, is the investment in the pupil premium, championed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Schools, which we are happy to implement as part of a coalition Government.

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

In 2010 the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) promised to learn from the best education systems in the world with the most highly qualified teachers, so why have the Government removed the requirement that teachers be qualified to degree level?

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out in response to the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), there are now more highly qualified teachers than ever before in all our schools. I hope that the hon. Lady will join me in championing the reforms we have made, which have brought hope to her constituents, who I am afraid suffered in the past as a result of a failed, leftist, National Union of Teachers orthodoxy, which I hope that she, like me, as a Blairite, will now vigorously condemn.

[Craig Whittaker (Calder Valley) (Con)]

Is it any wonder that Britain’s youth have not been prepared for the global race? Under Labour, one in every three pupils left primary school unable to read and write, the number of pupils sitting hard-core subjects halved and our employers totally lost faith in our exam system.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. One of the things that has changed under this Government is that more students than ever before are studying physics, chemistry and biology, and we have seen a revival in the number studying modern foreign languages and an increase in the number studying geography and history at GCSE. Those are the subjects that give students the chance to succeed and that advance social mobility. I hope that Opposition Front Benchers will at last endorse the English baccalaureate, which has driven those changes.

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

May I remind the Secretary of State that in the mid-1990s some schools in my constituency had roofs that leaked and fewer than 10% of their pupils got five or more good GCSEs? Will he acknowledge that at the core of the many improvements that have taken place since has been a teaching work force who are both highly motivated and properly qualified?

[Michael Gove]

I have enormous respect for the right hon. Gentleman. He is right that one of the things we need to do is ensure that there is proper investment in every part of our schools system. That is why it is so important that the PISA report confirms that we have one of the most socially just systems of education funding. It is also critically important that we have reduced the cost of new school building so that we can spread our investment more equitably. He is right about more highly qualified teachers, which is why it is good that there are more graduates with better degrees than ever before in our schools.

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

The Secretary of State has rightly highlighted the need for exam reform, but when I taught year 1 it was obvious that too many children turned up ill-prepared and ill-equipped for school compared with their peers, so early intervention is really important. I urge him to look closely at the imagination library model we have set up in North Lincolnshire, which now provides free books every month to 3,500 children in the area.

[Michael Gove]

It sounds like a fantastic initiative, and it reinforces the additional investment we have made in the early years.

[Jenny Chapman (Darlington) (Lab)]

Is there any connection between the fact that the UK is struggling in international league tables when trying to develop a globally competitive work force and the fact that there are unqualified maths teachers in our schools?

[Michael Gove]

We have more highly qualified teachers in our schools than ever before, particularly in mathematics.

[Simon Kirby (Brighton, Kemptown) (Con)]

Does my right hon. Friend remember visiting Falmer high school in my constituency, which has now been replaced by the excellent Brighton Aldridge community academy, which is driving up standards and improving chances for young people who really need it?

[Michael Gove]

I do remember visiting that school and applaud my hon. Friend’s commitment to advancing educational achievement for all students. Let me take this opportunity to thank Rod Aldridge and all the sponsors behind the academies programme, who have done so much to tackle underperformance in our weaker schools. They are heroes.

[Meg Munn (Sheffield, Heeley) (Lab/Co-op)]

The Secretary of State has said that accountability should be intelligent, but for too many schools in my constituency the Ofsted inspections over the past decade have not felt intelligent. They have failed to take account of the progress that has been made and the ability of the schools to progress further, focusing instead on an attainment level. Is it not now time to reform the process so that real improvement can be supported and encouraged further?

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right. The chief inspector agrees with her, as do I. We are changing the way schools are measured in league tables in order to ensure that it is progress that matters, rather than simply raw attainment. Ofsted inspections are becoming more sophisticated, with more serving senior leaders conducting them.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

We see in these results that in the highest-performing countries children from disadvantaged backgrounds are more than twice as likely as similarly disadvantaged children in the UK to make it into the world’s top quartile in mathematics. Does that not demonstrate how necessary it is that we have the additional pupil premium money, ensuring that every child has a decent chance to get on in life?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The investment in the pupil premium, the investment in additional pre-school education for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds and a concentration on helping students who are falling behind in year 6 at the end of primary school to catch up—all policies championed by the Deputy Prime Minister and the Minister for Schools—are integral to advancing social mobility.

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

One of the most serious issues is the disparity between the achievement of boys and girls in maths and science, which is the result of deep-seated cultural and educational bias within the system. One of the ways of addressing that is to engage businesses, particularly manufacturing, in schools and to have schools assessed on their ability to get students into vocational as well as academic occupations. Unfortunately, the Government have not been prepared to take up the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills recommendation on that. Will the Secretary of State look at it again?

[Michael Gove]

I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that it is vital that we build on and improve the links between business and schools. The university technical colleges programme is designed to do just that, but there is much more we can do. I have been talking recently to Sir Charlie Mayfield, of the UK Commission for Employment and Skills, to see how we can go even further. Of course, it is vital that we all embed the reforms set out in Alison Wolf’s report, which are designed to improve technical education and ensure that all education is more relevant to the work of business.

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

Last week I attended an inspirational awards evening at Hall Mead academy in my constituency, where the pupils are high achievers not only in academic subjects but in sport, drama, music, art and social and interpersonal skills. Does that not demonstrate how the Secretary of State’s reforms have given head teachers the freedom to enable their standards to rise continuously?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no tension between academic excellence and a rich range of extra-curricular activities; in fact, they reinforce each other, as the best schools recognise, including the academy in her constituency.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Between 1998 and 2010 in constituencies like mine, there were significant improvements in educational attainment and the quality of school buildings and equipment, due partly to the hard work of teachers, the support of the local authority, and the core funding that was put in. What is the Secretary of State doing to promote collaboration between these excellent and outstanding schools and head teachers and other schools, and what happened to the promise of £35 million in 2010?

[Michael Gove]

We are doing that through academy chains, multi-academy trusts, and the establishment of teaching school alliances. There are now more than 300 teaching schools, which have head teachers who are working with underperforming schools to provide continuous professional development and to enhance the quality of every interaction between every teacher and every child. The programme is being led by the inspirational head of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, Charlie Taylor.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

I gather that this morning my right hon. Friend had the opportunity to listen to the piece on the “Today” programme about maths in Singapore. It is difficult to believe that children in Singapore necessarily have any greater cognitive skills than their UK counterparts, so I wonder what work is being done to look at the process and technique of teaching mathematics in Singapore to see whether any lessons need to be learned.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Some schools, including academies and free schools such as those established by the ARK chain, explicitly use the Singaporean mathematics curriculum, but our new national curriculum has also been informed by practice not only in Singapore but in other high-performing jurisdictions.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

These figures will mask a lot of differences between the performance of children from different economic backgrounds. Given that children from poor backgrounds tend to perform much less well because of economic and educational disadvantage, what steps is the Secretary of State taking to ensure that the performance of those children is improved and that resources are made available to them?

[Michael Gove]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. He is a teacher himself, so he knows how important it is to make sure that learning is targeted at children in an appropriate way to recognise the different abilities that different children have at different stages in their lives. Through the pupil premium, we are making sure that more money is spent at every stage of a child’s life if they come from a poorer background. We are also changing the way in which league tables operate so that more schools have to pay more attention to children from underprivileged backgrounds to ensure that we get the most out of them.

[Stephen Metcalfe (South Basildon and East Thurrock) (Con)]

An outstanding school is invariably led by an outstanding head teacher. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that every school has an outstanding head teacher? Will he consider introducing a system that allows excellent teachers who have been promoted to head teacher to move back down if they do not have the necessary skills to be an excellent head?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is not necessary to be an outstanding head teacher to be an outstanding contributor to excellence in one or in many schools. It is important that we recognise the different ways in which teachers can be celebrated. Our system of performance-related pay will ensure that people who are outstanding and want to lead and to exemplify great teaching will be rewarded appropriately. I therefore hope that Labour Members will support it.

[Chris Williamson (Derby North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State keeps claiming that there has been a reduction in the number of unqualified teachers, but will he confirm that there has been a whopping 141% increase in unqualified teachers in academies and free schools and explain how that will improve our international standing?

[Michael Gove]

There has been a significant reduction in the number of unqualified teachers overall. However, some schools in the free schools programme were formerly independent schools that did not have teachers with qualified teacher status. For example, University College school in Hampstead has had teachers who did not have qualified teacher status, as have outstanding schools like Liverpool College that are now in the state system. I am very glad that, thanks to the work of Lord Adonis in the other place, schools like Liverpool College have now entered the state system. We are nationalising these private schools, and that is a worthwhile, progressive goal with which, I hope, Labour Front Benchers would agree.

[Chris Skidmore (Kingswood) (Con)]

What lessons does the Secretary of State take from the widening discrepancy in the PISA tests between English pupils and pupils in Labour-run Wales?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I am afraid that in Wales, a country for which I have enormous affection, the Welsh Labour Government chose to abandon league tables and external accountability. The current Welsh Administration are unfortunately not matching our commitment to spending in schools. The conclusion that we can draw is that if people want to know what our education system would be like if the country were foolishly to vote Labour at the next election, they need only look over the Severn to see a country going backwards.

[Yvonne Fovargue (Makerfield) (Lab)]

Can the Secretary of State explain how the appointment of an unqualified maths teacher will help to design and deliver a course with a more stretching mathematical content?

[Michael Gove]

The fact that there are more highly qualified teachers in our schools than ever before is a very good thing that I hope the hon. Lady would support. If she is referring to South Leeds academy, as the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central (Tristram Hunt) did, the advertisement was misleading: it was not advertising for unqualified teachers but advertising for classroom assistants who would train in due course, as classroom assistants currently do. If the hon. Gentleman contacted the school, he would know that he has made a mistake. I hope that he will contact the school to apologise for his unfair and inaccurate depiction of the situation and show himself to be big enough to apologise for having got something wrong.

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

Can my right hon. Friend explain why, while English schools have sadly fallen down the league tables, GCSE rates have soared?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Last time the OECD issued a report, I am afraid that Opposition Front Benchers rubbished it because, so they said, GCSE results improved under Labour. It is therefore clearly the case that our children are significantly more literate and numerate. The truth is that there was improvement under the previous Government, but, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Stephen Twigg) pointed out, there was also grade inflation. That grade inflation has been laid bare by international studies showing that while we have improved, other countries have improved far faster, and it is vitally important that we recognise that and learn from them.

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

The results in Wales are disappointing, but they are also disappointing in other parts of the UK, so making political capital is the wrong approach. Does the Secretary of State agree that a common lesson is the need to focus relentlessly on underperformance, and that that is a job not just for governors, head teachers and school teachers but for parents, communities and political leaders, not least those in areas of deprivation and disadvantage?

[Michael Gove]

I cannot disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s conclusion. I would say, however, that the Welsh Administration chose to follow a different path than the reformist path set out by Tony Blair in his education White Paper in 2006. Labour in government deliberately got rid of Tony Blair and abandoned the path of reform during its last three years in office. There is now an opportunity for the hon. Gentleman, who calls himself a Blairite, to embrace reform by agreeing with us. I hope that he will, and that he will learn the lesson from history and from Wales that if you abandon reform, the electorate abandon you.

[Justin Tomlinson (North Swindon) (Con)]

Will performance-related pay help to incentivise heads and teachers to hold teacher training days during the school holidays and not on the first day of term? [Interruption.]

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes not only an acute but a popular point. An interesting thing about the situation in Shanghai is that teacher training—20 days of it, in fact—takes place during the summer holidays. I am not suggesting that we embark on that road now, but I would underline that when we are learning lessons from abroad, we need to acknowledge the vital importance of making sure that continuous professional development is implemented in a way that helps teachers and takes account of parents’ needs.

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

If Hackney schools’ results were extrapolated nationally, we would be about third in the international league tables. That is a direct result of inspired Labour local political leadership, collaboration between excellent head teachers, and the right sort of Government support. What is the Secretary of State doing to make sure that such collaboration is nationalised—to use his word—so that children of all abilities and backgrounds across the country are achieving as they are in Hackney, where the poorest children are progressing as well as the richest?

[Michael Gove]

I have often had the opportunity in the past to draw attention to how well Hackney performs and, indeed, how effectively Hackney is represented in this House by its two MPs when it comes to educational matters. As both the hon. Lady and her parliamentary neighbour acknowledge, it is an emphasis on academic excellence and, indeed, the growth in academy schools that has driven Hackney’s improvement. It is really important that she keeps her Front-Bench colleagues honest by making sure that they back academic excellence and the spread of academisation.

[Guto Bebb (Aberconwy) (Con)]

The Secretary of State has rightly touched on the comparative poor performance in Wales. Would he blame that primarily on the fact that we have a £600 per head funding gap as a result of Labour policy or on the fact that the Labour Government in Cardiff have accepted teaching union dogma for the past 15 years?

[Michael Gove]

Both.

[Ian Austin (Dudley North) (Lab)]

These figures are actually further evidence of the lamentable failure of successive Governments and our country in general to take education seriously enough, so will the Secretary of State set aside his partisan point scoring and agree that what this country needs is a royal commission in order to get cross-party agreement and the support of the teaching profession, business and parents to make education our No.1 priority and to back policies and long-term funding to transform the quality of education our children receive?

[Michael Gove]

I have a lot of time and admiration for the hon. Gentleman. I am not in favour of a royal commission. As someone once said, royal commissions take minutes and last years. I agree that we need a sense of national urgency and a unified commitment to raising standards. I know that the hon. Gentleman agrees in almost every respect with the details of our educational reform, and I look forward to working with him further in the future.

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

My right hon. Friend has highlighted that the best educational systems feature high levels of autonomy. What freedoms is he giving to head teachers to help them get the very best out of pupils?

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Under the academies programme, head teachers have the freedom—as is being used in the King Solomon academy in one of the most deprived parts of London—to vary the curriculum in order to make it fit the needs of individual students. We are also giving all schools greater freedom over who they recruit and how they reward them, in order to make sure that we continue to have more and more talented people in our classrooms.

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

Andreas Schleicher also said that no education system can exceed the quality of its teachers. How does a 141% increase in unqualified teachers in free schools and academies help improve quality?

[Michael Gove]

As I pointed out in response to the question asked by the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson), the increase in the number of unqualified teachers in academies and free schools is a direct result of the nationalisation of independent schools. Overall, the reduction under this Government in the number of teachers without teaching qualifications reflects the fact that teachers are now better qualified than ever before. Critically, the decision over who to hire should be a matter for head teachers. It is critical to the success of any education system that we respect the autonomy of great head teachers to recruit people with the right qualifications for their community and students.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

The Secretary of State will recall meeting some of the outstanding head teachers in Northumberland with me and then authorising the rebuild of Prudhoe community high school. Does he agree with me, Lord Adonis and the other authors of the Adonis report that there is scope for a London challenge-type approach in the north-east?

[Michael Gove]

A lot needs to be done in the north-east in order to improve education. One thing we need to do is ensure that local authorities end their opposition to academisation and free schools and that there is a degree of collaboration among autonomous head teachers who are determined to drive up standards, as we have seen in London.

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

The architect of PISA has demonstrated categorically that the lowest-performing schools in the OECD have autonomy but not a collaborative culture. Is that not the perfect description of the Secretary of State’s reform programme?

[Michael Gove]

No. The perfect description of our reform programme is that it is based on social justice and recognises that the strongest systems combine autonomy with stricter accountability. We have introduced stricter accountability through changes both to Ofsted and to league tables. Unfortunately, those on the Labour Front Bench have not endorsed those changes to help drive up standards. They should be listening to outstanding head teachers who have the right idea, such as Dame Yasmin Bevan in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. The sooner he introduces her to his Front-Bench colleagues, the better for all of us.

[Steve Brine (Winchester) (Con)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that our primary school children are taught by men as well as women, and will he confirm that the number of men training to be primary school teachers is on the rise?

[Michael Gove]

It is absolutely right that we encourage more men to consider teaching, particularly in primary schools, as an aspirational profession. I am delighted that there has been an increase in the number of highly talented men entering primary teaching.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

Although it may be politically attractive to try to scare people with the red herring of unqualified teachers, is this not really a question of trusting heads? Non-qualified teacher status teachers have long existed in the state sector, but they are relatively few in number and fewer now than under the previous Government. As it happens, the most improved region—London—employs the most.

[Michael Gove]

My hon. Friend makes a characteristically well-informed point. One of the revealing things over the past 50 minutes or so is that some Labour MPs have been wise enough to acknowledge that there is a great deal of common ground between both parties on the need to reform our schools system, but those Labour MPs who have asked critical questions have criticised us on only one thing and they have used statistics that, I am afraid, simply mislead.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

In maths, science and reading, Poland is at least 10 places above us in the international league tables. Does Poland spend more than us on education? If not, what is it doing that we could emulate?

[Michael Gove]

Poland does not spend more than us; indeed, Vietnam, which outperforms us in mathematics, spends significantly less than us. What they do have is a commitment to higher standards that are rigorously policed. Poland’s curriculum is modelled on, or is similar to, our English baccalaureate. Both Vietnam and Poland have a determination to place standards on a higher plane than those on the Opposition Front Bench would contemplate.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the outcomes in Wales are nothing short of a scandal and that they are the ultimate demonstration of Labour’s education policy in action? There are parents across Wales, and even some in this House, who are genuinely worried about the future of their children’s education. Will the Secretary of State encourage the Welsh Government to follow his robust reforms?

[Michael Gove]

Wales acts almost as a controlled sample. Welsh children are as intelligent and motivated as children in England, but unfortunately in Wales there are no academies, no free schools, no league tables, no chief inspector such as Sir Michael Wilshaw and no determination to reform like this coalition Government. It is an object lesson in what happens when people abandon reform and succumb to the NUT orthodoxy, which I am afraid has suffocated aspiration for far too many children in the Principality.

[Robert Halfon (Harlow) (Con)]

University technical schools have huge potential to transform education through their emphasis on technical education, vocation and science and mathematics. Such a school will open in Harlow next year. Will my right hon. Friend expand the university technical school programme even further in order that young people may gain the vocational and technical expertise from which they will benefit?

[Michael Gove]

University technical colleges are an excellent innovation and we want to make sure that there are more high-performing UTCs.

[Mr Speaker]

I am pleased to say that 45 Back Benchers contributed in only 36 minutes of exclusively Back-Bench time, which is a commentary on the succinctness of both the questions and the answers. I thank colleagues for that.

Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure to declare, I call Dr Hywel Francis.

13:27

[Dr Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 9 October, I spoke in the debate on part 2 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill. I made it clear in my speech that I was doing so on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which I Chair. With hindsight, even though I was speaking on behalf of my Committee, I now recognise that I should have drawn the House’s attention to my personal declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests with regard to a relevant registered donation. I therefore apologise to the House for that omission.

[Mr Speaker]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he has said.

Decarbonisation

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

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

13:28

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the setting of a decarbonisation target for the UK; and for connected purposes.

It is incumbent on this House and every Member to ensure that future generations do better than the generation before. That is no truer than in the area of climate change and the significant impact it will have on communities in the UK and all over the world. We have seen in recent years a considerable rise in natural disasters caused by freak weather, none more so than the recent tragedy in the Philippines. We must not lose sight of the fact that the effects of climate change and high energy prices are felt most acutely by the poorest in our societies. That is why this House should take the opportunity to do all it can to ensure that we decarbonise our energy and make a contribution to addressing the deepening climate crisis.

In the next decade, a quarter of Britain’s power stations are set to close and £200 billion-worth of investment is required to supply the UK’s energy needs. On this Government’s watch, however, there has been a collapse in clean energy investment. The much referred to independent analysis by Bloomberg New Energy Finance shows that investment in renewable energy has fallen dramatically since 2010: in 2009, investment in clean energy reached $11.06 billion; this year, investment is likely to be less than $3 billion, which is the lowest level since 2006. Some very high-profile projects have been cancelled or delayed that our energy generation and economy can ill afford to lose. Those figures should disturb any hon. Member who cares about clean and affordable energy.

In October, a group of investors responsible for more than £1 trillion of investment worldwide wrote to the Government to argue that leaving a decarbonisation target out of the Energy Bill inhibits investment decisions and negatively impacts on the UK’s ability to attract the capital needed to update its “ageing infrastructure”. Aviva, one of the UK’s largest institutional investors, has said that a target must be set before 2016—the Government have implied that that will be the date—otherwise investment will be fundamentally affected.

The Bill would set in legislation a decarbonisation target to give the energy generation sector the boost it requires by giving it the certainty to invest. That certainty is essential to the researchers and academics, spin-out companies and start-ups, in my constituency. Edinburgh South is home to the university of Edinburgh’s King’s Buildings, a base for pioneering low-carbon development that hosts industries, companies and the university’s world-leading low-carbon technology research and development centre. On regular visits to the campus, it has been made clear to me that future funding depends on a clear policy direction from this Government. I am introducing the Bill to launch my “Hit the target” campaign for decarbonisation.

The Energy Bill has almost concluded its passage through the House, with Lords amendments being considered tomorrow. There has been a robust debate about putting a decarbonisation target into that Bill, and doing so would have shown strong commitment and leadership on this important issue. The target is not, however, just about showing strong leadership in the fight against climate change, but about developing a new and dynamic green economy that puts the UK at the forefront of low-carbon technology, so developing the skills and jobs of the future and diversifying the economy to ensure that it delivers for everyone.

A clear decarbonisation target would help to stimulate green growth in the economy, tackle spiralling energy bills, improve energy security and, of course, reduce our carbon footprint. Not having my Bill might leave households even more vulnerable to completely unnecessary increases in their energy bills, and cause Britain to miss out on vital new clean energy jobs.

I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for supporting the Bill. Given such cross-party consensus and the fact that the Government want, at least in principle, to set a decarbonisation target, I cannot see why that should not be achieved. My Bill is intended to ensure that the target is put into primary legislation. It is simply not good enough for the Secretary of State—incidentally, he used to support this stance—to be given the power to set a target at some point after 2016, and for the legislation to state that he may, and I emphasise “may”, then decide to set a target.

A decarbonisation target is supported by a wide range of experts, including hundreds of businesses, investors, non-governmental organisations, civil society organisations, faith groups, trade unions and, critically, energy companies, including SSE and EDF. They have clearly stated:

“A sector-specific target for 2030 would give investors a clear signal about the direction of energy policy after 2020 and encourage greater investment in UK-based supply chains.”

Critically, decarbonising power is the gateway to the decarbonisation of other sectors. We can ill afford more of the Government indecision that we have witnessed on feed-in tariffs, which almost brought the industry for solar power crashing to its knees overnight.

If we do not decarbonise the power sector, we have no hope of meeting our climate change targets. The Climate Change Act 2008, brought in by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, committed the UK to a legally binding reduction of carbon dioxide emissions by 80% by 2050. To meet the 2050 target, the influential Committee on Climate Change has since recommended that the power sector be decarbonised by 2030. In practice, that means reducing average emissions in power generation from 486g of CO₂ per kWh to 50g of CO₂ per kWh by 2030.

The danger of missing our carbon targets was echoed by the Prime Minister in 2010, when he endorsed the decarbonisation of the electricity sector by 2030, and said:

“If we don’t decarbonise electricity we’ve got no hope of meeting all the targets that we are all committed to.”

Such a target is also good for consumers. During my weekly surgery just last Friday, a pensioner told me in no uncertain terms that this winter she faces having to decide whether to heat her home or to eat, which is surely unacceptable.

The Bill would sit alongside Labour’s 10-point plan for energy, which will fundamentally transform the energy market in the UK, freeze energy prices and make energy more affordable, while helping the industry to invest and plan for the future. One could say that this is the greenest Opposition ever.

The Bill has three key components: first, that a target will be set in 2014; secondly, that the target will be met by 2030; and, thirdly, taking advice from the Committee on Climate Change, that emissions will be reduced to between 50g CO₂ per kWh and 100g CO₂ per kWh. The Bill is very simple, but it clearly says that we will give investors certainty, that we care about climate change and jobs in the green economy, and that we want security of supply and cheaper and more efficient energy. Finally, my constituents want it to be implemented urgently, and the House should support the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Ordered,

That Ian Murray, Dr Julian Huppert, Mark Durkan, Dr Alan Whitehead, Diana Johnson, Ann McKechin, Caroline Lucas, Andrew George, Joan Walley, Albert Owen, Mark Lazarowicz and Sheila Gilmore present the Bill.

Ian Murray accordingly presented the Bill.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February 2014, and to be printed (Bill 141).

Opposition Day

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

[14th Allotted Day]

Cyber-bullying

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

13:37

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House recognises the serious problem of cyber-bullying and the appalling consequences for an increasing number of children and young people who are its victims; and calls on the Government to take action to help eradicate this form of intimidation and harassment, including the consideration of legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.

I rise to speak on the motion in my name and those of my right hon. and hon. Friends. I do so in the reassuring knowledge that it is more than likely, I trust, that in the general thrust of a debate on cyber-bullying, party political differences will, for the most part, be set to one side. I say that not out of any sense of presumption, but it is borne of my experiences as a Member of this House and of the united opposition of all parties to the growing phenomena of cyber-bullying and internet trolling.

Let us remind ourselves that cyber-bullying is the use of electronic communication to bully a person, typically by sending intimidating or threatening messages. Most hon. Members in the Chamber have access to a mobile phone, an iPad and other electronic devices, which we rely on in carrying out our responsibilities as elected representatives. Our phones and mobile devices are all equipped with software that allows even the most novice of users to browse the internet, and if we so wish, to communicate via social media.

I engage with my constituents via social media daily. Today, technology allows me to reach out and express my views to thousands of people at the click of a button. That is a very useful tool, but the fact that a person can reach out to thousands of people by the click of a button is a harrowing one for approximately 65% of teenagers. We will be blinded by facts and figures in this debate, but they must all be aired to hit home what a problem cyber-bullying is and what a lasting effect it has. We hear more and more reports of young people who take their own lives as a result of bullying, and cyber-bullying in particular.

I arranged to meet Dr Arthur Cassidy, who heads up an organisation in my constituency called the Yellow Ribbon. Dr Cassidy is involved in UK-wide research into cyber-bullying and internet trolling. He has carried out comprehensive research on the effects of bullying on young people, including the long-term effects on the development of its victims. Recent reports have found that approximately 65% of teenagers say that they have experienced online bullying or trolling, with the most common form being cruel posts that comment on the way that someone is dressed or on what they look like. Some 48% of those teenagers said that it had made them feel very upset. More than half of that 65% said that it was happening to them at least once a week.

The anonymity permitted by certain forms of online social interaction can give bullies the false impression that they can say anything they wish, no matter how hurtful, with little consequence for themselves or for the person they might have harmed. Children have the right to feel safe and secure, particularly when they are at school. Schoolchildren are still developing and do not always have the wisdom to avoid cyber-bullying or to seek out the best solutions or help in dealing with this issue.

In October, I contacted every post-primary school in my constituency and asked each school to identify two student representatives to sit on a forum to discuss cyber-bullying. The meeting was attended by Dr Arthur Cassidy, the Police Service of Northern Ireland, the community safety partnership and some parents. I thank them all for their help. I felt that it was essential to engage with young people and to hear their views on how social media affect them both positively and negatively.

Many of the children emphasised how difficult it can be to find help when they have been bullied and to get adults to listen to them. They said that many adults do not understand social media and that more should be done to educate parents and teachers about cyber-bullying. I was very impressed by the openness of the young people at the forum. I was hesitant when it was brought together, because I did not think that they would open up in such a forum, but they did. On that day, I made a commitment to those young people that I would do whatever I could as their Member of Parliament to urge the Government to take whatever steps were needed to tackle this growing phenomenon.

I am pleased to say that steps have been taken in my constituency to address the problem. A workshop is scheduled to take place tomorrow evening to offer advice to parents who are concerned about keeping up to date with modern technology and who want to know what they can do to keep their children safe online. I commend the children and young people’s strategic partnership for its role in making that happen.

We need to work together to eradicate cyber-bullying. The venom that a cyber-bully produces has been proven to leave long-term effects and to make the lives of their victims miserable. Many victims succumb to anxiety, depression and other stress-related disorders. The anonymity and protection of distance makes it easier to push the boundaries and to provoke and taunt with practically no accountability.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing forward this important subject. I am interested to hear of the progress that he is making with schools in his constituency. Is not part of the problem the lack of confidence among parents of my generation, older generations and even younger generations, who lack the technological savvy to tackle the problem head-on with their children? Schools have a responsibility to educate not just children, but parents so that they know how to educate and look after their children.

[David Simpson]

Progress is being made on that. Our forum will meet again in the second week of January to hear an update. Hopefully we will see more movement from the Government and the Northern Ireland Assembly on this matter.

The hon. Gentleman is right that in today’s society, talking is almost a thing of the past between parents and their children. They do not interact in the way that they used to. Parents do not understand such things—I am one of them. Because of the generation that I grew up in, I still use just one finger on an iPad, let alone on a full computer. A lot of education is needed.

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend had the same sort of education as me and, although he is an economist, I know that he has the same one-finger problem with computers.

[Sammy Wilson]

I assure my hon. Friend that I will never be cyber-bullied because I do not have access to the means by which I could be cyber-bullied, nor do I wish to have it. He has talked about the impact on pupils. Does he also accept that one in 10 teachers has been bullied online—however that is done—which can affect their teaching and make them fear for their families?

[David Simpson]

My hon. Friend is correct that this problem affects not only children, but young adults and older folk. I mentioned Dr Cassidy. Without going into too much detail, he has to deal with such bullying on the mainland at least once a year in relation to TV personalities who appear on some of the hottest programmes on a Saturday night. He has to deal with that issue with the BBC and UTV. My hon. Friend is correct that teachers are abused in this way as well, and that needs to be dealt with.

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that 80,000 children in the United Kingdom suffer from severe depression. That includes 8,000 children under the age of 10. We as a society need to take responsibility for preventing harmful and antisocial behaviour such as cyber-bullying and for dealing effectively with incidents of virtual violence. We need an integrated approach in which Government, schools, parents, internet service providers and charities work together to keep the most vulnerable people safe.

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

I was hoping to speak in this debate, but at 2 o’clock I have to attend the Public Bill Committee considering the Water Bill and the Health Committee simultaneously, which will be interesting. I wanted to raise with the hon. Gentleman the responsibility of those who host the websites. A 17-year-old constituent of mine, Kira Lisseter, came to me after comments were posted on a US website, littlegossip.com. We wrote to the Minister, who was very helpful and did all that he could. We also tried to raise the matter with the internet service provider and the hosts, but response came there none. The hon. Gentleman is right that we can do a lot through education and Government action, but we also need the people who host the websites to be far more responsible.

[David Simpson]

I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. The hosts need to be brought to book in respect of how they operate. They have to realise what this problem is doing to young people.

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

I, too, congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his party on initiating this debate. To follow on from the previous point, I have seen constituents who have had fake Twitter accounts set up in their name, which have been linked to bullying. They do not know what others are saying using that account. Does he agree that a key point is that there needs to be greater verification of people who set up accounts, and that anonymous accounts that cannot be linked or traced should not be allowed?

[David Simpson]

Absolutely. There needs to be proper accountability and due diligence when Twitter or other accounts are set up, because the problem causes major difficulties for people in general, not just children.

A girl of 13 said:

“It is worse being bullied over the internet because everyone can see and it makes you feel little and small and worthless.”

As I have said, the problem does not just affect children or teenagers. A girl of 21 said:

“They would call me horrendous names, spreading rumours and behind my back tell people to ignore me online. Other times they would add me to a big group conversation online and really dig into me. They also hacked in to my account and I was sent a really aggressive email from a group of girls”.

Another child said:

“I felt that no one understood what I was going through. I didn’t know who was sending me these messages, and I felt powerless to know what to do.”

In August, the Prime Minister spoke out, saying:

“The people that operate these websites have got to step up to the plate and show some responsibility in the way that they run these websites.”

With respect, the Government, too, must step up to the plate and impose strict regulations on internet service providers, social network sites and mobile phone networks, to ensure that we eradicate the problem at the root. As the motion suggests, they should consider introducing legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.

The Canadian Government are already actively combating cyber-bullying and have recently amended their online crime Act to bring it up to date with modern technology, although I understand that there is still some controversy about the legislation, with young activists and child psychologists voicing concerns that the public may have been misled into thinking that it would deal with cyber-bullying, whereas they see it as only a partial solution. However, it is something to work on and build on. I understand that the Republic of Ireland is also considering legislation to make cyber-bullying a crime.

The Government might recognise the impact of cyber-bullying, but there is no specific UK law that makes cyber-bullying illegal. I understand that it can be considered a criminal offence under legislation such as the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, but there is no specific law to deal with it.

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

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Government should define clearly the term “cyber-bullying”, which is different from cyber-stalking, trolling or other online offences, so that we can see where the boundaries of that behaviour lie and change people’s behaviour online? Many people hide behind the anonymity of a computer to do things online that they would not do to him, me or anyone else face to face.

[David Simpson]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We need to define cyber-bullying, and there needs to be a criminal offence. Those who receive sentences get 17 or 18 weeks, which is nothing, and are then out again and reoffending—it is a badge of honour. Something drastic needs to be done to eradicate the problem.

We must prioritise the development of a strategy to educate both parents and children. There is absolutely no time to waste, because all the studies that have been done have reached a similar conclusion: cyber-bullying is a dramatically growing trend, not just a passing phase. It is seriously damaging young people’s self-esteem and future prospects and having a negative impact on their performance at school and their health. It will continue to grow if we do not act fast. Work needs to be done to make ways of reporting such hate crimes more accessible. Children, young people and the vulnerable need to know that when they require help, support is already in place for them, and adults need to be there not only to offer that support but to be role models of respectable behaviour.

13:55

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr Edward Vaizey)]

I thank the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) for tabling this important motion and for his measured and serious speech. It was good to hear about the work that he is doing in his constituency to encourage the education of parents about technology. Although it might be true that adults are not as technologically savvy as their teenage children, the debate shows that adults, particularly him, take a strong interest in children’s welfare, especially given the new and venomous trend of cyber-bullying.

It goes without saying that we must take bullying in general, and cyber-bullying in particular, very seriously. I therefore welcome the opportunity to have this debate so that I can listen to the House’s views and set out some of the initiatives that the Government are taking to combat cyber-bullying.

It is good to see the House debating the subject, and it goes without saying that bullying is high on parents’ lists of concerns about their children when they are at school. We know that the impact of bullying can be devastating for those who are bullied, sometimes with the most tragic of consequences. Cyber-bullying is often an extension of bullying that takes place at school, and the fact that it can follow those being bullied to their home, giving them no respite or refuge, makes it all the more insidious and harmful. I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that the anonymity and distance provided online provoke an almost unintelligible venom. I am not an apologist for physical bullying, but we almost cannot imagine such venom were the bully and the bullied face to face. That takes cyber-bullying to another level of insidiousness.

As the hon. Gentleman said, our children now have great access to the internet. There is internet access in virtually every household—91%—in which children live, and more teenagers than adults own smartphones as a proportion of their population. Developing children’s skills in this digital age is therefore incredibly important. It is also worth reminding the House of how quickly the phenomenon has come upon us. I fought my first election in 2005, when I became a relatively young and junior Member, without YouTube and Twitter and virtually without Facebook. Facebook came into being in 2004, YouTube in 2005 and Twitter in 2006. Now those and a plethora of other sites are integral to the lives not just of Members but of the children who use them. Ensuring that children can use those technologies safely is incredibly important and will become increasingly so.

The hon. Gentleman referred, as does the motion, to creating a specific crime of cyber-bullying. I certainly took on board what he said, and the hon. Member for Everton—

[Steve Rotheram]

Liverpool, Walton.

[Mr Vaizey]

Sorry, the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram)—I always think of him as the hon. Member for Everton because of his stalwart support for that team—made the point that the Government should define cyber-bullying. It is important to be clear that Governments should not legislate where legislation is unnecessary. We will continue to listen to his case, but as he said, current legislation is in use.

To add to the Acts already mentioned by the hon. Member for Upper Bann, the Communications Act 2003 makes it illegal to send menacing messages, and in 2012 there were 2,000 prosecutions for that offence. The Director of Public Prosecutions has issued guidance on defining cyber-bullying—certainly on trolling—and prosecutors are not afraid to take action when there is a clear case of malicious attacks on the internet.

[Steve Rotheram]

Does the Minister therefore regret the decision by the Crown Prosecution Service to raise the threshold for prosecutions against those who commit such offences online?

[Mr Vaizey]

I think it was right for the DPP and CPS to consult extensively on the issue, and to make a considered decision. The risk of almost limitless potential prosecutions must be balanced against the need for a credible policy and credible prosecutions. I am sure the debate on that will continue, but I think the process was carefully considered and not rushed into. Neither was there any wish to underestimate the impact of some of the cyber-bullying.

[David Simpson]

Does the Minister agree that although legislation can be used, it is not stopping the problem? Cyber-bullying is a growing trend and a virus that is sweeping the country. Surely something more radical needs to be done to protect our young people.

[Mr Vaizey]

As I said, as well as setting out what the Government are doing, I am here to listen to views from all sides of the House. As the hon. Gentleman made clear, I hope this will be a thoughtful debate about something on which Members are united, which is to see this venomous trend—to use his powerful adjective—curtailed in the best way we can. On the criminal element, as I understand, the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Bill will include a new offence of causing nuisance and annoyance and there will be the opportunity for someone to get an antisocial behaviour order against people who cause nuisance and annoyance. That can also be used in cases of cyber-bullying.

As well as criminal law, it is important to consider the other issues raised by the hon. Gentleman in his excellent opening remarks, including the whole ecology that exists in terms of we in society uniting to combat this scourge. I hear what he says about cyber-bullying being a growing threat, and I welcome his constructive suggestions—for example, he made a point about doing rather than talking in the work to educate parents in his constituency.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend said that nuisance and annoyance may be covered by new legislation, but we are talking not about that but about downright abuse that can lead some people to commit suicide. Can he tell the House how many people have been prosecuted under the Malicious Communications Act 1988 or the Communications Act 2003 for offences that this House would recognise as forms of cyber-bullying?

[Mr Vaizey]

I would hesitate to answer that question in the detail that my hon. Friend requires, at the risk of misleading the House. As I said a few minutes ago, my understanding is that there were 2,000 prosecutions last year. I do not have a breakdown of those figures, but I will write to him if he requires that. The fundamental point, Madam Deputy Speaker, is that under existing legislation prosecutions are taking place for what you or I would recognise as cyber-bullying.

It is important to involve everyone in society in combating this threat. That includes the Government, of course, but also parents, teachers and the industry, which the hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned. As he knows, the previous Government established the UK Council for Child Internet Safety—UKCCIS—which has continued to work with this Government, bringing together three Ministers: myself, the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson), who will wind-up the debate, and the Minister for Policing, Criminal Justice and Victims. The council brings together industry, academia, charities, parents groups, and law enforcement under three Ministers.

It is often said—again, I would welcome any critique of this—that the UK is a pioneer in internet safety, and my experience of working in the field is that we are highly regarded around the world for the work we do. That does not, I hasten to add, signal any sense of complacency on our part, but it shows that we are proactive about the issue, as were the previous Government.

[Steve Rotheram]

That long list of organisations the Minister is consulting does not include the social media platforms, although they are pivotal to changing the online culture. What are the Government doing to engage with Facebook, Twitter and Bebo, or whoever it might be, on that issue?

[Mr Vaizey]

That was my error in omitting to mention that Facebook is on the board of UKCCIS, and we regularly engage with social media. However, I think that we can—and should—do more, and I will come to that in a minute.

As I was saying, the UKCCIS board considers what companies can do to help to address cyber-bullying and to develop robust policies. It has been working with the industry and social media companies to look at the ease with which users can report abuse on their sites, and how those reports are dealt with. The Government have been clear that we expect social media companies to respond quickly and effectively where behaviour contravenes those policies. It is also important to emphasise—I do not know how well this will go down with certain elements in the Chamber—that that work is also happening at European Union level. I think it is worth convening a meeting in the new year with social media companies and interested Members. If any Member in the Chamber wishes to participate, I would be happy to facilitate it.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

Does the Minister believe that any legislation brought in by the Government must cover all those who participate in the bullying? That is not just the initial person who put up the bullying or slanderous message, but those who repeat it online and spread it around, as they are equally to blame.

[Mr Vaizey]

A fundamental principle of law is that what is illegal in the physical world is illegal in the online world. If someone participates in an assault or in bullying in the physical world, they should be equally susceptible to whatever law they would contravene were they to do that in the online world. Someone repeating a libel online is not exempt from being sued because they have simply repeated what somebody else has said. That is the case with bullying and cyber-bullying as well.

I repeat my offer to facilitate a meeting in the new year. The industry must understand that we need to make things as easy as possible for users. There may be common ground here. I think we considered this issue when we were tackling inappropriate content online and protecting our kids, and it goes back to what the hon. Member for Upper Bann was saying about teaching parents in his constituency. Someone might be sitting in their headquarters thinking, “Well, we’ve got robust policies. We’ve got this, we’ve got that,” but it must be clear to all users and across different platforms that whatever social media someone participates in, they should expect certain key principles such as the ability to make a complaint or receive a rapid response. I will facilitate that meeting.

I mentioned education, and the whole drive against cyber-bullying must be considered as part of a broader drive to tackle all forms of bullying. The Government have sent a clear message to schools that bullying in any form is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. For schools there is a mixture of education and legislation, as well as greater freedom and more accountability. For example, as part of the national curriculum, the Government will ensure that children are educated about the dangers of the internet. Although schools are required by law to have a behaviour and bullying policy, they have flexibility in how to implement that policy, while at the same time they are held to account by Ofsted.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

During the passage of the Education Act 2011, Ministers emphasised that cyber-bullying was a motivation for changing disciplinary laws to allow members of staff, not just teachers, to search an individual student, even a member of the opposite sex, without anybody else present and to seize property. Do the Government have any evidence on the use of the changed powers in schools? Have any protocols been developed and have any issues arisen from their use?

[Mr Vaizey]

We are lucky enough to have sitting next to me one of the top Education Ministers, my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mr Timpson). By the time he comes to sum up, he will have an answer to the hon. Gentleman’s question. The change in the law was welcomed, but I cannot say, from my eyrie in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, what statistics the Department for Education has at its fingertips on its effectiveness. The Department is proud of reducing 481 pages of bullying advice down to 11 pages. Common sense tells us that bullying advice is now being read by schools. The hon. Gentleman alluded to search powers, but the 2011 Act also introduced the new simplified Ofsted inspection regime. Since January 2012, Ofsted has four core criteria only, one of which includes freedom from bullying. Schools can therefore be held to account for their policies.

From September 2014, pupils in every key stage—all pupils from ages five to 16—will be taught about online safety as part of the new curriculum. We hope that that will empower young people to tackle cyber-bullying through responsible, respectful and secure use of technology, as well as ensure that pupils are taught age-appropriate ways of reporting any concerns they may have about what they see or encounter online. I was also going to mention—

[Tim Loughton]

rose—

[Mr Vaizey]

That I want to take an intervention from my hon. Friend.

[Tim Loughton]

The Minister is being very generous in giving way. Will he confirm that academies and free schools will not have to follow the curriculum guidelines? What will he be doing, with his colleagues in the Department for Education, to ensure that these important procedures will still be taught in all our schools?

[Mr Vaizey]

All schools will have to have a protection policy in place and they will be subject to Ofsted inspections. My hon. Friend’s intervention gives me an opportunity to say what a fantastic job he did as children’s Minister. One reason why I have such respect for his remarks is because he is one of those former Ministers who has maintained an interest in the policy in which he was so intimately involved, and he continues to make important interventions in our debates.

The Education Act 2011 strengthened schools’ powers—a specific Government intervention in this area—so that teachers can now impose same-day detention, use reasonable force to protect children from harm and have the power to search for and delete images or files that they think are inappropriate. Schools do not exist in a vacuum. Sometimes the rhetoric is such that we almost pass on to schools the responsibility for sorting out all society’s ills. Schools have to work with parents, and parents have to be participants and allies in the work to combat cyber-bullying. Schools need to work with parents to make it clear that no one will tolerate any kind of bullying, and to ensure that parents are aware of the procedures to follow if they believe their child is being bullied. Schools should investigate and act on all reports.

Making parents aware of what they can do to keep children safe online is also important. I am pleased that, as part of our work to protect children from inappropriate content online, the main internet service providers have come together and formed an alliance to carry out a large-scale internet safety awareness campaign for parents. I understand that that will have a budget of approximately £25 million per year for the next three years and will include signposting to further sources of help and advice. I have said to the ISPs on many occasions that while it might be helpful to them in a competitive environment to offer new and up-to-date tools to parents to keep their children safe online, they must also work together as one. They have the experience, they know their customers, they have the highly paid marketing directors and they have the relationships with the advertising agencies and so on to work together as one for the common good to put forward this message. I am pleased we have got this deal with them.

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I am pleased to hear the news about the campaign. Will the Minister clarify whether that will be £25 million per year for three years, or £25 million over three years?

[Mr Vaizey]

I am so sorry. I misspoke because of what was written in my speech. I now understand that it is £25 million over three years. I thank the hon. Lady for correcting me, and I will double and triple check that.

A range of agencies and organisations have a role in preventing and responding to bullying: local authorities, local safeguarding children boards, law enforcement, schools, parents and the internet industry. Drawing on the breadth of expertise available, the Government are supporting a number of specific initiatives. For example, we are providing four organisations—I think this figure is correct—with more than £4 million in total over two years from spring 2013. [Interruption.] I am assured that that is correct. We are giving £800,000 to the Diana Award to identify and train 10,000 pupils as anti-bullying ambassadors. We are giving £250,000 to Kidscape to work in nine of London’s most economically deprived boroughs to train primary school professionals to deliver preventive and remedial strategies. We are giving £1.5 million to BeatBullying to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds over two years as cyber-mentors, and we are giving £1.5 million to the National Children’s Bureau consortium to focus on bullied children and young people with special educational needs and/or disabilities, to work with 900 schools, parents, carers and school staff to reduce bullying and its impact when it occurs.

I have spoken for some time in this short debate on a subject that is important and wide-ranging. I reiterate how welcome the debate is, and how judicious the opening remarks were from the hon. Member for Upper Bann. Building on the work of the UKCCIS—in its time, a relatively unique organisation, bringing together a range of stakeholders, and it remains the forum to debate many of the key issues—the Government have developed a range of measures, such as important legislation to give teachers powers to intervene in cyber-bullying and a campaign to work with ISPs to ensure that we can educate parents. I urge hon. Members to engage with social media on their procedures and thoughts. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate and to my hon. Friend the Minister when he sums up.

14:18

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

Some time ago, I secured a debate on suicide prevention. I acknowledged then, and I do now, that the internet and social media are prominent features in youth culture nowadays. Young people see the use of technology as a vital part of their social life, and the online environment has created unique opportunities to learn, to connect and to communicate.

Almost 99% of children aged between eight and 17 throughout the United Kingdom have access to the internet, while 90% of children aged five to 16 have computer access. As we accept that social media are a reality in everyday life, we must also accept the growing concern about the use of the internet for cyber-bullying. Although it may be impossible to remove online risk completely, we have a duty to challenge the present unacceptable situation that leaves vulnerable young people and adults open to abuse and self-harm

We as legislators cannot sit on the sidelines until something happens that affects our homes and families, which is when we typically express horror and disbelief at the terrible consequences of a system that we allow to operate. I wish to express my appreciation to the House Library for a very informative debate pack, prepared for today’s debate.

I know that many within our society must carry responsibility—we have heard some of them named already—for the protection of our children. I believe that we must first start in the home, because parental responsibility is so important. Parents cannot shun their responsibility to provide a safe environment for their own children. Quite often, they provide availability to the technology, and then some walk away from any further responsibility. By so doing, many parents inadvertently expose their children to cyber-bullying and inappropriate online behaviour because they do not exercise parental control. Many parents might set up a social network account without any understanding of the need for online safety. Many have little or no knowledge of how they should or could protect their children online. Parents, however, do not stand alone in carrying the burden of responsibility. Society must bear its portion of responsibility. We have heard about the responsibility of teachers, for example, and of this Parliament having responsibilities that we must all shoulder.

The figures for online bullying are staggering. The Independent stated on 2 October 2013:

“More than a million young people are subjected to extreme online bullying every day in Britain”.

The explosion of social networking sites means that, according to the national anti-bullying charity Ditch the Label, seven out of 10 13 to 22-year-olds have been cyber-bullied. This growing problem now affects an estimated 5.43 million young people, with girls and boys equally likely to be targeted. Cyber-bullying is now an everyday problem for today’s children—one that I believe is of epidemic proportions. The suggestion that people should simply boycott websites that fail to tackle the problem is, in my opinion, far too simplistic. We as a society must not accept cyber-bullying as a norm—either for the present or future generations.

Facebook is the most common place for cyber-bullying to occur, with studies informing us that young people are twice as likely to be bullied there than on any other social network. The Daily Telegraph revealed in an article of 18 October 2013 that Facebook has unveiled plans that will allow millions of teenagers to give strangers access to their online profiles. The article states:

“The social media site is changing its rules so that accounts set up by youngsters aged 13 to 17 will no longer have an automatic privacy setting which prevents their status updates, photos and videos being publicly available. Until now teenage Facebook users’ profiles have only been visible to their ‘friends’ or ‘friends of friends.’”

The truth often is that today’s friend may no longer be a friend; in actual fact, today’s friend, especially in social media, can become tomorrow’s enemy. In my opinion, these new regulations will leave hundreds of thousands of our very young people—children—exposed and vulnerable to predators and paedophiles.

Many children have revealed their innermost thoughts to their friends online. In fact, they have revealed thoughts that they would never utter in a face-to-face encounter. They revealed those thoughts because they believed they had a restricted world of their friends on the internet. Now, much of this can be shared in the public domain, but it will not happen without serious consequences. Do these providers have no conscience and feel that they have no responsibility when a young person is haunted by what they perceived was a very private statement now being made public and leading in several cases to young people taking their own lives? John Carr, secretary of the Children’s Charities’ Coalition, accuses Facebook of arrogance, stating:

“You get the impression that power breeds arrogance.”

I believe that this is not a subject for glib comments; it is one of the most serious subjects that could ever be brought before this House. We must therefore help our young people. Liam Hackett, who founded the anti-bullying charity, Ditch the Label, rightly pointed out that, historically, bullying went on in the classroom—a point on which the Minister touched. Today’s bullying, however, does not stop there. Bullying in the classroom was repugnant and must be utterly condemned, but it stopped when the child arrived home. For many children today, though, there is no escape, because the bullying in the classroom follows them right to their own home and, in many cases, even to their own bedroom.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the bullying somehow goes beyond that. I do not know why, but people feel able to say things that are far worse through that sphere than they would say to someone’s face or in front of somebody else. It is a strange thing, but it is clear that people feel able to do that.

[Dr McCrea]

Of course, anonymity will allow that to happen. The reality is that, as I said, many young people will say things online that come out of their hearts at that moment, but they believe that this is for their friends. They would not have opened their heart to say such things if they believed they were going to be spread around. Equally, there are those who say things through this medium that they would never say to a person face to face. That highlights the seriousness of this situation.

Surely no one can be immune to the tragedy that often follows. The social media are often the tool of today’s modern bullying at a time when a young person is most vulnerable to the feeling of worthlessness. As the bullying continues on the social media site, even in the young person’s own bedroom, a feeling of loneliness will follow. Then, following on from that loneliness comes a sense of hopelessness, and the social media might then kick on a step further. After it has carried that person to the point of hopelessness, worthlessness and loneliness, it then also provides them with information and techniques that increase the chance of suicide attempts being successful and decrease the chance of these young people receiving help. At that moment of their vulnerability, when they are at the lowest point of their life, they are shown how they could end it all and are told by the person communicating with them why they should end it all because they are worthless—because they are nothing, because they mean nothing to anybody.

I suggest that every Member of this House here today would do well to spend a quiet time reading the notes the Library has provided for us. Many of us as Members of Parliament have heard in our constituency offices the stories of young people caught in the trap of cyber-bullying and who are too scared to say or do anything. Thousands of them are targeted by internet blackmailers—sadistic abusers who operate in online chatrooms that can access the dark recesses of our computers, ready to make their innocent victim a slave.

Dr Elly Farmer, a clinical psychologist, said:

“There is a desire for power and control, and getting a kick out of causing as much pain as possible.”

How sick can a person be, but the sad reality is that there are sick people out there and our young people are vulnerable to them.

Not one of us is immune to the viciousness and cruelty of these vipers. Given that there are abusive messages like those sent to the 14-year-old girl found dead after she received a series of messages telling her to drink bleach, go get cancer and die, surely there is technology that exposes the identity of the evil persons from whom the messages emanate.

The internet providers have failed, and are continuing to fail, our young people. That is why I believe, as the motion suggests, that Government must act to provide legal protection, and when Government do so, the courts must show their responsibility and ensure those who are responsible for cyber-bullying face lengthy prison sentences.

The subject we are dealing with today is a subject that can cost a person’s life. Therefore to do nothing, or do little or only do something, will not satisfy our conscience. That is why I suggest that, having read the document that has been provided for us and having listened to the speeches here today, it would do good for every one of us in the stillness and silence of our own hearts to ask this question: “What more can we do?” The Government must also ask that question: “What more can Government do to protect our children?”

14:34

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

It is a pleasure to follow that very balanced, stark and worrying speech from the hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea), which was in the same vein as that of his colleague, the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson), who opened the debate. This is a very important subject and I pay tribute to the DUP for having brought it to the House’s attention today. It is a very important and topical subject, and it merits greater coverage and attention than is suggested by the number of Members who are able to be here debating it today

We have had a number of debates on related subjects recently, which is a sign of the seriousness with which this House takes this issue and the threat that this problem presents to many of our constituents day in, day out—the young, the old, the vulnerable and everyone else as well. There has in the past perhaps been a focus on access to harmful material on the internet—violent pornography and violence generally—and its hugely insidious effect on our young people and particularly on vulnerable and impressionable teenagers. Just a few days ago yet another case came up and was reported in the newspapers where a boy of 12 raped his younger sister after watching online pornography, prompting a judge to warn yesterday that

“the internet is not a benign babysitter”.

We have become almost conditioned and immune to horrific cases like that being a fact of everyday modern life, but that does not make it any less important that we should urgently tackle this problem. We must not take it for granted. We must do much more than we are doing now collectively as a country, as a Government, and with all the institutions at our disposal.

I welcome the progress made recently in various parts of Government, in co-operation with businesses and other institutions, on the proliferation of filters, which we are now going to see on accessing pornography and harmful material. However, we have a lot more to do, and they are just one part of what needs to be a whole jigsaw of solutions addressing the effects the internet can have on impressionable people who can be influenced by it.

The bigger question is not so much how people get access to the internet and how we restrict it, but why they want to look at these things and why they are influenced by them. Why does the internet have such a huge influence on impressionable boys in particular, and how has it come to normalise hardcore and often violent behaviour for our kids so they take this stuff for granted—stuff that we are aghast at and would have been absolutely aghast at if we had had access to it in our impressionable teenage years? The internet is a fantastic tool that we cannot, and would not wish to, uninvent; it is one of the great fashioning things of the late 20th and 21st centuries. Why do some people turn to the internet to use it to bully, harass and abuse?

As my hon. Friend the Minister mentioned, in my time as children’s Minister I jointly chaired the UK Council for Child Internet Safety, a really important body that is part of the solution. It has been providing answers and it needs to be at the heart of the solutions we provide. We must have a multi-faceted approach, which is why that body, which brings together academia, business, the internet service providers, the child protection people, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, Government and everybody else, is so important. In my time on the UKCCIS we focused on access to harmful content—violent and adult content—for young people in particular, and I think the focus is still the same. I regret, however that we did not latch on earlier, as we needed to do, to the malign effects that the misuse of social media to abuse and bully is having on our children, some of them under the age of 10, every day of their lives.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point and has hit the nail on the head. We can put all the barriers and protections in place, but in terms of bullying, children have access to Facebook and the other similar sites because that is part of modern life. It is how they meet and arrange parties, and if they are not part of that network, they fear they will be excluded, which presents us with a difficult circle to square.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Like it or not, my teenage daughters go absolutely berserk if their internet connection is down or they lose their mobile or other such device. You cannot leave home without it.

It is ironic that, as we heard earlier, at a time when, technologically, communication has never been easier—we can telephone, text, e-mail, tweet, use Bebo—actually, we do not talk to each other much. Certainly, children do not talk to their parents much, and vice versa. When my wife or I sometimes get a request by e-mail from one of my teenage daughters for supper in her bedroom, I think that we have gone quite far enough. She will not be getting any supper that night, if that sort of nonsense goes on.

Important though it is, rather than just concentrating on access to harmful material, we need to take much more seriously the use of social media for malign purposes by young people against other young people, and, of course, by older people masquerading as young people who are seeking to groom and abuse them sexually. It is extraordinary to note the number of young people who will still communicate with strangers—they know not where they come from or what their intentions are, yet they have conversations with them over the internet and even meet up with them, as if they were best friends.

These sites will expand, and more social media opportunities will of course come the way of our children. Some are supposed to be age-barred, but in practice we know that it is almost impossible to do that. Having spoken to young people, including during my time as chairman of the UKCCIS, I know that what really worries them is a malign posting on social media sites, which undermines their integrity. Such a posting can go viral, and in a matter of minutes a huge audience may be privy to some deeply offensive and abusive, personal, private sexual information that is now out there. In the past, such information would have been in hard copy form—a piece of paper available to just one or two people, so it had limited effect. Now, it is out there for ever, potentially.

Some 38% of teenagers have received sexually explicit texts or e-mails, and according to one survey that figure is going up. Indeed, “sexting” is just one of the more alarming manifestations of social media having become part of our everyday lives. This can turn into bullying when threats to send increasingly explicit photos over social media are used as a form of blackmail. Of course, we have had the recent tragic cases of young people, including a 14-year-old girl, being driven to suicide by the fear of what is out there—by the threat of its being publicised and used against them on social media.

[Mark Tami]

Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that, because potential future employers are increasingly looking at young people’s Facebook history, their career prospects could be ruined and they could be denied such opportunities because of something that has been put on Facebook?

[Tim Loughton]

And of course, as Members of Parliament, we know all too well that, for members of the press—not too many are present in the Press Gallery today—such activities are often part of their job description.

The internet affects everybody’s lives. It is un-cool, as we have heard, not to be on the internet or not to have the latest internet-enabled mobile device. Research by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has shown that almost 40% of our young people are affected by cyber-bullying. A survey by Nominet, which has done a lot of work in this area, showed that 65% of young people have experienced online bullying, or “trolling”, or know somebody else who has. For ChildLine, which is part of the NSPCC, bullying is the second most important issue, accounting for more than 10% of the counselling sessions arising out of the referrals it receives.

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

The hon. Gentleman and I have worked on many children’s issues together, and he will remember that the commission on stalking on which we worked found that this terrible use of the internet was destroying people’s lives. Is it not good news that we quickly got the law changed on stalking? People said that it could not be stopped, but we proved that it could be. Now, that same commission is being re-formed to look at cyber-bullying, I hope with the same success.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. A recent debate in this place showed what can be done when we put our minds to it and listen to people who have solutions, rather than always listening to those who focus on the problems.

The Department for Education’s own research shows that 30% of secondary school-aged children have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by abuse on mobile phones or the internet. Cyber-bullying is an even more cowardly form of what we might have known as playground bullying, because it often hides behind anonymity, done by people in the comfort of their own bedroom. However, the psychological effects can be every bit as damaging as physical, face-to-face bullying, and such bullying has the capacity to be spread cancer-like among a much wider body of peers, at the press of a button. It can undermine a young person’s confidence and self-esteem, at a time when they are still finding their own identity. It can lead to depression, truancy, self-harm and even suicide; to a fear of returning to school to face one’s friends, who may be the authors of some of this cyber-bullying; and to a feeling of being permanently unsafe.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Being bullied by electronic means could actually be worse than being bullied in the playground. At least in the playground, people perhaps have their friends around to sustain them. Being bullied privately, perhaps in a quiet place, could really prey on someone’s mind.

[Tim Loughton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and of course in such situations there are no witnesses around. People suffer in silence, and there is not necessarily anybody on hand to report such behaviour to. That is why it is every bit as damaging as, and probably more damaging than, the playground bullying that he and I might have been witnesses to—certainly not part of—in our days of yore in the playground.

Nominet’s “know the net” research suggests that socially and economically disadvantaged children and young people are at greater risk of experiencing cyber-bullying and suffering its adverse effects. It is more likely to affect disabled children, young carers, children with learning disabilities and recipients of free school meals. Cyber-bullies are picking on the most vulnerable children—an even more shameful act. Facebook is the most common place for it, as we have heard. Facebook has made great strides, but there is an awful lot more it can do. Such bullying happens on Twitter, and it happens with Instagram. There are now various new modes of communicating, whereby an image is sent and it self-destructs within 10 seconds, so the evidence is gone. Those are all clever ways that can be used by malign people to bully even more effectively.

What is really worrying is that only 37% of teenagers who experience online bullying report it to a social network, so two thirds do not. Some 36% of those who do not report it said that they choose not to because it is not taken seriously and doing so would be a waste of time. Very few even report it to their parents, yet a third of all parents fear that their child is actually causing bullying on the internet, according to research by the National Children’s Bureau and McAfee. Some 45% of parents have set up Facebook accounts themselves for their own children who are under the age of 13. The recommended minimum age for having a Facebook account is 13, yet some parents are clearly ignoring that. Indeed, Facebook itself has discussed removing that age threshold. However, that is one of the few safeguards that provides guidance to parents on the age at which it is appropriate for their children to be exposed to these very powerful forms of social media. Only one in 10 parents believe that their own children are safe online, yet over a third have never had a conversation with their children about the dangers of the internet, and only one in five bothers to set up controls on their internet devices.

This is an extraordinary situation, a perfect storm. Schools are not doing enough to teach the hazards of the internet effectively. We need better sex and relationship education as armour to deal with some of the sexual abuse on the internet. Parents are afraid of appearing ignorant and do not communicate with their children about the hazards, and the social media companies are still spending too much time on maximising the number of people attracted to their sites, the revenues earned by the sites and the stock market capitalisation as the sites are launched on the American stock market. The Home Affairs Select Committee reported earlier this year that too many of our social media companies remain far too complacent and laid back about the perils of the internet for young and impressionable people.

The other big problem is that abuse of the internet lacks consequences. That was behind my earlier question to the Minister when I asked him how many people were being prosecuted and actually feeling the force of the law. How many people are being shown that what they are doing is not just a bit of harmless fun, a bit of ribbing or a bit of playfully taking the mick out of someone, but that it is dangerous abuse that can ultimately be fatal?

[David Simpson]

Recent figures on trolls who have stopped abusing people online have shown that many of them admitted looking for the most vulnerable targets and making their lives a misery. They admitted that that behaviour was like a drug, and that they would move on to another vulnerable target. Something more needs to be done about this.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. It takes an extraordinary mentality to want to use the fantastic technology of the internet to abuse and, ultimately, to cause harm and even death. This is perhaps similar to those people who invent computer viruses and get a kick out of causing huge inconvenience and misery to large numbers of people.

I have been a bit gloomy so far, but I want to end by mentioning a few of the good things. Good progress has been made. The work of the Prime Minister and the Government internationally with the FBI on promoting filters and using greater powers to remove harmful images from the internet is very welcome. The profile of the problem has certainly been raised, which is also welcome. We now have better guidance on e-safety in schools, although my complaint is that that focuses too much on the mechanics of the technology and not enough on the ethics of what is good and not good and what cannot be trusted on the internet.

The Department for Education has awarded £4 million-worth of grants to BeatBullying, the Diana Award, Kidscape and the National Children’s Bureau, all of which are excellent organisations doing some really good practical stuff, but it is a drop in the ocean when we consider how many hundreds of millions of people are using social media. The Education Act 2011 gives teachers greater powers to search for and delete inappropriate images on electronic devices, which is welcome, as is the fact that Ofsted should now be inspecting behaviour as part of its assessment of schools and looking closely at the effectiveness of internal policies to prevent bullying and cyber-bullying. I also welcome the additional funding to enable the Internet Watch Foundation to use its new powers to take down inappropriate sites.

There is more that we need to do, however. We need to empower parents and pupils. We need to ensure that schools not only educate the kids but invite the parents in so that they can learn what the kids have learnt, so that they know what to look out for when they go back home. This is just like healthy eating: schools are very good at giving kids healthier meals and telling them about healthy eating, only to let them go home and be stuffed full of pies by parents who do not have the right attitude. We also need more in-your-face guidance from the Government, through the Department for Education and the Home Office, about the real dangers of what is going on.

[Mr Sheerman]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is always possible to recognise a school that has a big question mark hanging over it when its head teacher says, “My responsibility ends at the school gate”? It could never end there in relation to bullying, because the bullies used to hang out on the street outside. Bullying of that kind, and bullying on the internet, must be tackled by head teachers managing their schools properly.

[Tim Loughton]

The hon. Gentleman is right. Cyber-bullying might start in the playground, but it can continue in the bedroom of the anonymous person who is carrying out the campaign.

Our social media companies need to do much more. We need far more effective in-your-face reporting mechanisms, proper hot buttons and faster, more effective mediation and adjudication on what is acceptable. Also, there must be consequences, so that the people who post this stuff can have it taken down and have their site confiscated. In some cases, we should not shy away from naming and shaming the perpetrators in school and preventing them from using social media.

As the House has heard, I have my own long-standing troll who continues to post malicious material about my family. For many months, I have been complaining to Google, which hosts his blog. This person has posted pictures of my teenage, under-age daughters on his blog, alongside abusive comments. They have not been removed. When he was spoken to about it, he replaced their faces with horses’ heads, alongside equally abusive comments. After about six months, Google got round to doing something. It sent me this response:

“Hello. Thanks for reaching out to us. We have reviewed your request. At this time, Google has decided not to take action. Blogger hosts third-party content. It is not a creator or mediator of that content. We encourage you to resolve any disputes directly with the individual who posted the content.”

That is not an effective way of dealing with clear and obvious abuse, and I am still on at Google—and it is not just Google—to take this sort of abuse seriously. If it is unable to do that for a Member of Parliament who has a platform here, imagine how many of our children must be suffering in silence because they have no means of drawing attention to this deeply abusive, offensive and completely unnecessary form of cyber-bulling.

We also need better sentencing guidelines. There are some bits of legislation, but we have not yet seen people being hauled before the courts. Frankly, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Director of Public Prosecutions must do better in this regard. They complain that this is a grey area and that the thresholds are high, but cyber-bullying is cyber-violence and if that violence were committed in person in playgrounds or in pubs, it would be dealt with properly by the police and the courts. Cyber-bullying should be no different.

I have recently written to all Members of Parliament, with the help of Nominet, asking for cases in which their constituents had been the victims of cyber-bullying so that we can put together some best practice to use when our constituents come to our surgeries when their children and family members have experienced this kind of bullying. We as Members of Parliament also experience cyber-bullying. I have spoken to Mr Speaker about this and he is sympathetic to our receiving guidance on how to help ourselves to guard against trolling and cyber-bullying, which we should not have to accept as we try to do our jobs.

This is a problem that affects all of us: the young, the old and, in particular, the most vulnerable. It is just a technological advance—albeit a particularly insidious one—from playground bullying to cyber-bulling, but it can go as far as to involve threats of terrorism, as certain Members have found out to their cost. There is no magic bullet, but we all have a responsibility better to educate our children.

Schools should have a designated teacher who is responsible for anti-bullying work, and we should have much more effective procedures and mechanisms for reporting incidents of bullying, including cyber-bullying, in schools. Cyber-bullying should be included and referred to in all policies on behaviour, anti-bullying and acceptable use. All teachers should be given training, support and guidance on dealing with bullying, including cyber-bullying. Those are just some of the recommendations in the BeatBullying “Virtual Violence” report. We need clear guidance along those lines from the Department for Education to schools on whether or not they are bound by the curriculum, and not the current postcode lottery and the laissez-faire approach that I fear we have. We need clear guidance from the Home Office to justice institutions.

We also need greater social responsibility from our social media companies. They need to monitor, and we need to monitor, how good they are at reporting this stuff and taking it down, and how quickly they do it. They need to invest in moderators and to signpost better where young people can go to get help. Above all, there needs to be consequences for cyber-bullying and the Government need to take a greater lead. I have sympathy with what Democratic Unionist party Members were saying about making cyber-bullying an offence, because, as I said earlier and I say again, cyber-bullying is cyber-violence. We would criminalise it in any other context and we need now to look seriously at how the law can treat it equally seriously.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, I ought to remind the House that we have another debate to follow, and I have received indications that, as with this debate, a large number of hon. Members wish to speak. If Members who are about to speak restrict their remarks to approximately 10 minutes, everyone who wishes to speak will have a chance to do so.

15:01

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

It is a pleasure to follow the thoughtful, reflective contribution of the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), and I commend the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) and his party for tabling this motion on the very important topic of cyber-bullying. As the Minister said, there is no doubt that cyber-bullying is perpetrated with a large degree of anonymity and distance, which makes it particularly insidious and frightening for children. In many instances it has led to truancy from school, self-harm, suicide and many other issues. We all know that cyber-bullying can be done in many situations, and people who commit it say things on the internet, Twitter and Facebook that they would not say to someone face to face. When someone reads such a comment about themselves on the internet, Facebook or Twitter, it can be particularly intimidating. In fact, people have even been purged as a result, so it is important to reflect on that.

Cyber-bullying and legislation throw up various definitional issues. Cyber-bullying is defined as:

“when the Internet, cell phones or other devices are used to send or post text or images intended to hurt or embarrass another person”.

However, legislative difficulties arise in defining the difference between cyber-bullying and cyber-stalking, and in defining each of those concepts. That brings us into the arena of cyber-defamation law. Cyber-bullying has proved difficult to legislate on because of freedom of speech issues. Absurdly, many people argue that such legislation violates the bully’s freedom of speech. I find it unacceptable that a bully should feel that he is being prevented from saying something. However, this all comes back to the fact that such bullying is anonymous and from a distance, and that it can cause people to take certain actions, in a mistaken belief, to try to protect themselves. The hon. Member for Upper Bann is right to say that serious consideration has to be given to the legislative consequences of cyber-bullying, because at the moment, as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, cyber-bullying has had little consequences. In Northern Ireland, a review of sentencing is taking place and reference must be made to cyber-bullying in that. We must also have the primary legislation here and in the devolved institutions to deal with this issue.

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

Does the hon. Lady share my concern that the law in Northern Ireland does not require schools even to mention cyber-bullying in their anti-bullying policies? The local Minister for Education needs to get on with it.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I absolutely agree that more urgent, robust and assertive action needs to be taken to deal with this issue. I believe that there is not one family of a Member in this House who have not been bullied, either face to face or by cyber-bullying, which is much more insidious.

The statistics are interesting. Ofcom found this year that some 43% of five to 15-year-olds have a social networking profile. Ofcom has also found that 81% of teenagers own a smartphone, with 60% of teenagers claiming that they are highly addicted to smartphone usage. This year, it also found that children and young people are now spending 17 hours a week online, although I would judge that the real figure is much higher. To see that, one has only to witness the use of this technology by children, be it on the school bus, in school or in a family or other environment.

This debate is all about what we do to deal with the problem and what political action is required. Like my colleagues in the DUP, I believe that the British Government and the devolved institutions have to give serious consideration to legislative consequences and to legislation itself. Until the Government here and the devolved institutions take it seriously, people who are dedicated to this form of bullying will get away with it.

I have no doubt that there needs to be lobbying for sustained nationwide campaigns similar to those for road safety, including TV advertisements, radio broadcasts and adverts, and video. An onus and obligation should be placed on the provision of funding and sponsorship from the big players such as the search engines, including Google, the social media platforms, such as Twitter, and mobile phone companies, such as O₂, Orange and Vodafone. An action plan must be put in place to deliver awareness talks to parents, community and church leaders, educators, young people and children about this vice, which is a form of cyber-terrorism.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann referred to the work being done in the Republic of Ireland and how it is approaching legislation. The British and Irish Governments, along with the devolved institutions and the Governments of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man, are part of the British-Irish Council. I urge the British-Irish Council to give immediate attention to this issue of cyber-bullying, because the Council would be a good context in which it could be discussed and in which Governments and devolved institutions could consider the matter and take positive legislative action.

The other area I wish to discuss is that relating to Children’s Commissioners. We have one in Northern Ireland, one in the other devolved institutions and one here in Britain. An immediate conference should be held at which they could reflect on this subject, because they have a dedicated responsibility for children, in order to see what can be done. [Interruption.] I am conscious of the time, Madam Deputy Speaker. As of 20 November, Canada introduced legislation covering matters such as distribution, removal, forfeiting the device, reimbursement to victims, court orders and investigative powers. We should be examining that strong Canadian legislation to see where we could take action.

In supporting this motion, I suggest that tackling these issues and the gaps in education and awareness are paramount, as is legislation. Cyber-bullying will continue to have a profound effect on our young people’s lives and on our future society. Parents feel largely helpless in this matter, and the debate today should be a warning to the Government that we all want to see action of a legislative kind to tackle this form of terrorism as it is so insidious in our wider communities today.

15:10

[Simon Wright (Norwich South) (LD)]

Cyber-bullying strikes at victims at any time and in any place—at home, at school, on a bus or out with family or friends. It takes place on a range of different platforms, including text, social networks, video, photo messaging, internet chatrooms, in-game messages, e-mail and more. Nearly half of five to 15-year-olds own a mobile phone, and the use of tablet computers has trebled over the same age group since last year, and almost all have regular internet access at home or at school. The channels through which cyber-bullying is perpetuated are never far away from any child. The experience for the victim is made all the more chilling by the fact that the tormentor can act anonymously and in the mind of the abused can be anyone they know or do not know.

A survey undertaken by Norfolk county council found that nearly a quarter of children in Norfolk primary and secondary schools had experienced cyber-bullying at school. Bullying through text messages was the most common, followed by the use of social media sites. The survey highlighted the wide range of young people’s online presences through which cyber-bullying takes place. Ofcom’s recent report into young people’s use of media emphasises the rapid changes in the use of different technologies by children over periods as short as just one year.

Technology is continually evolving. Online platforms come and go, and young people have a healthy appetite for trying out new technologies and experiences. If guidance and support and legislation are to be effective, they must be relevant in an ever changing landscape and not be too focused on specific technologies or software. We must ensure that young people, parents, teachers and others have the skills and the understanding to protect themselves and others from dangers across a range of platforms.

The dangers and the consequences of persistent cyber-bullying have become horribly clear. In a study published in 2010 in the Archives of General Psychiatry, a team of Finnish researchers found that cyber-bullying puts strains on mental health that include problems processing emotions, disruptions in socially appropriate behaviour, and an impaired ability to interact successfully with others. Those findings are supported by professionals working with children who have been bullied in my constituency.

Red Balloon is an excellent organisation providing a supportive learning environment for children who are outside mainstream schooling because they have been subjected to severe levels of bullying. Angela Francis, who is the co-ordinator of the Red Balloon Learner Centre in Norwich, has highlighted her concerns over the impact that ever increasing levels of anxiety relating to cyber-bullying can have on young people’s mental health. The consequences on a child’s well-being can be devastating.

The Norfolk survey highlights that the majority of those who are bullied reported being bullied to a parent or carer, and roughly two fifths reported being bullied to a member of school staff. There are vast swathes of information on cyber-bullying available to parents, carers and teachers from charities, local authorities, social networks, and the 100 organisations that make up the anti-bullying alliance.

Given that cyber-bullying can take place anywhere, children themselves need to be empowered and taught about the dangers from a young age. They need to be able to identify cyber-bullying, know what steps to take when they encounter it and encourage other children to stand against it. Facebook has an anti cyber-bullying toolkit for those aged 13 to 18. It would be even more helpful if all social media sites and chatrooms encouraged young people to take a tutorial on their own anti-bullying policies at the time of setting up an account.

I welcome the new computing curriculum that will see schools putting an increased prominence on the teaching of e-safety from next September. It means that children in key stages 1 and 2 will be taught about using technology safely, including issues such as sexting and cyber-bullying, and I hope that teachers will feel in a strong position to support their pupils as a result. Many schools are already doing great work in this area, encouraged by initiatives such as the PICTFOR Make IT Happy competition. Valley primary school in my constituency entered this year’s competition. Year 6 children created a series of infographics about staying safe online and created a video of their work. Their brilliant entry, which was praised by judges, demonstrated how children can be empowered to deal with unwanted messages and to keep themselves safe from all forms of cyber-abuse.

The best way to deal with any form of bullying is to stop it before it starts. Bullying Stinkz, which is a new anti-bullying campaign set up by my constituents Jacqueline Hitchcock-Wyatt and her daughter Ellie, aims to do just that. They have received celebrity backing, and recently recorded a pop song to highlight the campaign with children of Parkside school in Norwich. Their approach is to reinforce positive messages of diversity, starting at a very young age, and to empower children to speak up before patterns of bullying behaviour become established.

I welcome today’s debate. We need to focus on the comprehensive issues of e-safety for all young people. Good work is being done, and needs to be continually developed, encouraged, prioritised and supported by the Government to ensure that everyone is adequately equipped to deal with the appalling behaviour of cyber-bullying. As this debate has highlighted today, we can and should do more.

15:16

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Cyber-technology should not be a threat to people; it should be a bonus and one of the good things in life. On cyber Monday, sales worth some £600 million were achieved. Of course, for those with Ulster bank accounts whose cards did not work last night when they went to pay their bill in the restaurant, the petrol station or the shop, the card was not worth the plastic it was made of—but that is a different issue. None the less it highlights the advances that cyber-technology has brought—the good things—and the menaces.

I want to focus on cyber-bullying among children and young people and the impact it can have on their well-being. Although I recognise that cyber-bullying is a problem among adults as well, internet use is increasing all the time among children and young people. It seems that each day the internet is becoming more mobile and more accessible.

Earlier this year, a report by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children found that 91% of all five to 15-year-olds and 100% of 12 to 15-year-olds used the internet in 2012, which gives us some indication of the importance of it. The internet is one of the most profound inventions in human history, and, of course, it brings huge benefits for children and young people in that they are better informed and better connected to the world around them. That is what it is supposed to be about. But the internet can also be a tool for harm and abuse. As Members from all parts of the House will know—they have spoken about this matter very passionately and knowledgeably—children and young people can often suffer as a result of cyber-bullying, which has significant detrimental effects on them, damaging their sense of worth and wrecking their self-esteem. As an MP from Northern Ireland, I am particularly concerned that cyber-bullying is a significant and growing problem in our schools, as my hon. Friends the Members for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) and for Upper Bann (David Simpson) indicated in their contributions. According to research conducted by the Northern Ireland Department of Education in 2011, 15.5% of year 6 pupils and 17% of year 9 pupils indicated that they had experienced cyber-bullying in the past couple of months. That gives us an idea of the size of the problem.

In January this year, the Nominet Trust published research on the level of cyber-bullying in the UK. Its report “Virtual Violence Two: progress and the challenges in tackling cyberbullying” makes a number of important findings. The report says that

“28 per cent of 11-16 year olds have been deliberately targeted, threatened or humiliated by an individual or group through the use of mobile phones or the internet. For over a quarter of these, this experience was ongoing, meaning that the individual was continuously targeted by the same person or group over a sustained period of time. This suggests that one-in-13 secondary-aged school children have experienced persistent and intentional cyberbullying.”

Given that there are 4.4 million secondary-aged children in the UK, those figures can be projected to suggest that 350,222 children have suffered persistent and insidious bullying inflicted via technology. That shows the numerical vastness of the issue, if hon. Members want to put it into figures. The report goes on to note:

“Purposeful recurring attacks can easily overwhelm a young person being cyberbullied, leaving them feeling anxious, tormented and increasingly marginalised.”

In some cases, cyber-bullying has been found to contribute to children and young people self-harming or even taking their own lives. Other Members have spoken about that. Many of my hon. Friends will have heard of the tragic case of Hannah Smith, a 14-year-old Leicestershire girl, who killed herself after being bullied on a social networking site. Hannah’s case is not an isolated one. Peter Wanless, chief executive of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said:

“This is a tragic case where Hannah felt like she had no other option but to end her life. The cruel nature of cyberbullying allows perpetrators to remain anonymous and hide behind their screens.”

He then called for greater measures to be taken against cyber-bullying. He said:

“This is something that must be tackled before it gets out of hand. We must ensure young people have the confidence to speak out against this abuse, so that they don’t feel isolated and without anywhere to turn.”

It is plain and clear that we urgently need to address those issues. One of the key ways we can do that is by seeking to inform and assist parents and guardians whose children might be exposed to such abuse online.

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

A couple of years ago, I was threatened online and a severe threat was made to my life. One of the reasons I went to the police was not so much to get the abuse stopped for me personally, but to ensure that others, particularly vulnerable people and young people, could see that there is a remedy. Does my hon. Friend agree that if people report the issue and go to the right authorities action can be taken and the perpetrators can be caught and punished?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for that valuable practical example of what happened to him and for saying how he responded in his fearless way. It shows that if he can do it, everyone else can do it, and that is leadership as it should be.

Children and young people are now able to access the internet almost anywhere in a range of different ways through iPads, mobile phones and other portable devices. It is difficult for parents to monitor their children’s use of the internet, even if they wish to do so, beyond the lowest estimations. It is difficult even for those who are learned in this technology, who still cannot be entirely sure of what their children are doing.

[Bob Stewart]

As a parent of four teenage children, I have learned a heck of a lot today and I thank right hon. and hon. Members on the DUP Benches for introducing the debate. I have learned that I do not know enough about cyber-bullying and that as a parent I have to get with it, understand it and discuss it with my teenagers. I suspect that the House will agree with me on that and will forgive me for intervening to share with it something that I have learned.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his admission. We have all admitted that we can learn something every day, and so we can.

A recent Ofcom report shows that 68% of 12 to 15-year-olds in the UK have a profile on a social networking site. Among nine to 12-year-olds, who are too young officially to have their own Facebook account, 36% report having a Facebook profile, with 13% saying that they use it regularly. How aware are parents of their children’s access to social networking sites and what goes on through those sites? That is the question we are all asking.

The internet is changing fast and parents are clearly concerned about the rapid proliferation of harmful online content and what their children might be viewing. Ofcom highlights the fact that 79% of parents of children aged five to 15 who use the internet at home say that they have put in place rules about internet use. They have done it, but is it working? According to a report driven by Dr Sonia Livingstone at the London School of Economics, 81% of parents feel the need to talk to their children about what they do and view online and more than half stay nearby when their child is on the internet. If only that was possible in every case.

Those last two statistics are encouraging, demonstrating a real desire on the part of many parents to be actively involved in their children’s online experience. In that context we need to empower them to help their children to address issues such as cyber-bullying. This will inform those parents who are interested and concerned and also, we hope, prompt those who are not taking an active interest in the safety of their children online to do so. In that regard, I draw the attention of the House to the excellent Online Safety Bill, which will have its Second Reading in the other place on Friday. The Bill has two key provisions, one of which is designed to engage with the challenge of cyber-bullying.

In the first instance, the Bill places a statutory duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to exclude all adult content, while providing the user with the option of accessing such material subject to robust age verification to demonstrate that they are 18 or over. The provision is designed to help parents protect their children from stumbling, either accidentally or on purpose, on inappropriate material.

In the second instance, the Bill places a duty on internet service providers and mobile phone operators to provide prominent, easily accessible and clear information about online safety to subscribers. It also places a duty on the Secretary of State to educate parents of children under 18 on online safety. That key educational provision has been made primarily to engage with online challenges such as cyber-bullying and sexting.

The Bill is a noble proposal. It could and should move a long way towards achieving what we are trying to do today. I hope that the Government will embrace it and, in so doing, help to protect children from stumbling on inappropriate material and—of greater importance to this debate—to protect them from cyber-bullying.

15:25

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

It is rather intimidating to follow all the wonderful contributions that we have heard. I thank the DUP for choosing this topic. Last time I contributed to an Opposition day debate for which they had chosen the topic, it was on suicide prevention. I am glad that the DUP has chosen yet another important and challenging issue.

During that debate, I talked about my personal experience and a friend of mine who committed suicide when I was at school. The impact of that on my life has never left me. That poor young lad was bullied, but none of us knew about it. He hid it successfully and sadly, the outcome was catastrophic as he took his life. I also mentioned cyber-bullying. In my day, people could go home and get away from it. That is not the case today; there is simply no let up. In the family home, the PC might be sat in the corner of the living room, representing the constant menace of what is going on at school or in the workplace. It might be in the sitting room or the bedroom, a constant reminder of the bully out there in the wider world. As I said at the time, it is almost like having a silent bully in one’s own home.

It gets worse, because, as other hon. Members have said, we now all enjoy having technology we can carry around with us. For victims of bullying, there is no escape whatsoever. Other hon. Members gave examples of that and we just heard about Hannah Smith and her terrible experience. Over the past couple of days I have looked at other such experiences. Shannon Gallagher took her own life less than two months after her 13-year-old sister had killed herself. At the time, there were allegations of cyber-bullying. Apparently, the teenager had referred the bullying to the networking website and hours before her death posted online comments about teenagers who were taunting her. It is a terrible problem that we must address.

I am also very concerned about the suicide websites that now exist. It really is a terrible phenomenon. Just this week we saw the example of a 20-year-old man in Canada who tried to commit suicide online. He set his bedroom on fire, having taken drugs and alcohol. Some of the people who were watching—I do not understand that phenomenon—complained that they could not see what was happening because of the smoke that was filling the room. That is a dreadful example of the way in which cyber-bullying can create terrible problems for many young people.

Stonewall has done work on the impact of bullying on young gay people. Research for it by the university of Cambridge in “The School Report” of 2012, a survey of more than 1,600 lesbian, gay and bisexual young people in Britain’s schools, found that 55% had experienced homophobic bullying in school, 23% had experienced homophobic cyber-bullying, and 10% were bullied by text message. Some of the quotes that appeared on the website were worrying. Sixteen-year-old Harry said:

“Last summer, I was attacked on Facebook through a series of comments and wall posts calling me a ‘fag’.”

Someone else said:

“Sometimes I’d get messages on Facebook from people I didn’t know threatening me and telling me not to come back into school.”

That sort of language is outrageous and we need to deal with it. Yesterday, we all saw the Olympic diver come out publicly, and I looked at the comments that were posted on his Twitter page. I shall not repeat some of the language, because it is pretty horrific. One person said that he was no longer a fan of Tom Daley because of the “choice”, as that person called it, that he had made. Someone else said:

“I am now ashamed of my country…we can’t have a…fag representing us”.

I wonder how many of those people would dare to say those things to the individual’s face. I do not believe that many of them would.

What action can we take? Stonewall has discussed the work that schools could do, and there are a number of steps that they can take to prevent cyber-bullying and to support young people, whether gay or straight, particularly those who might suffer from mental health problems as a result of such bullying. It is important to promote clear policies on tackling bullying of all sorts, and to specify the need to tackle homophobic bullying in the classroom and beyond. Those policies should make clear both what cyber-bullying is and that cyber-bullying of school pupils is against school rules, regardless of where it takes place. That would go a long way towards sorting this out.

We must prosecute abusers. The Communications Act 2003 clearly says that it is illegal to send messages that are grossly offensive, indecent or menacing in character. I welcome the fact that the Crown Prosecution Service brought more than 2,000 prosecutions in 2012, but I want to know the true extent of the problem, because many people do not come forward and report their experiences.

The examples that I have given show the extremes of what might happen to someone who is subjected to cyber-bullying, and being constantly harangued in one’s own home via the computer or via one’s own phone has led some people to take their life, which is awful. The impact can be equally bad for young people’s mental health, and it can result in their confidence being attacked. In some cases, it can mean complete social exclusion, which needs to be addressed.

We need a change in social attitudes. As technology has changed and improved significantly so, I fear, has our tendency to accept the bad aspects that come with it. Too often we accept that harassment or intimidating comments are part of being on Twitter or Facebook, and too often we hear people stating, “Well, it’s what happens.” Why should we accept that? I am not talking about free speech or robust debate—we all accept that, and we all get those messages—as there is a difference between robust debate and intimidating language that makes people fearful. If we do not deal with this, we will dissuade victims from coming forward, stripping them of the confidence that there is help available to deal with it.

I want to refer to—how can I put it?—the local difficulty that I had in the Strangers Bar a few months ago. After that incident I received all sorts of e-mails, some positive and some rather negative, including one that was incredibly threatening. Someone said that they thought I had not been attacked enough, and they looked forward to the day the IRA re-formed and bombed my party. That sort of behaviour is completely unacceptable. The people who work in my office should not be subjected to such comments. They were frightened when opening the post, because that message had set such an awful example. As a responsible employer, I felt that it was right for me to report it to the police, but I was quite surprised by the criticism I received from some members of the public who basically said, “You have to grow up, because that is just what happens on Twitter and Facebook.”

The point I am trying to make is that if we as individuals do not stand up to such comments, how can we expect people who are being victimised in their schools and workplaces to do so? We need to change attitudes so that we can then change the culture. We need to say that it is frankly not on for people to be subjected to that, for the sake of those victims who have made the ultimate sacrifice and taken their lives as a result of bullying. Let us use the laws we have so that we enjoy the benefits and opportunities that technology can provide.

15:35

[Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), who made a heartfelt speech. I congratulate the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) on initiating this important and timely debate. We need to pay more attention to this problem, so I am grateful to him.

Members have spoken about the exaggerated behaviour seen on the internet, and we need to pay more attention to that. Bullying on the net and on social media is clearly not like bullying in the playground, and for a number of reasons. The Minister might want to do some research into the factors that change people’s behaviour and into how their behaviour changes.

Anonymity is clearly a big problem in this regard. When talking about crime on the net more generally, we have considered whether it might be possible—I believe that it is—to make a clearer connection between a person’s identity on the net and their identity in the real world. Tackling that problem is central to tackling many of the problems we have on the net. The behaviour of young people, in particular, on the net can become exaggerated partly because there is no feedback, so they do not need to face the person they are bullying or to see the consequences. That is clearly part of the problem.

I do not wish to suggest that there is a problem with young people only, because I think that people’s behaviour in general shifts with technology. If I was to say quietly to the Minister in a private place that I was going to tell him something that I did not want him to repeat, I am sure that he would respect that. If I was to write him a personal letter, it might be put in a box in his office and would not be published all over the media. However, if I was to send something by e-mail, it could immediately be broadcast nationally and internationally. We had such an incident in my constituency, when someone took a memory stick containing mental health records out of an office and managed to lose it. That is because people’s attitudes to other people are distanced by the technology, and we need to understand that more. We need to look at the work that has been done by Professor Susan Greenfield on changes that take place in the brain when people use technology, because there is clearly a profound change.

We are looking for a strategy that cuts across different Departments and arenas. There has been a lot of discussion about the role of schools, which clearly is important. I would like the Minister to clarify whether the learning that the Government are putting into the curriculum will be in the IT part or in the personal, social, health and economic education part. The Opposition think that it really needs to be part of PSHE, because this is about responsibility and relationships.

I commend to the Minister work that I saw a couple of months ago in Denmark, where people have made curriculum materials to be used by parents and children, who are already doing so in after-school classes. Virtually every Member has said how important it is to involve families in this, because parents need support and help. Again, we can learn from the experience of other countries.

Another aspect that has emerged is the disappointment that people have experienced when they have complained to the industry or to public sector professionals and the police. Another strand of any intelligence strategy must surely involve proper training for the professionals—the police, the courts and the social workers, as well as school teachers.

The Minister said that 900 schools will be reached through the charitable work that is being supported. I very much hope that this is not going to be, as it sounded, slightly London-centric. Although 900 schools sounds like quite a lot, there are 23,000 schools in this country. As the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) said, we do not want a postcode lottery.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) spoke about the responsibilities of parents and pointed out that many parents are irresponsible. Unfortunately, adults—parents—are using the net to abuse their own children. This just shows the depths that people can plumb and the complexity of dealing with these problems.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham spoke about the inadequate response—that is the politest thing one could say about it—that he received from Google after he had contacted it. Indeed, when Google directed me to what it thought was its excellent advice about young people meeting in the real world people they had met online, I was quite surprised to see that it was a cartoon advising them that if they did so, it should be in a public place. As a piece of advice to young people, that is worse than pitiful. It is very important to get the industry up to speed on all this, as the Minister said, and to take an international, as well as a national, approach.

Hon. Members have noted that the majority of young people now accept cyber-bullying as part of everyday life, as do their parents. According to the Anti-Bullying Alliance, 40% of parents and 44% of teachers said in a survey that they do not know how to deal with cyber-bullying. I hope that the Government are going to tell us that they do know how to deal with it and that they will engage more energetically with our European colleagues.

In August 2013, Hannah Smith killed herself following a series of abusive messages on the social media site, Ask.fm, which is hosted in Latvia and has been linked to four suicides in this country and Ireland since 2010. When this happened in Ireland, the Irish Government got in touch with Ask.fm. Unfortunately, the Government in London did not do so. I went to a meeting with the Latvian ambassador. Given international hosting and the international movement of messages, it is vital that the Government up their game in tackling this with our European colleagues.

As hon. Members have pointed out, the internet has great potential for learning and exploration, but if it is to be safe, it cannot be lawless. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children believes that one in five children is bullied online. Everybody has a responsibility to put an end to this, so I still do not understand why the Prime Minister’s summer announcements about child online safety contained nothing about safeguarding children on social media, or why the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport did not include it in her action list following her conference with the industry. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for offering to arrange a meeting with the industry and I want to take him up on it, because I think we can do more.

I would be grateful if Ministers could look into a couple of legal points. First, is the existing legal framework adequate? Are the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Malicious Communications Act 1988 and the Telecommunications Act 1984 specific enough to deal properly with cyber-bullying? It is clear that the activity is growing, so if there is a loophole, it needs to be filled. A systematic look at the legal provisions is essential.

Secondly, it would be helpful to look at what obligations social media have to respond quickly and substantively to complaints about cyber-bullying. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham made a lot of intelligent points about this. He said that there need to be consequences for the individual. I think we also need to consider consequences for the industry if it has not set up proper systems on its websites so that people can press panic buttons and the perpetrators can be found and dealt with. It is clear, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that the industry is completely happy to devote a lot of time, energy and money to gaining customers and increasing its profits, but the tempo is much slower when it comes to protecting vulnerable young people. That is simply not acceptable.

For example, Facebook has an age limit of 13, but it wishes to expose those young people to everything that is available to adults on the internet. That is completely irresponsible. The age limit of 13 was set up because it fits with Californian law. It does not fit with English law. This country has no system for telling whether somebody is 12, 13 or 14. Either Facebook must change its model and treat 13-year-olds as minors, or it must raise the age level at which people can access it. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot encourage children and young people into its site and then treat it as an adult space.

I believe that Ministers can do many things in schools, with families and by looking at the legal framework.

15:48

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

May I begin by thanking everyone, from all parties, who has taken part in this debate? In moving the motion, my hon. Friend the Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson) set the right tone and set the debate on the right course by making the point that this is not a party political issue and that there is a large degree of consensus on both sides of the House. He highlighted the very good work he has initiated in his own constituency in setting up a forum to help parents in particular. That was a very good practical example of what we can do.

The hon. Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) said that he had learned something as a result of this debate. We have learned how serious the issue is, but we have also picked up some points on how we can tackle it that are worth taking back to our constituencies to share with our partners in schools and elsewhere.

I join the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), in thanking the Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the hon. Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey) for his offer of a meeting between Members and the industry. We are certainly interested in following up on that excellent idea.

The Under-Secretary made the important point that all forms of bullying are unacceptable, which is the case, but in recent years, we have seen the rise of its most insidious form—cyber-bullying. Everybody is clearly running to catch up with the technology and all its effects, with the exponential growth in the use of various platforms and so on. The learning curve is steep for us all, but the more we can work together and collaborate on the issues, the better.

My hon. Friend the Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) pointed strongly to the responsibilities of parents in the home and of schools, as well as, like many hon. Members, to the responsibilities of those who run social media sites, many of which have failed to respond adequately.

The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) rightly said that much of the talk has been about harmful websites and much of the spotlight on pornographic ones, but added that more needs to be done to tackle social media sites and the problems of abuse and bullying. Like the shadow Minister, I think that the response that he received from Google to his complaint about an horrific set of circumstances was inadequate. Such a response is entirely illustrative of the problems that we are up against if we leave the matter wholly to the industry. That is why the motion refers, as several hon. Members have done, to the need to look carefully at what more can be done through legislation to force companies to respond adequately. There should be consequences for the companies if they do not take adequate action to deal with complaints and problems that are not only minor, but can be very serious, including those that have led, as we have heard, to a loss of life.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) talked about legislation and the need for consequences. Like other Northern Ireland Members, she knows about this phenomenon—it is common across the entire country and, indeed, the modern developed world—as well as the particular issues in Northern Ireland arising from the legacy of the 30 or 35 years of the so-called troubles, with a large number of households and families affected by mental health issues. The insidious problem of cyber-bullying comes on top of those kinds of issues, which make the problems in Northern Ireland particularly acute. I join her in what she said.

I also agree with the hon. Lady about the idea of having a strong campaign, including advertising, to up the profile of all this and to encourage parents to get to know more about what their youngsters and young people are up to, and educate them about what steps they can take to help.

I thank the hon. Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) for his contribution from the Liberal Democrat Benches. He made a very interesting point, which I had not thought of, about making a tutorial available when people sign up to a new Facebook account, for instance, to teach them how to report and deal with abuse. That is an excellent idea that is worth bringing up in our discussions with the industry. I entirely agree with him that we can and should do more.

My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) pointed out, as many hon. Members have done, the benefits of the internet, which is a wonderful invention that has brought and continues to bring massive good to so many, particularly in the developing world. The fact that, as he said, the internet can be a tool for harm is the real worry that parents and others now have. In recent days, we have heard all about the dark net, and about how people can access all kinds of services and goods. Quite frankly, it is beyond belief that people can actually do that.

I thank the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) for his speech in this debate—as he said, he also took part in one of our previous ones—and for making an important point. He cited a number of horrific cases, the most recent of which was the bullying that has resulted from the coverage about Tom Daley. The incidents involving the hon. Gentleman and his friend illustrate why we need to bring this matter into the open and discuss it more. That is why we brought it forward for debate. The more that we air these issues, highlight them and discuss them, the more people will realise that something needs to be done. We all need to take responsibility, parents in particular.

Time is short, but I want to make a couple of further points, for which I am indebted to Dr Noel Purdy who, along with Dr Conor McGuckin, produced a report in Northern Ireland entitled “Cyber-bullying and the law”. Dr Purdy is the chair of the Northern Ireland Anti-Bullying Forum. He has made a number of points, particularly in relation to schools, that bear highlighting in the House this afternoon. He says that

“schools are often at a loss to know where to start dealing with the issue”

because

“incidents take place in the evenings or at weekends off site”

and because of issues with “staff competence”. He makes the point that in Northern Ireland the guidance that schools receive on how to manage these issues and on their legal responsibilities is “virtually non-existent”. He also makes the point that technology is changing so fast that it is hard for schools, teachers and parents to keep up.

Dr Purdy states that cyber-bullying is a 24/7 activity. That point has been brought out in this debate. With the old kind of bullying in the school playground, one could get away from it and find refuge in one’s family, home and friends. People had support mechanisms. Bullying over the internet is inescapable because everybody now carries a mobile phone.

Dr Purdy’s report cites primary school teachers who say that parents give iPads, tablets and mobile phones to children as young as four or five as Christmas and birthday presents and then leave them to it. As we all know, children pick up things from other children and from older children in particular. We therefore need to be conscious of this extremely worrying phenomenon. Parents urgently need to be educated about the dangers of internet technology. Buying such technology for their children and leaving them to it is the highest form of irresponsibility. However, it is too easily done. I am not lecturing others, because we are all guilty to some extent of not keeping a close enough watch on our children. In today’s society, it is not always possible to have a close family unit in which close attention is given to what young people are up to. That is a massive issue that needs to be addressed.

We want the Government to consider legislation on greater reporting obligations on social media companies and service providers, and on a specific offence of cyber-bullying. In his opening remarks, the Minister helpfully referred to the various pieces of legislation that are in place. He referred to the number of cases that have been brought under the Malicious Communications Act 1988. He also mentioned the Communications Act 2003, the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. However, I think that what has come out of this debate is that there needs to be a stronger definition of the phenomenon of cyber-bullying. I urge the Government to think seriously about that.

15:59

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Mr Edward Timpson)]

I begin by thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in today’s valuable and welcome debate. It is perhaps a sign of the real advances that have been made in Northern Ireland that Democratic Unionist party Members have tabled two important debates on matters that affect the whole UK as well as their own constituents. That is to be hugely welcomed.

I have listened with great interest to the contributions to the debate, none more so than that of the hon. Member for Upper Bann (David Simpson). I commend him, as have others, for his work in his constituency to raise awareness of cyber-bullying, such as the forum that he brought together, at which he committed to raising the profile of the issue. I suspect that he could have done no better than bringing today’s debate to the House. He set a measured and serious tone and raised a number of important points, which I will seek to cover.

The hon. Member for South Antrim (Dr McCrea) told us about the lack of parental knowledge that is still out there, and my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) spoke for many of us when he admitted his own naivety about much of the activity on the internet that exposes young people to potential harm. We should all take that lesson from today’s debate.

Concerns have also been raised in the debate about Facebook’s privacy settings. Following our work on the UKCCIS board, Facebook has made changes to the default setting for users aged 13 to 18, moving the default position from information being open to friends of friends to its being open to friends only. The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre and others have welcomed that, but we still need to hold Facebook’s feet to the fire, and the fact that it is a member of the UKCCIS board gives us a real opportunity to keep pressing it further to take more action.

The hon. Member for Upper Bann rightly asked what more we could do, and we must constantly ask ourselves that question. The offer that the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Wantage (Mr Vaizey), made of a meeting with interested Members and social media providers—Twitter, Facebook and the like—was a positive step, and I hope that many hon. Members will take it up as a way forward.

As ever, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) made a thought-provoking and well informed speech, and he reminded us of the danger that cyber-bullying brings and the fact that in many ways it is no more than a cowardly form of playground bullying. There is also a danger that it is becoming an everyday fact of modern life, and that too many young people and adults are becoming sanitised to the world in which they communicate. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) also raised that point in his excellent contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham also asked the crucial question why so many people turn to the internet to bully, harass and abuse. I was struck by the contribution of the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and her thoughtful analysis of attitudinal changes in people’s behaviour that are connected with their use of different forms of social media, and how they have manifested themselves in such widespread form. It was a powerful point, and we should examine that matter carefully using the research that she pointed to and through the work of the UKCCIS board and across Government more widely. I am happy to discuss that research with her and where she thinks we could channel our energies to use it more effectively, because none of us would in any way, shape or form endorse the changes to social attitudes that we have seen.

As my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham said, the UKCCIS is part of the solution. He called for greater focus on social media as part of the board’s work, and I agree completely. The board currently has a strand of work on social networking, and we will pursue the matter more vigorously as the board moves forward. I commend him for his efforts to pool best practice through the Nominet survey of hon. Members, in which I encourage them to participate if they feel able to do so.

My hon. Friend raised the important matter of vulnerable children in particular being unfairly targeted by people seeking to abuse them via the internet. The £1.5 million that we have given to the National Children’s Bureau will directly help to reduce the bullying encountered by children who have special educational needs or disabilities. As he rightly pointed out, we also need to improve reporting mechanisms so that the two-thirds of children who do not report a worry or concern about an interaction they have experienced over the internet feel able to do so. That is another piece of work the UKCCIS is taking forward, and I welcome my hon. Friend’s support for many of our other actions.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) mentioned the difficulties in defining cyber-bullying, and the need to raise awareness of the issue through a sustained nationwide campaign. To clarify an earlier exchange about the big four internet service providers coming together in a concerted joined-up campaign over the next three years, the £25 million is for the first year, with subsequent funding for the next two years to follow. That is a significant amount of money to target collectively on the issues that really matter, and cyber-bullying must clearly be taken into account.

My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich South (Simon Wright) gave a powerful demonstration of what can be achieved in people’s own communities to tackle this issue, and mentioned his constituent Jacqueline Hitchcock-Wyatt who set up the Bullying Stinkz campaign to empower young people to speak up. I commend them for their work. It demonstrates that if we have the will and desire to do so, we can effect change right where it matters.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) reminded us of the scale of this insidious form of bullying and the need to improve awareness among parents. We should never underestimate the ability of this issue to spread so quickly and so far, and that is a difficult part of finding a solution to these rapid technological changes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey shared candidly his own personal experiences and the loss of his friend to bullying. He may like to consider the categories included in new family-friendly parental control filters, which include suicide and self-harm, as that is important. We talk a lot about the insidious nature of much of the activity on the internet, but nothing can be more insidious than some of the suicide sites that we see. He reminded us of the terrible experience of Hannah Smith, and I had the opportunity to meet her father David a few months ago to discuss what we can learn from that tragic case.

My hon. Friend also explained to the House about the targeting of gay people, and gave the recent example of Olympic diver Tom Daley, and some of the despicable and twisted posts that have been put on social media sites. Cyber-bullying attacks people’s confidence, and it can go even further and ruin people’s mental health. That goes to the heart of the conversation about social attitudes, and why it is that when people are given anonymity, their whole value base seems to flip. We must do more to understand that.

I have already alluded to the helpful and constructive contribution by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, and she asked about the four key stages in which internet safety will now be taught—previously it was taught only in key stages 3 and 4. Internet safety is in the computing part of the curriculum, but there is of course freedom for schools, within personal, social, health and economic education, to envelop it into other aspects of the curriculum. The hon. Lady mentioned some of the materials from Denmark that help not just children but parents as well—an interesting area to explore, considering we know how much parents feel that they lack knowledge and understanding of many of the issues their children face.

On how we are helping schools, and some of the excellent voluntary organisations that work day in, day out, to support children who are victims of bullying, the 900 schools were in relation to the National Children’s Bureau grant for children with special educational needs. The £1.5 million to beat bullying is to train 3,500 11 to 17-year-olds to be mentors in schools and outside the school gates, and the £800,000 for the Diana Award is to train 10,000 pupils to act as anti-bullying ambassadors. It is not London-centric; we are trying to cover many areas of the country where we know there is expertise on the ground.

The right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds), who closed the debate on behalf of the Democratic Unionist party, reminded us that bullying in all its forms is simply unacceptable, but that we are still running to catch up with technology. It is in that vein that I will reflect on the contributions that have been made to consider whether there is more we can do to combat this horrific activity that is blighting far too many people’s lives, both young and old.

If we are to be successful in tackling bullying, including cyber-bullying, it is important that we engage with people across society—including government, local authorities, local safeguarding children’s boards, the police, schools, parents and internet providers—so that they can all play their part. They all have a role to play, and by intervening to prevent and respond to bullying, we are more likely to stamp it out.

We talked at length about existing legislation and the prosecutions arising from the Communications Act 2003. I will endeavour to write to my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham with specific figures. Like so many other areas where vulnerable people are exposed to horrific crimes, whether female genital mutilation or other crimes, we want to ensure that we do all we can to bring about successful prosecutions. There will be instances where cyber-bullying forms part of a wider pattern of behaviour. Someone may be prosecuted under a different offence, where cyber-bullying forms part of the charge and, we hope, the conviction. It is sometimes hard to determine exactly whether cyber-bullying has played a role in someone’s successful prosecution, but I will endeavour to find as much detail for my hon. Friend as I can. We believe that existing law is able to ensure that where something is illegal offline it is also illegal online. We will, as we always do, keep under review whether the legislation is delivering. As things stand, we are confident that we have in place the right framework to ensure that where people are breaking the law they are called to task.

This has been an excellent debate, one that has demonstrated that we have a shared commitment across the House to tackle cyber-bullying and bullying in all its forms. I thank Democratic Unionist party Members for using their precious time to raise such an important issue. We have more to do. We have a lot of work in train and we will continue to work collectively to ensure that we go further and faster to stamp out this horrendous crime.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House recognises the serious problem of cyber-bullying and the appalling consequences for an increasing number of children and young people who are its victims; and calls on the Government to take action to help eradicate this form of intimidation and harassment, including the consideration of legislation to make cyber-bullying an offence.

Persecution of Christians

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

16:12

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I beg to move,

That this House is concerned that the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century; notes that there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith; further notes that Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally; bears in mind that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.

It is a pleasure to bring this matter forward for consideration. The number of Members in the Chamber is an indication of the level of interest, and I look forward to outlining some of the issues.

I believe that the persecution of Christians is the biggest story in the world that has never been told, and its importance cannot be underlined enough. The subject burdens me, and many other Members, judging by the number here. Each day we pray for Christians who are suffering persecution. It is important that we use the powerful tool of prayer to help them.

I am reminded of the story told about Charles Wesley addressing his congregation in church. He was calling out a hymn and said to the congregation, “I want you to sing lustily. I want you to sing moderately. Most of all, I want you to sing in tune.” I believe that this House will be in tune today, because we are all united on the importance of this issue. Today’s debate will make that clear.

[Mark Field (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)]

It is greatly to the credit of the Democratic Unionist party that it has secured this debate. Let us be honest: if this were happening to almost any other religious group it would be something of a national scandal. That makes it all the more important to put the ongoing persecution of Christians in many parts of the world on the political map. This debate will do that in the next two and three quarter hours.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I think the rest of the debate will reflect that tone.

One hundred thousand Christians will be massacred this year because of their beliefs. Two hundred million Christians will be persecuted due to their faith. One and a half billion Christians live in what can be termed as dangerous neighbourhoods. That shows the magnitude of the problem of persecuted Christians.

There are Christians in the world today who cannot attend church as we do on Sunday and they cannot pray to God as we do—indeed, as we did before we started our business in this House today. There is an example of the importance of the Bible and our prayer time. These Christians cannot tell their friends that the Lord Jesus gave his life for them, and they cannot read their Bible as we read our Bible. They cannot carry out their own businesses; they cannot be involved in civic life; they face discrimination in education.

Let us go right across the world from North Korea, where it is estimated that some 100,000 Christians suffer in horrific prison camps, to Eritrea where 2,000 Christians are in jail for their beliefs and 31 died in custody last year. Then there are countries in which Christians are in a minority—Sudan and Somalia, for example, where they are pursued relentlessly. Christians are also persecuted in countries where they are of equal numbers, while in countries where Christians are in larger numbers or in a majority, they are subject to radical Muslim teaching and abuse, as exemplified in Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania. In Algeria, it is impossible to register church buildings or to legalise meetings.

In Africa, due to Islamic extremism, the persecution of Christians has increased significantly in 2012 and 2013, most notably in Mali, Tanzania, Ethiopia and Niger. Sharia family courts have been introduced, which ignore Christians and their beliefs. The north of Mali is similar to Saudi Arabia in that Christians are simply no longer allowed to be there or to practise their beliefs. In the Maldives, one cannot read one’s Bible; indeed, people are not allowed to have one. If people are caught reading their Bibles on holiday in that beautiful country, they will be arrested, jailed and deported. I hope you will think about that, Madam Deputy Speaker, the next time you decide to book a holiday to the Maldives.

In Sri Lanka, Christians are subject to persecution. In Burma, Christians and ethnic minorities are bombed by Government aircraft and attacked. It would be helpful to hear in the Minister’s response some indication of how those issues were presented at the Commonwealth summit and what response the Prime Minister got. I understand that he brought the issues to the attention of the people attending.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues on raising this issue, which I know is a matter of concern to many of our constituents. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will, like myself, be opposed to the persecution or harassment of any faith group of whatever denomination. The fact is that Christians face persecution and harassment in more countries than any other faith group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Commonwealth meeting. What we need, of course, is action internationally as well. What kind of action does he envisage would strengthen the international regime, international conventions and international agencies to try to stop such persecution and harassment happening?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. We will discuss those aspects as the debate develops. There is clearly a role not just for this House, but for the Commonwealth, for the United Nations and for all the countries where persecution has taken place. They all have a clear role to play to help ease the pain of persecuted Christians. We should all try to achieve that.

[David Simpson (Upper Bann) (DUP)]

My hon. Friend will know that I have an interest in India, where my adopted daughter comes from. In recent times, we have seen kidnappings, forced marriages, 18,000 people injured, 6,000 houses and 296 churches and small places of Christian worship burned and pastors murdered. It is a horrendous situation; something needs to be done about it.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comments, which are harrowing ones. I have them written down here, so I shall not repeat them. My hon. Friend, like many of us here, used to work in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and I can remember him speaking on this issue back then. The story was horrific then; it is equally horrific today. The figures and the statistics are overwhelming.

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

I thank the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for choosing this theme for debate. Does he accept that not just members of the Christian Church—him, me, many other Members and our constituents—but people of other faiths now believe that the Government and the Commonwealth in particular should be much more proactive about this issue? In reflecting further on the question asked by the hon. Member for Edinburgh North and Leith (Mark Lazarowicz), does he agree that one thing the Government could do would be to urge the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to argue for the Commonwealth to set up a specific group of people—of politicians and faith groups—to make sure that the human rights of faith minorities in the world, particularly in the Commonwealth, are much better protected than they are now?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that very valuable contribution. I will mention Baroness Warsi later in my speech. She has outlined the issue from the Government’s point of view and explained some of the ideas she is thinking of. I will return to them shortly as I believe they show the direction we should be going in, and hopefully that will address some of the points Members have raised.

In Indonesia and the Philippines Christians have had their churches burned to the ground and church members attacked and killed because they dared to tell others about the love of God, and that God is a God of love who loves them and wants them to be saved and in heaven. Now, in the 21st century, nearly 65 years since the universal declaration of human rights was adopted by the UN—we can now think about the UN’s role and the role it can play—and with great improvements in technology and medicine, we might also expect to see an improvement in how humans treat each other. However, sadly, we still see severe violations of human rights around the world. Indeed one human right that is particularly violated is that outlined in article 18: the right to freedom of religion or belief. It is enshrined in the motion before us today, too; that is the thrust of where we are coming from. This right is one of the only rights defined as non-derogable in the international covenant on civil and political rights. That means that it must be protected at all times and cannot be suspended or reduced in times of emergency.

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

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on bringing this subject before the House. What role does he think human rights legislation and constitutional protections might play in helping prevent the kinds of human rights abuses we are seeing at the moment?

[Jim Shannon]

As this debate develops, the Minister or his civil servants will frantically write down the answers to these questions. I have a number of questions as well. I am sure the scribes in the corner will be writing furiously throughout the debate; I hope I was not insulting them by calling them scribes.

Those who drafted our international human rights clearly saw the right to freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief as key to the inherent dignity of the human person and that it was important to protect it at all times. We should afford it the same weight; that is where we are coming from. To this end, I am pleased that the United Kingdom Government have designated the right to freedom of religion or belief as one of the top human right priorities for their foreign policy. We understand that to be the case and hope to hear it confirmed at the end of our debate. Will the UK Government agree that this right should be protected and promoted by all Governments worldwide? That is another question.

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

The hon. Gentleman is being very generous in giving way, and what he is saying and some of the cases he is highlighting are deeply alarming. What I am particularly alarmed about is some of the instances he has mentioned within the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is a huge broad church of different faiths, beliefs and religions and we are a family. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we should be using the Commonwealth more to promote freedom of worship, as we do poverty alleviation and education, so that Commonwealth countries can promote that among non-Commonwealth countries in the particular parts of the world where they are located?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for those very honest and true words, which every one of us can take on board and believe in. I hope we can exert pressure, including through our membership of the Commonwealth, to try to exact change.

This Government are keen to pursue closer financial relations with China and there is nothing wrong with that. The benefits were outlined in the papers today, as were the pictures of the Prime Minister, but there are 100 Christian Church pastors in prison today because they are Christians—because they have a belief.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that the Christian Church worldwide is suffering from unprecedented persecution, and I welcome this debate. Given that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in China as we speak—unless he is on an aircraft—does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Chinese authorities need to understand that the Christian religion is not a western plot, but has its origins as a religion in the middle east, in a town called Bethlehem?

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and that is clearly an issue and China needs to understand that as well. As many Members wish to speak, if I may I will not take any more interventions.

Foreign Office Minister Baroness Warsi has an important role to play. She recently drew attention to the persecution of Christians. I commend her for speaking out so boldly and clearly. In her speech she noted that,

“the parts of the world where Christianity first spread, is now seeing large sections of the Christian community leaving, and those that are remaining feeling persecuted.”

She has set the focus and attention where it should be: on the mass exodus of Christians from the middle east, which is very evident in Egypt and in Syria. In Iraq, Christians fled the cities of Baghdad and Mosul in 2005 after persecution intensified. These are the facts, but the increasing use of violence against Christians in the previously safe north has largely gone unnoticed in the outside world. On 22 September, a suicide bomb went off in the Kirkuk province, injuring 19 people, including the Christian politician Emad Youhanna. Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility. How are the UK Government working with Iraq to address this worrying development in northern Iraq?

In Syria, Christians are caught between opposing sides in the conflict. There are an increasing number of missile and mortar attacks in Christian neighbourhoods in cities such as Damascus and Aleppo. Jihadists are now widely understood to have infiltrated the rebel movement in Syria. They specifically targeted Christian villages such as Maaloula, in September, and more recently Sadad, where 45 people were killed. Such incidents demonstrate what is happening.

Now that the United Nations has set the date for Geneva II—22 January 2014—what are the British Government doing to ensure that the Christian community in Syria has a voice at the negotiations? Will the Government do everything possible through Geneva II to protect all the people of Syria, to safeguard the Christian community, to guarantee access for humanitarian assistance, and to establish a new Syria that respects the right to freedom of religion for all?

[Mark Field]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

[Jim Shannon]

I am sorry but I cannot; I want to give Members a chance to speak.

I turn to Pakistan and the killing of 85 people and the wounding of 150 others in a suicide bombing attack. The Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan—the TTP terrorist organisation—is specifically targeting Christians in Pakistan. What will the British Government be able to do about that in their discussions with Pakistan? In Libya, Christians have been murdered for failing to agree to convert to Islam. The fall in the number of Christians across the region is very evident in Iraq.

In Iraq, the violence is increasing. It is the Sunnis against the Shi’ites; the Kurds against the Turks, against the Arabs; the federalists against the separatists; the nationalists against the international jihadists; anti-Government versus pro-Government. Underneath all those levels of disagreement, the region’s indigenous, long-suffering, besieged remnant Christians will be the victims of every contact targeted by all forces. They are the target of every one of those groups. That is happening in Yemen, as well, and Christians are being attacked and murdered across the whole of Mexico, Lebanon, Colombia, Guatemala and Sudan.

I turn to Nigeria, a country very close to my heart. We have had debates on it in this House, and we have raised the important questions and issues that we must try to address. The persecution of Christians in Nigeria takes multiple forms. We are all familiar with the horrifying fatalities resulting from the Boko Haram attacks. First, I would like to highlight the all-pervading pressure placed on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states, where they are effectively second-class citizens and converting to Christianity is a dangerous act not only for the convert, but for anyone who tries to help them. In the northern states, great pressure is exerted on the Christian community. They cannot bury their dead in public cemeteries. In public primary schools, Christian children are forced to attend Islamic studies and are beaten and/or expelled if they refuse. Teenage Christians struggle to gain access to secondary schools or higher education institutions. Christian girls were under serious threat of abduction, forced conversion and marriage. Access for Christians to development projects in these states is also severely restricted. What are the British Government doing to address this all-pervading social pressure on Christians in the 12 northern sharia states in Nigeria?

Boko Haram is the militant group that targets Government and Church activities. Church leaders are often specifically targeted by this group. Many have been killed in Nigeria, and attacks against Christians in Nigeria have also reportedly been perpetrated by militants crossing the border from Chad and Niger. There are further examples of attacks upon Christians. A Catholic minister and his two sons were murdered in the northern state of Yobe. Their home and church were then set ablaze. The town of Gamboru was attacked twice. Six people were killed in the first attack, and a further 21 in the second. Militant cross-border terrorist groups are also fomenting religious strife in other African countries. Christians in Somalia and Kenya are being targeted by the group al-Shabaab. In the Central African Republic, the Seleka forces—involving members from the CAR, Chad and Niger—have been involved in the killing of at least eight Church leaders. It has also been noted by observers that the conflict in the CAR is developing a worrying sectarian element.

Have the Government identified the increase in the activity of, and the persecution of Christians by, cross-border militants in Nigeria as a problem? If so, what are they doing to help the Governments in that region to address the issue effectively? I urge the Minister to respond to those and the many other questions that will emerge from the debate today. I thank hon. Members for their patience; I hope that I have been able to set the scene and to explain what this issue means to me personally and what it should mean to the House and everyone in this country. The persecution of Christians is an important matter. Let us pray for them and let us do our best for them as elected representatives in this House.

16:30

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mark Simmonds)]

I should like to set out the Government’s position on this important matter. A little later, I will sum up the debate and answer the questions from the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and those that other hon. Members will no doubt ask. I congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing this important debate, and I echo the comment from my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mark Field) that the party deserves enormous credit for choosing this topic, which is of significant importance to many people in our constituencies.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford on his measured, detailed and thorough analysis of the many areas around the world in which Christians are suffering persecution. I am sure that he would be the first to admit, however, that in the Central African Republic, Nigeria, Syria and elsewhere, it is not just Christians but people of other religions who are suffering such persecution. That should be a matter of deep concern to all of us, whether we have a religious faith or not, because freedom of religion and belief is a gateway to other human rights and a litmus test of other fundamental freedoms. When people are persecuted because of the faith that they profess, the freedoms of expression and assembly and other human rights will often also suffer.

[Mark Field]

I accept that view, but would the Minister acknowledge the depressing paradox that some of the worst persecution is taking place in notional democracies? In some cases, the Christian population would be better looked after under a dictatorship—such as in Syria under President Assad—than in a country that is notionally democratic. This is not simply a matter of saying that a whole load of democratic rights will follow on from religious freedoms. We must ensure that religious and individual freedoms go hand in hand and that they do not find themselves in conflict with each other.

[Mark Simmonds]

My hon. Friend makes an important point, although he will be aware that we believe that President Assad’s regime in Syria has engaged in a deliberate attempt to stir up tensions between religious groups in order to hold on to power. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that these issues are extremely complex, but there is a direct correlation between the rule of law, human rights, transparency and freedom of expression as it relates to religion, whether it be Christianity, any other religion or no religion at all.

[Mark Pritchard]

The Minister has just read out a list that, perhaps surprisingly, sounds very similar to the Chinese constitution. Given the fact that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is in China at the moment, would the Minister like to put on record that the Chinese regime needs to abide by the terms of its own constitution and allow freedom of assembly for Christians, whether they are members of the official Church or part of the underground church?

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand the point that my hon. Friend is making, but I re-emphasise the fact that we strongly support freedom of religion for all, including in China—the example he gave—in accordance with international frameworks to which the United Kingdom and China are both party. We regularly raise the issue of religious freedom with the Chinese Government, and we have a UK-China human rights dialogue for detailed expert engagement, which will engage with this particular area, too.

Let me make a little progress, because I want to put on the record what the Government are doing about the persecution of those trying to practise their religion. We strongly believe that the freedom to practise, change or share one’s faith or belief without discrimination or violent opposition is a fundamental human right that all people should enjoy. We believe that societies that aim to guarantee freedom of religion or belief are stronger, fairer and more confident. The situation facing Christians in the 21st century is alarming. Research by the Pew Research Centre acknowledges that Christians are the most persecuted religious group in the world—a point made powerfully by the hon. Member for Strangford. The Government recognise that, and the persecution of Christians worldwide was the central focus of Baroness Warsi’s keynote speech at Georgetown university on 15 November. In that speech, we called for unity in confronting the intolerance and sectarianism that leads to minority communities being persecuted around the world and to a mass exodus of Christians from places where they have co-existed with the majority faith for generations. In the speech, she presented her vision for a cross-faith, cross-continent response to the problem, with a positive, practical focus on promoting the benefits of religious plurality to societies.

A key element of that speech was that our response to the persecution of Christians should not be sectarian. We should not be standing up for our co-religionists or Christians in particular; we should be supporting the right to freedom of religion or belief for all, as set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. History points out that intolerance is defeated only when we come together. People of all faiths and none should be appalled when a bomb goes off outside a church. Indeed, both Muslims and Christians have come together to protect each other’s place of worship, and, as in the case of the terrible suicide bomb attacks on All Saints’ church in Peshawar, to donate blood for the victims. That needs to be the response that we all take to the global crisis affecting Christians.

We should speak out on behalf of Christians. That is what we have done, for example, when we condemned the recent attacks that took place in Pakistan, which killed and injured so many innocent people. We should lobby for changes in discriminatory laws and practices that affect religious minorities, including Christians. We will continue to do that when, for example, an Iranian pastor is arrested for setting up a church in a house or for sharing his faith. We meet Christian leaders from around the world to gain a better understanding of their concerns and the issues affecting them. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers met Patriarch Gregorios III on 16 October to discuss the plight of Christians in Syria—the hon. Member for Strangford made a powerful point about that.

We are active in supporting local Christian communities. That is why for a number of years we have supported the work of Canon Andrew White in Iraq, bringing together religious leaders across sectarian divides to denounce violence that occurs in the name of religion. Similarly, when I went to Kaduna in northern Nigeria—another example cited by the hon. Gentleman—I met religious leaders across the religious divide to see the valuable inter-faith work that was taking place there. I wish to discuss Nigeria in my closing remarks, if the House will allow me.

However, I do not believe that making it our policy to defend Christians in particular is going to help them in the longer term. There is a risk of isolating them from the wider populations, identifying them as something of a fifth column and even exacerbating the persecution that they may be suffering. Instead, we should be supporting the building of societies that respect human rights, the rule of law and the equality and opportunity of all citizens, and spelling out that all freedoms of religion or belief are a universal concern.

We are also making the case that countries that protect minority rights are stronger, fairer and more confident. If people are free to believe and to worship, they can make a bigger contribution to society, boost the economy and guard against violence, extremism and social strife. Other countries should protect Christians not just because it is the right thing to do, which it is, but because it is in their interests to do so. The freedom of religion is a fundamental human rights priority for this Government, which means that we pursue it as a major element of our bilateral work, our lobbying of other Governments and our human rights programme funding.

We have equipped our staff with a toolkit to monitor and address concerns about freedom of religion or belief around the world. Our toolkit has provided the inspiration for the European Union’s own guidelines on freedom of religion or belief, and we have played a central role in securing both their adoption and implementation. We continue to play a leading role within the EU in making this a priority across member states in terms of focusing on particular countries of concern, programme funding or staff training. It is also a focus of our multilateral work at the UN and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. Multilaterally, we are working through the UN to ensure that states implement the Human Rights Council resolution that focuses on combating religious intolerance, protecting the human rights of minorities and promoting pluralism in society.

During the UN General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a second meeting of international leaders to discuss what more politicians can do to promote freedom of religion or belief and to fight religious intolerance wherever it occurs within our society.

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

The Minister says that we should not focus too much on Christians—I understand that—but if we accept that argument we should not have complained about the persecution of Jews in Nazi Germany because that would have made them a target. I do not necessarily accept all his arguments. He must accept that the overwhelming number of persecutions in the world today are against Christians. That is a fact, and so we have to focus on Christians for better or worse.

[Mark Simmonds]

I understand my hon. Friend’s point. He says that the majority of those who are persecuted for their religious belief are Christians, but there are others who are suffering as well—people of different religions and of no religious faith. Another example that the hon. Member for Strangford gave was the appalling atrocities that are taking place in the Central African Republic, where Muslims are persecuting Christians and Christians are persecuting and murdering Muslims. The actions of both groups are completely and utterly unacceptable, and the United Kingdom Government need to do everything they can to ensure that a person can pursue their religion, whatever it is, without fear of persecution or intimidation.

[Mark Pritchard]

I am grateful to the Minister for being so generous in taking interventions. In order for there to be some balance vis-à-vis my remarks on China and following on from a debate a week or so ago in Westminster Hall, does he agree that Uighurs in the Xinjiang province of China also need protection, as do the Buddhists in another part of China?

[Mark Simmonds]

I think my hon. Friend is referring to the Buddhists in Tibet, which I have visited. Certainly, wherever people of religious belief exist, they should be allowed to practise free of persecution, intimidation and violence. As I have said before in relation to China or anywhere else, this is a main priority of our bilateral relations. We have raised this important issue in the past, and we will continue to do so in the future.

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

This debate is entitled persecution of Christians. With all due respect to my hon. Friend, there is a risk of the Foreign Office not appreciating the real growing concern about the global persecution of Christians. It is not sufficient to say that because some other people are being persecuted, we should not be concerned about the persecution of Christians. There is a global issue about the persecution of Christians in a number of defined countries. If he looks around, he will discover that what the House wants to hear is what the Foreign Office will be doing differently to address that persecution.

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful for that intervention, and if my hon. Friend will allow me to make some progress I shall set out the changes that will emanate from the work done by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi.

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

Will the Minister give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

Perhaps I could make little progress, so that I can set out some of the changes that we are making.

We are focusing on the multilateral work at the UN and the OSCE. During the United Nations General Assembly ministerial week at the end of September, we convened a meeting to focus on promoting freedom of religion or belief and fighting religious intolerance in our societies. At the OSCE for the past three years, we have showcased our work on freedom of religion or belief and combating hate crime against religious communities. Moreover, our work to promote the freedom of religion or belief continues to grow, as demonstrated by the creation of a new sub-group of the Foreign Secretary’s advisory group to focus on freedom of religion or belief.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

rose—

[Mark Simmonds]

Let me set this out, then I will happily give way.

We have also introduced new training courses to equip our diplomats to understand the crucial role religion plays in the world today. I should stress that the promotion of the freedom of religion or belief, of which the Christian religion is an important part, of course, remains a priority for all FCO Ministers. Collectively, we have a greater reach and more access to key interlocutors than a stand-alone ambassador on the subject matter would have.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I congratulate the DUP on securing the debate. May I tease out from the Minister what he understands by the phrase “freedom of religion or belief”? Is it merely a matter of being able to worship, a matter of being able to worship publicly, or a matter of being able to worship in a public place, to tell others about one’s faith and to encourage them to join it? What is the exact definition? There seems to be some variance around the world—I am not saying that it is coming from Her Majesty's Government—in what freedom of religion is.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. May I gently remind the Minister and Members who continue to intervene that the debate must finish at 7 o’clock? I have 15 speakers on my written list and I would appreciate it, Minister, given that you will seek leave to speak at the end of the debate, if you could make more rapid progress through your speech to allow other Members to speak.

[Mark Simmonds]

I am grateful for that guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker. Let me give a brief response to my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy): I would argue that it is all of the above, as well as the right to change one’s religion or belief.

In summary, the UK Government are committed to protecting freedom of religion or belief internationally and to standing up for the rights of Christians and others who are persecuted around the world, regardless of the country or faith concerned. We welcome the increased focus on that fundamental right that has been brought about by parliamentarians, particularly the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief. Our activity to further this fundamental right will continue to grow and develop.

16:47

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate and I know from past experience of speaking in Westminster Hall debates on human rights issues that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) is passionate about the issue. He has made a number of speeches and interventions on the subject in previous debates and I congratulate him on persuading his party to table the motion today.

As we have heard, freedom of religion or belief is included under article 18 of the universal declaration on human rights, which states:

“Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.”

As we have heard from those who have spoken so far, in too many countries those freedoms, particularly the right to dissent from the majority religion and to change religion, are not respected.

I commend the all-party group on international religious freedom. I attended its meeting with Baroness Warsi a few weeks ago and I am sure that we will hear from some of the group’s members this afternoon. In particular, I congratulate the group on its report “Article 18: An Orphaned Right”. Although all human rights are interdependent and interrelated, it highlights the fact that religious freedom often remains on the margins. As we heard from the Minister, the abuse of someone's right to freedom of religion often acts as a gateway to other human rights abuses, such as those of the right to freedom of assembly or expression.

We have to consider religious freedom as an intrinsic part of human rights and indicative of the level of civil and political freedom in a country. According to the Pew research foundation, almost 75% of the global population live in countries with Government restrictions or where harassment related to religion is common. We have discussed the fact that Christians are the religious group most subject to persecution. In 2011, a report stated that the harassment of Christians was most prevalent in 105 countries, followed by the harassment of Muslims in 101 countries. We need to flag up the fact that persecution is not restricted to Christians, but we are here today to discuss the persecution of Christians.

Before moving on to the more commonly cited countries in the debate about religious freedom, I want to comment on the Central African Republic, which has been mentioned. According to the US ambassador to the United Nations, the Central African Republic has been described as

“the worst crisis most people have never heard of”.

There have been harrowing reports of violence, beheadings and villages being razed to the ground. France has warned that the country is on the verge of genocide, as violence between Muslims and Christians escalates. A third of the population is in need of humanitarian assistance, and I hope that the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development will do all they can to try to prevent that situation from escalating even further and to bring relief to people on the ground.

The plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt is more commonly known. As documented in Amnesty International’s report, “How long are we going to live in this injustice?”, there was an unprecedented wave of sectarian attacks on 14 August, when the security forces dispersed people in camps, and churches and Church-affiliated buildings as well as businesses owned by Coptic Christians were destroyed. The excellent report by Amnesty—I recommend it to people who have not read it—reported that 43 Orthodox churches were completely destroyed, and 207 churches were attacked. Not only were the symbols of Christianity attacked but Christians themselves, and four people were killed that day. That is part of a rise in sectarian tension in Egypt, following decades of discrimination suffered by Coptic Christians and impunity for the perpetrators. Egyptian law also means that it is difficult for Christians to rebuild their churches.

[Mr Jim Cunningham]

My hon. Friend has mentioned the Coptic Church, which is probably one of the oldest Churches in the world. Does she agree that when we talk about aid two of the issues that could be raised are human rights—there is a price to pay for aid—and religious freedom, regardless of whether someone is a Christian or belongs to any other denomination? The two have to work hand in hand to attain what we would call human rights.

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a really important point that has been brought to my attention on a number of occasions. For example, we might look at aid to countries such as Uganda, which has introduced a Bill that has been discussed for the past few years. It is a private Member’s Bill, but it has support from senior figures, and it would introduce the death penalty for homosexuality. People have asked me whether we should give aid to a country that is considering such a measure. Should we give aid to other countries where, for example, abortion is denied to rape victims? It is a tricky situation, because if we deny aid to countries where people are persecuted, we run the risk of penalising the most vulnerable people we are trying to help. We need to send a strong message not about the conditions that we impose on aid but about our expectations of human rights in the countries to which we give aid. I shall come to that when I discuss the Prime Minister’s visit to China.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

The hon. Lady has raised a difficult issue, but it did not stop the west imposing sanctions on Iran for other reasons. Should we not look more at whether conditions should be attached to aid where there are particularly horrendous or general abuses of individuals’ freedom of religion?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would not want to separate it out and just talk about it in the context of freedom of religion. We should discuss it generally in the context of human rights abuses. We have taken steps in countries where we think that there is corruption—

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Kerry McCarthy]

May I just finish answering the question?

In several countries we would give aid directly to agencies working in the field, rather than putting it into the Government’s coffers, because of concerns about corruption and a lack of democracy. That might be a way forward when we have concerns about a country’s human rights record, particularly if there are recognised and well-established agencies, such as UN agencies, working in those countries that we can trust to deliver aid without discrimination and without supporting any measures that persecute people. As I have said, I think that we should look at a country’s record in the round. It comes down to whether we trust its Government to spend aid money in the way we expect them to.

[Robert Neill]

I do not think that we disagree with anything the hon. Lady has said, but why does she seem so reluctant to phrase her contribution in terms of religion and the particular persecution suffered by Christians? We are all in favour of human rights for everybody, but there is a particular and pressing concern about Christian communities around the world. Will she not be more specific in her response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr Burns) on ensuring that aid reflects discrimination against Christian and other religious bodies?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am sorry, but I have to disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not think that we should start carving up human rights by saying that some abuses are worse than others. That would be entirely wrong, because there are countries in which people of other faiths are being persecuted and killed, and we see persecution when we look at violence against women and attacks on LGBT communities. I accept that the persecution of Christians is a growing problem and that it is horrific in many countries, but I just do not think that we should divide it up. I think that we should look at whether a country respects human rights.

This year saw the launch of the Commonwealth charter, which was trumpeted as the first time that all Commonwealth countries had signed up to a statement of shared values. I attended the Commonwealth parliamentary conference in Johannesburg this year. There was a lot of controversy, because it became apparent that not all the countries represented shared the same values, particularly when it came to LGBT rights.

I will return to the issue of religious freedom. The Maldives has signed up to the Commonwealth charter and so is deemed to share the Commonwealth values of respect for human rights, but its constitution states that a person is not allowed to be anything other than Muslim, as we have heard, and no Christian gatherings or buildings are allowed. Citizens have to be Muslim, and that is enforced by pressure from families, society and the state.

Bangladesh is another Commonwealth country. The Bangladesh Minority Council has lobbied and met me to highlight the treatment of Christians, Buddhists and, in particular, Hindus, who now comprise just 7% of the population. In Pakistan, as we have heard, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs and Ahmadis are at serious risk of violence and intimidation. Members will know the case of the Christian girl arrested last year for allegedly burning pages of the Koran, which brought to public attention the impact of the blasphemy laws in that country. We have also heard about another Commonwealth country, Nigeria, where horrific acts of violence against Christians are being carried out. We have to question what we can do within the Commonwealth. If we say that the Commonwealth is a club of shared values, what can we do when members of that club do not seem to be putting those principles into practice? It is really important to take that question forward.

The hon. Member for Strangford rightly highlighted the plight of Christians in Syria. Of course, that is not the only country from which Christians are being forced to flee. Open Doors has warned that Christians are on the verge of extinction in Iraq, where their population has fallen from 1.2 million in the early 1990s to just 333,000 today. In Iran, Christians have had to flee their homes or the country, Muslims who have renounced Islam face the death penalty and Christians are being sentenced to 80 lashes for drinking communion wine. The special rapporteur on human rights in Iran reported that more than 300 Christians have been arrested since 2010, including Saeed Abedini, who was sentenced to eight years imprisonment for this work with the house churches. Other faiths, not least the Baha’i, also face persecution in Iran.

On Burma, we know about the religious tensions in Rakhine state, where the Rohingya Muslims’ faith is a factor, as well as their ethnicity, but Christians in Burma have suffered persecution too. The Chin Christians have been targeted for their ethnicity and their faith. A report by the Chin Human Rights Organisation documented cases of forced labour, more than 40 separate incidents of torture, and 24 official complaints from Chin Christians of human rights violations, including rape and extra-judicial killing, where no action was taken against the perpetrators.

As we heard earlier, Open Doors ranked Saudi Arabia second on its world watch list, with only North Korea ahead of it. Conversion to a religion other than Islam is punishable by death, and Christian worshippers risk imprisonment, lashing, deportation and torture. It is important to note that last month saw the elections, mostly uncontested, to the Human Rights Council, of which Saudi Arabia and the Maldives, as well as China, are now members. I echo the comments I made about the Commonwealth club. If these countries are to be members of the Human Rights Council, they need to be demonstrating in their own countries that they are putting respect for human rights into practice.

[David Rutley (Macclesfield) (Con)]

I remember being on a visit to China with the hon. Lady a few years back, when I was intrigued to find out that there are over 60 million Christians there. To help take forward greater tolerance for human rights and freedom of religious worship, does she think it is important to have greater inter-faith dialogue engaging the Chinese authorities with Christian groups and other groups to help people to appreciate just how big the Christian community is in that country?

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I, too, was astounded to hear that figure, because one would not have appreciated that the Christian community was so strong in China. He is entirely right that dialogue is one of the ways forward. It is very important in many other cases where part of the persecution arises from the fact that people do not feel able to speak out and proselytise and publicise their religion and feel it is something they have to keep under wraps.

Of course, the Prime Minister is in China at the moment. Before his trip, I tabled some parliamentary named-day questions, which unfortunately were not answered when they should have been, asking him what efforts he was going to make to raise human rights during his visit. I know that it is primarily a trade delegation, but he has gone to a country where Muslims, Buddhists and Christians, as well as Falun Gong practitioners, suffer torture, harassment and arbitrary detention, and the Tibetans and the Uighurs are prevented from exercising their freedom of religion too. It is important to use such a high-profile visit to raise those issues.

I was impressed by Baroness Warsi when she came along to the recent meeting of the all-party group on international freedom of religion or belief. She seems to be very committed to pursuing this issue. My concern is that she has been given the human rights brief and it is almost as though it has been put in a box so that she will be travelling around the world talking about human rights, which frees up not only the other Foreign Office Ministers but all the other Ministers who are going on trade delegations abroad—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but in all fairness, when the Minister got to 16 minutes I said to him that lots of people were waiting to speak.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am on my last page.

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Good. One minute, thank you.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am concerned that it is almost as though one person has been delegated the job of talking about human rights and that means that everybody else is free to just go and talk about trade and does not feel that they ought to use the leverage that a trade mission gives them to raise human rights issues too. It is very important that the Prime Minister does that. I asked him about it when he recently went to Saudi Arabia and did not seem to raise human rights there either.

In conclusion, as you will no doubt be pleased to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, it is important that Parliament works with faith groups in this country that have connections with groups abroad. Open Doors and, in particular, Christian Solidarity Worldwide have been very active in the past few years in encouraging Members to bring forward parliamentary debates. There is also a central role for the Foreign Office and the Department for International Development, as we have discussed. The role of Government should be to push for greater compliance with the universal declaration on the human genome and human rights and the international covenant on civil and political rights, to support the work of the UN special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief, and to press countries with outstanding requests to agree to inspection visits, and indeed other special procedures mandate-holders covering other human rights. Given its membership of the human rights council, the UK has the opportunity to work with our international partners to strengthen protections for basic fundamental freedoms. Support for the freedom of belief must be part of that. No Government can be selective in the human rights they endorse, just as the Foreign Office and the Prime Minister cannot be selective in which countries they challenge on their human rights record.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. There is going to be a six-minute time limit on Back-Bench speeches from now on. It may be necessary to take it even lower, depending on the frequency of interventions.

17:05

[Sir Tony Baldry (Banbury) (Con)]

First, I am grateful to my friends from the Democratic Unionist party for introducing this debate. I think the whole House will feel that it is particularly apposite, given that this is the season of Advent, when we think about our belief in God becoming incarnate in the vulnerability of a baby and the peace that should bring to earth.

May I say, on behalf of the Back Benchers, that it would have been helpful if both Front Benchers had listened to the debate and then responded to it, rather than taken up the majority of their time in setting out the line they want to take? That very act says to the House that neither they nor their Front-Bench colleagues have really got the point that what we are trying to tell them is that there is a serious issue with the global persecution of Christians, which is being seriously under-reported and not being properly understood or effectively answered.

It is no good the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) talking about the equivalence of human rights. Everyone in the House supports the equivalence of human rights, but that is not what this debate is about. It is about the persecution of Christians and the fact that there is now practically no country—from Morocco to Pakistan—in which Christians can freely practise their religion. That must be a matter of real concern to this House.

There is a severe danger, as we start to celebrate the feast of Christmas in this country, that Christianity will be almost completely erased from the traditional middle east Holy Land of the Bible. Joseph would not now be advised to take Mary to Egypt to avoid the dangers of Herod, because Jesus would just not have been safe there today.

What I think we are collectively trying to say to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), and the Foreign Office is that this issue needs a much higher profile. I would be interested to know when my hon. Friend, the Secretary of State or any other ministerial colleague last raised with the ambassador of Saudi Arabia the comments of the mufti who said that he wished to see every Christian church in the Arabian peninsula destroyed. Such comments cause us all great concern.

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that despite our great presence in Afghanistan over many years, there is now no Christian church left there?

[Sir Tony Baldry]

My hon. Friend introduced an excellent Westminster Hall debate on this issue and she makes her points very well.

Every week, because of my responsibilities in this House, I read the excellent newspaper the Church Times, and every week it has heart-rending stories of Christians being persecuted in Pakistan, Syria, Egypt and a whole host of other countries. Those stories never get reported in the mainstream newspapers. There is serious under-reporting of what is happening to Christians, many of whom—this is true of generations of Christians throughout the centuries—are being evicted, persecuted and driven from their homelands.

I would really like both Front Benchers to understand that what the House is trying to say today is that it is not prepared to continue to stand by while there is global persecution of Christians. They should not think that the line they want to take is sufficient. A step change and something different is required in response to the fact that 200 million Christians are now threatened with persecution, the loss of the right to practise their faith and the loss of their livelihoods, homes and even lives. That is not acceptable; it has to change.

17:10

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

It is a real pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). I agree with everything that he said about the Front Benchers’ approach to this debate, as well as about the equivalence of human rights.

Of course all hon. Members from both sides agree that everybody’s human rights should be protected, but it does no good to sit back and pretend that there is no particular problem about the persecution of Christians in the world today. We need to highlight that, and not feel guilty or feel that we must be politically correct all the time. We should say it as it is, and be very clear that there is a real issue, as hon. Members have already highlighted.

I was interviewed about this debate on BBC Radio Ulster this morning. The thrust of the four questions put to me was, “Why on earth are you calling this debate? What’s it about?” The subtext was that the debate is not really that important. I have come to expect that from the BBC, but I have found in my constituency and across Northern Ireland—I am sure that the same goes for many right hon. and hon. Members—that people are concerned when there is suffering.

People are of course concerned about all forms of suffering. We only have to look at the fantastic responses to natural catastrophes, such as the contributions made in relation to the recent typhoon in the Philippines, for which people in my constituency have set out to raise money. The idea that people should not be concerned about what happens in other parts of the world is typical of the liberal media in this country. The fact is that people are concerned, and we are right to raise such issues by highlighting the persecution that Christians face and providing a voice to those oppressed because of their faith.

The persecution of Christians is not new—we know from historical records that there have been persecutions since biblical times—but the staggering fact is that Christianity is the most persecuted faith in the world today, with more than 100,000 Christians killed because of their faith each year, which is one every 11 minutes. According to the World Evangelical Alliance, more than 200 million Christians are denied fundamental human rights because of their faith. Over the past three years, the situation has deteriorated globally.

The Government’s responsibility should be to highlight to other Governments what is going on and to uphold the human rights of everyone suffering persecution for their faith, but particularly Christians, given the severity of the purge now happening in many regions of the world.

To follow on from what the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) said, it is particularly painful that in Afghanistan, where there has been so much suffering and sacrifice by our troops and where so much aid and assistance has been given, no churches at all are left, and Christians are unable to meet in public because they have been subject to numerous cases of kidnapping, assassinations and abductions.

The same applies in Iraq. Canon Andrew White, who has been mentioned, has said that Christians in Iraq

“are frightened even to walk to church because they might come under attack. All the churches are targets… We used to have 1.5 million Christians, now we have probably only 200,000 left… There are more Iraqi Christians in Chicago than there are here.”

The debate on the persecution of Christians that the hon. Lady initiated in Westminster Hall focused on that area.

The Arab spring, which has been welcomed by so many, has turned out to be a chilling experience for Christians in that region. They are being disproportionately affected by the violence. In Egypt and Syria, Christianity is effectively and systematically being wiped out altogether. In Saudi Arabia—the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), mentioned that it is the second country on the Open Doors watch list—there is no provision whatever for religious freedom among its people.

The Senior Minister of State in another place, who has responsibility for faith and communities, recently said that Christians are often targeted for “collective punishment”, as some groups believe that they are responsible for what are perceived as injustices committed by the west. That is particularly striking in communist countries, such as North Korea, which is the first country on the Open Doors watch list, and China.

[David Simpson]

Is it not ironic that we have got to the point in the world, and indeed in Europe, where other religions are admitting that Christianity is under severe pressure and faces severe persecution?

[Mr Dodds]

I agree with my hon. Friend.

I pay tribute to the organisations that are doing their level best to highlight what is going on. Open Doors, Christian Solidarity Worldwide, the Barnabas Fund and Aid to the Church in Need are just some of the organisations that highlight the persecution of Christians.

I will not go through a list of all the countries where Christians are being persecuted. I have mentioned a few and other hon. Members have raised the issues in countries such as North Korea and China. However, I want to mention Nigeria in particular. There is a growing problem in Africa, where Islamist extremism has penetrated much of what is happening in many countries in terms of uprisings and destabilisation, for example. In Nigeria, there is a serious attempt by Boko Haram to create an Islamic state and to annihilate Christians and Christianity. I could also mention Kenya, Eritrea, where the situation is particularly bad, and the Central African Republic, among others.

This debate provides an opportunity for the representatives of this United Kingdom to speak out and highlight the problems that are faced by Christians worldwide, and to ask that our Government do even more through their bilateral relations, their aid programme and their foreign relations to make it clear that there must be consequences for countries that continue to violate human rights on such a massive scale, even if our country has close links with them in other ways. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights needs to be upheld and defended, and never more so than in this day and age, when the persecution of Christians is so rife.

17:17

[Robert Neill (Bromley and Chislehurst) (Con)]

May I, too, warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and his party on securing this debate? I could not agree more with the sentiments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) and the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds).

I say gently to the Front Benchers on both sides of the Chamber that, however good their intentions, we should not be afraid, in the Parliament of a country that still has an established Christian Church, to phrase a debate in terms of religion or Christianity. Christianity can benefit everyone in any society. It gives us in this country a shared moral compass that binds us together. It offers the same to believer and non-believer, Christian and non-Christian alike, not just in this country but elsewhere. We should therefore not be at all afraid to speak up about the persecution that Christians face.

May I join other hon. Members in paying tribute to the work of organisations such as Open Doors, which provided me with valuable material for a recent debate on this subject in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which came to my constituency surgery recently to highlight these matters? Canon Andrew White has rightly been mentioned. I also commend to the Government the work of the former Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, in whose former diocese my constituency lies. If Ministers have not met or spoken to Dr Nazir-Ali, I hope that they will do so, because he has shed light on the persecution in his native country of Pakistan and elsewhere.

It is worth restating that while any persecution of any faith is wrong, the pressure on Christians is particular and acute. We must face the fact that in some parts of the world, that persecution comes from a religious/political ideology. I regret to say that some, although not all, elements of the Islamic world demonstrate that problem. In some cases, the persecution comes from states—China and other states have been mentioned—that are aggressively secular. It is right for us to say that it is not good enough for a nation’s constitution to say that people have freedom of religion as long as it is through a state-approved Church. It is not acceptable for one part of a constitution to say that freedom of religion is guaranteed but another part to undermine that by saying that a particular form of Islamic jurisprudence trumps all others, as in Egypt.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Robert Neill]

I hope my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way; time is short, and I want to make progress so that others can get in.

I hope that the Government will use the leverage that they have. That is why I do not have any problem at all with our developing trade links with China—I hope that we can use the leverage that comes with that developing relationship to remind people that, as other Members have said, membership of the club of modern economies should bring with it respect for religious freedom, and for Christians in particular.

One particular concern is the situation of Christians in the Arab world. They face discrimination in almost every country of the Arab world, with perhaps the only notable exception being Lebanon. The latest Open Doors list of the 50 worst countries in which to be a Christian includes every Arab world country. It is legitimate, as a matter of policy, for us to seek to use our leverage to change that situation.

I have friends and contacts in Egypt, and Members have referred to the situation of the Coptic Church there, which has been established for centuries, almost millennia. That situation has got worse because of political and religious persecution over the past few months. Again, I hope that the Government will use the leverage that we can have with Egypt to ensure that the new draft constitution not only reflects a genuine right to religious freedom for all, particularly the Coptic community, but entrenches it in practice. For example, it should remove discriminatory provisions regarding the building of Christian churches, which evoke laws that go back to the Ottoman era and have been a problem in Egypt. We have a chance to work with the interim Government in Egypt to achieve a genuinely better constitution for all religious minorities, but the reality is that the largest and most pressured religious minority in Egypt is the Christian minority. We should not be afraid to say that.

Like other Members, I hope that we can consider what more support we can give beleaguered Christian communities in Iraq and Syria, which are some of the oldest in the Christian world, through the Geneva II process. It would be a tragedy if the Arab spring, which we all welcomed, turned into a winter of oppression and discontent for Christians. That is not in the interests of the Muslim majority in those countries any more than it is of Christians.

We should not be afraid of doing religion in this House occasionally. I hope that if we can have this debate, it means that we have got to a happier place, and I hope that the Government will reflect on that when they take on board what has been said today. Governments are entitled to do religion sometimes, because religion can be for the good of all of society.

17:22

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

I am pleased to have the chance to make a short contribution to this timely and important debate. I, too, congratulate DUP Members on choosing this subject.

Many Members who are in the Chamber today were also present for the Westminster Hall debate that the hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) secured on the persecution of Christians in the middle east. During that debate I made a short intervention to highlight the real concerns of the Christian community in Malaysia. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), who was responding to the debate, rightly said from a sedentary position that Malaysia was not in the middle east. I understand that, but it highlights the importance of this debate in enabling us to discuss places outside the middle east in which there is significant concern about how members of the Christian faith are treated.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

Can the hon. Gentleman explain to the House why so few of his Labour colleagues are in the Chamber this afternoon for a very important debate about the persecution of Christians? I am absolutely baffled by their absence.

[Tom Greatrex]

I was going to say that I thanked the hon. Lady for her intervention. I am not sure why others are not here. I specifically want to make a case in relation to Malaysia, which I hope will help to illuminate the debate and add another aspect to it.

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is entirely appropriate that he mentions Malaysia? The persecution of Christians is a worldwide problem and is not specific to one small part of the world, and the subject of today’s debate is the persecution of Christians in the 21st century.

[Tom Greatrex]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and he is absolutely right. The case I wish to make is about a country that is often portrayed in a very different way, and I hope that this debate will bring more attention to a situation that I have been made aware of in recent months by a constituent.

I am contributing to this debate not so much from the perspective of a practising Christian as from the perspective of somebody who is deeply and fundamentally committed to ensuring that human rights are properly protected. The religious activity and practices of people in any country, as long as they do not harm anybody else, is of little interest or direct concern to me, but their ability to observe their faith is absolutely of concern. That is why I want to raise some points about Malaysia this afternoon.

Many Members present will have seen the “Malaysia Truly Asia” tourist advertising campaign, which has been stunningly successful over a long period. I am sure that many will also have visited Malaysia as tourists—as I did many years ago—and appreciated a tolerant, respectful, gentle and hospitable people, and a society with the reputation for being a Muslim state, but one steadfastly multicultural with Malay, Chinese, Indian and other significant minority communities that include, according to the 2010 census, 9.2% of the population who are practising Christians.

Malaysia is an important Commonwealth partner for the UK, and has had a significant trading and strategic relationship with this country over many years. Because of that background, it is right to be concerned about recent worrying signs in Malaysia, and to draw them to the attention of the Government through this debate. Some Christian communities in Malaysia are now very much in fear of being able to practise their faith without interference, or with limits on their ability to observe their faith in peace.

Christians in Malaysia fear persecution because they have been banned from using the word “Allah”, which has been used as terminology for God in Malay for centuries. That has effectively meant that in some parts of Malaysia the Bible has been outlawed. When a concern was raised—or an attempt was made to raise it—in the state legislative assembly in Sarawak, it was ruled out of order and sub judice, so the legitimate concerns of Sarawak Christians about the Malaysia agreement that governs the relationship stretching back 50 years between the peninsula and other parts of Malaysia, have effectively been censured.

Although freedom of religion is supposedly guaranteed by article 11 of the Malaysian constitution, the reality for many is quite different. In his introduction to the debate, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) referred—I think in the context of Nigeria—to Christian children being whipped. It has come to my attention that there are significant reports of Christian children being whipped for eating pork, and of Christian children who have to board in state schools because of where they live being forced to convert to Islam. Last month the Malaysian Government’s religious affairs department, which is part of the Prime Minister’s office, reportedly issued a sermon to be read in every mosque in Malaysia, condemning supposedly liberal forces undermining Islam. The implication taken by many people in Malaysia was that it was aimed at those who practise the Christian faith.

With Portuguese, Spanish and indeed British colonial influences, it is not surprising that there is a significant Christian community in Malaysia. They have co-existed with others, perfectly happily, for many years since independence more than 50 years ago, but Christians in Malaysia now fear that the country may be embarking on a dangerous path. The Minister for Islamic Affairs in Sarawak, Daud Abdul Rahman, has called for members of the Sarawak Islamic religious department to be upgraded to become a sharia prosecution department, and to be supplied with firearms. According to “Free Malaysia Today”, he said:

“With this departmentalization, it can enhance the ability of the prosecution and thereby strengthening Islamic Sharia law in Sarawak.”

There is real concern that such behaviour has relatively little to do with religion or the tolerance and understanding that religion can often promote, but that it is about seeking to create supporters who identify with one political party as pro-Islam, and brand their political opponents as anti-Islam. That is a dangerous road to take, because it unleashes mindless aggression, prejudice and fear. The non-Muslims of east Malaysia are right to be fearful of where that might lead next. Shocking situations can arise when countries of mixed religions and races allow and encourage the development of extremism and prejudice, even in our modern world.

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. That right includes freedom to change religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community, in public or in private, to manifest religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Father Lawrence, the editor of The Catholic Herald in Malaysia, refutes claims that there is a concerted movement to convert Muslims to Christianity, and highlights what I think is my principal aim: to express the need for tolerance and acceptance. He stated recently:

“Ask these people making these claims how many Muslim persons have converted to Christianity. Ask the Attorney General what is the meaning of ‘Our Father’ and ‘Hail Mary’. He will say that he studied in a Catholic school. Did he convert? No, he is still a Muslim. Ask Prime Minister Razak if he knows the ‘Our Father’, because he also studied at St John’s Institution, a Catholic school.”

These men were schooled in a Christian environment, but were free to practise their own faith. The problem in Malaysia now is that it seems that the Government’s policies are effectively making that impossible for people in the other direction. I implore the Minister and his colleagues, when they represent the Government abroad—taking into account the important, specific and specialist relationship between the UK and other countries around the world, such as Malaysia—to use that opportunity to highlight the fact that human rights are also about the right to practise religion without fear of prosecution.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Perhaps I can just advise the House that, when the time limit on Back-Bench speeches was set at six minutes, there were an intended 15 contributors, since which time two hon. Members have withdrawn. I am therefore in the happy position of being able to raise the limit. My apologies to those who had to adhere to the shorter limit, but I am now raising the limit to eight minutes with immediate effect. The first beneficiary is Angie Bray.

17:32

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

Thank you, Mr Speaker, but I intend to be brief as I am looking forward to hearing what other Members have to say. I join others in commending Democratic Unionist Members for securing this important and timely debate, just a matter of weeks before Christmas.

As I have mentioned in the House before, I am proud to be an officer and active member of the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief, which has been up and running for nearly a year and a half. In that time, we have built up a strong membership, including the Archbishop of Canterbury and a list of key supporters from many different religions and representatives of those who choose not to have any religion. At the heart of the group is the passionate message that protecting the concept of freedom of religion or belief is of paramount importance. While this debate rightly focuses on the unacceptable persecution of Christians in countless places around the world, we must also condemn any instances of persecution against any religion.

That was the position we took as our starting point for our first report, on article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights. We made a series of recommendations to the Government on measures that we think different Departments should take to help to improve the situation around the world, including an ambassador-level position with responsibility for promoting freedom of religion or belief; putting pressure on the UN to find sufficient funding to support a full-time special rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief; and calling on the Department for International Development to identify freedom of religion or belief as a new priority in its work.

It is also right for us to mention, in the context of this debate, the superb work already being done by Christian stakeholders on behalf of both their own community and the numerous other different communities experiencing persecution, including humanists. Most recently, Gregorios III, Patriarch of the Church of Antioch, came to talk to us about the dreadful plight of Syria’s substantial Christian community, which since 2011 has been ripped apart by the bloody conflict there. His response to the outrageous events was to say:

“We call for dialogue, reconciliation and mutual respect for and among parties and for the crisis to be resolved by peaceful means.”

Among the Christians there are many Iraqi Christians who sought refuge in Syria after experiencing persecution in Iraq, and have now found themselves driven out of the country that had become their new home and safe haven.

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

Is not one of the concerns that we had when Parliament was recalled a few months ago and we were asked to vote on intervening in Syria what effect that might have on the Christians within Syria, particularly given the experience in Iraq?

[Angie Bray]

It was certainly made very clear to us when we heard from the Patriarch that he felt that a peaceful means was the only way to help the Christians and many others caught up between the two sides who found themselves in such a difficult situation.

Syria, and the middle east in general, is perhaps the most shocking, recent and obvious example of the fact that violence against Christians and other religious communities is on the rise, yet as a recent report from Aid to the Church in Need set out, this is a truly worldwide problem. While it is concerning that a region such as the middle east, once so widely populated by Christian communities living in peace and harmony with their non-Christian neighbours, is now seeing a huge decline in the number of Christians living there, this problem is growing in many parts of the world.

Only by looking at religious persecution globally can we stand a chance of protecting people and their faith. Understanding the complex reasons for sectarianism on a local level is clearly essential because of the different forms it takes in all manner of far-flung places. Again, as part of our group’s work, we recently heard from the Indonesian ambassador, who briefed us on the situation facing Christians who experience persecution on some of the islands that make up Indonesia. He described how organised outside influences can stir up local feelings in a deliberate manner, sowing the seeds of persecution. The Government, he told us, do not always find it easy to tackle the problem because of the geographical nature of Indonesia.

[Bob Stewart]

On that point, I have met mujaheddin groups who have told me, cold-bloodedly, that their job was to come and kill Christians. That was in Bosnia in 1993.

[Angie Bray]

I thank my hon. Friend for that important intervention. In fact, I was just going on to make similar points myself.

One of the concerns I raised when the Pew Research Centre recently briefed our group on its latest figures on religious persecution across the world, either by Government or by local populations, was that sometimes it is surely neither Government nor local populations that start the problem, but insidious third-party forces that operate across national boundaries in a global fashion in pursuit of their own, often extreme, religious ideologies. We have to think about how we deal with this growing phenomenon—fed, in this modern age, by the internet, as well as by determined preachers on the ground.

Today’s debate asks us to focus on the plight of Christian communities across the world, but I think this leads us to considering a much wider picture of persecution of all kinds of faith and, indeed, of those who wish to live without faith. Homing in on one kind of persecution might help us to consider what could be done for other faiths, too. As the Archbishop of Canterbury said recently after the tragic bombings of Christian churches in Peshawar:

“We need to condemn the persecution of anyone on behalf of their faith.”

As we are discovering as the all-party group continues its work, almost every faith is persecuted somewhere in the world, and we must all stand together to resist this and to work to uphold article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which asserts the right of everyone to choose their faith or none—and, indeed, to change their mind if they wish.

17:39

[Sammy Wilson (East Antrim) (DUP)]

It is a great joy to have the opportunity to speak in this debate, which is important because of the scale of the problem, because of the individual suffering that people experience across the world, and because this issue is actually sanctioned by the Governments of many countries, demanding a response from the UK Government.

The scale of the problem has been outlined very well by previous speakers. Some 200 million Christians are under severe risk of persecution, with many thousands killed every year and ethnically cleansed from their towns and homeland. Some 50,000 Christians have been cleared from the city of Homs in Syria during the civil war. In Eritrea people are being imprisoned on a regular basis. In Sudan before it was partitioned, over a 30-year period 2 million Christians were killed by the regime. That is the scale of the problem.

It goes on even today. Within the last month, hundreds of people, from Nigeria to Eritrea to Kazakhstan to China, have been arrested and put in prison simply because of their faith, and when they go into prison they are denied due process. They are denied access to lawyers. They are sometimes even denied knowledge of the charges facing them. They can languish in prison for a long time and in horrible conditions.

Any other overseas problem on that scale would have been a priority for the Foreign Office, yet the Minister and the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman attempted to widen this topic, rather than to zone in on the real issue, which is that a particular group of people are being persecuted.

As has been pointed out, this is not only happening in Muslim countries. From Morocco to Pakistan, Christians in Muslim countries are under threat, but it happens elsewhere too.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman will know, as I do from my parliamentary postbag, of the persecution of Baha’is, particularly in Iran. Does he agree that regardless of whether those persecuted are Baha’is, Christians or whatever, a message must come out from a plurality of voices that the persecution of people on the basis of their faith is a very un-Islamic thing to do?

[Sammy Wilson]

Absolutely, and I think that is the point we need to be making in the House. Persecution of people of whatever faith by people of whatever faith is wrong.

We can go beyond the Islamic countries to Korea, where 70,000 Christians languish in prison, some of them in the most horrible conditions. I do not want to start telling lots of individual stories, but one struck me in particular. We found in Northern Ireland during the troubles that people can get numbed by numbers—they come to be seen as just statistics, rather than as highlighting the real suffering behind them—but 6,000 Christians are languishing in prison No. 15 in North Korea. They are regularly brought out on a Sunday, and two people are selected and paraded in front of the rest of their fellow Christians, stabbed with pointed bamboos and called on to renounce their faith because then the torture will stop. Many of them, of course, finish up being murdered because they will not renounce their faith. Leaving aside the huge numbers, that is the kind of horror and individual human suffering we are talking about.

As the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) said, when the Nazis carried out such acts in concentration camps we pursued the prison guards and those responsible to the ends of the earth, to prosecute them and to make sure they were brought to justice, yet it seems there is not the same response when it comes to the persecution of Christians. That is not just to do with the Government, of course. It is to do with the media, too. I thought it was striking that when 80 Christians were blown up at the beginning of November as they worshiped in Pakistan, the BBC found it so important that it came below the Emmy awards in the news agenda. That seems to be the level of seriousness that is attached to such issues.

One of the reasons for that sort of response is that, in many instances, such persecution is actually sponsored, sanctioned and encouraged by the Governments of the countries concerned. We have already heard the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia calling for the destruction of all Christian churches on the peninsula. Human Rights Watch has said that the most dangerous place for a person to be a Christian today is Pakistan, and that much of that persecution is sanctioned by the Government there. A lot of the persecution of Christians in Nigeria is fomented by official sources—and so it goes on around the world. When we point to and specify the persecution of Christians, perhaps we are actually pointing the finger at Governments who, possibly for political reasons, we sometimes need as allies, and at Governments who, for commercial reasons, we need as trade partners. If that is the reason we are not prepared to be specific about this persecution, it is a great shame on the Government of our country.

[Mr MacNeil]

Although we have our concerns about persecution, perhaps we should be highlighting good practice where it occurs. There are indeed Islamic countries that are tolerant, and perhaps we should hold up the examples of Senegal, Bangladesh and Turkey, where there is a lot more tolerance compared with the societies we are concentrating on. We should make it clear that there are examples of Islamic states in which we would all be quite happy to live.

[Sammy Wilson]

I am not so sure about the human rights situation in the countries that the hon. Gentleman mentions.

What can and should be done? I know this is a debate about what the Government should do, but the media have a responsibility. Where such unpleasant things are happening, they should be given proper coverage that is communicated to the wider world. Baroness Warsi said in Georgetown last month that it is important that we get an international coalition against such abuses, and that includes not just Governments but journalists, judges and all the people who can bring to the notice of the world the abuses taking place, do something about them, and deal with those engaged in them.

As has been mentioned, we give aid to many of these countries. I do not accept the argument that, by denying aid to them, we in some way disadvantage the people who live there. If that were the case, we would not impose sanctions anywhere, because there will always be people who are disadvantaged by sanctions. If the aid is going to a Government who are engaged in and supporting these practices, it is particularly easy to make it clear that no further aid will be given. As has been said, sometimes this is not a question of physical persecution but of economic or educational discrimination. When we think about how we spend our aid money, perhaps it should be targeted at persecuted groups.

We have talked about the ability of the Commonwealth to put pressure on the Governments of countries across the world over which we have some influence, where these abuses take place. This requires a concerted effort. It requires us not to be politically correct, but to have the courage to say, “This is happening to a particular group of people. It will not be tolerated, and there will be things which this Government will do.”

I have asked many questions about this. I have been told that the Government are aware of the situation and that they are monitoring it, looking into it and pressing the matter. We need more than that when people’s lives are being put at risk in this way.

17:49

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

It is a real pleasure and a privilege to follow the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). I pay tribute to the Democratic Unionist party for choosing this important topic for debate. I come from a Muslim background, and my father was an imam. When I saw that the topic was “Persecution of Christians in the 21st century”, I knew that it was absolutely right and proper to have a debate on that subject. It is important for the world to realise that persecution goes on. I was speaking to a good friend of mine, the former Bishop of Rochester, Michael Nazir-Ali, about this, and he told me that the persecution of Christians was taking place in more than 130 of the 190 countries in the world at the moment. That is completely and utterly unacceptable; it is a very sad state of affairs.

When I was thinking about which area to focus on in the debate, it was difficult for me to decide because the persecution is so widespread. When it is taking place in more than 130 countries, which country should I pick? I narrowed it down and chose a country that I know well. I was born in Pakistan and had the great privilege, pleasure and honour of serving as an adviser to the former Prime Minister, Benazir Bhutto. She wanted reform, but she lost her life. She wanted a progressive Pakistan, but the radicalisation elements and certain others did not agree.

That is why, when I saw the topic for the debate, I had to choose Pakistan as the subject of my speech. The persecution of Christians is a major problem there, and I want to focus on the blasphemy laws. I recently read an article published by the Centre for Legal Aid, Assistance and Settlement, an organisation that covers the persecution of Christians in Pakistan and abroad, which stated:

“The Blasphemy law is at the root of much suffering and persecution of Christians in Pakistan. The use and abuse of this law is the fundamental issue underpinning discrimination and open violence against Christians and local churches”.

[Sammy Wilson]

The hon. Gentleman can obviously speak from experience in his own country. Does he accept that when Muslims stand up for Christians in Pakistan, they too put themselves at risk? When the governor of Punjab stood up for and visited a Christian girl in jail, he ended up being murdered by his own bodyguard.

[Rehman Chishti]

I know more than many others about that issue. I lost my good friend Benazir Bhutto to radicalisation. She was two weeks away from winning an election, after which things could have changed. We had discussed reforming the blasphemy laws, but she was never able to do that. That is the problem in Pakistan, and the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it very well. The governor of Punjab, Salman Taseer, had raised the case of Asia Bibi, a Christian. She is a 46-year-old mother of six children, and she is still in prison in Pakistan. She was supposed to be pardoned by the President in 2010, but owing to pressure from the radical right, she was never freed. That was totally unacceptable. Pope Benedict said that what was happening to her was unacceptable and called for her release. However, she is still in prison in Pakistan and facing the death penalty. People in Pakistan stand up for her, but they know what the dangers are.

However, this does not mean that the Government of Pakistan cannot stand up and do the right thing by repealing a bad law. That bad law is the blasphemy law, and the abuse of that law must be dealt with. It is used to settle disputes between one neighbour and another, under sections that were brought in between 1980 and 1986 by General Zia, who was himself a radical. He was an extremist, and he introduced a section that stated that anyone who defamed the Prophet had to be killed. That is totally unacceptable. Those sections of the blasphemy law that were brought in during the Zia era are bad law and they have to go. The Pakistan Government could and should do that, but, as has been mentioned, Governments themselves face certain pressures. They can stand up, as the Minister with responsibility for minorities, Shahbaz Bhatti, a Christian, did. He said that this law was wrong, but what happened to him? He was killed. What happened to Salman Taseer, the governor of Punjab? He said it was wrong and he was killed. So we have to understand the difficulties for Governments in changing these laws, but they have to change them.

[Alistair Burt (North East Bedfordshire) (Con)]

I have listened with great care to the debate because the policy that I supported in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office is the subject of a certain amount of criticism. What my hon. Friend is touching on is important, in that it is about the pressure of culture on governance. That is present in not only Pakistan, but in a number of Arab countries. It makes it difficult for Governments who would like to respond in the manner that we would all wish, but they cannot because they are frightened, sometimes to death, by their populations. What we are talking about today is as much an issue of culture that needs to change, as governance. We all wish that the problem was easier to solve than it appears to be.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend for that important comment. Before I address it, may I thank him for all the hard work he did when he was an FCO Minister, especially in the Asia Bibi case? He made representations to the Government of Pakistan, as has the high commissioner in Pakistan, Adam Thomson, to whom I have spoken about this. My right hon. Friend makes a point about how one deals with the culture. A significant part of that is about changing hearts and minds, which is linked to the aid we give certain countries. If it is used properly, we can deal with the issue of changing hearts and minds.

Amnesty International has said that the blasphemy laws in Pakistan are a form of religious persecution and that they should be repealed. I entirely agree with every word that has been said on that point.

[Mr MacNeil]

The hon. Gentleman is making a fantastic speech, on which I congratulate him. Is the message that is coming strongly from his speech that when persecution takes root, no matter where it is aimed, it ultimately ends in the persecution of a number of people in society to whom one would never have imagined it happening at the beginning? As he well knows, the persecution extended so far in Pakistan that it led to the death of his friend Benazir Bhutto. In some ways, that was an end point to that very sad persecution—it went everywhere.

[Rehman Chishti]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point; he is right and I have nothing further to add.

Apart from repealing the blasphemy laws in Pakistan, because that may take time, what can we do now to push the Government of Pakistan to deal with those laws? Pakistan’s ambassador to the United States has made comments that are similar to my view, as has Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali. He says, and I say, that, first, these laws should not be dealt with by the lower courts in Pakistan, because they are more susceptible to corruption and intimidation by religious groups in the communities; secondly, that specialised prosecutors should deal with blasphemy laws in that country; and, thirdly, that specific judges have to deal with blasphemy laws. When I was on a flight from Karachi to Islamabad last year, I met 12 high court judges and a supreme court judge there. I asked them whether I could raise certain points with them and they said that I could. I then asked whether I could raise the point about the blasphemy laws in Pakistan and they said of course I could. However, when I asked why the blasphemy laws were abused in Pakistan, the high court judges said to me, “No blasphemy law is abused in Pakistan.” If that is the mentality of judges at the high court in Pakistan, what hope does anyone have of justice in that country? That is why I say that specific judges trained to deal with blasphemy issues should deal with these cases.

The other thing that should happen is that there should be a body in the Ministry of Interior and Narcotics Control that authorises prosecutions, because in that way the process would not be subject to intimidation at any local level. If allegations are made, cases would have to go to a specific cell in that Ministry that deals with blasphemy laws and if it gives authorisation, a charge should follow. In that way, we could deal with some abuses that are going on at the moment. That would go some way to dealing with such cases, but other people may have other suggestions for dealing with them.

There is another way of addressing this issue. President Zardari could have done it in 2010. I know that well because I raised it with him, but he was not able to pardon Asia Bibi. We are all entitled to have our own separate faiths and beliefs but let us think about Asia Bibi. She is 46 and has five children and has been languishing in prison for four years. She was condemned to death by a lower court, not knowing whether her appeal would come through. Is that a civilised world? Is that right and proper if it happened to one of us or someone we loved? Absolutely not. The Government of Pakistan under a new President and Prime Minister have a moral obligation to do the right thing and ensure that Asia Bibi is released and pardoned.

Finally, when those who are persecuted for their faith seek asylum in another country, they should be given priority. Someone being persecuted in that way could be taken outside and shot under the blasphemy laws, so giving priority to those who are seeking asylum and who have been persecuted on grounds of their faith is the right way forward.

18:00

[Stephen Pound (Ealing North) (Lab)]

It speaks a great deal to the credit of this House that the brother of a priest can follow the son of an imam, that I can be seated behind an ordained Presbyterian minister and that, in front of both of us, is the nephew of Sister Assumpta, a Presentation Sister from Dungarvan in County Waterford. All of us present and those not present in the Chamber are united in our respect and admiration for the Democratic Unionist party in raising this debate tonight, particularly for the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). He is a man who does not just profess his faith in private and does not just talk the talk, but lives his faith. In the words of Timothy, he is an example, and we all have reason to be grateful to him.

We are here to discuss a situation that is beyond doubt. There is no question that Christians are the most persecuted single group in the world today on grounds of religion. It is one thing to talk about persecution and to list the horrors, but when one thinks of Christians in this century, in this very year, being crucified in Iraq, we realise the depth of sheer horror that we are looking at. Dedolence is not an emotion that usually informs this House. The emotion that most of us feel when we hear such things is of a very deep and genuine sort.

I would like to focus my remarks on one small area, and that is the area of Iraq. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway (Mr Brown) and I, with our good friend Emmanuel Yacoub from the Assyrian Democratic Movement, visited Iraq quite recently. It was an extraordinary and overwhelming emotion to be standing in the desert that nurtured the Desert Fathers, to be in the plains of Nineveh, to see the tomb of the Prophet Nahum, and to be in the area where Christianity first found its feet and grew. If Armenia was the first ever Christian country in the year 301, the Christian history in the middle east is so deep that it goes back to the birth and the death of our Lord Jesus Christ.

I know that the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) visited the area immediately before us. He has spoken on the matter far more eloquently and powerfully than ever I could. One does not have to be a genius to areolate the future of Iraq. A country that once had a Christian population the size of Northern Ireland now has a Christian population less than that of the borough of Ealing. Many of the people who have left, particularly those who served the British as the Iraqi levies—I think of the great families in my own constituency of the Khorshabas, the Michaels and the Jasos and the family of my good friends Jenie and Isaac Asia—gave an enormous amount to the British. Talking about targeting assistance and help at Christian communities simply identifies them and makes them a target in the other sense of the word, and many of the Christian communities in Iraq are already targeted.

It was a tradition of the British during imperial times to work with a particular group of people. One might think of the Tamils in Sri Lanka, and particularly of the Christian communities such as the Chaldean Assyrians in Iraq. They worked loyally and faithfully with the British and we promised them at that time that they would be free to practise their religion. Sadly, that is not the case.

Frankly, many of us are overwhelmed by the immensity and the horror and we wonder what best we can do. The hon. Member for Strangford probably said the most important thing, and I make this point extremely seriously. There is one thing we must do. We must assist wherever we can financially and materially and we must raise the profile, but we must never, ever forget to pray for our fellow co-religionists. The power of prayer is immense and it has an incredible force. Let us never forget suffering Christians in our prayers. Let us continue to do that. Advent might be a couple of days old, but this is a powerful season for prayer.

On the question of Iraq, I would like seriously to suggest to the Minister that we consider supporting the idea of an autonomous Christian district in northern Iraq on the Nineveh plains, particularly in the Tel Kaif and Al-Hamdaniya area. That has been suggested for many years—they are ancient Christian Assyrian Chaldean lands—but they would not be exclusively for Christians. It has been said over and over again that this will be for the local community and would allow a breathing space for Christians. It would allow that simple, basic right to worship our shared God in the place of God. Why can we not support that?

The hon. Member for Strangford has already mentioned Emad Youhanna, who was attacked with a suicide bomb outside his house. That did not happen in the last century, or in the last decade—it happened on 22 September 2013 in Kirkuk, in Rafigayn. Emad Youhanna is a member of the Assyrian Democratic Movement and of the Iraqi national Parliament. That bomb injured 19 people, including three of Rab Emad Youhanna’s children.

I seriously suggest that we could support the idea of a safe haven. I understand that a strange argument is emerging that Christian communities were safer during what is still called “Saddam time” in Iraq. That is a false argument. There might not have been slaughter on the streets, but when the dictator runs a dictatorship no one is free and the Christians who were tolerated one day could be slaughtered the next, so please let no one make the case that, under Assad or Saddam Hussein, it was somehow a golden period for Christians. It might have been less worse, but in the long term the doom was just as serious.

I suggest that we remember our co-religionists in our prayers and support the idea, particularly in the north of Iraq in the plains of Nineveh, of an autonomous Chaldean Assyrian region. Anyone who has stood as the hon. Member for Gainsborough, my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries and Galloway and I have and felt the chill fear that abounds in those hot, burning desert sands will know that we cannot stand by and do nothing. We must support these people. This is the land where Christ’s message was first promulgated to huge numbers. It is an area and a land that we must respect. It is a holy land; let us make it safe for Christians.

18:08

[Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)]

I very much agree with all that my good friend the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) has said and support the comments on Assyria. I do not know whether you managed to get some rest on Sunday, Mr Speaker, and watch once again on BBC4 the excellent French film entitled “Of Gods and Men”. It is a very beautiful film about the appalling murder of six Benedictine monks in the Atlas mountains. It is such a moving film because there is one scene in which Father Christian confronts one of the terrorists—the same terrorist who ultimately decapitates him and his fellow monks. Father Christian starts reading from the Koran in Arabic and quotes directly the passages that exhort all Muslims to be peaceful to other religions. The terrorist completes the verse. That makes most powerfully the point that we should make in this debate: in practising our own religion, in no way do we diminish the practice of other religions or people’s ability to practise their religion in any way they wish.

[Fiona Bruce]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I shall give way only once in a moment.

Many of the people we are discussing—the persecuted Christians of the world—are the poorest of the poor. In Pakistan in particular, they are very much at the bottom of the heap, and they are denied human rights. All that they require in their simple lives is an ability to practise their religion, so this debate sends a powerful message about their right to freedom of expression.

[Fiona Bruce]

My hon. Friend says that in no way do we diminish other people’s right to practise their religion if we practise our own. Society has enhanced that right: where we respect the right of one religion and people of one faith to practise their faith, we respect all if we respect that properly.

[Sir Edward Leigh]

I would like to echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) said in his powerful speech. It is slightly regrettable—I say this gently—that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary spoke at the beginning of the debate. It is increasingly the practice for Ministers to speak early in debates—I make this point particularly to you, Mr Speaker—but it is important that they listen carefully and respond. [Interruption.] The Minister will give a winding-up speech, but it will be much shorter than it would have been.

I have taken part in every one of these debates, and I have heard this Foreign Office speech many times before. Dare I say that I do not detect a sense of burning anger about what is happening to Christians? This is something that has increased, and it is one of the most terrible things happening in the world today. Of course we should regret, attack and be angry about any persecution of any religion. The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) mentioned that Christians were persecuted in 105 countries, or their human rights were somehow limited, but she immediately tried to be relative—I think that there is a danger of relativism in this debate—and said that there were 101 countries where Muslims had their rights affected. That may be strictly true, but the fact of the matter is that the overwhelming number of really violent and dangerous persecutions, killings and denials of human rights are directed at Christians, which is why we should congratulate the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who continues, year on year, to raise the issue. It is down to the DUP, not the Conservative Government or the Labour Opposition, that this debate is taking place on the Floor of the House, and the hon. Gentleman is to be congratulated on that.

This debate is not a relative debate about human rights. It is a debate about the persecution of Christians. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury, speaking with all the authority of his office, and everyone who has taken part in this debate demand that the Government take this more seriously and speak out more powerfully. There was an appalling case in All Saints church in Peshawar in which 120 Christians were blown up. How much publicity was there about that case? If a similar outrage were perpetrated by a Christian suicide bomber going into a mosque and blowing up 120 Muslims, it would be considered appalling, and the House can imagine the consequences worldwide for Christians.

I am afraid that, for all the warm words from the Foreign Office, there is still a lack of real determination to speak out. We have been in this space before, with the persecution of the Jews in the 1930s and the persecution of many minorities over time, where we as a Government have drawn back because of trade and other considerations of national policy, and we have not been prepared to speak up for minorities.

I want to follow what my friend the hon. Member for Ealing North, said, because I have been there. Like him, I have been to Iraq, and I can assure you, Mr Speaker, that there is nothing more terrible than what happened to a mother I spoke to. The last time she saw her child was when he went off to church with her husband. The husband was kidnapped and never seen again. The child was murdered just because of his religion—for no other reason. My friend and I will never forget those conversations, because those attacks revealed an appalling level of hate. We invaded Iraq and we have a responsibility, so we cannot pass by on the other side. Maybe we invaded for good reasons, but we do have a responsibility.

[Stephen Pound]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it was extraordinarily humbling and salutary to realise that the language in which that mother addressed us through a translator was Aramaic, the language of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ?

[Sir Edward Leigh]

It was moving. To listen to a mass in Aramaic is an extraordinary experience.

I make no apology for Saddam Hussein, and I quite understand the comments that have been made about Iraq, but things have become much worse since the invasion. The fact of the matter is that Iraq’s Christian population has fallen from around 1.2 million to around 600,000, because tens of thousands have fled. When I was in Mosul, in ancient Nineveh, Christians were being murdered and dozens of families were fleeing. Where did they flee to? They fled to Syria. What did we have a debate about at the end of August? We had a debate, once again, on the need to bomb Syria. Thank God some of us refused to support that and the House of Commons said no. Otherwise, what would have been the fate of the Syrians?

I have also been to Syria and heard numerous appalling examples of what is happening to innocent Christians there. Again, I make no apology for the Assad regime, but under his father there was a degree of protection. Can the Government be so sure that in arming those they call the “good” rebels, or encouraging them—they claim that they have in no way armed them—they are not also leeching support and armaments to the bad rebels? There have been appalling examples of persecution in Syria. Mass graves have been found in the village of Sadad, where 46 Christians were murdered and where a family of six—this is just one family—were blindfolded and shot in the head. A 26-year-old, Ninar Odisho, was shot in the street, murdered for his faith. I could go on and on with such appalling examples of violence and hatred shown towards that ancient Christian community in the middle east.

Pakistan has been mentioned. Quite rightly, there was wonderful worldwide publicity about the shooting of Malala Yousafzai and her courage in resisting the Taliban, but how much coverage has there been of Kashmala Munawar, a Christian girl who lost one leg and nearly lost the other when she was blown up because of her religion? As I said earlier, how much worldwide coverage has there really been of the appalling massacre in Peshawar?

This debate is timely. I very much hope that when the Minister responds he will reflect the powerful mood of the House of Commons. This cannot go on. We cannot have tens of thousands of people around the world losing their human rights, or having them endangered, and thousands being murdered. The Government have a role to play in articulating our anger. It must stop.

18:19

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

I commend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for introducing this motion, along with his party, the DUP, on the persecution of Christians in the 21st century. This afternoon’s debate has been reflective and instructive. Many Members have spoken with a great deal of knowledge about the persecution of Christians, and not only in the middle east, but further afield. My hon. Friends the Members for Foyle (Mark Durkan) and for Belfast South (Dr McDonnell) and I receive in our mailbags correspondence from constituents vehemently opposed to the persecution of Christians.

We are opposed to the persecution not only of Christians but of all religious groups; this debate should not reflect sectarian or sectional attitudes or principles. However, we must recognise that Christians have been persecuted in the middle east and in other parts of the world. As the former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), said, this has a lot to do with cultures and Governments. There is a need to change the opinions of cultures and Governments to persuade people that it is not right to burn Coptic churches in Egypt, to massacre Christians in Sudan and in Pakistan, or to burn people out of their homes because of their religion.

It is particularly significant and poignant that we are discussing this issue at the time of Advent as we approach Christmas—the birth of the person who founded Christianity. It is interesting that most of the persecution is happening in the countries of the middle east where Christianity was born but where the number of Christians is dwindling as they are being forced out.

Baroness Warsi has said that 83% of countries guarantee freedom of religion but many are not making provision for it. The Catholic Archbishop of England and Wales said of the possible extinction of Christians in the middle east:

“I think in some parts of the Middle East that is probably true…There are real challenges for Christians in this part of the world to support and get alongside them and also for politicians to understand that the presence of Christians is a great mediating factor, often for example between different segments of Islam.”

When the German Chancellor addressed members of the Lutheran Church, she said that Christianity is

“the most persecuted religion in the world.”

We have these testimonies from people who are respected in their own right and are highlighting the problems faced by Christians in this world. We should appreciate that religious freedom is one of the most important gateways to other forms of human rights and freedoms.

It is regrettable that the comments by Front Benchers did not reflect the rest of the debate. I hope that they will be able to explain, if not today, at a later stage, what we are going to do about the persecution of Christians in Sudan and other parts of north Africa, the burning of Coptic churches in Egypt, the persecution of Christians in Iran, and the fact that Christians no longer exist in Afghanistan. What will be done to honour the principle of the UN declaration on the elimination of all forms of intolerance and of discrimination based on religion or belief?

There is a duty on the Minister to address that issue tonight. The Government also need to actively promote the multinational efforts of the European Union and consider whether it might also be possible to do things through the G8 and the G20. They also need to put pressure on the Governments of nations where Christians are persecuted to take responsibility, protect religious groups and eradicate intolerance.

Some of the greatest vices in the world today are those of religious intolerance and sectarianism, which breed not only hatred and violence and the mutilation of people, but the desecration of homes, families and human life. If we believe in the principles of human rights and religious freedom, we must urge the Government to do all in their power to work with other Governments throughout the EU and the world in order to ensure that all pressure is brought to bear to end and eradicate this iniquitous violence, terror and murder.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The wind-up speeches need to begin at 6.40 pm. Three Government Back Benchers are seeking to contribute, all of whom I want to accommodate, so a degree of self-restraint and consideration would help.

18:26

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

I welcome this incredibly important debate and congratulate the Democratic Unionist party on securing it. I also welcome the fact that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) and the Minister for faith, the noble Baroness Warsi, have noted the importance that the Government place on the issue.

Sadly and regrettably, none of us needs to apologise for focusing on the issue of Christian persecution or to qualify why we are doing so, because the scale and nature of that persecution throughout the world this century is appalling. Some years ago we might have been able to discuss the discrimination and persecution of Christians in the context of their status as a minority and argued that their human rights needed to be respected and that we needed to do much more to protect them. That is not what we are dealing with now.

Christians throughout the world, particularly in the middle east and Africa, are being persecuted and discriminated against not just because they are in a minority—indeed, they are in a majority in some cases and may be equal in number in others—but because they are a target. Those who are being persecuted now see themselves as a target, not simply a group following a particular religion. That is evident from the scale of the persecution.

I welcome the Minister’s comment that the issue under discussion should be a litmus test of other human rights. It should not be picked off as simply one among many human rights that we need to debate, as the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), suggested. We need to hold the Minister and the Government to account every time they attend trade delegations and visit other countries, and ensure that they direct international aid to the right places. This is a litmus test of how often the issue of religious freedom is raised and of how much we can seek improvement in countries of concern.

The Minister is an ambassador for religious freedom, as indeed are all the other Foreign Office Ministers. He will, therefore, want to report back to us on occasions other than dedicated debates on how much the Foreign Office is doing in those countries of concern to ensure that the principle of religious freedom is being upheld.

I welcome the comments made by the noble Baroness Warsi in Washington. Indeed, they have been echoed by Members today. She said:

“Across the world, people are being singled out and hounded out simply for the faith they follow or the beliefs they hold.”

She said that in some countries, as we have heard,

“a mass exodus is taking place, on a Biblical scale”

and that

“there is real danger that Christianity will become extinct.”

I welcome those important words from the Minister for faith. She also said that article 18 on the protection of religious freedom is

“the most translated article in the UN Declaration of Human Rights”,

but “the least heeded” by those we share a table with at UN and EU meetings.

We need to ensure that the Government do God, as they have rightly said they do, and that they do so by protecting article 18. In particular, they need to ensure that this is about the manifesting of belief and sharing it with others, which is a key issue. We must ensure that United Nations Human Rights Council resolution 16/18 is properly implemented across the board, and I ask the Minister to respond about that.

Baroness Warsi’s meetings in January in London and in September in New York are extremely welcome and important, as are the engagement on bilateral agreements, the project work and the diplomatic support that is going on. That has a particular focus in relation to the freedom to change religion, which must be properly recognised, but it is important to accept that there are different understandings and interpretations of article 18. We must ensure that the international covenant on civil and political rights is signed by the Arab countries with which we trade that have not done so: Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates should all sign it, as should Burma.

We must ensure that we get the language right. Persecution happens in all forms: deliberately, in burning down churches and killing Christians, but as we have heard, also as economic discrimination by the state and others, including against Christians in Iran. I took part in the inquiry by the all-party group on international religious freedom or belief, which has shown that there is discrimination across the board.

There has been a focus on trying to restrict people to the private sphere; a sort of privatisation of religion. President Morsi has said:

“As long as the apostate keeps it to himself…he should not be punished… However, someone who proclaims his apostasy in public, and calls for others to follow suit, is a danger to society…the law and the shari’a intervene.”

Where the rubber hits the road is when someone wants to change religion, particularly from a non-Christian—indeed, a Muslim—background. That is when they really need protection.

It is important that we are clear about the language, because we want to talk not only about freedom of worship, but about freedom to manifest one’s faith. Following the massacre at Maspero in Cairo in 2011, the Foreign Secretary said:

“The freedom of religious belief…needs to be protected... The ability to worship in peace is a vital component of any…democratic society.”

It is important to say that, but the Foreign Office must go further on the ability to manifest one’s faith.

The Home Office must also act in relation to asylum applications from those who have converted to Christianity and have been told, like some of my constituents, “You aren’t a pastor. You don’t need to go out in public and share your faith, because that isn’t your profession.” Christians are obliged as part of their calling to go out and show their faith, and they need to be protected across the board.

I must finish, but let me say this. We have now entered the Christmas period, which is an important time to make it clear that we want to protect religious freedom in all its forms. I hope that our speeches will be well heard, and that we practise what we preach in all channels and communications.

18:32

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

Things are so bad for Christians across the world that we should have a debate such as this at least annually. When the Archbishop of Canterbury came to the Jubilee Room, he said that speaking out on behalf of persecuted Christians really matters, because the persecutors of course want to get away with what they do without anyone seeing or noticing. That is why our debate is so important.

Religious liberty in this country is so important because it gives us the moral authority to raise with other countries the concerns that we are quite properly expressing today. I want to put on the record the Open Doors world watch list of countries in which persecution is most severe. It states that there is absolute persecution in North Korea; extreme persecution in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia, the Maldives, Mali, Iran, Yemen, Eritrea and Syria; and severe persecution in Sudan, Nigeria, Pakistan, Ethiopia, Uzbekistan, Libya, Laos, Turkmenistan, Qatar, Vietnam, Oman and Mauritania. Open Doors is particularly concerned about those 23 countries on its world watch list 2013.

It is not too much of a parallel to say that the position of Christians in the middle east in the second decade of the 21st century is analogous to that of the Jews in Germany in the 1930s. I am not the first person to say that—I think Lord Alton of Liverpool has said it in another place, and my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) recently said it in Westminster Hall—and it is not hyperbole to say so.

It is really important that Christians around the world and people of other faiths have the freedom to change faiths. May I press the Minister on what the United Kingdom has done at the United Nations Human Rights Council? It is felt that the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation has blocked the issue of the freedom to convert, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) spoke powerfully by quoting President Morsi.

On occasion, our Government have not been as robust as other Governments in dealing with this issue. In a speech in the other place on 9 December 2011, Lord Patten said that concerns had been raised with him by Anglicans in Turkey that they were not allowed to worship in public. He was told by the Government that nothing much could be done. However, he pointed out, by way of comparison, that the German Government had managed to get the Turkish Government to take action on the position of German Roman Catholics in Turkey. I say gently to the Minister that more could be done on occasion. We should follow Germany’s more muscular approach in that instance.

When Ministers and members of the royal family travel overseas, it would be good if they made contact with Anglican priests around the world. At every level—governmental, political, cultural, business and individual—these issues must be raised. That is how we will change the culture, as has rightly been said.

Finally, although this debate is, of course, set in the overall context of human rights, there is a severe and pressing issue as far as Christians are concerned.

18:36

[Fiona Bruce (Congleton) (Con)]

As I am the last Back Bencher to be called to speak, I understand that I am limited to four minutes. I therefore not only thank DUP Members for calling the debate, but wholeheartedly support what has been said by the hon. Members for Ealing North (Stephen Pound), for South Down (Ms Ritchie), for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes), for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) and for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill), the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) and, most eloquently, my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry).

In the short time that I have left, I want to welcome the speech by Baroness Warsi on 16 November in Washington, which has been referred to, in which she said that persecution is the biggest challenge we face in the 21st century. She called it a “global crisis”. If, as we hear, Christianity is the most persecuted religion on earth, 80% of religious persecution is suffered by Christians, Christianity is at risk of eradication in countries across the globe and the situation is worsening, the persecution of Christianity and Christians is a global crisis. That crisis needs a co-ordinated international response and the British Government should take a much stronger lead in that. Having sat through the whole debate, I believe that that view is shared by many colleagues.

We need more than words, meetings, resolutions and declarations; people want to see action. As I went about my constituency at the weekend, I was surprised that several constituents came up to me and expressed their pleasure in seeing that this debate was taking place in the House. That is not something that happens often. I believe that the British public are looking for more action on this issue.

I share the concern of other hon. Members over the comments made by the Minister in his opening remarks. However, at least he is here. The motion states that

“the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century”

and

“calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.”

I am disappointed that no Minister from the Department for International Development has been here throughout the debate. I was also disappointed that no DFID Minister attended the recent Westminster Hall debate on the persecution of Christians in the middle east. If, as this Minister says, we should be providing resources to address this issue, that ought to be something that DFID Ministers are considering. DFID should be prioritising this in its aid provision. It has recognised that girls, women and whole communities can benefit from education, and it needs to wake up to the fact that if we defend and strengthen people’s right to practise their faith and live in a more peaceful society, it will produce a more productive and flourishing society for all, whatever faith is being defended and supported. I therefore ask DFID to consider seriously how it will respond to the motion.

I do not know why there has not yet been adequate involvement on the part of those involved in development work. Perhaps it is due to a misplaced fear of that involvement being confused with proselytising, or being seen as being biased or as promoting western colonialism. That is political correctness of the worst kind, because people’s lives and livelihoods are at stake. I challenge DFID to review its policies. In the Westminster Hall debate I asked the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Mr Swire), to do that, and he said that we had the “Faith Partnership Principles” document. But that does not address the issue. Will DFID please do so?

18:40

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

I thank all Members who have contributed to this important debate. In particular, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for setting the scene of the many atrocities committed against Christians, and I appreciate all his efforts to raise the matter in Westminster Hall debates and on other occasions.

I thank the Minister and shadow Minister for their understanding, although I was somewhat concerned that they widened the debate beyond the motion. I was delighted that the hon. Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry) brought back the proper focus in his excellent contribution. The Minister acknowledged that Christians are the most persecuted people in the world, and I agree with the shadow Minister that if countries want to be part of the human rights club, they ought to play by the rules.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) for his usual thoughtful contribution, which focused the House’s attention on the motion. The tone and content of the contribution that the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) made were absolutely right. The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) was asked about his colleagues, but we deeply appreciate his presence and contribution.

We agree with the hon. Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Angie Bray) that we ought to reject the persecution of anyone because of their faith. My hon. Friend the Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) brought a tone of reality, giving chilling accounts of persecution not only by other religious groups but aided by Governments and authorities in various parts of the world. The hon. Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) reminded us of a number of countries where persecution is going on, and he was courageous in speaking personally about the situation in Pakistan. We deeply appreciate his interest and his contribution.

I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (Stephen Pound) for his usual eloquent exposition of the tragedies facing Christians in Iraq. He also reminded us that we need to raise the profile of persecuted Christians across the world and pray for them, and I agree wholeheartedly. I thank him for his helpful and thoughtful contribution. I also agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh) that right hon. and hon. Members who have taken part in the debate believe that civil and religious liberties are not for some but for all, and the debate has focused on that. As he explained, the night of persecution grows even darker in some parts of the world, even when we intervened in Iraq and Afghanistan and sent our soldiers to fight for liberty and freedom.

I agree with the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) that the debate has been reflective and informative—that is certainly an appropriate description. The hon. Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr Burrowes) and for South West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made thoughtful contributions. I appreciate that time was unfortunately too limited for them to expand their remarks, but I know they take a keen interest in this issue and have contributed to other debates.

The hon. Member for Congleton (Fiona Bruce) had just a few moments to contribute, but I believe this House owes her a great debt of gratitude because she tirelessly raises this issue again and again. Her encouragement and depth of knowledge is worthy of commendation and recognition, and I am happy to give that on the Floor of the House on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

[Stephen Pound]

Briefly, before we move on, may I share with the hon. Gentleman a message I have just received from Stormont from my colleague the hon. Member for Bury South (Mr Lewis), shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? He said that of all the debates he has missed, this is the one he regrets the most and he wishes he had been present. Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman and the House will understand, he had to be in Stormont today.

[Dr McCrea]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that information, and I have no doubt that the shadow Secretary of State would have attended this important debate and been happy to participate in it.

Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights emphasises the right to have certain freedoms, and I was just thinking what an amazing thing freedom is. It was what our fathers and forefathers fought and died for. Freedom of religion is a fundamental human right, and the fact that my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled this motion for debate acknowledges that for many, that freedom is being denied.

We make no apology whatsoever that the motion focuses directly on a group of people worldwide who are increasingly becoming isolated and are constantly under attack for their simple faith in Jesus Christ. The sad reality is that one Christian is killed for their faith every 11 minutes somewhere on earth, and many Governments remain totally silent about that situation. It is our desire to highlight the persecution of Christians not only in far off regions of the world, but in Europe and our own land. The list from Open Doors was helpful and gives the top 50 countries where the persecution of Christians happens for religious reasons. That certainly helps our understanding and points to the number of places where such persecution is going on.

There is the influence of Islamic extremists, and we are now witnessing an increase in the persecution of Christians, which is shown in many different ways. For some it is a violent attack from Islamic groups, such as the looting and burning to the ground of a Pentecostal church in Algeria. There are kidnappings of Christians for ransom in Egypt, public lashings for those practising Christianity in Saudi Arabia, and crucifixions in Iraq—we could go on, as that is only the tip of the iceberg of what we know. Sadly, the persecution of Christians is not debated often on the Floor of the House.

In several countries where Christians are a minority, persecutions are perpetrated at both state and community level. Indeed, through the intensity of that persecution, the existence of a small Christian community is often threatened, with many feeling they have no choice but to flee to safety somewhere else. For many, however, there is nowhere they can safely go—they cannot afford to go anywhere else.

When the Minister winds up, we must recognise that the persecution of Christians is going on in countries that receive financial aid from many Christian taxpayers in the United Kingdom. When we think of £1.325 billion to Ethiopia between 2010 and 2015, £1.392 billion to Pakistan for that period, £1 billion to Bangladesh, £1 billion to Nigeria, £710 million to Afghanistan, and £643 million to Tanzania, we must realise that that is taxpayers’ money, yet there is persecution of Christians.

We should always remember that persecution does not only happen somewhere else, because charity starts at home. Many Christians in the United Kingdom feel isolated at this time, and for many in this House, if they openly profess their faith in Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour, they witness the rolling of eyes, or disbelief that somehow today we really believe the Bible is the word of God, and we are scorned and ridiculed for that. As a believer, I unashamedly say that I do believe that the Bible is God’s precious word. I am guided in my public life, as well as in my private life, by the word of God. In our country, there are many sad instances of persecution of street preachers—even carol singers are under attack because of certain legislation that is, or has been, proposed.

I thank the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for her attendance. She has been here for a large part of the debate.

In conclusion, what should we do? We have to speak up, because by so doing we also speak for many of the weak, disadvantaged and defenceless people of the world. Thank God our faith will prevail. The Lord Jesus said:

“I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”

While we are being persecuted, remember that the blood of the martyr is the seed of the Church.

18:50

[Mark Simmonds]

With permission and with the leave of the House, I wish to respond to this important and significant debate. I reiterate that it is to the huge credit of the Democratic Unionist party that it has raised these important issues.

Correctly, this has been an impassioned debate outlining many of the horrors and persecutions suffered by Christians around the world. The situations in numerous countries have been raised, and the simple fact is that Christians are persecuted more than any other faith group in the world. The nature of this persecution can take many different forms and the perpetrators vary from Governments to militant groups to even a person’s own family. Faith is often used as a proxy for other divisions, as religious fault lines are exploited.

Let me be absolutely clear to the House: the Government are not silent and the Government are not quiet. When Christians are persecuted, we, as Government Ministers, speak out clearly and forcefully. I cannot stress enough how seriously the Foreign and Commonwealth Office takes this issue, as part of our commitment to freedom of religion around the world. Promoting respect for human rights is at the very heart of the Government’s foreign policy. Where Christians or any religious believers are victims of persecution, we will condemn the violence and ask the relevant authorities to ensure that justice is served. There can be and should be no impunity for those who persecute individuals on the basis of religion or belief.

A particular spotlight has been shone on the situation for Christians in the Middle East. That point was made powerfully in the wonderful speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Sir Tony Baldry). We have heard of the exodus of Christians from the region, and of communities that have co-existed for centuries now turning on minorities and treating Christians as outsiders. That is simply unacceptable.

Persecution is not limited to the middle east, and, where Christians are attacked, it is rarely just Christians who are suffering—whether they be Shi’a Muslims in Syria and Pakistan, and Rohingya Muslims in Burma. None of that persecution is acceptable and none of it should be tolerated.

[Alistair Burt]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mark Simmonds]

If my right hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not give way as I want to answer the specific points raised in the debate.

The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) rightly raised the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting. I can tell him that freedom of religion and belief was discussed by the Heads of Government, who agreed to strengthen the communiqué’s language on this subject, and we warmly welcomed that. The Foreign Secretary announced last week the setting up of an advisory group of experts on freedom of religion and belief. That will help us increasingly to factor in a faith-based perspective to our foreign policy.

The hon. Member for Rutherglen and Hamilton West (Tom Greatrex) rightly raised the challenges faced by Christians in Malaysia. I can inform him that the high commission in Kuala Lumpur raises the issue of respecting religious diversity with their Malaysian counterparts on a regular basis, and last did so on 7 November.

I want to make sure that Members across the House understand the Government’s position on the right to freedom of religion or belief. We interpret freedom of religion or belief according to the definition set out in article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights, which includes the right to practise the religion in public or private, and to share it with others. It also includes the right to change one’s religion and to have no religion at all.

I fully agree with the hon. Member for Strangford that protection of the right to freedom of religion or belief should be a priority for all countries. We, along with EU partners, sponsor a resolution at the UN twice every year on this subject. We have also agreed guidelines on the promotion of the right to freedom of religion or belief with EU partners. These guidelines are already helping the embassies of all EU member states to promote and protect the freedom of religion or belief in a wide range of target countries.

A number of hon. Members raised the important issue of Syria. We are committed to speaking up on behalf of all those who are targeted, and we have made it clear that those responsible for these violations should be held to account—and the International Criminal Court may have a role to play. I confirm that there are Christians among the members of the Syrian National Coalition who will be invited to the Geneva II talks.

Hon. Members have raised the issue of Nigeria, with particular reference to Boko Haram. By far the highest numbers killed by Boko Haram are Muslims, not Christians, and this includes senior Muslim clerics and anyone who stands up against its extremist ideology. We have consistently encouraged, and will continue to do so, the Government of Nigeria to protect all their citizens and to promote a dialogue between communities at different levels, as indeed I saw and participated in myself in Kaduna, earlier this year. It is important to distinguish between the age-old competition for land and resources between farmers and nomadic herders and the terrorism occurring in the north-east. Nigeria is a traditionally tolerant country.

The hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) raised the issue of the worrying events happening in the Central African Republic. Appalling human rights abuses are going on there. The Department for International Development recently announced an increase from £5 million to £15 million for humanitarian assistance. Both French and African troops are going to be deployed, which I hope will be authorised by a United Nations resolution later this week.

A number of hon. Members raised the appalling attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt. Let me reiterate the point made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary in his statement to Parliament of 3 September when he spoke about the deplorable burning of churches and the attacks on Coptic Christians. We were outraged by the attack of 20 October, when four Coptic Christians were killed. The Foreign Secretary has publicly condemned all acts of violence. We recently encouraged the committee tasked with drafting Egypt’s new constitution to ensure stronger protection in that country.

A number of hon. Members raised the work of the all-party group on international religious freedom and beliefs, which is chaired by Baroness Berridge. We very much welcome its work and encourage all faiths to work together, regardless of the specific religion involved in incidents. I also pay tribute to the work of the Christian Church over the centuries to fight for religious freedom for all faiths, not just for Christians.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury asked what additional work the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will do to raise the issue of the persecution of Christians. Let me reiterate that the persecution of Christians was the precise topic of a speech by my noble Friend Baroness Warsi in Washington last month. This clearly demonstrates that the FCO recognises and prioritises this matter not just as a problem, but as an issue on which we must work to find solutions. Other ministerial colleagues and I raise the issue of the persecution of Christians wherever and whenever it occurs, as do our ambassadors and high commissioners around the world, expressing our deep and heartfelt concern.

A number of other hon. Members raised the important issue of UK taxpayers’ money going to countries where the persecution of Christians takes place. It needs to be understood that the majority of UK development assistance does not go via Governments, but where it does go through budgetary support, we make it absolutely clear that the host Government must share the UK’s commitment to respecting the full range of human rights, including combating religious intolerance and tackling persecution and discrimination.

My hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti) made a very powerful speech. I want to confirm to him that my noble Friend Baroness Warsi regularly raises the issue of the blasphemy laws with Ministers and the Government in Pakistan.

I fully agree that Christian belief is a powerful force motivating millions of people to do good, with Christian institutions occupying a valuable position in society. We recognise the positive role Christians play across the world.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House is concerned that the persecution of Christians is increasing in the 21st Century; notes that there are reports that one Christian is killed every 11 minutes somewhere on earth for their faith; further notes that Christianity is the most persecuted religion globally; bears in mind that the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion is a human right stated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; and calls on the Government to do more both in its foreign policy and through its aid work to defend and support people of Christian faith.

Business without Debate

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Delegated Legislation

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

International Development

That the draft Caribbean Development Bank (Eighth Replenishment of the Unified Special Development Fund) Order 2013, which was laid before this House on 1 November, be approved.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

European Union Documents

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Syria: A Comprehensive EU Approach

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 11482/13, a Joint Commission and High Representative Communication: Towards a comprehensive EU approach to the Syrian crisis; and agrees with the Government that in responding to the Syrian crisis, the EU should focus its efforts on those areas in which it has expertise, complementing broader national and international efforts.—(Claire Perry.)

Question agreed to.

Petitions

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

19:00

[Chris Heaton-Harris (Daventry) (Con)]

I have two petitions. The first is a petition of 386 residents of my constituency on the Rural Fair Share campaign.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that the Local Government Finance Settlement is unfair to rural communities; notes that the Rural Penalty sees urban areas receive 50% more support per head than rural areas despite higher costs in rural service delivery; and opposes the planned freezing of this inequity in the 2013–14 settlement for six years until 2020.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reduce the Rural Penalty in staged steps by at least 10% by 2020.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001303]

19:01

[Chris Heaton-Harris]

My second petition is a very important one—not that the last one was not. This petition is about cardiac rehabilitation services at Danetre hospital in my constituency. They were removed a while ago, and a fantastic campaigner, Viv Crouch, has been campaigning ever since to get them back. She and a number of other people have raised a petition signed by over 1,200 people from across Daventry.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe cardiac rehabilitation should be introduced in Danetre Hospital to help local people recovering from heart problems.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to reintroduce this service as soon as possible.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001305]

19:03

[Chris Kelly (Dudley South) (Con)]

It is my pleasure to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Oregon close in Kingswinford in my constituency. It relates to matters regarding the quarry that is operated by WCL Quarries and is ultimately owned by Hinton Perry & Davenhill, a major company in my constituency.

The petition states:

The Petition of residents of Dudley South,

Declares that a planning application on Oregon Close (P13/1596) has been presented to Dudley Metropolitan Council; further that the Petitioners believe that the construction of bunds to a height of six metres on top of an existing four metre wall has the potential to structurally damage the surrounding houses; further that the Petitioners believe that bringing forward the construction to 2014 provides insufficient time to arrange a professional structural survey of the retaining wall and affected houses and to put movement monitoring equipment in place; further that the Petitioners object to the noise and toxic fumes which will be endured for twelve months; and further that the Petitioners believe that their quality of life and health will be detrimentally affected if the proposal in this planning application is accepted.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Dudley Metropolitan Council to reject the planning application on Oregon Close.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.

[P001304]

Newry HMRC Centre

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Claire Perry.)

19:05

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

I would like to thank the Minister for coming here to respond to the debate this evening. HMRC centres throughout the UK, including in Newry, have been subject to turbulent change since 2006, and staff have grown accustomed to their jobs being under threat. However, I was alarmed to hear that the Treasury is now offering voluntary exits and effectively seems to have decided to close down HMRC centres across Northern Ireland—in Newry, Enniskillen and Derry.

The Newry centre currently employs 134 staff, many of whom live in my constituency, and I know that this news came as a shock to them and their families. It represents a real blow to working people and families across Northern Ireland, and the removal of these jobs will be a severe drain on the local economy. These people are also vastly experienced, and as it appears they are not being offered re-deployment, this will be a great loss of expertise.

Despite being hit hard by the financial crisis since 2008, Newry and the surrounding area has great economic potential to harness north-south business development. Significant steps taken under the “Newry Vision” programme have bolstered the private sector, and consideration has been given to where public-private partnerships can be effective. The Newry area, given its strategic location on the Belfast-Dublin corridor, has been identified as a vital economic hub within the Northern Ireland regional development strategy. As has been highlighted by economists and spatial geographers such as Professor John Driscoll, the area could be the fulcrum for key north-south economic development.

However, it is critical for the balance and sustainability of the local economy that these public sector jobs be maintained. Indeed, with 12 public sector jobs per 100 of the working-age population, Newry is under-represented in public sector jobs in Northern Ireland, and removing them would put severe pressure on the whole local economy, including the private sector. Only last week, I was told that staff numbers in the administration sector of the Public Prosecution Service in Newry will be reduced, and that Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency offices could be closed. That is still open for discussion, and hopefully the Minister with responsibility for transport here could reverse that decision.

[Lady Hermon (North Down) (Ind)]

I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for allowing me to intervene. She will know that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recently looked into the appalling crime of fuel laundering in Northern Ireland. I and the other members of the Committee were indebted to the HMRC for its work throughout Northern Ireland, but particularly in the Newry area. One thing we were very concerned about was the evidence given to us about the cost to Newry and Mourne district council of cleaning up the rubbish left behind by these criminal gangs. We need more HMRC staff in Newry, not fewer.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I sit on a cross-border committee organised by Newry and Mourne district council. A representative from HMRC in Newry attends its meetings and deals with illegal fuel laundering. The last meeting was some six weeks ago, and good progress has been made on that, on foot of the report of the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, and the good work being carried out by HMRC in dealing with illegal fuel laundering.

[Mark Durkan (Foyle) (SDLP)]

As my hon. Friend knows, Foyle House in Derry, in my constituency, is also affected by the proposals. She is rightly emphasising the fact that jobs are at stake, but does she agree that the quality of services is also at stake? When other taxation services have moved out of Northern Ireland, not least those involving the administration of tax credits, many people—particularly cross-border workers—have been left with very poor services and chronic problems.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank my hon. Friend for his useful intervention. I agree wholeheartedly that there is a need for this service, particularly in regard to cross-border working, as there is a considerable interchange of population between the north and the south. In his case, it is between Derry and Donegal; in my case, it is between Newry and Dundalk. In my area, there is a memorandum of understanding between both councils, north and south, to deal with economic issues in order to pump-prime the local economy.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Does the hon. Lady feel that the closure of the office with the loss of 134 jobs will affect the ability of the Treasury to bring in the revenue that this country needs?

[Ms Ritchie]

The face-to-face services provided by HMRC in Newry are vital to my constituency, because of the lack of access to broadband and the need to deal on a cross-border basis with matters such as tax avoidance. Newry’s strategic location means that it is vital to have those services there.

The programme of voluntary exits for staff cannot be euphemistically explained away by the normal rhetoric of “modernisation and streamlining”. It represents the wholesale removal of vital face-to-face and personal tax services, and a distinct refashioning of the link between people and revenue collection. My hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) has just made that point as well. Time and again it has been reported that consumers and businesses prefer face-to-face transactions when dealing with tax and revenue issues. The new strategy will have severe limitations, particularly when complex matters are being discussed.

The decision will drastically alter the link between the community and a vital public service. That point has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle, as well as by the hon. Members for North Down (Lady Hermon) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon). That is already a problem, and I know that many local people and businesses already struggle to access services from HMRC. People can feel disconnected from the system, especially in Northern Ireland, and that will be further exacerbated by the changes.

It might seem more efficient for the Treasury to implement these changes, but it will almost certainly not be more efficient for those people forced to rely on telephone lines, with all the long delays involved, or for those who lack access to the internet or find it difficult to use modern technology. This could leave many people isolated from access to vital services, particularly at a time of widespread changes to the tax and benefits system.

South Down and the region supported by the Newry HMRC centre are predominantly rural areas and as such they face all the problems associated with that, including limited broadband access and people living in remote and isolated locations. Those people cannot simply be expected to adopt online and phone services, especially when complex personal tax issues are under discussion. Recent immigrants, the poor, the elderly and the disabled will all be made more vulnerable by the removal of these services. Chas Roy-Chowdhury, head of taxation at the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, has warned that this action is being carried out too rapidly and without due consideration.

The Treasury has claimed, through statements to the media and in written answers here, that it is not closing down these centres, but the voluntary exits that are being offered surely amount to a de facto closure. These exit offers are a clear statement of intent, and the closure of the sites, which the Treasury has seemingly made inevitable, will almost certainly increase the pressure on staff to accept the terms on offer. I am deeply concerned about this tactic of offering exit packages before proper, full consultations and impact assessments have been carried out on the closures. It is deeply cynical to hang this uncertainty over the heads of the staff at the same time as offering a redundancy package.

I would therefore like the Minister to clarify the terms on which these exits are being carried out. I would also like clarification on the future of the Newry centre, which dealt with 500,000 queries and cases over the past year. Such clarification will include a time scale for the future strategy for staffing and operations in Northern Ireland. The Minister needs to address why there has been no equality impact assessment, as required under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and as produced for the initial proposal in 1998. Why has there been no consultation with staff, unions or, apparently, the Northern Ireland Executive? Did the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland make any representations as far back as March or April, when there were some intimations that this might happen? Have they received a response to such representations?

In similar circumstances in the past, the Treasury has sought ministerial approval from the Northern Ireland Executive, as well as a full equality impact assessment and stakeholder consultation. This new approach of offering voluntary exits before this process has begun is deeply worrying, particularly given the devastating impact this closure could have on the local community and economy. There are very real equality issues relating to the closure of this centre, as it is mostly the lower paid, disabled and part-time staff and women who will be most vulnerable and will find it the hardest to get new work; a higher proportion of women will be affected. I also have to point out that the three centres being closed are all in predominantly nationalist constituencies, which could bring its own equality implications.

Before following through with these measures in Northern Ireland, I would also be grateful if the Minister could include more information on the pilot study carried out in the north of England on the introduction of the reformed service. Critical questions are outstanding on the capacity of non-face-to-face and reduced personal tax services to deal with the range of queries that these centres deal with daily. How long will people have to wait on hold to have their inquiry heard? How many cases took more than one call to resolve? How many required a subsequent face-to-face meeting? What was the experience of people and businesses using the new system, and how much will it cost them? There is a clear onus on the Treasury to provide this information before coming to any decision on removing the existing centres. Instead we get the impression of a Department that has made its decision and will find the appropriate reasons from there.

More broadly, we know that tax evasion and avoidance cost the public purse an astronomical amount every year, and that is surely only likely to rise with the closure of local compliance centres. With tax evasion and avoidance costing our economy more than £100 billion a year, HMRC should be expanding rather than cutting offices and staff. Surely the Treasury should be looking at how local tax centres can be adequately resourced and given the scope to take on some of these functions. Indeed, initially we were led to believe the Newry centre would be retained and would assume further responsibility for some cross-border issues, including compliance and tax co-operation with Irish authorities—where better to locate a cross-border taxation co-operation centre than Newry in the context of the development of north-south business links? I am disappointed that that no longer seems to be the case. I would like the Minster to explain what consideration he has given to this. Will he take a more constructive approach?

This Government never tire of telling us of their desire to rebuild and rebalance the economy in Northern Ireland. The message sent out by the decision to remove jobs from the Newry HMRC centre sharply contradicts that, as there are simply not jobs available for these people to move into. Instead, this decision will remove money from the local economy, hitting not just those families directly involved, but businesses across the whole area. I ask the Minister, who has been generous with his time on previous occasions, to hold further meetings with local politicians, the Public and Commercial Services Union and representatives in Newry to look at a constructive solution. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle would join us at such a meeting to discuss Derry. There is an urgent need for the Treasury to review this decision and make a full assessment of the impact of it on the local economy and community.

I am absolutely certain that a viable, economically sound centre can be retained that protects local jobs, perhaps through a centre that also considers aspects related to cross-border tax issues and wider anti tax avoidance and evasion measures. What is absolutely not acceptable is the degree of uncertainty that has been created while staff are being offered exit deals.

19:20

[The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie) on securing this debate this evening. I welcome this opportunity to clarify what Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is doing in respect of the office in Newry and to give the House as much information as possible.

The answer to the written parliamentary question that the hon. Lady tabled last week highlighted the fact that HMRC has not announced the closure of the office in Newry. However, on 20 November, HMRC invited around 1,500 people in 21 locations to apply for a voluntary exit. That included more than 130 people in Custom House in Newry. The invitation gives people the option to leave HMRC if that fits with their life choices, but HMRC is not making redundancies at this stage.

Before I go into detail on the voluntary exits and what it means for staff in Newry and other offices, it is important to explain the context. HMRC is reshaping itself to become a more modern, flexible and cost-effective organisation that can deliver better, more personalised services for customers at the same time as increasing tax revenues from compliance. Like other Departments, it has to deliver that within ever-tighter fiscal constraints.

HMRC has been steadily reducing in size since it was formed in 2005. Over the past eight years, it has cut its staff from around 97,000 full-time equivalent people to just under 63,000 FTEs at the end of October 2013. It has reduced its estate by more than 200 offices, and is now more concentrated in urban centres. It has done that while improving service and increasing yield. Since HMRC was created, it has more than doubled its compliance yield and delivered major projects, including Real Time Information. During 2012-13, it brought pay-as-you-earn up to date for the first time, answered 75.2% of the calls made to its contact centres—hitting 90% during the last six months of the year—and, for the first time since HMRC was formed, cleared more than 80% of customer post within 15 days.

HMRC has committed to reducing its work force from 63,000 FTEs today to 54,000 by the end of 2014-15 and then to 52,000 by the end of 2015-16. Although retirements, resignations and people reducing their working hours will deliver some of those work force reductions, they will not be sufficient if HMRC is to achieve its work force target. HMRC has always made it clear to its staff that it was likely that voluntary exits would be needed and that is what it announced last month. Targeted groups of staff will be asked to consider whether a voluntary exit is right for them. People in those groups might be in roles that are needed less and less because of new ways of working, including increased automation and the fact that some administrative work has dried up. Others are in locations where, according to all the indications, one, some or all lines of business in HMRC are unlikely to be based in the medium to long term.

Although the specifics of the announcement will, I appreciate, come as a shock or surprise to many people, the reality is that HMRC will continue to contract its work force. That has long been known by staff and many have been waiting to find out where that contraction will take place. Indeed, the hon. Member for South Down acknowledged that there has been uncertainty in Newry for some time.

The background to the news is that in June 2011 HMRC announced that it would be located in 16 key centres until at least 2020. Those centres include Belfast. Newry was one of most of the other offices in which HMRC said that it would be located until at least 2015. As HMRC reduces in size, it will need to continue to bring together its people in larger sites where they can work more flexibly and to reduce its footprint to be more cost-effective. Smaller offices will not be viable as overall numbers reduce and the skills pool in smaller local communities will not necessarily provide all the skills that HMRC needs when it needs them. HMRC has therefore started to identify locations that do not fit business needs in the medium to long term. In seven of the 21 locations where people have been invited to apply for voluntary exit, one or more lines of business intend to withdraw from the office in time. In the other 14 offices, all of the lines of business wish to withdraw. Newry is one of those offices.

There is not at present a proposal to close those offices, since HMRC is honouring the commitment it made to staff in 2011 that they would stay open until at least 2015. However, HMRC’s executive committee took the view that staff should know that there might not be a long-term future for those offices well in advance of any decision on office closures, so that they can think about their options and start planning their futures.

The voluntary exit scheme—I stress that it is entirely voluntary—gives those staff who want to leave HMRC the opportunity to do so on favourable financial terms. Some people will welcome the opportunity to leave the Department given that change and uncertainty in the air. The compensation provided by accepting a voluntary exit will enable people to pursue other life choices if that is what they want to do.

[Ms Ritchie]

If the staff choose to stay and do not take voluntary exit, what is the long-term future for them, for Newry and for the other 13 centres?

[Mr Gauke]

Let me say a bit more and I shall answer the hon. Lady’s question directly. Those who wish to take up the exit package will need to apply by 18 December and decide on a formal offer by 31 January. Their last day of service will be 30 April. As she says, other people will not want to leave and there is no compulsion on them to apply for a voluntary exit if they wish to stay, but they have been given notice of the likely longer-term picture for their offices and will ultimately need to consider their future after 2015. HMRC will not be closing Newry or any of the offices where it invited people to consider applying for a voluntary exit before April 2015, in line with the picture it gave in 2012 about how long it would be based in current locations.

I do not underestimate the fact that for many people this news was a shock and was unwelcome, but I believe that HMRC was right to provide its staff with an honest assessment about the future of their offices or, in some cases, their roles, and to offer them the opportunity to consider applying for a voluntary exit.

HMRC needs to do further work to be able to say if and when it sees itself moving away from Newry and the 13 other locations where all lines of business will be reducing. A future decision to close the office will need to be accompanied by a proper consultation process and equality impacts, involving the employees themselves, their trade unions, right hon. and hon. Members and other local interests.

Let me pick up on a couple of the questions asked by the hon. Lady. She asked why there has not been consultation at this point and I stress that HMRC has not yet taken a decision to close Newry or any other office. Newry does not feature in HMRC’s long-term plans, but as long as there are people in the office, HMRC will not break its previous commitment that no occupied office will close before April 2015. HMRC follows a tried and tested process in these circumstances. If and when there is a proposal to close the office, consultation will be undertaken with interested parties, both within and outside the Department, and feedback will be invited from staff, unions, hon. Members, other elected local representatives, and the local community. Any representations will be considered fully before a final decision is made.

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

Is the Minister not playing with words? I am listening to what he is saying but, in reality, has a decision not already been made?

[Mr Gauke]

I reiterate that HMRC will honour the commitment made earlier in this Parliament that Newry will be open at least until 2015. A final decision will be made only after consultation, as I have outlined. I do not wish in any way to hide from the point—indeed, HMRC has been very clear about this—that HMRC does not see Newry having a future in the long term. The final decision as to when any closure would take place will be made, as I have said, after consultation. The choice for HMRC in the circumstances is to try to conceal that and leave things to the last minute or to try to be as open as possible, engage with staff and provide opportunities at an early stage for those who might want to leave voluntarily with a severance package.

[Mark Durkan]

In the decisions that HMRC is making about its future pattern of business, has any account been taken of the possible changes in the distribution of taxation? The Government have recently indicated that there are shifts in relation to Wales, and who knows what is going to happen in Scotland? If other choices are being made on some taxation moving to a more devolution-weighted basis, surely having a revenue-collecting infrastructure available in a devolved area is hugely important?

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. HMRC is going in the direction of concentration on larger urban offices that have the flexibility to operate. Included in those larger urban offices is Belfast. He tempts me to speculate on future policy matters in the devolution of tax, but I want to make it clear that this is not a proposal to withdraw from Northern Ireland. This is a proposal that applies across the United Kingdom, with a move to larger urban centres. That applies in Northern Ireland, as well as elsewhere.

May I deal quickly with the issue of the equality impact assessment, which is an important matter raised by the hon. Member for South Down? The equality position has been considered, and it has been concluded that there is unlikely to be a disproportionate impact on any of the protected equality groups as a result of the voluntary exit schemes. Consequently, completion of an equality impact assessment is unnecessary. A people impact assessment has been completed, however, and audiences likely to be affected have been identified and appropriate mitigating action will be taken to eliminate those impacts.

If HMRC does decide to close any offices in future it will identify all redeployment options for affected staff. However, because its estate and work force will become smaller, there will clearly be less chance of redeployment in HMRC, particularly in areas that are outside a reasonable daily commute.

[Ms Ritchie]

rose—

[Mr Gauke]

I am conscious that I have two minutes left, but I shall give way one last time.

[Ms Ritchie]

I thank the Minister for his generosity; I hope that that will be extended to HMRC in Newry. May I also ask him to provide us with some information about the pilot study in the north-east of England and its outcomes?

[Mr Gauke]

I will answer the hon. Lady’s question, although I suspect that I will be unable to conclude my remarks as I had wanted to. This issue is very much focused on the inquiry centre, which is only a small part of what is currently undertaken in Newry. With regard to the inquiry centre pilot in the north-east of England, HMRC will decide in January 2014 whether to roll out that service and move away from inquiry centres and face-to-face services and towards a telephone service with additional enhanced support for vulnerable people. HMRC remains committed to providing face-to-face support for those who need it in future, including in Newry and across Northern Ireland. If we decide to roll out the new service next year, HMRC believes that it will provide that face-to-face support in a way that is more flexible and accessible to customers.

Time is constrained, so I will conclude by saying—

19:35

House adjourned without Question put (Standing Order No. 9(7)).

Petition

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Petitions

Tuesday 3 December 2013

Safety of Headland Road, Leicester

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Petitions

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 mph speed limit without delay and before the next designated review of traffic calming measures.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Keith Vaz, Official Report, 12 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 928.]

[P001292]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Transport:

Local authorities have the power to set local speed limits, including 20 mph, and to implement road safety schemes such as vehicle activated signs, having due regard to relevant legislation and guidance. Although the Department cannot intervene in individual cases, I would encourage all local authorities to take action to improve road safety in their area.

To aid local authorities the Department for Transport has published guidance on setting local speed limits (DFT Circular 01/13) and has developed the Speed Limit Appraisal Tool. The Department also provides advice on implementing all types of traffic calming measures in Local Transport Note 1/07: Traffic Calming.

In October 2011 the Department also issued traffic sign authorisations to all local authorities in England that relaxed the design requirements for 20 mph zones, giving local authorities more flexibility in how they install them. These authorisations are available from: http://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/. DFT Circular 01/13 makes particular reference to schools, and traffic authorities have powers to introduce 20 mph speed limits that apply only at certain times of day. I have also provided a special authorisation for every English traffic authority to place an advisory part-time 20 mph limit sign, with flashing school warning lights. This can be a more cost-effective solution, where appropriate, and reduces the requirement for signing.

Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

Tuesday 3 December 2013

[Mr Jim Hood in the Chair]

Royal Navy Ships

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

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

09:30

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

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I am delighted to have secured a debate on future ships for the Royal Navy. That may seem an odd subject, considering that the Queen Elizabeth-class carriers will not be operational until 2020 and that the Type 26 global combat ship, for which advance plans are in place, is not expected to enter service until June 2022.

The development times for such vessels are long, and although the plans to replace the Invincible-class carriers with the QE-class carriers were made in 1997—16 years ago—and the green light to replace the Type 23s with the global combat ship was given 15 years ago, the first sheet of metal has yet to be cut. If we combine that lengthy development period with, first, Britain’s ever-evolving place and role in the world; secondly, the changing threats and challenges that we face away from traditional deep-blue-water engagements; and, finally, the seismic changes in war-fighting technology, it makes perfect sense to ask what role the Royal Navy should play in the future and how it should be equipped to perform that role.

Let me take each of those points in turn. The previous strategic defence and security review made it clear that, as a maritime nation, we will retain significant global interests, with our prosperity, stability and security largely dependent on access to the sea and the maintenance of uninterrupted free trade. Having served in the armed forces, I would be the first to support a large permanent military capability, but history shows that that is a luxury that the nation cannot always afford. For hundreds of years, the size of our armed forces has concertinaed, and this decade will be no different. With defence spending falling from about 4% of GDP in the cold war to 2% today, it is right that we consider what the default size of our armed forces should be to allow us to meet our national and international security obligations and to respond, with or without our allies, to sizeable short-term commitments.

Although we cannot predict the future, we can say with some certainty that our forces will be deployed. Thanks to modern, 24-hour news coverage, which allows the nation to take a more proactive and vocal interest in the type of interventionist engagements that we participate in—as reflected in the recent vote on punitive intervention in Syria—and to the fact that there is no appetite for repeating the intervention challenges of Iraq and Afghanistan, we are likely to be more selective about the engagements that our forces are committed to. Future operations are likely to be multinational, light-footprint, manageable and easy to extract—essentially, low-risk entanglements—especially when mass is not immediately available or politically desirable. That bodes well for the greater utility of the ship—if it is built with the flexibility to modularise for the task.

Let me turn now to the changing threats and challenges that we may face. I draw Members’ attention to the latest book by respected author, strategist and counter-insurgency expert David Kilcullen, in which he speaks of

“the dangers of marginalised slums and complex security threats of the world’s coastal cities, where almost 75% of the world’s population will be living by midcentury.”

He predicts

“a future of feral cities, urban systems under stress, and increasing overlaps between crime and war, internal and external threats, and the real and virtual worlds.”

Of course, not everyone will agree with his rather grim predictions, but it cannot be denied that an increasingly interdependent world will be characterised by intense globalisation and competition, favouring many people, but alienating others.

With 80% of the world’s population living within 100 miles of the sea and most human maritime activity, such as shipping, fishing and hydrocarbon exploration, taking place 100 miles out to sea, most of the world’s economic activity will be conducted in a narrow strip of land and sea—the so-called littoral. It is there that we will find the poorly governed or the ungoverned space that leads to future conflicts—whether prompted by natural or man-made disasters—and that provides the breeding grounds for trouble. That, in turn, will threaten Britain’s interests. That is where future tensions and conflict will occur, as the world shifts towards a multipolar construct. Britain must adapt to that new landscape if it is to continue to play an active and engaged role in shaping global change. That means developing more flexible, mobile and defendable military capabilities, and the Royal Navy has a key role to play in that.

Given the platforms that are about to come online, it could be argued that almost all the kinetic operations that we have carried out recently could have been achieved from the relative safety of the sea. By way of illustration, I should point out that 35% of US air operations over Afghanistan were conducted from carriers based in the Indian ocean, while 40% of all allied sorties in the Libya campaign came from a single carrier—the Charles de Gaulle—before it had to retire for maintenance.

That is a powerful argument, if ever there was one, for commissioning both QE- class carriers, not just one. I will not comment too much on those carriers, because I made my views clear in my Royal United Services Institute report, but they will be game changing for British military capability. Two carriers would allow us to develop not only carrier strike, but a permanent expeditionary capability, unlike the use of Apaches on Ocean, which was a temporary move.

That leads me to the advances in war-fighting technology. The current revolution in technology is changing the conduct of warfare—arguably, to a far greater extent than the arrival of the longbow at Agincourt, the Gatling gun in the US civil war or the tank at the battle of Cambrai. Such so-called force multipliers give the user greater war-fighting effect at an ever greater distance from the target. Each new development moves the conduct of war into a new chapter.

The same applies in the maritime environment. The development and application of new technology—in essence, tactics—over hundreds of years, and, possibly, a local rule that allowed the spoils of war to be shared by the crew, allowed the Royal Navy to dominate the high seas for a long time, charged by Parliament with protecting and growing British trade routes and interests. We have seen the development of full-rigged ships; cannons, which replaced the need to board enemy ships; and the dreadnoughts, which had fewer but larger guns. In the last century, we saw the introduction of submarines, aircraft carriers and torpedoes. With the technology coming online today, tomorrow’s battles—wherever they are—will be fought not just by those in the theatre of war, but, arguably, by a similar number of operators hundreds of miles from the battlefield, as unmanned warfare becomes the norm.

The advanced systems coming online will transform the ability of all three services to collect intelligence; to deter, or efficiently and clinically to defeat, the enemy at range; and to blur the lines of responsibility between the services. Operationally, we are only beginning to appreciate that, as reflected in the Libya campaign, where HMS Ocean, with a combat range of 8,000 miles, carried Apache helicopters, with a combat range of 300 miles and armed with Hellfire missiles, which have a range of 8 km. A stand-alone system was temporarily placed on a platform, crossing service boundaries no less, to assist with an objective. The question I therefore pose today is: could there be more of that ability to modularise systems to meet the variety of tasks that we now require of our fleet? That means challenging the Royal Navy’s desire for all its ships to be permanently capable of high-end warfare tasks.

The Type 45 destroyer, for example, is a formidable ship, arguably the top of its class in defending the skies at sea and attacking other ships. It is, however, so high-spec that it cannot hit things on land, as traditionally that has been the domain of the RAF and, latterly, the sub-surface fleet. It is built for high-end and deep-blue warfare, yet it spends 50% of its time conducting SDSR taskings, such as counter-piracy and counter-drugs operations, and humanitarian operations, such as those that we have recently seen in the Philippines.

I have no doubt that we need high-end capability, but that kinetic capability must be able to harness the full spectrum of complex weapons technology and take on future technologies by being more modular and systems-based. I therefore very much welcome the fact that the lines between the frigate and the destroyer are being blurred in the design of the Type 26 global combat ship. I understand that it should be able to fire Tomahawk missiles from the Sylver vertical launch system A70 pods and that there is space on board for two Wildcat helicopters and a number of rigid inflatables, as well as 40 Royal Marine commandos. One does not need to be an able sea dog to recognise how much more versatile the design will be. It will certainly be more proficient in expeditionary warfare in the littoral environment.

With the detailed ship design yet to be agreed, will the Minister consider increasing the size of the mission bay and deck to offer greater space beyond that for the planned two helicopters? I stress the point: whether manned or unmanned, the airborne capability extends the versatility of a vessel, from the high-end to the soft power influence, giving the ship vastly increased expeditionary capability. We are now seeing unmanned aerial systems, or drones, to use common language: the ScanEagle, the Fire Scout and Boeing’s Hummingbird. They will be the norm in the skies; they will be a permanent part of war.

I will not go into the details about selected precision effects at range, but I would encourage increased synergies in the complex weapons systems employed by all three services. Is there any reason why Storm Shadow cannot be fired from a ship or, indeed, Brimstone from a Wildcat? Another example is the Mistral MBDA surface-to-air launch system, which can be fired from helicopters or ships and is also man-portable. That is a bit of kit that is versatile across all three services—a great example of one system being shared across the board.

I ask the Minister to recognise the convergence of interest in the battle space and the challenges of the continued siloed approach to procurement. I will cite one British example. The Fire Shadow, procured by the British Army, is a surface-launched precision loitering missile with a range of around 100 km. It is transported by trailer behind the back of a 4-tonne lorry. There is no reason why such a cheap but accurate bit of kit could not be modularised and placed, when required, on board a ship. Heaven forbid, it could even be run by the Royal Artillery, although perhaps that is a step too far. I believe that that is the mindset that should dominate future joint effect—modular systems covering all four phases of war that can be brought together.

As the design for the Type 26 is consolidated, I offer two options: option 1, do we need all 13 of them to be of such high specifications, or could, say, five of the eight have a more simplified design, where tailored assets are assigned depending on the task at hand? On option 2, if we commissioned just eight Type 26s, we could use the additional funds to procure 10 cheaper, larger modular ships with the deck and mission space for a minimum of four rotor systems to effectively conduct counter-piracy and counter-narcotics operations and defend home waters and to excel at upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks.

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

Does my hon. Friend recognise that it is important that we also have ships that will protect our aircraft carriers? After all, the key thing that Nelson always talked about was the need for frigates to support the rest of the flagships and other such things.

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I commend him for his work in supporting what goes on in Devonport. He is absolutely right that ships can and often do work individually, but they might be required to be part of a larger flotilla or part of a taskforce, which might include defending an aircraft carrier. Clearly, with a limited number of platforms, that would be harder to do, so an increased number of ships would make the job easier.

The types of role that the Type 26s could be engaged in—upstream engagement, stabilisation and humanitarian tasks—are the very things the SDSR is saying that we should be doing more of, to promote Britain’s interests. I believe that such a design might even allow the provision for an Army company strength to be based on board. Essentially, the ship could be a small moving location—a sea-based platform for operations to be conducted on land. In essence, it could act as a safe lily pad from which land and sea-based assets could be safely deployed without the need for any boots to be permanently on the ground. Such a ship would then free the high-end ships for NATO, middle east, south Atlantic and nuclear deterrent duties. Indeed, as my hon. Friend has just said, they would be free to form part of a flotilla to protect our aircraft carriers.

The Minister will be aware that the surface fleet is coping—but only just—with meeting its maritime obligations with 19 destroyers and frigates, when 23 ships is the defence strategic direction mandated standard. We are therefore taking an operational risk, and that is managed, but option 2 would mitigate that risk. I urge the Minister to gain some inspiration by looking at the United States littoral combat ship, or the USS Freedom, a catamaran-style ship. The US is exploring exactly the same more modular-based approach. The MOD wrote a joint concept report colourfully entitled “Future ‘Black Swan’ Class Sloop-of-War”, published in May last year, which talks exactly about the concept of a far cheaper ship, with the money invested instead in the systems that go on it.

As we slowly approach the next SDSR, will the Minister look at one further system that I believe would be game changing in the maritime environment? The V-22 Osprey is a US multi-mission military tiltrotor aircraft. It is an example of the large utility helicopters of the future. It already operates on the US Wasp-class carrier and can fly higher, faster and further, and it can of course land on the deck of any frigate or destroyer. It would be able refuel our F-35s. Such a system would have an enormous impact in the maritime environment. I believe that leasing six from the United States, similar to what we did with the C-17s, would make logical sense.

In conclusion, it has been said time and again that, no matter how advanced, ships can only be in one place at a time. We have impressive naval ships, but they remain very specific in their remit and too siloed in harnessing systems from all services—and, of course, there are only 19 of them. Our ships are conducting a number of international duties that they were not built to achieve. Looking ahead, Britain must excel at influencing activities in the littoral environment. I believe that that aim is best served by simpler and cheaper platforms, where the sophistication and investment is focused on the modular systems on board, rather than on the ship. I hope that I speak for both sides of the House in paying tribute to all those who serve in the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. I offer my thoughts today in the spirit of ensuring that the House considers how we can best equip the Royal Navy in future in the lead-up to the next SDSR.

Several hon. Members rose—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order. I have four speakers on my list, plus the Front-Bench representatives, whom I intend to call at 10.40 am at the very latest.

09:49

[Angus Robertson (Moray) (SNP)]

I pay tribute to the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), who has a long track record and experience in defence matters. I congratulate him on securing the debate and on outlining many thoughtful points, in particular relating to the littoral dimension, global strategic challenges, and interoperability and joint effect.

When considering future and current vessels, one must consider future and current maritime roles and taskings as an important starting point. I think that Members from across the House agree that naval forces are there to protect and patrol, to secure freedom of movement, to enforce the boundaries of territorial waters, to control exclusive economic zones, and to secure the environment—a significant consideration—renewables and critical infrastructure. That is particularly important when one bears in mind what is likely to happen in the decades ahead with offshore wind, tidal and wave power and the development of super-grid systems, which are likely to connect Iceland, the Faroe islands, Scotland, Norway and the rest of Europe. Other dimensions include subsea infrastructure and, of course, the trafficking of drugs and people. I had a quick look at the Royal Navy’s website before the debate and noted the five key current areas of maritime security, which were counter-piracy, counter-narcotics, counter-terrorism, keeping sea lanes open and “around the UK”.

I join the hon. Member for Bournemouth East not only in praising UK personnel and those of other countries for their life-saving roles far from home—including, most recently, in reacting to the humanitarian catastrophe in the Philippines—but in acknowledging the importance of anti-piracy operations, and the maintenance of free-trade routes through measures such as Operation Ocean Shield, which is ably commanded from a Norwegian vessel, the Fridtjof Nansen.

It is the fifth and surely most important task in the Royal Navy’s list that I want to address in the context of future and current conventional naval vessels, capabilities and tasking: maritime domain awareness, or MDA, to use the Navy’s terminology, which we should understand. It is the effective understanding of anything associated with the maritime domain that could impact on security, safety, the economy or the environment. I want to examine the issue in terms of recent developments close to home.

There is no better place to start than with an incident that happened two years ago and has close connection to my part of the world. The 65,000-tonne Admiral Kuznetsov anchored on the edge of UK waters off my constituency. Other Russian ships that also sought shelter in the Moray firth included the anti-submarine warfare ship Admiral Chabanenko, and the escort ship Yaroslav Mudryy. The vessels did not warn domestic authorities that they were going to come so close to the coast, and are believed to have blamed bad weather for making that approach. It was the first time the Kuznetsov, or a vessel of its size, had deployed near UK waters, and it was the closest in 20 years that a Russian naval task group had deployed to Scotland or anywhere else in the UK.

In previous years, Nimrod maritime patrol aircraft would have been loitering and would have been aware of the presence of a Russian deployment of that size. Of course, by 2011, the UK had no such aircraft; it is the only northern European military without them. Nevertheless, the Russians were there without any UK escort. At that stage, the Ministry of Defence was relying on Scottish fishing vessels to report developments, including fly-tipping by the visitors. When the MOD became aware of the Russians’ presence, a 30-year-old Type 42 frigate, the HMS York, was scrambled from Portsmouth, around 1,000 miles away. That distance, at 20 to 24 knots, takes more than 24 hours to travel. The responsibility that the HMS York was fulfilling was that of fleet ready escort, which means being the deployable and capable vessel in UK waters ready to perform emergency response tasks. The Kuznetsov case raises serious questions relating to current and future naval vessels, and I would be grateful if the Minister could address them. I know that he is well advised today, so I am sure that he will have time to respond to my points.

Is the availability of a fleet ready escort a mandated task of the Royal Navy? Will the Minister confirm that, owing to the unavailability of vessels, the fleet ready escort provision has been repeatedly gapped? Will he confirm that Ministers need to be informed by the Royal Navy every time such a gap exists? Will he confirm how many times over the last five years and for how long the fleet ready escort has been gapped? Will he confirm that offshore patrol and mine countermeasures vessels have been assigned for fleet ready escort duty during gapped periods? When considering future ships, it is important to understand the current state of play and what one might want to ensure does not happen in future.

Staying with recent experience, in May 2007, Tornado F3 jets from RAF Leuchars in Fife were sent to intercept two Russian aircraft spotted observing a Royal Navy exercise off northern Scotland. The jets were scrambled after the foreign planes were detected by radar in the skies over the western isles. They were identified as Russian Bear Foxtrot planes, commonly seen by RAF pilots during the cold war. In this case, they were intercepted and their return was escorted.

Although there have been recent developments, I do not want to explore in any detail in this forum the interest shown by some countries in subsea infrastructure, but I am sure that both the Government and Opposition Front-Bench representatives will understand its importance and the importance of its integrity. The examples that I have given underline that, with regard to the maritime domain awareness of future and current vessels, there are important tasks close to the UK that must be properly managed as a priority.

I want to raise the question of tasking in our immediate wider maritime region and, in particular, the contribution towards joint allied responsibilities and training. NATO has, as part of its immediate reaction force, standing NATO maritime group 1, which primarily operates in the eastern Atlantic. Similarly, standing NATO mine countermeasures group 1 operates in northern waters. They are relevant for future and current naval vessel provision, as they are standing operational commitments for allied nations, which provide destroyers, frigates and mine countermeasure vessels. It is notable that the UK has not provided vessels to either of the groups for several years.

Similarly, on joint training, there is a real issue of properly committing current and, hopefully, future vessels. Last month saw the largest NATO training exercise in northern Europe in nearly a decade. Some 6,000 troops from 20 allied and partner nations took part in Steadfast Jazz, which involved land, air, and sea elements. Of the 6,000 participants in the exercise, the UK contributed precisely 52 personnel aboard a single mine hunter. It followed a large-scale exercise with maritime dimensions in Norway, where the UK provided just one aircraft, which is more than has ever been provided to the NATO air policing commitments in Iceland.

When it comes to our immediate maritime backyard, the UK is sadly posted missing too often and is not taking its responsibilities seriously. The absence of any mention of the high north and Arctic in the most recent strategic defence and security review eloquently underlines my point.

This is all especially relevant to Scotland when it comes to current and future conventional vessels. Scotland is a maritime nation with a sea area five times larger than its land area. Our coastline is over 11,000 km long, and is longer than that of the People’s Republic of China and that of India. It constitutes 61% of the entire UK coastline, and there are more than 800 islands. Remarkably, however, there is not a single major, ocean-going, UK conventional vessel based in Scotland to perform the key tasks that I have outlined; no frigates or offshore patrol vessels are based in Scotland. That can and will change after a yes vote in next year’s independence referendum in Scotland. Last week, the Scottish Government published their White Paper, “Scotland’s Future”, which included plans for naval forces. I commend the White Paper to Members of all parties, although I understand that the print run has already been fully exhausted.

[Oliver Colvile]

rose—

[Angus Robertson]

If the hon. Gentleman wishes to place an order, I am sure a copy will be sent to him. Of course I give way to him.

[Oliver Colvile]

The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting case, but I point out that every proposal has been to ensure that the nuclear submarines remain up at Faslane, which is useful for employment in that part of Scotland.

[Angus Robertson]

This issue is close to my heart, and I would be happy to debate at great length the Scottish public’s overwhelming opposition to nuclear weapons being based in Scotland—something ignored, sadly, by the hon. Gentleman’s party and by the official Opposition in Westminster—but I am looking closely at the clock. In the White Paper, however, which I commend to him, the plans for Faslane are for a vibrant conventional naval base, and I am sure that most people would welcome that. I am delighted at the strong commitment in the White Paper to maritime capabilities, including frigates, OPVs, patrol boats, auxiliary ships and, crucially, newly procured maritime patrol aircraft.

UK assets and liabilities are key, and they must be a consideration for the Ministry of Defence, now and after a yes vote. Future vessels are very relevant. The referendum will have a significant bearing on issues relating to current and future vessels, but as yet we have had no indication from the Government as to their preferences on defence assets. According to the most recent UK asset register, published in 2007, MOD assets totalled more than £92 billion in value; on a population share basis, Scotland would be entitled to £7.7 billion in defence estate, equipment and vessels, or a financial offset. With regard to future vessels, that is important, because the UK Government have to date given no indication of the effect of a yes vote on their planning assumptions or procurement plans.

The MOD has projected the need for £160 billion of spending on defence equipment and support over the next 10 years; £13 billion of that spending is predicated on continuing guaranteed Scottish taxpayer support. With independence, Whitehall will need to work with the Scottish Government on joint procurement even to come close to those commitments. It is in the interests of both Governments to work together. The Scottish Government’s White Paper included the following commitment:

“This Scottish Government will take forward the procurement of four new frigates, to be built on the Clyde, preferably through joint procurement with the rest of the UK.”

That presents a good chance for massive procurement gain, with the potential to extend the production run of the Type 26 frigate. Unless the Government were to signal a further reduction in demand for frigate numbers, we could see more ships built rather than fewer, which is good news for the Clyde, good news for taxpayers across these islands, and good news for defence with appropriate conventional capabilities.

In conclusion, current and future naval vessels have essential tasks at home and further afield. I have stressed the importance of providing for necessary maritime territorial and regional defence, which is the core business of defence responsibility. Sadly, the UK Government have taken their eye off the ball, so I look forward to a sovereign Scotland taking those responsibilities seriously, and having the vessels and capabilities to do so.

10:04

[Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing this important debate and on his compelling and persuasive opening speech about the importance of our future fleet and its capabilities. I apologise in advance that I cannot stay for the duration of the debate, which saddens me. I desperately wanted to take part, but I have a previous engagement that I have to skip off to before the end, so I will be checking Hansard avidly for the Minister’s answers to my questions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made some compelling arguments about the technical specifications of warships but I am not in a position to do that. I want to talk about the human impact of decisions about future naval ships—their construction and where they are based—and the effect on local communities. I should declare an interest: members of my family work and have worked for generations in the business of building, maintaining and taking care of Royal Navy ships. After all, I was born in Portsmouth and represent Gosport, and people would be hard pressed to find a single person in that region who is not affected in some way by the Royal Navy or the care, maintenance and construction of its ships. That is why the community was devastated by the recent news that shipbuilding in Portsmouth is to cease.

In Portsmouth, we do not have a sentimental view of shipbuilding. We understand that it is something that has always fluctuated. My grandfather worked in the dockyard for 45 years, including on the building of HMS Andromeda, which in the late 1960s—around 1967—was the last Royal Navy ship to be built entirely in Portsmouth dockyard. There was a huge gap in shipbuilding at the dockyard after that, so we understand that naval shipbuilding fluctuates. Furthermore, we always understood that the Queen Elizabeth class, which has been partly constructed in Portsmouth, would come to an end eventually. It is a once-in-a-generation shipbuilding project, which created many jobs, but they were never going to last for ever, because of the scale of the ship—only one 20th of it filled an enormous BAE hangar in Portsmouth dockyard.

We used to feel a little better about the lack of shipbuilding jobs when other jobs could be taken on the maintenance and care of the fleet—the ship support services. In recent years, however, that work has deteriorated as well. I remember as a little girl, we had the Queen’s jubilee fleet review of 1977—the Spithead review—which was a glorious spectacle. The ships went as far as the eye could see; we had a magnificent fleet. There was a fleet review in 2005, to commemorate the battle of Trafalgar, and I also went to that. We managed to collect a bunch of different naval ships from various international navies. Her Majesty did inspect them, but she was probably still home in time to watch “EastEnders”, because there was nothing like the level of ships that we used to have.

That is important. I suppose the problem started with the construction of the Type 45, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East pointed out. By anyone’s standards, it is a super-impressive piece of kit. Naval folklore, which is particularly prevalent in my part of the world, has the ships taking part in an international military exercise in the Atlantic, but being asked to leave by other navies, because the Type 45 ships were so technically brilliant that they were beating everyone else before they could start. Apparently, they have the radar shadow of a small fishing boat—they are whizzy pieces of kit. The trouble with the Type 45 ships, however, is the cost—they were £1 billion a pop, which is very pricey—and we got six of them and not 12. I am not normally keen on quoting Joseph Stalin, but he said that quantity has a quality of its own.

As other Members have pointed out, our Navy is different from other wings of the armed forces: even when we are not involved in any combat operations, the Navy is almost fully deployed protecting our trade routes, on anti-piracy missions, deploying mine counter-measures, on fishery protection, in the Falklands, taking part in drugs operations in the Caribbean and on disaster and humanitarian relief, as we have seen recently. We therefore need a quantity of ships. No matter how incredibly advanced our warships are, one has not yet been invented with the ability to be in more than one place at the same time; that is the issue.

My first question to the Minister is, will he guarantee that for the future global combat ship we will learn the lessons of the Type 45, and have a ship that is flexible and adaptable but affordable and exportable, so that we have something that other countries want to buy? They do not want the £1-billion-a-pop Type 45s because they cannot afford them.

Another important matter is the basing of the future fleet. It is no secret that people in Portsmouth were devastated by the news that the Type 23s will now be maintained and repaired in Plymouth. Where shipbuilding jobs are disappearing, the hope is that those jobs would be back-filled by ship support work and fleet maintenance. But there is a massive strategic gap: when work finishes for the last Type 23 that will be repaired in Portsmouth, the HMS Westminster, there will be a gap of around a year before the first Type 45, HMS Daring, comes back for its first refit. We had hoped that some of the shipbuilding jobs would go into ship support, but we are not even 100% sure that all the ship support jobs will be in Portsmouth because of that year-long strategic gap. Will the Minister tell us what he is doing to mitigate that? The area cannot support any further job losses.

I welcome the news that the QE class will be based in Portsmouth harbour and that the Government are going to spend £100 million on improving the dockyard. That news is welcome, but Portsmouth is holding its breath to see what happens to the second QE-class carrier. We would like to know what the future holds for that ship, because it would be fantastic if it could be used in some way rather than mothballed.

We must not underestimate the importance of this issue to the local economy. Gosport, my constituency, is on the other side of Portsmouth harbour to Portsmouth itself. Around 35% of the people who work in the Portsmouth naval base and dockyard come from my constituency: it is an area whose fortunes have been completely wrapped up in those of the Navy and that has supported the Royal Navy for hundreds and hundreds of years. Its economic fortunes have dived in line with Navy cuts. We now have a victualling yard that no longer supplies victuals to the Royal Navy, an oil fuel depot that currently does not deliver oil, a submarine escape tank with no submariners in it and a royal naval hospital—the last in the UK, which was shut down by the previous Government—with no patients. Twenty-one per cent of Gosport’s surface area is still in the hands of the Defence Infrastructure Organisation, so the land is not even being released to commercial companies that could do something with it. That is incredibly painful, because commercial companies would like to come in and do something to restore the fortunes of our great town, and are being prevented from doing so not because the DIO is saying no, but because the DIO is simply not engaging in the conversation. Will the Minister help out with that situation?

Gosport has less than half a job per working adult, and we do not have a culture of entrepreneurship, because generation after generation has been employed by the Royal Navy. The Minister will say that the Ministry of Defence is not an employment agency or in the business of creating work, but I read a small statistic recently: Cardiff university did a poll on the national competitiveness of UK towns, and Gosport is second from bottom of the English towns in that poll, having dropped a staggering 94 places in the past three years. That is how much the fortunes of our town are tied to the fortunes of the military and the Navy.

It is of course important that decisions about future naval ships are made on the basis of affordability and practicality, but we also have to bear in mind the huge debt of gratitude we owe to communities that have served the Royal Navy for hundreds of years. Those communities have built up around serving the defence industry and we must ensure that we consider them in our plans.

10:14

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I congratulate my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate. As he knows, he and I have been talking about the future of the Royal Navy for the past three years, since I was elected. I am very aware of how important the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines are in my own constituency of Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport. I will be arguing a strong case for the Royal Navy during my contribution.

I should say, however, that the Government have had a difficult time. They have found themselves with enormously problematic public finances and have therefore had to make significant cuts in the delivery of public services. I am sorry that they should find themselves in that position. We should most certainly control the public expenditure envelope, but my view is that politics is about delivering priorities as well, and I believe that our chief priority should be the defence of our country.

This is an opportune time to have this debate, as the Government will not only consider the next round of the strategic defence and security review in a couple of years’ time but decide the amount of money that will be spent. As others have said, when the “Options for Change” review took place in the 1990s, about 4% or 5% of the country’s GDP was being spent on defence; that is now down to around 2%. It is important that, over the next few years, we look at the amount of money that we are investing in defence. I hope that this debate will send out that message. If the Minister would be willing to work with me, I am very willing to work with him on trying to argue our case to the Government and to the Treasury.

Representing Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport as I do, I pay tribute to the Government for deciding that they will continue to make sure that Plymouth has the licence for refuelling and refitting nuclear submarines. I recognise that the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) would prefer not to end up with nuclear submarines in Scotland. Bluntly, we are quite willing to end up with them in Plymouth if we possibly can. We would welcome it. We recognise that it is the stake in the ground, as far as Devonport is concerned. There has to be work going into Devonport. About 38% of people working in the city depend on the public sector. Another incredibly important point is that we have a low skills base. The one thing that Devonport and Plymouth have going for them is their global reputation for marine science and engineering research. The Royal Navy is a significant player in that sector, along with Plymouth university, and I hope that we can continue to build on that.

The Navy is so important because we are an island—a maritime nation that depends upon using sea routes to bring our food and imports into the country. The Ministry of Defence should have two priorities: it should make sure that we have not only a strong Royal Navy but a strong RAF as well. We must protect our sea routes and air routes so that we can get bits of kit and imports into the country. Could we imagine Christmas without oranges or the kinds of fruits that we depend upon being able to import? Looking at the events of the first and second world wars, we can see how close we came to finding ourselves starved to death by our aggressors.

Aircraft carriers are important: they provide a launch pad for aircraft to cover and dominate the air when we are landing troops—I hope, our Royal Marines—on beaches. We should not forget that. However, this matter is not simply about having aircraft carriers. Nelson, who is the great hero of the Royal Navy and, I would argue, Britain, said that we must ensure that we have plenty of ships, including frigates and other vessels that can protect our other activities on the sea. They are utterly vital, and investment in them is important.

Plymouth has the licence for refitting and refurbishing our nuclear submarines, and it is key that we retain our nuclear deterrent. I have been very supportive of ensuring that we have four submarines, so that we have a continuous sea deterrent. I would like confirmation that the Conservative party will remain committed to that and that it will not be subject to any discussions with other political parties after the general election if we unfortunately find ourselves in a coalition again. We must have a strong Navy, which will mean a strong Devonport and a strong Plymouth. I am very keen to ensure that.

The issue is not just the seaborne deterrent, but how we can use our Royal Navy to deliver soft power. We all know that, if we end up putting a ship into port, everybody is interested in knowing what is happening and what the ship is going to do. They also thoroughly enjoy the idea of occasionally having a drink on board. I assure the Chamber that we have done much work in that regard. I understand that people in Sierra Leone are still talking about a Royal Navy frigate or aircraft carrier being just over the horizon and about how, if they do not behave themselves, the Royal Navy will be turning up immediately on their beaches. Therefore, soft power is very important.

We must ensure that, in the next SDSR and in the next spending round, the Navy is recognised and has the Government’s full and utter support.

10:22

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) has long been an articulate commentator on Army issues; more recently he has taken up the cudgels on behalf of the Royal Navy. If I were in charge of the Royal Air Force, I would look to my laurels, because I am sure that it is next on his agenda. To give the Minister maximum time to consider my questions, I will ask them at the beginning of my contribution rather than at the end, so he will be at liberty to ignore anything I say afterwards.

First, when the main gate contracts are signed some time next year after the Scottish referendum, will a minimum of 13 frigates be ordered? Secondly, does the Minister accept that the unit cost of new frigates will be much cheaper if all 13 are ordered at the outset? Thirdly, eight of the 13 frigates will specialise in anti-submarine warfare. Was that figure derived from doctrinal consideration, and if so, what is it? My concern is that if we are to have seven frigates available for that purpose, we would need 10, not eight. I think doctrine requires at least seven to be available. Fourthly, how many of the new frigates would be necessary to escort a taskforce, whether that is an amphibious or carrier taskforce? Finally, what consideration will be given to adoption of the plug-and-play method of warship development that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East referred to, and the importance of getting hulls in the water first and then building up capacity over the lifetime of the vessel?

In the time available, I hope to speak about strategy, numbers and design concept. You have drawn the short straw, Mr Hood, in chairing this debate, because when I made my maiden speech on defence in the Queen’s Speech debate in 1997, you spoke after me, and were kind enough to predict that the House would be hearing a lot more from me on defence in the years to come. You were absolutely right, and I have been banging on about it ever since, although I had not expected to be making the same sort of repetitious points and representations to a Conservative-led Government as I did to the Labour Government during the more than six years in which I was my party’s spokesman on the Royal Navy, but there you are. Politics is a strange profession.

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend has a great deal to contribute, because he had a distinguished career as a reservist in the Royal Navy.

[Dr Lewis]

The distinction that I achieved cannot be overemphasised: I advanced from probationer ordinary seaman to full ordinary seaman. I was very proud to be one, because even in those days—it was from 1979 to 1982, or thereabouts—I was too old to be an officer cadet. I feel the bus pass jingling in my pocket.

Yesterday, I took the day off and had the great pleasure of travelling to Southampton university at the invitation of Commander Chris Ling, commanding officer of Thunderer Squadron, which is the defence technical undergraduate scheme at the university, and Lieutenant Amie Jackson. She—I emphasise “she”—is the commanding officer of the warship HMS Blazer, which is attached to the university’s Royal Navy unit. It was wonderful to celebrate with them the opening of their new joint headquarters at the National Oceanography Centre. Looking at the fine young people who are coming through the system and having a first-class maritime education there, I could not help wondering how many opportunities they would have, and how many naval vessels would be available for them to serve in, in the years ahead, when they go on, as so many of them do, to professional careers in the Royal Navy.

I said that I would talk a bit about strategy. I have always acknowledged on a cross-party basis that the concepts of Labour’s 1998 strategic defence review were very sound. They recognised that we were no longer facing as our primary concern the cold war threat on the continent, and that if our forces were engaged, it would be in more far-flung theatres. As we were no longer an empire and no longer had a string of bases all over the world, it would be necessary to have a portable, movable sea base that we could use to take our joint forces to the theatre in which they were engaged. That seemed sound then, and it is sound today. That concept required two sorts of taskforce: one to allow air power to be projected from the sea, hence the aircraft carriers; and the other to enable military power to be landed from the sea, hence the amphibious taskforce. Broadly speaking, we have the central elements of those taskforces.

We know that the aircraft carriers are moving steadily forward, whatever financial peaks and troughs they have had in their chequered history, and that they will come to fruition. I would like to predict that the Government will bring both carriers into service, because it would be sheer madness to build one of the largest ships that the Royal Navy has ever seen and not deploy it.

The Albion, the Bulwark, and our Bay-class ships of the Royal Fleet Auxiliary Service form the core of the amphibious taskforce, and again, it would be interesting to know—although I do not expect an answer today—what plans there are to think about the next generation of assault ships to follow the Albion and the Bulwark. However, the point about the two taskforces, and the relevance to today’s debate, is that they will have to be protected against air threats, surface threats and submarine threats. As I said before, if we need a certain number of frigates—let us say as many as four to protect a taskforce, if it were in a serious regional conflict—given the roles that the frigates will have to perform in other areas, including ongoing and standing tasks, I find myself querying how the idea that we will generate a minimum of seven available anti-submarine warfare frigates from only eight out of the 13 will work.

I shall say a brief word about numbers. I start from the standpoint that we are simply not spending enough on defence. I know all the economic arguments about that, but the fact is that as a proportion of gross domestic product, defence spending has declined too far down our list of priorities. Spending was between 4% and 5% during the cold war years. When Labour came into office in 1997, it went from 2.9% to 2.6%, then to 2.8%. Then, in successive years, it was 2.7%, 2.7% again, 2.5%, 2.5% again, and so on. That looked fairly consistent, but the problem was that during that period, we were engaged in fighting two large regional conflicts, and the Treasury was not prepared to stump up the extra money to fund those conflicts in full. As a result, we found the core military budget being eaten away by the financing of current conflicts, and since then, under the present Government, the situation has not improved. I believe that we are down to something like 2.1% of GDP at present, and I feel that that is the root of the problem.

At the time of the strategic defence review that set out those concepts, the Labour Government proposed reducing the combined number of frigates and destroyers from 35 to 32. The admirals gritted their teeth and accepted that, but it quickly emerged that 32 had actually gone down to 31, and the then Secretary of State, Geoff Hoon, formulated what I later dubbed the “Hoon excuse”, which was, “It doesn’t really matter that we have lost an extra frigate, because they are more powerful than they used to be, so 31 ships can do what 32 used to do.” That, I am afraid, was the start of a very slippery slope.

The next bite taken out of the total by the Labour Government took the number down from 31 to 25. I remember standing up in the House of Commons at the beginning of 2007 waxing eloquent about persistent rumours that the Government intended to mothball, if not permanently dispose of, another half a dozen frigates to take the total down to 19. In the end, that gradually slipped away, but a couple of Type 23 frigates were paid off, and effectively the total went down to 23 from 25. It took the Conservative-led coalition coming in before we went down to 19 in the 2010 SDSR, yet the concept set out in 1998 remained basically sound: we needed to be able to fulfil certain standing tasks, to protect a mobile base, and to escort an amphibious taskforce or an aircraft carrier taskforce. I do not see what doctrinal developments since then justify such a radical reduction in the numbers.

That leads to me to my final point, about the design concept, which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bournemouth East mentioned. It is about whether it might be worth looking at the other five more general-purpose hulls that are proposed to bring the total number of frigates up to 13, and whether it might be worth considering doing something simpler to get more hulls in the water from which we can regenerate the surface fleet. Back in February 2005, in putting forward that concept, I was unwise enough to say that, really, the replacement general-purpose frigates ought to be “as cheap as chips”, which is not the sort of phrase that a proud Navy wants to hear. However, the point is based on an important development that I referred to in my opening questions—the idea of plug and play.

When the Type 45s were designed and put into service, they had a very large gymnasium. Why? Because they were designed in such a way that at a future stage in their life cycle, when we could afford it, we would be able to plug into that large space a module of land attack cruise missiles, which would hugely increase the ships’ power, even though we felt that we could not afford to do so at the beginning. It is perfectly possible to design ships that are relatively simple, but that have that capacity; I am extremely glad to see the hon. Member for Moray (Angus Robertson) nodding in agreement. We are very capable of upgrading those ships in their lifetime, and adding to their capacity. Perhaps it is too late now—I do not know—but we could at least try to keep the number of hulls a bit larger and lessen the complexity a bit; we would then have the basis for upgrading the quality of the vessels during their lifetime.

[Angus Robertson]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman looks closely at the royal Danish navy’s StanFlex system, which does exactly that.

[Dr Lewis]

It is very much one of the examples that I have in mind. Those vessels are extremely economical, but they are out there in good numbers, and as was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), who had to leave, they are exportable.

I think that the Chamber has heard more than enough from me on these matters. I very much look forward to hearing the wind-ups and, in particular, answers to some of the questions I posed. If I cannot have them all just now, perhaps I can have some of them in writing.

10:39

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

I commend the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) for securing the debate and for highlighting a series of pertinent issues and the questions that follow from them. I wholly support his tribute not only to those who serve in the Royal Navy, but to the communities that support them. His article for the Royal United Service Institute, “Leveraging UK Carrier Capability”, has rightly received a lot of attention. It raises some issues and points that I will come back to later.

The hon. Gentleman described the changing world in which we live and set out the argument for a strong Navy to support activity in the littoral environment. That argument was reinforced by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). The hon. Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), with his usual passion for defence issues, put a series of questions to the Minister—I hope that he will be able to answer them—but also, with his great background knowledge, set out the historical challenges faced by successive Governments.

Last week, I was privileged to be at the celebration in Devonport of the centenary of HMS Warspite. Built in and launched from Plymouth, she was the most decorated ship in the Royal Navy. There were people present who had served on her. “From Jutland Hero to Cold War Warrior” was the description given by Iain Ballantyne of Warships magazine. She was one in a long line of ships, cruisers, destroyers, frigates and aircraft carriers built in British shipyards.

Sadly, in the last few weeks, we have had the announcement that shipbuilding in Portsmouth will cease, but around the UK, at smaller shipyards such as Appledore, and on the Clyde, we have centres of excellence where there are skills that we need to protect if we are to be able to continue to build ships, with sovereign capability. We should acknowledge the expertise of all those involved, from the designers to fitters and systems engineers. They are global leaders.

Shipbuilding has historically been an industry that has times of feast and times of famine. As the Government are often the only customer for some of these vessels—that issue was raised in relation to exportability, and I will mention that—there needs to be a more clearly defined defence industrial strategy in this sector as we go forward. Therein lie some of the problems. We are demanding ships that have greater longevity and need less servicing—in the same way as we do for our cars—but we also want value for money. That does leave gaps in the maintenance drumbeat. That was highlighted by the hon. Member for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage) and will pose some problems for this Government and future Governments.

We are also looking for vessels to be designed that are slightly more generic, as the hon. Member for New Forest East pointed out, and more exportable. In a sense, it is quite difficult for us to compete in some of these markets when countries such as South Korea are very well able to do some of that. The most recent contract awarded by the Government, which was for the MARS—the military afloat reach and sustainability—project, went to South Korea; it did not go to a British shipyard.

Where do we go next? We have the Type 42 or Sheffield-class destroyers, which are now at the end of their heroic service. The Type 42 is being replaced by a stunning vessel, the Type 45. It has been designed to avoid some of the issues with its predecessors. As has been pointed out, it is top-end, gold-plated, all-singing, all-dancing and much admired by other nations, but they are unlikely to want to buy it and we are unlikely to want to sell it, I suspect, to be honest. We are also looking beyond the Type 23s to the global combat ship, the Type 26, so there are quite exciting times ahead in terms of ship design.

We are looking at a new configuration of our Navy based on fewer ships. I heard what the hon. Member for Bournemouth East said about the design and numbers of Type 26s. I will come back to that later in my speech, if I may.

[Mr Ellwood]

Does the hon. Lady recognise that the number of ships is also important in relation to the career structures of the Royal Navy? There need to be the command postings to ensure that there is that experience. My concern is that that is perhaps being capped. We do need that experience to continue at the top echelons of the Royal Navy.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman raises a different point, which almost requires a different debate, but it is perfectly valid. It is about how people progress and how we keep that expertise and the interest of people coming in at the lower ranks—how do they go through the system? However, I will say to him that last week I was with the First Sea Lord in Plymouth when he gave a very robust defence of the Navy’s future configuration, with the QE class sitting at its centre. He was very careful, as we would expect, not to specify the number of carriers with which his successors will be working. Given that we are approaching a further SDSR, I feel that he was correct not to make assumptions. We need to understand what our defence and foreign policies need to deliver and what we want them to deliver, and clearly we also need to ensure within that that our shores are fully and properly protected.

However, the First Sea Lord was genuinely excited about the capability that the new carriers—I use the plural with some care, for reasons that I have alluded to—will bring. There is no doubt that their ability to deploy the full spectrum of diplomatic, political and military options, to stand off and deliver hard and soft power, will be a major addition to the fleet and our ability to defend our realm should we need to do so.

The global combat ship adds a further part to the picture. It will be very interesting to watch the design as it develops. It needs to be able to fulfil many roles—it needs to be flexible, to facilitate a full range of operations, to allow deployment of uninhabited or unmanned surface and subsea vessels, towed sonar arrays and inflatables, as well as to have the capacity to take something as large potentially as a Chinook and to be used with unmanned aerial vehicles doing airborne surveillance; it will give them additional range. The new ships will not just be single task-specific but must be designed with flexible capability, and that is what I understand is happening with the Type 26s.

The hon. Member for Bournemouth East was also right to highlight the benefits of modularisation. I am sure that the Minister heard his comments about additional helicopter bays in the new design. The hon. Member for Bournemouth East also suggested a downgrade in design for a proportion of the new Type 26s and was challenged by my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, about the ability of a limited number of full-strength Type 26s, with full capability, to protect carriers if the numbers were reduced. That was a perfectly sensible question, and it will be interesting to see what the Minister says in response.

[Oliver Colvile]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Alison Seabeck]

Of course I will give way to my constituency neighbour—as long as he is quick!

[Oliver Colvile]

The hon. Lady is making a powerful speech, but one of the things that is incredibly important as well is to ensure that some of the Type 26s will be base-ported in Devonport. I would be grateful if the Minister could answer that as an issue, too.

[Alison Seabeck]

The hon. Gentleman is prescient beyond belief, because my next paragraph says that there of course needs to be a discussion about where the Type 26s are base-ported. Sadly, the hon. Member for Gosport has been called away and is not in her place. That decision needs to be taken on strategic grounds. We need to consider how we protect our skills base and we need to ensure that we do not have all our eggs in one basket. I listened with interest to the hon. Lady, who made a plea for base-porting—all base-porting in effect—to be in Portsmouth. As I have said, that, in my view, is a sentimental, not a strategic, view. We need to protect skills across all our bases. Clearly, I have a strong view about Plymouth and ensuring that we have a drumbeat that works for our work force as well.

Of course, the new vessel will be designed with stealth and unobservability in mind and will need to be acoustically quiet. It will be interesting to see whether she resembles in any way the futuristically designed Sea Shadow or USS Zumwalt. The latter has an outline that is not too dissimilar from the very early iron-clad battleships, so this is quite an exciting time in ship design. I am sure that those involved are extremely stimulated by the challenge that the Type 26 offers.

Equally, the launch of the new QE class will be a milestone in naval history. That programme has been through the wringer in terms of procurement, under the last Government and certainly under this one. We do need to know, as the hon. Member for Bournemouth East pointed out, whether there is an intention to mothball the second boat and perhaps keep HMS Ocean going for longer. What is Ocean’s future? Plymouthians will certainly have a view about that and would welcome an answer.

On procurement, we do need to do much better. I put my hands up, in terms of some of the problems that we had under the last Government, on this. We need to be clearer through the SDSR about our future needs—the type of wars we need and want to fight, as well as how those demands play into our industrial strategy and industrial base. That said, we also have to have a vehicle that can deliver our new ships on time and on budget. Two weeks ago, we saw the collapse of one of the two remaining consortiums bidding for the GoCo model for future procurement, which was bad news for the Government. It is difficult to see how the Government can continue to pursue that option when their own report stated that the competition would still be possible with two bidders, but that a further withdrawal should initiate a formal reconsideration of whether a GoCo was viable.

The Minister needs to make his mind up, and fast, ideally before the Defence Reform Bill is considered in the other place. What is it to be? Will it be new ships and weapons systems procured through a GoCo, or will it be a DE&S-plus model that oversees the delivery of the Type 26 and the successor programme?

10:50

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Dunne)]

I am grateful to have been given fractionally less than 10 minutes to wind up the debate. As a result, I will unfortunately not be able to address all the points that hon. Members have raised, because to do so would consume my entire time. I will endeavour to write to hon. Members whose questions I do not address in my response.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) on securing the debate. As has been mentioned, he has become an expert not only in land matters but increasingly in maritime affairs. Other hon. Members have already referred to his paper for RUSI, which is a masterclass on how to pursue Ministers for answers to parliamentary questions and turn them into an authoritative document. I am pleased to have been able to contribute in some way to that process.

A number of colleagues have referred to the second aircraft carrier, and I would like to start by pointing out that our surface fleet is in the process of regeneration and renewal. As the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Alison Seabeck) indicated, this is an exciting time for the Royal Navy, as we transition from a legacy fleet into a new high-tech, latest-capability fleet. Aircraft carriers will be the next vessels to form part of that fleet. It is not appropriate to indicate at this point what will happen to the second carrier, so I am unable to give an answer to that question. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has indicated in the House, however, a decision is expected to be made as part of the strategic defence and security review in 2015.

It is important to emphasise that we see the carrier strike capability as offering a step change in power projection, giving the UK the ability to project decisive political intent and military will at reach. The carrier has been designed as a multi-role platform in addition to carrier strike. In its littoral manoeuvre role, it will be able to land Royal Marines or special forces, evacuate non-combatants and deliver humanitarian aid, disaster relief or international defence diplomacy and engagement. The programme is on track to deliver an operational capability for carrier strike in 2020.

On the next platform upgrade—the Type 26 global combat ship—I have to be a little cautious in what I say, because the main gate investment decision will not be taken until the end of next year. I have been pressed by colleagues to advance investment decisions before the design is fully mature, but the Government have been clear that that was one of the reasons why we believe the previous Government got into some difficulty in major platform procurements. I was grateful to hear the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View acknowledge for, I believe, the first time in the Chamber that the previous Administration encountered some problems with procurement. I do not intend to place us in a similar situation by pre-announcing decisions before the designs are mature. We are making good progress with the design. Some 70% of the equipment systems have been selected or are being selected by the design authority, BAE Systems, and we have increasing confidence in the maturity of the design. It is being designed with modularity in mind, and I hope to cover that point before I conclude.

I would like to tackle head-on the claim that we heard yet again today about the impact on shipyards in Scotland of a yes vote in the Scottish referendum. Last week, the Scottish Government claimed in their White Paper that they would support the procurement of defence equipment and services in an independent Scotland, as we heard again today, claiming that to do so would protect the future of Scotland’s shipyards. However, the White Paper completely failed to acknowledge that, as part of the UK, companies in Scotland already benefit greatly from the billions of pounds of work that is placed with them to equip and support the UK armed forces. Thousands of people are employed in the defence sector in Scotland. The defence industry offers some of the best high-tech engineering jobs and opportunities in Scotland, and it contributes substantially to local economies across Scotland.

Orders for complex warships such as destroyers and the Queen Elizabeth-class aircraft carriers, on which some 4,000 people are currently employed in Scottish yards, were won only on the basis that the UK can choose to place or hold competition for such contracts domestically for national security reasons under an exemption from EU law. The UK has not placed an order for a complex warship outside its own borders in modern times. If Scotland were not part of the UK, it would not benefit from that national security exemption. The question of how defence jobs in Scotland would be sustained in an independent Scottish state remains wholly unanswered. The thousands of skilled defence jobs in Scotland are safer and more secure if the country remains part of the UK.

I will try to address the questions raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East, who made a thoughtful speech. He asked about modularity of systems and whether we can construct vessels that are capable of plug and play. A number of weapon systems and command systems that we seek to introduce in our vessels will be portable. Perhaps the most obvious recent example is the Sea Ceptor air defence missile, which we have recently contracted to introduce to the Type 23, with a view to transitioning it to the Type 26. As he mentioned, the system has many features in common with a version that is capable of being launched on land. That is the approach that we are taking to a number of defence assets. We are rationalising our helicopter fleets to allow greater interoperability between services. The Wildcat, which will be capable of being carried on our frigates and destroyers, will also be used by the Army Air Corps. Modularity and interoperability are features of the systems that we seek to introduce.

The flexibility of the Type 26 is provided by the mission bay, which is a much larger hangar space than that of the Type 23. It can carry a payload of 10 20-foot containers, a medical centre or a command and control centre. It can contain four landing craft for rapid response by Royal Marines. The vessel has been designed to have a smaller crew than that of the Type 23, but it can accommodate some 100 Royal Marines or other personnel for protracted engagements, or a much larger number of individuals for a short time, when the vessel performs an evacuation role. It will be the most flexible vessel of its kind and the most modern frigate design available in the world, so we believe that it will have some export potential—a point made by several hon. Members.

In the less than half a minute remaining to me, I will unfortunately not be able to address many of the questions that have been asked, but I would like to deal with numbers and commissioning. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) gave me due notice of his questions. We intend to place an order towards the end of next year, once the design is mature, which we expect to be for eight vessels initially—

[Mr Jim Hood (in the Chair)]

Order.

Mayfields New Town

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

11:00

[Nicholas Soames (Mid Sussex) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. With your permission and the agreement of the Minister, I propose allocating a few minutes of my time to my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert). I called for the debate to raise an issue of the greatest concern to our constituents—namely, the proposal by Mayfield Market Towns Ltd to build up to 10,000 houses on open countryside between Henfield and Sayers Common in West Sussex. That new town would stretch across the border of Horsham and Mid Sussex district councils and our constituencies and is thus of profound concern to us both. The proposal is totally and wholly inappropriate and is causing the greatest possible local concern and anxiety.

I want to say at the outset that my right hon. Friend and I acknowledge of course the need for new houses. We accept that they are required to meet the demands of a growing population and to meet the worthy aspirations of our young people to live in their own houses. It is our strong view that schemes such as the Mayfields project are not helping to achieve that aim, but are seriously hindering it, and in the process, gravely undermining support for the Government’s flagship commitment to localism.

Why is Mayfields such a thoroughly bad scheme? Its proponents call the putative new settlement a “market town”. That is arrant nonsense, since there would be minimal local employment. It would, as the excellent Sussex branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England observed, be a commuter town, since almost all its residents would in fact travel to other areas for work. The glossy brochure produced by Mayfield Market Towns absurdly suggests that its new residents would, “work where they live”, or walk, cycle or take the bus to their employment, “leaving the car at home”. Even the most zealous supporter of the scheme—there are not many—would be hard pressed to describe it as sustainable. Apart from the destruction of beautiful countryside and good, valuable, productive agricultural land, the development is not on a railway line, nor is it close to a major road, and there are already serious flood issues in the area. With 25,000 people living in the new town, there would clearly be huge pressure on already inadequate local infrastructure.

Those are just some of the reasons why Mid Sussex and Horsham district councils previously rejected the idea of a new town in the area in a report in 2010. That report concluded:

“Drawing on the lessons from earlier development of new towns, it is clear that a development of 10,000 homes will not create a self-sufficient community.”

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has said that he will not impose new towns on unwilling councils. I agree with him; that is entirely the right approach. It is strongly supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs and me, and it is wholly consistent with the Localism Act 2011 and the national planning policy framework. It is my firm hope and expectation therefore that the Minister will agree that no proposal that has been rejected by the local council and is opposed by the overwhelming majority of local residents should be permitted to overturn local plans under any circumstances.

I want to make it clear beyond any doubt that our district councils are planning responsibly for new housing. Mid Sussex district council—the authority that covers my constituency and two wards in that of my right hon. Friend—has produced an excellent and formidably argued draft plan. That plan explicitly rejects large-scale developments, such as Mayfields. It sets a clearly thought-out and substantiated housing target of 10,600 homes between 2011 and 2031. It states that, outside the strategic sites identified—the Mayfields site is not among them—

“the homes to be provided elsewhere in the District will come forward through Neighbourhood Plans.”

Furthermore, it calls for development which,

“reflects the distinctive towns and villages, retains their separate identity and character and prevents coalescence.”

And so say all of us, with a resounding cheer.

Mid Sussex is anything but a nimby council trying to avoid housing growth. Indeed, the Mid Sussex plan aims to deliver more housing than the objectively assessed need, making it unique in West Sussex. The objectively assessed need is for 411 homes per annum, and the plan aims to deliver 530 homes. During the first five years of the plan, 3,000 new homes will be built in Burgess Hill alone. They are ready-to-go projects. The consortium of developers is waiting only for the sites to be allocated before submitting a planning application.

I warmly commend the tremendous efforts of Mid Sussex to get these fiendishly difficult matters right. Its plan is wisely proactive about planning for growth, with a 3% year-on-year increase in economic activity envisaged throughout the plan period. It includes significant new employment space, including a new science park, which is part of the Brighton city deal bid. Let us remember that is all in an area between the South Downs national park and the High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty, which gravely limits the council’s room for manoeuvre. All that good and laudable work is in danger of being wrecked by the grotesque and wholly unwanted Mayfields proposal.

The developer has attempted to threaten the district council into compliance with the scheme. When that failed, it has continued to place obstacles in the way of the plan’s passage. That is all thoroughly unhelpful and disruptive, because the longer the plan is delayed, the longer Mid Sussex will remain susceptible to speculative development and planning by appeal, serving the interests of developers only and not our local communities. The proposed new town is undermining localism, certainly delaying necessary new housing and causing the greatest possible anxiety and concern among local people. An admirable and energetic group—Locals Against Mayfield Building Sprawl—is rallying support locally and putting the case against the deeply unsuitable plan in formidable and accurate detail.

I want to tell my hon. Friend the Minister that neither I nor my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs will accept the new town, and we will be deeply and abidingly unhappy if the Government’s planning reforms, which we loyally supported and which were meant to promote the principle of sustainable development and localism, allow such an appalling development to happen. We cannot allow the localism that we promised, which local people supported, to be overturned at the behest of developers. There will be lasting damage, not just to the countryside, but to the Government. Our constituents expect us to honour our party’s words and commitments; we intend to see that we do.

11:08

[Nick Herbert (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)]

It is a pleasure, Mr Hood, to join the debate secured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames). As he explained, we have a mutual interest in the proposed new town, which crosses our two constituencies. I endorse every word that he said and share his deep concern about the proposal. I shall amplify a number of the points that he made.

First, there is considerable local concern about the proposal. I have attended packed meetings in village halls in my constituency. People have been unable to get into meetings, because there is so much concern about the proposed new town. I have never known anything like it. That concern is having a practical effect on people’s economic well-being, because a planning blight is already being cast over the local area. Numerous constituents have written to me to express their concern about, for instance, their ability to sell their houses at the normal market rate due to the belief that a new town is threatened.

Secondly, I underline what my right hon. Friend said about the importance of sustainability, which is, after all, written into the Government’s new planning policy. The principle was sustainable development, not development at any price. The new planning policy framework clearly set out three dimensions to that sustainability: environmental, social and economic.

It is therefore highly significant that a report commissioned earlier by Horsham, Crawley and Mid Sussex councils, as my right hon. Friend said, ruled out a new town in the area precisely on the grounds that it would not be sustainable, for all the reasons set out. It seems to me that the report is significant for an additional reason: it shows that the local authorities considered a development in the area. They are not ruling out the notion of new housing out of hand, but they consider that it is not appropriate or sustainable. Whose view will carry the day when we promise localism in such matters? I will return to that issue.

The third issue is the behaviour of the developer in promoting the scheme. Mayfield Market Towns has not just set out a proposal for a new town; it has gone much further. For instance, it has distributed 8,000 leaflets in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr Maude), north of Horsham, telling people that they need not have development in that area because they can have a new town outside their area instead. The developers are setting out to undermine the normal local planning process and interfere with the sensitive consultations that local authorities are holding with our electorate. That is entirely reprehensible behaviour; it is deeply unhelpful to the development of new plans; and it should be roundly condemned.

My hon. Friend the Minister knows that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex and I expressed concern previously, in a letter to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government on 24 June, about the position of one of the directors of Mayfield Market Towns, Lord Taylor of Goss Moor. Lord Taylor—though I emphasise that he has properly declared the interest—is one of the Government’s advisers on planning and has been drawing up the very guidance on the national policy planning framework on which local authorities are being asked to rely, as they consider their local plans. How can one of the directors of a developer that is actively seeking to subvert localism and produce a new town in a local area also advise the Government on how localism will work? That is clearly a conflict of interest. It is deeply resented by local people, and it is damaging to the perception of the Government’s independence in such matters. We do not believe that it can stand.

Fourthly, I turn to the core principle of localism that underlies the Government’s planning reforms and on the basis of which many of us supported those reforms. It is interesting to note, for instance, that in the Telegraph, which today reported the prize that Lord Wolfson is offering for the most interesting idea for new towns, his new adviser recently confirmed that Lord Wolfson

“is committed to the idea that if the locals don’t want it, it should not happen. So it is not top down.”

As my right hon. Friend said, that is the Government’s stated position through the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who has made it clear that proposals for new towns must have local consent. Mayfields does not have local consent either from the community or from the district councils concerned, which have explicitly ruled it out.

The Prime Minister said last January:

“I care deeply about our countryside and environment. Our vision is one where we give communities much more say, much more control. The fear people have in villages is the great big housing estate being plonked down from above. Our reforms will make it easier for communities to say, ‘We are not going to have a big plonking housing estate landing next to the village, but we would like 10, 20, 30 extra houses and we would like them built in this way, to be built for local people’.”

I strongly support what the Prime Minister said more than a year ago about how local people feel when a plonking development, to use his words, is proposed in their area, and I supported the promise that they should not have to have it and would be given greater control. The local communities in both my constituency and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex are planning responsibly for new housing at both the district and the neighbourhood level, but the new town and the way that localism is being subverted are undermining their responsible plans, causing people to lose faith in the very localism that we promised.

I remind the Minister that the 2010 Conservative manifesto said:

“We will put neighbourhoods in charge of planning the way their communities develop… To give communities greater control over planning, we will abolish the power of planning inspectors to rewrite local plans”.

Yesterday, the planning inspector delayed Mid Sussex council’s plan—that will damage the local environment and delay much-needed new housing in the area under the plan—because the council apparently failed in its duty to co-operate, according to an over-elaborate interpretation of that duty not stated in the original national policy planning framework. That will only hinder the process of localism that we promised.

I reinforce the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex. This is not just a question of two local Members of Parliament being concerned about a proposed development; we have been at pains to point out that we support local plans that envisage a great deal of additional housing. This is much more. For us, it is a test of faith in the Government’s flagship policy of localism, which we loyally supported. The Minister knows that Conservative Members feel increasing concern about how the policy is being interpreted, whether through the behaviour of the Planning Inspectorate and the instructions that it appears to have been given or through the drive to raise housing numbers against the spirit of the local control that we promised.

This developer cannot be allowed to abuse the reforms of localism that were passed by the House and promised in our manifesto and the coalition agreement and in which local people put their trust when we made those pledges. We cannot stand before them and defend a policy unless that policy is true to what we said: that local people will have control, that responsible local authorities should be free to take their own decisions and that we would not allow a top-down planning process that has done so much damage to support for development in the past.

10:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Kris Hopkins)]

I am pleased to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood. I welcome the fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Nicholas Soames) has secured this debate on the important issue of housing development. The backdrop to this debate is the proposed Mayfields new town development, which I know is of great importance to him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Nick Herbert).

My right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex will be aware that policy responsibility for planning lies with the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), who unfortunately could not be with us today. I am absolutely delighted to respond on the Government’s behalf on this issue. I wish to make it clear that my ministerial role means that I am not able to comment on the specific issues about the Mayfields new town proposal. However, I recognise that my right hon. Friends the Members for Mid Sussex, and for Arundel and South Downs are very much local champions, giving a local voice to those people who are very concerned about the proposal. I am absolutely sure that they will insist that the correct process is undertaken regarding the receipt of any application, and that they will ensure that a local plan is developed and is appropriate. I am also absolutely sure that they will be robust in any challenge they make to Government if they feel that Government action is inappropriate.

However, I want to reassure my right hon. Friends that power lies with local government, through local plans, and that it is up to local communities to shape the response to their housing needs—the two points that they have both made. To provide that reassurance, I want to start by reiterating some of the key aspects of national planning policy. A core principle in the national planning policy framework is that planning should

“proactively drive and support sustainable economic development to deliver the homes, business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving local places that the country needs.”

The framework also sets out that local planning authorities should prepare a strategic housing market assessment of their full housing needs, working with neighbouring authorities where housing market areas cross administrative boundaries. The SHMA should identify the scale and mix of housing, and the range of tenures, that the local population is likely to need over the plan period. Authorities should use their local plan process to set out how they will meet that need, and they should identify a five-year supply of specific deliverable sites to provide for that need, with a buffer to ensure choice and competition. Where they have not done so, a presumption in favour of sustainable development will apply, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex said. The NPPF is clear that authorities should plan to meet their needs.

Despite the concerns raised today, as both my right hon. Friends have said and as I have heard myself, there is widespread support across the country for more housing to meet the needs of local communities. However, my right hon. Friends will recognise, as I do, that when a development is potentially to be located on a greenfield site or in the green belt there is often an outcry from communities. That is understandable, and I do not want to see any more green fields being used than is necessary. Indeed, the NPPF maintains strong protections for the green belt, areas of outstanding natural beauty and other environmental designations. It also allows councils to introduce a new local green space designation to provide additional planning protection for green areas that are demonstrably special to a local community and that hold a particular local significance. Also, the framework continues to encourage the reuse of brownfield sites.

Most importantly, however, the changes that we have made to the planning system put local plans at the heart of the system. Unlike the previous Government’s approach of having top-down regional strategies, which imposed housing numbers and forced green-belt reviews on communities, local authorities should now be assessing their own need and working with their communities to decide how and where to put the homes to meet that need.

Not every community can meet its needs. That is why local authorities should work together constructively, actively and on an ongoing basis to maximise the effectiveness of their local plans, in line with the duty to co-operate that was introduced by the Localism Act 2011. Good plans are now being made across the country. When this Government came to power, only 33% of local authorities had published a plan; now, more than 76% of them have published one.

[Nicholas Soames]

I am following very carefully what my hon. Friend the Minister is saying. However, does he agree that it is extremely important that plans entered into and work done in good faith by district councils are not altered in any way as a result of the Government moving the goalposts during the process?

[Kris Hopkins]

I recognise that concern, but I do not see any change in those goalposts; they are not moving. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford, who is not here today, is absolutely committed to supporting local communities in the development of their local plan to shape their community.

Neighbourhood plans are at the centre of this new system. Whereas regional strategies and central targets built nothing but resentment, setting people against development that was imposed on them, communities have firmly grasped the opportunity to engage with neighbourhood plans. I know that that is true in Mid Sussex, which is a hotbed of neighbourhood plan activity; local people there are taking control of shaping their community.

I will touch on large-scale housing development. The Government have recognised that there is a need for new homes, and sometimes that need can be met through planning for larger-scale developments, such as new settlements or extensions to existing villages or towns, following the principles of the garden cities. The previous Government also liked the idea of large-scale development, but there is a contrast between their approach and ours. Their top-down eco-towns programme was an expensive failure, plagued, I have to say, by community opposition to bureaucrats in Whitehall who drew lines on maps. That top-down approach is very different from our approach.

Our focus is on supporting the development of long-term new communities that local authorities and local communities want, helping to ensure that key infrastructure and community facilities are built alongside new homes, and not later, as an afterthought. We are doing that by supporting local authorities and development partners to bring forward a pipeline of ambitious new communities through brokerage, capacity and capital investment. So far, we have invested some £80 million for 69,000 new homes, including those in a scheme in Cranbrook in Devon, where our investment is supporting the development of a new sustainable community of 6,000 new homes. We hope that a further 14 sites across the country will eventually deliver some 38,000 homes. Importantly, local communities are driving this process, which is not about the Government adopting a top-down approach, but about local communities making choices about where these large-scale developments should be.

To conclude, the planning system is changing for the better. It asks communities to meet their need for housing—I recognise that both my right hon. Friends have expressed their commitment to new housing and have spoken of their areas’ need for it—while maintaining strong protections for the environment. It asks communities to do so through local and neighbourhood plans, which allow them to decide where development should take place. Where authorities have failed to plan, the presumption in favour of sustainable development will apply. While we continue to support the principle of large-scale developments as a way of meeting the overwhelming housing need that we face, Government funding and expert advice is clearly predicated on local community support. As I have said, I am sure that the enthusiasm, engagement and leadership of my right hon. Friends will help to shape community opinion in the areas that they represent. I thank them for their questions.

11:28

Sitting suspended.

Local Authority Funding

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter in the Chair]

14:29

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

Mr Streeter, it is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time, particularly in this most important debate, which I was delighted to secure.

Local government finance holdbacks may not, on the face of it, be the most exciting subject to be debated in the House, but the issue is central to the daily experience of so many of our constituents. Indeed, for my constituents in Newcastle upon Tyne Central, this is probably the most important debate that I have secured. It goes to the heart of the delivery of public services—services that are delivered mainly, and increasingly, by local councils—and ultimately affects how many potholes are filled, how many homes are built and how well our buses are run.

I have come here not to ask the Minister for more money, although if he has found some that would be great, but to examine how we might best use what we have and how we can ensure that fairness, which is so ingrained in British values and culture, is at the centre. I hope that he will engage with the debate constructively and that he will not use the autumn statement and the upcoming settlement announcement to hide from what I am sure he knows are the serious concerns of councils throughout the country, of all political persuasions.

We can agree, at the outset, that we all want a system of local government financing that is fair, transparent and allows councils to plan ahead, as far as possible. Although I will speak mainly about the impact on Newcastle, the issues we face there are the same as those faced by many councils across England, particularly, but by no means exclusively, in urban areas.

Shortly after the election, the Prime Minister said,

“This government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help, that divides the country, or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services”.

I was so pleased to secure this debate, because that is exactly what the current local government finance proposals will do. We in this country pride ourselves on a sense of fair play. Fairness is, these days, the political centre ground and everyone wishes to position themselves on it. This Government are finding that if a policy, such as letting energy companies hike up energy prices in the midst of a cost of living scandal, is seen as unfair, you lose—except, perhaps, if that policy is wrapped up in enough accounting doublespeak and councils are blamed for not implementing what the Association of North East Councils has called “impossible cuts”. It seems that, if that is done, one can get away with it. ANEC says that, since 2011, councils have seen a one third reduction in funding—a staggering amount—and estimates that by 2017 funding will have been cut by 50% in real terms.

I emphasise that this debate is about not the overall spending level—I know that the Minister does not decide that—but how we distribute what we have. Analysis of the Government’s proposals for the next local government finance settlement by the special interest group of municipal authorities, which is a group of urban councils within the Local Government Association, found that municipal authorities

“started off from a position of disadvantage; have borne a disproportionate burden of cuts under the Spending Review; and carry the greatest risk of the highest cuts in the future.”

The insidious nature of this Government’s top-slicing and holdbacks in particular will have an impact on services for people struggling through the cost of living crisis in Newcastle and similar towns and cities.

Councils must be in a viable financial position if they are to fulfil the statutory burden that Whitehall places on them. On top of that, we expect them to be—indeed, we insist that they should be—active partners in driving forward economic growth, yet the north-east has endured the biggest cuts, with higher reductions in spending power than the national average. In the spending review, we were told to expect 10% cuts in core funding, yet the north-east is now looking at a real-terms cut of 25% when social care costs are included. That is putting public services under severe strain.

At the beginning of the year, the Department for Communities and Local Government estimated that next year Newcastle would see a cut per dwelling of £126, compared with an average cut in England of £75 and a cut in Wokingham, for example, of £19. It later emerged that those figures for Newcastle were significantly understated. At a time when demand for services in the north-east is increasing, why does the Minister think that targeting areas with higher levels of deprivation to make savings is the fairest way to implement these cuts? Will that not hurt

“those we most need to help”,

to use the Prime Minister’s words? I urge the Minister to respond to that question in particular and I am sure that he will.

Has the Minister considered allocating cuts to councils by an equal percentage, based on spending power? Would that not be fairer? If not, why not? By what process did he decide that his current proposals are fairer and will not disproportionately hit the most deprived? I ask him to publish any evidence that is to the contrary of the Audit Commission’s report, among others, which sets out how deprived areas will suffer more than wealthier ones and to which Sir Merrick Cockrell, the Conservative leader of Kensington and Chelsea council and chairman of the LGA, responded:

“The report highlights a significant variation in the impact of the cuts at a local level, with a number of places taking a disproportionately heavy hit. It provides yet more evidence that the existing system of funding is too exposed to the vagaries of national politics and incapable of delivering the long term certainty that local areas need to deliver consistently excellent services.”

[Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the cut in revenue support grant for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, there has been a disproportionate cut in the revenue support grant for Oldham, a metropolitan area with two Members of Parliament? In fact, in 2014-16, that will have decreased by £36.8 million, which will, unfortunately, not be recouped by the new homes bonus, for example, which has raised just £700,000. I support her argument. Does not that cut put dreadful pressure on the council, which provides services such as social care, and does it not impact on constituents?

[Chi Onwurah]

I had the pleasure of visiting Oldham not long ago, and my hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the disproportionate cuts that Oldham is suffering under this funding approach. I will speak about the new homes bonus shortly. The Government claim to be giving money to councils such as Oldham and Newcastle, but they are in fact taking away far more than they are giving.

The Audit Commission estimates that one third of councils, many of which are in the most deprived areas, are at risk of financial failure in the medium term under current proposals. An equal percentage cut based on spending power would bring significant benefits to many of those deprived areas across the country, not only in Newcastle and London but in the north-west and the shire counties and districts.

Children’s social care is an area of particular concern as we see growing need and reduced funding. In Newcastle and the north-east, there are real and growing concerns about the pressures on children’s services. Indeed, I recently looked at a website containing anonymous reports from social workers working in children’s services, and it was a frightening insight into the pressures that they face.

The number of looked-after children is growing at 11% nationally, with higher pressures in the north-east. Councils have seen a 4% cash increase in costs, but DCLG and the Department for Education have cut children’s social care funding by 30%. Children’s social care assessment was cut by 30% between 2010 and 2013-14, which is about four times the assumed cut, while the number of looked-after children has increased by 31% in the north-east since 2009. Budgeted spending on children’s social care rose by 4% nationally, but by just 1% in the north-east.

When ANEC raised concerns, the response by Ministers at the Department for Education was that councils would have to find the cuts “somewhere else.” It is difficult to see how a further 25% cut in core funding in the north-east can in any way be justified. How can it be taken out of children’s services over the next two years? Will the Minister explain why spending on children’s social care has been cut so much when the levels of need are increasing?

Ministers like to come up with complex formulas for giving money to councils that tend to benefit wealthier authorities, but when it comes to cutting money, Ministers are increasingly turning to crude holdbacks and top-slicing from the central revenue budget. It is possible that not everyone here is familiar with holdbacks. Indeed, I confess that, prior to entering Parliament, I did not follow the intricacies of local government financing with as much attention as I possibly should have. I dread to think how much excitement I have missed as a result.

A holdback is when Ministers or civil servants decide that money allocated to councils will literally be held back by Whitehall for a specific purpose or on a certain condition, which, again, disproportionally affects the most deprived councils. Money is being cut from the central pot, the revenue support grant, which automatically means that councils with the highest need lose out the most. If the Minister decides that he wants to hold back £500 million, for example, it comes from the central budget, which means that all councils lose a slice. The councils that would have received a bigger slice, because they have greater need, lose out more. A holdback of £500 million would mean that Newcastle loses £4 million, whereas Wokingham loses only £400,000. That is a £32 cut per household in Newcastle and a £6 cut per household in Wokingham. Authorities such as Hackney and Birmingham are even worse off, at £50 and £37 per household respectively. All authorities would then get some money back, but if the funding is skewed to favour wealthy authorities, as it so often is under this Government, the effect is a budget transfer from poor to rich, which is Robin Hood, disguised as a Whitehall accountant, in reverse. That is not a pleasant sight.

Parliament has decided that the money should be used to fund councils for services that they have a legal duty to provide. SIGOMA, ANEC, the Audit Commission and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation have all highlighted the problem, so will the Minister explain whether he agrees with their analysis? With what does he disagree? Why are the Government increasingly using holdbacks to fund projects?

This week, we have been reading in the papers that on Thursday the Chancellor plans to cap business rate rises. With small business Saturday this weekend, it would surely have been more appropriate and beneficial to local economies if he had stolen another Labour policy by cutting and then freezing business rates. The Chancellor should not feel shy.

When councils were told that business rate takings were to be localised, thereby shifting the risk on to the councils, I do not think they expected that any potential reward would be offset by equal cuts to their revenue funding. The business rate safety net is yet another example of how unfair holdbacks can be for poorer areas. Will the Minister tell us whether the business rate safety net is flawed? Was it designed on purpose so that councils such as Newcastle end up funding shortfalls in business rate takings in Westminster by a staggering amount?

The safety net—again, this a technical description of a complex area—provides funding for any council for which business rate receipts fall more than 7.5% below its baseline funding level. The safety net is funded by a levy on councils for which the increase in revenue from business rates outstrips the increase in its funding level and holdbacks.

A holdback of £25 million was originally created to fund the difference between levy funds and safety net payments so that all authorities would fund the safety net. The history is quite complex, but what is crucial is that, because the estimated levy amount has proved inadequate, the top-slice holdback has been increased to £120 million next year. That is a staggering increase, and SIGOMA says that, because of the system’s design, Westminster city council will claim more than two thirds of the national £79 million safety net pot next year. That is two thirds for one of the richest councils in the country. Again, funding is disproportionately going from poorer areas to richer areas.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I am sorry that I cannot stay until the end.

Anticipating what might come on Thursday, and assuming the Chancellor is minded to go some way towards assisting small businesses by freezing business rate increases next year, does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential that the Chancellor makes it transparent that any costs should be borne by the Exchequer, not by local authorities? Given the sleight of hand that she has just described, we want that spelled out in crystal clear terms to assure us that it is being done.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, as always, and he is absolutely right. I have lost count of the number of occasions that I have heard Ministers announce funding for my local authority—I will give the example of the new homes bonus in a minute—that is actually a cut in funding more generally. If the autumn statement on Thursday is used to announce any further support for business rates or for local authorities, I am sure that the Chancellor will set out transparently exactly where the funding will come from. If he does not, I am sure that parliamentary questions will follow.

I could consider the approach to be an error, mistake or one-off, but several holdbacks have had a similar effect, and the new homes bonus is one of the most important. Money is top-sliced from the revenue budget—everyone’s budget—but then finds it way predominantly to the wealthier parts of the country. I always thought that a bonus was something extra on top of a payment.

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

As well as.

[Chi Onwurah]

Exactly. I thought that that was inherent in the term. Ministers in this Government, however, fund their bonuses not only from existing money, but from existing money that some might argue is not theirs.

The new homes bonus increases cumulatively for six years and is estimated to peak at some £2 billion. The increases are funded by deducting the increase from the revenue support grant, so it favours authorities in wealthier parts of the country, owing to their higher house prices and relatively low reduction in needs-based funding. Although Newcastle loses £5.3 million through top-slicing to fund the new homes bonus, it is given back only £2.2 million. The Minister gets to put out a press release saying that he is generously rewarding the council with £2.2 million, but nobody notices the reality that Newcastle has actually lost out by £3 million. Wiltshire, for example, will have seen a net gain of over £4 million. At the same time, my surgeries and mailbox are testament to the fact that the lack of affordable housing is a critical issue for my constituents.

The new homes bonus is unfair and does not work, which has been confirmed by the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Does the Minister intend to press ahead with it? Newcastle city council and the Association of North East Councils have called for it to be frozen at 2013-14 levels. What is the Minister’s view? It would allow him to return some of the planned holdbacks to core funding and to relieve some of the pressures that Newcastle and other councils are facing.

[Mr Betts]

My hon. Friend is making a good point about the new homes bonus, which is one of the original and probably largest holdbacks, and she is right to draw attention to the Public Accounts Committee report. As she says, the key is in the title—new homes bonus. It is not a bonus, and the Public Accounts Committee decided that there was no evidence that it had led to the building of any new homes.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I was in the Chamber when it was revealed that the new homes bonus’s purpose was not to build new homes, which reveals a subtlety of language that I confess is beyond me. It is clearly of concern, and I am sure that the Minister will explain not only what the bonus is achieving, but how we can ensure that it is more fairly distributed, so that Newcastle and other authorities are not disadvantaged.

Will the Minister also explain why the figure in the settlement paper for 2015-16 is £210 million higher than that quoted in the new homes bonus consultation, which was based on an estimate from the National Audit Office? Would he consider using the National Audit Office figure? The Local Government Association estimates that £210 million would cover the cost of filling 4 million potholes or 30% of the country’s street-cleaning bill for a year. It would be good to know what has happened to and what is being done with that money.

Finally, I want to discuss the stability and transparency implications of the Government’s use of holdbacks. It is essential that councils get consistent figures when planning budgets. Newcastle city council has identified several other holdbacks, amounting to over £550 million next year and a massive £1.5 billion the year after, that would be better either returned to core funding or funded through other means. The holdbacks include capitalisation, the collaboration and efficiency fund, the fire transformation fund, the independent living fund, the troubled families fund and the money for the new social care burdens. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them in more detail with the Minister if he feels that he does not have the time to speak to each today.

[Debbie Abrahams]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on her speech. We are really getting to the nub of the issue. Although we have been discussing cuts to council funding, it is ultimately about the cuts to services and the impact on our constituents’ lives. The independent living fund and the social care issues, with a particular focus on children, are affected, but so are adult carers. People’s lives are being detrimentally affected, but it does not seem a priority for the Government.

[Chi Onwurah]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I pay tribute to her for the passion that she brings to the subject.

As I said at the beginning, the subject appears dry, but my post box and surgeries reveal the daily impact of cuts to the funding of services and the progressive and cumulative impact on the lives of often vulnerable people, who find not only an impact on housing and social care, but that their streets are not as clean, that their environment is more depressing and that schools do not have the same resources. That impact is partly a consequence of holdbacks. These dry financial mechanisms are holding back the services that my constituents and so many others need. We need to focus on that. It is important that the Minister identifies and explains why this is happening and what he can do to stop the impacts that we are talking about.

I have one overarching point for the Minister. The mechanism is regressive and effectively moves money to better-off areas, but it is also opaque and severely limits councils’ ability to plan in advance. Will he work to ensure that future rounds of local government finance settlements are conducted more transparently? Ministers have found ways to give varying protection to some more visible services, but that increases the pressure on other funds. When the Minister chooses to protect London transport funding by 6%, money for children’s social care and libraries is squeezed in Newcastle.

I want to bring the Minister back to the Prime Minister’s quote about tackling the deficit:

“This Government will not cut this deficit in a way that hurts those we most need to help, that divides the country, or that undermines the spirit and ethos of our public services”.

Does the Minister think that the Government’s approach to local government finance has been fair and in the interests of councils’ ability to plan for the long term?

I urge the Minister to listen to councils throughout the country, to find an alternative way to reduce the additional cuts by reducing council holdbacks and top-slices. That will help all councils to prevent further unnecessary service cuts and job losses. It will also help them to stabilise their finances, at a time when one third of them face serious financial failure in the medium term.

Two weeks ago, I visited St Paul’s Church of England primary school in my constituency and was given an excellent tour by the head, Mrs Judith Sword. I also held a question-and-answer session with the year 6 pupils. One of them asked me why the council did not spend its money better, so that the libraries could stay open. I explained that the council was losing a third of its budget, or more than £100 million—at that figure, there was big “Oh!” of shock in the room—but that it had consulted more than 50,000 residents to decide the fairest way to implement the cuts. I did not add, because I did not want to over-complicate my answer, that there was not really any such thing as the council’s money any more, because so much of it was being held back by the Government and redirected to other purposes, so that the council could not plan. I hope that the Minister understands how unfair that is to the children and adults of Newcastle and, indeed, to all the children and adults in our constituencies throughout the country.

15:01

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is again a pleasure to make a contribution to a debate under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on her choice of topic. In the overall context of the Department’s budget, the sum of money involved is relatively small, and the subject that we are discussing may seem rather technical, but as she has pointed out, the devil is in the detail. Furthermore, at the heart of what we ought to be considering is fairness. I have had the honour and privilege of representing the great city of Newcastle upon Tyne for 30 years in this place, and I have to say to the Minister that what the Government are doing to inner-city local authorities such as Newcastle—although we are not unique—is simply not fair.

At the heart of the argument is the fact that the statutory burdens on the authorities—in particular, people have to be cared for, whether the elderly, those in social care or in need of even more intensive care, or children taken into care—are driven by factors over which the local authority has no control. The separation of the need from the money, which is what in essence the Government are doing, is a wicked thing. What ought to be the case is that a child who needs to be cared for in Newcastle should be cared for with exactly the same energy, enthusiasm and compassion as a child anywhere else in the United Kingdom. The money should follow the need. That is not the Government’s direction of travel. What they are doing is fundamentally wrong—their broader journey is wrong, and what we are discussing today is a small signpost on the wrong way.

The Government’s new mechanism for funding local authorities, the business rate retention scheme, makes provision for a safety net, which is used to top up the funds of those authorities that have encountered a reduction of more than 7.5% in business rate income. It is funded, rather illogically, by a levy on those authorities that see an increase in their business rate income beyond a set threshold. Personally, I do not agree with any of that—a minority view, I know—and I will explain why later. For now, I will focus on the seemingly technical subject of today’s debate.

The Department for Communities and Local Government put aside £25 million to fund the safety net for the current 2013-14 financial year, but the Government have now revealed that this is not enough and that they are seeking to increase it by an additional £95 million, making a total of £120 million, which is a substantially larger sum. The Government propose, in effect, to top-slice or hold back that money from the 2014-15 local government finance allocation, even though councils have begun to draw up their budgets for 2014-15, with some already out to consultation.

If we consider the practicalities of consulting on a budget that is being squeezed year on year and the context that the needs that that budget has to meet are not heading in the same direction, we realise how unjust what the Government are doing is. Councils are not only faced with revised settlements, but have the prospect of additional cuts so that the Department can meet what it believes to be its internal budgetary needs. However, as my hon. Friend pointed out, it is not entirely clear that those needs are as the Department states them to be.

The impact of taking money from the revenue support grant is that the Government are reducing the proportion of money subject to funding formulas that account for need and deprivation. By reducing the revenue support grant to top up the business rate redistribution mechanism, in effect, the total amount of local authority funding that has been subjected to adjustments for deprivation, need and other factors is being lowered. That is fundamentally unfair. The need is there, and the money should follow the need. Consequently, deprivation factors are weakened within the totality of the local government finance settlement. With many local authorities facing increased costs and demand for statutory services, factors linked to deprivation—the parts of the finance settlement that take such elements into account—are reduced, increasing the pressures on councils. Perhaps it is an unfortunate coincidence, but the councils most affected tend to be the poorer ones, representing communities that are poorer—inner-city local authorities, which are predominantly Labour controlled. The effect of the redistribution is towards more affluent parts of the country that are not Labour controlled—they are controlled by parties in the governing coalition.

When the previous Conservative Government nationalised what was then the local business rate, I thought that they made a reasonably sound case for doing so: from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs, as I am sure I remember Mrs Thatcher and Sir John Major saying when making this point, although memory plays tricks as we grow older. The assumption is of course that the rateable values for business, which are the foundation of the business rate, are regularly revalued. No more money is raised by revaluation, but the distribution of the burden is fairer throughout the whole of what is a United Kingdom. It would be wrong to defer a revaluation for political reasons, because doing so disadvantages the relatively less wealthy parts of England—it is more accurate to say England in this context, rather than the United Kingdom.

The Government have also altered the duty on the Department to make a revenue support grant to a power to make a revenue support grant. The purpose is to march off in exactly the same direction that is of concern to me and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central. That will weaken the link between the need, which local authorities have a statutory duty to meet, and the resources, which are necessary to meet the need. She talked about the new homes bonus, and the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts), intervened to make a point along the same lines. All of that is heading in the same direction, and it is very much the wrong direction.

The city of Newcastle upon Tyne is on the receiving end of all this, and if I have done nothing else in my short contribution, I hope I have rammed home to the Minister how strongly we in the city feel about this issue, how unfair it is that he should proceed in this way and how impossible the situation will be for the local authority that represents people in the constituencies that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central and I represent, as well as other inner-city local authorities throughout England, if the Government continue in the same direction.

The Minister must do something—a range of options are open to him—to make sure that the support payments available to local authorities meet the needs to which those authorities have a statutory duty to respond. To do anything else is unfair because local authorities have no other way of getting the money to meet those needs.

15:11

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

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter, for what I think is the first time—certainly in my role as Opposition spokesman on local government matters, including local government funding, which I shall talk about today.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) opened the debate by saying how important it was for her constituents. I congratulate her on securing it, and I thank her for doing so, because my constituents are also concerned about local services. Earlier today, I met 25 members of the University of the Third Age, from Thrapston, a small town in my constituency, and the topic of conversation was the impact of various funding cuts on their lives. They talked about having to pay £6 a week for the Lifeline service in sheltered accommodation, which was previously paid for out of the Supporting People funds. They also talked about the impact on their communities of further cuts to bus services. My county council has reduced the subsidy for local authority bus services by more than any other county council. My constituents said, “What is the point of a bus to a nearby town if I can’t get back from it?”

My constituents also spoke about the isolation that they experience as elderly people. They talked of their concerns about their grandchildren’s school transport costs. They highlighted the impact of cuts to police community support officer funding in their small market town, which have happened partly because local authorities can no longer fund partnerships. My constituents are also concerned—my hon. Friend mentioned this—about potholes and cuts to funding for other things that they see every day, such as street lights. This is therefore an incredibly important debate.

My hon. Friend said the Government’s changes to local government funding fundamentally impact the spirit and ethos of how public services are funded, and I wholeheartedly agree. She spoke passionately about the unfairness of the cuts, as did other hon. Members, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East (Mr Brown). He said that, in his 30 years in this place, he has not seen anything handed down to communities that is as unfair as these local authority cuts, which are particularly impacting on his city. They are also impacting on Oldham, the local authority of my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams).

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central drew on comments from the Conservative leader of the Local Government Association, so it is not just Opposition politicians who are raising concerns. Sir Merrick Cockell said that the cuts were having a disproportionate impact on some areas of the community. Recently in the House, the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) said that his local authority and many other local authorities around the country were being “cut to the bone”, but the Government have failed to recognise the very real impact that the cuts are having.

I was struck by the summative description of the cuts that my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central gave: she said that they were Robin Hood in reverse. My right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East simply suggested that their impact was wicked. It is not just that funding is being cut. As we all recognise, this is a time of rising pressures. In particular, Members have talked about the costs of dealing with looked-after children. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central highlighted the 11% growth in the number of looked-after children across the country, and the rate is higher in her area, as we might expect because of the nature of her community. Clearly, it compounds the problem when such a significant cut is meted out to her local authority.

My hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth spoke passionately, as she always does, about social care. She talked about how the cut in the independent living fund is impacting people in her community. Not only are local authorities meeting only severe needs, but they are being forced to reassess elderly and vulnerable constituents who were previously considered to have severe needs, and are beginning to withdraw the services that those people had come to rely on, leaving them incredibly worried. In some cases, that has perverse consequences. Local authority social care cuts are causing hospitals to use acute hospital budgets to fund social care beds. Surely the Government cannot see that as a good use of public money.

[Debbie Abrahams]

My hon. Friend is making a passionate speech himself. These measures are having an impact on not only local authority services, but the NHS. As we know, we have an accident and emergency crisis across the country, and that is partly because of the impact on social care.

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. She has considerable expertise in these matters, and I have heard her speak frequently about them in the main Chamber. In my area, the A and E crisis, which means that many people have to wait more than four hours, is happening because the hospital is running “hot”. I do not know whether you have heard that term in relation to your local hospital, Mr Streeter, but it means that the beds are full, and that is partly because there are no social care beds. The services that should help people to return home are not being put in place properly or quickly enough to do that. These things are very much linked, and I hope the Minister will acknowledge that in a way that other Conservative Members have failed to do in some of our debates on health care, and on the impact of local authority funding cuts on a much broader range of public services.

We have quoted Sir Merrick Cockell, the LGA’s Conservative leader, who has called the cuts “unsustainable” because of their scale and pace and the rising demand we have highlighted. The Conservative leader of Kent county council has also said that his county cannot cope with further reductions, and that it is “running on empty”.

Ministers know that local government is the most efficient part of the public sector—the Prime Minister has said so—but they have decided to reward councils for that efficiency by cutting more from them than from any other part of the public sector. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government approached the Star Chamber to bid for that substantial cut to local authority funding.

The Institute for Fiscal Studies is clear that the total cuts to local government spending will outpace those in the public sector as a whole, and the situation will get worse, not better. The LGA’s excellent report, “Future funding outlook for councils”, incorporates the 10% cut in this year’s spending review, which comes on top of the 33% cut that councils face over this Parliament, and that includes the issue of holdbacks, which I will come to in more detail.

The Minister will no doubt tell us that there has been a 2.6% cut—I hear those figures all the time, and I heard them again on “Look East” just the other day. At the same time, the leader of Norfolk county council was talking about what, by anybody’s measure, was a cut of a third to the council’s budget. Councils simply do not recognise this 2.6% figure; it does not stand up to scrutiny.

The black hole will get bigger: by 2020 there will be a £15-billion black hole in the finances, but the Secretary of State talks about council cuts as though they are modest. I do not think that it surprises any of us when Conservative council leaders raise complaints with the Prime Minister about the language being used, and the reality gap between how Ministers at the Department for Communities and Local Government talk about the level of the cuts, and council leaders’ experience of trying to deliver public services around the country. I have spoken to the leader of Northamptonshire county council. He is a Conservative politician, but we have a constructive dialogue about how we are grappling with huge changes. For example, he is currently scratching his head about how we will sustain Sure Start and children’s centre provision across the county, and how we will continue to provide libraries across a large county.

Leaders of any party know the reality out there, but the Government will not listen to the warnings. They will not listen to the National Audit Office, which has said that cuts are having a direct impact on front-line services. The myth created in the early days of the coalition—that everything could be achieved through efficiencies—simply does not match up to reality. The NAO says that 12% of councils are at risk of being unable to balance their books. That will have disastrous consequences.

The Minister told me in a written answer last week that a response to the Public Accounts Committee report on the financial sustainability of local authorities had been published in September. I cannot find that response, and would be grateful if he could draw my attention to it more directly. It seems that the Government simply do not know how they will respond when councils fall over. The permanent secretary to the Department for Communities and Local Government, when questioned by the Public Accounts Committee, said that councils have a duty to balance their books. Ministers are relying on a statutory duty in the face of reality.

Of course, we know that councils will do their very best, because they will want to ensure that they comply with the law. They will be well advised by their monitoring officers and finance officer. Councillors will want to balance the books. They will know that that will be audited by the new independent local auditor, so they will have to do it—and we know how they will do it: by turning off the street lights; by further cutting social care; by ending the use of the local swimming pool; by closing the libraries; and by stopping maintaining the streets. If they have to, against the Secretary of State’s best wishes, they will do it by stopping some bin collections, which will affect our recycling rates. They will do it by cutting services around the country.

Some councils will find more quickly than others that they need to balance the books. They will not be councils in the north of England only, although many councils there will find themselves in particular difficulty. It is one of the poorest regions in the country, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central are to be congratulated on highlighting the impact on their region, as the Association of North East Councils has also done very powerfully.

Councils all around the country will be affected. We are told that Tory-led West Somerset will be one of the first councils that will have to close its doors and will simply not be able to balance the books. As I understand it, there is an idea that such councils will be taken over by their neighbours. I think that that is the Government’s way forward: the neighbours will step in. However, although I am a co-operator, I must say that when faced with a neighbouring authority that is about to fall over, it would not be prudent of any hon. Member to encourage their own local authority to take on the burden of financial responsibility. The crisis has been created by central Government, and they must face up to it and tell us what their response might be.

[Chi Onwurah]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent speech he is making; he is highlighting several points that I did not cover. Is he aware that when the Secretary of State acceded to his post, he is said to have banned the use of the word “regionalism” because he did not believe in regions? He wanted instead to focus on localism and localities. Is it not therefore ironic that, by cutting funding so much and taking control of more of it centrally, he might cause local authorities to be taken over by other local authorities, thus attacking the communities he is supposed to be supporting?

[Andy Sawford]

My hon. Friend is right that the sense of regional awareness in places around the country is derived from all sorts of things. Sometimes it is economic or cultural connectedness going back over time, or derives from the links between industry across an area. However, in some areas of the country, over time, some of that sense of regional awareness has come from regions feeling that the further away from London they are, the less the Government are concerned about the people there, and the more unfairly they have been treated. I am a strong supporter of the Better Together campaign. I hope that Scotland and England remain together, as do many of my Scottish constituents. However, it was not a huge surprise to me to see only the other day a newspaper article saying, “If Scotland goes, can you take the north with you?” People in the north feel that the Government simply do not understand the impact of the cuts.

Communities are told to become more independent; the rationale that the Government present to us is that they are over-reliant on central Government funding. Communities are seeking to become more independent by promoting their economies. What do the Government think is happening to the economic development function of local authorities around the country? What do the Government think has happened in the absence of the strong role that One North East previously played in promoting economic development in the north-east? That strong economic development role, that drive that local authorities can provide, is no longer there as it once was. I pay tribute to people such as the leader of Newcastle city council, Nick Forbes, for trying to ensure that his city has a bright and economically prosperous future, but the Government are making that task harder, and I hope they recognise that.

The impact of the cuts falls on both statutory and non-statutory services. Too often it is assumed that statutory services will be safe, as it is by the permanent secretary to the Department, who says that because it is written in law that councils have to balance the books, it will happen. Too often it is also assumed—by campaigning organisations and commentators on local authority finance—that statutory services will continue to be provided and will be safe because they are a legal requirement. However, the truth is that councils are already having to look at the eligibility criteria. For example, the duty placed on local authorities in the 1960s to provide for an efficient library service will have to be interpreted in new ways by local authorities in future. Frankly, it will have to be interpreted in ways that do not meet local communities’ real aspirations for those services.

We know that statutory services will not be safe, and we also know that the burden will fall particularly on the more discretionary services. However, the discretionary services, such as cultural services, are no less important. Over the river from my right hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central, in Gateshead, there are iconic cultural attractions, as indeed there are in Newcastle upon Tyne. As a student at Durham university, I enjoyed the cultural offer in Newcastle many times. These things are vital to local economies and to the health and vibrancy of the community. They are part of what a prosperous community in the 21st century should be all about. Local authorities have a vital role in enabling such things and ensuring that they are present in a community, but we know that around the country they will be the first to go.

We must be honest about what would have happened were a Labour Government now in power, as we come out of a period of global recession. Resources were rightly used to help keep young people in work—for example, through the future jobs fund—to keep our vital industries going, and to keep people in their homes to avoid the scandal of home repossessions that we saw in Conservative recessions in previous decades. The Government rightly tried to maintain jobs and the economy. A Labour Government would have come into a period, in this Parliament, in which we would need to look at how to balance the books. Our proposals differ very much from the Government’s. The Government’s proposals have gone far too far and go about things in the wrong way. Front-loading has had a particular impact, resulting in, for example, the perverse problems we have described in our health services.

Above all, however, we know that the effect of the Government’s proposals over three years was to grind the economy to a halt. We are told that there has been a huge increase in private sector employment. Many of those private sector jobs are transfers from the public sector, because of the cuts in recent years. Where they are genuine private sector jobs—indeed, where they are public sector transfers—we often find that people are on zero-hours contracts, employed through agencies in insecure jobs on low wages. The Government have removed any enforcement of the protections afforded to those people. They have less money in their pockets and are less able to contribute to the local community, thereby compounding the problems that local authorities face in their community leadership role around the country. That has been the impact of the Government’s proposals. We simply would not have done things in the same way, and we would not have done things in such a fundamentally unfair way.

It is not just organisations such the Association of North East Councils or SIGOMA, the special interest group of municipal authorities—SIGOMA provided us with a helpful background briefing, for which I am grateful—making this point. The Audit Commission, which provides independent commentary, has highlighted the unfairness, stating that

“councils in the most deprived areas have seen substantially greater reductions in government funding as a share of revenue expenditure than councils in less deprived areas.”

In 2014-15, the 10 most deprived local authorities in England will lose six times more than the 10 least deprived local authorities, as compared to 2010-11. The councils that will suffer the biggest cuts in spending power per head—that is the Government’s own manipulated measure, which is designed to mask the real impact—are Liverpool, Hackney, Newham, Manchester, Knowsley, Blackpool, Tower Hamlets, Middlesbrough, Birmingham and Kingston upon Hull. Those are some of the most deprived communities around the country. I would add Newcastle to that list, as another deprived community; there are particular needs in Oldham as well. Those communities should be properly recognised in a fair funding formula.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central points out that her region—although, as she said, the Government do not like that term—has endured the biggest cuts. There are communities with high levels of deprivation and particular needs in London, and some of the most deprived wards in the country are in the heart of Corby in the midlands, but when we look at the map of the impact of these measures across the country, it is clear that money is going from north to south, and from poorer to more affluent areas. The Prime Minister’s local authority, West Oxfordshire, is one of the least deprived in the country, ranking 316th out of 325 in the indices of multiple deprivation. It is getting an increase in spending power of 3.1%; that is extraordinary. We know that this is not an accident, but a deliberate strategy by the Government to shift funding. The problem is compounded by holdbacks, which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central rightly raised as having a further significant unfair impact on particular local authorities. That is partly, as we know, because of the impact of the new homes bonus.

The cut to local government in the 2015-16 spending settlement appears to be around 5% greater than the amount stated in the spending round of 2013. The Local Government Association’s analysis is that there will be a 15% real reduction for most local authorities, as opposed to the 10% claimed by the Government; the analysis by SIGOMA and others is that the real impact will be higher. Will the Minister at least accept the analysis of the cross-party Local Government Association, which has no particular political axe to grind?

The Government’s announcement on funding with regard to holdbacks has caused particular issues because of the scale and pace of the increase in the number of holdbacks announced for 2015-16. The original figure for the new homes bonus was £800 million of holdback; I understand that remains the same. The holdback for the safety net around business rates was originally proposed to be £25 million, but the revised proposal is that it will now be £120 million. I understand that there are additional holdbacks on capitalisation as well. The net effect of the changes is to add £180 million to the holdbacks.

The Select Committee on Communities and Local Government looked at the issue recently, and said that holdbacks were making it impossible for councils to set budgets. As local authorities are having to make incredibly tough decisions, consultation is even more important, but giving short notice of the huge cuts in funding makes it really difficult for local authorities to hold genuine consultations with communities.

The increase in the amount retained for the safety net for business rates from £25 million to £120 million has caused particular concern. At a recent hearing of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) described the safety net increase as “a huge jump”, and said that arguments that all the money would ultimately be returned to local government did not make sense, asking:

“How can councils budget when decisions like this are being made?”

Remember, that comes from a Conservative member of the Committee.

I understand that Sir Bob Kerslake, the permanent secretary at the Department, said that the holdbacks represented “relatively small amounts” of the £25 billion total funding for local government. He uses that global figure deliberately to massage the appearance of this issue and make it seem less significant. Some district councils—I know that they are exotic things to some hon. Members, but I have two in my area—will face cuts of £300,000 to £400,000 because of these changes. That is not a modest amount; it is a huge amount from their overall budget.

Similarly, the Select Committee asked why councils were given only three months’ notice of the additional 20% cut. I will quote the hon. Member for South Derbyshire again: she said that it “just does not fly”. Is the Minister going to tell us today that it does fly, or will he agree that the situation is unfair and has compounded the problem that local authorities face?

Does the Minister accept that councils must plan and set their budgets for 2015-16 on the basis of a cut in funding of 15%? The Government say that councils can set their budgets based on taking a risk—although all the risk seems to me to be shifted on to local authorities, given the way the holdbacks are handed out—that the holdback may be 10%. Does the Minister seriously think that that would be a prudent way for a local authority to manage its budget? We know from the work of the National Audit Office that even before the cuts really bite, as they will this year and for the next two years, three in 10 councils have had to take in-year unexpected action to try to balance their books. They have had to reduce service levels, for example, and have had recruitment freezes and emergency renegotiation of contracts with their providers. The NAO’s review was nearly a year ago, so I estimate that the figure will now be higher than three in 10. Given those challenges, does the Minister really think it is prudent to ask local authorities to budget on that basis?

I believe that there is hope. If there is a change of Government in 2015, there will be an opportunity to make a reality of community budgets and Total Place, and to end the silo approach to local authority funding—for example, in relation to care services. We can genuinely integrate services to make the public pound go further. We will back local authorities in taking on new roles—in back-to-work schemes, for example—that could be both financially beneficial to the local authority, if the incentives are right, and beneficial to our communities. There are opportunities for much better dialogue. We need to review the new homes bonus, which is a mechanism to shift resources around the country in an unfair way. I hope that today the Minister will accept the scale of the crisis that his Government have created, and will give us assurances that they will listen to us on holdbacks and accept the real need to review the funding formula across the country, so that when the provisional settlement is announced in just a few weeks’ time, it is fairer.

15:37

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Brandon Lewis)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Streeter. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central (Chi Onwurah) on securing a debate on a matter that is clearly important for her. It gives us the chance to air some important issues about local government more generally.

Before I turn directly to the subject of the debate, I want to put it in context. The shadow Minister commented on the size of local government, its funding and the changes in funding. He made a comment about going too far and too fast, which we have not heard for some time from the Opposition. That comment seems incredible in the light of the current economic situation, as the Government’s economic policy is clearly working for the benefit of the country.

We also have to remember exactly how we got to where we are. The previous Government left us with an unprecedented deficit, something this Government are having to deal with. Local government accounts for 25% of public expenditure, and so has a big part to play in those efforts. Unfortunately, that is a part of the legacy that we took on from the previous Government. Even today, we are still all wondering about the £52 million—and growing—cuts that Labour has stated that it would make to local government; despite what the shadow Minister said, Labour has not yet outlined where those cuts would come from, and the figure has continued to go up in some of its recent pledges. We have to put the situation in some context.

[Mr Nicholas Brown]

I do not accept the Minister’s analysis, but for the purposes of debate, I will give him the benefit of the doubt. If what he says is right, why is the burden of expenditure reduction not being shared fairly across England? If special measures to protect anyone should be taken, why are they not being taken to protect the very poorest and most vulnerable—the people whom local authorities have a statutory duty to look after? Why is the burden not being shared fairly?

[Brandon Lewis]

I will come to the issue outlined by the right hon. Gentleman, but I remind him that the independent report, which is in the Library, outlined that this year’s settlement was fair to areas in the north and south, rural and urban. It is important to remember the legacy that we inherited. My area—Great Yarmouth—is in the east and, thanks to the previous Government’s policy decisions, was left with a £3 million black hole, which this Government have had to fix. When we talk about spending power, we must remember that a Labour Government left my local authority with what would have been a 20% cut in spending power in one year— something this Government have had to deal with.

The hon. Member for Corby (Andy Sawford) mentioned councils such as West Somerset. He might like to do a bit more research and homework on what is going on in West Somerset and look at the work it is doing with its neighbours, on which I congratulate it. More and more small district authorities are moving to ensure that money on the front line is not spent on bureaucracy and red-tape administration. Many small district authorities particularly have budgets of under £20 million and should be looking to share management and chief executives to ensure that their taxpayers’ hard-earned money is spent on the services that we all want and not on bureaucracy and red tape. It is logical for authorities to do that. Instead of using childish language such as “takeover”, Labour Members should realise that this is about working in partnership and with efficiency for the benefit of local people.

It is important to understand that there has been a landmark change for local government this year. After years of doffing their caps to Whitehall, all councils now have the ability to control their own destiny. In the midst of the clamour of deficit denial and doom-mongering from some people, that message is in danger of not being heard. The size of the deficit and the debt must be dealt with, and local government is one of the biggest players in the public sector.

I want to make it clear to hon. Members that the current settlement and the one that we will soon propose for 2014-15 are fair to all—the north and the south—as the Library outlined. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne Central referred to what will happen next year, and I hope that she appreciates that we are only a couple of weeks from next year’s assessment, so she will not have to wait long for the details.

[Chi Onwurah]

I urge the Minister to focus on the key point of this debate, which is that money is being held back from local authorities and redistributed. He said that local authorities can take their destiny into their own hands and drive forward, but that necessitates imposing no such holdbacks in future. Will he confirm that?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Lady’s point highlights where we are. The current structure for local government is that councils will benefit and see their income rise as a reward for the good work that they do for their communities. I will touch on that directly.

Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle all have higher spending power per dwelling than the national average. When talking about what local areas have, it is important to put that in the context of the starting point. The average reduction in spending power is only 1.3% this year and we are protecting individual council tax payers by offering a council tax freeze. We are protecting councils through the rates retention scheme’s safety net, which generates a minimum level for their baseline funding, which Newcastle will benefit from, although it was unable to do so previously.

The settlement is fair because even for councils like mine, which now benefits from the efficiency support grant, we have provided protection for those who were hit worst by the policy decisions of the previous Government, and that brings me to the important point of how the system now works in a council’s favour. Following the Localism Act 2011 and financial reforms to the settlement, 70% of an authority’s income is raised locally and, most importantly, the growth incentive ensures that local government will keep up to 50% of all the growth that it generates. Councils have more power than ever before, but they must understand the implications. They must act in their residents’ best interests and work hard on their behalf. Redesigning council tax benefit to cut fraud, which costs around £2 billion, promoting local enterprise and getting people back into work, or redesigning services to make them more efficient and sustainable, especially as there are still savings to be had across the sector, all make a difference.

Some cutting-edge councils understand that and lead by example in developing good practice for the rest of the country to follow. Getting the ball rolling can be the hardest part of radically overhauling local services. The Government established the transformation challenge award to help councils, particularly small ones, to demonstrate innovation, to protect services and to reduce costs to the taxpayer. Just a few months ago, I was pleased to announce 18 successful schemes, including projects to accelerate the integration of local health and care services, which hon. Members have outlined this afternoon, and to create shared finance and human resources for emergency services.

The £3.8 billion that is coming across from the health service to be part of the local government family to provide adult social care is an indication of the work that follows on from the community budget pilots. That transformation touches on the point that the hon. Member for Corby made and is an important way to bring the public sector together and to drive out duplication and provide better services. We know from the community budget pilots that up to £20 billion of savings can be found across the public sector if we can get the work done correctly throughout the country. More importantly, they have shown better services for residents and more effective service delivery.

[Debbie Abrahams]

Will the Minister undertake on behalf of his Department to publish information about the impact of the reductions on funding to local authorities and on services?

[Brandon Lewis]

The whole point of the change in the structure of local government finance is that council finance is partly in councils’ control. That is why 40 authorities have had an increase in their income this year alone. Today, a Labour authority has predicted a £500,000 increase in its income over the next couple of years, thanks to the business rate retention scheme. Hon. Members should focus on their councils’ decisions on what services they provide locally. Some £3.8 billion is going to local councils to ensure that they can deal with adult social care in a joined-up way, without creating further bureaucracy.

Local government has shown great skill in moving forward. The Audit Commission and a recent survey noted that residents believe that services have improved. Our community and neighbourhood budgets show that we are finding ways to rewire the system to provide better services at much lower cost.

Turning to the future, I recognise that councils are facing pressures. That is why the spending review set out a package of measures to support them in 2015-16, including the £3.8 billion pool of funding for integrated health and social care, which will help to ensure that services in the care and support system can be protected and will enable authorities to invest in prevention and early intervention.

We will make available a new fund of £330 million to accelerate the transformation of local services with a £200 million extension of the troubled families programme to support another 400,000 families, £100 million to build on the transformation challenge award to improve public service delivery and a further £30 million to drive change in the fire and rescue service. All that together shows that there is a huge opportunity for councils to save money and to achieve better outcomes by working collaboratively and innovatively for their communities.

[Chi Onwurah]

The Minister avoided answering the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) about the impact of the funding changes on different councils in the north and south by re-emphasising the power that local authorities and councils have to direct their own funding. Will he specifically say whether he supports the principle of holding back funding, as has been described in several contributions this afternoon? He has listed some increases in some different funds. Are they coming from top-sliced funding or from new money, as we would understand it?

[Brandon Lewis]

I tell the hon. Lady again that what a local council does with its funding is a matter that she must put to her local authority. Councils must make the decisions about how they spend the money that they have. There is no point continuing to look at silo pots of money. The point of spending power is that it shows exactly what a local council has in total to spend on its local community. In Newcastle, the amount is one of the highest in the country. It is also why it is important that we offer support to people individually as well. We are pleased to be able to offer further support for council tax freezes in 2014-15 and 2015-16. We have been clear that if an authority wants to raise its council tax, it should do so with the assent of the public in a referendum locally. It needs to be able to explain to residents what it wants that money for and to convince residents of its case.

It is worth adding that in many cases, councils have more in reserves than they are losing through cutbacks. Liverpool, Manchester and Leeds all have reserves that are twice that of their spending power reductions. Indeed, this year, Newcastle has had substantial reserves. It is also important to note that local authorities will be spending about £4 billion extra this year across the country—well over the £100 billion of last year. It is also worth noting that local authorities have managed to increase reserves to a record level, going up by almost £3 billion to £19 billion. With that and the £2 billion in fraud and error, and with a further £2 billion in uncollected council tax, there is still a long way for local authorities to go before they can claim that they have done everything to drive out waste and bureaucracy.

We are in a new world for local government. The funding settlement used to be the endgame; now, it is just the starting point, with councils no longer tied to the settlement figures. They can get to earn their keep and retain £11 billion of business rates. That could deliver an extra £10 billion to our wider economy. It is worth noting that areas such as Manchester, Liverpool and Newcastle all saw business rates rise above the national average of 4.8% in recent years. However, thanks to the old begging bowl system, they missed out on the opportunity of making the most of that money—but no longer. From now on, it will be what councils make and not what they take that counts. If they bring in more businesses, more jobs and more homes, they will be rewarded. If they build those new homes through the new homes bonus, they will see a share of that money, which is worth £650 million this year and is growing. If they increase their business rates, they will retain some of the benefit of that increase.

Therefore, the message to councils is clear: if they are ambitious, become self-reliant and work hard on behalf of their local people, they will succeed and see the benefits. We want authorities to go further and faster, so that residents feel those benefits. We want to help and reward those who do the right thing and are innovative. Our funding approaches, as has been outlined independently, are fair for north and south, urban and rural, and rich and poor. I gently say to hon. Members who have outlined what they see as the funding draw from urban areas that even Labour Front Benchers have been arguing on the Floor of the House to move money away from urban areas into rural areas.

[Andy Sawford]

Will the Minister say which Labour Front Benchers have been making that argument?

[Brandon Lewis]

The hon. Gentleman’s colleague, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Roberta Blackman-Woods), made that point in a petition in the House just a couple of weeks ago, in pushing to have that gap between urban and rural moved more towards rural areas.

[Andy Sawford]

I inform the Minister that I also put a petition from local residents in the Speaker’s petition bag, as did many hon. Members of all parties in representing their constituents. However, the Labour Front-Bench team’s position was clearly set out, as the Minister is very well aware, only a few weeks ago in the debate relating to SPARSE—the Sparsity Partnership for Authorities delivering Rural Services. We were clear that we see the current formula as fundamentally unfair.

[Brandon Lewis]

I gently say to the hon. Gentleman that the hon. Member for City of Durham was in the Chamber on the night giving in her petition, in which the case that was being made was not about having more money, but about ensuring a different distribution between rural and urban areas, but I shall let him take that up with her, rather than me. She was the one who was making the case to move the money to rural away from urban, so I suspect that the Labour party has some work to do with its own Members.

We now ensure that the system rewards innovation and imagination, as we saw this year with the transformation fund. We have given councils more power than they have had before, and we are developing a new ethos for local government, where they are generating more income through the work that they do locally, rather than holding out a begging bowl to central Government. If councils are willing to look to the future, they have a once-in-a-generation chance to step out from Whitehall’s shadow and to use the income from local growth to support, develop and improve the services that they give their residents.

Government Contracts

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We now move on to our next debate. Our participants are here, so anyone wanting a second go on the previous debate will not get it. It is an important debate on managing Government contracts—I shall speak slowly so that the Minister has a chance to get to his position. It is a delight to call Meg Hillier.

15:54

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

As ever, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. Before I start, I need to declare an interest: my husband is a non-executive director of a social enterprise that runs some Government contracts. However, the focus of my concern is small and medium-sized enterprises, and I am delighted to have secured this debate on their behalf.

My interest in the issue stems from my work as a member of the Public Accounts Committee and from my many conversations with businesses in my constituency and elsewhere. The Minister will be aware of the Committee’s work and particularly our hearings on 20 and 25 November. I do not intend to cover the same ground in this debate, as he will have the pleasure of reading the Committee’s report shortly.

I want to focus mostly on how Government contracts work for small and medium-sized businesses. As our hearings demonstrated, there are a few large companies that have a grip on the delivery of public sector contracts. Whether they run prisons, maintenance, security or hospital services, relatively few prime contractors are in the market for business that both recent Governments have embraced, worth billions of pounds a year. Government talk the talk about supporting small businesses, but unless they are willing to lead from the front, the promises, frankly, ring hollow.

As the MP for Shoreditch—often called “tech city”—I do not need to be convinced that small and medium-sized enterprises are the engine room of UK plc’s future growth. It is not only me who is saying that; the Chancellor of the Exchequer declared that tech city

“will be the technology centre of Europe”.

There is no shortage of private investors either who are prepared to bet their money on these businesses.

However, those innovative businesses face different hurdles when it comes to Government contracts. The hurdles set by civil servants, most of whom, as I am sure the Minister will acknowledge, have never run a business, big or small—that is not intended as a criticism; it is just a fact—are so cumbersome that most small businesses cannot comply with them. The automatic setting in Government is to be as risk averse as possible, and that sets in train in contracting a vicious and uncompetitive circle that is well-nigh impossible for new businesses to break into. Of course, I share a desire, as I am sure the Government do, to make sure that the taxpayer is not taking on undue risk, but balance is needed.

Some of the innovative tech businesses in Shoreditch, such as the recent arrival, Affinitext, which is offering transformational software for smart document reading, can offer solutions that will save the taxpayer money. Many work in ways that the Government could learn from, but businesses that do not meet the Government’s pre-determined model of contracting are shut out.

There are spin-off benefits, too, for the wider economy that the Government should be aware of. Research shows that every £1 of business with an SME generates 63p to the local economy, whereas with large businesses—those employing more than 250 people—only 40p is generated in the local economy. Both are worth aiming for, but for a Government who say they support business, the question is whether they only support big business.

We need to see a step change in how Government work with smaller businesses. Specifically, we need shorter procurement processes—again, that is the risk aversion coming in to play—and a serious step change in how contracts are drawn up. When a contract includes 150 key performance indicators, as we heard at the PAC the other week, it suggests a serious lack of critical focus. There also needs to be a sensible approach to how Government Departments and businesses can meet outside formal contract negotiations and learn what each has to offer. I think the Minister would have some very exciting meetings in Shoreditch if he were able to visit.

I will highlight one example. Tribesports, which is a Shoreditch-based business—based in the Cremer business centre, just off Kingsland road—provides a social platform for sports enthusiasts. Priya Shah, who is responsible for business development, told me that trying to get through to health providers to suggest alternatives to paper leaflets as a way of spreading health messages, in a world of smart phones, was challenging. She said that it was

“impossible to get through to the right contact at the NHS. This”—

she was referring to providing health advice—

“requires a modern approach, with everyone spending more and more time on computers and phones, not reading leaflets.”

She is only one example.

Overall, contract management has become unnecessarily complicated. The advent of G-Cloud is a help—I was pleased to welcome an official from G-Cloud to Shoreditch not that long ago—although local businesses in Shoreditch tell me that it is still cumbersome. For many—this is about the language sometimes spoken between Government and businesses—the very word “Government” in front of a contract suggests a minefield that is hard to navigate compared with other sectors, and indeed, other countries with which they do business. That is the challenge. Sometimes, it is just a different language that is being spoken, but the Cabinet Office and the Minister are now supposed to be capturing and sharing knowledge and best practice within projects, across projects in a Department and across Departments.

The Minister has a difficult task. Whitehall is strewn with the failed legacies of Cabinet Office Ministers who have promised various versions of joined-up government or Prime Minister enforcer roles—call them what you will—but who have not been there long enough to see off the interests of the large Whitehall spending Departments. I am pleased that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been in post for a long time. That is an improvement. However, we know that, in Whitehall and Cabinet, the bigger the budget of the Department, the more clout the Department has. Initiatives such as the commissioning academy and the Major Projects Authority are welcome, but improving contract management and procurement skills just is not enough. Too often we hear of hurdles set by risk-averse civil servants. What about better use of technological solutions to monitor compliance?

Just one example of how the Government could learn from the private sector—another one—is suggested by Affinitext, which I have mentioned. Graham Thomson, managing director of Affinitext, says:

“Electronic, tablet friendly versions of contracts should incorporate an agreed rights and obligations matrix, so as to ensure that each party performs their obligations in accordance with the contract, using ‘Just-in-Time’ task reminders.”

That is pretty simple stuff in their world, but Whitehall does not yet seem ready to embrace it.

The Public Accounts Committee got a thumbs-up from the big private sector companies when we called for more transparency, which is another issue for some of these smaller companies. In Shoreditch, that is the way business is done. It seems that in many respects Whitehall and Ministers are nervous about losing control of “the message” by encouraging that. I speak as a former Minister with some knowledge of the pressure on Ministers. However, as Graham Thomson says,

“‘Commercial sensitivity’ issues, if raised in that regard, are definitely more Civil Servant driven than private sector driven. In any event, they are manageable.”

All the businesses that we have spoken to on the PAC and that I have spoken to in Shoreditch are far less concerned about commercial sensitivity than Government are.

I have some specific questions for the Minister. The first is about the length of procurement processes. Why are Government procurement processes so long compared with those of other countries? One supplier—I would happily talk to the Minister privately about this individual, although I do not think that it is appropriate to name them in this debate—tells me that in the US, Canada, Sweden and New Zealand, procurement of the same product has typically taken seven to 12 weeks compared with two and a half years for a Ministry of Justice contract that is still not concluded. Many other people have highlighted long, drawn-out or delayed contracts as a major risk.

What is being done to improve how contracts are drawn up? Many small businesses, including Fixflo, which has an online platform for housing maintenance, and another company, which won a Government health contract, have highlighted the complexity of contracts and the frequent changes by commissioners as off-putting.

Why are Government still demanding that intellectual property be handed over to Government? Does the Cabinet Office have any guidance for Departments about that? Has it seriously addressed the issue? It can be a deal-breaker for emerging tech businesses, whose capital is often their IP.

What are the Government doing to break down Government contracts into smaller contracts? I know that there are some attempts to do that, but as one company said,

“Instead of tending towards single suppliers of IT services, an integrated solution which incorporates smaller companies would help to support the IT sector and innovation. Encouragement should be achieved through a credit in the tender scoring process.”

I hope that the Minister will consider that suggestion.

[Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She touches on a number of issues. The one that I will ask her to comment on is not contract management, but contract monitoring. Does she believe that frequent contract monitoring is necessary to prove, first and foremost, best value for the Government?

[Meg Hillier]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Contract monitoring is often more of a box-ticking exercise. When there are 150 key performance indicators, it is difficult to know whether someone is watching the overall performance of the contract, and sometimes the contracts are drawn up in such a complicated way that it is very difficult to shift meaningfully. In the building world, for example, there are attempts by housing associations and contractors to partner, so that they work together to acknowledge where there might need to be a change for more improvement. I hope that the Minister would acknowledge that there needs to be great improvement. The Major Projects Authority is doing some good work in that area, but it deals with the major projects. Many Government contracts are much smaller than that, which is one of the big challenges. Building a warship is one thing; letting a small IT contract is another.

Crucially, all of this—what my hon. Friend talked about and what I have talked about—cannot just be left to Departments. We know that procurement managers come in various forms. Some are not very expert. I remember as a Minister saying to one official who had led two projects that came in ahead of time and under budget and that delivered very successfully, “What’s your next one?” The reply was, “Well, I have to move in order to get my next promotion.” I know that there have been some attempts to put project managers in place in Departments, but I would be interested to hear whether the Minister has an update on that.

Procurement managers can often prefer the simplicity of a single supplier, as it can be more complicated to manage several contracts. The Cabinet Office recently—yesterday, I think—advertised its event management contract, welcoming multiple small bidders. I hope that that will be better than other Government bids and that the Cabinet Office will live up to its promise. I am quoting from the Minister’s own website, which says:

“We are committed to ensuring that small organisations and businesses can compete fairly with bigger companies for our contracts.”

I see him nodding. I hope that businesses in Shoreditch take that seriously and that he delivers.

When contracts are broken up, smaller IT companies are often required to partner with bigger players to meet the risk threshold. That can be a big issue for a supplier’s IP and it adds complexity. For businesses in Shoreditch and particularly the tech businesses, it is a deal-breaker.

I want to raise one specific issue in relation to local government procurement; I am not sure how this applies to national Government. Now that councils often join forces to procure for longer contracts—perhaps across more than one local authority area—those now count as large contracts, and it is often the case that small businesses do not meet the requirement that the value of the contract be not more than 25% of their annual income. That is an example of a hidden barrier that could be avoided if the threshold were for the annual value of the contract, rather than the whole contract over the longer period. I am not sure whether the Cabinet Office is aware of that. I hope that the Minister is. Does it apply to central Government too, and can the Cabinet Office do anything to tackle it?

It is fair to say that there has been some progress by both recent Governments in paying contractors much faster, but late payment can be a big issue for smaller companies if they are a subcontractor down the line. Has the Minister any plans to make it mandatory for large contractors to pay their subcontractors within 30 days of receipt of payment from Government? If the Government are paying on time, there should be no excuse for that payment not being sent down the line to the smaller contractors on time as well. I hope that the Minister can answer that point.

During the Olympics, there were some very interesting issues going on with contracts from the public sector. There were scams whereby bidders included local businesses in a bid and then stood them down once they had won. I do not know whether the Government are aware of that and what they are planning to do to ensure that it does not happen in future. It had a big impact on local supply chains and, crucially, on small and medium-sized businesses’ confidence. There is such cynicism out there. If the Minister were able to come to Shoreditch, he would hear this. There is a desire to take these contracts on. People realise the prize that they bring, but there is cynicism about whether they will ever have the chance to compete on a level playing field.

That happened during the Olympics. We picked up on it too late, because clearly there was a very tight deadline for delivery of the Olympics, but I believe that contracts need to be better audited after they are awarded. We must ensure that promises of local employment and contracting with certain subcontractors and promises on pay rates, training provision and so on are delivered on. Only a post-audit will deliver that.

I have touched on financial hurdles, but there are others that I have heard about repeatedly from solvent and successful businesses. When smaller businesses join forces to bid for a contract—often in a creative partnership and sometimes delivering very good solutions or potentially doing so—they require three years of audited accounts, which they cannot provide because they have never worked together before. Even when they are able to get around that by providing projected accounts, they need to spend up to £6,000 on accountancy fees to do that. It is right that due diligence takes place, but could that hurdle be introduced later in the bidding, when a consortium knows that it is in the running? The up-front costs can easily put off SMEs, whereas big companies can afford them much more easily.

One company, which had won a health contract, told me:

“Financial guarantees were required which were impossible for SMEs to reach. For one application we were required to put up a bond of £10m which removed small companies immediately from competition, as for a company with a £3m market cap nobody will be willing to put up the risk for such a bond. This means that small companies are effectively denied the chance of competing in the bid, and stops them…making the jump from small to medium sized companies.”

[Mr McKenzie]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way once more and for making very powerful points on the procurement aspect. Has she, like me, experienced the reluctance of small and medium-sized businesses in relation to eProcurement—their fear of using that tool to submit tenders online?

[Meg Hillier]

Earlier, I mentioned G-Cloud. That is an important innovation, but there needs to be greater confidence building and greater awareness.

I am not sure whether the Minister has come across this, but there were times when I was a Minister when I would ask whether anyone had spoken to someone and I would gather that there had been a big consultation, but later on, when I met some of the people who had been at that, whether from the business sector or elsewhere—I dealt with procurement in the Home Office for three years—I discovered that being in a meeting was all that happened. Someone sat in a meeting; they did not actually engage. I think there needs to be really good, positive engagement with businesses, which are keen and willing and have a lot to offer.

I extend an invitation to the Minister or his senior officials to come to meet Shoreditch businesses and hear from them directly about the barriers that they face. If he does so, he will also learn about a number of innovative, user-friendly and cost-effective ways for the Government to deliver smarter services. I hope that he will take that opportunity and spend a thrilling morning meeting some of the best brains in the country.

We know that civil servants’ careers are not enhanced by taking risks, so the safe, risk-averse approach is well embedded in Whitehall. The Cabinet Office is charged with changing that landscape and opening up Government to the small business sector. It is certainly talking the talk, but whether the large-spending Departments will deliver is another matter. I look forward very much to the Minister’s response. Shoreditch is listening, and I will be holding him to his words and his Government’s promise of more business for the small business.

16:10

[The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Mr Nick Hurd)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Streeter—I think for the first time—and to respond to an important debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) on securing the debate, and on presenting it in such a clear and compelling way, rooted in her experience as a former Minister responsible for procurement in the Home Office and a member of the Public Accounts Committee. I am reassured by her telling me that my reading of the upcoming report will be a pleasure. That will be a first, and I await it with bated breath.

The issue that the hon. Lady has raised is enormously important, and I want to persuade her that the Government, and the Cabinet Office in particular, are absolutely committed to trying to open up more space for small and medium-sized enterprises to come in and offer the value and the innovation that she has talked about. I do not want to appear at all complacent, because although we think we have made some good progress, we know that we are nowhere near where we want to be, considering the scale of the opportunity.

The matter is extremely important, not least given the state of the public finances and the situation that we inherited. It is important to recognise where we started. As I think the hon. Lady recognised, what we might call the outsourced public service market was entirely dominated by large private sector organisations, and small companies had little room to come in and improve the situation. I recognise a lot of her analysis about how off-putting and complex the whole concept of bidding for Government contracts is for those running a small business, which I have done myself. It is hard enough work as it is without having to wander through a swamp of bureaucracy and difficulties.

We inherited that situation, which was compounded by the fact that Government did not know how much they spent with major suppliers. I am glad that the hon. Lady referred to the fact that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General has been in post since the start of the process, because that has made a great deal of difference. We are trying to drive a culture change across the system, and he has been extraordinarily persistent in trying to achieve that. The results of the work of the Efficiency and Reform Group, which we created, have been dramatic. We saved the taxpayer £10 billion last year alone compared with 2010, of which £3.8 billion came from commercial areas and £800 million from better engaging with strategic suppliers. There was no rocket science involved; the Government simply woke up to the fact that we sit on top of a powerful buying machine, which makes it possible to secure much better terms. We can leverage our scale to get better value and resolve performance disputes more quickly.

[Mr McKenzie]

The Minister speaks of the culture change that he is trying to establish. Will he comment on the McClelland report and how it has been embraced by other parts of the country?

[Mr Hurd]

We are trying to embrace a culture change. There was a culture of buying big and buying badly in a very risk-averse way, and we are trying to improve that—to touch on a point alluded to by the hon. Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch—not least by instilling much greater commercial capability and confidence in the system. A saving of £10 billion in one year is an important improvement, which is equivalent to about £600 per UK household. That is real money, which has real-world impact. Within that, we have been working hard to improve the procurement processes that the hon. Lady quite rightly criticised. We need to make it easier and cheaper for firms, particularly smaller ones, to bid for work.

In the context of my main responsibilities as Minister for Civil Society, I might add that we are particularly keen that charities and social enterprises feel they have more space and a level playing field on which to compete. The hon. Lady mentioned the length of procurement times, and we have cut the length of the average procurement by 40%, which makes the UK faster, we think, than any of our European neighbours. I am always delighted to hear about specific cases where the procurement process has been too long and too clunky, but we have taken a big step in the right direction.

Part of the process is improving our commercial capability and confidence at the heart of the civil service, so 1,800 officials have already been trained in procurement and 150 leaders have been through the Major Projects Leadership Academy in Oxford. We need to go much further, as I have said, and get smarter at managing performance. For the first time, the Government have allowed past performance to be taken into account when bids for new work are evaluated. It is astonishing that that has not happened before. Suppliers can now be rated high risk when there are material performance concerns, and we have introduced a new approach for managing gross misconduct. Our long-term goal remains the creation of a vibrant, competitive marketplace. Where bad practice is uncovered, we will crack down on it robustly. We intend to continue to build on the progress of the past three years, focusing on commercial capability and promoting transparency.

I turn to the meat of the hon. Lady’s contribution on behalf of businesses in her constituency. We are absolutely determined to wrestle with some of the challenges, problems and barriers to which she alluded, to make it easier for small businesses to come in, compete and give those spending taxpayers’ money more choice and more access to the innovation that we desperately need. She talked about procurement time, and, as I have said, we have reduced the average turnaround time from advert to contract award by more than 40% to 100 working days. That is better than France and better than Germany. Within that, small procurements can be much quicker, and we are keen to continue to improve. Some progress has, therefore, been made in that area.

The hon. Lady talked about contract complexity, which I definitely recognise as a problem; the contract with some 150 key performance indicators that she mentioned is simply extraordinary. Our next step to try to simplify the system and introduce more consistency is to release a model contract for services, which sets out best-practice contracting approaches and includes a streamlined performance management regime.

The hon. Lady asked about intellectual property, which is of particular interest to technology companies in her constituency, and whether the Government still demanded that intellectual property be handed over to them. Our approach is to make that decision on a case-by-case basis. In the new model service contract, ownership of previously existing intellectual property rights will stay with the author. If the Government pay for new IPR to be created, however, in some circumstances it will be appropriate to retain ownership.

[Meg Hillier]

I am heartened by what the Minister has said. It would be helpful if people knew the position at the beginning of the process, because such hurdles are often added during the bid, which sends a very negative message around the small business community.

[Mr Hurd]

I take that point on board, and I give the hon. Lady an undertaking to feed it into the system as we look at the model contract and the best-practice contracting approaches. She spoke passionately about the need to open up more opportunities for SMEs, and I assure her that we are committed to doing so. She challenged me to get beyond mere words, and those are not just words; we can now talk about numbers. Since 2010, overall spend from Government with SMEs has increased by £1.5 billion, which is serious money. We are not concerned simply about the relentless pursuit of value for money for the taxpayer. Given the recent economic circumstances and the search for growth, it is in the interests of the taxpayer and the country that we support growth where it can be generated. As we all know, SMEs are the engine of growth in the economy, so the agenda is extremely important. As she knows, the Government set out an aspiration that 25% of Government spending should go to SMEs. Although the data are not perfect—I would not claim they were—we think about 19% of Government spending is directly and indirectly with SMEs. That is progress.

The hon. Lady talked about IT in particular. I know she has a specific constituency interest there. We are keen to break down Government contracts in IT into smaller sizes, which is essential if we are to capture the value that the SME community can bring. The massive differences in prices between the old suppliers producing old technology the old way and what can be done now through new technology are absolutely extraordinary. We are determined to break such contracts open. New presumptions are set against information and communications technology contracts worth more than £100 million and we have published an ICT strategy that explicitly supports smaller, more disaggregated approaches. We have also launched CloudStore. Some 58% of the first £54.5 million spent on CloudStore went to SMEs, which benefited from 66% of sales by number. Interestingly, the Foreign Office is a good example of success; rather than have a single ICT provider, it has split a single contract into three. G-Cloud has around 1,000 SMEs on it, which have won 66% of contract awards by number. We have also just announced the digital services framework, where SMEs constitute 84% of suppliers. I hope I can assure her that, in that space, there are not just words, but genuine achievements to point to in creating the frameworks and space for SMEs to come in and supply us with innovation and the potential to add huge amounts of value to the Government ICT spend.

The hon. Lady mentioned bad practice and sham practices in local government. The reach of central Government and the Cabinet Office in limiting local government has limits. We have, however, consulted on Lord Young’s recommendations on how we can extend some of what we have learnt in central Government and make it available for local authorities, so they can improve their procurement practice and, in particular, make it easier for SMEs to participate. We shall relentlessly bear down on the need for pre-qualification questionnaires below a certain threshold of contract. Contracts Finder has been enormously popular. It contains all opportunities worth more than £10,000. More that 19,000 contracts have been published online and 31% of contract awards have gone to SMEs. For the first time, we have published a contracts pipeline, with £169 billion-worth of contract opportunities.

We have set up a mystery shopper scheme to address bad practice and the need to blow a whistle on bad processes or notify us when things are not being done in the right way. The scheme allows suppliers to report poor procurement practice across the public sector. So far, more than 550 cases have been received, of which more than 100 have been successfully resolved in local government.

Payment terms are enormously important, because cash flow is everything when running a small business. The hon. Lady rightly asked about payment terms and whether the Cabinet Office plans to make it mandatory for large contractors to pay their subcontractors within 30 days of receipt for payment. Yes, is the answer. The Government pay all undisputed invoices within five days. We have mandated prime contractors to pay subcontractors within 30 days, through the inclusion of a contract condition in the contracts we write. The new model contract I mentioned will reinforce that, because it is enormously important. We recently consulted on Lord Young’s recommendation that those contract conditions be adopted across the whole of the public sector. There is a tremendous amount of ambition.

The hon. Lady talked about the need for post-contract audits and the need to improve the way we monitor performance. I and the Government acknowledge that. We want to do more post-contract audit, to focus on how the contract is performing, supported by much greater focus on building commercial capability and contract management in Whitehall. Too much of the capability, resource, process and thinking has been directed at the procurement process, and not at the broader commissioning process and the need to monitor and work with the supply chain after the contract is awarded, to ensure that what we bought is being delivered in the right ways.

The hon. Lady mentioned some barriers that her constituents and others face. She said that, where businesses join forces to bid for a contract, they are required to have three years of audited accounts, which they cannot provide. We are keen to remove as many barriers as possible, so that situation is suboptimal. That is why the Cabinet Office advises procurers not to request three years of audited accounts. We would be keen to review specific cases where such behaviour has occurred. The mystery shopper service is an opportunity for people, and small businesses in particular, to tell us the reality on the ground.

With that broad sweep, I hope that I have convinced the hon. Lady that our commitment to improve goes beyond words. She knows from her time in government and from the evidence she received on the Committee that such work is difficult. It is gritty. We are changing culture. We have to bring in new expertise and capability. We have to challenge the system that was frankly not very efficient at managing and spending public money. For reasons she will recognise, we are determined to secure much better value for the taxpayer, and that includes making it easier for SMEs in her constituency and others to come in and help us with the innovation, value for money and fresh approaches we desperately need.

[Meg Hillier]

I extended an invitation to the Minister, or his officials, to come to Shoreditch. I would be happy to host them on a useful working visit, if he is interested.

[Mr Hurd]

That is a delightful invitation. I can tell the hon. Lady on behalf of the Cabinet Office that we would be happy to accept.

Roaccutane

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Westminster Hall

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

We are ready to move on to our next debate. The protagonist has entered the Chamber. There is a lot of interest in this extremely serious health matter. As the Minister takes his place, I am delighted to welcome the hon. Member for North Devon.

16:24

[Sir Nick Harvey (North Devon) (LD)]

It is good, Mr Streeter, to have the opportunity to debate this topic this afternoon. I have been aware of the issue for a long time. Roaccutane raises a lot of understandable passion among those who are directly affected. It is a form of the drug isotretinoin, used to treat severe acne and manufactured by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Roche. It was licensed for use in the UK 30 years ago, in 1983. Since then, in the UK alone, it has been implicated in reports of 878 psychiatric disorders, including 44 suspected suicides.

Next month, in January, it will be 10 years since my constituents’ son, Jon Medland, tragically took his own life while studying for a medical degree in Manchester. Having heard of its “miraculous” effects, Jon began taking Roaccutane to clear a relatively mild case of acne. Just three and a half weeks later, he died, having transformed from a successful, outgoing, happy young man to a withdrawn and depressed individual. Jon had never suffered from depression. Everything in his case points to an adverse reaction to the medicine. As the coroner said:

“For a drug to affect a person of a very solid life foundation...deserves further investigation”.

Despite a number of similar cases and mounting scientific evidence, we seem to have lost sight of the precautionary principle when it comes to Roaccutane. It is impossible for my constituents—Jon’s parents, Pamela and Jonathan, who are here today—and the other families affected, to achieve genuine closure while young lives are still at risk and reports continue to come in.

The purpose of today’s debate is to call for a thorough re-examination of the evidence and an investigation into the use of Roaccutane, for stricter guidelines to medical professionals on prescribing the drug and for the Department of Health and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency to show greater will in warning of the risks.

[Richard Drax (South Dorset) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) on securing this debate on a subject that has affected one of my constituents, Mr Derek Jones. Forgive me if I am jumping the gun by raising this issue. My constituent, Mr Jesse Jones, committed suicide, and someone who wrote to Mr Derek Jones after reading an article in The Mail on Sunday related another case. In both cases, the deceased were referred for psychiatric treatment after stopping the drug, but because suicide occurred after they stopped taking the drug, no warning was given to the right officials.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. The point when people are at the greatest risk can be as long as six months after taking the drug. In the case of John Medland, the impact was swift and profound, but in other cases, it has occurred some time later.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Is it possible, therefore, that there is a link? If the drug is a toxic chemotherapy agent, it may well have a permanent effect on the brain. Consequently, after the person stops taking the drug, it can affect their personality. Could that be the reason?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend tempts me beyond my limited medical expertise, but the logic of what he is describing sounds convincing. The other point to be made about the delay in some cases is that the numbers on the incidence of suicide and psychotic disorder that I quoted a few minutes ago are highly likely to be gross underestimates. For example, just this morning, I had a telephone call from someone in Cornwall who had heard a morning bulletin on his local BBC radio station referring to this debate. He said that for the first time, the penny dropped with him. He had attempted suicide and been forced out of the Royal Navy, but he had never before put the two things together. With the benefit of many years’ hindsight, he realised that it happened just months after he had used Roaccutane to deal with acne. I therefore think that it is fair to say that we are looking at numbers far greater than we first thought.

[Caroline Nokes (Romsey and Southampton North) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on this important debate. Given that he has said that the number of people affected may have been grossly underestimated, does he agree that what is desperately needed is robust scientific investigation and analysis of the numbers and possible causes, especially as many of the studies are not very up to date?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I entirely agree that a great deal more research is needed. My point in raising the matter with Government through my hon. Friend the Minister is that I cannot see who other than a public authority could initiate or, indeed, fund such research. It is certainly not in the manufacturer’s interest; Roche clings to the notion that millions of people have been treated with the drug without side effects or mishap. That may be perfectly true, but it does not alter the fact that, for those who have suffered a serious side effect, the impact has been devastating. I ask again: where is the precautionary principle?

[Mike Thornton (Eastleigh) (LD)]

What is Roche’s answer to the fact that the drug is more or less banned in the United States—one must sign a separate declaration—and that it is banned in other countries? If the drug is totally safe, why do other countries not consider it so?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

What has happened in the United States is interesting. As we know, the United States has a much more litigious culture than we do in the UK, and the manufacturer there has paid out to a patient on quite a large scale. That patient suffered different side effects, but the manufacturer nevertheless had to pay out. That, combined with the fact that generic versions of the drug are now available on the US market, has caused the manufacturer to withdraw altogether from the US market.

While we are discussing the attitude of Roche, it is worth noting that the information in the drug’s packaging includes explicit warnings about the possible psychological side effects, including incidences of suicide. If Roche acknowledges that to the extent of being willing to put it on the information, it seems to be recognising that for all the millions who may have used it successfully, a cohort of the population has nevertheless suffered as a result of using the drug.

The logical continuum of that is the ultimate withdrawal of the drug altogether. Rationally, I do not think that we can ask the Government to move straight to that in one go, much as I would like them to. Were they to attempt to go down that path, in no time at all they would find themselves locked in some sort of litigation with Roche, which would certainly not stand by and watch a major market like the UK ban its product. The court would expect the Government to demonstrate overwhelming scientific evidence, which I do not believe is available as yet. That is why, as a first step, I am calling for such scientific research to take place.

[Caroline Nokes]

On my hon. Friend’s point about calling for the drug to be withdrawn, does he agree with the dermatologist in my constituency who sent me an e-mail today saying that it would be a sad day for many thousands of acne sufferers if the drug were withdrawn completely? We desperately need this debate and the future to hinge on accurate scientific information.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I am not entirely sure that I agree. Other treatments for acne are available. I readily acknowledge that they may not be as effective, but they include antibiotics and a variety of other treatments. Unless and until we have some way to predict which people are most likely to suffer catastrophic side effects, I would prefer on the precautionary principle that no one at all took the drug. If we could predict with some certainty—whether by means of genetics or whatever—who might be predisposed to such side effects, then and only then might it be safe to argue that anyone without such a predisposition could safely use the drug, but we are nowhere near that yet. I suffered from acne and was prescribed antibiotics for 11 years or so to deal with it. It is a miserable business—no one would make any bones about that—but there are other treatments, and the catastrophic consequences for some people of using the drug suggest that we would be better off without it.

[Richard Drax]

On that point, Robyn Cole, who is not my constituent, wrote a moving letter to Mr Jones saying that the best cure that she had for acne was sunshine, and if only she had been told that initially. On the dysfunctions caused by the drugs, Mr Jones wrote in an e-mail to me:

“Sexual dysfunction is not included in the patient information notes; Roche said that they were not aware of this side effect. But as one sufferer told me, if they put ‘sexual dysfunction’ in the leaflet, no one would take it.”

His son was severely affected, and Robyn Cole also tells me that she is still physically affected some years on, having given up the drug.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I am sure that he is absolutely right in his belief that if it were mentioned in the warning notes, the use of the drug would undoubtedly be greatly reduced, as we would want in the interim.

Let us look at the available scientific and anecdotal evidence that establishes a link between the drug and the effects that I have described. Roaccutane is a vitamin A-related compound that has long been known to cause psychiatric side effects. Reports of users experiencing depression have continually surfaced, so much so that in the USA the Food and Drug Administration forced Roche to produce safety warnings about Roaccutane as long ago as 1998. The following year, an Irish study found that users of the drug were 900 times more likely to suffer from depressive symptoms than patients being treated for acne with antibiotics.

Although many studies since that time have provided limited evidence, they have often been too small to be viewed as conclusive. However, I want to mention two that stand out. First, in 2005, Dr Doug Bremner from Atlanta university published a study using brain imaging before and after four months of treatment with Roaccutane. The images clearly showed an impact on brain function, associating the drug with a decrease in function of the frontal lobe—a part of the brain that regulates emotion. Secondly, Dr Sarah Bailey from Bath university undertook studies on young adult mice and rats. When the animals were put through a “forced swim” test, where they were placed in water, those on Roaccutane spent longer being immobile, without attempting to escape, than those on antibiotics—a change in behaviour consistent with depression-related behaviour in the animals. Of course, humans and mice are very different and therefore much more research is necessary. However, at the very least Dr Bailey’s findings should be seen as a caution to doctors prescribing the drug.

These studies simply are not enough. It is evident that not everyone who takes Roaccutane develops depression, but there is clearly a vulnerable population of patients who do. Investigations just have not gone far enough to find out why that group is vulnerable, but such research is vital. Surely, before we lose more young lives to the psychological impact of the drug, there is a clear case for further study on a larger scale.

Roche consistently says that it does not know the mechanism by which the drug actually works. Therefore, one might conclude that it is none the wiser about, or perhaps is not interested in, how these side effects work. However, one cannot ignore the fact that isotretinoin—I cannot pronounce it properly—is the only drug not designed to affect mental state that features in the USA’s top 10 list of drugs associated with depression. In response to the idea of a link between Roaccutane and depression, many people have suggested that the victims were already depressed because of their acne. While acne may indeed reduce self-esteem—many acne sufferers will know what I mean by that—it is an exaggeration to generally describe people who suffer from acne as being in the grip of depression.

[Mike Thornton]

That description just sounds ridiculous. Surely, if this drug is effective at curing acne, if someone took it and their acne was cured, they would not be depressed by having acne because their acne would have gone. There is no way acne could be described as being the cause of the depression.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

My hon. Friend undoubtedly raises a logical loop, but there is the question of time scales, because even a very brief usage of the drug could have—as other hon. Members have suggested—quite a lasting impact. I simply do not accept that the horribly sudden onset of mood swings, paranoia and episodes of psychosis can be remotely compared with any feelings of lowered self-esteem that might be experienced by people because they suffer from acne.

Jon Medland, my constituent, had no history of depression. Similarly, the heartbreaking suicide note of James Sillcock, who died last year, told how he had “loved” his life, but it also said that Roaccutane had “changed his world completely”. Worryingly, a European Medicines Agency report in 2003 confirmed that discontinuing the drug may not be enough to alleviate adverse reactions. That was certainly true in a number of suicide cases, where young people realised they were “not themselves” and stopped the course of treatment, only to find themselves falling deeper and deeper into depression afterwards, which comes back to the point I was making earlier.

At the very least, this issue highlights the need for a greater awareness at all levels of the patient’s interaction with doctors; direct approaches must be made to monitor the patient’s mental state. Ultimately, we may never know how many people have been affected. Roaccutane was linked to nine suicide cases between September 2010 and September 2011, but with suicide such a sensitive topic, we can imagine that some victims’ families have not come forward. Indeed, others may not have realised the full picture—that the container of insignificant-looking pills, kept in the bathroom, for a few spots could have led someone to take their life in a state of psychosis.

It is also worth mentioning again that Roche has pulled Roaccutane from the US market. The drug first came on to the market for chemotherapy and then was marketed to a wider audience when its acne-curing properties became apparent. A number of doctors have been keen to argue that it is being overprescribed as a first-line treatment; it is only supposed to be used after at least two other medicines have been tried. In 2009, Dr Tony Chu said:

“You know with Roaccutane you can get patients off your books in six months rather than go through the mill and try them on a variety of things until you hit on the thing that will actually work for them...it’s bad medicine.”

If doctors are doling out Roaccutane with little thought about the bigger picture, they are also ignoring the psychiatric risks.

[Caroline Nokes]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I have an eye on the clock, but I will give way briefly to my hon. Friend.

[Caroline Nokes]

Does my hon. Friend agree that Roaccutane can only be prescribed by a dermatologist, so the vast majority of patients would have gone through products prescribed by their GP before they ever get to a dermatologist and have the possibility of having Roaccutane prescribed?

[Mr Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, can we make sure the Minister has time to respond to the debate?

[Sir Nick Harvey]

Indeed, Mr Streeter.

What my hon. Friend says should be the case, but there seems to be some evidence from some medics that Roaccutaine is being used rather too quickly.

Young people full of potential and leading happy lives have been crippled by their use of this drug. On the face of it, perhaps the proportion of users of the drug who become victims does not appear to necessitate any action being taken, but if we look at the actual numbers involved and reflect that these cases are real, we must ask what has become of the precautionary principle.

In the absence of a consensus that a link exists, the burden of proof should fall upon the manufacturers and drug agencies to prove that there is no link, given the scale of the anecdotal evidence and the picture that is building up. We need a thorough, well-funded and sizeable study into the link between Roaccutane and the adverse effects that I have described. There is a clear need for stricter guidelines to medical professionals when prescribing the drug. The Department of Health should be clear about the risks and ensure that that advice permeates through every level of the NHS. Young lives are at stake and we can no longer afford inaction.

16:47

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Sir Nick Harvey) on securing this debate, and I say right at the start that I take the issue that he raises extremely seriously. I cannot begin to imagine what families have gone through after suffering such tragic losses, but if I was in their shoes, I would be campaigning and fighting, just as they are. I applaud the work that they have done in raising an issue that is obviously of intense concern to them.

Roaccutane is the brand name for the drug substance isotretinoin—my hon. Friend and I have both had some difficulty in pronouncing it. During my speech, I will refer to “Roaccutane”, although it is one brand name of that drug. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for providing this opportunity to update the House on issues relating to the prescribing of this medicine. I will aim to address the serious concerns that have been raised about the safety of Roaccutane, including the adverse psychiatric effects that my hon. Friend and other Members have expressed concern about.

Roaccutane is a derivative of vitamin A that is used for the treatment of severe and resistant acne; it is important to stress that. My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) made the point that it is used only in those cases.

Acne is a common condition that affects around 80% of adolescents at one time or another; it affects adults more rarely. Although acne is not life-threatening, it can have a significant impact on the lives of sufferers. In its severe forms, acne can be both extremely debilitating and distressing, causing real disfigurement and permanent scarring. It can also have a genuine impact on someone’s mental health. Many forms of acne will respond well to treatment with topical preparations or systemic antibiotics. For severe and resistant acne, however, effective treatment options are more limited.

Roaccutane has been authorised in the UK since 1983. It is available worldwide and has been used by millions of people. Roche, which first licensed Roaccutane, has withdrawn its product for commercial reasons in a number of countries, including the USA. However, other brands of the same drug—so-called generic drugs—are still available in those countries. It is a highly effective oral treatment for severe and resistant acne. However, all effective medicines are associated with a risk of side effects in some people. I appreciate that the side effect, or potential side effect, that we are talking about is of the most serious nature possible.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to predict which individuals will suffer a side effect from a medicine, but a medicine will be issued a licence only if it is considered that the benefits of treatment in the licensed indications outweigh the risks of side effects. The risks and benefits of Roaccutane were carefully considered at the time of licensing and, because of the known safety profile of this drug, it is licensed for use only for severe forms of acne that are resistant to other treatment. Since licensing, the safety of Roaccutane has been closely monitored by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with expert advice from the Commission on Human Medicines.

Roaccutane is a medicine that is highly effective at doing what it is designed to do. It is associated with some serious side effects. Roaccutane is harmful to the unborn foetus and therefore must not be taken during pregnancy. When Roaccutane is taken, common side effects include dryness of the skin and the lining of the mouth, nose and eyes. The dryness of skin that is associated with Roaccutane can take the form of cheilitis, which is cracking or inflammation of the lips. This condition can become very severe, chronic and debilitating in some patients. There has also been significant concern about the possibility that Roaccutane may be associated with psychiatric adverse effects, such as depression and suicidal behaviour.

Roaccutane is licensed for use only for severe forms of acne that are resistant to other treatment. This narrow indication for use is not the only restriction on its use in the UK. As my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North said, it can only be given by, or under the supervision of, a consultant dermatologist. The intention behind restricting prescribing in this way is to ensure that the health professionals with the most experience, and who are best placed to give patients advice about the important safety issues related to the drug’s use, make the prescribing decisions.

To underpin the discussions between prescriber and patient, all licensed medicines have a summary of product characteristics, which contains important information for prescribers, and are accompanied by an information leaflet for patients.

[Bob Stewart]

The nephew of a constituent, Elliot Brandon, was prescribed this drug by the doctor, but neither he nor his mother were given any indication that there might be side effects. That has to be stopped. We have to correct that, as soon as possible.

[Norman Lamb]

I was going to make that point. It is important that proper advice is given to patients when a drug is prescribed. My hon. Friend raises a serious concern on behalf of his constituent. I accept his point. The patient information leaflet is an essential document if the patient is to be fully aware of the possible risks of treatment and make informed choices about their care. Of course, unless they are directed to it and advised to read it by the clinician, the chances are that they will never read it. That is an important point.

[Caroline Nokes]

I have sat in on four consultations when Roaccutane has been prescribed. I reassure the Minister that consultant dermatologists tend not to just hand over a leaflet; they stand over a patient while they read it.

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. I am sure that that is the usual practice. However, the concern expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) suggests that that may not uniformly be so, though it certainly ought to be.

Since 1998, there has been increasing awareness that Roaccutane may be associated with psychiatric adverse reactions, particularly depression and suicidal behaviour. The assessment of this issue has been complicated by the fact that young people with acne are already at an increased risk of depression, regardless of treatment. All psychiatric adverse reactions were assessed by the working group on isotretinoin in 2005. This working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines consisted of independent experts, including psychiatrists and dermatologists, who considered the available data from published literature and case reports. All new information on psychiatric adverse reactions has remained under close and regular review since that time.

The product information for Roaccutane, and the other generic alternatives, states that particular care needs to be taken where patients have a history of depression, and that all patients should be monitored for signs of depression and referred for appropriate treatment if necessary. It also states that stopping taking Roaccutane may not lead—as hon. Members have mentioned—to improvement, and therefore further psychiatric or psychological evaluation may be necessary and appropriate.

As it is associated with rare, serious side effects, Roaccutane can only be prescribed by, or under the supervision of, a consultant dermatologist. The British Association of Dermatologists has published guidelines for its members on when to prescribe Roaccutane and how best to monitor patients for adverse effects during treatment. The guidelines recommend that patients be asked about any previous psychiatric illness, and the patient and their family should be made aware that the medicine may affect their mood. Patients should be asked about psychological symptoms at every clinic visit.

I appreciate that, in the case of the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon, there appeared to be a rapid deterioration of mental health—certainly, a deterioration that immediately followed the start of taking Roaccutane. Female patients will be asked about such symptoms every four weeks because of the need to rule out pregnancy before a new prescription is issued. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency keeps this issue under close review. Any new information is carefully assessed to see whether there is a need to take action to alert health care professionals and patients.

This debate has provided an important opportunity to update the House on developments relating to the prescribing of Roaccutane, which was last debated about 10 years ago in this place. As with any effective medicine, difficult issues of risk and benefit must be grappled with. Few hon. Members will not have known someone who has suffered, physically or mentally, with the scars of acne—severe and acute acne can be a disabling condition—and few would doubt the serious nature of the potential side effects of this powerful medicine, and their tragic potential consequences. In the short time available, I hope that I have been able to update the House on the measures in place to ensure safe prescribing of Roaccutane.

[Sir Nick Harvey]

I sense that my hon. Friend is reaching his peroration. He has offered us reassurance that the drug is used only under the auspices of specialist doctors and, apparently, only in severe cases, although my constituent’s was a mild case. Is he minded to take any further action at all, because as yet he has not suggested anything?

[Norman Lamb]

I am grateful for that intervention. I was going to suggest, at the end of my speech, that I am happy to talk to my hon. Friend and his constituent, if he wants that, because this concern cannot be dismissed in a half-hour debate. I am happy to look further at his concerns, because they could not be more serious. I recognise that other hon. Members are interested as well, and I am happy to meet others, if that would be of some use. I understand the seriousness of the issue that my hon. Friend raises.

Question put and agreed to.

16:59

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

Tuesday 3 December 2013

Home of Horseracing Trust (Overdraft)

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mrs Helen Grant)]

The departmental minute laid today relates to a guarantee to be provided by the Horserace Betting Levy Board to underwrite an overdraft facility for the Home of Horseracing Trust with Weatherbys bank, up to a maximum of £1.5 million.

Over £15 million has been raised by the Home of Horseracing Trust to support a capital project to create a new National Heritage Centre for Horseracing and Sporting Art in Newmarket. This will provide a showcase for British horseracing and sporting art and is expected to provide an attraction for visitors to the town.

While donations to cover the full costs of the project have been pledged, donations will be received over a period until 2017. An overdraft facility for the Home of Horseracing Trust is therefore necessary, to ensure that any occasional cash-flow shortages can be met as the project development progresses. The Horserace Betting Levy Board has been asked by Home of Horseracing Trust to provide security to Weatherbys bank for this overdraft facility up to a maximum of £1.5 million.

The pledges will all be supported by firm letters of commitment and the Horserace Betting Levy Board considers that the risk of this guarantee being called upon is extremely low.

If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before the House of Commons, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

I am arranging for the minute to be deposited in the Library of the House.

Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister of State, Department of Health (Norman Lamb)]

My right and noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Health, Earl Howe, has made the following written ministerial statement:

I am pleased to announce today the publication of the 2014 pharmaceutical price regulation scheme (PPRS). This follows my announcement of 6 November on the scheme’s heads of agreement, Official Report, column WS19. The PPRS is a voluntary scheme agreed between the Department of Health, acting on behalf of the UK Government and Northern Ireland, and the branded pharmaceutical industry, represented by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), under section 262 of the National Health Service Act 2006.

The current voluntary pricing scheme, the 2009 PPRS will terminate on 31 December 2013. Following negotiations, the Department of Health and the ABPI have now reached agreement on the full policy and operational detail of the new scheme. The new scheme will operate for five years starting from 1 January 2014.

The new scheme will provide an unprecedented level of certainty on almost all the NHS branded medicines bill. The bill will stay flat over the next two years and will grow slowly after that. The industry will make payments to the Department of Health if NHS spending on branded medicines exceeds the agreed growth rate. The agreement therefore provides stability and predictability to both the Government and the UK pharmaceutical industry, supporting the industry’s global competitiveness. It will encourage the use of innovative and effective new medicines in the NHS.

The PPRS has been placed in the Library. Copies are available to hon. Members from the Vote Office and to noble Lords from the Printed Paper Office.

Technical Advisory Board (Triennial Review)

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mrs Theresa May)]

On 27 March 2012, I announced in Parliament through a written ministerial statement, Official Report, column 128WS, the commencement of the triennial review of the Technical Advisory Board. I am now pleased to announce the completion of the review.

The Technical Advisory Board advises the Home Secretary on whether the obligations imposed on communications service providers under the terms of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 are reasonable.

The review concludes that the functions performed by the Technical Advisory Board are still required and that it should be retained as a non-departmental public body (NDPB). The review also looked at the governance arrangements for the body in line with guidance on good corporate governance set out by the Cabinet Office. The report makes a number of recommendations which will be implemented shortly.

The full report of the review of the Technical Advisory Board can be found on the gov.uk website and copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

Civil Court System Fees

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s consultation “Court Fees: Proposals for reform” (Cm 8751).

For many years, the civil court system has operated under the principle that those who use the courts should pay the full cost of the service they receive. However, this has not yet been achieved in practice, and, last year, the deficit was more than £100 million. In a time when we have made deficit reduction our top priority, the Government do not believe that the courts can be immune from the tough decisions we have had to take in order to bring public spending in line with what we can afford.

With that in mind, this consultation outlines the Government’s approach to reducing the cost of the court service to the taxpayer. We seek to do this in two steps.

The first seeks to align court fees with the cost of the service provided, to move closer to our long-term goal of cost recovery through fees. The remissions system will, of course, remain in place, to protect access to justice for those who cannot afford to pay a fee.

However, the Government believe that, in some cases, it is right that those who use the courts pay more than what it costs, where they can afford to do so. The second step of our proposal seeks the introduction of enhanced fees, which will ensure that the taxpayer does not subsidise cases involving sums of money far in excess of any proposed fees.

There will, of course, be measures in place to protect against setting excessive fees and our proposals include scrapping the £75 application fee for domestic violence injunctions which will help thousands of women seeking non-molestation and occupation orders. The Lord Chancellor’s existing duty to protect access to justice will continue to apply and he will also be required to consider the overall financial position of the courts and the impact of any fee changes on the legal services market, so that they do not risk our competitive position. Any enhanced fees which, following this consultation, the Government decide to introduce will be subject to a full parliamentary debate before they come into force.

The consultation lasts for seven weeks, during which time the MOJ will actively engage with stakeholders.

Copies of the Government consultation will be available in the Vote Office and the Printed Paper Office.

An online version of this consultation will be available at: www.gov.uk/moj.

Convention Against Torture

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

My right hon. and noble friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

The optional protocol to the convention against torture (OPCAT), which the UK ratified in December 2003, requires states parties to establish a “National Preventative Mechanism” (NPM) to carry out visits to places of detention in order to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. The Government established the UK NPM in March 2009—[Official Report, 31 March 2009, Vol. 490, Part No. 57, column 56WS].

I am informing the House that the following three organisations are formally designated as additional members of the UK NPM:

Lay Observers, in England and Wales;

Social Care And Social Work Improvement Scotland, better known as the Care Inspectorate (instead of the Scottish Commission for the Regulation of Care, which no longer exists), in Scotland;

Independent Custody Visitors Scotland, in Scotland.

EU: Unified Patent Court

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

My right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State for Justice, Lord McNally, has made the following written ministerial statement:

The United Kingdom Government have decided to opt in to the proposed regulation amending regulation 1215/2012—the Brussels I recast regulation—on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

In December 2102 an agreement was reached on two regulations and an international agreement, laying the ground for the creation of a Unified Patent Court (UPC) in the European Union. The UPC will be split into three central divisions, with London hosting the healthcare division.

In order for the UPC to come into effect, it is necessary to make an amendment to the recently recast Brussels I regulation, which deals with the rules of jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of civil and commercial judgments, including intellectual property and patent litigation. The proposed amendment provides for the UPC to be recognised as a “Court” for the purposes of the Brussels I regulation. In particular, it establishes its jurisdictional rules in respect of defendants domiciled in non-EU countries. The intention is that the UPC will come into being shortly after the recast Brussels I regulation in January 2015. The position adopted by the United Kingdom in negotiations has secured redrafts of the original text which make the scope and limitations of the proposed amendment clearer.

The basis on which the amendment is made is under article 81 of the treaty of the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The protocol to title V of the TFEU on the United Kingdom’s opt in therefore applies.

The Government believe that the proposed amendment creating the UPC will be of tangible benefit to the United Kingdom’s legal economy and patent litigation business. Costs associated with the new unitary patent—which will have effect in all contracting member states to the UPC agreement—will be significantly lower than those which operate at present. The Government believe that it is in the United Kingdom’s interest to participate.

EU Transport Council

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

I will attend the final Transport Council under the Lithuanian presidency (the presidency) taking place in Brussels on Thursday 5 December.

The presidency will provide the Council with a progress report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Union agenda for railways and repealing regulation (EC) No. 881/2004 (part of the 4^th railway package). The UK will be seeking to ensure that necessary revisions are put in place to reflect agreements in the general approach texts for the recast railway interoperability and safety directives. This includes the UK’s proposals to give applicants a choice to apply to national safety authorities for an interoperability authorisation or a safety certificate where operations would be restricted to one member state. The UK also supports the Commission’s proposals to harmonise the management and administration of all European Union decentralised agencies which have been incorporated in the revised text.

The Council will be asked to reach a general approach on a proposal for a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the deployment of alternative fuels infrastructure—clean power. The UK recognises that alternative fuels infrastructure is an area that can benefit from regulatory support, but is not convinced that setting rigid, mandatory targets for the deployment of technology specific infrastructure is an effective way of building consumer confidence in new technology. So we welcome the approach taken to replace the targets proposed with a more comprehensive and detailed approach to the national policy frameworks. This will allow us to provide transparency and predictability to the market, and mitigate the risk of technology-specific infrastructure being outpaced by future innovations and advancements, and ultimately becoming redundant.

We support the proposals to adopt common technical standards for refuelling across the EU, but are clear that this must not create additional barriers or disadvantage early movers, who must be able to retain confidence that infrastructure installed across the EU today and in the future is available and compatible for them to use.

There will be a progress report on a proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending regulation (EC) No. 261/2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights and regulation (EC) No. 2027/97 on air carrier liability in respect of the carriage of passengers and their baggage. The UK will continue to look to ensure that additional burdens and costs on UK industry are minimised, while retaining an appropriate level of protection for passengers.

The draft decision of the Council and of the representatives of the Governments of the EU member states, meeting within the Council, authorising the Commission to open negotiations with the Federal Republic of Brazil on a comprehensive agreement on air transport services will be adopted. The UK supports the revision of the European Commission’s mandate which should enable resumption of negotiations of a comprehensive air services agreement with Brazil.

Under any other business, the Commission will provide information on the aviation emissions trading scheme (ETS), on passenger ship safety, on the impact of state aid rules on large-scale infrastructure projects in Europe, on progress on Galileo and EGNOS programme and on the blue belt project.

Christopher Irwin (Indemnification)

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Government have decided to indemnify Mr Christopher Irwin, head of the UK delegation to the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission (IGC) for damages and legal costs incurred in the exercise of his functions in relation to liabilities incurred or proceedings brought in any jurisdiction, whether in the United Kingdom, France, or anywhere else in Europe or in the world. This will cover legal representation, costs and civil liabilities.

A departmental minute providing full detail of the indemnity and the reasons for it has been laid in the House of Commons today.

The contractual position of Christopher Irwin is complex. This is due to the dual role of the IGC, as representative of the British and French Governments and independent regulator under EU law. Chris is appointed by me but, under a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with the Office of Rail Regulation (ORR), the independent regulator, I must consult the ORR first. The head of the UK delegation can be dismissed by me, but the MoU restricts my ability to do so to a limited number of cases where he would clearly not be fit to act. Under the MoU, the head of delegation is remunerated by the ORR, but his remuneration comes from the money that the concessionaires of the tunnel (Eurotunnel) are required, under the concession, to pay towards the IGC’s expenses. Chris’s contract is with the ORR—his letter and terms of appointment characterise him not as an employee but as an individual providing services to ORR. He is remunerated on a fees for service basis.

I consider that it is only right and proper for Chris to be afforded an indemnity similar to that enjoyed by senior civil servants—SCS employees—in the course of their duties; given that Chris is an appointee of mine, even though, in order to protect his independence, the ORR “hosts” him.

The terms of the indemnity follows the precedents set for managing public money as well as the civil service management code.

The Treasury has approved the proposal in principle. If, during the period of 14 parliamentary sitting days beginning on the date on which this minute was laid before Parliament, a Member signifies an objection by giving notice of a parliamentary question or by otherwise raising the matter in Parliament, final approval to proceed with incurring the liability will be withheld pending an examination of the objection.

Single-tier Pension

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Written Statements

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

In advance of the Pensions Bill Second Reading in the House of Lords today, I can confirm that the minimum qualifying period for the new single-tier pension will be set at 10 qualifying years.

In our White Paper, “The single-tier pension: a simple foundation for saving”, we said that individuals reaching state pension age after the new system is introduced—in April 2016—would need between seven and 10 qualifying years in order to receive any state pension. In response to the Work and Pensions Select Committee’s recommendations, in the Pensions Bill we have limited the minimum qualifying period to a maximum of 10 years. Today’s announcement proposes that the minimum qualifying period be set at 10 qualifying years, with the intention to lay regulations (under clause 2(3) and clause 4(2) of the Pensions Bill) to this effect in due course.

Putting in place the minimum qualifying period will help ensure that state pension expenditure is targeted at individuals who have made a significant social or economic contribution.

People can build qualifying years in many ways; for example by paying national insurance or by receiving credits for a wide range of reasons, including caring for children, caring for others, or being too ill to work.

We have previously published the estimated effects of a 10-year minimum qualifying period in the impact assessment for the single-tier pension.

House of Lords

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Tuesday, 3 December 2013.

14:30

Prayers—read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

Education: Proficiency Levels

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:37

Asked by

[Lord Sharkey]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of progress in achieving satisfactory levels of proficiency amongst 15 year-olds in reading, mathematics and science.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

My Lords, OECD’s PISA results allow us to compare ourselves with the world’s best. The UK’s performance in mathematics, science and reading has not changed significantly since 2009. It remains at the OECD average in maths and reading, and above in science. The highest-achieving jurisdictions are in east Asia. We understand the significance of this and the need to ensure that our children are just as prepared as others to compete in the global economy.

[Lord Sharkey (LD)]

My Lords, today’s PISA report makes for gloomy reading about mathematics education in our secondary schools. We are stuck in 26th position, and 22% of our 15 year-olds are ranked as low achievers. The situation looks as though it is going to get worse. A quarter of our secondary school maths teachers have only A-level mathematics. Only half of our newly qualified maths teachers have a maths degree, and well over half of training posts for maths teachers are unfilled. What additional steps will the Government take to halt this very steep decline in the number of qualified maths teachers?

[Baroness Northover]

My Lords, we are well aware of the importance of ensuring that we have sufficient numbers of maths teachers, and have been putting a great deal of effort into this. We recruited 2,230 maths teachers in 2013-14, and we are continuing to focus efforts on recruiting the best graduates for the subjects we need most, which of course include maths. We have increased the number of maths places and the scholarships for teacher training. These scholarships amount to £25,000. We have increased the value of maths bursaries because we need to attract the top graduates. We have also introduced bursaries for graduates with good A-levels in maths or physics who train to teach maths, because we recognise the importance of what my noble friend is saying.

[Baroness Perry of Southwark (Con)]

Does my noble friend agree that the hugely encouraging increase in performance that has taken place in many of the new academies bodes very well for the results of the PISA in three years’ time, when the young people who have been through them will be tested?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right that we need to make a long-term assessment. Obviously, the 15 year-old students being assessed at the moment have had a number of years of education, and these results represent how they have done during those years. We hope to move things forward in the way that my noble friend suggests.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

In the area performing best in the OECD results published today, all teachers must have a teaching qualification and have to undertake 240 hours of professional development in the first five years of their career. In the UK now, academies and free schools can employ an unqualified person as a teacher even in these core subjects. The South Leeds Academy has just advertised for an unqualified person to teach maths, with a minimum qualification of just four GCSEs. Given what the Minister has just said, how does she think that unqualified people can make a contribution to raising standards in English, maths and science?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness will know that the proportion of qualified teachers in the state sector has increased. It now stands at 96.7%. I am sure that she heard my right honourable friend Michael Gove in the other place giving the numbers of unqualified teachers. In 2009 there were 17,400 unqualified teachers. Now the number has dropped to 14,800.

[Lord Howe of Aberavon (Con)]

My Lords, is the performance of our children not to be admired because of their achievement in mathematics? That subject is far more difficult that it should ever have been allowed to become, granted the fact that Magna Carta specifically requires the establishment of a single, uniform system of mathematics and measurements, such as has been achieved in many former British colonies, such as Australia and New Zealand, and even including the United States and Ireland. In almost all other territories, what should have been achieved has not been achieved in the simplicity of our measurement systems in this country. There is all the more reason to do so, given our abolition of the Metrication Board, which we introduced to give us one system during my time as Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs. Alas, I confess that, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, I abolished the Metrication Board, disregarding its achievement, and so created the difficulties which I felt I had to spell out with candour in posing my question.

[Baroness Northover]

I pay tribute to my noble and learned friend for what he achieved—using the metric system rather than anything else certainly made things much easier when my kids were studying—and for his candour. I note that the PISA report is extremely long, complex and very interesting. I urge noble Lords to have a really good look at it. If they look at the breakdown on maths, for example, they will see that students in the United Kingdom do relatively better than some countries on uncertainty, data and probability, but are less strong on space and shape. In east Asia, they are doing much better in the other direction.

[Baroness Armstrong of Hill Top (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her replies. I am interested that she acknowledges that the only way to enthuse young people is with a committed, knowledgeable and enthusiastic teacher. The Government need to do more to recruit the very best. We know that if you get the top 10% of graduates into education, you will do much better. I ask the Minister to look again at the messages that have been given to free schools and academies—I declare my interest as a governor—that qualifications do not matter.

[Baroness Northover]

I thank the noble Baroness for her initial tribute. It was very striking to see a steady increase in the number of high-quality candidates entering teaching. That is immensely encouraging, and we have to take it further forward. The proportion of postgrad entrants with a first class or 2.1 degree is now 74%, compared with 61% in 2009. That is moving in the right direction and shows that students recognise that it is worth teaching. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that all of us remember our outstanding, inspiring teachers. The report emphasises that autonomy for head teachers, along with accountability, is crucial to moving things forward.

Taxation: Rental Income

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:45

Asked by

[Lord Campbell-Savours]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what plans they have to ensure that taxation is paid on rental income on property owned by persons from overseas.

[Lord Newby (LD)]

My Lords, the Government believe that non-resident landlords should pay tax as appropriate, and HMRC operates a withholding scheme to ensure compliance. Tenants and letting agents are required to withhold and pay HMRC basic rate tax. Landlords whose UK tax affairs are up to date may apply not to have tax withheld and be automatically entered into self-assessment. Non-resident landlords in self-assessment are subject to HMRC’s usual rigorous compliance checks.

[Lord Campbell-Savours (Lab)]

My Lords, that only applies where a landlord uses an agent—I listened very carefully to the Minister’s response. How is it possible to quantify the scale of evasion on rental income without a means of establishing who owns what, what rents are paid, and to whom those rents are paid? Is there not a real need to establish a local authority-based national register of all domestic and overseas-based landlord rented-out property—a register that is accessible by HMRC? Is it not true that there is vast evasion in this area?

[Lord Newby]

It is not true that the scheme just covers letting agents. As I said, there are two other categories of people who should pay tax in this case: one, in the case of tenants, if their non-resident landlord wishes to go that way; and the other for the non-resident landlord to register for self-assessment. Perhaps I may give the noble Lord and the House some sense of the scale of the income generated from this scheme. In 2011-12, companies that held residential property in the UK on which tax was paid paid a total of some £375 million.

[Lord Mackay of Clashfern (Con)]

My Lords, is there not scope for using the deduction-at-source method against rents? It seems to be at least as effective as any other likely way of getting money from people who are overseas.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, that is basically how this scheme operates. A letting agent has to take some 20% of the rent and pay it over to HMRC for the non-resident landlord.

[Lord Howarth of Newport (Lab)]

My Lords, is the noble Lord able to confirm what I have been told—and I do not know whether this is correct—that in France, if you are a non-resident owner of residential property, you are taxed on the rentable value of that property whether or not you have let it? Does he know whether that is the case; and if it is, does he think that it is worth considering introducing it here?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I do not know whether that is the case. I think that I might take advice from the noble Lord, Lord Lawson of Blaby.

[Baroness Maddock (LD)]

My Lords, I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell-Savours, said in his opening comments. There is a lack of transparency around who owns rental properties in this country. I do not know what the Government will do about that. If we want to improve the quality and standard of our rented properties, particularly the energy efficiency, it is vital that we know who owns the properties.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, as the noble Lord mentioned and the noble Baroness raised again, this is an extremely important and live issue, which I will raise again with my colleagues in the DCLG.

[Lord Davies of Oldham (Lab)]

My Lords, is the Minister, a member of the Liberal Democrat Party, in favour of a mansion tax, which would certainly go a long way to dealing with this in terms of transparency of who owns property? He should be a little careful if he denies the validity of that, because the Chancellor has an awkward habit at present of listening to what the Labour Front-Bench says one day and doing something similar to it the next.

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, I am sure that the whole House knows that the Liberal Democrats are in favour of a mansion tax. I remind the House that, in the recent Budget, the Government introduced an annual tax on high-value dwellings—so-called enveloped dwellings —owned by companies, which will generate from £15,000 a year for properties worth between £2 million and £5 million to £140,000 a year for properties worth more than £20 million.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea (Lab)]

My Lords, what advice is given to our local authorities to ensure that, when housing benefit is paid, the recipient landlord pays UK income tax?

[Lord Newby]

I do not know the strict answer to that question, but HMRC makes strong efforts to bring home to everybody who should be paying tax that they should be doing that, which is why the Government have put in almost an extra £1 billion a year towards tackling tax avoidance and evasion.

[Lord Phillips of Sudbury (LD)]

My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister contemplate the fact that, in many London boroughs, 70% and more of the housing being purchased is purchased by foreign buyers? Many of them have poor credentials as to their abidance by law in their own states, let alone laws here. Might we not be getting near the time when we need to consider limiting the extent to which foreign buyers can dominate the housing market in London?

[Lord Newby]

My Lords, there is a very disparate housing market in London. At the bottom end of the market, the vast bulk of houses are purchased domestically. At the very top end, the vast bulk of houses are purchased by foreign buyers, particularly from Russia, eastern Europe and the Far East. One key thing that we are very keen to try to achieve is a greater degree of housebuilding in London and elsewhere. Only by building a lot more houses will it be possible to satisfy the demands of a growing population.

[Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton (Lab)]

My Lords, why has the Minister not undertaken to investigate the value of a register? Surely, it would help the Government, HMRC and taxpayers were a register to be established.

[Lord Newby]

I thought that I had said that I would take that matter up with colleagues in the DCLG.

Health: Talking Therapy

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

14:52

Asked by

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether they have plans to create a legal right to talking therapy as part of their commitment to ensure parity of esteem between mental and physical health.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Earl Howe) (Con)]

My Lords, the department has no plans to create a legal right to talking therapies. Mental health and parity of esteem are key priorities for NHS England. The Government’s mandate to NHS England makes it clear that everyone who needs it should have timely access to evidence-based services, which involves extending access to talking therapies. We are working with NHS England to develop standards on access and waiting times across mental health from 2015.

[Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)]

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for his Answer, but I still have serious concerns about the services that mental health patients receive. I do not often quote the noble Lord, Lord Freud, but last month he said that,

“the association between poor mental health and poverty is clear”.—[Official Report, 7/11/13; col. 324.]

However, despite people’s increasing stress due to poverty, the cost of living and zero-hours contracts, the Government have cut mental health spending in real terms in the past two years. Funding for therapies not included in IAPT has been cut by 5%, despite ministerial assurances that this would not happen. Last week, the We Need to Talk coalition released a report that revealed that more than half of mental health patients are waiting at least three months for treatment. Can the Minister commit to reducing those waiting times by March 2015, the date by which time the Government are committed to making progress towards that important parity of esteem?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I agree that waiting times for talking therapies are too long, and we are taking energetic steps to address that within the bounds of affordability. In the context of the noble Baroness’s main Question, what surely matters is the quality of outcomes, rather than just the extent of inputs. We set the outcomes that we expect the NHS to achieve in the NHS outcomes framework. There are a number of outcomes in there specifically for people with mental health problems, and others, about the quality of services. It is up to commissioners to prioritise their resources to meet those outcomes for the population based on assessments of need, and we will hold them to account for that.

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend’s commitment to good outcomes, but those also require sufficient inputs. If the noble Baroness’s request for a right to talking therapy were implemented tomorrow, it would completely collapse because there simply are not enough trained therapists to provide the care that is required. What measures are the Government taking to ensure that in future there will be sufficient trained therapists to provide the parity of care for those with mental illness that is available to those with physical illness?

[Earl Howe]

I can assure my noble friend that Health Education England has it in its sights to make sure that sufficient numbers of professionals are trained in the talking therapies, and that work is ongoing.

[Lord Patel of Bradford (Lab)]

My Lords, following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said about having staff who can provide appropriate talking therapies, and what the Minister himself said about someone who needs a service receiving it, we have a long history in the mental health field of mental health practitioners not referring certain minority-ethnic groups such as the south Asian and black African communities for talking therapies. I believe that that is still the case with referrals to the CBT programme. What are the Government doing to address this imbalance?

[Earl Howe]

I can tell the noble Lord that IAPT is working with a number of BME groups to promote wider access to the service from all sections of the community. A grant scheme will shortly be launched to encourage community-based interventions to increase uptake of talking therapies, including from BME groups.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, will the Minister kindly tell the House roughly what percentage of in-patients and out-patients suffer from mental health problems compared with those who suffer from physical health problems? Can he say, roughly, how the resources of the NHS are divided between the two camps on a revenue basis? I have the clear impression that traditionally mental health has been short-changed for very many years.

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Lord’s perception would be shared by many, which is why we have been very clear in our mandate to NHS England that parity of esteem is of the essence, and we will hold the service to account for that. I do not have the specific statistics that the noble Lord seeks but we know that more people are being treated in secondary mental health services now than two or three years ago. However, the proportion who needed to be admitted to in-patient psychiatric care fell over that period, and that reflects increasing emphasis on care in the community.

[Baroness McIntosh of Hudnall (Lab)]

My Lords, as someone who has benefited from CBT on a number of occasions, may I ask whether the noble Earl agrees that it is not just a question of whether people need the therapy but rather that they receive enough of it? Following the question of the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, about the number of people who could benefit from this, what is the average number of sessions of talking therapy that a National Health Service mental health patient will receive and is it, generally speaking, enough?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness as I do not have that information in my brief. If it is available, I will write to her with the answer.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

Will my noble friend assure the House that this rule of parity will be introduced in the Prison Service as well as the National Health Service generally?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, we are very clear that parity of esteem in mental health compared with physical health should apply in all clinical settings.

[The Earl of Sandwich (CB)]

Does the noble Earl share my concern about the overprescription of psychiatric drugs? Can he think of anything to do about this apart from encouraging CBT and talking therapies?

[Earl Howe]

My Lords, the noble Earl is right. I share his concern, and I think it has been a widespread concern across the mental health community. Nowadays, the guidance given to doctors is much broader than the guidance that was given some years ago. It embraces the talking therapies in particular and it seeks to avoid the overprescription of sometimes very strong pharmaceutical products.

Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Question

15:00

Asked by

[Lord Avebury]

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what contribution the United Kingdom will make to the fourth replenishment of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria.

[Baroness Northover (LD)]

As World AIDS Day reminded us, we have made great strides in our fight against AIDS, malaria and TB, but more still needs to be done. In 2011, AIDS killed 1.7 million people and TB killed 1.4 million people. In 2010, malaria killed 660,000 people. That is why the UK has pledged £1 billion to the global fund, provided that our contribution does not exceed 10% of the replenishment value.

[Lord Avebury (LD)]

My Lords, it was great that DfID was able to say recently that it had met most of the targets that were forecast in the 2011 paper Towards Zero Infections. However, will the new contribution enable the global fund to reduce the number of new infections among women by half a million, as was scheduled in the 2011 paper, to make a step change in prevention and to reduce further the cost of treatment?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is right that the international effort directed through the global fund has had stunning achievements. The rate of new HIV infections among women and girls has declined. The pace of the decline is not as fast as we would wish it to be and that is something that the UK is putting renewed effort into, as will the global fund. Clearly, the focus on prevention will particularly benefit women. There has been far greater coverage of the population as a result of the global fund’s efforts and stunning reductions in the cost of, for example, HIV treatment. In 2000, treating a patient cost about $10,000 a year and that has now dropped to $125 per patient.

[Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Lab)]

My Lords, the work of the global fund and the continuing UK commitment to it are to be welcomed, as that work is very important. However, I think that a new dimension is developing, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa, concerning the teenagers and young adults who were born with HIV/AIDS and who have survived due to the quality and quantity of those medical interventions but are now facing the prospect of relationships, marriage and having children as they move into adulthood. Either through the global fund or perhaps directly, might the UK Government pioneer some schemes to assist those young people with the advice and counselling that will be required to help them through that transition?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Lord is right that a generation affected by HIV is growing up. He will also know that a lot of work has gone into trying to make sure that there is no mother-to-child transmission of the disease, and that is very important for these young people. The global fund is well aware that there is a young population whose needs it has to address.

[Lord Fowler (Con)]

I wonder whether my noble friend saw the BBC “Panorama” programme on the global fund last night, with the best tabloid title “Where’s Our Aid Money Gone?”. Over the past 18 months, I have been to more than a dozen countries looking at the HIV position. Is my noble friend aware that, without the help of the global fund and the President’s fund in the United States, the world would be in a desperate position, with escalating disease? Although there have been exceptions, overwhelmingly this money has been well spent and has resulted in millions of lives being saved. Would it not be nice if “Panorama” reported that?

[Baroness Northover]

My noble friend is absolutely right. Cambodia, for example, which was highlighted in the programme, has seen an 80% decline in malaria deaths, a 45% fall in TB and a 50% decline in HIV cases. I pay tribute to what my noble friend has done to highlight the challenge of HIV/AIDS and to his fight for the global fund, which has been transformative in this area.

[Baroness Masham of Ilton (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is in the interests of the world to prevent these conditions? I congratulate the UK on what it has done, but will the noble Baroness encourage other countries to do more?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is right in terms of the impact. Yesterday, President Obama pledged $5 billion to the global fund. The US has said that it does not wish to contribute more than one-third to the fund. In other words, it wants to bring in other partners. Other countries, including Canada and the Nordic countries, have put in money and are coming forward in an encouraging fashion.

[Lord Collins of Highbury (Lab)]

My Lords, having identified TB-HIV as a strategic priority and the global fund as the lead provider for dealing with the TB epidemic and TB-HIV co-infection, will the noble Baroness tell us whether the department will follow the global fund in mandating that all HIV programming in high-burden TB and HIV countries includes specific strategies to reduce TB and TB-HIV incidence?

[Baroness Northover]

As the noble Lord knows, the two things go closely together. I will have to look carefully at what his question implied. Of course, both the global fund and DfID are well aware of that interrelationship. Where you have patients suffering from TB, especially when it is multidrug resistant TB, you often have HIV going alongside, so the two are being tackled together. I will need to look at the noble Lord’s question to see whether there is something in it that I did not understand.

[Baroness Hayman (CB)]

My Lords, I echo the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Fowler, about the enormous benefits that the global fund has brought to international health and its commitment to transparency and to dealing with these issues when they arise. I declare my interest in malaria and neglected tropical diseases. Will Her Majesty’s Government encourage the global fund to look at partnership working and integrating programmes, particularly on maternal and child health and neglected tropical diseases, as part of the post-2015 commitment to strengthening health systems and doing that from the bottom up rather than the top down?

[Baroness Northover]

The noble Baroness is absolutely right. The global fund has had an effect across all those areas and I pay tribute to her work on neglected tropical diseases. DfID has been strongly supportive of that. There are a number of areas where obviously the work of the global fund is complementary. If you look at its aim to raise $15 billion, at the moment $37 billion across this whole area is coming from the developing countries, supporting the kind of work that the noble Baroness is talking about.

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

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Commons Amendments

15:08

Motion on Commons Amendments

Moved by

[The Chairman of Committees]

That this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 52.

1: Page 1, line 10, leave out paragraph (5)

2: Clause 1, page 2, line 13, leave out “2009” and insert “2012”

3: Page 2, line 14, leave out “subsections (3) and (4)” and insert “subsection (3)”

4: Page 2, line 19, leave out “section 11” and insert “Part 3”

5: Page 2, line 20, leave out subsection (4)

6: Clause 2, page 2, leave out lines 26 to 28

7: Page 2, line 31, leave out from “authority” to the end of the line

8: Clause 3, page 3, line 13, leave out from “area” where it first appears to the end of line 14

9: Page 3, line 18, leave out “a” and insert “the”

10: Clause 4, page 4, line 6, leave out “Lands” and insert “Upper”

11: Page 4, line 37, at the end insert—
“( ) If a notice specifies an earliest date under subsection (5)(d), the authority may not begin the work after the expiry of four months beginning with that date (but that does not prevent the authority from serving a fresh notice).”

12: Page 5, line 26, at the end insert—
“( ) This section and section 5 shall not apply in respect of a theatre.”

13: Page 5, line 43, leave out “exceeding 5 years” and insert “of five years or more”

14: Page 6, line 6, at the end insert—
““theatre” means any building or part of a building used wholly or mainly for the public performance of plays and “public performance” and “play” have the same meanings as in the Theatres Act 1968, but with the words “dance performance” substituted for “ballet”;”

15: Clause 6, page 6, leave out lines 31 to 42

16: Page7, leave out lines 1 to 23

17: Page 7, leave out lines 35 to 41

18: Clause 7, please out clause 7

19: Clause 10, page 9, line 39, leave out “and” and insert “or”

20: Page 9, line 41, leave out “and” and insert “or”

21: Page 10, line 41, leave out subsection (9)

22: Page 11, line 4, leave out “2009” and insert “2012”

23: Page 11, line 6, leave out "2003 Act" and insert "London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003”

24: Page 11, line 8, leave out subsection (13)

25: Clause 11, page 11, line 13, before “skips” insert “builders’ ”

26: Clause 13, page 12, line 9, leave out “vehicle” and insert “skip”

27: Page 12, line 9, leave out “regulation” and insert “section”

28: Clause 14, page 12, line 24, leave out “vehicle” and insert “skip”

29: Clause 17, leave out clause 17

30: Clause 18, Page 15, line 13, at end insert—
“( ) For the purposes of this Part, a person to whom permission is granted under subsection (2) is referred to as an “authorised person”.”

31: Page 15, line 15, at the end insert “by a London authority”

32: Page 15, line 17, at the end insert “by a council”

33: Page 15, line 18, leave out “The powers under this section may not be exercised in relation to” and insert “No charging apparatus may be provided on”

34: Page 15, line 41, after “determining” insert “, in any proceedings in a court of civil jurisdiction,”

35: Page 16, line 17, at the end insert—
““operate” in relation to charging apparatus for electrically powered motor vehicles includes supply or sell electricity by means of such charging apparatus;
“public off-street car park” means a place, whether above or below ground and whether or not consisting of or including buildings, where off-street parking accommodation is made available to the public, whether or not for payment.”

36: Clause 19, page 16, line 19, leave out “— (a)”

37: Page 16, line 20, leave out from “section 18(1)” to the end of line 21

38: Page 16, line 22, at the end insert—
“( ) An authorised person shall not provide or operate charging apparatus in accordance with a permission given under section 18(2) unless the authorised person has first published a notice under this section.

39: Page 16, line 23, after “London authority” insert “or an authorised person, as the case may be,”

40: Page 16, line 27, after “London authority” insert “or the authorised person”

41: Page 16, line 33, at the end insert “or authorised person”

42: Page 16, line 34, after “London authority have” insert “or an authorised person has”

43: Page 16, line 37, at the end insert—
“( ) In this section “the proposal” means the proposal to provide or operate charging apparatus.”

44: Clause 20, page 16, line 39, leave out “— (a)”

45: Page 16, leave out from “section 18(1)” on line 40 to the end of line 41

46: Page 16, line 42, leave out “in relation to a highway”

47: Page 16, line 42, leave out from “have” to “consulted” on page 17, line 3

48: Page 17, line 5, leave out “, as the case may be,”

49: Page 17, line 6, leave out “or to which the proposed permission would relate”

50: Page 17, line 6, at the end insert—
“( ) An authorised person shall not provide or operate charging apparatus in accordance with a permission given under section 18(2) unless the authorised person has consulted any authority (other than the London authority who gave the permission) who are a local planning authority for the area to which the permission relates.
( ) Consultation carried out by an authorised person before that person was given a permission under section 18(2) counts as consultation for the purposes of subsection ( ).”

51: Clause 21, leave out clause 21

52: Clause 22, page 17, leave out from the beginning of line 30 to the end of line 7 on page 18 and insert—
“(1) A person shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale if he uses charging apparatus in contravention of a sign displayed on the apparatus which indicates that —
(a) the apparatus is not to be used for any purpose other than charging a vehicle; and
(b) it is an offence to so use the apparatus.
(2) A person is not guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if—
(a) he had the permission of the person who operated the charging apparatus at the time to use the charging apparatus for the purpose in question; or
(b) he had reasonable cause to believe he had such permission; or
(b) at the time there was on the charging apparatus an indication given by the person who operated the charging apparatus that it could be used for the purpose for which it was used.”

[The Chairman of Committees (Lord Sewel)]

My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments 1 to 52 en bloc. I do not intend to move these amendments individually as they all refer to minor matters. I hope that the House will agree to the amendments made in another place.

Motion agreed.

European Parliamentary Elections (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2013

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:09

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 24 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 26 November.

Motion agreed.

Local Elections (Northern Ireland) Order 2013

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Motion to Approve

15:09

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

That the draft Order laid before the House on 30 October be approved.

Relevant documents: 12th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, considered in Grand Committee on 26 November.

Motion agreed.

Education: PISA Results

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Statement

15:10

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Lord Nash) (Con)]

My Lords, with your permission, I would like to repeat a Statement made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education in another place earlier today about the PISA league tables of educational performance published earlier today by the OECD.

“Before I go into the detail of what the league tables show about the common features of high-performing systems, may I take a moment—as I try to in every public statement I make—to thank our teachers for their hard work, dedication and idealism. Whatever conclusions we draw about what needs to change, I hope we in this House can agree that we are fortunate to have the best generation of young teachers ever in our schools.

The data show that the new recruits now entering the classroom are better equipped than ever before. I would like in particular to thank those head teachers who are, through the new school direct programme of teacher training, recruiting more superb new graduates to teach in our state schools. But while the quality of our teachers is improving, today’s league tables sadly show that that is not enough. When people ask why, if teachers are better than ever, we need to press ahead with further reform to the system, today’s results make the case more eloquently than any number of speeches.

Since the 1990s, our performance in these league tables has been at best stagnant, at worst declining. In the latest results, we are 21st in the world for science, 23rd for reading and 26th for mathematics. For all the well intentioned efforts of past Governments, we are still falling further behind the best-performing school systems in the world. In Shanghai and Singapore, South Korea and Hong Kong, indeed even in Taiwan and Vietnam, children are learning more and performing better with every year that passes, leaving our children behind in the global race.

That matters because business is more mobile than ever, and employers are more determined than ever to seek out the best-qualified workers. Global economic pressures, far from leading to a race to the bottom, are driving all nations to pursue educational excellence more energetically than ever before, and today’s league tables show that nations that have had the courage radically to reform their education systems, such as Germany and Poland, have significantly improved their performance and their children's opportunities.

There is no single intervention or single nation which has all the answers to our education challenges, but if we look at all the high-performing and fast-improving education systems, certain common features recur. There is an emphasis on social justice and helping every child to succeed. There is a commitment to an aspirational academic core curriculum for all students. There is a high level of autonomy from bureaucracy for head teachers. There is a rigorous system of accountability for performance, and head teachers have the critical power to hire who they want, remove underperformers and reward the best with the recognition that they deserve.

Those principles have driven this coalition’s education reforms since 2010. The first reform imperative is securing greater social justice. It is notable that many of the high-performing jurisdictions set demanding standards for every child, whatever their background, and Germany in particular has improved its standing in these league tables by doing more to promote greater equity to ensure more children from poorer backgrounds catch up with their peers.

The good news from the PISA research is that in England we have one of the most progressive and socially just systems of education funding in the world. But we in the coalition Government believe that we must go further to help the most disadvantaged. That is why we have made funding even more progressive with the pupil premium, extended free pre-school education to the most disadvantaged two year-olds and changed how we hold schools accountable so that they have to give even greater attention to the performance of poor children. I hope that today the Opposition will acknowledge these steps forward and give their support to our reforms.

The second reform imperative is a more aspirational curriculum. In successful Asian nations all students are introduced to more stretching mathematical content at an earlier age than has been the case here; and in the fastest-improving European nation, Poland, every child now follows a core academic curriculum to the age of 16. Our new national curriculum is explicitly more demanding, especially in mathematics. It is modelled on the approach of high-performing Asian nations such as Singapore. The mathematical content is matched by a new level of ambition in technology, with the introduction of programming and coding in the national curriculum for the first time.

In our drive to eliminate illiteracy, we have introduced a screening check at age six to make sure that every child is reading fluently. Our introduction of the English baccalaureate, which is awarded to students who secure GCSEs in English, maths, the sciences, languages and history or geography, matches Poland by embedding an expectation of academic excellence for every 16 year- old. I hope that today the Labour Front Bench will confirm its support for our new curriculum, the phonics screening check and the English baccalaureate. Our children deserve to have these higher standards adopted universally.

The third reform imperative is greater autonomy for head teachers. There is a direct correlation in these league tables between freedom for heads and improved results. That is why we have dramatically increased the number of academies and free schools and given heads more control over teacher training, continuous professional development and the improvement of underperforming schools. By giving heads control of teacher recruitment, the School Direct programme has improved the quality of new teachers. The creation of more than 300 teaching schools has put our most outstanding heads in charge of helping existing teachers to do even better. The academies programme has allowed great heads, such as those in the Harris and Ark chains, to take over underperforming schools, such as Downhills Primary in Tottenham. I hope that today the Front Bench will signal its support for these reforms and show that, like us, it trusts our outstanding heads to drive improvement.

The fourth pillar of reform is accountability. Those systems which have autonomy without accountability often underperform, but accountability has to be intelligent. That is why we have sharpened Ofsted inspections, recruited more outstanding serving teachers to inspect schools and demanded that underperforming schools improve far faster. The old league table system relied too much on a narrow measurement of C passes at GCSE, which generated the wrong incentives and wrote too many children off. We have changed league tables to ensure that every child’s progress is rewarded and ensured that children are not entered early, or multiple times, for GCSEs simply to influence league tables. I hope that today the Opposition Front Bench will endorse those changes and join us in demanding greater rigour and higher standards from all schools.

The fifth pillar of reform is freedom for heads to recruit and reward the best. Shanghai, the world’s best-performing education system, has a rigorous system of performance-related pay. We have given head teachers the same freedoms here. I hope that today we can have a clear commitment from all sides of the House to support those brave and principled heads who want to pay the best teachers more.

The programme of reform we have set out draws on what happens in the best school systems, because we want nothing but the best for our children. Unless we can provide them with a school system that is one of the best in the world, we will not give them the opportunities they need to flourish and succeed. That is why it is so important that we have a unified national commitment to excellence in all our schools for all our pupils”.

I commend the Statement to the House.

15:18

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement, which had a much more measured tone than the public pronouncements on the PISA results that we heard yesterday and this morning from the Secretary of State.

The results show that after three and a half years in government, the coalition has so far failed to make any further progress in improving standards in these core subjects of English, maths and science, compared to other countries. Any serious Secretary of State would regard these results as a call to action and a reason to scrutinise very carefully government policy in the light of the findings.

Instead, and typically, this Secretary of State’s line of defence has been one of attack, I think to try to divert attention from his own record. The Secretary of State claims that the UK’s current position in the international league tables is,

“a verdict on the last government”.

I say to the Minister, and believe profoundly, that if we had not had a Labour Government prioritising and investing in education year on year, the UK would be at the bottom of the league table. Without doubt, if the OECD had been comparing countries in 1996—it was not—the UK would have been on the floor. After 18 years of a Conservative Government, the education system in this country was in tatters, with crumbling schools, standards flatlining, teacher morale at rock bottom and a school system in chaos. The Labour Government, quite simply, had to rebuild that system from top to bottom.

That is why we saw the first and biggest transformation ever for pre-school children, with free early years education for all three and four year-olds and, later, for disadvantaged two year-olds. We also saw capped class sizes in primary schools and radical reform of the secondary curriculum. We introduced academies in disadvantaged areas because the Labour Government really did care about social justice and equity in our education system. We also saw massive investment in teacher and head teacher training and development, including the introduction of Teach First, and year-on-year improvements in GCSE and A-level results—achievements which this Secretary of State has ridiculed and said were a fiddle.

When we left office in 2010, the coalition inherited record results and the best cadre of teachers this country has ever had, by common acclaim, including from Ofsted. That was a solid foundation for the continued progress that we agree is undoubtedly still needed for us to compete with the rising economies elsewhere in the world. It would have been good to hear the Secretary of State acknowledge that progress, but instead of doing that and trying to build on it, this Secretary of State is in danger of squandering those advances by taking our education system backwards to didactic teaching and a rampant free market between schools.

The Minister selected certain factors that he thinks these results tell us. However, if PISA tells us anything, it is that the countries doing better have understood and are relentlessly implementing three important lessons. First, as a teacher using the Singapore maths model said on the news this morning, learning by rote is simply not good enough for the innovative technological world in which our children will work. However, this Secretary of State is returning the UK to an obsolete curriculum and an exam system that measures what children remember, not what they can actually do.

The second lesson is that collaboration between schools and schools challenging each other drive up standards. However, this Secretary of State has abolished the London Challenge, where schools worked together, challenged each other and produced the fastest rise in achievements. He also abolished the Greater Manchester and Black Country Challenges, which were beginning to produce similar results in some of the most disadvantaged parts of the country. If the Minister cares about social justice and equity in education, that should not have been done, as the scheme was addressing extreme disadvantage in our education system.

The third lesson is that qualifications, along with continuing development of teachers, is the single most important factor in improving education and achievement. However, this Secretary of State, as we just discussed in Questions, has allowed academies and free schools to employ unqualified people to work as teachers, even in core subjects. As I said, we have seen some academies putting out adverts for unqualified people with four GCSEs to teach maths.

I could not agree more with the Minister about the need to focus on social justice and equity, to introduce rigour and standards into the education system and, particularly, to make sure that those from disadvantaged backgrounds can gain the most. However, although we support some of the Government’s reforms, I cannot agree that all of their measures, taken together, will achieve those ends. Will the Minister explain to the House why the Government’s policies are flying in the face of the lessons from elsewhere in the world, which I have just outlined, that emanate from the PISA results today?

I agree that this is a most important subject and we should use the OECD findings to our advantage as far as we can. Will the Government bring forward a considered and comprehensive analysis of the OECD findings so that we can have an informed debate in public about the implications for the UK, and regear some of the Government’s reforms to ensure that we can position our young people to compete with the best in the tiger economies?

15:25

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful for the noble Baroness’s considered analysis. With her experience, she probably knows better than to suggest that we can be expected to have turned round the education system after only three and a half years, as Andreas Schleicher acknowledged only yesterday. It is far too early to form a verdict on the coalition’s reforms. However, we have stopped the decline. Between 2000 and 2009 we fell from fourth to 16th in science, eighth to 28th in maths, and seventh to 25th in literacy. We have now stabilised at 23rd in literacy and 26th in maths, although we have done worse in science.

I agree that the Labour Government spent 87% more in real terms on the education system, but it is all about what results you get rather than how much money you spend. We must have a concept of value for money. It does not look as though we got very good value for money. We are now building schools at half the cost per pupil of Labour’s Building Schools for the Future programme; we are building many more purpose-designed schools, and more quickly.

I acknowledge that Teach First was a splendid idea. We have expanded that dramatically. I acknowledge that the academy programme was a splendid idea—indeed, I would not be here if it was not for the academy programme. The London Challenge was an excellent example of co-operation between schools. That is why we have taken these ideas and expanded them dramatically; for example, from 200 to 3,500 academies, working together in close geographic local clusters, with schools supporting each other locally, which we believe is the only model. We agree entirely with the collaborative approach.

The unqualified teacher story seems to run and run. It is a bit of a red herring. We have brought the numbers down to 14,800 from 17,800 under Labour. It is still a tiny proportion. It is interesting that the area that the noble Baroness refers to—London, which had some of the best results—has the highest incidence of unqualified teachers. It is also true that we have a high incidence of unqualified teachers in our academies and free schools because we have nationalised quite a few independent schools. However, we are interested in the best teachers with the best qualifications and now 75%—up from 61%—of our teachers enter the profession with a 2.1 or better.

However, it would be so much better if, rather than throwing stones at each other, we all acknowledged that these PISA statistics are a wake-up call for our school system and that we should work together in a unified way to improve it. I am delighted that the noble Baroness supports some of our reforms. I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education would love to know which reforms, and I look forward to discussing that with her further.

The PISA report contains an extremely intelligent analysis, which I recommend to everyone in this House. In particular, it states that the schools that succeed are those with high levels of autonomy and accountability—both of which the Government are focusing on—and a core academic curriculum.

15:29

[Lord Storey (LD)]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister for repeating the Statement. I agree with him 100% that the time for throwing stones at each other, as he puts it, should be past. That is something that schools get absolutely fed up with.

The Statement highlights the importance of head teachers. We all know that strong leadership in a school produces the results and the progress that we all want. Hong Kong, Shanghai and Singapore have been mentioned. What they have in common are focused and clear ways in which to become a head teacher, to train a head teacher and to put somebody into that role. Does my noble friend agree that we need to look carefully at how we prepare people for school leadership, that we cannot just have any unqualified person leading a school and that there needs to be proper training? On reflection, was it perhaps the wrong decision to do away with the leadership college and the leadership qualification for aspiring head teachers?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with my noble friend that we need to grow a new generation of head teachers. We are going to be short of head teachers because many of them are retiring. We will have to promote younger people, which is why it is so encouraging that so many more highly qualified people are motivated to become head teachers. Many of the academy chains have very sophisticated training programmes for their heads to ensure that we grow the next generation of head teachers.

[Lord Quirk (CB)]

My Lords, the Statement made no reference to one issue which must have caused a certain amount of buzzing in the DfE yesterday. His ministerial colleague, Liz Truss, addressed the Publishers Association and very largely deplored the disappearance —which may surprise many of us—of the textbook from the classrooms of both primary and secondary schools. I was astonished to learn from a Telegraph report today that, as compared with 10% use of textbooks in primary schools here, Germany and Poland have around 80% or 90%. Only 8% of pupils in English secondary schools have textbooks in their hands, whereas the figure for Finland is 80%. I compare the UK largely with other European countries because of the huge cultural differences which make comparison with Taiwan and Hong Kong a bit difficult. In view of what Liz Truss said yesterday, why does the Minister think that there is such a gap between our countries and other European countries in the simple use of textbooks in classes? Does he think that this gap between the two lots of teachers and the two lots of procedures may account for our disappointing performance and the much more hopeful performance that he has drawn attention to in Poland and Germany?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with the noble Lord. I think that the answer to his questions in brief, although I will elaborate, is that this situation has been caused by a lack of rigour in the curriculum and in teaching methodology. I agree entirely that this lack of rigour and methodology, which is expressed in one way in textbooks, is one of the reasons why we have declined. One also needs to look at workbooks. In far too many state-maintained schools, there is a complete absence of workbooks. We are finding that some of the much more successful schools—not just academies but maintained schools—insist that all their pupils have a workbook. A workbook is something pupils can be proud of and it can be marked. Pupils do more homework and they get more feedback. In all senses, we need to instil more rigour in our school system.

[Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)]

My Lords, the Government’s reforms borrow more from Sweden than from any other jurisdiction, but the position of Sweden in these tables is going backwards. As we have heard, the reforms also built on what the previous Government did on academies. Therefore, regardless of politics—and I regret the highly political tone of the Statement—should we not learn from the top three, from Shanghai, Hong Kong and Singapore? There, parents are much more involved in their child’s learning, and those jurisdictions are designing-in collaborative problem-solving to meet the needs of employers. Given that those skills will be tested by PISA in 2015, how does the Minister think our children will fare then, given the Government’s new emphasis on rote learning and individual testing?

[Lord Nash]

I know that the noble Lord is very experienced in these matters. I was recently visited by a delegation from Sweden consisting of MPs and others involved in education. They were here to study our accountability system because they acknowledge that they have half of the equation right—autonomy—but not the other half. They have been impressed with what they have seen here in Ofsted and our move to a more rigorous accountability system in examination analysis. That is why they acknowledged that they have failed; I do not think that it has anything to do with autonomy.

We are learning from Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, particularly in maths. We sent 50 of our head teachers, with their heads of department in maths and science, to Shanghai earlier this year. I agree entirely that parents need to get more involved. When I first got involved in the academy programme, we had one ghastly meeting in Pimlico with all the antis. They were clearly not representative of parents, so to reach out to the parents, we organised eight one-hour meetings in Camberwell and Brixton, where the parents lived, to tell them what we were doing. There were 1,300 pupils so you would think that there would be 2,500 parents. I would like to ask noble Lords to guess how many parents turned up but I will tell you—one parent came to all eight meetings. We now have more than 90% attendance at parents’ meetings, because all state schools must now send out a message to their parents that if their children go to that school, they must turn up. That is what happens in independent schools and we must try to replicate that in the state system. I entirely agree with the noble Lord.

[Lord Cormack (Con)]

My Lords, I follow on from the wise, perceptive question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Quirk, and my noble friend’s response to it. Is not one secret a proper, disciplined framework in every school? In 10 years as a schoolmaster and 40 years visiting schools in my constituency, it was always the case that where there was proper discipline—allied to parental enthusiasm, I would add with reference to the noble Lord, Lord Knight—and children could learn in a disciplined framework, they made real progress. Should not our primary aim when we are talking of rigour be to ensure that there is real, rigorous discipline in every school?

[Lord Nash]

I agree entirely with my noble friend. Across the academy system a great many sponsors have taken over schools where, frankly, the previous behaviour was very poor indeed, and put in place a very effective behaviour management system. I saw a behaviour management system in America which I thought was particularly effective. You start the pupils on the left-hand side of the page, where they basically behave because they will get into trouble if they do not, and you slowly move them across to the right-hand side of the page, where they behave because that is the society they want. They want a calm society in their school because that is the only way they can learn. More sophisticated behaviour management systems are coming into place. We have strengthened teachers’ ability to confiscate mobile phones, particularly in the appalling incidents of sexting, and given more power for detention, and so on, but I agree entirely with my noble friend.

[Lord Rooker (Lab)]

Can the Minister confirm that although this is December 2013, the tests on those half a million children actually took place in 2012? I have to say that it is ludicrous beyond belief, and silly, for my friends in the Opposition to complain that it is the fault of the coalition. Two years is a nanosecond for change and it is ludicrous to make such connections. I would argue that although the Secretary of State went a bit far in his Statement in throwing stones, it is also a case of “What’s sauce for the goose”.

I do not go on many school visits these days but I was in a secondary school about a month ago. It has been dramatically turned around in the last six months, since a new head arrived. He described his office to me as being set out like a war room, with all the key five factors. I asked him, “What about the staff turnover in this period?”. There were very few changes; I had walked around the school and talked to the staff as well. In other words, the dramatic changes in the school had been brought about by leadership—not by going in to clear out teachers but by leading them. Even this head will therefore require help in future. I take the point about the leadership of schools being absolutely crucial. You cannot just put the best teacher in the role of head teacher. They have to be trained to lead but it can be done. Finally, if this is a wake-up call to the schools, it is equally a wake-up call to the governing bodies. More work needs to be done there because if governing bodies take the issues seriously, it is more likely that parents will take them seriously.

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to the noble Lord for his comments. He made his opening point extremely eloquently and I think we all realise that you do not turn around an ocean liner in a couple of years. He is absolutely right and we should all just avoid having that conversation in the future.

[Baroness Hughes of Stretford]

If the Minister will give way, I have to clarify the points I made in my opening speech. It was not that I expected the Government to have turned around a tanker. What I said was that substantial progress had been made during the years of the Labour Government, and necessarily so because of the state of the education system in 1997. In their three and a half years, the Government could have built on that progress rather than starting again with some very destructive reforms.

[Lord Nash]

We will have to beg to disagree on this because I do not see our going from seventh to 25th in literacy, from eighth to 28th in science or from fourth to 16th in maths as progress.

The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, referred to a war room. I look forward to him perhaps taking me to visit that school at some stage. I entirely agree on the question of leadership. I was particularly impressed when I visited the Perry Beeches schools in Birmingham, which are run by an inspirational head, Liam Nolan, and by how he has managed to turn around a number of failing schools. He has not only kept in place people who were clearly not performing well under the previous regime but promoted them to very senior positions.

I entirely agree, too, about governing bodies. Whether the school is a local authority maintained school, a church school or an academy chain, real decisions can often be made in the governing bodies and we are focusing much more on them. We have recently made it absolutely clear that governing bodies should focus on a few key things: the vision and strategy of the school, holding the head to account for the attainment and progression of pupils, the performance management of his or her staff, and the finance. We need smaller governing bodies, in many cases, but with many more of the appropriate skills.

[Baroness Humphreys (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his Statement. For many years I worked as a teacher in Wales, so it was with a great deal of sadness and disappointment that I read the PISA results for Wales today. Wales performed worse than the OECD average in all measures: maths, science and reading. Since 2009, Welsh pupils have slipped from 40th to 43rd in maths, from 30th to 38th in science, and from 38th to 41st in reading—a disastrous performance which shows Wales to be the poorest performing nation in the UK.

All this makes the ambition of Wales’s Labour First Minister to be in the top 20 by 2015 almost laughable, if it were not so serious. This is the culmination of nearly 15 years of Labour control of the struggling Welsh education system. I recognise that education is a devolved matter, but will the Minister be having discussions with Ministers from the devolved nations to ensure that standards improve throughout the United Kingdom?

[Lord Nash]

I know that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education is deeply concerned about the situation in Wales, which—quite deliberately, it seems—lacks many of the systems of accountability and rigour that we are putting in place here. My noble friend puts it extremely well: if anyone wants a case study of how not to do it, Wales seems to be it. We would be happy to have conversations with them if they were prepared to engage in conversations.

[Lord Grocott (Lab)]

When he read out the Statement, the Minister began by paying tribute to the work and dedication of teachers, which is the right thing to do. I hope that it was meant sincerely, not by him but by the Secretary of State who wrote it. However, I have to say to him, although I am sure that he will know this if he visits schools, as I know he does, that that respect and affection is not reciprocated by teachers up and down the country. He will know that dedicated and committed teachers see the Secretary of State as being arrogant and failing to value the commitment and quality of teachers, their advice and their experience, which in my judgment is a very bad position for any Secretary of State to take. They do not feel valued and understood by him, and they do not feel, when they express strongly held opinions, based on experience, about how and what to teach and how to manage schools, that they are respected by this Government.

I will not say that I modestly suggest this because it is not a modest suggestion, but I simply suggest as a matter of common sense that if the Secretary of State wants to make changes in our education system, then a fundamental principle of management on his part should be to get on his side the people who have to implement those changes and improvements.

[Lord Nash]

I think that the Secretary of State wants to improve the lot particularly of underprivileged children in this country far more than he wants to be liked. He greatly values the advice of teachers and constantly has teachers and head teachers in and out of his office. It is a fact that where you have an organisation—I have seen this in business many times—that needs to go through change because it has slipped so dramatically down the international tables, we have to make a lot of changes. That is why we are making a lot of changes quickly, because we have slipped so fast. People are always reluctant to embrace change, and I understand that teachers feel under pressure from so much change. However, we have to do it if we are to do the right thing for our teachers. Both my right honourable friend and I constantly have conversations with head teachers around the country that go along the lines of, “I know you’re unpopular and I know that teachers don’t like it, but you’re doing the right thing. Keep going”.

[Lord Elton (Con)]

My Lords, can my noble friend give us a little more insight into the view that he takes of the comparison between examination systems—their design, their management and use—in competitor countries? How do they differ from ours, and is that in itself one element that needs to be improved?

[Lord Nash]

I am grateful to my noble friend for that question. We have looked at examination systems across the world in improving the examination systems in this country. We have reduced, or rather will be reducing—again, going to the point about turning the ship around quickly, a lot of these reforms have not even come into effect yet—the number of modules and the amount of coursework and continuous assessment in exams, and we will be reducing the scandal of equivalence that went on in recent years. You could take a higher diploma in construction, a subject that even someone as hamfisted as myself would probably pass because there were no exams at all and it was entirely continuous assessment, and it counted for four GCSE equivalents. I could give noble Lords many other examples of exams that were massively overrated, doing their pupils no favours at all and not valued by employers. We have taken into account a lot of what we have seen in international systems in our reform of the exam system.

Pensions Bill

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

15:50

Moved by

[Lord Freud]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Lord Freud) (Con)]

My Lords, the Bill contains important reforms to both state and private pensions, as well as to bereavement benefits, and representsa fundamental step forward in tackling a number of significant challenges facing today’s working-age population.

Before I turn to the provisions in the Bill, I would like to commend my colleague, the Minister of State for Pensions, Steve Webb, who has been instrumental in delivering the Bill before us and who continues to make such an important contribution to improving the pensions landscape. I also pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and the noble Baroness, Lady Drake, whose work as former pension commissioners provides the framework for much of what we will discuss today. Pension reform has traditionally proved the ability of the legislature to build consensus on an issue, and I am sure that noble Lords will endeavour to continue in this vein.

Automatic enrolment is a product of this consensus and is creating a substantial shift in the landscape of pension saving. The latest figures from the Pensions Regulator confirm that 1.9 million people had been automatically enrolled into a workplace pension by the end of October this year, and we expect to see a total of between 6 million and 9 million people newly participating or saving more in a workplace pension by the time automatic enrolment is fully rolled out, but this Bill was introduced to Parliament because we should not stop here.

In the latest DWP report Attitudes to Pension: The 2012 Survey, only 21% of respondents felt that they knew,

“enough about pensions to decide with confidence how to save for retirement”.

No fewer than 17 Social Security Acts covering pensions since 1975 and thousands of lines of secondary legislation have meant that considerable complexity has built up in the state pension system over time.

At the core of the Bill, therefore, is the provision for the new single-tier pension: a flagship reform which will simplify the current state pension system and provide a firm foundation for pension saving. These reforms will replace the current, two-tiered pension system with a simpler single-tier state pension for future pensioners—those who reach state pension age on or after 6 April 2016.

The full rate of the new state pension will be set above the basic means test. This will help to clarify the incentive to save privately for retirement without the need for the complex savings credit element of state pension credit. The savings credit will therefore close to those reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016. The introduction of the single-tier pension thus reduces means-testing in the pension system, halving the proportion of new pensioners qualifying for pension credit.

There will be far less variation in state pension payments under the new system. We estimate that more than 80% of people reaching state pension age by the mid- 2030s will receive the full single-tier pension. Those who have historically done poorly in the current system, such as the self-employed, carers and those with interrupted work histories, who are often women, will benefit from the introduction of the single-tier pension. Around 650,000 women who reach state pension age in the first 10 years after the single-tier pension is introduced will receive an average of £8 per week more in state pension due to the single-tier valuation.

There will be a minimum qualifying period for entitlement to the new single-tier pension. This period will be set out in regulations, but I am able to advise noble Lords that the Government have today announced that this is to be set at 10 years, in line with the assumptions made in the White Paper and the impact assessment. Integral to the single-tier reforms is the closure of the state second pension for people reaching state pension age on or after 6 April 2016. Contracting out of the state second pension for defined benefit schemes will therefore come to an end in April 2016 and all employees will pay the same rate of national insurance and become entitled to state pension in the same way. As part of the simplification of the system, the outdated provisions which allow a spouse or civil partner to boost their state pension on the basis of the record of their partner or ex-partner will end. These provisions, introduced in the 1940s, are no longer appropriate for today’s society, where the vast majority of men and women get a full basic state pension in their own right.

In addition to reforming the state pension system to make it simpler, the Government are taking action on state pension age to ensure the system remains affordable and fair between generations in light of continuing increases in life expectancy across all socioeconomic groups. The Pensions Act 2007 set the original timetable for increasing the state pension age to 66, 67, and 68. Since then, the average life expectancy of a man reaching age 65 in 2013 has increased by over a year. We are therefore bringing forward the increase in state pension age to 67 by eight years, so that it gradually increases from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028. No one will experience a rise in state pension age of more than 1 year compared to the original timetable that was set by the Pensions Act 2007 and I can assure noble Lords that this will not affect anyone whose pension age was changed by the Pensions Act 2011.

The fact that people are living longer is to be welcomed. Yet continued increases in life expectancy place a great deal of pressure on the pensions system. The Bill therefore also provides for a regular review of the state pension age so that is it considered once every Parliament. This will ensure that the state pension age is examined in an open and transparent way on a regular basis and prevent future Governments from needing to take emergency action. As part of these reviews, the Government of the day will ask the Government Actuary and an independently led review to report on life expectancy and a whole range of other factors relevant to setting the state pension age. The Government will then consider what adjustments, if any, should be made to pensionable age. This is not an automatic mechanism for future increases, however, and any resulting proposals to change the state pension age would still need to be set out in primary legislation.

I turn now to Part 3 of the Bill, which provides for the abolition of the assessed income period in pension credit. The assessed income period was introduced as part of pension credit in 2003 and was a new approach to case maintenance for customers aged 65 and over. This was based on the assumption that pensioners were more likely to have relatively stable incomes with fewer changes in their circumstances and so a lighter touch maintenance and review regime was deemed appropriate. However, it has proved more complex than originally anticipated and the assessed income period has allowed inaccuracies to build up in the system. As customers with an assessed income period do not need to inform the department if they experience changes in their capital or the make-up of their retirement income, an increase—for example, a windfall—can legitimately be ignored until the end of the period. Many see this as unfair, particularly in the current economic climate. The Bill will therefore abolish the assessed income period from April 2016. Older customers will be protected through the continuation of existing indefinite assessed income periods for those aged over 75.

Moving on from state pensions, the Bill contains measures to reform the bereavement benefits system through the introduction of the bereavement support payment, which will both simplify and modernise the current complex payment and contribution system of bereavement benefits. The current system was introduced at a time when women were not seen as workers and when widows were left destitute. However, society has changed. Women are no longer expected to be dependent on their partners and we now have an expectation for people to work, with universal credit to support those who cannot.

However, we recognise that many working-age people, regardless of income, do not make contingencies for the loss of a spouse or civil partner and are unprepared for the significant financial impact in the period immediately following the bereavement. We have therefore designed the new payment to focus on this period. It will support people with the additional financial pressures associated with bereavement, helping them plan during the readjustment period and better understand what they will receive from the state while encouraging a supported return to work for those without employment. An additional £110 million will be invested in bereavement benefits during the first four years of reform, so that existing recipients are protected over the course of the next Parliament and those who claim the new bereavement support payment get the help they need when they need it most.

Finally, the Bill contains a number of private pensions measures. As I said earlier, 13 million people are currently not saving enough to ensure an adequate income in retirement. Furthermore, the number of employees saving into a workplace pension has declined from 12.9 million in 1997 to 12.1 million in 2012. It is expected that automatic enrolment will see between 6 million and 9 million people either starting to save or saving more into workplace pensions, and the introduction of the single-tier pension will ensure that the state provides a good platform for private saving. Measures in the Bill are therefore designed to build on these reforms and give people greater confidence in pension saving.

As a result of more people saving into a private pension we expect to see more dormant pension pots as people move jobs—up to 50 million by 2050. The Bill therefore contains powers to introduce a pot-follows-member system of automatic transfers of small pension pots. This will help people to better keep track of their pension savings and ensure that they reap the benefits of consolidating those small pots.

The automatic enrolment of people into pension schemes and the introduction of automatic transfers make it all the more important that schemes used for workplace pensions are well governed, well administered and offer value for money. The Bill therefore extends powers to set minimum quality requirements for workplace pension schemes and to limit or prohibit charges to allow the Government to respond to the recent consultations on these issues accordingly. In addition, the Bill contains a number of measures to clarify and strengthen existing private pensions legislation, including a power to prohibit the offering of incentives to transfer pension rights. Finally, the Bill gives the Pensions Regulator a new objective to minimise the impact on the sustainable growth of an employer when regulating defined benefit pension scheme funding, and it also makes changes to the calculation of the Pension Protection Fund’s compensation cap to reflect long service.

Following further work done by my department and the report from the esteemed Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, I plan to bring forward a small number of amendments during the Committee stage. I will ensure that noble Lords are made aware of those in good time. I very much look forward to an informed and constructive debate on the reforms and measures in the Bill, both this afternoon and over the coming months. I particularly look forward to hearing the maiden speech from my noble friend Lord Balfe, who I am sure will make an erudite contribution to this afternoon’s discussion.

To sum up, this Bill introduces significant reforms to state and private pensions and will bring our pensions system into the 21st century. It will allow security in old age and provide a firm foundation for today’s working-age people so they can save with confidence for their retirement, an ambition with which I am sure noble Lords will wholeheartedly agree. I commend this Bill to the House. I beg to move.

16:04

[Baroness Sherlock (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for that introduction. This Bill builds on the foundations laid by the Labour Government and, for that reason, we support many of its provisions. I hope that with the Minister we can find some consensus around the major direction of travel. I also hope that he will work with me in seeing what we can do during the passage of the Bill to make pensions interesting. I do not promise that my contribution today will advance that cause greatly, but it falls to all of us, if we want to raise the level of saving in this country, to try to raise the level of interest in it as well. So far, when anyone asks me what I am working on and I tell them that it is the Pensions Bill, I find that they have looked at their watch before I finish the sentence. I look forward to all the speeches, including the maiden speech, and to seeing what we can do to advance “Project Interesting”.

Moving firmly away from that agenda, I may say that one reason why we agree with the idea of a single-tier pension is that it is very much the direction of travel that the previous Labour Government took. However, we have some significant questions about the way in which this Government are doing it and about the decision to go with what is known in the trade as a hard/fast transition. We agree, too, with the need to address the way the state pension age is raised, but we have different views on the best way to achieve consensus around that.

The project of overhauling both state and private pension provision is of crucial importance to the future of our country. We on these Benches will do all that we can to improve this Bill to ensure that it is fit for the job ahead. But that job is a tough one, made harder by the climate of mistrust which obtains at present—mistrust of the industry, which we must all address, and, I regret to say, mistrust of government. People can become cynical, and sometimes have, in the welfare area, when something presented as a reform turns out all too often to be really just a cut. It is popularly assumed that with financial services products the bad news and exclusions are buried in the small print. The same may be true here, of course. Parliament does not yet have the small print, or the regulations, as we call them, but I hope that the Minister can tell us how soon we can get them. But we must maintain an appropriate degree of scepticism until we see what the detail is. That is particularly important in the light of the 13th report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, to which the Minister referred, which has a great deal to say about how this Bill uses regulations. So I look forward very much to the amendments that will come forward from the Government shortly.

Before moving on to the detail, I, too, would like to say a few words about the context of this Bill and background. When Labour came to office in 1997, we inherited two challenges in relation to pensions from the previous Conservative Government. First, there were disgracefully high levels of pensioner poverty, much of it among generations who worked hard to rebuild Britain after the last war. The second problem was the degree of mistrust in the pensions industry, some of it caused by the mis-selling scandals of the 1980s and 1990s. Labour addressed both challenges head on. We introduced a minimum income guarantee for pensioners, lifting incomes from £68.80 per week in 1997 to more than £132 by 2010. Under Labour, pensioner poverty fell to the lowest level for 30 years. We pegged pensions to increase in line with earnings and brought in pension savings credit to tackle the 100% marginal deduction rate facing many savers. We brought low earners and carers into the state second pension and introduced legislation for auto-enrolment. I pay tribute to the Government for taking that forward and implementing it. Crucially, we reduced the years of national insurance contributions required for a full state pension from 44 years to 30 years for men and from 39 years to 30 years for women. We also set up the Turner commission, to which the Minister referred. I, too, add my congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and my noble friend Lady Drake on the excellent work that they did.

Labour supports the creation of a simple state pension system, and we are committed to the goal of encouraging people to save into private pensions in which they can have confidence. But we believe there are three tests that this Bill must pass if it is to achieve those objectives. First, is it fair to all those who have contributed? Secondly, is it sustainable in the long term? Thirdly, does it create a decent standard of living for all and, within that, will it encourage the private pensions saving that the Government are banking on to ensure decent retirement income? We will apply those three tests to the Bill as we scrutinise it over the weeks ahead.

I turn briefly to each part of the Bill. The biggest challenge to understanding the reforms to state pension provision in Part 1 is figuring out who are the winners and losers. The Minister has graciously allowed us access to his officials so we hope to dig down into that before Committee. However, I wish to lay out some big questions, on which I hope he can come back. First, as the Bill goes through the House, the Minister will need to confirm the precise level at which the single-tier pension will be introduced. The reason for that is twofold. First, the Work and Pensions Select Committee recommended that, given the importance of the principle that the STP is above the level of the pension credit guarantee, the level should be on the face of the Bill. Furthermore, paragraph 3 of the DPRRC report said that the Bill is drawn in a way which means that,

“for the first time, the rate of the state pension will be specified only in subordinate legislation”.

Given that, the Minister needs to tell the House what the level of the STP will be.

Secondly, there is the issue of those 700,000 women born between 1951 and 1953 who will have to wait longer to retire but will not get the new single-tier pension, unlike men of the same age. While a line has to be drawn somewhere, I think the House will want to reflect carefully before concluding that, after a reform of this scale, a twin brother and sister should find themselves in such markedly different positions.

Thirdly, some people who are married or widowed will receive a lower pension because the derived entitlements to which the Minister referred have been taken away. In other words, they would have expected to get a higher pension based on their husband’s or wife’s contributions, and they will now not be able to do so. Although state pension rules of course change over time, this is a long-standing provision around which some couples have planned their retirement income. The Work and Pensions Select Committee recommended that women within 15 years of state pension age should retain that right, so I would be very interested to know why the Government decided not to accept that advice.

Fourthly, the move from 30 to 35 qualifying years could mean that a number of people, especially women and the low paid, are less likely to get a full state pension, and someone with 9.5 years of national insurance contributions will get not a penny in state pension. The House will want to understand more about the rationale for that and the consequences of that shift which reverses a significant Labour reform which reduced the number of years to 30. I would also be grateful if the Minister could confirm for the record what the safety net will be for those who do not have 10 years of contributions.

Then we have the issue of the abolition of the savings credit element of pension credit. We are concerned that that will penalise those who have savings and could discourage saving in future. We will want to understand who will lose out and by how much and whether there is an issue about passported benefits which are currently attached to that. I hope that the Minister can tell us more about that either today or as we go through Committee.

Finally in Part 1, we will want to examine the impact on both public and private sector pension schemes of the changes relating to the ending of contracting out. In addition, when these reforms are implemented, national insurance contributions for contracted out workers will rise, as will those for their employers. The Bill allows private pension schemes to amend their terms to take account of the increase in employers’ contributions but public sector schemes cannot do that, presumably to avoid destabilising the public sector pension settlements. That leaves an unfunded cost on the shoulders of public sector employers. Can the Minister tell the House whether the Government have committed to meeting that cost for those public sector employers, perhaps from the £5.5 billion windfall the Treasury will get as a result of increased national insurance contributions?

In Part 2 of the Bill on pensionable age, the major issue relates to the proposal to have regular reviews of pensionable age, at least every six years. We agree with the need for periodic review, but the Minister is right to say that everything around this needs to be consensual. We agree with the principle but we think that, done badly, this could be very bad and could remove certainty for future pensioners and damage trust in the system, undermining incentives to save for the future. It is vital that the way the state pension age is reviewed is not just fair, but seen to be fair, ideally delivering cross-party consensual support for reforms in which the public can then have confidence. We believe that the best way to do that is for the reviews to be overseen by an independent cross-party panel, including a Cross-Bench Member of this House, and for it to have a broad remit. It should be tasked to consider not just the latest trends in life expectancy and the long-range public expenditure issues but also, for example, differences in life expectancy for different socioeconomic groups and the degree to which health and ageing go hand in hand.

I will return to Part 3 on assessed income periods when we get to Committee.

Part 4 is very interesting, proposing, as it does, a complete overhaul of bereavement support. As I understand it, bereaved people under 45 without children will benefit, receiving a flat-rate grant for one year for the first time, but I think that bereaved parents with children will be the losers. At the moment, they can claim widowed parent’s allowance for as long as they claim child benefit, although in fact the average length of claim is just five years. However, in future their support will last for only a year, and that is a major shift. We have received strong representations from charities which work with families with children, particularly bereaved families, and which are worried about the impact of this reform on bereaved parents. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain the Government’s rationale behind this. Although there may be more investment in the short term, I understand that over the long term the measure will save money, or at least be neutral, and effectively it will therefore redistribute money from parents with children who lose a partner to people who do not have children. Understanding why that choice was made would be helpful.

We are also very concerned about the conditionality requirements. The Minister mentioned that society has changed and that people are expected to work. They are, but early widowhood is not just an ordinary time for someone to go out to work. When families lose one parent, the effect on the other parent can be very severe. I hope that the Minister will think again about the conditionality requirements so that a person will not be expected to go out to work just six months after losing a partner. That would be very difficult.

Finally, I turn to Part 5 on private pensions. The Government have explained to us the numbers coming into auto-enrolment. If we think about this, it is clear that the state owes a very serious duty of care to those who have auto-enrolled into the pension system. If we are going to ask people, at a time of wage stagnation and a cost-of-living crisis, to forgo spending on themselves and their family today in order to invest for the future, they absolutely must be able to trust their pension providers.

This is a huge industry in the UK. About £180 billion is invested in trust schemes and £275 billion of assets is invested for DC schemes. Some 180,000 people with assets worth £2.65 billion have money in pension pots with annual management charges of over 1%, and 400,000 people a year buy an annuity. The numbers are eye-watering but the principles are pretty simple: the pension industry has to deliver value for money. However, the OFT study published this year made it clear that there are some serious issues in this industry which need addressing.

We propose a number of ways in which the Bill could address the challenge of building a private pension sector that people can trust. The first is to improve pension schemes. We will argue for the full disclosure of all costs and charges, including the costs extracted by fund managers, and stronger trustee-based governance of savers’ pension money, including the extension of fiduciary duties to all intermediaries who handle pension savings and policies, with the aim of encouraging bigger, better, stronger, well resourced and expert pension schemes which are more able to provide value for money for savers.

The second proposal is better management of pension pots when people move jobs. We absolutely agree about the need to make sure that people do not lose track of pension pots when they move to a new job, but we absolutely disagree with the way that the Government have decided to do this. The Government have chosen “pot follows member”, as it is known in the trade, but that raises some really serious questions. The most important are probably, first, the potential for customer detriment if, for example, the new employer’s pension scheme is worse than the one that the person is leaving, and, secondly, the real concerns about administrative complexity and the cost of this way of doing things. We will need to drill down to that in Committee.

Our preferred solution would be for the pot, by default, to move to an aggregator such as NEST, or one of its competitors, rather than to the new employer’s scheme. That is not just a Labour position; it is backed by many key experts, as we will come back to in Committee. In fact, the DWP went out to consultation on this and, even though a majority of respondents preferred the aggregator model, the Government chose to plough on with “pot follows member” instead. I would be very interested to understand why the Government are so set on this mistaken path. I genuinely cannot see why they are so set on it. None the less, we shall seek to improve the Bill in Committee by bringing the aggregator model firmly into play.

Thirdly, pension charges have to be reasonable if people are to have confidence to invest their hard-earned money. I am sorry to say that it has taken the Government a long time to wake up to this issue. More than one year ago, my right honourable friend Ed Miliband raised the issue of pension charges and Ministers accused him of scaremongering. They said that no action was needed because the market was “vibrant”. In another place, the Pensions Minister ignored the evidence presented by experts. He stonewalled the determined efforts of my honourable friend Gregg McClymont as the Bill went through elsewhere to try to do something about pension charges. I am delighted to say that Ministers have now acknowledged that there is an issue and we are promised a consultation and a cap on charges. I absolutely welcome this change of heart. As I am sure the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby will confirm, there is more rejoicing in heaven for the one sinner who has repented than there is for the 99 who have always been there. I welcome the Minister and the Government to the happy place which Labour has happily occupied for some time. However, we will need to drill down on this in Committee. We will need to understand exactly where the Government are going on this, the right level for the cap, whether the cap will include the full range of charges and deductions, and how soon action will be taken.

Finally, there is the means by which people turn their pension pot into an income for retirement—decumulation, in the jargon. Most people use their pension pot to buy an annuity. We are the annuity capital of the world. More than half of all annuities are sold in the UK but the annuity market has some serious issues and is badly in need of reform. Performance is hugely variable, charges are often unreasonably high and the margins are such as to raise serious questions about whether they are value for money for savers. We will seek to amend the Bill in Committee and on Report to ensure that people approaching retirement receive good quality, independent advice, something that is already best practice and available in many of the larger schemes.

In conclusion, there is much to do to improve the Bill but we very much welcome the direction of travel. At heart, pensions are about trust; trust that the system is fair and sustainable, trust for savers that their contributions are safe, and trust that the market is working fairly and in the interest of savers. People in Britain must trust us to ensure that, having contributed to pensions for their whole life, they will have the income to afford a decent standard of living and to enjoy their later years. We hope that the Minister will work with us in Committee and on Report to provide the House with all the information that it needs and help us all to make the Bill the best that it can be. That is what the pensioners of tomorrow expect and it is what they deserve.

16:22

[Lord German (LD)]

My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has set me quite a challenge in making pensions interesting, although I might venture to say that the capping of pension charges has appeared on the front pages of a large number of newspapers in recent weeks. I must say to her that calling my honourable friend Steve Webb a sinner is perhaps a step too far.

This Bill will transform the state pension system by introducing its new single flat-rate pension. I, too, pay tribute at the outset to all those who have contributed to its happening. I particularly want to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of my honourable friend the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, not just for bringing this Bill to Parliament but for bringing to fruition a policy which reflects my party’s long-standing aspiration for a citizen’s pension. We have worked for that for many years.

The new single-tier state pension will particularly benefit women and the self-employed. It will also make it easier for people to understand what they will receive from the state when they retire. It will help to promote private saving and build on the base of auto-enrolment, which in itself has had a most encouraging start. Under the current state pension, a woman on average receives £40 less a week than a man. The new single-tier system will treat men and women alike. The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that of women arriving at state pension age in the first four years of this policy—between 2016 and 2020—61% will see their pension income increased as a result, and that there will be further progress as time passes by.

The IFS analysis also shows that the gains are greatest for those who have spent periods not in work, caring for children, and for those men and women who have had long periods of self-employment. The new system will fully count time spent out of work caring for children, which is of particular benefit to women, who are still more likely to take time out of work as a result of starting a family. The new system also benefits self-employed people, who currently lose out as a result, among other things, of irregular working patterns and the difficulty of applying a means test to them.

The benefit of simplicity cannot be overvalued. Simplification is very worthwhile. It enables people easily to understand their future position in respect of a state pension, which in turn should act as a spur to help people save more for their retirement. Coupled with automatic enrolment, we should see the quality and cost of private saving schemes improve. That is why the Government’s proposal to cap pension charges is so important. It is a crucial part of the mix in creating a strong, good-value and sustainable future pensions offer.

Reading through speeches from the other House and responses from a wide variety of interest groups, there would appear to be broad support for the single-tier proposal, and in particular for where it will stand when brought fully to fruition. At that point, the vast majority of people will have 30 or more qualifying years, and they will get at least as good a pension from the single-tier proposal as they would had the current system continued. However, as with so many policy changes, transitioning from one system to another is where we find the most difficulties.

Of course, as pensions provision has a long timespan tail, transitioning becomes even more difficult. The Government have made significant changes to the transitioning arrangements from when they first appeared as a policy proposal, but I know that your Lordships’ House will wish to examine and probe to see if the best balance, in the light of all the circumstances, has been struck. This is a complex issue, but there are some broad issues in the Bill that I would now like to highlight.

The first relates to public sector contracting out in pensions. As it stands, the Bill provides for private sector pension schemes to be able to amend their rules to accommodate the loss of income from national insurance contribution rebates. These permitted scheme changes can go no further than recouping the loss of these rebates, but can be used more than once to achieve any objective—perhaps by staging changes according to the strength of their overall funds. But this ability to modify does not apply to public sector pension schemes.

Public sector schemes cannot alter contribution levels into their funds, nor can they alter the benefits offered. Yet there will be a reduction to these schemes in national insurance contributions, of 1.4% from employees and 3.4% from employers. Meanwhile, the Government retain this money—which some estimate at £5.5 billion a year from 2016 onwards—for, among things, forward-funding the requirements of this new pension.

A helping hand to employers has been introduced to allow them from next April to offset the first £2,000 against their national insurance bill. This means that many small companies will pay no national insurance at all. Some of the retained government finance has already been committed to meeting the financial demands of other age-related policies, such as funding the care proposal cap outlined in the Dilnot report. Roughly on a 5:7 to 2:7 ratio, two-sevenths of the retained money has been allocated and five-sevenths remains to be allocated. That is an annual unallocated multibillion-pound sum.

I recognise that this could be seen as a decision to be taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer at some stage in the future, at the beginning or after the beginning of the single-tier proposal. However, just as the current Chancellor has allocated support in certain areas in advance of retaining the current national insurance contribution rebates, I would like to understand why the Government cannot go further at this time.

By way of example, if we were in times of plenty, with public sector pension funds running strong surpluses, pension schemes would be able to deal with the changes in contributions. However, many funds are not. I wonder if my noble friend would agree that without the power to amend their schemes, any shortfalls will have to be made up by the public sector organisations responsible; and that this could mean local authorities, who are currently so stretched for resources to meet the urgent demands of their communities, having to find the extra cash needed to sustain their pension funds. It would therefore make sense for the Government to give some forward commitment to pension funds to enable them to bridge the transfer to the new regime.

There are also mixed schemes, with both private and public contributors, which will be treated as a public sector scheme, and others with public and private sector contributors that perhaps will be treated as a private sector scheme. I will quote my own example, and declare an interest. I receive a pension from a public sector pension scheme, but my contributions are, and were, made by a charity—a company limited by guarantee—which obviously was not in the public sector. Some of these anomalies are not immediately obvious, and I believe that we need further clarification on this very important issue during the course of the Bill through your Lordships’ House.

I am sure that my noble friend will be pleased to note that I do not intend to press for a review of the overseas frozen pensions issue, as raised by Clause 20. I am well aware of the costs to the Exchequer, and of the European Court of Justice decision. However, this issue is an anomaly and I can understand the feelings of many UK pensioners living in those countries, where no agreement was reached so many decades ago. Will the Minister tell the House how many Governments of countries with whom there was no such agreement have expressed an opinion on this matter to the UK Government—and, if so, whether any of them had a deal to offer? I would be grateful if the Minister could make any such correspondence available.

This Bill, not unusually, has tacked on to it a measure that is only loosely related to its principle—that of bereavement benefit. The current system pays people a relatively small lump sum and then a taxable weekly benefit over a longer period of time. It also uses a complex system of contribution conditions that makes it difficult to calculate what people will receive.

We are told that the reforms in the Bill are based on what people have told the Government would provide them with the most support. I understand that the Government believe they are not about reducing entitlement or saving money. However, there is one part of the reforms that is particularly harsh—and, some might argue, cruel. The Government will expect parents of bereaved children to look for work just six months after the child’s mother or father has died. Kinship carers, by contrast, will be exempt from full work-search requirements for a year after a child comes to live with them, to allow the child to settle. As charities have pointed out, this could lead to the perverse situation where a father caring for his daughter after his wife's death would be required to work within six months, whereas if the child went to live with an auntie, a full year could be dedicated to helping her adjust. Subjecting widows and widowers to full conditionality at such an early stage in their grief may be counterproductive; it may increase stress and anxiety, which in turn may lengthen time away from work.

In most families, the current weekly payments of bereavement benefit assist with general living expenses, with many finding those essential to meet basic living costs. Where the person who died was the main breadwinner, the benefit goes some way to replacing their income, allowing some continuity with arrangements for looking after the children. For others, it allows the surviving parent more flexibility to work fewer hours or to change jobs or even sector to fit with their new responsibilities as sole carer of their child. Requiring bereaved parents to complete a readjustment in just six months is harsh indeed, and I hope that the Government will reconsider it.

We will have an opportunity to examine this matter as well as other matters related to transition issues during the Bill’s passage through this House. We on these Benches will not lose sight of the value of this measure to our country.

This Bill is to be welcomed. It sets in train a new pensions settlement for the people of this country. It treats men and women, employed and self-employed, equally. It is easy to understand and simplifies the complexities that are a huge fault in the current system. It will help people of working age to make sensible choices about the need for additional saving for retirement. Whatever changes are sought, I hope your Lordships will recognise that this vision of a better pension is a goal worth pursuing.

16:35

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure and privilege to follow my noble friend Lord German on DWP matters, where his own knowledge shames my ignorance but reassures me that the Government’s position is being knowledgeably defended.

When we debate subjects other than specific legislation, there is a happy convention that we congratulate the noble Lord who has secured the debate on having done so, and we can normally find it in us to congratulate him or her on the manner in which he or she has opened the debate and developed the underlying issues. We then speak to a time limit that is rationed by the time available for the debate. The latter does not apply to Second Reading, where we receive polite advice, on some occasions, from the Captain of the Gentlemen-at-Arms as to how long individual Back-Benchers can speak, if they are as anxious as the rest of your Lordships’ House to conclude the debate by 10 pm. Ironically, the more speakers, the more likely it is that some individual speakers will exceed the ration suggested by the Chief Whip. Today, this privation does not apply and, perhaps equally ironically, I propose to make a very short speech.

As to the absence of the normal advance congratulations to the Minister opening the debate, I find myself in the position of congratulating my noble friend not only on having secured the debate but on his substance. He has of course secured it through his and his DWP colleagues’ persuasive logic in L Committee and I join your Lordships’ House in its commendation of the Pensions Minister himself.

I am not myself competent to take up the challenge from the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, to make pensions interesting, but I entirely welcome her challenge to your Lordships’ House at large. In the note from our Library on the Bill, I was struck by the reasoned explanation of how British state pension legislation had evolved over the past century since our noble friends the Liberal Democrats initiated this provision in their pre-World War I legislation. I am perhaps one of the rare Members of your Lordships’ House who can truthfully say that, as in the old saw, Lloyd George knew my father, as my noble kinsman arrived in the House of Commons at the first by-election after Munich.

The Library note goes on to describe the state of the state pension in 1945 when World War II ended. It goes beyond that to say that much of the relevant legislation since then has been attaching legislative barnacles to the good ship “Provision for Old Age”. When I say that I congratulate my noble friend on the substance of the Bill, I am congratulating him and his department not only on riding the two bareback horses of welfare reform and pension revision at the same time, but on the extent to which the pension revision in the Bill improves the hull of the good ship “Provision for Old Age”—to the extent that the Official Opposition in the other place, echoed today by the noble Baroness on the opposition Front Bench, have felt able to launch it in our House with their support, whatever continuing gaps they have identified.

I ask my noble friend, in his wind-up speech, not to omit to acknowledge what gaps still need attention. Ideally, he should identify how he thinks they should be tackled and refined, even if it may be in the next Parliament. If he can do that with candour, and avoid some of the things that have gone wrong since 1945, a grandchild of mine, especially if he or she reaches either House of this Parliament, may be able to follow the Lloyd George saw with his or her own version: “Lord Freud knew my grandpa”; and, in yet another place, I shall smile quietly.

16:39

[Lord Hutton of Furness (Lab)]

My Lords, I draw your Lordships’ attention to the interests that I have declared in the register. I am an unremunerated non-executive director of Pension Quality Mark Ltd and advisory director to Dimensional Fund Advisors.

There is a great deal in the Bill that can be welcomed and supported. I genuinely believe that it takes forward much of the consensus that has recently been established in this country about the best way to ensure that more people retire with an adequate pension. That is a very important thing to be doing. There are some people—maybe even in this House—who recoil from the concept of a consensus in politics, but when it comes to pensions policy, consensus is a very important thing to strive for, in that it establishes the conditions for people to plan for the future with some confidence. The one thing that has bedevilled pensions policy in the UK in recent years has been the constant stop and start, chop and change, which has acted as a deterrent to people saving.

I, too, pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Turner, my noble friend Lady Drake and Sir John Hills—the three commissioners who made up the Turner commission —for helping us to focus our collective attention on two fundamental problems that we face in this country. If the goal is to ensure that more people retire with an adequate income, which I think is the right policy because we cannot ask the taxpayer to shoulder the principal burden in future years in the way that it has done in the past, we know that we have to address these two fundamental problems.

Not enough people are saving and what they are saving is probably not going to be enough to give them an adequate retirement income, so we have to address that. We are addressing that now with auto-enrolment. The speakers in this debate have already drawn attention to the progress that we are making. The Minister referred to the nearly 2 million savings accounts that have been established under auto-enrolment. That is to be welcomed, there is no question at all about that, but we need a reality check here. These are early days for auto-enrolment. The big challenge and the big test for auto-enrolment are still to come, but so far so good: we are making good progress.

However, we should never lose sight of one very important factor: it is wrong to say that we have an established or developed savings culture in this country. In fact, the opposite is true. We know from the Office for National Statistics survey of occupational pensions that in the year running up to auto-enrolment the number of occupational pension savers in this country fell by almost half a million—in one year. It is going to be a significant challenge to move from a culture that honours and pays homage to debt, consumerism and spending to one that puts a premium value on saving, but we have to make that transition. Auto-enrolment is the right policy to ensure that we make progress in that direction. The Bill makes some changes to auto-enrolment, such as the technical changes in Clauses 36 to 40. Some of those are to be welcomed. There is quite a lot of detail that needs to be fleshed out as we move to Committee and Report.

The issue of how much people are saving is altogether more complicated. Today is probably not the time for a debate about how much people are contributing via auto-enrolment into these new savings accounts, but the time is probably not far off when we will have to have a very honest debate in this country about whether 8% or 9% of earnings going into a defined contribution pension will be sufficient to guarantee people a decent and adequate pension in retirement. I, for one, do not believe it is.

The group of savers that we should be most concerned about are actually not those who are the lowest paid. They will do well in auto-enrolment, together with reforms to the state pension that I want to say a word or two about in a minute. The people we in this House should be most concerned about are those on median earnings, who are above the lowest threshold of earnings, who are almost certainly not heading in the right direction at the moment when it comes to ensuring that they have adequate pensions. That debate cannot be postponed for very much longer.

The second of the two big problems that we face in this country concerns the state pension. It has been clear to all of us—it was certainly clear to my colleagues in the previous Government—that the state pension has become far too complicated and far too wrapped up in means-testing, and there is a serious risk that it will act as a deterrent to people taking the principal responsibility themselves to save for their retirement. That would have been a major, mortal threat to auto-enrolment and the principle behind it, which is to shift over time the burden of responsibility for saving from the state to the individual.

Like my noble friend Lady Sherlock, who made an excellent speech from the Front Bench—to be fair, the Minister did too—I think that moving to a single state pension represents an historic opportunity to make sure that we avoid that car crash. Moving to a single state pension can complement auto-enrolment and not undermine it—and there would have been a good chance of that happening if we had continued on the path that we were on.

All I shall say about the single state pension today on Second Reading is that reform, very important and welcome though it is, is not going to be straightforward. I remember well the time when I had just become Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I was going through a briefing with my officials on the nature of the state pension. We had a full discussion about that—there were pages in my briefing note about it and I hoped that I had got my head around it. When I turned the volume over to deal with the state second pension, there was nothing in the folder. I asked the Permanent Secretary at the time, “Where is the briefing on the state second pension?”. He said to me, “Secretary of State, it’s too complicated for us to explain it”. I was never quite sure whether he meant, “You aren’t capable of understanding it so I’m not going to bother with trying to do that”, or whether they were saying something which was actually true—that is, that it had become too complicated. I think that the latter is the case. There is no doubt in my mind that it has become complicated. As a consequence, there are some genuine transitional issues to sort out. I am quite sure that it is the right thing in principle to be doing. We know that some people will lose out; for example, people who due to their earnings would have built up a higher state second pension if these changes had not been made. It will be very important, although the principle is right, for Ministers to keep their minds open about how this change can best be implemented. However, as I have said, I think that it is the right thing to do.

Like others, I welcome Part 2 of the Bill, in particular the commitment to keep the pensionable age under regular review. This change will be necessary if we are to stay ahead of the demographic changes that have already had a tremendous impact on our society and that, if anything is true, are accelerating. Many think that at some point this trend for longer life expectancy will flip into reverse; I really doubt that to be true. There is no doubt that the pressures, both financial and societal, will build up unless we stay ahead of the process of demographic change.

That is easier said than done in many respects, and I say that for one reason: the age at which people retire, certainly for men, and for women in fact, had not changed for several generations. My grandfather would have retired at the age of 65. We have all come to expect as a natural order of things to get to that age and then retire. That is the old world and it has to be left behind, but it is sometimes difficult to persuade people to understand that. The good news is that I think that people have generally taken a very pragmatic view. If you compare the response in Britain to the increasing age at which the state pension is payable with the response to similar reforms in other European countries, you can detect a degree of welcome pragmatism here in the UK, and that bodes well for the future. However, further change is necessary and it is right that we make sure that the process is as objective and non-partisan as possible, which is why Part 2 is to be welcomed.

There is therefore a great deal to be welcomed in the Bill. I would like to say that the same is true of Part 5, particularly the clauses dealing with the transfer of pension benefits, but I really cannot say that to your Lordships’ House. The Government have made a significant mistake, or stand on the threshold of doing so, in their reforms around pot follows member.

The Minister made it clear that there could as a result of auto-enrolment be up to 50 million small pension pots being established. People will change employment fairly regularly, particularly early on in their working careers, and there is a danger of lots of small pension pots being developed and basically left dormant. We should not be complacent about that; we have got to decide what to do about it. The Government have come up with the idea of pot follows member. The other obvious course open to them, which my noble friend referred to from the Front Bench, to use aggregation as the default option, has been rejected.

I say to the Minister that I hope he can reflect on this with his colleagues. I think that a mistake is about to be made here and I hope that we can avoid it even at this late stage. I have nothing in principle against pot follows member—there is a logic to it—but making it the default option through legislation is the wrong decision. I say that it is wrong because it lacks ambition. It exposes some savers to the risk that they will move from well run, well managed, good value-for-money schemes into schemes that are less well run and provide less value for money. I am not entirely sure that the minimum standards will iron out or rule out that hazard.

When it comes to setting policy in this area, we must keep asking ourselves: what is the best thing for people who are saving? It is not necessarily the same thing to ask ourselves: what is the least risky reform for Ministers to make? The question is: what is in the best interests of savers? I accept that aggregation poses some significant challenges—there needs to be a clearing house, proper data, and so on—but that route genuinely offers the prospect of higher pensions in retirement than pot follows member.

The National Association of Pension Funds has made that argument very clearly. In my experience as a Minister, when the NAPF says, “You really need to think carefully about that”, Ministers really need to think carefully about the course of action that they have proposed. But it is not just the NAPF, it is other commentators, too. I am a great admirer of Michael Johnson and his recent pamphlet for the Centre for Policy Studies, which is not an organisation that I would naturally find myself standing up in the House to support. He has basically said the same thing to Ministers.

My noble friend is right to say that we need to debate those provisions in due course, and I am sure that we will. I hope that the Minister and the Government are open, even at this late stage, to taking a different perspective. The issue is: what should be the default option? I genuinely think that it is a mistake to offer pot follows member.

With that, I end my remarks. I look forward to taking part in Committee and on Report. I echo the congratulations that many others have offered to the Pensions Minister on taking forward these important historic reforms to the state pension. I am sure that it is the ardent wish of everyone in the House that the reforms work to support the savings culture that we so desperately need.

16:51

[The Lord Bishop of Derby]

My Lords, in terms of the terminology in this debate, I am not sure if my opening remark will be interesting, but it should be of interest to everybody. That is that Steve Webb is not alone; we are all sinners. I can say that, from these Benches, we all have the hope of heaven. That, of course, may be another understanding of the term “universal credit” that the Minister may like to note.

I understand pensions to be providing stability and continuity in life through a time of transition and adjustment and offering proper responses so that people can continue to live their lives securely and flourish. I see the Government’s role as creating a frame for that flourishing, stability and continuity to happen.

I want to raise a specific point about Part 4 concerning bereaved parents and their continuing family life. The Minister rightly said that society is changing rapidly, but my contention is that bereavement does not change much at all, and we need to think carefully about the notion of bereavement.

The new proposals provide for a lump sum and then bereaved support payment for one year, instead of longer term support which could last as long as you have a child on child benefit, so it is a very radical change of provision for bereavement for families who have lost a parent.

We all know that bereavement is devastating and complex and most others here, I guess, have experienced it. In my work as a priest, as your Lordships can imagine, I have a lot of engagement with people at the time of death and immediate bereavement, organising funerals, follow-up visits and then supporting the family in an ongoing way.

I suggest that one year is a very short time within which to encapsulate bereavement. Many people who work in this area in the voluntary sector would concur with that. I propose to the Minister that we should consider a three-year term to provide the stability and continuity that family life requires. I am not an experienced politician so I am not offering three years and thinking that the Minister might negotiate down to 18 months, I am saying that, from my pastoral experience, three years would be the right kind of timeframe if pensions are about providing continuity and stability.

I want to give three or four brief reasons why I propose three years. The first is in terms of the pastoral situation of the family concerned. If this support ends after one year, that comes at a very raw time. I can tell your Lordships, from my ministry, that many people who have nothing to do with the church will come back on the first anniversary to light a candle, come to Evensong and pray with a priest. We could be giving people a double loss if this support was withdrawn after one year.

Secondly, if we stop after one year, many who would then be lone parents, with children to look after, would probably have to face the prospect of working more hours to make up their income. Some people project that 75% of new claimants will be worse off under these proposals. This is just when children need more care and attention because their bereavement happens in phases, not just over a few weeks or months. Two or three years is a fair time to enable children to adjust but just when they need more time, the person who would now be their single parent might have to look to spend more time away from them at work.

Thirdly, would this be a withdrawal of the net of support for continuity and stability, and are these proposals more like a death grant than care in bereavement? There is a big difference between offering a grant, even if it is extended over a year on death, and care and bereavement. Pensions are about ongoing care and stability at a time of change into a new life.

My fourth point is on universal credit, the provision that is offered in its place. Just as families are having higher costs as children grow older and more expensive, the universal credit system which would take over after the year, as I understand it, would mean that the now lone parent would have to be willing to prepare for work while their children are three or four years old, and be available for work when they are five. That may be well within the three years during which children need special care and attention for their bereavement. Can the Minister comment on that point? Is this proposal about bereavement or an extended death grant? Bereavement is a proposal that takes pensions seriously; a death grant is nothing to do with pensions but something rather different. If pensions are to provide appropriate stability and continuity in life through times of great change into another way of living, and especially if children are involved, is there a case for having a three-year support rather than a one-year support and universal credit?

16:57

[Baroness Drake (Lab)]

My Lords, I refer to my interests in the register and mention that I am a trustee of both the Santander and Telefónica/O2 pension schemes. These state reforms accelerate the direction of travel set, with political consensus, under the Labour Government. The single tier is intended to be fairer, reduce reliance on means-tested benefits, provide a firm foundation for private savings and assist ordinary people to achieve a reasonable income in retirement. To achieve those intentions, it depends in part on the starting value of that single-tier pension and the uprating of its value over time.

The Government’s impact assessment assumes uprating will be by the triple lock but assumptions about pensions’ adequacy could be significantly different if it is not. I also note that the extent to which the single-tier pension is set above the guarantee credit is lower in the White Paper than in the Green Paper. I hope that we can explore these matters further in Committee because it is very important to understand where the consensus is settling on the value and uprating of the single tier.

The state pension age needs to rise in the face of increasing life expectancy. Five-yearly reviews by government will be informed by reports from the Government Actuary but it is less clear how much importance will be given to the report of the independent panel which will consider other relevant factors specified by the Secretary of State. Hopefully, these will include geographical, occupational and socioeconomic differences in morbidity and mortality. There is a need for greater clarity about the process and for clear public evidence to inform the debate.

The Bill also provides for the statutory override to allow private employers with contracted-out schemes to adjust members’ future pension accruals or contributions to recoup the employer’s loss of national insurance contribution rebates consequent on the abolition of contracting out. However, employers should not be able to make disproportionate adjustments. Will the actuarial advice of the trustee take precedence over that of the employer? What if adjustments disproportionately impact on one group of members compared to the other? What are the protections to be?

Many of the provisions on private pensions are to be welcomed: the abolition of incentives to induce a member to transfer their rights out of a salary-related scheme; the abolition of short-service refunds; the protection to workers’ pension contributions from the national insurance fund in the event of employer insolvency; and the granting of powers to the Secretary of State to impose requirements on work-based pension schemes on administration, governance and charges.

However, the question is whether the Government will be sufficiently bold in exercising these powers. Auto-enrolment utilises inertia, not active engagement, to get people saving. The employer chooses the pension product while employee choice is largely restricted to joining or not joining the employer’s scheme. The state harnessing inertia—together with the OFT finding that the demand side, the buyer, of the DC workplace pensions market is one of the weakest that it has analysed in years—raises the bar inexorably on governance requirements, especially as auto-enrolment drives a level of demand that the industry would not achieve under a voluntary system. Poor governance, a lack of transparency or scrutiny and conflicts of interest are to be found abundantly on the supply side. To quote the OFT,

“we have concluded that … competition cannot be relied upon to ensure value for money for savers in the DC workplace pensions market”.

Ordinary people are embracing auto-enrolment. Relatively few have opted out so far, and employers are fulfilling their duty. However, this places a reciprocal responsibility on the Government to protect ordinary people against poor standards and conflicts of interest. The challenge that the Minister is grappling with is apparent from the plethora of consultations and investigations: the FCA on annuity markets and asset management charges; the OFT on the workplace pensions market; the DWP on quality standards, governance and charges; the Law Commission on how the law of fiduciary duties applies to investment intermediaries, using pensions as an exemplar; and TPR on codes of practice. The imbalance between the buyer and the supplier sides of the pensions market, and the systemic inequalities of knowledge and understanding between saver and provider, mean that seeking an alignment of interests is not sufficient—the interests of the saver must come first. There must be a duty to act in the saver’s best interests and, where there is a conflict of interest, priority must go to the saver. No shareholder has a right to gain a dividend from selling or managing a pension product that fails to meet the interests of the saver. The product proposition cannot be designed with sub-optimal features simply to facilitate a profit.

I was therefore anxious to read that in investigating the workplace pensions market, the OFT had reached agreement with the industry to introduce independent governance committees to address the governance challenge, but before a wider community had had the chance to comment on that solution. As the Law Commission says:

“There are many difficult questions about how these committees will work”.

They,

“will not have the power to change investment strategies or investment managers … Furthermore, it is not clear whether … the committees will be under explicit legal duties to act in the interests of”,

the savers. Achieving low charges and good quality in pensions must be inseparable. Sound governance will ensure their delivery. Complexity and lack of transparency put employers and savers at a disadvantage. The OFT identified no fewer than 18 different charges. Full transparency is essential to those who are to be the guardians of the consumer’s interest.

The Secretary of State’s new powers must also be applied retrospectively to cover legacy pension savings. MoneyMarketing, in reporting that the Association of British Insurers has missed the deadline for the pension charge cap consultation, suggested that it was because providers cannot agree on whether existing pension arrangements should be included and quotes Adrian Boulding, Legal and General’s pension strategy director, saying:

“This is all about legacy and the L&G view that existing pension schemes should be able to enjoy the 0.5 per cent charge level that is widely available for new pension schemes. We are morally uncomfortable with the concept that an employer buying new in the market gets one price but an employer that has already bought and is a loyal customer is getting a worse deal for their staff … a charge cap … should apply to new schemes and existing schemes”.

Even if Legal and General has its own competitive considerations for saying those words, they still capture the issue well. We will have to see in the ABI’s crafted response where the common denominator comes to rest.

The Bill addresses the real problem of small, dormant pension pots by giving the Secretary of State power to provide for the automatic transfer of a worker’s pension savings to their new employer’s scheme up to a pot value of £10,000. “Pot follows member” cannot be implemented without raising quality standards or the Government risk transferring the savings of millions of ordinary people into myriad schemes over which they currently have little quality control. Generally, transfers take weeks, if not months. Lots of paperwork, bureaucracy, poor data and lack of standardisation combine to slow the process and increase costs.

All pension savers should easily be able to transfer and consolidate their pension savings, but some savers will never make an active decision, so an effective private pension system requires a series of efficient default arrangements over the life cycle of the saver. I have real concerns about pot follows member as the automatic default arrangement for small pots rather than the alternative of a scheme that can aggregate people’s savings.

I fear pot follows member does not accommodate people who leave the labour force or become self-employed as they have no employer to transfer to, but their ex-employer may nevertheless default them into a poorer personal pension because they do not want to provide for ex-employees in their existing scheme. PFM increases the regulatory burden to oversee the myriad workplace schemes into which automatic transfers would be made rather than focusing on leveraging extremely high quality in a few aggregator schemes. Pot follows member may prove complex for the industry to implement and increase risks to savers. Pot follows member increases risks of charges and transaction costs being incurred on the whole pension pot each time a worker changes their job and transfers rather than on the incremental amount of savings accrued with the previous employer. An efficient pot consolidation mechanism is needed, but I fear that PFM may not best meet this need.

Furthermore, many pots above £10,000 will be defaulted into a personal pension on which there is little quality control because employers increasingly will not let ex-employees stay in their workplaces scheme. The Government argue that significant sums accumulating in aggregator schemes will potentially disrupt the market, but in a dysfunctional market where competition cannot be relied upon to deliver value for money—the words of the OFT, not mine—the driver, as my noble friend said, should be the interests of the saver.

17:09

[Lord Balfe (Con)]

My Lords, I begin with a declaration of interest as a specialist director of the CERN pension scheme in Geneva, and as chair of the European Parliament members’ pension scheme. May I now move on to thanking your Lordships for the warmth of the welcome that I have received in this House? First, I thank my two sponsors: my noble friend Lord Plumb of Coleshill, who is in the Chamber tonight and whom I have known since we joined the newly elected European Parliament in July 1979; and my noble friend Lord Inglewood, whom I have also known for more than 24 years, since he similarly joined the European Parliament in July 1989. My introduction has been smoothed by many people, particularly my mentor, my noble friend Lady Fookes, and the staff of this House. I have discovered that the words, “I’m new here, can you possibly help me?” bring forth an instant and always helpful response.

This small area of London has played a very large part in my life. Foreign affairs have interested me, even from my schooldays. My working life began in January 1961 when, at the age of 16, I joined the Civil Service as a clerical officer in the Crown Agents for Overseas Governments and Administrations, based just across the road at 4 Millbank. I first came to this House because it was a nice, warm place to come to towards the end of the month when one’s money tended to run out and you needed some sort of intellectual stimulation that was free.

In the same month that I joined the Crown Agents, I first joined my trade union. I am proud to say that, from then to today, I have always been a member of a TUC-affiliated trade union. Subsequent to the Crown Agents, I went via the Foreign Office, of all places, to the London School of Economics, where I studied social policy and administration under the guidance of the late and great Richard Titmuss, with my first tutor being the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who is in the Chamber tonight. I recall that on the first essay I ever gave her she wrote, “This is journalese”. You can tell how naive I was because I thought it was a compliment until I went to the tutorial, where I discovered it was not quite the compliment I had thought.

After that I went to the DHSS where, with the late Keith Joseph as Secretary of State, I served as research officer for the Finer committee on one-parent families. It was during this time that another interest, in statistics, which had started at LSE, developed. I recall that we were looking at the impact of work on women’s mortality. We discovered in a preliminary way that women subjected to the same work and life experiences as men had quite similar mortality and that the female differentiation then taken for granted was not, in fact, in all cases completely sustainable. However, the Government Actuary’s Department was not impressed with the finding and I must admit it was far from proven. It was, however, a straw in the wind and has been at least partially confirmed as time has passed. Today, differential mortality between sexes and social classes is an accepted fact, even if the contributing factors are still in need of further evaluation. My other achievement from this period was becoming a fellow of the Royal Statistical Society, which I remain to this day.

From the DHSS, I went to the Co-operative movement and simultaneously spent four years on the pre-Livingstone GLC where, for a time, I was responsible, as chair of housing development, for building houses for Londoners and in many areas outside. It was in that capacity that I learnt the full meaning of the word “nimby” and the extent to which specious community arguments could be deployed in support of personal gain. Then, for 25 years, I was in the European Parliament. I am sure that that will be of relevance to other areas of my life in this Chamber. However, it does not form part of today’s narrative, other than to say that I acquired a reasonable knowledge of European trade unionism and was privileged to be in Bournemouth on 8 September 1988 when, in a single speech, Jacques Delors turned around the TUC to face and befriend the European project. That was indeed a memorable day; my good friend, the late Clive Jenkins, was in the chair at that congress.

From 2004 to today I have been a directoral trustee of a number of European pension funds and have done various things on the European pensions circuit. Having succeeded—as a lot of people have since succeeded—in being expelled from the Labour Party, I re-evaluated my life and joined the Conservative Party, where I am extremely happy. In 2007, however, the present Prime Minister, as leader of the Opposition, signed me up as his adviser on trade unions and co-operatives. That is how I come to be in your Lordships’ House. I believe I am the first Conservative Peer ever to have had in his citation from a Conservative Prime Minister’s office:

“Envoy to the Trade Unions and Cooperative movement”.

I broadly welcome the Bill that is before us tonight. It is a tribute to my honourable friend the Minister for Pensions, Steve Webb, that this measure has a wide degree of support. I also welcome the stability of ministerial appointments that this coalition has introduced. After, I believe, 12 Pensions Ministers during the 13 years of the previous Government, the fact that the present Minister has been in office since 2010 is welcomed by all sides of the pensions industry. Again, I am sure that there is room for a debate on the stability of ministerial posts, but it has certainly benefited decision-making. I wonder whether that stability has lead to the current position. When I asked the TUC for its views on the Bill it was able to tell me:

“I am afraid we are not in a position to provide briefing on the Pensions Bill, as we currently have a staffing gap and are not likely to have a pensions policy specialist covering the role until the New Year”.

I put it to noble Lords that if there were major difficulties, the TUC would have found the capacity to cover the issue. The Minister has clearly achieved a degree of consensus.

I will briefly raise some points for consideration in the time ahead. The first picks up on a matter referred to earlier in this speech and in other speeches. Clause 26 makes provision for a periodic review by the Secretary of State of the pensionable age in the light of changes in life expectancy and other relevant factors. I referred earlier to differential mortality. It is now known beyond all reasonable doubt that there is a wide variation in mortality and that life experience is a key factor in that. What is often referred to as “postcode mortality” conceals a much deeper area. The Government have promised a review. It is envisaged that that review will be conducted by the Government Actuary’s Department. In addition to that, the Government must appoint a panel of one or more persons to consider factors relevant to the pensionable age. I ask my noble friend to consider appointing more than one person and, in particular, to appoint at least one person who, if not nominated by the TUC is at least acceptable to it.

I do not seek to speak at length on that, and realise that we do not enter into any controversy in maiden speeches. I look forward to taking part in the next stages of the Bill. However, I hope that we can get some stability and cross-party agreement on this issue, which lasts so much longer than pensions. I end with a quote from CERN, which noble Lords will know is the nuclear research institute. They say there, “It takes 50 years to decommission a nuclear reactor, but 60 years to pay out all the pensions in our fund”. I thank noble Lords.

17:19

[Lord Whitty (Lab)]

My Lords, it gives me considerable pleasure to follow and welcome the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, in this House. He has described the slightly circuitous political route that he has taken through his life, whereby he has ended up sitting on the government Benches. I have long and, by and large, fond memories of his activities when he was, perhaps, in a slightly different political place. When I was in south London, in the early 1970s, he was already a force in the London Co-operative and Labour movement. Eventually, he became my Member of the European Parliament. He probably does not mention it that much to his colleagues these days but, during my period as general secretary of the party and his time as an officer of the British Labour group, or the EPLP, as we now call it—for some reason, whoever was in control of the EPLP, whether it was the right or the left, pro-Europeans or anti-Europeans, Richard was always an officer—he was extremely helpful to me. I shall put it no more strongly than that. When I did a European job in Brussels and Strasbourg, he was extremely helpful to me, personally, and I am very grateful for that.

Obviously, the road to Damascus is dangerous, and the noble Lord has had a bit of a conversion, the full political and spiritual aspects of which I am not entirely clear on. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, is a bit unsure himself, given the past history. But it is clear that he has retained some of his early interests and commitments, particularly in relation to the trade union movement. I recognise the Prime Minister’s wisdom in giving him his remit. I have two regrets. On the one hand, not all leaders of trade unions were prepared to talk to him on the subject; on the other, it is clear that the leader of the Conservative Party has not entirely followed his wise advice. However, he maintains an unashamed interest in that field, I am very pleased to say.

In reference to this Bill, the noble Lord’s experience with the pension scheme of European Members of Parliament is instructive. If he can make improvements to this Bill that render similar conditions for the bulk of the population, I think that we will all be seriously grateful. I extend a very good welcome to him.

As regards the Bill, I share the general consensus of the overall direction and, in particular, the concept of a single-tier pension scheme, but I do have a number of concerns. My main concern is about the impact on employee members and employers who run occupational pension schemes, both private and public. I have concern for certain other groups, as well, which may well come up in Committee—for example, the cohort of women born in the early 1950s, who seem to miss out on both counts, as well as those who would have got a better pension under the old system than they will with this one. We can deal with those issues in Committee.

My main concern at the outset is about the cost that these provisions will impose on all existing occupational schemes. I spent an early part of my youth getting large swathes of manual workers and others into occupational pension schemes, and it is one of my great regrets in life that the security that that seemed to provide them with for the first time has disappeared in the private sector to a large extent and has been diluted even within the public sector.

As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, all occupational schemes will, as a result of this Bill, face increased costs of approximately 1.4% for employees and 3.4% for employers as a result of the national insurance implications. I have a special interest in the local government scheme, and I declare an interest as a vice-president of the LGA and a member of the GMB. In neither capacity do I receive any pecuniary benefit, but nevertheless I have taken an interest, until recently being a chair of one of the member schemes of the local government scheme.

As the noble Lord, Lord German, said, in the case of private sector occupational schemes, Clause 24 allows for the overriding of existing rules and benefits which had previously been negotiated or provided by the trustees of a scheme, in order to offset these costs. I think that that is quite a dangerous move and will cause difficulties in a whole range of private sector occupational schemes. I certainly do not propose that the Government should extend that to public sector schemes. However, there has to be some recognition of the size of the impact on public sector occupational schemes. I think that the local government scheme in particular is likely to suffer from this. Some public sector trade unions and scheme members have been given a bit of a nod and a wink and been told that departmental budgets will adjust to cover these schemes. I suspect that that assurance is not worth the paper on which it is not written, but they have been given some assurance in that regard.

However, no such assurance has been given in relation to the settlement with local government. The cost increase of the local government scheme for the average employee earning about £27,000 per annum will be £25 a month over a lifetime. The cost to the employers is an additional £700 million. For a small Welsh council, that would mean charging an extra £33 in council tax. For a typical northern metropolitan district council, it would mean withdrawing £2.5 million per annum from expenditure on public services. That is not an inconsiderable cost and the Government need to face up to it. The speed with which local authorities are expected to adjust their pension schemes is also an important factor. These provisions are to be brought in almost immediately. Local authority finance directors are already budgeting for 2016-17. To have such additional costs imposed on them, with the accompanying uncertainty, gives them a real problem.

Obviously, every local authority scheme and every local authority fund will suffer as a result of this measure, but it is not only local authorities: a very large number of private bodies—several hundred—are also admitted members to the local government scheme. They vary from outsourced companies as big as Serco, Mitie and Sodexo to relatively small charities such as the North London Hospice, the Norfolk Heritage Fleet Trust and various museums, and to bigger charities such as the Alzheimer’s Society, the Children’s Society and Barnardo’s. They include all sorts of bodies such as museums, the local citizens advice bureaux and parish councils with full-time employees and so forth. So this is a cost issue that hits many large and small private bodies and charities as well as local government itself. It is important that the Government, including the Minister’s department, CLG and the Treasury, face up to this cost.

There are other complications. For example, under the Bill, LGPS funds will suffer significantly from the fact that the payment of pensions increases in members’ guaranteed minimum pensions, which currently the Government pay, will be shifted on to the employers and the public sector pension schemes directly. So there are significant additional costs which fall on the Local Government Pension Scheme and all the participants therein.

I do not have a solution to this problem but the Government need to have one. We took the then Public Service Pensions Bill through this House with some difficulty. However, the employers and the trade unions very responsibly sat down and agreed on how it should be effectively implemented in the LGPS area. These new costs, as well as the possible knock-on effects on the level of contracting out, particularly for low-income employees but more generally as well, and the costs for the employer of running the scheme are likely to tear up that agreement very quickly. At the very minimum, we need more time to ensure that there is an effective answer to this.

Given the scale of the potential financial impact on public services and local government in particular, today I simply ask the Minister to commit with his colleagues to meeting the LGA at some point during the course of the Bill so that they can discuss this matter. A number of potential ameliorations, if not total solutions, need to be considered. The one thing that I therefore ask the Minister today is that he and his colleagues commit themselves to such a meeting.

17:30

[Baroness Donaghy (Lab)]

My Lords, I believe that some humility is required when we consider people’s pensions. Trust in the pensions industry is low for a very good reason. What is decided in this Bill in 2014 has a 40-year horizon—that is, up to 2054. Does anyone really believe that this legislation will last for 40 years?

There are two things that I am absolutely certain about: Governments will tinker and the financial services industry will get away with whatever it is allowed to. The Government have said that their aim is to,

“better support people to save for their retirement”,

and that is surely welcome. I have no idea whether the proposals in the Bill will do that, although auto-enrolment is a very good start.

When SERPS was established in 1978 as an addition to the basic state pension, the thinking of the day was that those earning slightly more would expect a better pension. When SERPS was replaced by the state second pension, or S2P, no doubt the thinking was the same. If it all disappears next year, the additional state pension will have existed for 36 years, so it nearly qualifies for the 40-year time horizon but not quite. Does anyone really believe that a flat-rate state pension will last for more than 10 years? I very much doubt it. That is not to say that clarity and simplicity are not welcome, but they are only two ingredients. If someone realises that they are clearly and simply going to be poor in retirement, it does not take us very far.

My first encounter with pensions was in 1970 when, as a NALGO branch secretary, I campaigned for an occupational pension for university non-teaching staff at the University of London. The existing schemes were college-based and run by insurance companies with very high administration costs. It took five years to establish the Superannuation Arrangements of the University of London—or SAUL, as they are called—and it now has assets of more than £1 billion. It was an uphill climb because the majority of staff were women. The assumption was that women were not going to stay in the job very long and would probably get married, so why would they want an occupational pension? Those on the lowest grade and part-timers were not even allowed into the college-based pension scheme, presumably because it was felt that they would not stay at work for very long.

That was the era when men could ask, “What’s a nice girl like you doing being passionate about pensions?”—I am trying to make it interesting—and suggesting alternative ways of expending that energy. It was the era of smiling through gritted teeth. It is where the 700,000 women born between 6 April 1951 and 5 April 1953 started their working lives. They probably had to struggle to join an occupational pension scheme, and they were probably advised to pay the lower national insurance stamp and rely on their husband’s pension. They had to fight every step of the way for employment equality, and now they are told that they are not eligible for the single-tier pension.

To give the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, some credit, he did try to construct an argument as to why the 700,000 women would not receive the new pension. He compared them as a group to those who reached state pension age before April 2010 and those who will do so after April 2016. The Minister weighed up the good and the bad news and the “somewhere in the middle”, and argued that, on balance, the 1951-53 group was not being disadvantaged. That may look good on paper but, for a generation of women who have experienced every form of pension discrimination, it must look like more of the same. I ask the Minister to reconsider this decision. It he agrees to reconsider it, he will have the satisfaction of having 700,000 pleased and extremely surprised women on his hands.

I want to turn to the impact of increased national insurance contributions on public service pensions. I shall keep my remarks short because the noble Lord, Lord German, and my noble friend Lord Whitty have covered this area very well. Are the Government planning to pay these unbudgeted extra costs, which, if not met, could unravel a series of delicate negotiations with public sector workers? Is the Minister able to give us some assurance on this issue at this stage? If not, it will certainly come back in Committee.

I now turn to the issue of trust and transparency. The recommendations of the Workplace Retirement Income Commission, chaired by my noble friend Lord McFall of Alcluith, in 2011 really say it all:

“For consumers to have more trust in the pensions system, the industry needs to show it can reform itself to be trustworthy. An industry-led drive around disclosure, transparency, clear communication, and driving down costs and charges will help to achieve this … the Government and the Pensions Regulator should make it a priority to promote strong and consistent governance and employer engagement with workplace pension schemes, whether trust or contract-based”.

It is a good report and, in my view, it deserves further consideration.

A lack of transparency and overcharging, if not dealt with, will scupper this legislation or its potential good reputation. The Centre for Policy Studies said:

“In 2010, the City extracted some £7.3 billion in implicit charges, about which investors were told … nothing”.

The Royal Society of Arts, of which I am a fellow, referred to written evidence to the Work and Pensions Select Committee stating that from the time when the new Pensions Act is introduced,

“we can expect that many will be sold pensions where 50% or more of their potential pension disappears in charges”.

I am sure that we will come back to this in Committee, but limiting the “wrapper” charges is only a quarter of the story. It is the hidden charges for investing where the costs add up.

I have been a board member of two pension schemes—one as an employee representative and one as an employer representative, although not at the same time, I hasten to add. I lost count of the number of times I listened to presentations by investment companies which were trying to win the contract for investing the pension fund. You were drowned in glossy charts and sales-speak, and I would have liked a hot dinner for every time I heard, “And we aim to be in the upper quartile of returns”. If everybody was in the upper quartile, it would not be the upper quartile. Of course that was their aim, but if only the delivery had been as glossy and promising we would not be so apprehensive now.

Finally, I look forward to the Committee stage when we will have the opportunity to consider this wide-ranging Bill in detail.

17:38

[Lord Paddick (LD)]

My Lords, perhaps I may start by declaring a couple of interests. I am already in receipt of a police pension and I thought that I would be in receipt of the state pension in 10 years’ time until I received a letter from the DWP telling me that it will now be 11 years. Some noble Lords may be intrigued as to why, as a former police officer, I am contributing to this debate. My main concerns are about the reforms to welfare that this Government have introduced. However, I am slightly less concerned about this Bill. Noble Lords also may wonder why I am contributing when there has been such a big build-up in terms of how interesting this subject is. I have to say that the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Hutton of Furness, was fascinating more than interesting. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfe on his maiden speech, which may sound a bit cheeky coming from someone who made his only five minutes ago, but his wealth of experience will be very valuable in this House.

I support this Bill and pay tribute, as others have done, to my honourable friend the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb, and his team. This is a difficult subject for any government to tackle. It is to his and his team’s credit that they have taken it on. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, has said, there are three tests; namely, that pensions must be fair, sustainable and provide a decent standard of living. I believe that that is what this Bill does. Of course, it is up to your Lordships to test that during our debates at this stage, in Committee and on Report.

When the state pension was introduced in 1926, only half of those who reached the age of 15 were expected to live to the age of 65. On average, people would spend just over 11 years collecting their state pension. In 2013, 93% of 15 year-olds are expected to live to 65 and 32%, almost one-third, have a chance of reaching 100. Clearly, in terms of sustainability, things need to change. The level at which the new single-tier state pension is set appears to be reasonable, as has been said by the Minister, and is above the current state pension means test. It allows people to plan for their future on the basis of understanding what, at least in today’s money, they are likely to expect when they reach pensionable age.

The automatic enrolment of workers in pension schemes requires safeguards. This Government appear to have worked hard to ensure that those safeguards, including, as has been said, the very welcome capping of fees, are in place. I will talk about the “pot follows member” issue at the end of my remarks. The noble Baronesses, Lady Donaghy and Lady Sherlock, expressed concern about women born between 1951 and 1953 who will not be eligible for the single-tier pension whereas men of the same age will be. My understanding is that these women need to make only 30 years of national insurance contributions, as opposed to 35 years for their male colleagues. In addition, those women will be able to draw their state pension earlier than men, at some time between the age of 61 and 63. Men in the same age group will not be able to draw their pension until they are somewhere between the age of 63 and 68. Clearly, that is not a straightforward issue. Swings and roundabouts are involved.

As someone who has more than 30 but less than 35 years of qualifying national insurance contributions, I also might be concerned that I do not appear to qualify for a single-tier pension, which is currently set to be £144. However, I am reassured that, if the new system gives me more than the current £110, I will get that amount. If I would have received more under the old system, I will receive that amount. In short, while others may be better off than me under the new scheme, at least I will not be worse off. I ask whether these changes are to be brought about because of the need to be sustainable.

Clause 25 in Part 2 would increase the age at which the state pension becomes payable from 66 to 67 between 2026 and 2028 instead of between 2034 and 2036, as set out in the Pensions Act 2007. That is eight years earlier than previously planned but it still gives a lead time of 13 years, which will enable people to make provision for it. Surely, this makes sense when one takes into account the fact that, at the moment, life expectancy, I am reliably told, increases by four hours for men and six hours for women every day.

Clause 26 introduces a review of the state pension age, taking into account life expectancy and other relevant factors, every five years or, allowing for some leeway, every six years as stated in the legislation. These are difficult but necessary decisions from which previous Governments have shied away. This legislation ensures that future Governments will not be able to duck that responsibility. The first report would be in 2017. The Secretary of State will have to commission reports from the Government Actuary’s Department on life expectancy and from an independent, appointed panel on other factors to be specified by the Secretary of State. This Government have indicated that the panel will be similar in nature to the Hutton inquiry. It seems eminently sensible that not only life expectancy but other factors that may arise or change over the years are considered by an independent panel, provided there is sufficient lead time to enable those affected by such changes to plan for their retirement.

As noble Lords have said, differences in life expectancy in different parts of the country or among different socioeconomic groups need to be addressed. Surely those matters should be addressed by other means to try to equalise life expectancy in these different areas, rather than trying to equalise through pensions legislation. Most importantly, these reforms will ensure that the state pension remains available not just for my nephews and nieces but for their children as well.

On whether “pot follows member” would be the right system, my understanding is that Australia, a country that is held up as an example of good practice as regards pensions, now considers that it should have introduced such a system. The suggestion that this is the way that the country will go is encouraging. As regards ensuring that there are caps on fees charged by pensions providers, it is hoped that the minimum standards to be applied should ensure that if pot does follow member to a new employer, the new scheme will be as good as the one from which the money is being moved. Clearly, employees will have to consider into what pension scheme their money would be moved when they consider all other aspects of the remuneration package provided by the new employer.

17:48

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare an interest as a board member of the Pensions Advisory Service. In that capacity perhaps, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, that he should consider buying some voluntary NICs to make good his shortfall and he will get a 25% return on his capital.

Private DC pensions are deeply problematic. Most people, especially poorer women, do not understand them. They do not trust them; they cannot afford them; they cannot access them; and they do not know what income they would get from them. Pensions for them are high risk. I think the Minister once said that the poor can better cope with risk as they have less to lose. In my view, the exact opposite is true: when you are a week’s wages away from going hungry, you cannot afford any risk at all.

For me, the great virtue of the new state pension, unlike private pensions, is that it removes risk. So my test of the Bill, not dissimilar to that of my noble friend Lady Sherlock, is: does it make pensions simpler, easier to understand and more transparent? Will it produce an adequate replacement income in retirement while being affordable both to individuals and society? Is the Bill fair, recognising women’s unpaid as well as conventionally paid work, and not leaving groups of women unfairly outside the system? Is it also fair in its assumptions about retirement age? Does it encourage savings where possible by removing means-testing, which inhibits them? My acronym is SAFER. The Bill must make pensions: simple; adequate and affordable; and fair; encouraging savings; and removing means-testing. Does it do so?

Is it simpler? Yes, although it is not yet simple. By bringing together the state retirement pension, S2P and pension credit into one single state pension, people can predict their state pension if they have full contributions. But they still have to work out whether their mix of contributions and credits will cover 35 years. Over time, it should do so given a full working age life, but it may not.

Is it adequate and affordable? Will the new state pension continue to address pensioner poverty? S2P, which redistributes to poorer earners, and pension credit, which especially helps older widowed women, were both in Bills that I took through this House. Together, they targeted pensioner poverty and succeeded. Since 1998, pensions have increased three times faster than wages. In 1997, pensioners were the poorest group of our society—the poorest of the poor. When we left, they were less likely to be poor than any other group in society.

But helping existing poor pensioners through means-testing has potentially the perverse effect of deterring future pensioners from saving. By building a stronger state platform, as the Bill does, we both target poverty and support saving. Is it adequate? A middle-aged couple, he on average earnings and she on a modest part-time job, might expect a replacement state pension in future of around 70%—adequate for them, yes. On top may come NEST, its value depending on their age, contributions and the markets.

Is it affordable for us? Given the raising of the state pension age, the capping of S2P and the overall £5.5 billion of NICs windfall from ending contracting out, which will go to HMRC, then, yes. Indeed, HMRC will make such a profit, no wonder we are bringing forward the new Bill by at least a year. In that case, some small fraction could be available for decent transitional arrangements.

Is the Bill fair? For me, that raises two questions. First, will all those who should do so get the new pension? No, it is not that fair. If I were the Minister I would want as inclusive a structure as possible. Those left out of the new single pension will continue to get pension credit, and the cost and confusion of running two systems for a further 40 years is clearly undesirable. Obviously, pension credit will remain as a residual safety net, but we want as few people as possible to fall into it. Who gets left out? Service wives do, possibly, depending on their age, and I will table an amendment on that. Women with several mini-jobs will also be left if they perhaps work 20 hours a week yet are not building their own state pension and are denied a future married women’s pension.

The problem in the past was the employers’ contribution and how we divvied it up. In 2007, the Government thought that there might be 15,000 affected women. We now think that it is almost three times that—40,000 women and 10,000 men—working above the lower earnings limit but still not coming within the NI system to give them a state pension. With real-time information—one of the bonuses of UC—and treated as self-employed as this Bill rightly does for all other self-employed people, we can and must bring those 50,000 people into the new pension.

Steve Webb said in the other place, in a slightly male way, that such women would not thank us for paying £2.70 a week NICs. How does he know? Has he asked them? He also believed that their situation was short-lived and that they should have enough contributing years. How does he know? Has he asked them? He said that they could pay voluntary NICs, but that costs five times as much and might not cover early missing years—that, we do know. I am not myself willing to see 50,000 or so excluded on the beliefs—not facts—offered by the DWP. Those 50,000 should be treated as self-employed unless they opt out. It would allow them to move seamlessly between mini-jobs and a longer-hours job, as we want them to do, as their caring responsibilities require.

The second question of fairness is around the state pension age. I am pretty fed up with people, usually in well paid, interesting, salubrious and physically undemanding jobs, pronouncing that as we are now living longer we must all work longer and what is more—the final insult—it is good for us. This House will know that we have three stages of older age. Most of us who reach 65 in good health can expect another decade of healthy retirement. From our mid-70s, we develop functional disability—mobility, sight, hearing and reach—which increasingly limits what we can do for the next decade. We need support. Then, in the last three to five years of life in our upper 80s, we need care. As the Government’s analysis in the ONS stats shows, between 2000-02 and 2008-10, male life expectancy rose by over two years. But—and this is key—only a third of that was healthy life expectancy. It was 0.7 of one year by the Government’s own stats. So we gain, as the noble Lord, Lord Paddick, said, three to four months every year, but only one month of that may be healthy.

Between 2007 and 2010, the most deprived fifth of the population had a healthy life expectancy of just 55 years—15 years less than the most affluent. The gender gap is narrowing, but the class gap is now widening. So those extra years that we are living are not, alas, years extending healthy retirement but additional years of increased disability and dependency, especially if you are poorer off. Every year that we raise the state pension age is deeply unfair on those who have had hard lives. They start work five years earlier than those who enjoy higher education, and they can expect 10 to 15 years less of overall life expectancy and of healthy life expectancy. By raising the state retirement age, we eat into and reduce their few healthy retirement years even further, all to subsidise the pensions of people such as me—the longer lived, healthier, better educated and better off, including those of us in your Lordships’ House. Our single-age retirement policy—one size fits all—is regressive and unfair. We do not need to shrug this off as Borisconi tough luck. We can do better than that, and I welcome the proposed independent review.

I proceed along with my SAFER acronym: simple, adequate, fair. Will the new state pension—E—encourage savings? Will it—R—reduce means-testing? Yes it should. It will do so by removing the perceived disincentive that having savings costs you benefit. Savings credit actually supported small savings, but under half of those entitled claimed. Its value is eroding and overall the doorstep line I always encountered when canvassing was, “I’m not any better off for saving”. There is one point here about AIPs—assessed income periods. We should not add to yet more means-testing for those on pension credit, which is what the Government propose, while stripping it out, rightly, for those on the new pension. I implore the Government to leave it alone.

The sums saved will be small—I calculate them to be £60 million a year net at best. The stress for older pensioners will rise. The implications for funding social care from equity release for the over-75s—over half of whom are owner-occupiers—on which the social care bill is premised will be catastrophic, overwhelming any savings that the Government may get. Do not go there. What you may save in pension credit, you will overwhelmingly lose in people not being able to co-fund social care. It is really not worth it.

Importantly, under the new state pension, auto-enrolment will be safe. Without the platform of a non-means-tested predictable pension we could, with some justice, be accused of mis-selling NEST. However, NEST was meant for women with low earnings. It originally kicked in at £5,700; from April it is £10,000. Every time you raise the tax threshold, another tranche—mainly women—drop out of auto-enrolment. There are 420,000 in 2013-14. Of course, consultation exercises show that employers like it. What is not to like? The last lift saved them £6.4 million. The losers—poor women—do not know and do not complain.

At the 2017 review we must reconsider NEST’s trigger, perhaps the PTT, and in the mean time strengthen opt-in arrangements. Some 1.1 million women have already lost the opportunity of auto-enrolment. Next spring, still more women will be excluded. Unless we intervene, NEST will lose the very group for whom it was designed.

I want also to register my disquiet at the proposed new bereavement benefit; the loss—proper stats, please—of the state pension lump sum; the interaction with other benefits, especially HB, after five years; the transitional arrangements for married women relying on the 60% pension; divorcees; and widows’ inherited rights. We can pursue all that in Committee.

Do I support this Bill? Yes. On the state pensions front, indeed I do. I even wrote a pamphlet calling for something similar before the last election, and was delighted to corral Steve Webb, then a Back-Bencher, into contributing to said pamphlet. All credit to him and the DWP team behind him for delivering the SAFER pension; I am really pleased. It will continue to reduce pensioner poverty; it will eradicate for very many the snakes and ladders of means-testing; it moves us closer to a decent state pension for all, but one rightly clothed in a contributory system. It will make it safe to save. Those are really valuable contributions. However, it can be improved. The Minister will be delighted to learn that there will be quite a few amendments in Committee. I look forward to them; I hope that he does, too.

18:01

[Lord Monks (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by declaring an interest: I am a trustee of NOW:Pensions, which is a subsidiary of the Danish pensions institute, ATP. Those noble Lords who know about pensions internationally will know that Denmark has an enviable record in pensions.

Pensions in this country have become an area where successive Governments in the main have sought a degree of continuity with their predecessors. From time to time, there has been an impressive degree of cross-party agreement; my noble friend Lady Hollis has just reminded us of one or two significant contributions made by the current Pensions Minister. There is a recognition that this is a long-term problem and that long-term approaches need to be taken to pensions. They should be taken rather more in other areas, which are perhaps more politically controversial. Given the uneven nature of pension provision in Britain, we certainly need a continuous effort to tackle some of the more glaring inequalities that abound. Still, the degree of agreement has been impressive. That stems from a report by the Pensions Commission, which the noble Lord, Lord Turner, chaired and of which my noble friend Lady Drake was a member.

Despite a general welcome for the main pillars of the Bill, there are problems that I want to touch on briefly. I will look first at the statutory override in Clause 24 and Schedule 14, which provides that private sector employers must make changes in their schemes that are commensurate with the higher national insurance costs that arise from the end of contracting out, and for that be done without trustee or member consent. Because the calculation will be done at the aggregate level, not per individual, many scheme members may well lose out. Despite the requirement in Schedule 14 for actuarial certification of scheme changes, we believe that these protections are not solid enough to make sure that people do not lose out significantly.

On the state second pension itself, the concern has to be that the majority of future pensioners could well be worse off under the single tier, because its accrual rate is lower than the current system for people not contracted out. Those retiring later are more likely to lose out and to lose out more. It is not fair that people close to retirement and not contracted out of the state second pension will be unable to accrue a state pension above the single-tier starting rate, despite continuing to pay full national insurance contributions.

There are also problems with the accelerated timetable for increasing the state pension age to 67 in Clause 25. My noble friend Lady Hollis has just spoken eloquently along the same lines. There has not been enough time to address some of the inherent inequalities that exist both regionally and between manual and professional workers. It seems that you have won the jackpot if you are a professional worker in Dorset; if you are a manual worker in one of the old industrial areas, you are in trouble. Yet it is “one size fits all”, and that one size does not fit some, for whom, in the years after retirement, the forecasts are pretty poor. I hope that these will be considered. Certainly, if the state pension age is to be changed again, I hope that this review will lead to some independent process, to give people confidence in the judgment about retirement ages.

Of course, there are some obvious losers in the changes. In particular, dependent relatives look as though they are getting a pretty hard deal. As we go through the Bill, I hope that we can take a good look at their position.

On private pensions and auto-enrolment, Clause 35 extends government powers to cap pension scheme charges. Lower charges are very important. From my Danish knowledge, the contrast between low charges there and high charges here, historically, has been extremely marked and I welcome what is being done to bring down the British level. The principle is good, but the worry is that the changes over a single year can distort the benefits that come with long-term saving. We ask that the Minister and the House take a look at perhaps having a cap over the lifetime of the scheme, which would offer greater flexibility. In the current consultation exercise, it is important that we do not rush this fence too fast, without looking at the longer period over which to compute the appropriate cap.

On the “pot follows member” principle, several speakers have already questioned whether there is a problem with making that totally automatic, when a person could be transferred to an inferior scheme—and there are plenty of inferior schemes around. What about the costs for workers who change jobs frequently? They are often the lowest paid, on insecure contracts, and will be vulnerable to this kind of process.

My next issue concerns Clause 34 and the extremely broad power to create exceptions from the employer duty to auto-enrol staff into a workplace pension scheme. For our part, we are worried about the risk of abuse and are looking for strong safeguards to be built into this part of the Bill.

It is a useful Bill, but I hope that we will find the energy and time, and make the effort, to see whether we can make it better as it progresses through the House.

18:08

[Viscount Eccles (Con)]

My Lords, as we consider the detail of the Bill—many of those who have spoken have made very good points about the detail—I hope we will remember two things. First, a great deal of what actually happens will depend on secondary legislation. In essence, this is a framework Bill, and much will emerge as the regulations are produced. Secondly, as we go through the Bill, I want, from long private sector experience, to think a bit about other things that come on top of state provision.

Along with all other noble Lords, I fully welcome the move to a single-tier pension, which is an excellent thing to do. If I may venture an opinion, I would do it, in the end, with the smallest possible consideration of the difference between people and their experiences. I would eliminate, if I could, the idea that certain things should be taken into account, so that it would be a well established and very simple “that is what we are going to get” pension. As has been said before, pension legislation is a dense thicket, into which we venture sometimes but probably as little as we need to. We do not get very far and come out all scratched without really understanding the detail. Anything that simplifies what is going on out there must be welcome.

The departmental brief took us back to Beveridge and 1942. I remember the excitement when that report was produced. The terminology in Beveridge is very different from the terminology we use today. He referred to want, a subsistence minimum, savings on top and the avoidance of an intolerable financial burden. On that last point, we are probably in some form of denial, in that there is nothing which could be rightly described as an intolerable financial burden. Beveridge also said that we should do nothing that discourages the individual from doing the best he can for himself and his family. He was determined, in what he wrote, to make his progressive, reforming recommendations but, he hoped, without perverse incentives being contained in what was done.

Of course, between 1942 and today, very great changes have taken place. The brief refers, as all noble Lords have, to demography. In Beveridge’s time, 10 years of retirement would have been a pretty long time. I fully admit that this is a very theoretical point, but if we were, 10 years from now, to put up the retirement age to 70, we would probably be looking at more like 15 or maybe 20 years of retirement, which is a very big change. Because life is very uneven and unfair, that is only an average. I fully concede that averages can be very deceptive.

The brief referred to the much increased employment of women, something that has been completely transformed from what applied before the Second World War. However, other things are not in the brief which I think are very important and go to the point on confidence and trust, which has also been referred to many times this afternoon. There is the relative prosperity—real incomes today are probably three times what they were in 1942—but of course, alongside that, financial services have become immensely more sophisticated and much more difficult to understand.

Then there have been the rapid changes to the economy, including the disappearance of enormous industries. I come from the north-east of England, where there is not a deep coal mine left, which is almost unthinkable. ICI has disappeared, which is, again, almost unthinkable. Some of these changes have been created by the incredibly rapid progress of technology. Completely unimaginable things have happened, even in stable, long-running companies. British Telecom, for example, suffered the split from Royal Mail and the Post Office. When we were younger, all the equipment was electro-mechanical, but of course it is now digital and a completely different employment pattern is involved in looking after all the equipment in that business. Even in long-running and apparently very stable businesses, there have been enormous changes in the pattern of employment.

There has also been social change, with people wanting different types of career. The idea was certainly prevalent in the days of Beveridge that you joined a company and there you were: that was your life from coming out of school or university until you retired. That now is the exception and not the rule. In trying to deal with all these changes, we have tended to muddle the distinction between provision by the state and the top-up that Beveridge referred to, which is acquired privately. We have not thought carefully about the limits of state intervention or carefully enough about doing nothing that discourages individuals from doing the best they can for themselves and their family. Instead, we have got into a situation where there is an impenetrable thicket, which is not understood by many people and in which, therefore, very few people have confidence and trust. We desperately need to simplify wherever we can—not only in state provision but in private provision.

I turn to one or two examples. The linchpin of private provision was always the defined benefit system, which related to salary and service. Such schemes are dying on their feet. Company after company has gone out of defined benefit schemes after finding them impossible to retain. The promises made in those schemes were so long that the actuaries were unable to match their view of contributions and assets to the potential liabilities, and they kept getting the sums wrong. That is not at all surprising if you set that against the differences that have occurred in society and in business and commerce.

My own experience is of working for 27 years for an engineering company in the north-east, which was taken over, in a deal brokered by the Government of the day, by another engineering company in the north-east. That was in turn taken over by a big construction company, which was then taken over by a big shipbuilding company based in Norway with lots of other engineering industries. That company went bust. I am a pensioner—I should declare that as an interest—of a closed scheme where there are problems. There is now a separate, independent, ring-fenced company with all the funds that came from those different companies. If I told you all the companies that were in the current ring-fenced scheme, you would be amazed. It is nothing like four, and probably closer to 20. It is very difficult to maintain trust and confidence in schemes that are very long-term, if they are subject to such enormous change.

Moving from defined benefit to money purchase schemes, which of course is the solution in many cases, has also proved very difficult, because of the same sort of considerations. Promises have been made to the people in the defined benefit scheme, which is closed, under the contracts entered into with them, but newly employed people are put into a different mode. That creates two classes of employee. Many people have thought about some of these difficulties, and there are many others.

Just the other day, I was asked by quite a young self-employed person, “Why is it wise for me to have a pension?”. I said, “Is anybody else going to contribute to it or are you going to do it all on your own?”. That is the first question you should ask yourself. The second is: what are the tax advantages of putting whatever you save into a pension scheme, personal or otherwise? If you really think about it, the two reasons why we are so keen on pensions as a method of saving are: first, somebody else is going to contribute as well as myself; and secondly, it gives me tax capacity. For a lot of people, other forms of saving, provided that they have the tax capacity, may well be a better way of going about it than joining schemes.

Finally, I have a thought about fees. Of course, if a system is extremely complicated, I am afraid the fees will be high. They become high for two reasons: first, the complexity means that they will be high; and secondly, if you do not think through your own position as a member of a scheme, you contract it out to somebody else and do not pay close interest. In addition, there could be many regulations and rules. It was no surprise to get a letter from somebody involved in my self-invested pension plan saying, “Given everything that is happening now, you should expect fees of 2.5% per year”. I can tell your Lordships that I have been trying to ensure that that did not happen and it is not going to.

18:21

[Baroness Turner of Camden (Lab)]

My Lords, this is a very important piece of legislation. It changes the way in which we shall have to think about retirement.

Of course, we all know that we are living very much longer, and the Government already insist that everyone will need to work longer before collecting the basic state pension. The Bill proposes a single-tier pension for those retiring from 2016 and, of course, contains provisions under which men and women will work to the same age—67—by 2026. The single-tier pension will be £144 per week above the basic level of means-tested support. As indicated, the pack provided by the Government sets out the ways in which it is proposed to transfer people to the new arrangements. That could turn out to be really quite complicated.

How does all this affect people, poorer people in particular? Many people in well paid jobs are quite happy to work for longer before retiring. Some actually want to do so. Things are often very different for those who have spent a lifetime in employment such as manual labour or cleaning, often very low paid work. A woman who has done that kind of work, such as hospital cleaning, over the years is very anxious to be able to give it all up at a reasonable retirement age.

Then there are workers in strenuous or difficult, sometimes dangerous, work. We should remember the fire service staff who threatened industrial action if their retirement age was raised, who were successful in getting what they wanted. Of course, there are other industries in which people will want to retire early. There should be provision for them to do so. A single-tier payment may be easier to administer but people are different and work patterns are different, and a good scheme should take account of that.

The Bill also deals with the effect of private pensions. These have changed over the years, as many people have said. I well recall my years as a trade union official, when we all aimed to have members in what were then called final salary schemes—now known as defined benefit schemes. These have to some extent disappeared, except in cases where there is strong enough union organisation to prevent that from happening. My own union, Unite, has had several successes in that direction. But generally speaking, the number of employees saving in workplace pension schemes has declined.

The previous Labour Government sought to deal with that through the introduction of workplace pensions with automatic enrolment. Many of us welcome that development and the information pack tells us that this is proving successful, with far fewer opt-outs than was at first imagined. The Government clearly accept that the state pension, even in the new guise of the single-tier pension, is not going to be sufficient to provide a reasonable living standard. People must be encouraged to save for retirement.

As we know, the reform of the state scheme is intended to provide a platform for private saving. It is accepted that the new workplace schemes with automatic enrolment must give people confidence to save. Therefore, the schemes must be good; hence the Bill provides for the establishment of a Pensions Regulator, presumably with the power to intervene in order to protect workers’ savings.

Then there is the matter of pension pots. People change jobs and could perhaps lose track of pensions from former employment. The Government propose a system of voluntary transfers—pot follows member. This was criticised in the Commons and a different system was proposed—the establishment of a sort of separate aggregator—but unfortunately this was not accepted. This was discussed earlier in the debate, particularly by my noble friend Lady Drake, who referred to the pots and what happens to them. There was, however, general agreement that the security of the funds—mostly money purchase, of course—was absolutely paramount.

It is clear that the Government’s view is that a good pension entitlement for the average individual would consist of the single-tier pension plus whatever is derived from the pot or pots from the workplace schemes under automatic enrolment. Therefore, the way in which this money is managed is crucial. How is it to be invested? Can it be left to the market? I think not. Then there is the possibility of annuities; again, these are not popular. This is a very important aspect of what happens to the money that is provided under these schemes.

As we know, wages have been virtually stagnant in recent years. There is evidence that many families are struggling to make ends meet between paydays. Workers on low pay may have periods of unemployment. Saving of any kind may be difficult for them. The last thing people think about in such circumstances is retirement schemes and saving for them. Low pay can possibly indicate penury during retirement—I hope not—and this we have to avoid.

The provisions in the Bill appear to provide some improvements in certain directions—on bereavement, for example—but this seems to be on a short-term basis and there could therefore be losers. I note that the present restrictions on the payment of state pensions outside the UK will remain in place for single-tier pensions. The provision is strongly objected to by people who paid their contributions while they were in this country but who have retired to countries where there is no reciprocal arrangement. This was also raised in the recent debate in the Commons, but again, no change was agreed.

There is little in the Bill about the disabled, except a reference in the information pack which seems to indicate that there will be no change in entitlement. However, some of it also indicates that you would have to be rather heavily disabled before that happened. That is very unfortunate and something that we ought to explore further because disablement is expensive and people who are disabled deserve special acknowledgement and special treatment.

As I have already said, there are a number of issues that must be further explored in Committee. The impact on poorer people, many of them women, must be examined. As indicated, many find saving very difficult, if not impossible. Schemes that rely on individual savings are unlikely to be acceptable to future generations. This is a very important Bill and we must spend a great deal of time in Committee looking at the issues we have raised this afternoon.

18:30

[Lord McKenzie of Luton (Lab)]

My Lords, as my noble friend Lady Turner has just said, this is an important Bill which covers a major area of public policy: how we provide for and treat our citizens in retirement, the extent to which we expect them to make provision themselves through their lifetime and how we value contributions made otherwise than through formal work by way of caring or nurturing future generations. It is about the intergenerational bargain.

As a number of noble Lords have recognised, despite major and progressive changes to the pension environment in recent years, we cannot claim that the state pension construct has yet reached steady state. We know that the proportion of women in Great Britain qualifying for a full state pension will not equalise with men for another six or seven years, and for S2P outcomes to equalise will take much longer. While the availability of means-tested benefits—pension credit, housing benefit and council tax support as it now is—has lifted millions of pensioners out of poverty, there remain problems of take-up and ongoing questions of the extent to which their potential availability undermines incentives to save. Despite progress, we have not eliminated pensioner poverty, but neither does the Bill—all this, of course, in an environment where life expectancy for men and women continues to increase at an accelerating rate. As my noble friend Lady Hollis said, we should look at healthy years.

The introduction of a single-tier pension pitched above the rate—just, in the illustrations—of the guaranteed credit is therefore an important development. It is built on the foundation of auto-enrolment which grew out of the Pensions Commission work on which my noble friend Lady Drake was so influential. It was the report of this commission which clearly concluded that the then state and private pensions regime would not deliver adequate incomes in retirement through changes to the state system alone. Reform to make it simpler to understand and less means-tested were essential to provide clear incentives for individuals and employers to build additional private provision.

In analysing the reforms necessary to the state system to underpin private saving, it was clear that abolishing S2P before establishing the success of auto-enrolment and a national pensions saving scheme would be risky. Since then, things have moved on. We legislated for auto-enrolment—my noble friend Lord Hutton was Secretary of State at the DWP at the time—and for NEST, and the coalition Government have brought them into being. It is still early days, but opt-out rates look to be below expectations, which is encouraging. While continuing to acknowledge that the coalition Government have broadly followed the consensus, we should continue to express concerns about raising the bar to automatic entry. Every time the Deputy Prime Minister talks to us about how many people have been taken out of income tax, he might complete the sentence and say how many—mostly lower paid women—have been denied auto-enrolment.

As my noble friend Lady Sherlock said in her sparkling opening speech, the introduction of a single-tier pension deserves our support—our long-term support. I know that it will be music to the ears of my noble friend Lady Hollis, who has long campaigned for this approach. Of course, as proposed, the detail will not be unwelcome news to the Treasury.

We do not reach the sunny uplands of a simplified single tier overnight. There are complications along the way and we will seek the assurances of the Minister in Committee about the communications strategy to be adopted to explain what is going on. We also need to be assured of the capacity of HMRC and DWP to build and maintain the necessary systems which will give effect to all this. Without putting too fine a point on it, I suggest that the DWP has not covered itself in glory in managing change in recent times. It is a sobering thought that the transition to everyone being in receipt of a single- tier pension will probably extend beyond my lifetime. In the interim, there will be two systems running side by side. Those retiring before the single tier could receive the basic state pension, possibly uprated by the triple lock; S2P, uprated by earnings during accrual and CPI in payment; and the guaranteed credit, possibly uprated by earnings. On the single tier, the Bill provides for uprating by at least earnings, although the impact assessment assumes the triple lock. Protected payments under the single tier are to be uprated by price inflation. So it is hardly all simple and straightforward.

There will also be different access to benefits. Those retiring into the new system will be denied savings credit but not the guaranteed credit. They might also be eligible for housing benefit and council tax support, although the former could be affected by the withdrawal of savings credit. Those retiring before 6 April 2016 will be able to access benefits as now. There are complexities here, too, compounded by how passporting is to work. For some benefits, it is the guaranteed credit of pension credit which is the passport; for others, it is either the guaranteed credit or the savings credit. We need more clarity around all this.

Individuals retiring before 6 April 2013 will be able to defer their state pension under the current rules, including taking a lump sum. Deferral under single tier cannot involve a lump sum and will be more actuarially based and restricted. Qualifying conditions will be different for the two regimes—we now know that it will be 10 years for single tier—and both these changes contribute to the savings for the Treasury.

Over time, those reaching state pension age before single tier will comprise a smaller proportion of the pensioner population and it is important that their interests, too, remain protected. Those retiring in the earlier years of single tier will be better off than under the existing system—notionally, that is—although this reverses for those retiring later. The position of women improves, particularly because single tier benefits lower paid and part-time work.

Transition is not only about two systems running side by side. Provision is necessary for those who retire after 6 April 2016 but who have a contribution record prior to this—hence the need to grapple, as we doubtless will in Committee, with new concepts of “foundation amounts”, “protected amounts” and “rebate-derived amounts”. We should also test the transitional proposals for derived and inherited entitlement.

Perhaps a surprising fact to emerge from the various analyses that we have been sent is the extent to which means-testing will remain within the new system. While the amounts may have declined, the percentage of pensioners receiving housing benefit or council tax support in comparison to what would have happened under existing arrangements hardly changes. There is a significant fall-off of pension credit entitlement, but even 5% of those reaching pension age in 2060 will qualify. Overall, there is a reduction in benefit claimants of just 3%. Nevertheless, there is an improvement in the number having low marginal deduction rates, which is important for saving incentives.

In these circumstances, take-up remains an issue. If the rationale for the assessed income period—a degree of stability in the incomes and capital of pensioners—has not proved to be the reality, it could be difficult to argue for its retention, although I take the point that my noble friend Lady Hollis has just made. However, we think that the Government have done the right thing in retaining the current indefinite awards. Given the still significant scope of benefits within the system and the fact that take-up of pension credit is not high, the need for more regular reporting will bring its challenges. What assurances can the Minister give us about the support proposed for pensioners having to reconnect with the reporting system?

We should be clear that, because of this Bill, the state is going to do less than is currently planned. Over time, the share of GDP going to pensions will be smaller than currently predicted. At 2060, it will be 0.6% less—some £30 billion—but assuming the triple lock for uprating. Should uprating be as provided in the Bill, by earnings, the reduction is 1.5%. On top of those savings are the increased national insurance contributions which accrue to the Treasury from the abolition of contracting out—some £5 billion a year in the early years. More than 80% of that will be borne by public sector employers and employees. An additional 1.4% national insurance contribution is unwelcome news for scheme members at a time when incomes are being squeezed and household costs are rising. Costs have risen faster than wages in 39 of the 40 months since this Government came to power.

Notwithstanding the override given to private sector employers to recoup the loss of the 3.4% national insurance rebate—I share the concerns of my noble friend Lord Whitty about that—there is the risk that all of this will accelerate the decline in defined benefit provision. Public sector schemes will not be able to recoup the loss in that fashion. Following on from questions already asked, perhaps the Minister will say something specific about how those costs are to be met. On the local government schemes, specifically dealt with by my noble friend, as he said, the LGA estimates employer costs in the region of £700 million a year. Given the savaging of local authority budgets by the coalition, how does the Minister think that those costs can be found? Does he think that the new burdens policy should apply and that they should be met centrally? What analysis has been undertaken of the concerns expressed by the LGA that the Bill could undermine the agreement of the reform of the local government pension schemes due to be implemented next April?

The Bill is not only about state pension provision. It includes a raft of other measures, and it should be supported in its attempts to tackle some long-standing problems in the private pensions industry, including the prohibition on offering incentives and removal of short-service refunds. Although the focus on tackling small pension pots is to be applauded, like others, I regret that the proposed solution cannot be supported. The technical amendments to auto-enrolment look supportable, but is it not time to remove some of the historic constraints on NEST?

Finally, I have observed with admiration the work done by Gregg McClymont, the shadow Pensions Minister, aided and abetted by my noble friend Lady Drake, on the urgent need to restructure the UK pensions market, including the annuities market, to forge greater transparency and drive down costs for savers. Once again, we see the Labour Party, just as on energy prices, leading the way, standing on the side of consumers against the vested interests of dysfunctional markets.

Given the scope of the Bill, I hope that the Government will yet be able to pick up some of the amendments that will undoubtedly be moved. As for what is in the Bill, it should, sensibly amended, receive our agreement. I look forward to supporting my Front Bench to that end.

18:42

[Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde (Lab)]

My Lords, as a number of fellow Peers have said, this is a substantial and important Bill. It deals with the state pension fund, but it also covers elements of private pension funds. After buying their home, most people’s biggest investment in their life is their pension scheme. The Bill will be important for the quality of life of the whole nation at the end of their working life, so it is important that we get it right. We have a chance to get it right because it is very much cross-party; the single-tier pension has general consensus. Compliments have been passed. The Minister was generous enough to recognise the work done by my noble friends Lady Drake and Lord Hutton.

So the Bill has a very good start with a lot of cross-party support. I would like to be the first to sign up for the campaign of my noble friend Lady Sherlock to make pensions interesting. They are very important but, unfortunately, when you mention pensions, people’s eyes go to the ceiling—until they find out just what is wrong with their pension. Then, their interest is alerted but it is too late.

What we are considering today is important, but the Bill is inferior in some respects to the Green Paper which the Government issued. The Green Paper said that the changes would be cost-neutral, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies stated that,

“these proposals imply a cut in pension entitlement for most people in the long run”.

I would welcome the Minister’s comments on that when he responds.

The Bill covers a whole range of issues, all of them in their individual ways important, but I shall concentrate my remarks on its impact on women. There is no doubt that the change to a single-tier pension is one of the biggest and best changes to state pensions for women in this country. In my view, the women who will benefit from it do not want to get those improvements on the back of the women whom the Bill does not treat fairly in the transitional stage. That is where my real concerns arise. I hope that we will propose to amend the Bill to deal with those anomalies.

It is established and generally accepted that women make up by far the largest number of those on pensions living in poverty. The number is substantially different; far more women than men are in poverty on pensions. The Bill does not change that for a whole group of women. It is also true that women pensioners have a lower income than men. The Bill does not change that in the transitional period. We must deal with those issues.

For instance, currently, a woman who has been married or in a civil partnership may be able to use their partner’s record to receive a state pension or increase the amount they receive of their own accord. There are some transitional protections in the Bill, but they do not cover everyone. For instance, in the years ahead, some would reasonably expect to receive either a married woman’s pension or a full basic pension, if they were widowed, or would not have had the time before retirement age to make up the contributions. Are the Government going to change the Bill to protect those people?

The Government said that in 2020, there will be between 20,000 and 40,000 married and widowed individuals affected by a pensions loss. I find that unacceptable. Given the magnitude of what we are dealing with, we could amend the Bill to deal with that. I am joined in that view by the Work and Pensions Select Committee in another place. The committee has asked the Government to conclude a solution by allowing individuals within 15 years of state pension age to be allowed to retain that right. That would be a transitional measure and, in the nature of things, would not be hugely expensive. Will the Government accept the Select Committee’s recommendations?

Another group of women has been mentioned in this debate several times: those born between April 1951 and April 1953. Those women feel that they are being subjected to a double disadvantage. First, their state pension retirement age will increase. That is an issue that would have faced any Government. Any Government would have had the unpalatable task of changing the retirement age; I fully accept that. However, this group of women will face a later retirement age but will not go on to the single-tier pension, as I understand it. Will amendments be brought forward to rectify that situation?

Another issue has come up several times. Because an element in the Bill deals with private pensions, I feel able to raise it. That is the issue of part-time workers. We had a long debate on the previous Pensions Bill about the fact that although part-time workers who do not earn up to the national insurance level cannot join a pension scheme, they may have two jobs which, put together, would take them through that barrier and they would qualify for a pension. Those in that category are predominantly women. It is grossly unfair that we are having a major pensions change in this country which, I think, will put it on the right path for the future—although I think that we will have to make further changes later—without dealing with that issue.

Indeed, the Department for Work and Pensions showed in its own analysis that in 2012-13, some 50,000 employees fell into that category of having more than one part-time job but not being able to have a pension cover because both jobs, or three or whatever it was, fell below that level. Of that 50,000 people, again, 40,000 were women. In a Bill which marks a substantial and improved change on pensions for women in this country, there are those anomalies which I believe we should deal with. It will be our responsibility to try and do that. They are all transitional issues, not issues which will last for ever and a day, and we should be about to deal with them in the nature of things.

There are other aspects of the Bill which obviously cause concern. On the bereavement provision, it is a bit cack-handed to withdraw the pension on the first anniversary of the death of the spouse. After the bereavement of your spouse, the first year is always the most difficult. We need to consider what it would be like to be reminded of it. There are also the pension charges. I congratulate the Government on their announcement this week that they are looking at those. It may be that we will have something to discuss on pension charges during consideration of this Bill. I look forward to taking part in debates on this Bill which, if we get it right, will be a landmark for British citizens.

[Baroness Sherlock]

Before my noble friend rises, my Lords, I should say that I realised after I sat down from speaking earlier, with something of a sinking heart, that I had forgotten to draw the attention of the House to my interests in the register. I am the senior independent director of the Financial Ombudsman Service—a remunerated position. In an unremunerated position, I also chair a charity which has employees in pension schemes that could be affected by the Bill. I apologise to the House both for that omission and for interrupting the debate now to have to rectify it.

18:51

[Lord Browne of Ladyton (Lab)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow my noble friend Lady Dean and I learnt a considerable amount from her contribution to this debate, some of which I shall draw on in my few remarks. I think most noble Lords will understand that I rise to the Dispatch Box with the words of my noble friend Lady Donaghy ringing in my ears, not just because she is sitting behind me but because she urged us in her opening remarks to approach this subject with a degree of humility. I do just that, as this is the first time in 16 years in one part of this building or another that I have had the lack of wisdom to debate pensions, and to do so from the Dispatch Box is a daunting prospect.

I open my remarks by thanking the Minister for his introduction. I thought that he laid out in a helpful way what this Bill seeks to achieve and I look forward to hearing him build on that in his response to the debate and throughout further consideration of the Bill. I have some experience of engaging with him in debate in your Lordships’ House and I know that he will do his best to assist the House to understand and, if necessary, improve this legislation. I thank him, too, for engaging with Members in all parts of this House in preparation for this debate and for his promise of further briefings. I join him in commending the noble Lord, Lord Turner, my noble friend Lady Drake and Sir John Hills for the work they have done; I add to that my thanks to my noble friend Lord Hutton and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. I was privileged to work with her for a short time when I was the Minister for Employment in the Department for Work and Pensions.

If all those who deserve some recognition for their contributions to this debate will excuse me, while I hope to give them some recognition during these remarks I single out my noble friend Lady Drake. With an economy of words that was a model, she went through the Bill in a way that identified almost all the issues that many months of my trying to understand it had identified, if not understood, and some others that I had not even thought of. I can appreciate why she was on the commission led by the noble Lord, Lord Turner, and why she has had such a significant effect on the direction of travel. I also commend my noble friend Lady Sherlock, whom I am privileged to serve in this cobbled-together team for this purpose. She knows how much I admire her and I thought that she made a sparkling and excellent speech.

I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, on an accomplished maiden speech. I have no doubt that the House will value greatly what appears to have been his long and varied journey since the age of 16. It took him all the way from 4 Millbank, which is just across the road, to your Lordships’ House. He referred to Millbank and the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred to the Imperial Chemical Industries, or ICI, in his contribution. Since I am the survivor of a man who was an employee and then, for a short period, a pensioner of the ICI—my mother, who was widowed, was a pensioner of it for a significant period—I recognised the Millbank address as being very significant to the ICI. Those buildings are still there and at least the noble Lord, Lord Balfe, is still with us although the ICI is not. That just occurred to me as a relevant coincidence in the debate before your Lordships.

Turning to the issues raised in the debate, I start with my noble friend Lady Sherlock’s first question to the Minister, which challenged him to confirm the level at which the STP—the simple pension which we are all discussing—will be set. I do that because it seems to be the essence of our understanding of whether this significant reform of the pension system will meet the challenges that the Minister and others have set for it. There seems to be agreement that it needs to be high enough to provide an adequate platform for saving and to reduce means-testing. The problem is that, as we understand it, these reforms will reduce means-testing only if the flat rate pension is set above the pension credit level. Indeed, the Select Committee recommended that there should be some clear blue water between one and the other and argued further that that principle should be built into the Bill. None of us will be able to get a handle on whether this will, over time, consistently meet that condition unless we have some idea of the rate at which it is to be set.

Perhaps I may say in passing, and with all humility, to the noble Lord, Lord German, that this is assuredly not a citizen’s pension. A pension that requires 35 years of national insurance contributions cannot be described as a citizen’s pension.

Moving on, I am encouraged to draw the Minister’s attention to the questions asked by a number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lord McKenzie, about the fact that all the documentation we have before us, set in the context of the impact assessment, assumes that the single-tier pension will be uprated by the triple lock. Of course, we know that the triple lock is in place only until the end of this Parliament and I am not suggesting that it is reasonable to expect the Government, or indeed any party aspiring to government, to promise the triple lock going forward. One does not know what financial circumstances or degree of growth there will be in the economy in those times. However, I would argue that if we are to understand fully the implications of this policy, and whether it meets the tests that we are all generating for it, we have to have some information against which we can compare the performance of this policy going forward. It would be much more helpful if the Minister could provide us with additional information, other than that which is in the impact assessment and has that assumption underpinning it. If there were alternative calculations provided to us that showed the other ways in which could it be uprated, or not uprated at all, that would give us some sense of whether this policy is dependent on the triple lock or whether, on its own terms, it can be sustainable into the future.

I turn to the question of the continued review of pensionable age, which was raised by my noble friends Lady Turner of Camden, Lady Hollis of Heigham, Lord Whitty and Lord Hutton of Furness. The noble Lord, Lord Balfe, also raised it in his maiden speech. I make it clear that we on these Benches recognise that, as life expectancy increases, it is reasonable to consider extending working lives. However, along with many other Members of your Lordships’ House, we believe that it is very important to consider a range of factors. One of those is that there are differences in healthy life expectancy between different groups and varying employment opportunities for continued working in later life. A number of noble Lords made reference to that.

It is our argument that the Bill needs to provide greater clarity about that process. It is also essential that people have sufficient notice of any changes in state pension age in order to make or revise their plans for retirement. To meet the first objective, we proposed consistently in the House of Commons an amendment that would have ensured that the panel set up to assess rises in longevity included representatives from opposition parties and trade unions. We also have concerns about the methods of periodic reviews.

On the second of these objectives, I point out to the Minister that only this month the Government themselves published a document entitled Reshaping Workplace Pensions for Future Generations, in which they conceded that:

“Our current thinking is that employers would not be able to adjust the”,

normal pension age,

“of anyone within 10 years of the existing NPA in the scheme”.

That concession—that advice—that they published in their own document brings into question a five-yearly review and the consequences of such a review. At this stage I am not seeking to argue beyond the amendment that we tabled in the Commons, and will probably repeat here in Committee and perhaps on Report, but it raises a question about the consistency of the Government’s thinking when that document, published just last month, can strongly make that point while the Government expect that the review of pensionable age will be every five years.

My noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham made reference to part-time workers—I think she called them people in mini-jobs. As she identified, there is a group of people, mainly women, who have more than one part-time job but are below the national earnings limit in each job, so are not building up the rights to a future pension. In fact, as she pointed out, recent analysis found that in 2012-13 50,000 people—40,000 women and 10,000 men—had two jobs with a combined income above the lower earnings limit but were not accruing qualifying years towards their pensions. My noble friend argues, I think with some authority, that this is unfair and could prejudice hard working people who are doing everything possible to provide for themselves and their families at a time when full- time jobs are acknowledged to be in short supply. Characteristically, she has an innovative solution, which, as I understand it, is essentially that they be treated as self-employed. That would ensure that all those in work with total earnings above the lower earnings limit were building up rights to a state pension. I commend this approach to the Minister, and we will be interested, as I think other Members of the House will be, in the Government’s position regarding this. I suggest that the arguments that have been put forward thus far do not meet the challenge that my noble friend has set out.

My noble friend and others have concerns about the phasing out of the assessed income period. She makes the very good point that the phasing out of this period generates challenges relating to equity release to pay for care and its impact on pension credit when changes to capital are taken into account. While I am not arguing that the release of equity should be dependent on administrative easement that was meant for other purposes and may not be sustainable in the long term, we on the Front Bench do not disagree with the phased abolition of an assessed income period but we wish to use Committee to probe the evidence base for this change. We know that some elderly people struggle with correspondence, particularly official communications, and we wish to be assured that there is support in place for those who need it, with the additional burden that these provisions impose.

A number of noble Lords raised issues reflecting the dysfunctionality of the private pensions market. It is at the heart of this reform that, from a base of a single-tier pension, people are encouraged to save. As my honourable friend Greg McClymont has made perfectly clear, this will work only if they are saving into pension funds in which people have trust and confidence. At the Bill’s Second Reading in June, Greg made clear that our focus on the Bill would be on the half of the Bill that was missing—essentially, the part that would make private pensions value for money for the saver. The Pensions Minister responded throughout the deliberations on the Bill in the Commons in a relatively dismissive way to these suggestions—the Minister smiles; I think that he recognises some of the phraseology that was used—and resisted all our amendments throughout Committee, despite the fact that he recognised consistently that they were relevant to existing serious problems. Throughout that time, he was able to take advantage of the alibi that the OFT report had not been concluded. However, as many noble Lords have said, the OFT reported in a devastating fashion, confirming all our criticisms of the dysfunctional pensions market and raising the sword of a market investigation reference, which is still hanging over the pensions market pending Parliament’s completion of the Bill.

In response to that and the fact that the report expressly, or by implication, supported every one of our amendments, the Government performed a U-turn, but only in response to a part of the problem with charges. The Government have listened to the OFT report on charges and have done a U-turn, and that is welcome, but perhaps now they should listen to the other OFT recommendations, which include the areas that we have tabled amendments on. Indeed, the OFT has gone further than we did to make our pensions industry value for money for savers. We encourage the Minister to consider some of these issues in relation to transparency and governance of the pensions industry, which we will continue to urge.

In anticipation of this debate, I wrote myself a set of notes that said, “No one supports the Government’s line on pot follows member except possibly the ABI”. That was before I heard the speech from the noble Lord, Lord Paddick. I think that he was the lone voice in this debate supporting pot follows member. I say to him, again with some humility, that the Australian example that he encouraged us to follow comes from an entirely different environment. In Australia, as I understand it, there are several hundred pension schemes, whereas there are over 200,000 pension schemes in this country. This is an entirely different environment and the Australian analogy does not quite work.

I am conscious of my time and I shall endeavour not to go through all this now, saving some of these arguments for Committee. However, I am sure that the Minister knows the arguments that have been put forward by many, including the Centre for Policy Studies, as my noble friend Lord Hutton identified. Reading carefully the briefing we all received from the ABI, I am not entirely sure that it is still as supportive of pot follows member as it was at the outset of the debates on this issue.

I commend the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby for a measured and informed speech in relation to bereavement benefits. He made a very powerful argument for consideration of the effect that bereavement can have on children and the importance of the support of parents. I do not intend to go into any more detail on this other than to commend to the Minister the questions that were asked by noble Lords who also made this point. It is an issue that we will to return to in Committee and later during the passage of the Bill.

There are issues about the consequences of the phasing out of contracting out. There are significant potential impacts on public sector and local government pension schemes. There is a related but not directly analogous issue in relation to protected pensions. I also commend to the Minister the observation made by my noble friend on this Front Bench and by the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, that this is a framework Bill and encourage him to give us some indication about when we will see some of the regulations that inform the Bill.

Unusually, I want to refer to an issue that was not raised, but I promised my noble friend Lord Dubs, who is well respected in this House, that I would indicate to the Minister that my noble friend will raise in Committee the issue of Jarvis and the small number of employees who have lost out very badly in its pensions.

My noble friend set three tests in her opening speech. However, there is a series of other tests that the Government have set that we will measure this Bill and these reforms against, because the Government claim substantial consistent consequences for them. I think the Minister has comprehensive notice of them, particularly from the informed contributions by my honourable friend Greg McClymont, who went over the detail of this with some care. I think he can expect interesting and engaged debates in Committee and on Report. I was very struck by the number of times the Minister used the phrase “very complicated” or “very complex” when I was speaking to him earlier and he and his officials were giving me an explanation of what we can expect in the Bill. He is right about that. I stand before your Lordships’ House confident that behind me I have a significant number of Members who are comfortable with that complexity. One or two of them will be talking to me quite a lot before the later stages of the passage of the Bill. This is a reform that we broadly support, but we will challenge it every step of the way.

19:13

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, I expected an interesting and valuable debate and I got one. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Balfe on his remarkable maiden speech, which I know we all enjoyed. I hope we provided him with adequate intellectual stimulation this evening of a kind he will remember. Whether we met the challenge set by the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, in making the topic interesting, at least we will, as my noble friend Lord Paddick pointed out, have all gained an extra hour in our lives during this debate.

I shall focus first on the transition which many noble Lords rightly focused on. There are some tough issues around it. People who have contributed to or been credited into the national insurance system have expectations, so we cannot switch to the new system overnight. I assure the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, that this is not a hard, fast transition. It is pretty difficult to design a transition that strikes the right balance and takes account of people’s expectations as far as possible while also ensuring that those who are part of the transition—in other words, those who will retire over the next 50 years—will see the benefits of the single-tier pension. I believe this Bill has been successful in this difficult endeavour, and for that reason I expect it to outlast by a considerable factor the 10 years predicted by the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy.

The foundation amount allows people to see the value of their pre-2016 national insurance record in one figure, which gives simplicity to the single tier but also recognises past contributions. It is a smooth transition. For the vast majority of people reaching state pension age in the years after single-tier is introduced, their outcomes are similar to what they would have got under the old system. Nearly three-quarters of those reaching state pension age in the first five years will see a change in their state pension of less than £5 a week. Of those who see a larger change, five times as many gain as lose. Those who see this boost are likely to be those who have traditionally been badly served by the state pension system: women, carers and the self-employed.

While moving to a modern system based purely on individual entitlement, the transition provides, for example, for inheritance of additional state pension where one member of the couple is in the current system. There is also transitional protection for those who paid the married woman’s stamp. Difficult decisions and trade-offs have been necessary to redesign the state pension within its cost-neutral envelope, and inevitably this means that while some people get more than they would have done under the current system had it continued into the future, some people get less.

I shall move on to as many of the specific points as I can—there were a lot. The noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, said I would delight the 1951 to 1953 generation of women by moving. I think I might delight them a little bit. Ninety per cent of these women will get more in state pension and other benefits over their lives by drawing their pension in the current system at their state pension age than they would if we gave them a state pension at 65 and single-tier pension. The women in this cohort will reach state pension age between two and four years before a man born on the same day, which means that they will get between £13,000 and £26,000 more state pension than a man of equivalent age. To correct the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Dean, it is not a double whammy. They have not seen their state pension age rise, except for the equalisation under the 1995 Act. The only change this group has seen recently is in the triple lock.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised derived entitlement. We will clearly go into this in some detail, but we estimate that in 2020 fewer than 30,000 married and widowed women—less than 5% of single-tier pensioners—will be affected by loss of derived entitlement to a basic state pension based on their spouse’s national insurance record. I know this is an area we will debate in great detail.

[Baroness Hollis of Heigham]

This is an area of some concern to a lot of us. Will the Minister be kind enough to give us all the stats he has, including how many of those getting the married women’s 60% were born or live overseas, do not have UK residence and so on, which was the argument in the Commons? We are very short of detail on this.

[Lord Freud]

My Lords, as I hope everyone in the Chamber knows, I have arranged to run a series of briefings at the appropriate time—about a week ahead of every Committee session—particularly to try to go through this detail. It really is extraordinarily complex, to reuse a tired word. One needs to go through it with examples and graphs and so on, which is much better. We will get all the information that we can, but we will do it in that context and will then be able to look at it in Committee on the basis of that process.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and the noble Lord, Lord Browne, asked what the start rate will be. We will need to decide that closer to implementation when the level of the pension credit standard minimum guarantee for 2016-17 is known. I am afraid that I cannot reveal all tonight.

The noble Baroness, Lady Dean, asked about cost-neutrality. The reforms are designed to be cost-neutral in terms of spending on persons. The spending on the single tier should be within 1% of projected spend on pensions until the late 2030s. In the longer term, after that, the single tier will slow the rate of increase in pension spending, helping to make it a sustainable system.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised the savings credit. One of the things that the single tier does is to clarify savings incentives, so that people will know what pension to expect from the state and be able to plan the additional provision that they want. The issue of passporting was raised by the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord McKenzie. Clearly, passporting will be through the guarantee credit, not the savings credit, although in practice the numbers are not that different. On the difference between being on the single tier and being on a credit, and whether you get various passporting, that is always the case when you have a system of passporting. However, it is worth bearing in mind that when you look at the relative rates for members of a couple, the single-tier rate is much higher than the credit guarantee rate; the single tier comes out at £288 for a couple in 2012-13 prices, against £216.55 at 2012-13 prices. So there is a very big gap for couples on that passporting issue.

My noble friend Lord German asked me for the latest correspondence on bilateral agreements. I regret that I just do not have that information to hand right now. I will search the cellars of the DWP to see if I can do any better and write; it is probably very heavily buried there.

Several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, my noble friend Lord German and the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy—raised the abolition of the rebate and the costs that would go to the public sector employers. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, asked whether we would talk to the LGA. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury has met with the LGA and I can confirm that Her Majesty’s Treasury is happy to meet with them.

We will spend a lot of time on multi-jobs in Committee. One point to make is that the effect of welfare reforms will naturally be to improve coverage. All adults on universal credit, many of whom will be the lower paid that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is rightly concerned about, will get their pension correctly that way. In that way, the crediting system is extremely comprehensive. By the 2040s, more than 80% of people will receive the full single-tier amount based on the 35 qualifying years. Clearly, we will be reviewing the crediting arrangements in the light of reforms and will look at the position of these people as part of the review. The noble Baroness is as familiar as I am with the quite revolutionary opportunities which Governments can look at, now or in the future, around RTI when that is built in. I know that we will spend a lot of time on that.

A lot of noble Lords raised the age review and some of the relevant issues: the noble Baronesses, Lady Sherlock and Lady Hollis, and my noble friend Lord Paddick. Clearly, one point of having a review is that longevity on its own is not the only factor. That is exactly what is being realised here. We have debated that in the past, and I know that we will debate it further.

On equity release and the AIP change, income-related benefits take account of any income and capital generated by liquidating assets. However, equity release may not necessarily result in a reduction in eligibility for means-tested benefits and will depend on overall income and capital.

The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Derby and the noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, raised bereavement support. This is clearly driven substantially by the change in the welfare system when you have universal credit as a basic bedrock for people. Bereavement benefits were another way of producing that kind of income in an entirely different way. We are now targeting this support for the period of financial need, as we heard that it was required; we did a survey on that. One therefore needs to separate it from bereavement, and maybe the right reverend Prelate’s point about what we call it is relevant there. It is a financial support which is underpinned by the universal credit but, clearly, we do not offset it against universal credit which, if it went on for a long time, we would do. By not offsetting it, we are targeting help at those with the greatest need, whether they are a widow or parent or not. It is a very progressive structure in that way. It means that 62% of the very poorest are actually better off. We will go into this in great detail in Committee; I will not do so now. However, that is the structure and the thinking behind it.

The noble Baroness, Lady Sherlock, and my noble friend Lord German raised conditionality. The structure is that all recipients of bereavement benefits—not just partners, but also if you lose a child—have access to Jobcentre Plus, purely on a voluntary basis, for the first three months; no conditionality for the next three months; and at the end of the six months, advisers will use their discretion to ensure that individuals’ capability and requirements are taken into account.

We will have a major debate in Committee and, I suspect, beyond on the pot-follows-member approach versus the aggregator approach. At this stage I will make a few minor protests about why we have chosen the former rather than the latter. However, I will make an impassioned defence as we go through it in great detail. The pot-follows-member approach maximises the consolidation, is in the best interests of savers and will reduce by half the number of dormant pots by 2050. We estimate that an aggregator approach would achieve just half the cumulative administrative savings for the industry by 2050. We will spend more time on that.

The question from my noble friend Lord Brooke is a suitable last question: what more is there on which to legislate? We will probably have some open questions left after the Bill on how much people are saving. Quite a few noble Lords suggested that perhaps people are not saving quite enough for what they anticipate they will want to spend when they retire. There is also the nature of the savings vehicles—we talked about defined ambition. Those are the two big areas in pensions. I suspect that there are probably several more, but perhaps I would pick those two.

I close by thanking all noble Lords who contributed to the debate, which was informed, measured and interesting. As I said, we will hold a number of briefing sessions. I am keen that in this debate we deal with the real issues on an informed basis and do not waste time. That is what these sessions are for—so that we have full information. I will endeavour to make sure that noble Lords have all the information they need to make the contributions they want to make. In particular, I want to make sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, is able to table all the many amendments that we all look forward to.

The Bill does a remarkable job of creating a pension system fit for the 21st century—nine times as long as the noble Baroness, Lady Donaghy, thinks. It is a return to the simplicity of Beveridge’s model for the state pension, it strengthens the private pension system, and it will enable today’s and tomorrow’s working-age population to plan for and build towards a secure retirement income. I commend the Bill to the House and ask for it to be given a Second Reading.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Grand Committee.

Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill

Tuesday 3rd December 2013 Lords Chamber

Second Reading

19:33

Moved by

[Baroness Randerson]

That the Bill be read a second time.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Wales Office (Baroness Randerson) (LD)]

My Lords, there can be little doubt that the political settlement in Northern Ireland has delivered huge benefits, both for the people of Northern Ireland and for the wider United Kingdom. Many noble Lords present today are far better placed than I am to describe the changes we have seen since the dark days of the Troubles.

So much is now happening that would not have been considered possible even 10 years ago. Whether we look at big events like the G8 summit, the World Police and Fire Games, or the first Fleadh to be held in Northern Ireland, or important milestones in the process, such as the end of the first full Assembly term in 2011, or indicators of wider attitudes towards institutions, such as the almost 2,300 Catholics who applied to join PSNI this year, it is clear that enormous progress has been made. However, alongside those markers of progress, we have also seen violence and political tensions linked to issues such as flags. It is today exactly one year since violence broke out over flags issues.

We are all aware that there is still a long way to go before Northern Ireland has the prosperous economy and stronger society which I know all of us in this House would like to see. Sectarian division carries great risks to the economy, to security, and to the general well-being of Northern Ireland’s people. Without economic success, peace is less well rooted. There is much to do in Northern Ireland to bring us on from the legacy of decades of troubles, but it seems to the Government that the two challenges of community division and rebalancing the economy are ones that are critical for the future.

Of course, other questions are being considered in Northern Ireland at present. The all-party group chaired by Dr Richard Haass is considering parades, flags and emblems and the past. Those are some of the most deeply rooted problems that Northern Ireland faces, so that is important work. It is very welcome that that group is undertaking it, first, because the devolved institutions have taken up the challenge of dealing with these issues—not, as would have happened in the past, leaving the lead to the Government. It is welcome also because the Northern Ireland authorities secured to chair the talks someone of the eminence of Dr Haass, who has earned universal respect in Northern Ireland for his grasp of the issues and his energetic dedication to the task. I am aware that some noble Lords in the House will take a close interest in those issues, and we will have to consider when we see the report how we can best give opportunity for those views to be expressed, bearing in mind that the process and the report are owned in Belfast rather than here.

Few would argue that the institutions established under the agreements are beyond improvement, but let us remember that they have given us the relatively stable politics that no other approach in the past 40 years has been able to do. There may come a time when significant change is considered. However, the Government have been very clear that major changes to the institutions established by the agreements can go ahead only if they have broad support across the community in Northern Ireland. It is also essential that any such change is consistent with the principles of power-sharing and inclusivity that are at the heart of the Belfast agreement. At present it is clear that there is no consensus around fundamental changes, and the Bill does not seek to make any. The imperative in Northern Ireland at present is, as I have suggested, to tackle the issues around sectarianism and around strengthening the economy.

I therefore readily acknowledge that the Bill does not make radical changes, but it does make important ones. It is a Bill for more normal times. It reflects progress in Northern Ireland, making changes which remove some of the special measures which have been implemented because of Northern Ireland’s unique situation, and which bring the system in Northern Ireland closer to Great Britain. However, it also acknowledges that there are areas where institutions in Northern Ireland might benefit from further reform. I know that some noble Lords look forward to a day when there might be scope for more substantial changes to the institutions. I hope that debates during the passage of the Bill in this House will give us the opportunity to reflect on these possibilities, always bearing in mind the need to proceed by agreement.

I turn to the contents of the Bill, which amends the regime governing political donations and loans to make more information available to voters in Northern Ireland about the funding of political parties. This matter has been debated on several occasions in this Chamber and I know that noble Lords take the issue very seriously. I hope we can all agree that it is right to protect the names of those who made donations in the past. These individuals made donations in the belief that they would remain confidential, and it would be wrong to change this retrospectively. I hope we can also agree that future political donations in Northern Ireland should be published as soon as the security situation allows. What we may not agree on is whether that time has already arrived.

The provisions in the Bill take a cautious approach. They set a date after which permanent anonymity will not be guaranteed, and they give the Government the power to increase transparency incrementally. For the moment, we believe the security situation does not justify publication of donor names, but it is important to ensure we have the flexibility to move towards the goal of bringing Northern Ireland’s transparency rules into line with the rest of the UK. If the Bill proceeds successfully to the statute book, we intend to move as swiftly as possible thereafter to draft secondary legislation on transparency. We would, of course, consult on these provisions, but we can confirm that our intention is that information about donations and loans made to political parties since 2007 which does not identify the donor would be made public—for example, the type of donor, its value, the date on which it was received and whether it was from an Irish source. We will look to use the power to increase transparency in the Bill to bring Northern Ireland closer to the system which operates in Great Britain as soon as possible, taking into account the security situation.

The Bill will also bring about the end of dual mandates between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the House of Commons, or the Dáil, by the time of the next Assembly elections in 2016. The practice has long been a matter of concern. Indeed, the Committee on the Preparation for Government, formed prior to the talks at St Andrews in 2006, debated the issue of dual mandates and agreed that the practice should be phased out. Even though good progress towards ending dual mandates has been made since 2010, half of Northern Ireland MPs were also MLAs following the Assembly elections in 2011. Of course, some have now given up one seat or the other, but it is important to ensure that double-jobbing ceases permanently to be a feature of political life.

Over the years, many Members have served with distinction in the House of Commons and at the Assembly. While the institutions in Northern Ireland were not stable, it was understandable that double-jobbing was a feature of political life. But times have changed; the stable operation of the Assembly seems set to continue. Being an MLA is now a full-time job and it is therefore no longer appropriate for dual mandates to continue.

When the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill was debated in late 2010, concern was expressed in Scotland and Wales that a general election would overshadow the devolved one and cause voter confusion if held on the same day. The decision was taken in early 2011 to extend the terms of the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly to avoid their elections coinciding with a Commons election. As regards Northern Ireland, my noble and learned friend Lord Wallace indicated during the course of the debate on the Fixed-term Parliaments Bill at that time that similar changes for the Northern Ireland Executive would be considered following the triple poll of May 2011. The Bill brings the position in relation to the Northern Ireland institutions into line with the approach in Scotland and Wales. By providing for a fixed five-year term for the Assembly, it will also permanently decouple Westminster and Assembly elections.

The Bill also makes changes to give the Justice Minister the same security of tenure as the other Executive Ministers. This is in response to a request from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister that followed inter-party discussions, after which the Assembly agreed the permanent method of selecting a Justice Minister. It is vital for the continued stability of the Northern Ireland institutions that the Assembly is able to elect an individual who commands cross-community support to the post of Justice Minister and that the allocation of ministerial posts between parties thereafter is fair. I hope that all Noble Lords will be able to support the changes set out in the Bill to achieve this.

Clause 6 gives the power to the Assembly to reduce the number of MLAs itself, subject to consent from Westminster. Unfortunately, it has not been possible to secure agreement among the parties on an actual reduction, but we hope that agreement will be forthcoming. Many now take the view that Northern Ireland has too many elected politicians. Long-awaited reforms of local government structures are addressing that level, but there is also clearly scope to reduce the size of the Assembly. To allow the reduction to take place without further primary legislation, the Bill makes this matter reserved, meaning that the Assembly could legislate on this matter, with the consent of the Secretary of State.

This Bill also recognises that progress has been made in Northern Ireland that makes it appropriate for the Government to consider whether the Assembly and the Executive might take the lead on issues that have previously been excepted matters. The relationship between Stormont and this place is maturing, and the Executive are taking the lead on Northern Ireland’s future. In this context, we believe it right that we make provision that opens the way to devolving functions relating to the Civil Service Commissioners for Northern Ireland, the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the District Electoral Areas Commissioner. By placing these matters in the reserved category, the Bill would enable devolution to take place, following a full consultation, a cross-community vote in the Assembly, and votes in both Houses here. The Government would also be ready to consider devolution of the Secretary of State’s appointment responsibilities for the Equality Commission. We hope to begin consultation on these issues shortly after Royal Assent.

The Bill also makes a number of other important, but more minor provisions, in relation to equality duties, court rules and electoral registration and administration, among others. We want to give effect to recommendations by the Electoral Commission and Chief Electoral Officer to improve the conduct of elections in Northern Ireland, and to reduce the special measures that have been applied to Northern Ireland in respect of elections, recognising that, while we must always be vigilant, past concerns about electoral fraud have been ameliorated.

The measures in this Bill do not make the kinds of sweeping changes to government in Northern Ireland that we have seen when considering Northern Ireland matters in the past. But although the changes made in the Bill are not radical, they are important. They would improve the functioning of Northern Ireland institutions and the way in which they function; they would open the way to changes in the powers of Stormont vis-à-vis Westminster; and they would improve democratic accountability and strengthen the electoral system. I hope that this Bill will play its part in helping to address the challenges faced by today’s Northern Ireland, and I commend the Bill to the House. I beg to move.

19:49

[Lord McAvoy (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for her explanation in moving the Second Reading.

As was stated in the other place, this has been a momentous year for Northern Ireland and is an appropriate time to bring forward this Bill. With the visit of President Obama to Belfast and the G8 summit in County Fermanagh attended by the Heads of Government, Northern Ireland was on the world stage, and these events were a great boost to morale throughout the community. Two thousand young people from schools across the whole of Northern Ireland were given a vision of the role that they can and must play in the future of Northern Ireland. President Obama’s speech was inspirational not only to those present in the Waterfront Hall but throughout Northern Ireland. The G8 summit worked out very well and it is only right to congratulate the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State on their vision in locating such an important international event in the magnificent location of Lough Erne in County Fermanagh. I declare a personal interest in that my maternal grandmother came from the Enniskillen area.

[Noble Lords]

Oh!

[Lord McAvoy]

I will not say where my paternal grandfather came from.

The whole of the Northern Ireland community can be proud of the way that the G8 was organised, including especially the co-operation between the PSNI, police forces in the UK and An Garda Siochana, which resulted in protests being facilitated in an orderly way. The summit was a success and a source of pride in the United Kingdom and the island of Ireland. That is the background to this Bill—one of success and not confrontation.

We are all aware that danger remains and there is a lot to do. The flag protests testify to that, and the activities of dissident republican groups remain a severe challenge to the peace process. We can all be grateful for the work of the various security services in making sure that the peace process continues. The Opposition are committed to supporting the Government in a bipartisan way, where it is possible, and we will work very hard to do that. We also have a duty and responsibility to hold the Government to account when we disagree.

As an Opposition, we have to state that there is some disappointment attached to the Bill, not because of what it contains but more to do with the issues that are not dealt with. The use of the word “miscellaneous” is unfortunate as it gives the impression that a number of minor issues are being bundled together and dealt with. The Bill’s provisions have been discussed within the Northern Ireland parties and received general but not universal support. In principle, we support the ending of dual mandates; the extension of the Assembly’s term—temporarily and then permanently; giving security of tenure to the Justice Minister and devolving power on the size of the Assembly. We want to move to full transparency and accountability in political donations. Clearly, we will look at the detail of all the proposals in Committee, but by and large they make sense. However, the Minister will know that the Assembly and Executive Review Committee at Stormont is looking at the size of the Assembly, the number of executive departments, designation, the composition of the Executive, and provision for opposition. These are difficult and sensitive issues. The principles of power sharing and inclusivity are fundamental, but there is an acceptance that the system could be improved and there are demands for more accountability and more rigorous scrutiny of the Executive.

The previous Secretary of State last year launched a review of the operation of the Assembly during a speech in which he criticised the Assembly and the Executive. Vernon Coaker said at the time that that criticism was largely unwarranted and unnecessary and suggested that the Government work in partnership with the Executive and the Assembly to look at how they and the Northern Ireland Office could work more effectively, individually and collectively. To be fair to the current Secretary of State, she has taken an approach more in line with that thinking. However, Vernon Coaker worried that in some respects she has gone too far the other way and has not engaged with some of the issues. Vernon Coaker also said that devolution should not mean disengagement. The Bill gives the House a chance to put its views appropriately and constructively and we hope that, as the Bill goes through its stages in the House, the Government will reflect on how they could take that opportunity.

A lot of progress has taken place on policing and justice. Security of tenure for the Justice Minister has to be welcomed. David Ford continues to do a good job in very difficult circumstances. One issue which I must raise is the National Crime Agency’s inability to operate in Northern Ireland. We regret that, and I hope that as we go through the Bill, we will support the Secretary of State in her attempts to persuade the Home Secretary to work with the Northern Ireland Executive to get the legislative consent necessary for the agency’s remit to extend to Northern Ireland. My noble friend Lady Smith of Basildon has experience of this issue and I hope that she will enlarge on it later in the debate.

On the electoral registration provisions, Westminster still has a role in helping to build a shared future in Northern Ireland that is inclusive of all communities. However, we would like to urge some caution. There needs to be a balance between ensuring that as many people as are entitled to do so engage in the democratic process while protecting against the kind of electoral fraud that undermines the process. The history of violence is very difficult and painful to speak about, but we have had many difficult and painful conversations in Northern Ireland and made progress, and we need to have a conversation on the history of violence. Is there nothing we can propose in the Bill that would help this process and take it forward? The Government say that there is no consensus on the way forward, and therefore no possibility of agreement. We fundamentally disagree, as Members of your Lordships’ House will know.

Dealing with the past—the legacy of the Troubles—is expressly a responsibility of the Northern Ireland Office. It cannot act alone, of course, and we have consistently said that we need a comprehensive and inclusive process with victims and survivors at the centre. The last time that Northern Ireland was debated in the other place, Lady Hermon asked what was meant by that. I repeat today that the Government, in partnership with the Irish Government, and in full co-operation with the Assembly, have a duty to lead but not to prescribe. There has to be consensus all the way. It is very difficult but we must try to create a vehicle through which these issues can be discussed and resolved. Of course that will take time, and it will not be easy, but the prize will be worth it. Victims and survivors are not afraid to talk about the past; the Governments should not be either.

Having said that, the hurt, anger and pain in Northern Ireland which are a legacy of more than 40 years of the Troubles—40 years of killing, bombing and other events—cannot be overestimated. We do not underestimate that legacy but a start has to be made some time, and we think that could be now. We are a little disappointed that the Government cannot find a way in the Bill to allow the issues of the past to be discussed and addressed so that consensus may emerge. The legacy of the past has to be dealt with and the Government must consider the impact that it has on the victims, the survivors and everyone else in Northern Ireland. However, despite those criticisms, we give the Bill our support.

19:58

[Lord Trimble (Con)]

My Lords, this is a worthy Bill and I welcome it, but when we go through it in detail I would like us to deal generally with devolved matters as opposed to excepted and reserved matters. During the interparty talks that preceded the agreement of 1998, I raised this issue on a number of occasions. We were then using the devolution provisions in the Government of Ireland Act 1920, with minor changes, as the basic starting point. However, I thought—and still think—that some matters which were devolved in 1920 were no longer suitable for devolution in 1998. Unfortunately, this was considered to be a side issue, but I do not think that is any longer the case.

In those discussions I gave two examples. The first concerned commercial law. I am not sure whether it was seriously intended in 1920 that there could be regional variations in the law concerning commerce, but it is not a valid idea now. Now, commerce operates within a single EU-wide market, and there is no scope for any regional variation and no real function for the Assembly. However, because of its 1920 Act inheritance, the Assembly must pass legislation identical to that enacted here to give effect to European directives. To have this matter no longer devolved would relieve Stormont of drudgery and add to its resources to do something useful.

The second example which would relieve the Assembly of even more drudgery concerns social security, and that is because of the operation of the principle of parity. That principle flows from the existence of the unified tax and benefits system, which is at the heart of being part of the United Kingdom. I do not have to remind folk in Northern Ireland that that parity was hard won and is of huge importance to poor and unemployed persons. The Stormont Parliament stuck firmly, step by step, to UK national welfare policies, whether it liked them or not, and resisted opportunist suggestions from some within its own ranks to depart from parity. The Northern Ireland Executive have done that until now.

I am not going to debate the advantage or otherwise of recent changes to social security because those changes are not relevant. What we are dealing with here is a matter of principle. I say to those in Belfast who are seeking regional variation that they have to bear in mind the consequences that would flow from it. If the door was open to regional variation, it could be a two-way street, and it could apply to other things as well. What comes to mind immediately are things such as public sector pay. Therefore, I suggest to the Northern Ireland Executive that they should close this Pandora’s box as quickly as possible.

If one favours, as I do, a nationally unified tax and benefits system, it does not make sense for part of that system to be under Westminster and part to be devolved to Stormont. Both parts should be together, which is the case with regard to Wales and Scotland, where welfare is not devolved. The anomaly could be tolerated while Stormont adhered to parity, but now, when Stormont has departed from parity, the matter should be addressed properly. I am sure that the Government here would prefer to sort things out quietly, but so far that has not worked and, as noble Lords will know, a financial penalty has been imposed. That is scheduled to increase but one cannot be sure that that will be the end of the matter.

Westminster has the power to enact its new welfare policies over the head of Stormont. However, if there is to be legislation, there is a case for transferring welfare to Westminster as an excepted matter so that this issue will not recur in the future.

There is an instructive example in another part of the Bill, and it was mentioned by the Minister. After devolution in Wales and Scotland, the national parties were against dual mandates. Originally there was a suggestion of legislation, but a voluntary approach has been adopted and that works after a fashion. However, with regard to Northern Ireland the voluntary route is being abandoned and this Bill legislates to put an end to dual mandates. Therefore, that, in a sense, is a precedent for what I am suggesting in this case.

If there is legislation to transfer welfare, I doubt whether there will be serious opposition at Stormont. I suspect that Sinn Fein has raised the issue of these welfare changes because of its embarrassment at the contrast between its bitterly opposing austerity in Dublin while appearing to implement it in Belfast. I suspect that privately it would be relieved if this burden were removed. I am not sure what the DUP’s position would be, but parity is a unionist position.

It may be objected that this is swimming against the tide when one considers what Calman has suggested regarding a fresh commission in Scotland amid talk of devo-plus and devo-max. However, while there have been suggestions in Scotland that some relatively minor welfare powers might be devolved in the event of a no vote, there appears to be no inclination to devolve welfare as a whole, and I would advise caution on that matter. I look forward to returning to this issue in Committee.

20:04

[Lord Alderdice (LD)]

My Lords, when the notion of a Northern Ireland Bill was first discussed a couple of years ago, the Secretary of State at that time undoubtedly considered that the centrepiece of the Bill which he hoped to see through would be the devolution of corporation tax. I suspect that most noble Lords and indeed Members of the other place will see this as a very modest Bill because of the failure to be able to include that measure. I perfectly understand the concerns about the impact that such a proposal might have on Scotland. However, I think that that is mistaken: the argument for the devolution of corporation tax in relation to Northern Ireland is wholly different because of the existence of a land border, and that fundamentally changes the economic questions and challenges. Therefore, when the Minister says that there are no fundamental changes in the Bill, she is absolutely right, and that makes it a fairly modest provision.

The measure which I guess was not considered when the Bill was first thought of a couple of years ago concerned the position of the Justice Minister. That really emerged only at a later stage. I very much welcome the regularising of this situation. I know that my former colleagues in the Alliance Party found themselves having more Ministers than would be justified by their votes, although not by their abilities. However, in all fairness, they, like others, would feel that it is better to regularise this and to give a degree of stability to the position of the Justice Minister. In the context of Northern Ireland the Department of Justice is even more important than it is in any other state, although it is always an important ministry. Indeed, today, with the results of the Smithwick tribunal being announced, we recognise and recall that issues of justice and policing have always been central, difficult and contentious. I pay tribute to my friend and colleague David Ford, who has, I think, fulfilled this role with considerable distinction. It is not an easy role but he has worked hard at it and deservedly has gained considerable respect for the work he has done.

The rest of the measures are relatively minor and some of them are wholly unobjectionable from my point of view. I declare an interest as a serving member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. A number of these measures were recommended by the committee. I suspect that the current chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Bew of Donegore, probably will have something to say about that. I welcome the transparency of donations, although I feel that that could go considerably further. I have always been a bit sceptical of the degree of caution that there has been on this question over quite a number of years. The dangers are a lot less than people have claimed in recent years. It may not have been the case quite some time ago. Double-jobbing also was raised by the Committee on Standards in Public Life. I welcome too the relatively minor electoral measures brought forward.

One of the questions raised by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, is whether this Bill might have been made a bit more substantial by some kind of legislation on dealing with the past. Dealing with the past is a very difficult issue. I notice the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, in his place and no one needs to tell him about the difficulties in dealing with that issue. I am exerting myself considerably in thinking about it. I am not persuaded that lawyers or legislation will necessarily be the right way to deal with what is fundamentally a question of difficulties about identity. I hope that we find a way forward and that Dr Haass and his colleague Meghan O’Sullivan can assist us in that way, although I am not at all sure that we need more flags. We probably have enough of those in Northern Ireland.

However, there are two measures about which I would express a little caution. First, on the size of the Assembly, I know that in times of austerity the need for efficiency and care about money is important but there was a reason why the Assembly was larger than was justified by the number of electors. It is about dealing with a range of issues from a range of perspectives and having an Assembly large enough to make it function. For example, the Welsh Assembly is much smaller but there are substantial complaints about its size.

A number of people are proposing that we probably need something like 100 Members because certain fundamental functions need to be carried out to make an Assembly viable. I have a concern with the proposal that it should effectively be given, albeit with the say-so of the Secretary of State, to the two large parties to determine the representation size in the Assembly. I could see a temptation on those parties to reduce the numbers and the numbers in the electoral areas in such a fashion that those who vote for it might benefit most from it. One reason why past measures were accepted was that there was always a danger that those who were in power might use them to their own advantage, which is the fundamental problem in the Northern Ireland situation. It is one of the limitations of democracy in a society which is bedevilled by the problems we know well.

I understand what is being proposed and certainly my former colleagues in the Alliance Party have been very supportive of this kind of proposition. I believe that they are concerned about efficiency, reasonableness and so on. I remain somewhat concerned. I just want to flag that up. I hope that my noble friend and her civil servants and officials will think seriously about this issue. One could be creating a problem for the future.

The same thing applies to the human rights commission. It needs to be able to speak truth to power. It needs to be able to challenge authority. One of the dangers of repatriating arrangements and appointments to the commission might well be to create a similar kind of problem. Whereas there is a feeling on this side of the water that, “They are all grown-up boys and girls over there and they should just get on with things”, I am not sure that we are quite at that stage in Northern Ireland. There are still some difficulties that we need to find our way through before having that degree of confidence. So I flag up those concerns.

Of course, I support the general thrust of the Bill and wish it well. I hope, too, that it might not be too long before we come back with a subsequent Bill that would fill out the more substantial things that perhaps should have been here in the first place.

20:11

[Lord Browne of Belmont (DUP)]

My Lords, I welcome this Bill, which provides the opportunity to give the Northern Ireland Assembly, the Executive and Northern Ireland politicians the tools that they need to continue to move forward as agreement allows. This will allow Northern Ireland to maintain the process of maturing and evolving politically as trust and confidence is built. The greatest challenge that we in Northern Ireland face daily is rebuilding our society after many years of division.

After the longest period of stable government in a generation, politics is changing. It is right that the regulation in relation to political donations should be adjusted to reflect that change. My party, the Democratic Unionist Party, supports Clauses 1 and 2, which provide for greater transparency concerning donations made after 1 January with the important proviso that a final decision will be made only when the security situation in Northern Ireland allows it. Those who donated to political parties under the current procedure did so with a full expectation to full and perpetual anonymity. We support the commitment not to retrospectively publish the names of donors who have given in the past.

Northern Ireland of course is a special case and I am sure that noble Lords will appreciate that, in this instance, there is a requirement for it to be afforded special status which does not exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

Many individuals and businesses are to be commended for stepping forward during the bad old days of the darkest of times in the history of Northern Ireland. Despite great personal risk to themselves and their businesses, these brave persons donated to political parties, standing up for democracy. As we move forward to a more normalised society and as we attempt to put our troubled past behind us, it is correct that we move towards the system of donations employed throughout the rest of the United Kingdom. We support the normalisation process for political donations as is outlined in the Bill.

With regard to setting a timetable for the removal of anonymity, sole responsibility for this process lies with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. Under the Bill as currently drafted, in assessing the security risk and potential future risks to commercial companies, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult only with the Northern Ireland Electoral Commission. It is certainly right for it to be consulted regarding the mechanics of changes, but as regards the security situation, surely the Secretary of State should also consult with those who have relevant experience and specialised knowledge of the subject. We also believe that provision should be made for consultation with political parties as political parties will have to live with the consequences of reduced funding if the Secretary of State gets the timing wrong.

One issue of concern is that the Bill will not close the sizeable loophole that at present permits political parties based outside the United Kingdom to be bankrolled by donations made abroad. Unfortunately, the Government have not so far seen fit to close that particular loophole, which should not be made available to any political party. Under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, political parties registered in Great Britain are permitted to accept donations only from UK residents and bodies. That is a solid and sound principle. The same Act extends to parties in Northern Ireland. However, parties registered in Northern Ireland may accept donations from the Republic of Ireland. Unfortunately, in this particular instance, an exception has been made in relation to Northern Ireland. Certain political parties have raised substantial amounts of money outside the jurisdiction, and that money is used to influence the political and electoral process within the United Kingdom. That is wrong and it is an area that should be looked at.

In relation to Clause 3, dual mandates served a useful purpose in Northern Ireland during the period of the Troubles. It was important to have political leaders present in both the Northern Ireland Assembly and another place when negotiations and decisions around Northern Ireland's future were being made. Given that the Troubles as we knew them are now over, we hope, the constitutional debate has been won and we now have the longest and most stable period of devolved government in a generation, it is clear that dual mandates are something that have naturally come to an end. My party, the Democratic Unionist Party, has been actively phasing out dual mandates for a number of years and by 2015 all our dual mandates will have ended. This legislation change simply underscores and re-emphasises what has been happening already on a voluntary basis.

While dual mandates do indeed need to be addressed, the anomaly of non-representation must also be brought to an end. It is time for those persons from Northern Ireland elected to the other House to make a decision. If they want their expenses and office costs, they need to demonstrate that they are doing the work. That means taking their seat. They are free not to take their seat if they so wish. However, the situation that exists where people do not take their seat but are allowed to claim expenses must end. The issue of non-representation while still claiming expenses is an affront to democracy.

Regarding Clause 6, there is broad consensus within Northern Ireland that there should be a considerable reduction in the size of the Assembly. As Northern Ireland moves towards a more normalised society, this should be reflected in a more proportionate legislature. As the party that has most consistently sought to improve Assembly structures, we believe that it is right and proper that the Government should change the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to allow determination of the size of the Assembly to be a reserved matter. That will allow the Assembly to legislate for themselves following consultation and agreement with the Secretary of State.

However, an important point that could arise from the reduction in numbers in the Assembly is that, as it stands currently, a petition of concern requires 30 signatures. If the Assembly were to be reduced to 90 MLAs or fewer, as would be my preference, it would clearly be right, proper and sensible to reduce the number required to sign a petition of concern. This debate should take place between the parties of Northern Ireland at the same time as a discussion on the reduction of MLAs. Thus, I believe that the Bill should be amended to make petitions of concern a reserved matter upon which the Assembly may legislate following agreement.

I also welcome Clause 7, which will bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. Holding elections for the Assembly and the other House on the same day leads only to confusion and does not allow for the issues pertaining to each body to be properly debated and considered. This change has been legislated for already in Scotland and Wales and is welcome for Northern Ireland as well. There is unanimity of support for the changes proposed in respect of the appointment of the Justice Minister. Those changes would permit that appointment to become normalised within the d’Hondt system.

As regards changes to the reform of electoral registration and voting, I welcome any proposals that will improve and simplify the current process. It is very important to compile an accurate and complete electoral register and I am glad to see that there has been a good uptake of people registering for voting, although some areas still need more work.

I welcome this Bill: it addresses some incredibly important matters. As I have mentioned, I wish that it had contained further provisions concerning political party donations and, in particular, the loophole regarding donations from outside the United Kingdom; but I have no doubt that we will turn to that issue some other time. It is to be welcomed that elections for the Northern Ireland Assembly have now been brought into line with those for Scotland and Wales. I welcome the new arrangement in place for the Minister of Justice and the Assembly’s power to reduce the number of MLAs, which we certainly want to see. It is clear that there are far too many Assembly Members in Northern Ireland and they need to be reduced.

I recognise that there are many other issues that need to be debated and for which provision needs to be made. I hope that after the talks with Dr Richard Haass and further consideration in the Assembly and Executive Review Committee, we will be in a position to come forward with some consensus on these issues and debate them further. I believe that the Bill will help to keep politics moving forward in Northern Ireland and improve the working of the devolved Administration. Finally, in reply to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, the DUP is fully in support of parity.

20:24

[Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville (Con)]

My Lords, I think this is the first time since I came to your Lordships’ House a dozen years ago that I have followed a Cross-Bencher who in Northern Ireland is a member of the Democratic Unionist Party. The noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, has spoken well on this thoroughly useful and comparatively tidy Bill.

The Library’s briefing pack identified this Bill as the first piece of constitutional legislation in Northern Ireland that has undergone recent examination by Parliament without a background of crisis. During the pre-legislative scrutiny of this Bill, Lady Hermon MP even elicited from Raymond McCartney, a Sinn Fein MLA, that he did not see any reason why Sinn Fein would not respond to an invitation to give evidence at Westminster, dependent on the context. This was the first evidence from Sinn Fein to a Westminster committee given in public.

That is not to say that one can only have a useful measure in less critical times. A particularly striking instance of that was the Electoral Fraud (Northern Ireland) Bill, carried through your Lordships’ House early in the new millennium by the late, great Lord Williams of Mostyn, who, effectively, completely changed the Bill between Second and Third Reading, to its great improvement. My own absorption in Northern Ireland detail has diminished during the past score of years; but I am batting at number six among the 11 initial speakers in this Second Reading debate, which makes me its fulcrum and an apposite place to make the sort of remarks the chorus makes in a Greek tragedy.

I like the format of the Library’s briefing pack and I am delighted that the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee is now used to give pre-legislative scrutiny to new Bills. That House of Commons committee, which I chaired during the 1997-2001 Parliament, did not exercise that power, though we did, after ten years, review the working of the Fair Employment (Northern Ireland) Act 1989. Ken Livingstone, then an MP, who served on that Select Committee before he resigned to contest the mayoralty of London, suggested the review and agreed at first that it should be delayed until the end of 10 years. When we reached the time for the review, he acknowledged that he had originally suspected the legislation to be simply a sop to American critics, but that he now agreed it had made a real beneficial difference.

My only unease about the pre-legislative scrutiny was that it contained 29 recommendations whereas the Government’s response—they claimed that they had addressed each recommendation, as indeed they had—said that the report contained 24. On a day when the Government has made a Statement on, inter alia, UK arithmetic, the Northern Ireland educational establishment can still teach its colleagues in Great Britain something.

Having myself approved the title “National Lottery etc. Bill” in 1993, I suppose it is churlish of me to regard “Miscellaneous Provisions” as an inadequate substitute for,

“measures to improve the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly”,

and separately,

“donations and loans to Northern Ireland political parties”.

Those were the subjects of consultations by the NIO in 2012 and 2010 respectively, which underlie the Bill and which both have a fine 17th-century timbre. My locus is all the more insubstantial to make these comments when I know even less about d’Hondt than I do about the Duckworth-Lewis scoring method in limited-overs cricket matches. Selfishly, I must say that I hope amendments about d’Hondt will not trouble us in Committee. As it is, there is clear evidence of progress on the size of the Assembly, the dual mandate and the transparency of donations—even if history takes a meandering course and it is less well known than it should be that there was a fall-off in Irish-American donations after Mrs Thatcher gave authority for the United States Air Force to fly bombing raids from British airfields to Libya in the mid-1980s, when France and Germany had declined to do so.

I profoundly welcome the Bill’s attention to detail over the year 2016, not just because of the centenary of the Easter Rising but because of that of the opening salvoes of the Battle of the Somme. I had no role in the Anglo-Irish agreement, the Downing Street declaration, the IRA’s ceasefire in August 1994 or the Belfast agreement, but I did have a role in the 75th anniversary of the first day of the Battle of the Somme. I represented the Cabinet on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government, accompanied by the late Alan Clark, who was representing the Ministry of Defence. The noble Lords, Lord Bannside and Lord Molyneaux, were also present. It was a memorable day, not least because of accidents in the arrangements on the battlefield in both the morning and the afternoon.

In the morning, the local Catholic priest was passed over for his planned prayers, which were then taken at the end of the service at the Lutyens memorial. In the afternoon, under a light but wetting rain at the commemoration of the 36th (Ulster) Division at Helen’s Tower, mishaps were happily overcome. The first happened when the Minister from the Ministre des Anciens Combattants, representing the French Government, having returned to Paris after an excellent local lunch, was therefore not available to take up the tray of fleur-de-lys, which were refused in turn by the lady Mayor of Thiepval—population 86—and the British ambassador and were eventually accepted by me. The second was because of the ambiguity in a sentence in the service sheet to the effect that a piper, “will play a lament. Wreaths will be laid”. The latter phrase could have made the actions either simultaneous or consecutive.

The truly memorable event of 1 July 1991 was that, back in Belfast, the inter-party talks of that summer continued under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Mawhinney, who during the day negotiated an agreement that the talks had now run their course and should be brought to a gentle close. It was agreed that the close should be temporary and that the gentleness should bind everyone not to get into the blame game, so that the talks could be peacefully resumed in due course, as indeed they were, to the long-term benefit of the peace process. If useful Bills go well, the climate improves and we must hope that this is true this time too.

20:28

[Lord Shutt of Greetland (LD)]

My Lords, I have to follow that slot. I thank my noble friend Lady Randerson for explaining the Bill to us. For me, the starting point in considering the Bill is, indeed, the Belfast agreement of 1998, which was of course endorsed by 69% of those who voted in that May 1998 referendum. It is perhaps right that we are considering this 15 years on. We are looking at the revision of two Acts of Parliament —the Northern Ireland Act 1998 and the much earlier Act, the Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975.

I support much of the miscellany that is before us in connection with the transparency of donations and loans to political parties, the ending of the dual mandate and the new method of appointing a Justice Minister. But I would like to highlight one or two areas of reservation. I am concerned about the size of the Assembly. The Bill suggests that this could change, and we have heard noble Lords speak about reducing the number of Members in a constituency from six to five.

I looked at the results of the most recent Assembly election. Of course, in looking at results one is not to know exactly how people would behave if there were only five elected rather than six. However, after studying that election, it is my view that the losers would not be the DUP or Sinn Fein but other Members of the Assembly, and there would be fewer people from minority causes serving in the Assembly. That would result in a loss of plurality, which is embedded in the Belfast agreement as to how Northern Ireland should go forward. Indeed, if we were to reduce the number from six to four, it would be even worse. If there were to be reductions under the present system, I would sooner reduce the number of constituencies from 18 to 12 and stick with the six Members.

One also has to take into account the fact that there will be a reduction in the number of those who serve in local government—it seems that the legislation is there for 2015. The folks in Northern Ireland would be well advised to think through what that will mean in terms of the number of public representatives who are available to serve the people there. I caution against that and wonder whether that clause ought to be supported in the Bill.

The Northern Ireland Assembly Disqualification Act 1975 has not been referred to by anyone else but I would like to refer to it. It is interesting that it sets out those who are disqualified. Of course, those who are disqualified are justice officers, and there are 17 different sorts of justice officer specified; there are also civil servants, Armed Forces, police, national criminal intelligence people, the National Crime Squad, any member of a legislature of any place outside the Commonwealth, and other offices in Parts 2 and 3 of Schedule 1.

There are 105 offices listed in Part 2 and 136 in Part 3. For example, if you happened to be a member of the Football Licensing Authority, which is in Part 2, you are not able to stand for the Northern Ireland Assembly. If you are chairman of the Plant Varieties and Seeds Tribunal, you are not able to stand for the Northern Ireland Assembly. Northern Ireland is quite a small place and if you think of those who are serving on these 241 bodies, you are reducing the gene pool from which candidates can come. I think that needs looking at.

If this issue is not looked at in itself, it can be looked at in another way. The Minister will be aware that there was a little local difficulty in Wales a couple of years ago in terms of people standing for the Welsh Assembly and the problems that were caused. There could well be a situation where on nomination day you could stand down from the office of profit, and if you are not elected you resume after polling day. Of course, the specific reason that I am able to speak on this is that the Civil Service Commissioner for Northern Ireland is to be so listed, so there are 242 rather than 241 appointments that exclude people from standing.

As I said, it is important to look back at the Belfast agreement. Strand One of that agreement sets out:

“A consultative Civic Forum will be established. It will comprise representatives of the business, trade union and voluntary sectors, and such other sectors as agreed by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister”.

Furthermore, Clause 56 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 sets out:

“The First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly shall make arrangements for obtaining from the Forum its views on social, economic and cultural matters … ‘the Forum’ means the consultative Civic Forum established in pursuance of paragraph 34 of Strand One”.

Where is the forum today? It is not there. I do not know whether legislation will help, but again this is about plurality—about everybody being in this together for Northern Ireland. We should look again at that Belfast agreement. That is the test that we have as we take this Bill into Committee. Is there anything else that needs adding to the miscellany that is before us? Of course, I welcome the Bill, but I wonder whether there are some changes that we should be making.

20:36

[Lord Empey (UUP)]

My Lords, as we discuss this Bill this evening, we have to measure its provisions against the strengths and weaknesses of devolution as it has operated now for nearly 10 years. Do these provisions help or do they largely ignore developments and avoid the many problems that need to be resolved?

It is true that Northern Ireland has progressed in the years since the Belfast agreement was ratified. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, that the percentage in the referendum was 71.2%, if I recall correctly. As has already been referred to, the visit of the President Obama and other world leaders ahead of the very successful G8 summit held in County Fermanagh in June signified just how far the Northern Ireland political process has come after many false starts. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, indicated his antecedence from that district—it is as well that that information was not freely available when the Prime Minister took his decision to go to County Fermanagh—and I join him in saying to the Prime Minister that he took a very brave decision which put the Province on the world stage in the most favourable possible circumstances.

However, it must also be acknowledged that to look forward to a bright future of peace and justice we must first deal with the weighty and at times seemingly unconquerable issues of “the past”. Attempts are being made as we speak by Ambassador Haass to do this, but it would be a brave Member who predicted a totally successful outcome to these deliberations before Christmas. The past, flags and parades are among the most difficult problems that we face. If Dr Haass does not succeed at this stage, we have to look at a completely new way forward; we just cannot allow things to sit where they are.

We have entered a decade of anniversaries in Northern Ireland, as has been referred to, with the first one of last year, the commemoration of the Ulster Covenant, having passed peacefully in September 2012. Given that positive start to the period, it was regrettable that, exactly one year ago today, we were plunged back into a dismal place following the decision of Belfast council with regard to the union flag.

Up until last year, there were no flag protests and demonstrations, not even from those who would have preferred no flags to fly—indeed, many citizens did not even realise that a flag was there at all. But Sinn Fein did, and it has waged a campaign for more than 30 years to get it removed. Even the public consultation held on the proposal to pull the flag down indicated that very few people in Belfast were seriously worried or offended by its presence, but, like so much that is symbolic in Northern Ireland, taking things down is both difficult and dangerous.

On the night when the decision was taken, two other events occurred. Newry and Mourne council decided to ratify the naming of a children’s playground after an IRA gunman who had been in possession of a weapon linked to the Kingsmills massacre. Sadly, David Ford, who has been referred to, whose councillors’ votes were necessary to take the decision, issued the statement that night:

“Tonight’s result has been a clear victory for the Alliance Party. Through the dedicated work of Alliance Councillors the image of a shared future has prevailed in Belfast”.

In view of the events of the year that has followed, many of them deplorable, I can hardly think of a form of words so far removed from reality. Community relations in Belfast have been set back by many years. Indeed, I have not seen things so bad in the city, having represented part of it for 26 years.

What we are seeing in Belfast and other places is really the legacy and the inability of our institutions to deal with the consequences of the brutal and lengthy campaign of terror that has left two extremely frightened and polarised communities in fear of each other and unable to come to terms with the past. To suggest that those injustices should be whitewashed or simply forgotten about as time goes on is both unrealistic and not in the spirit of justice.

The people of Northern Ireland know all too well that, if not adequately dealt with, those feelings of grief, injustice and hurt travel through the generations as if they were implanted in the genes. They leave the younger generations with true and genuine feelings of grief, anger and disgust although they have no real memories of the darkest and most brutal days of that period.

Acts of “tribal, intimate revenge”, as the late Seamus Heaney put it, will carry on for generations to come if there is no sense of due process and closure for every family who have been affected and feel that they need justice for their injured and lost. The idea that it is easier for the Government and perpetrators simply to write it off only adds to the hurt of each mother, father, son and daughter who has endured unspeakable grief and has carried on in the quest for truth.

In 1998, it was in the spirit of truth and justice that my party, the Ulster Unionist Party, under the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Trimble, endorsed the Belfast agreement in the hope that the long and bloody days of terror would be put behind us and that it would install a functioning political institution enshrined in statute. Since then, and in the provisions before us, a number of measures are proposed that will slightly alter the configuration and circumstances in which the Assembly functions.

There is a proposal to extend the term: not a big proposal in itself. However, I make two points. The idea that that guarantees in perpetuity that future Assembly elections will not coincide with Westminster elections is false. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act does not guarantee in statute five-yearly elections to Westminster. That could change because of circumstances, which we debated here at enormous length. If it can happen, it will happen. The idea that that brings to an end a clash between the Assembly election and the Westminster election is untrue. It does not guarantee that at all.

My anxiety about that issue is that, in the other place, the Minister, and the Member for South Leicestershire, said that there was “general consensus” that the Assembly term should be extended from four to five years. That is not so. There is a majority for it, but it is not a general consensus. We take the view that all the people in Scotland and Wales knew in 2011 that they were voting for a five-year assembly. The people of Northern Ireland believed that they were voting for a four-year Assembly. The information was there, because the Government contacted all Administrations at the same time, but it did not filter out. When the Government came forward with their initial Explanatory Notes, they indicated that they were not proposing to effect the five-year change because there was not consensus on it, but, all of a sudden, consensus materialises. It is not a huge issue but I am making the point that when people went to the polls in Belfast and Northern Ireland, they did not know that they were voting for a five-year term. There has been little or no debate about whether there should be a permanent five-year or four-year term, just as we had people on all sides of this House with different views on that sort of measure.

On Third Reading in the other place, the Secretary of State said that the measures contained therein,

“do not reopen the political settlement enshrined in the Belfast agreement”.—[Official Report, Commons, 24/6/13; col. 49.]

It is a pity that Governments over the years did not adhere to that because in 2006, the then Government did not show the same respect for that document. They brought forward proposals that were not even discussed in St Andrews to change fundamentally how the First Minister and Deputy First Minister were identified. These changes were made behind the Speaker’s Chair without the involvement of political parties in Northern Ireland, with one exception. There was no widespread consensus on them and they have radically altered the agreement that was voted on by the electorate. I know that a number of us will be returning to that as the Bill progresses.

However, there are other, welcome measures in the Bill, including that on the issue of donations, which has been referred to. I fully endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, when he referred to the ongoing funding of political parties in Northern Ireland from outside the jurisdiction, which I believe would not be tolerated anywhere else. It is entirely wrong that people from any part of the world can put money into a party in the Republic and that that party can transfer money to fight elections in Northern Ireland. It is entirely unjustified and unreasonable but it is all part of a policy of “Don’t rock the boat. Don’t upset the Shinners. We don’t want to annoy them”, never mind whether the thing is right or wrong. It is wrong, and it should be spelt out clearly that that is the case.

I have to say that I find one or two other issues concerning. I agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, in his comments about some of the more minor provisions, which appear to be fairly innocuous with regard to appointing certain key individuals, whether that is in terms of human rights or district electoral areas. I say that because we have just had what is probably the longest local government reform process in the democratic world. It has taken 14 years from inception to finality to carry out a minor reform of local government, because the number of powers being transferred has gradually been eroded over the years until it is effectively a matter of a general competence and power over planning. That has taken 14 years but it is not my main concern.

My main concern is that the boundaries that have emerged, particularly as they apply to the city of Belfast, were flagrantly gerrymandered. For any of your Lordships who know the geography of the area, the outlying housing estates around the city are being brought into Belfast, which is perfectly natural because that is how cities have evolved. However, there are two glaring exceptions. In the north of the city, the Rathcoole area is not being included, yet it is part of the North Belfast parliamentary constituency. In the east of the city, the Dundonald and Ballybeen areas are not being included but are part of the East Belfast parliamentary constituency. When you get past Stormont, the third entrance into Stormont off the Upper Newtownards Road is now going to be in the city of Lisburn; anybody with any knowledge of the area knows that that is absolute nonsense. It has been done for political purposes and it is entirely wrong, so any thought that some of these matters can be handed back willy-nilly to Stormont will require thorough scrutiny in later stages of the Bill.

There is a final point that I want to make. We will deal with the NCA, the definition of victims and other matters at later stages, but there is a point about devolution in the United Kingdom in general that I hope the Government, and indeed the alternative Government, will pay attention to. It concerns the Sewel convention. We are getting ourselves into a position of saying that once you hand over a power, forget about it—devolution can just deal with it, and Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland can go about their own business. Consequently, Parliament is becoming progressively more London-centric, and that is a mistake. It is nice for Whitehall to get these regional problems off the table and out of the way, but then you wake up to a headline, as some Members may recall we once did, such as the famous Sunday Times one, “John Bull’s Political Slum”. If noble Lords do not remember it, they may have read about it. Although I did not agree with the article, it was making the point that something was happening in Northern Ireland way back in the 1960s that people here did not know anything about because they were not focused on it. Northern Ireland was dealt with by someone at a desk at the Home Office, and that was it.

We are going to make the same mistake with regard to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland if we do not watch ourselves. A point comes after you have transferred more and more powers when you have to say to yourself, “Apart from being a cash machine, what else is Parliament for? What other role does it have?”. There is a wider issue that we as a Parliament have to address about how we treat devolution. In the aftermath of whatever happens to our colleagues in Scotland next year, no doubt we will have an opportunity to return to that.

20:51

[Lord Lexden (Con)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Empey, with whom I agree about nearly everything, in the closing stages of this debate on a Bill that has a limited but nevertheless most beneficial purpose: to help further the arrangements under which the Province is currently governed and its electoral system administered. As a Conservative and unionist with a long-standing interest in Northern Ireland, I welcome it.

The Bill has been the subject of extensive consultation within Northern Ireland. It has undergone detailed pre-legislative scrutiny at the hands of the Northern Ireland Select Committee in the other place, and has been usefully improved as a result. Such careful preparation is not a feature of all the legislation that comes before this House. As a Member of your Lordships’ Select Committee on the Constitution, I have from time to time put my name to reports expressing regret that measures have been brought forward without having been given the full and detailed preliminary consideration that they needed. This Bill warrants no such comment, and the Northern Ireland Office is to be congratulated on its thoroughness. The manner in which it has been developed accords fully with the best practice recommended by your Lordships’ Constitution Committee.

From my own staunch unionist standpoint, the Bill has much to commend it. Northern Ireland ought, as far as possible, to be treated in the same way as other parts of our country on issues that affect them all equally. The funding of politics is one such subject. The Bill deserves full support for setting an early date—1 January 2014, less than a month away—after which information about new political donations can be made available without restriction by the Electoral Commission. At the same time, common prudence indicates that the precise moment at which the new power can be used must be determined in the light of security considerations. The Bill rightly leaves the Secretary of State, who I am sure will engage in widespread consultation, to judge when the change can safely be made, and so bring Northern Ireland into line with the rest of the country, in conformity with unionist principles and the wishes of the people in the Province. In a survey carried out by the Electoral Commission at the end of last year, fewer than one in 10 favoured the retention of confidentiality.

The Bill also brings Northern Ireland into line with practice elsewhere in another important respect, by extending the term of the current Assembly from four years to five, and by providing for five-year terms in future. There is nothing inherently superior about five-year intervals between elections; indeed, a powerful case can be made for elections every four. However, the next elections in Scotland and Wales will take place at the end of five years, and Northern Ireland stands to gain no obvious practical benefit from having a shorter electoral cycle. The Bill brings a welcome consistency to this aspect of the United Kingdom’s devolved institutions. All of them will now be re-elected in 2016. Having been brought into a common mould, they should retain it. Elections every five years are to become the rule in Wales as well as in Northern Ireland. It is a rule that Scotland should adopt too.

Much reference has been made in this debate to one particularly glaring disparity that currently exists between the Northern Ireland Assembly and devolved bodies elsewhere. The Stormont Assembly, with a smaller electorate than its counterparts, has a much higher ratio of elected representatives. Electors in Northern Ireland are therefore seriously overrepresented in comparison with their fellow countrymen in Scotland and Wales. The carefully defined power which this Bill gives to the Assembly to reduce its own size provides a most welcome means of tackling the problem. The Assembly should use it to serve both the interests of Northern Ireland, where every opportunity to cut its high levels of public spending should be seized, and those of the country as a whole. Greater uniformity between the various devolved institutions strengthens the unity of the kingdom. At the same time, the important points made by my noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lord Shutt need to be noted most seriously.

The Bill has been given wide support, and rightly so, because it bans elected representatives sitting in the House of Commons and the Northern Ireland Assembly simultaneously. There is nothing new about the existing practice. The first Speaker of the Northern Ireland Parliament in 1921 was also a Member of the House of Commons, and later went on to become Father of it; no one turned a hair. Over the years, his example was followed by a not inconsiderable number of Northern Ireland politicians. Today, in the face of much public criticism, the practice has declined sharply: only three Northern Ireland politicians currently hold dual mandates. However, the practice should cease for one simple and straightforward reason above all: the volume of work that elected representatives have to undertake today makes it impossible for them to discharge their duties adequately in two legislatures simultaneously. The era of part-time politics for constituency representatives that existed until after the Second World War has, for good or ill, gone for ever. The Government should, of course, go further—although this Bill is not the vehicle—and apply the principle of “one representative, one legislature” in all parts of the country, as the Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recommended in its report on the draft Bill. Action is to be taken in Wales, but should not end there: Scotland, too, should be brought into line. Certain fundamental principles should apply throughout all devolved institutions, and that is one of them.

Should those elected to the Northern Ireland Assembly continue to be eligible to sit in this House? The Government have not so far accepted the arguments in favour of change. Again, there is nothing new about existing practice. Membership of this House and of the Stormont Parliament were combined by the first Lord Brookeborough and by the first and second Lord Glentoran. Today, the noble Lord, Lord Morrow, is a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Effective membership of this House may not require the commitment of as much time as the Commons demands, but even so the practical possibilities of working in this House and in the Northern Ireland Assembly simultaneously are severely limited, not least because the hours of business in both places tend to overlap. I suggest that it will be difficult to secure acceptance in the country at large for the proposition that the two Houses should be treated differently in this respect. The Commons Northern Ireland Affairs Committee recommended that,

“the abolition of dual mandates should be applied consistently across both Houses of Parliament”.

The case for a consistent approach seems to me to be very strong. That is one matter to which we can return in Committee.

Another matter is the much discussed question of moving towards the creation of a formal Opposition in the Northern Ireland Assembly. Its absence, for well understood reasons, sets Northern Ireland apart from other parts of the country and is incompatible with unionist principle. Disraeli said in 1844:

“No Government can be long secure without a formidable opposition”.

Is there not perhaps a link between the very slow progress now being made in tackling sectarian divisions and improving public services, such as education, and the absence of an Opposition that could hold the Executive rigorously to account? The Assembly and Executive Review Committee has recently concluded that,

“there is no consensus at present to move to a formal Government and Opposition model”.

However, given the growing evidence of increasing support for this move within Northern Ireland, it is surely incumbent on us to ensure that a transition can occur without difficulty in future. Perhaps the most effective way of doing that would be to add to this Bill a clause conferring on the Assembly the power to make the move in due course when agreement has been reached.

Committee may also be an appropriate stage at which to consider action by the current Executive that is contrary to the best interests both of the Province itself and the country as a whole. One example is the severe limitations that have been imposed on the new National Crime Agency, highlighted by my friend the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on several occasions and by the noble Baroness, Lady Smith of Basildon, who knows Northern Ireland well. The noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, of Fermanagh descent, also made a reference to it earlier in the debate. Another well known example is the Executive’s rejection so far of the new Defamation Act, which was the subject of a debate in Grand Committee in June. These issues raise fundamental constitutional questions that relate to the future government of the United Kingdom, as highlighted and expanded upon by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Empey. They are of immense importance.

In 1966, as dark clouds were starting to gather in Ulster, an incisive analysis of rising disorder was published in the New Statesman by Seamus Heaney, whose death this year has been so widely mourned and has been marked by a special occasion here at Westminster. Heaney wrote sorrowfully of the re-emergence of political extremism,

“directed at the breaking down of any bridges that might exist between Catholic and Protestant; it would create its own Troubles and set the political and religious question back 40 years”.

Tragically, these were prophetic words. Heaney also quoted words used by Keats after visiting Belfast in the 1830s:

“What a tremendous difficulty is the improvement of the condition of such people”.

The difficulty, tremendous now as it was then, can surely be overcome only by rebuilding the bridges that were so cruelly broken down after 1966, while showing true understanding of those whose sentiments are summed up in a well known line of popular verse quoted by Heaney at the conclusion of his article:

“It’s to hell with the future and live on the past!”.

It is surely our duty to do all we can to encourage Northern Ireland’s power-sharing institutions to direct all their attention in one direction: towards the future. The Bill can help us in that task.

21:02

[Lord Bew (CB)]

My Lords, it is a pleasure immediately to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Lexden. His speeches in this House reflect not only his love for the Province but his grasp of the political detail, the complexity and the history of the Province. He, at least, will not shirk the tremendous difficulty that Keats noted in improving the condition of these people.

Batting at number 10, I will make some brief remarks about the Bill, and I start by thanking the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Randerson, and her officials for the helpful briefing last Thursday on the different elements of the Bill. I should also indicate that I welcome the broad thrust of the Bill.

I accept the point of the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Belmont, that the culture in the political parties of Northern Ireland is changing, and that double-jobbing is gradually curing itself and moving out of the system. I still welcome the provisions in the Bill to give a certain finality to that. It is worth recalling that there was a substantial struggle on this point. As the noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, said, the Committee on Standards in Public Life and its previous chairman, Sir Christopher Kelly, played a major role, as the Library’s briefing note makes clear, in entrenching judgments and moving opinion towards the conclusion which we now have in the Bill. I pay tribute to that work this evening; we should not forget it. The Committee on Standards in Public Life—I declare an interest in that I am its newly appointed chairman—also pushed very strongly on another key element in the Bill, which is greater transparency in the area of political donations.

Because we have been absorbing some difficult news from the OECD today, it might be worth while drawing attention to the fact that in mid-November the OECD held a conference in Paris under the heading of “Restoring Trust in Government”. One of the features of that conference was an acknowledgement that the United Kingdom had a good record in the matter of transparency as regards political donations. One blot on the United Kingdom’s record is the problem with respect to Northern Ireland that has already been alluded to by the noble Lords, Lord Empey and Lord Browne. However, the United Kingdom generally has a good record of transparency, and there is no question but that the Bill, in some of its provisions, reduces some of the criticisms that can be made as regards part of the Northern Irish tale which reduces the overall record.

None the less, it is a fundamental fact that a key principle of our law in the United Kingdom is the notion that it is inappropriate to have foreign donations working in our domestic politics. That is increasingly widely accepted and is a key principle of our law. The difficulty, which has been the case for some years and remains so under the Bill, is the continuation of the arrangements that allow Irish citizens to contribute to Northern Irish political parties. I fully accept that there is a special relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and that the need to make provisions for Irish citizens who live on the island of Ireland to play that role is implicit in the Belfast agreement itself. That agreement conferred new rights on those who consider themselves British, those who consider themselves Irish and those who consider themselves both; it did not confer new rights on those who consider themselves Irish or American or both. However, we are effectively doing that by continuing with those arrangements.

When the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was the Minister responsible for these matters, he was very open in Grand Committee in acknowledging that there are a lot of Irish citizens around the world. The point is that the Irish state has an expanded extraterritorial definition of citizenship. We are locked in by those arrangements to the Irish state’s constitutional view of those matters. As a consequence, there is indisputably a contradiction between our broad approach to the question of foreign donations and what we are permitted in this particular case. There is a difficulty here.

One of the things that slightly surprise me is that, after all, in recent times we have heard a great deal about the very good relationship between the two Governments and how it has never been better. We—or those who pay attention to Dublin politics—also hear an unease about the money that arrives in Dublin politics; I am talking now purely about politics between the Irish Republic and America. There is growing unease on those points. One of the questions that I want to ask the Government is: are serious discussions going on about the implications of those matters? Is there a sense that both Governments have an interest in at least looking more closely at current arrangements? There are some very striking recent newspaper reports about fundraising developments in the United States and very striking unease in the Dublin newspapers about it. As I say, we are stuck with the capacious definition of Irish citizenship currently available in the Irish constitution. Finally, in the same context, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness if she can explain whether the new guidelines from the Standards in Public Office Commission in Dublin which came out in 2013 offer any real comfort to those of us who are concerned about that matter.

19:49

[Baroness Smith of Basildon (Lab)]

My Lords, it has been an interesting and useful debate. Some of the descriptions of the Bill have been that it is modest, useful and tidy, which probably explains the record number of shorter speeches in your Lordships’ House on Northern Ireland issues. Other noble Lords have spoken about the context in which this Bill is being considered, in that it shows how much progress has been made in Northern Ireland for future generations since the Belfast agreement.

I do not think that anybody in your Lordships’ House tonight underestimates the challenges and problems faced by Northern Ireland; that was evidenced by the flag protests. I was in Foyle a couple of weeks ago, and the lead item on the evening news—I am sure that the noble Baroness has read about this—was about a bomb that was left on a bus. The bus driver was told to drive the bus, and she showed enormous courage and bravery in getting passengers off before alerting the police. A similar incident happened in Belfast.

The difference now is that these kinds of stories do not dominate the news every day, but they highlight the continuing activity of dissidents and the challenges faced. My noble friend Lord McAvoy and other noble Lords referred to the hugely successful G8 and the visit by President Obama, as well as other events and examples of great progress, improving the reputation of Northern Ireland at home and overseas.

The Bill before us today has been drawn up by agreement with the Northern Ireland political parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, said, it is the first Northern Ireland Bill to benefit from pre-legislative scrutiny. I certainly agree with his comments about the value of such scrutiny. I very much enjoyed his speech, particularly his references to the Somme. I recommend to him a play that I saw in the Lyric Theatre in Belfast some time ago, called “Sons of Ulster Marching Towards the Somme”, which he may know of already. It says a lot about Northern Ireland history.

Everyone in your Lordships’ House tonight knows that progress is hard won. Northern Ireland has got as far as it has today only because those in positions of responsibility have been prepared to get together to talk and have not been frightened to disagree before finding grounds on which to agree. The provisions in the Bill on greater transparency for political donations, electoral registration and administration have been agreed by political parties and largely welcomed here tonight, as well as being welcomed by the Electoral Commission. However, we also need to recognise and understand why transparency is not yet the same as in the rest of the UK; that must remain the objective, and that is part of the difficulty.

The Northern Ireland Home Affairs Committee in the other place heard conflicting views on this issue. This Bill seeks to find a way forward while holding the door open for further reform in future. There has to be recognition that, even when agreement can be found in principle, it is a harder task to work out and then agree on the detail. We found that with issues that are not in the Bill—with the number of MLAs, for example. I found the comments from the Liberal Democrat/Alliance Benches quite interesting—about not having a smaller Parliament or reducing the number of MLAs—because those were the exact proposals from the party opposite regarding the House of Commons. There seem to be two different views from the Liberal Democrats on that, but we should perhaps let that pass.

The point is that it is harder to work out the detail. The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the difficulty with the reorganisation of local government, and how long that has taken. These things are difficult, but I hope that we see the start of a process and not the end of seeing any progress.

I also concur with the very sensible changes regarding the position of Justice Minister. The noble Lord, Lord Alderdice, spoke about the difficulties that it could create for the Alliance, but it may not always been an Alliance MLA holding that position. I pay tribute to David Ford, as I know him well and know the work that he has done. In principle, those changes are very sensible.

The issue of double jobbing and the dual mandate came up several times. The comments from the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and others were that political parties have largely achieved this—and that is welcome—but all noble Lords still welcomed that provision.

There seems to be little disagreement about what is in the Bill, and a lot of the points raised tonight, particularly by my noble friend Lord McAvoy, highlighted our areas of concern about the missed opportunities—what is not in the Bill. He was not alone in raising such issues; the noble Lords, Lord Trimble, Lord Alderdice and Lord Empey, raised those issues, too.

As the noble Baroness said, this is a technical Bill. It will not make a great difference to the lives of people in Northern Ireland although it introduces some important changes. I refer to two areas of concern highlighted by my noble friend Lord McAvoy. I know that we are not the only ones concerned about these issues. The noble Lord, Lord Lexden, referred to one of them, as the noble Lord, Lord Empey, has done previously, which is the deficiencies in the Crime and Courts Act 2013, specifically in connection with the operation of the National Crime Agency.

I understand the criticism of those political parties that did not support the relevant legislative consent Motion, although I do not think that blame is necessarily helpful in this case. I was the shadow Minister at the Home Office at the time and I think it would have been very productive if the Government had engaged with all the political parties at a very early stage. I spoke to Ministers very early on in the process about the obvious issues that would arise with policing being devolved and the creation of the National Crime Agency, but I never received any indication from the Government at all of any proper political engagement with the Northern Ireland political parties on the part of the Home Office or the Northern Ireland Office. Ministers in both departments told me that the other department was dealing with it. Where do you go from there? No one seemed to take responsibility. Whoever we may think is at fault, the Government should have worked harder and engaged more fully with the relevant people to try to prevent this problem occurring. I would have liked to see something in the Bill that gave confidence that the Government now better understand those difficulties and want to find a way to engage properly in order to move forward. It is so disappointing to see no such provision. I hope that does not mean that the Government have given up. This is too important an issue for that.

My noble friend Lord McAvoy has made the following point, as have other noble Lords. Devolution does not mean disengagement. I hope that the noble Baroness will assure me that the Government have not put this issue on the back burner, that it is still a very live issue and that the Government, with the political parties in Northern Ireland, will continue proactively to seek a way forward to address it.

Other noble Lords have referred to dealing with the past. I was the second Minister responsible for victims and survivors in Northern Ireland, following the noble Lord, Lord Browne of Ladyton. In all the issues affecting the future of Northern Ireland, the past is always present. I echo the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Empey, on the importance of the Haass talks, the necessity of their succeeding and the consequences if they do not.

When the Northern Ireland Assembly in 2011 unanimously passed a Motion, proposed by an Alliance MLA, to ask the Secretary of State to convene all-party talks at Stormont to try to find a way forward—a framework, perhaps—that would allow some progress to be made, I think we all expected to see some movement. The substantial and very impressive report and proposals in 2009 from the Consultative Group on the Past, jointly led by the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Eames, and Denis Bradley, had a mixed reaction in terms of the conclusions it drew. However, Shaun Woodward, as the former Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, undertook a consultation to see where there was consensus. It is shocking that in 2011, Owen Paterson, the then Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, refused to convene a meeting asked for by the Assembly, saying that there had to be consensus before any talks took place. What if the Government had said that there had to be consensus before the talks took place that led to the Good Friday agreement?

Noble Lords will know how difficult this issue is, and I share that view. I have met and listened to many victims and survivors and their organisations from different communities across Northern Ireland. I have heard their stories, as other noble Lords present this evening have done who have lived through those events. I do not have the answers; I do not think that anyone does. There is no consensus. Progress might even mean talks about having talks or taking small baby steps to start with. However, I do know that there will be no headway unless there is a start to this process. This issue matters and the Government have a role to play in it. They cannot just step aside.

We support the Bill and many of the measures in it. It contains some welcome measures and we look forward to further debate in Committee and working with the Minister on this issue.

21:19

[Baroness Randerson]

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the debate and I thank all speakers for their thoughtful and constructive contributions. Their depth of experience and the imaginative approach that has been adopted across the House augurs very well for the quality of the debate that we will have in the future as we examine amendments and go through the Bill clause by clause. I know that many of today’s speakers are truly expert on the matters under discussion and clearly their views are very valuable.

I am pleased that so many in this House felt able to express support for some of the provisions in the Bill. The Government have been mindful of the need to seek as much consensus as possible, particularly on the constitutional matters dealt with in the legislation. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, that possibly our definitions of “consensus” are different. Consensus that there is a problem is probably the starting point with many of these things, although consensus on the solution may not come until some hard work has been done in searching for that solution to the problem.

I welcome the support for the Bill from the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, and should like to address one of the issues that he and the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, raised concerning the NCA. The Crime and Courts Act includes order-making powers so that the NCA arrangements can be fully extended to Northern Ireland when the Northern Ireland Assembly gives its consent. Unfortunately, as a result of not securing consent, the activities of the NCA in Northern Ireland are restricted and the level of support that the NCA can provide to the PSNI in the fight against serious and organised crime is reduced. However, I emphasise in particular to the noble Baroness that David Ford, the Justice Minister in Northern Ireland, is continuing to discuss this matter and is seeking to get agreement with the Northern Ireland parties. The Home Secretary remains open to proposals for arrangements to ensure that the NCA is answerable for its activities in Northern Ireland.

[Baroness Smith of Basildon]

I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation and I apologise that this issue is not quite clear to me. I am trying to understand whether the Government were engaged in discussions with Northern Ireland. I appreciate David Ford’s role—he has been very good on this—but my query concerns the Government’s role in this.

[Baroness Randerson]

It is important to remember that justice is now a devolved issue. Although the Secretary of State and indeed the Home Secretary take a very proactive approach in liaising with the Justice Minister, the decision has to lie with the Northern Ireland Executive. I understand the sense of frustration felt by many noble Lords when we often talk here about issues that are devolved, but the whole stream of thought behind the Bill is to enable the devolved Assembly in Northern Ireland to operate more as the other devolved bodies do, so that Northern Ireland becomes less of a special case. In this particular case, the Government are very concerned that there should be a solution, and they are actively working towards obtaining that solution in a way that is acceptable across the parties in Northern Ireland.

[Lord Empey]

I am sorry to interrupt the Minister but the National Crime Agency—I repeat, the National Crime Agency—is not exclusively a matter for the devolved regions. I respectfully request that the Minister refers to a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, who answered a debate in this House. I specifically asked him what would happen in the event that the Northern Ireland Assembly did not agree to this because I felt that it had no intention of agreeing to it. I asked what would happen if there was deemed to be a potential national threat posed by a pool of individuals in Northern Ireland who were not subject to the same rigour as would be the case elsewhere. He said that the Government would act responsibly.

I accept that the right way to do it is the way in which it is being pursued at the moment with Northern Ireland Ministers and the Executive. But this House cannot escape ultimate responsibility if leaving things unsatisfactorily resolved in Northern Ireland would ultimately pose a threat to the entire United Kingdom, which could happen. I just make the point to the noble Baroness that she might refer to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Holbeach, when he answered the debate.

[Baroness Randerson]

I thank the noble Lord for his intervention and for his comments in respect of accepting the fact that this is a devolved issue and that the right way to deal with it is via the Justice Minister. The devolution of justice and the failure to accept the role of the NCA does not mean that it does not operate at all in Northern Ireland. Only some of its functions are affected. I say again that the Home Secretary is very proactively working to encourage a solution that will enable the NCA to be answerable within Northern Ireland.

Comments made by the noble Lord, Lord McAvoy, about the past on this topic were similar to those made by my noble friend Lord Alderdice, the noble Lord, Lord Browne, and others. This relates to the Haass talks and the whole topic of the past. It is important to bear in mind that the Haass talks are reaching a conclusion. The expectation is that there will be a report before Christmas. The Northern Ireland Executive once again owns this process. These are sensitive and difficult issues, and it is important that we give our support to that procedure so that we are able to take from it any positive outcome that is possible. Three issues are being dealt with by the Haass talks. They are separate but intertwined issues and the past is a very important part of them.

I remind noble Lords of the words of Her Majesty the Queen when she said that as a society we must respect the past but should not be bound by it. It is important that, when the Haass talks are concluded, we give full support to the Northern Ireland Executive in the way in which they intend to implement any recommendations.

As my noble friend Lord Trimble pointed out, welfare devolution has existed in Northern Ireland since 1920. It would be a serious piece of undevolution to take that back now in the context of the Northern Ireland Executive’s failure so far to introduce parity. It is important to bear in mind that it would be open to the Northern Ireland parties to seek to have the responsibility in these fields taken back, but it would require the agreement of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State. There would also have to be cross-community support in the Assembly and votes here and in the other place, so it would be a very complex issue.

To my knowledge, there been no call for control over welfare to be brought back to this place. It is, however, to be seriously borne in mind that the failure of the Northern Ireland Executive until now to address the issue of welfare reform will impose a serious financial penalty on the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive because of the costs of a more expensive welfare system.

[Lord Trimble]

I appreciate the points that the Minister has made, but I just wanted to point out to her that her earlier comments about this being a serious and grave matter are completely beside the point. This has in the past been a mere formality. There has been no substance to the devolved character of welfare in Northern Ireland. It is not a matter of significance at that end at all. With all respect, I think that the Minister's comments on this are inaccurate and premature.

[Baroness Randerson]

At the moment, for the first time, I believe that we are seeing that the devolution of welfare to Northern Ireland is becoming a separate and tricky issue. Until now, it has not been of any great significance on a day-to-day basis because, after all, the welfare system in Northern Ireland has mirrored that in the rest of the country. Only now are we seeing an issue. Once again, it is an issue for the Northern Ireland Executive to take on board. There is a possibility that the legislation would make a successful passage through the Assembly.

Several noble Lords raised the issue of dual mandates and whether this legislation was only for Northern Ireland, although the noble Lord, Lord Lexden, mentioned that legislation would also be going through for Wales in the near future.

On the issue of not legislating in relation to the House of Lords, we are talking about a dual mandate. The House of Lords enjoys a very separate and interesting role, which is almost unique in the world. We are not elected, as such, and have no fixed terms. Indeed, many noble Lords rejoice in the fact that we are enriched by having so many Members who have very active lives outside this place. Therefore, it is unlikely that the Government would regard any restrictions on Members of this House in that respect.

Can I make a point about there being a lack of legislation in relation to Scotland? The Government are very concerned not to legislate to solve a problem that does not exist. This has not been a problem in relation to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore there is no proposal to deal with the dual mandate in relation to Scotland.

I turn to the comments made by my noble friends Lord Alderdice and Lord Shutt. In relation to the size of the Assembly and the proposal to enable it to become smaller, I take on board entirely the warnings that they both made in relation to making the Assembly so small that you could not allow breadth of opinion or enable minority parties to be elected. The Government and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State certainly will be considering that very seriously. The most commonly suggested figure is that each area should be represented by five MLAs rather than six, which would bring the number down to 90.

Comparison was made with the Welsh Assembly. I know from my personal experience that membership of the Welsh Assembly is a stretching exercise, because Members of the Assembly—there are only 60—have to be so broad in their approach. However, I do not think there are suggestions that would take the Northern Assembly down to that level.

I note the comments of my noble friend Lord Alderdice in relation to the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and the need for independence of view. I am sure that I can look forward to some probing amendments and some interesting points.

I note particularly the comments of my noble friend Lord Alderdice about David Ford. My noble friend said that he had done a good job as Justice Minister; I add my own endorsement. David Ford has tackled a heavy workload of very difficult issues with great sensitivity and imagination. We can rapidly forget how controversial it was when justice was devolved to Northern Ireland and the success he has made of that. His tremendous contribution is to be applauded.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, referred to the issue of transparency on donations and supported the proposals in the Bill. He rightly reminded us of the difficulty of getting donations in past years. Those of us who are politicians in mainland Britain probably find it hard to imagine how difficult it was in Northern Ireland in years gone by to encourage people to donate to political parties.

I want to address particularly the issue of donations from Ireland and Irish citizens living abroad. The Secretary of State already has the power to deal with that, should she wish to do so; but because some parties are established on both sides of the border, it can be very difficult to deal with that issue. However, I say to noble Lords who are concerned about this that the Bill makes the first steps to greater transparency. We do not yet know how much of a problem this is; the noble Lord, Lord Bew, speculated about it. We will know in the future, when the Electoral Commission is in a position to tell us the type of donation and where it came from. We will have those categories in the immediate future, even if we do not have the names of the donors. It is important that we welcome the Bill from that perspective.

The noble Lord, Lord Browne, also referred to the petition of concern and asked whether the number there should go down proportionately if the number of MLAs is reduced. I remind the noble Lord that 30 was specified in the Good Friday agreement, so we would be open to changing that only if there was broad cross-community agreement. However, I share his support for the Bill in the hope that it will keep politics moving forward.

My noble friend Lord Brooke spoke from his own extensive experience. He referred to the name of the Bill and to the d’Hondt system. The d’Hondt system is very close to my heart as a Liberal Democrat because it is intrinsically connected with proportional representation. I think that MLAs in general understand the purpose of d’Hondt, even if they cannot actually do the intensely complex calculations. However, I share my noble friend’s comments about the need for, and the hopes for, improvement.

I ask noble Lords whether they will bear with me and accept that I will look through their speeches carefully and respond to any specific questions noble Lords have asked me at this point. Some things are clearly going to crop up time and again.

Finally, I know that the changes in the Bill do not go as far as some would like and that, in some cases, they go faster than others would like. I look forward to a flurry of amendments as noble Lords apply their creativity and test the provisions of the Bill. It may be miscellaneous but it has certainly provoked some very serious thought here today. The Government are focused on the priorities of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy and creating a shared society. We do not view legislation as the answer to Northern Ireland’s most important problems but this Bill is an important step along the road to ensuring that politics and the constitutional structure in Northern Ireland become more normal and more like the rest of the UK.

Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

House adjourned at 9.43 pm.