House of Commons

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Thursday 19 December 2013

The House met at half-past Nine o’clock

Prayers

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

The Secretary of State was asked—

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

1. What assessment he has made of the recent performance of East Coast Mainline Company Ltd

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

My officials meet with East Coast and Directly Operated Railways on a regular basis to discuss the performance of the franchise. DOR’s financial accounts are published on its website on an annual basis.

[Grahame M. Morris]

As this is the last Question Time before Christmas, I would like to take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Secretary of State and his team, a merry Christmas.

I declare an interest: I am a member of the RMT parliamentary group—unremunerated. The Secretary of State will be aware that the East Coast service has delivered record levels of passenger satisfaction, returned £800 million to the taxpayer and seen almost half of fares frozen, due in no small part to the staff, who have worked so hard. The best Christmas present for them would be to cancel the privatisation. Will the Secretary of State meet me and a small delegation to listen to their concerns about the application of TUPE regulations if the sell-off goes ahead?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Either I or the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), will be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues, but I just point out to him, as I have done frequently, that the last Labour Secretary of State for Transport said:

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

Those recent improvements in rail franchising have resulted in passenger journey numbers in this country going up from 750 million to 1.5 billion and people using our railways a lot more, with a huge amount of investment guaranteed by this Government.

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

It would be churlish not to wish you a merry Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Will my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State join me in congratulating the management and the work force of East Coast Mainline on their achievements? Has he any information on journeys lost or delayed since the ratio of diesel to electric trains has changed?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Off the top of my head, I am afraid I do not have that specific fact and figure, but I will certainly write to my hon. Friend. I would like to thank all those, not just on the east coast main line but on all the other train services, who are doing everything they can over the seasonal period to make sure people get to their destinations.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Does the Secretary of State not realise that the staff and management of East Coast rescued that service after a second private sector franchise collapsed? They are concerned that their job security at the headquarters at York is being put at risk again, so will the Secretary of State come to York with me to meet the staff to explain his plans?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I have used East Coast trains on a number of occasions and have talked to the staff operating the service. The hon. Gentleman should just wait and see which companies come forward, and he may find he gets a much enhanced service over the coming years—and I very much hope he will do so.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

May I also wish you the compliments of the season, Mr Speaker, and thank all the staff of the House for keeping us safe throughout the year?

People struggling with the Government’s cost of living crisis are carefully planning their budgets for Christmas and next year. They need and deserve to know how much their season tickets will cost from 2 January. Why is East Coast the only train company to have published its fare increases for next year?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The hon. Lady might just have welcomed the fact that for the first time in 10 years we have got rid of above-inflation rail ticket price increases. I would have thought that she might welcome that, because I am very proud that for the first time in 10 years this coalition Government have held rail fare increases down in line with the retail prices index.

[Mary Creagh]

The right hon. Gentleman talks about the autumn statement but it is his decision not to remove the “flex” on fares, which means some commuter tickets could still rise by 5.1% next year. In 13 days people will buy their annual season tickets, yet they have no idea how much they will cost. That is completely unacceptable. Is not the example set by East Coast another reason that it should be kept as a public sector comparator?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The simple fact is that the reduction in rail fares announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the autumn statement has been widely welcomed by various organisations including Transport 2000, and I am very proud that we have managed to do something. The hon. Lady mentions the “flex”. We have reduced the extent to which the “flex” can be exercised, which the last Government never did.

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

2. What steps he is taking to invest in local railway branch lines.

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

It is for local authorities, working with local enterprise partnerships, to determine whether investment in a local branch line is the best way to meet local transport needs. Local enterprise partnerships have been invited to bid for the local growth fund, and we encourage them to bid for funds to invest in transport schemes.

[Charlotte Leslie]

The Minister knows that I have long campaigned to reopen the Henbury loop line. There are advanced plans for a large stadium development as well as significant housing in the area that the Henbury loop would serve. Does the Minister not think that such large infrastructure projects could have a massively positive impact on the business case for such a line?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am well aware of my hon. Friend’s long-standing campaign. She would not expect me to comment on a specific scheme, but stadium developments such as those are exactly the sort of thing that local enterprise partnerships and local authorities will want to look at. I met representatives of the West of England LEP on 22 November, and I am aware of phase 2 of its MetroWest scheme. It has been allocated £44.9 million for improvements in the six-year period to 2021.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

May I draw to the Minister’s attention the bizarre situation that has arisen in respect of the Todmorden curve in east Lancashire? After years of campaigning, work on the curve has been completed at a cost of £8 million, and we all welcome that. It will facilitate a service from Blackburn, Accrington and Burnley through Rochdale to Manchester Victoria, which is excellent. The problem is that there are no trains. Will the Minister agree to intervene on this matter, and to meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Graham Jones)?

[Stephen Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I have already been lobbied on this matter by a number of other Lancashire MPs. He will of course recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railway network. I recognise the issues involved in this case, and I have already intervened. I expect to have good news for him on rolling stock next year, but I would nevertheless be delighted to meet him and other hon. Members.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The branch line from Kettering to Corby that was introduced a few years ago has been hugely welcome, but a negative knock-on effect is that the service on the main line going north from Kettering has been cut from a half-hourly service to an hourly service. Now that line speeds on the midland main line have increased, will the Minister put pressure on East Midlands Trains to reintroduce a half-hourly service going north from Kettering on that line?

[Stephen Hammond]

I have listened carefully to what my hon. Friend has said. He will obviously want to recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railway network, including £70 million around Kettering. I will look closely at his request in the context of the franchise renegotiations.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

A lot of work has been done locally to assess the possibility of reopening the Halton curve, which would improve the links between Merseyside and Liverpool and all the way down to Shropshire, as well as across to north Wales. Will the Minister do all he can to expedite that project, which would benefit Merseyside, Cheshire and Wales?

[Stephen Hammond]

Again, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the huge amount of investment that is going into the railways under this Government. We recognise the benefit of that. It is for Network Rail to prioritise these matters, along with the local train operators and the local authorities. Should he want to write to me about this particular scheme, I would be happy to look into it in more detail.

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

3. What assessment he has made of the most recent estimate of the costs to the public purse of High Speed 2.

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

The most recent cost estimate for both phases of the project is £42.6 billion and £7.5 billion for rolling stock. This includes a contingency of £14.4 billion for construction costs and £1.7 billion for rolling stock. The project currently assumes that the cost of HS2 is to be funded by the public purse. However, my Department is exploring the scope to draw in third-party funding to lessen the cost exposure to the taxpayer.

[Mrs Gillan]

Mr Speaker, I wish you and the Secretary of State a very happy Christmas. The Secretary of State could of course give both our constituencies an early Christmas present by cancelling HS2, but I do not suppose that that is on the drawing board. If everything in the garden is so rosy with regard to the finances, why does he feel it necessary to continue to suppress the Major Projects Authority reports on the risks associated with the project? Suppressing those reports does not send out a very good message to people about the project, whether they are for it or against it. In the absence of any response to my questions about this from the Cabinet Office Minister, will the Secretary of State tell the House what his intentions are with regard to the reports? Will he confirm or deny that he is continuing to try to prevent their publication?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The one thing that HS2 is not short of is reports from various committees, either of this House or across the wider spectrum. The simple fact is that the report my right hon. Friend refers to is one direct to Ministers, and it is not usual to publish such reports. That report is two years old and it gave an amber/red—I think that is in the public domain—but the latest report has given an amber, which shows that even the Major Projects Authority recognises that we have made major strides forward.

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

Mr Speaker, happy Christmas. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State seems to be in a “Bah, humbug!” sort of mood today. May I encourage him not only to lighten up a bit, but to lighten up all of us who want investment in housing, hospitals, health and schools by scrapping this expensive extravagance and joining the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who this morning has said that London is “draining the life” out of the regions of this country and that HS2 will speed up that process?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I do not know about needing to lighten up—I think the hon. Gentleman should look in a mirror. The simple point is that we are not short at all of investment in the railways. In the next five years—its next control period—Network Rail will invest £38 billion in the current railway system. It is vital that we get connectivity between our major cities. I have to say that some of the biggest supporters of HS2 are the northern leaders. If they thought it was going to do damage to their areas, they would not be overwhelmingly supporting it in the way that they are.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Can the Minister compare the expenditure of public money on HS2 with that on the ferries crossing the Solent to the Isle of Wight?

[Mr McLoughlin]

One gets ready for a lot of things in preparing for questions, but I am going to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, because I do not have readily available details on that particular line of questioning on HS2. I will most certainly look at the points he raises, but I point out to him that it is the wider investment in the whole of the United Kingdom’s transport infrastructure that we can rightly be proud of. I was very pleased to be in his constituency when a new mode of financing road repairs was used for his constituents.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State did not say in the list of estimated costs what has been allocated for biodiversity offsetting, for the replacement of ancient woodland and for addressing all the other environmental damage that HS2 will cause. What element of the budget has been set aside for that?

[Mr McLoughlin]

That has all been taken into account. Indeed, one reason for the increase in cost that I announced to the House some time ago was some of the measures that we have taken, after representations, on tunnelling. I take the environmental costs seriously, as I know does the new chairman of HS2 Ltd, Sir David Higgins. I point out to the hon. Gentleman the amount of money that was made available for environmental improvements along the route of HS1, but I will write to him in more detail.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

I call Stephen Mosley.

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

Question 4, sir.

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

The Government have committed funding to electrify more than 880—

[Mr Speaker]

I believe that the hon. Gentleman was grouping this question.

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

4. What plans he has to extend railway electrification.

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

8. What recent progress he has made on railway electrification.

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

My apologies, Mr Speaker. With permission, I would like to group Questions 4 and 8. So excited was I about electrification that I wanted to mention that the Government have committed funding to electrify more than 880 miles of railway by 2019. Last week, we announced the Wigan-Bolton electrification, and a joint taskforce is being set up to explore where next we can look for rail electrification in the north of England.

[Stephen Mosley]

I thank the Minister for that reply. Last week, a taskforce was launched to examine electrification in the north. In those proposals, we are examining Chester-Crewe and Chester-Warrington. There is a huge amount of enthusiasm in Chester in support of these plans. How can members of the public put their views forward to the Minister and to the taskforce?

[Stephen Hammond]

Local Members of Parliament will be invited to be members of that taskforce, so undoubtedly my hon. Friend will be able to represent his constituents directly, but the taskforce will, I am sure, want to accept representations from local people as to the benefits of electrification for them.

[Diana Johnson]

In Hull, we need rail electrification not least because of the vast number of visitors that we will want to come to the city while Hull is city of culture 2017. Given that, as I understand it, the taskforce set up to look at the proposal for Selby to Hull electrification will not report for 12 months, does that not rule out rail electrification for 2017? Will the Minister meet a delegation from Hull to discuss this matter?

[Stephen Hammond]

I understand the hon. Lady’s aspirations, given that Hull is the city of culture in 2017. It sounded like her Christmas present list being reeled off. The previous Government played Scrooge and electrified only 9 miles, whereas this Government are playing Santa and electrifying almost 900 miles. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Lady. She is right: that taskforce is looking at lines for electrification post-2019.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

I am delighted that the Leeds and Harrogate line through Horsforth is to be considered for electrification, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) for the work that he has done on that. In sounding a bit like Oliver, please, sir, can I have some more? The Calder Vale line between Leeds and Bradford through New Pudsey is an important line between those cities and desperately needs electrification. I would be grateful if the taskforce could look at that too.

[Stephen Hammond]

At this time, I clearly would not want to be the beadle Mr Bumble and put Oliver out in the cold, so I will consult the taskforce to see whether there is a possibility of adding that to the list for its consideration.

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

Can the Minister explain how accountability for extending rail electrification could be affected by the basic change in the status of Network Rail announced by the Government earlier this week?

[Stephen Hammond]

I am happy to confirm to the hon. Lady that there will be no change in accountability as a result of the status.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

5. What recent assessment he has made of the potential wider economic effects of High Speed 2.

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

Investment in HS2 will deliver widespread connectivity improvements, grow markets and increase opportunities to trade. Our assessment of the benefits to businesses is £53.8 billion over a 60-year period. Further analysis by KPMG suggests that the wider economic effects could be far greater.

[Karen Lumley]

In my county, Worcestershire, it is estimated that HS2 will generate up to £375 million every year for our local economy. Does the Secretary of State agree that if HS2 did not go ahead, places such as Redditch would lose out?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I most certainly do agree with my hon. Friend. One of the most important points about HS2 is that there is not just one single reason for it. There are reasons of capacity, connectivity and, yes, investing in brand-new trains which will get us to our cities in the north faster than at present.

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

A characteristic of HS2 is that there will be widespread economic benefits to areas such as the city region in Sheffield, with very specific high costs to certain individuals, such as my constituents on Greasbro road, who will lose their homes. Will the Secretary of State look again at whether it is reasonable compensation in these circumstances simply to offer market value plus 10%? Should we not do a little more to help those people who bear the cost for the wider economic benefit of everyone else?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would point out that, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, we are in a consultation process on the Birmingham to Leeds and Birmingham to Manchester schemes, so it might be inappropriate for me to say now that those particular routes are confirmed, but I will bear in mind what he says. We are out to consultation on the whole question of compensation in relation to phase 1, and I will bear his remarks in mind for phase 2 as well.

[Mr Simon Burns (Chelmsford) (Con)]

13. Does my right hon. Friend accept that he was a bit reticent in his original answer, in that when referring to the KPMG report, he failed to tell the House that the benefits from 2036 to the community will be £15 billion a year, and that 70% of the benefits of HS2 will be outside London? Does one not have to be a fairly Neanderthal individual not to bear in mind the benefits that that will bring to the nation, particularly the midlands and the north of England?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for all his work in helping me with these projects. He is right about the benefits. The Jubilee line extension did not have a very good benefit-cost ratio, but if it had not been built, neither would all the developments at Canary Wharf, so there is a lot to be said for the wider economic benefits we will get from this new railway line.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

If the proposals for HS2 are to survive, there needs to be that wider economic impact right across the UK. Is there anything in the Secretary of State’s diary indicating that he might have an opportunity to discuss that in the near future with either the Scottish Government or the two main local authorities, Edinburgh city council and Glasgow city council?

[Mr McLoughlin]

The leader of Glasgow city council joined others in presenting a letter to the Prime Minister stating how important HS2 was, and I was delighted to meet him on that occasion. The Scottish Justice Minister has written to me on another matter and requested that I meet him, so I might be able to arrange to meet the leaders of both city councils at the same time.

[Richard Graham (Gloucester) (Con)]

6. What recent assessment he has made of Network Rail’s performance in maintaining and upgrading station infrastructure.

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

The Government are continuing to fund station improvements and upgrades through four programmes: the national stations improvement programme, the Access for All programme, the new stations fund and the station commercial project facility. In addition, we are funding improvements at several major stations. Network Rail is funded by the Government through each control period to maintain and renew station assets, and its performance on station conditions is monitored by the Office of Rail Regulation.

[Richard Graham]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. For too long under the previous Government very little was done to improve Gloucester station. Under this Government’s scheme we have had welcome improvements, including lifts for the elderly and disabled, and yesterday Network Rail confirmed that for the first time ever a canopy will be installed over our platform bridge. I am grateful for that Christmas good news. However, there is more to be done. Will the Secretary of State please confirm that the Government will continue to invest in our stations and will welcome well-argued cases for improvements in overall city centre regeneration schemes?

[Mr McLoughlin]

My hon. Friend is right that the Access for All programme provided a footbridge and two lifts at Gloucester station, costing £1.7 million. That is a small but important way in which we can help some of the older stations to be maintained and to be available for all people to access. We are seeing a major regeneration of our stations. Some of our major stations are now destinations in their own right. St Pancras station, for example, used to be a place where people did not want to spend more than five minutes, but it is now a destination in its own right.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am due to meet the Secretary of State’s colleagues in the new year to discuss Finsbury Park station. Can he assure me that his Department is intervening to ensure that both Network Rail and Transport for London invest enough money in that dangerously overcrowded station to ensure that it is fit for purpose and good for the future, rather than overcrowded and out of date, which it is at the moment?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I will obviously ask for a report on the points the hon. Gentleman has made. I am in regular contact with Transport for London and the Mayor of London, who continually make the case for greater investment in London. I have to try to balance that with the requests for station improvements from the rest of the country. The hon. Gentleman makes a strong point about the station he has referred to.

[Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD)]

In July I asked for Ministers’ support to hasten the installation of lifts at Chippenham station. Now that the coalition Government have provided funding for an additional 80 services a week from that station and Wiltshire council has finally granted planning permission, when can we hope that Network Rail will be able to make step-free access at Chippenham station a reality?

[Mr McLoughlin]

A lot of money has been given to Network Rail for those improvements, but rather than trying to reply to my hon. Friend now, I think that it would be better if I wrote to him.

[Lilian Greenwood (Nottingham South) (Lab)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House a very merry Christmas? Following his announcement this week, will the Secretary of State launch a full consultation on Network Rail’s future debt and governance structures to ensure best value for the taxpayer and full accountability to passengers?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am keen that Network Rail should continue to get the levels of investment that we have set aside for it and that nothing should put a question mark over that. I think that the hon. Lady needs to have a conversation with the shadow Chancellor, who today announced that the Labour party will be having a zero-based look at all that funding. I can say from this Dispatch Box that I can secure the funding for Network Rail, but I do not think that the hon. Lady can say that for her party.

[Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)]

7. What assessment he has made of the adequacy of staffing levels at maritime rescue co-ordination centres.

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

I am sure that the whole House would want to join me in paying tribute to the professionalism of the coastguards, who in a very busy summer dealt with 25% more incidents this year than last. The Maritime and Coastguard Agency certainly recognises that it has more coastguard vacancies than it would like, but the hon. Lady should be aware that it has managed to recruit 58 new coastguards. A further recruitment campaign is under way, and every effort is being made to fill every vacancy.

[Katy Clark]

I thank the Minister for his answer and associate myself with what he says about the work of those in coastguard stations. He will be aware of the concerns that I have been raising about maritime safety off the west coast of Scotland following the closure of Clyde coastguard station. In the summer, which, as he pointed out, is the busiest time, staffing was at unsafe levels on 142 out of 184 shifts. Will he meet me and colleagues again to discuss what is being done, particularly in relation to the west coast of Scotland?

[Stephen Hammond]

The hon. Lady will want to recognise, of course, that I met her and colleagues in July. I promised at that stage that I would meet her again later in the year, so I am happy to meet that obligation. I point out, though, that 58 coastguards have been recruited since that time. As we have now been able to secure a deal with the Treasury, we expect retention rates of coastguards applying for new posts to go up in January. She will be aware, as I have replied to her to this effect several times, that specific arrangements are in place to ensure safety on the west coast of Scotland. However, I reiterate that I am happy to meet her and colleagues.

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

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and thanks to the Minister for praising the coastguard services; I entirely associate myself with that. But, oh dear, can he not see what a sorry tale of complacency and badly executed change this coastguard saga is? Does he feel happy with vacancies up by over 250% since 2010, poor morale, recruitment and transfer rates, a critical Select Committee report, and coastguard centres at Liverpool, Humber and Belfast all over a third below safe staffing levels? With more closures in the new year, will he get his Department cracking with an urgent action plan to ensure proper staffing levels so that our coastguards and those who live on our coastlines can feel safe and secure?

[Stephen Hammond]

There is no complacency at all on the part of the Government—and the hon. Gentleman’s question sounded like a Christmas cracker joke. He will know that since the announcement of the deal, which has been welcomed by the Public and Commercial Services Union, there have been a number of expressions of interest about coastguard vacancies. The retention rate is likely to go up in January. We have recruited 58 new coastguards. Specific arrangements are in place at all co-ordination centres to ensure safety and doubling of shifts. There is nothing to suggest that the timetable has been delayed, and the plan is going ahead as announced in this House in November 2011.

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

9. What recent assessment he has made of the potential benefits of Birmingham airport expanding to become a hub airport.

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

The Government have always made it clear that airports such as Birmingham, which are international airports in their own right, make a vital contribution to regional and local economic growth and connectivity. Forecasts indicate capacity for significant further growth at the airport, including more point-to-point destinations.

[Mr Cunningham]

I thank the Minister for that answer, because I agree with him. Could he see his way clear to supporting any expansion at Birmingham airport, particularly as a hub is, as he said, vital to the west midlands economy? Perhaps he could meet a small delegation to discuss how he can help.

[Mr Goodwill]

Birmingham airport is forecast to carry 9 million passengers this year, and that could further increase given the proposal to extend the runway. It is set to become a hub in its own right, not fed by feeder flights but by our wonderful new north-south railway, which will provide connections by high-speed rail to the major cities of our country.

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

Can my hon. Friend confirm that the construction of HS2 is likely to bring Birmingham airport within 36 minutes of central London, compared with an average time of 47 minutes from Stansted airport? Does not this cast an interesting light on the airport capacity debate?

[Mr Goodwill]

HS2 will have a connection via Old Oak Common that provides quick Crossrail connections to Heathrow airport as well, with an 11-minute connection time and eight trains per hour.

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

Does the Minister agree that in order to promote Birmingham airport it would be a good idea to rename the railway station right next to it Birmingham airport station?

[Mr Goodwill]

I suspect that people will start to call it that anyway, so it seems an eminently sensible idea.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree with Andy Street, chairman of the Greater Birmingham and Solihull local enterprise partnership, that the expansion of airports in the south-east will in no way damage the expansion and financial prospects of Birmingham airport and that the two can work together?

[Mr Goodwill]

I thank my hon. Friend, who—dare I suggest?—is never knowingly undersold. I agree that we need expansion and growth in airports around the country, including our regional airports, which I like to refer to as local international airports.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

10. What his Department’s service specification priorities are for the new Thameslink franchise.

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

The Department’s priorities are, of course, to ensure successful delivery of the £6 billion Thameslink programme, to maintain and enhance service quality for passengers while the Thameslink works are going on, and to bear down on the overall costs of running the industry.

[Heidi Alexander]

I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Lewisham commuters are very keen to reap direct benefits from the new franchise and infrastructure programme through increased train frequency and capacity. Many people share the aspiration of having four trains per hour on the Catford loop. Can the service specification for the new franchise be changed at this late stage, and could such a service be accommodated without detriment to other Lewisham services?

[Stephen Hammond]

The Thameslink programme will be completed in 2018 and will, as the hon. Lady knows, provide a minimum of two trains per hour all day to stations on the Catford loop. That will be supplemented by additional standards and services under the Southeastern franchise, at least in peak periods. The detailed specification for those additional services will be determined nearer the time.

[Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood) (Con)]

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

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

Millions of people will be travelling long distances to see family and friends over the coming days. All key transport operators have contingency plans in place to deal with disruption if the weather deteriorates. As in previous winters, the Government are monitoring road salt supplies on a regular basis. The current stocks are robust, totalling 1.7 million tonnes

As we head into Christmas, I would also like to take this opportunity to highlight the anti-drink-drive campaign that we launched earlier this month. It reminds drivers of the snowballing consequences that can await those who get behind the wheel after drinking, including job loss, a criminal record and prison. Our message this Christmas is simple: if you’re going to drink, don’t drive.

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, on behalf of all my colleagues, to wish you and all the members of staff a merry Christmas and a contented new year?

[Eric Ollerenshaw]

Labour-run Lancashire county council is purporting to cut its subsidised bus routes by 50%, which means that most of the villages and outlying council estates in Lancaster will have no buses in the evenings or on Sundays. Is it not about time for a serious review of the need to maintain vital bus services for rural and difficult-to-reach areas?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a very important point. The truth is that, while we have seen a huge amount of growth in the railways, more people are using buses every single day, particularly in rural areas and rural communities, which rely on bus services. My hon. Friend raises important issues and his ideas certainly merit further consideration.

[Mr Nick Raynsford (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)]

T2. As we are on the subject of Christmas largesse, could the Secretary of State explain why the Airports Commission, as part of its costing for extra capacity at Heathrow, gave the airport an extraordinary present by excluding the cost both of the rail link to HS2 and of motorway enhancement around Heathrow but included such surface access costs in its assessment of the alternative in the Thames Gateway?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am not responsible for the Airports Commission report—it is an independent report—but I will certainly draw the right hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of Sir Howard Davies so that he can consider whether his report properly reflects all the arguments.

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

T3. The London Cycling Campaign’s safer lorries, safer cycling initiative has measures for improving safety for cyclists. Will the Department commit to working across Government to ensure that all of our contractors and our supply chain sign up to this initiative?

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

We must certainly continue to improve the safety of cyclists, which, despite recent negative publicity in London, has improved markedly over the past decade. As I made clear in my recent evidence to the Transport Committee, we need to co-ordinate how lorries on the streets of London are designed and used, but there is no single magic bullet. The fact that we have doubled spending on cycling in this Parliament compared with the last one shows that we are committed not only to increasing the number of people who cycle, but to improving the safety of cyclists.

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

T8. Will the Minister look into the situation in the west midlands, particularly in Coventry, where pensioners’ free rail passes seem to be under some sort of threat, and will he discuss that with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I am sorry to say that I did not quite catch all of the hon. Gentleman’s question, but I will certainly look into the points he makes. Perhaps he and I could have a discussion after this question session.

[Karen Lumley (Redditch) (Con)]

T4. Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.May I support the earlier call for Birmingham International station to be renamed Birmingham Airport, but will the Secretary of State work with me to ensure that that happens now, even before HS2 is built?

[Mr Goodwill]

I repeat that that is an eminently sensible suggestion. I certainly would not advocate naming the station after either a footballer or a politician, although Lumley Junction has a certain ring about it, does it not?

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

Further to the response to the hon. Member for Finchley and Golders Green (Mike Freer), many of my constituents killed by lorries have died at junctions, including some at the notorious Bow roundabout. Will the Minister look into the number of heavy goods vehicles that have exemptions from safety mechanisms, particularly for just-in-time deliveries, such as skip lorries, and will he pledge to tackle this scourge of London streets?

[Mr Goodwill]

The issue certainly focuses on skip, refuse collection and construction lorries. I have noticed that many of those I see on the streets of London as I cycle there have such mechanisms fitted. We also need to look at other types of vehicle, including the batch concrete mixers that are currently outside the regulations.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

T5. Mr Speaker, may I wish you and the staff of the House a happy Christmas?Following the Secretary of State’s very kind meeting with the two constituency Members of Parliament to discuss the missing link on the A417/A419 between the M4 to the M5, he asked us to establish local consensus, and we have started to do so. This week, Cotswold district council unanimously passed a motion supporting the brown route. The local enterprise partnerships are beginning to come on board, as are Members of Parliament from the wider area. Will the Minister say whether his Department is looking into the feasibility of the link?

[Mr McLoughlin]

Following my meeting with my hon. Friend and my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Gloucester (Richard Graham) and for Tewkesbury (Mr Robertson), I am pleased that he is moving in the right direction with that consensus, and I will certainly work with him to see whether we can get the long-term answer that he desires.

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

Tragically, it is not just in London that cyclists have been killed in accidents involving HGVs; there were two cases not so long ago in Edinburgh. Will the Minister ensure that his focus is not just concentrated on London, but looks at what can be done across the country, particularly in Scotland, where although spending is devolved, such legislation is still a reserved matter? Will he ensure that he works with the Scottish Government to ensure a similar focus on preventing the deaths of cyclists caused by HGVs?

[Mr Goodwill]

Yes, certainly. We recently announced our six cycling cities, where imaginative ideas are being brought forward. I am sure that we will work with the devolved Administration north of the border, as part of the United Kingdom, to make sure that we share best practice where we can.

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

T6. Bournemouth continues to delight in the town’s football club’s promotion to the championship—a mere stepping stone on the way to the premiership, no doubt. The slip road from the A38 to the stadium functions well, but there is no access back on to the dual carriageway. Now that a school is to be built in the same area, may I ask the Minister to look down the back of the sofa and see whether some pinchpoint funding could be found for this urgent infrastructure project?

[Mr Goodwill]

I know that my hon. Friend was disappointed that the scheme in Bournemouth was not included in the recent tranche of 25 pinchpoint jam-busting schemes. When Bournemouth is promoted to the premiership, it will be even more important that disappointed away fans do not have to go into Bournemouth on their way home, as the Cherries continue to advance through the tables.

[Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab)]

One of my biggest postbags in recent weeks has been from a campaign called “time to cross”, which is a campaign on behalf of pedestrians—the vast majority of people travel on foot. What are the Government doing to support that campaign and to ensure safety for us all, but particularly for the young and the old?

[Mr Goodwill]

Highways authorities use the speed of 1.2 metres per second for people crossing the road, although we understand that many elderly or disabled people may need longer. It is possible for local authorities to extend the time. The use of puffin crossings, rather than pelican crossings, allows sensors to be fitted that allow people more time. In parts of London, the use of countdowns on lights has also helped.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

T7. The Secretary of State made it clear yesterday that he hopes that Birmingham airport can expand. Currently, the 15-mile journey between Tamworth and the airport takes 45 minutes by rail. Does he therefore agree that infrastructure projects such as the Whitacre rail link, which would reduce the journey time to 18 minutes, could be beneficial to my constituents and the airport?

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

My hon. Friend is right that good service access is essential for airports. He is right to point out that the Secretary of State said on Tuesday that we regard Birmingham and Manchester not as regional airports but as important national airports in their own right. I am happy to look at the Whitacre link proposals. I encourage my hon. Friend to continue to discuss the development of the business case with the local enterprise partnership and Centro, so that it can be brought forward.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Wrexham-Liverpool line, where capacity constraints are inhibiting further development of one of the strongest industrial areas in the UK?

[Mr McLoughlin]

I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss that point. I would point out that we are spending a huge amount of money on train services that link into the north. The northern hub will bring a substantial improvement. Huge improvements are also going on at Manchester Victoria station.

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

T9. Sir David Higgins takes up his job as the head of HS2 in January with instructions to bring the costs of HS2 down. Will the Secretary of State promise that any reductions or savings will definitely not come from the compensation for people whose lives are affected by HS2 or from the costs of protecting and restoring our precious environment?

[Mr McLoughlin]

As I said earlier, one of the reasons the costs have increased, which my right hon. Friend often attacks, is that we have gone to extra lengths to protect the environment. There will be a huge amount of tunnelling in her constituency, which will cost more money. Sir David Higgins is a well respected engineer and has been a leader of great projects in our country, including the Olympics, which were delivered on time and below budget. I am sure that when he takes up this post, he will bring that expertise to the job.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

Will the Transport team look at two places where we could link the north-west of England with north Wales? The first is the Halton curve, which my hon. Friend the Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) mentioned, and the second is the Wrexham-Bidston line. Like Scrooge, I am not asking for those things for Christmas past or Christmas present, but perhaps, in the spirit of Christmas, the Secretary of State could look at those issues for Christmas future?

[Stephen Hammond]

The right hon. Gentleman will have heard my reply to the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg) and the response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) about the Wrexham line. We are looking into those matters and I have said that I am happy to meet the hon. Member for Halton. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will want to join him.

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

The proposed public service obligation on the economically vital Newquay to London Gatwick route will run for four years, but funding might be in place for only two years. What assurance can the Minister give that funding will be in place for the duration of the public service obligation on that route?

[Mr Goodwill]

I suspect that the hon. Gentleman should have directed that question to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who made an announcement on that matter recently. As Newquay is more than three hours from London and has a current operator, it is a potential applicant that would almost certainly be seen in a positive light.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Electrification is very welcome, but it is creating mayhem in my constituency, with cuts to services and terrible overcrowding. The Prime Minister told The Bolton News:

“I will go away and look into it.”

However, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), has washed his hands of the issue and said:

“It is for Network Rail and operators”

to solve the problem. Who is right and who will provide more rolling stock for my constituents?

[Mr McLoughlin]

If one is quoting the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State or any other Minister, it is usual to assume that the Prime Minister is right. I will look at the case. The hon. Lady is right that we cannot make such major improvements without causing inconvenience. However, at the end of the day we will get a far, far better railway. I am pleased that we are investing in the electrification of the railways, which the last Government singularly failed to do.

The Leader of the House was asked—

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

1. For what reasons he proposed a recess in November 2014.

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

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker. The recesses proposed for next year, including the one in November, reflect the need to balance the requirements of Government and Back-Bench business with the reasonable expectations of Members regarding constituency business and spending time with their families.

[Diana Johnson]

The rationale for having a few days in November was to prepare for the Queen’s Speech. Now that that has been moved to earlier in the year, and given that there are no school holidays in November, will the Deputy Leader of the House think again? A lot of people perceive that that time could be better used for pre-legislative scrutiny of Bills that come before the House that are not well drafted, and to ensure that the Prime Minister is here on a Wednesday to answer Prime Minister’s questions.

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Lady for that question. I am sure she is aware that the recess dates are proposed by the Government after extensive discussion, and are agreed by the House. I did not notice any opposition to the November recess when the House agreed the recesses, although I do not know whether she raised concerns at the time with her own party managers. She will be pleased to know that the Prime Minister is in the House more frequently, particularly for oral statements, than was his predecessor.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

For how many days will the House sit in 2014, and how does that compare with other national Parliaments?

[Tom Brake]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that question. The House will sit for roughly 150 days, which the Procedure Committee believes is appropriate. I cannot give an exact figure because we cannot predict whether there will be the opportunity or need to recall Parliament.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

Instead of having a November recess, why not get rid of the ludicrous September recall, bring the party conferences forward to earlier in September, and have a straight run through to Christmas? Would that not save a lot of money and make a lot more sense?

[Tom Brake]

I am sure Members of the House would like to consider that proposal, but the introduction of the September sitting was to avoid the long gap between the end of July and October when the House returns. Members, I hope, will agree it is useful to have that opportunity for the House to meet, because there may be important matters that we want to discuss in September.

[Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (The Cotswolds) (Con)]

May I endorse what the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan) has just said? Would it make sense to start planning now not for next year but for the year after, so that if we considered a change in date parties would be able to change their conference arrangements?

[Tom Brake]

That is perhaps a matter for the parties and not within my remit. If they want to change the dates of their conferences, I suspect there would need to be all-party agreement, which might be difficult to achieve.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

3. What recent progress has been made on reducing the House’s running costs.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

May I take this opportunity to wish you, Mr Speaker, and all the staff who serve us so well a very merry Christmas?

On Monday the Commission agreed to lay an administration estimate of £201.3 million for 2014-15. The estimate originally agreed for 2010-11 was £231 million. After adjustments for transfers and so forth, that is equivalent to a 17% reduction in real terms. Savings of £15.3 million are being delivered this year and next through a number of initiatives.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker, and I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) for the work that the House of Commons Commission is doing in rightly reducing costs. The other side of costs are benefits. Has the Commission analysed the benefits of the House of Commons? There are not only tangible benefits that additional visitors and tourism bring to the local and London-wide economy, but intangible benefits such as education for our school children and showing the values of a parliamentary democracy to the world.

[John Thurso]

The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point about the contribution that the House’s activities make to the wider community in which we sit. We have not undertaken such work, but I will take his suggestion away and look at it in the new year.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

Every year, the House of Commons spends tens of millions of pounds on making sure that the building literally does not fall down. Will the Commission set out the next steps for the long-term future of the building?

[John Thurso]

As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will have seen, the first ever written statement from the representative of the Commission was made on Tuesday last, announcing the contract for an outside company to consider options for the future of the building. It would be preferable to wait until those conclusions, delivered professionally, allow us to make a proper judgment.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that there will be a beneficial impact on the costs of running the House if we could so arrange our affairs that there was a greater intensive use of the facilities by both Members and staff?

[John Thurso]

I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend, who chairs the Administration Committee so ably. He makes a very valid point.

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

9. I regret to say to the hon. Gentleman that I have lost all confidence in the House of Commons Commission. I thought the Commission’s job was to allow and facilitate Members in this House to do their job properly and serve their constituents efficiently. We do not expect the House of Commons Commission to be incompetent bean counters. I find every day that my job of serving my constituents in this place gets harder and harder due to the incompetence of the House of Commons Commission. I would like them all to resign and for commissioners to be elected by this House, so they can facilitate our doing a job for the people we represent.

[John Thurso]

May I wish the hon. Gentleman a very merry Christmas and a happy and prosperous new year? I can speak only for myself, but I am a doctor of business administration, a fellow of the Institute of Hospitality, a fellow of the Tourism Society and have been a fellow of the Institute of Directors. I therefore regard myself as having some qualifications that I can bring to the task in hand. My fellow commissioners have a wide range of experience across many disciplines. I have to say, observing the management of this House, that a tough challenge is being met with professionalism and resolve by the team. The Commission does, in my humble judgment, an outstanding job in overseeing it.

[Mr Speaker]

We all attach almost as much weight to the views of the hon. Gentleman as does the hon. Gentleman.

[Michael Fabricant (Lichfield) (Con)]

4. What recent consideration he has given to making Factiva news services available to hon. Members and their staff.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)]

The position has not changed since the answer given to the hon. Gentleman on 7 November. The current online news service will be reassessed in 2015, when a decision is required on whether to extend the current contract for a further two years, or to retender the service.

[Michael Fabricant]

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and the Clerks a happy Christmas?

I was really excited by the answer given to me on 7 November, saying that I should

“be aware that some members of the Library have individual subscriptions”—[Official Report, 7 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 413.]

to Factiva, which is a far better service than Nexis, and that they would therefore be able to help me. Well, it so happened that I actually wanted to get something from The Times, so I phoned up the Library and they said, “Oh no, we can’t forward you anything from it—it breaks the contract.” I asked, “Well, could you scan it in?” “Oh no, we can’t do that—it’ll break the contract.” In the end I said, “Well, go to get the ruddy newspaper, photocopy it and send it through the internal post,” which they did. I am afraid that, for the first time in my life, I have to agree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr Sheerman).

[Mr Speaker]

Was there any possibility that concealed therein was a question?

[John Thurso]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for notice of his likely supplementary, which he answers for me. The Library has a small number of individual subscriptions for The Times online so that it can assist Members in tracing articles. I appreciate the hon. Member’s sense of frustration and I have asked a member of the Library staff to contact him to explore how the service might be improved without infringing the House’s legal and contractual obligations.

The Leader of the House was asked—

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

5. What recent progress has been made on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill; and if he will make a statement.

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

7. What recent progress has been made on the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill; and if he will make a statement.

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

The transparency Bill completed its Committee stage in the House of Lords yesterday. In recent weeks, Ministers have met nearly 50 organisations to discuss how the non-party campaigning provisions might affect them, while exchanging correspondence with many more. We are grateful to all those groups who have made a valuable contribution to the Government’s consideration of this issue. The Bill will return to the House at some point in the new year, following the Report stage and Third Reading in the Lords.

[Pat Glass]

This is the latest pause brought about by huge public unrest over a controversial Bill. Does the Deputy Leader of the House accept that he made a mistake in not providing for pre-legislative scrutiny before pushing this controversial Bill through the House?

[Tom Brake]

The Government reorganised the debate in the Lords to enable discussion of part 2, on non-party campaigning, to take place later, thereby providing an opportunity to engage fully with organisations. I hope the hon. Lady agrees that the fact that the Government recently met 50 organisations to discuss the matter and previously, when the Bill was in the House of Commons, engaged extensively with organisations shows that there has been comprehensive consultation.

[Mr Bain]

This Bill will impede dramatically the ability of charities and many other voluntary groups to comment and campaign on issues relating to Government policy. What further opportunities will the Government allow in the other place and in this House for further scrutiny before flawed legislation causes great damage to our democracy?

[Tom Brake]

I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman perpetuates the myth that the Bill will affect the ability of charities to campaign on policy issues. Clearly, it will not.

[Christopher Pincher (Tamworth) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give further detail on any representations he has received under part 3 of the Bill on trade unions?

[Tom Brake]

I am afraid we have not received any representations. Of course, the Government gave Labour that opportunity, and given that its leader expressed an interest in dealing with the issue of Labour and funding, I am disappointed that he did not take up that opportunity.

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

I would like to ask the Deputy Leader of the House a simple question, to which I would like a simple answer: will he set out what changes the Government plan to make as a result of the pause and consultation?

[Tom Brake]

I do not know whether the hon. Lady has been following the debate in the House of Lords, but having listened to organisations the Government clearly indicated they would respond to the issue of registration thresholds, which was of concern to smaller organisations and charities, and there might be other things, too, such as a review of the Bill after implementation and measures we could take to assist organisations worried about the reporting requirements.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

6. What recent guidance he has given to his ministerial colleagues on making oral statements in the House on changes to Government policy.

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

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

[Heidi Alexander]

In the light of that, was it acceptable for the Work and Pensions Secretary to announce delays to universal credit via a written statement, especially considering that this information was released to the media before the House?

[Mr Lansley]

As the hon. Lady and the House will know, informing the House by means of a written statement is perfectly in order. As the Speaker himself said on 25 January last year, doing so is

“a legitimate vehicle for informing the House of ministerial decisions”.—[Official Report, 25 January 2012; Vol. 539, c. 302.]

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

Does the Leader of the House agree with the recommendation in the first report of Session 2010-11 issued by the Procedure Committee that rather than the Government regulating themselves by means of the ministerial code, a protocol on ministerial statements should be put in place to be enforced by this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I think my hon. Friend will recall that the House subsequently considered that matter and did not pursue and endorse the suggestion.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

As we approach the end of this year—I wish the Leader of the House good cheer—how does he think he has succeeded in getting Ministers to make oral statements in this House? Is it an E minus, or what?

[Mr Lansley]

I wish my hon. Friend a merry Christmas, too. He is an assiduous attendee at business questions. Let us look at the numbers. In the last Session, we made about 94 oral statements, which was a ratio of 0.6 per sitting. In the course of this Session, from memory—I will correct it if I am wrong—we are running at 0.7 oral statements per sitting.

The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

8. What discussions the Commission had prior to the establishment of the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy on how that body would engage with other interested organisations and Committees of this House.

[John Thurso (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross)]

The announcement made on 27 November that you, Mr Speaker, intended to set up the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy is entirely in keeping with the House of Commons Commission’s objective of encouraging public participation in the parliamentary process. The Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy will encourage involvement by all.

[Pauline Latham]

What steps will be taken by the House of Commons Commission to ensure that the Speaker’s Commission does not overlap with the work of the outreach service and the remits of the Procedure Committee, the Select Committee on Political and Constitutional Reform and the Administration Committee?

[John Thurso]

All those very important issues will indeed be covered by the Committees of the House and I fully anticipate that at its inaugural meeting the Speaker’s Commission would look at exactly how best to maximise the work of all the bodies the hon. Lady has mentioned. We see it as being entirely complementary and not in competition.

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

I was delighted to be asked by you, Mr Speaker, to serve on the Speaker’s Commission on Digital Democracy, which will, we hope, meet for the first time in January. I urge hon. Members to contact us with any of their thoughts. In the early days, we are planning to do some crowd-sourcing of what we should consider and I ask the hon. Gentleman to let us know any thoughts he has. Will he be willing to meet us in the new year?

[John Thurso]

I am ready to be of service to the hon. Lady at any time.

Business of the House

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

10:36

[Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey) (Lab)]

I am still reeling at the implications of the offer made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso).

Will the Leader of the House give us the business for next year?

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

The business for the week commencing 6 January 2014 is as follows:

Monday 6 January—Remaining stages of the Water Bill.

Tuesday 7 January—Remaining stages of the Mesothelioma Bill [Lords].

Wednesday 8 January— Opposition day [16th allotted day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.

Thursday 9 January—General debate on rural communities, followed by general debate on inter-city rail investment. The subjects for both debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.

Friday 10 January—The House will not be sitting.

The provisional business for the week commencing 13 January will include:

Monday 13 January—Second Reading of the European Union (Approvals) Bill [Lords].

I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for 23 January 2014 will be:

Thursday 23 January—A debate on the fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs on the FCO’s human rights work in 2012, followed by a debate on the second report of the Select Committee on International Development on violence against women and girls.

I would also like to inform colleagues that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that the date of the Budget statement will be Wednesday 19 March 2014.

May I take this opportunity, Mr Speaker, to wish you and all right hon. and hon. Members a very merry Christmas? On behalf of the whole House, I should especially also like to thank all the staff of the House, who have kept the House and us running smoothly—the Doorkeepers, the Clerks, the cleaners, the officers and all those working in the House Service. We wish a happy and peaceful Christmas to one and all.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank the Leader of the House for giving us the business for the first week back in the new year.

It has been reported that the Prime Minister told the 1922 committee yesterday that he is ready to take the extremely rare step of using the Parliament Acts to ensure that a Back-Bench private Member’s Bill makes it on to the statute book. Does the Leader of the House know whether the Liberal Democrat part of the Government supports that plan and could it proceed without the Liberal Democrats?

The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill returned to the other place this week after the Leader of the House’s six-week panic pause, but despite an on-the-record promise that the Government would use the pause to complete wide consultation and try to address the concerns of charities and campaigners, the Bill remains unamended and there is little evidence that the Government have listened to anyone at all. Will the Leader of the House tell us what he has been up to for the last six weeks, and why he is continuing to ignore the broad coalition of charities and campaigners who are telling him that this bad Bill will have a chilling effect on our democratic debate? May I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman spend his Christmas break pausing, listening, reflecting and improving his approach to legislation?

Talking of legislation in a rush, the first thing we discuss on our return in the new year will be the Water Bill. Will the Leader of the House clarify what has happened to the Government’s proposed plans to crack down on rising water bills, and will he explain why none has been included in the legislation? Does he agree with the Opposition view that we should create a national affordability scheme, ensuring access to a social tariff for all? Given that, so far, only three of the 20 water companies have created a social tariff for those who struggle to pay, does he agree that a weakly worded letter to water companies from the Secretary of State is simply not good enough when people are struggling with a cost of living crisis this Christmas?

At this time of year, there is nothing better than sitting in front of the fire with a good read. This year, my recommended stocking filler is the Conservative party’s 2014 “campaign toolkit”. Rather than 50 shades of grey, there are apparently only three shades of grey approved for use in Tory literature. Strangely, there are only three approved photos of the Prime Minister, too. I assume that that is to prevent anyone accidentally using a photo of his second cousin nine generations removed—Catherine the Great, to whom he bears such an eerie resemblance! Catherine the Great was an enlightened despot who became less enlightened and more despotic the older she got, so perhaps the family traits do not just end with appearance.

On page 12, under the revealing title “Out of date visual identity”, we learn that blue sky has been banished because sunshine no longer rules the day. It was not just sunshine that the Tories confined to history in 2013—it was the Prime Minister’s hollow claim to be a moderniser. He used to tell us that we were “all in it together”, but this year we got a tax cut for millionaires while real wages fell by more than £360. He used to tell us that he would fight for a new politics, but all we have had is Lynton Crosby and his politics of fear and smear. The Prime Minister used to tell us he was a compassionate Conservative, but he gave us the bedroom tax, the closure of hundreds of Sure Start centres and yesterday his MPs laughed and jeered as we debated the record numbers of people forced to turn to food banks to feed themselves and their families in Tory Britain. Does the Leader of the House agree with me that no matter how many PR makeovers they indulge in, the Tories will never change?

Given that this is our last sitting day before the Christmas recess, I want to take the opportunity to wish all right hon. and hon. Members and their families, all of the House staff and their families, you and your family, Mr Speaker, a very merry Christmas and a happy new year.

I have been considering what it would be like if the Cabinet had Christmas dinner together. First of all, everyone would be late because they had spent their journey arguing about the route and U-turning so often that they were driving round in circles. The turkey would be half-cooked, like their policies, and the Leader of the House would have to call for a pause halfway through the meal. The Prime Minister’s lapdog, the Deputy Prime Minister, would be encouraged to learn that election promises are for life, not just for Christmas. Perhaps the joke in the Christmas crackers would simply read, “Vote Lib Dem”.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to the shadow Leader of the House for her response to the business statement and, in particular, for her Christmas good wishes to Members and House staff. She only slightly raided the Christmas crackers in advance with her comments today.

The hon. Lady asked about the private Member’s Bill relating to the EU referendum, which is in the House of Lords. The issue would arise only if the Lords were not to pass it, and my hope is that their Lordships will recognise the support that the Bill attracted from this House. From memory, I think that there was a majority of some 200 in favour of Third Reading in the House of Commons. I think that that should serve as an indication to the House of Lords of the positive sentiment that was attached to the proposal for an EU referendum when it left this House.

The hon. Lady asked about the transparency Bill. Clearly she has not taken on board how often the House of Lords considers legislation. Their Lordships frequently deal with the Committee stages of Bills, but in this case neither the Government nor others who had tabled amendments pressed those amendments to a vote, because they wanted to discuss some issues on Report in the context of Government amendments. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Wallace of Tankerness made it clear to the House of Lords that a wide-ranging consultation had indeed taken place, and emphasised the benefit that will, I know, be apparent when the Lords consider the Bill on Report.

The hon. Lady also asked about the Water Bill, which, as she said, we will debate when we return in the new year. I look forward to that debate, because I think it will show that we can increase benefits to consumers in two main ways: by giving them access to more competition in the water industry, and by giving those who are at risk of flooding access to a continuing and secure scheme for the delivery of flood insurance. As for the question of tariffs, the hon. Lady should bear in mind the work that the regulator is doing with the water companies to try to ensure that, in the next period of regulation, they deliver the best possible benefits and value for money to consumers. I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change supports that work.

I am sad to have to tell the hon. Lady that I am not responsible at this Dispatch Box for what the Conservative party has put in its 2014 “campaign toolkit”. [Interruption.] I may not be sad, but if the hon. Lady is really going to read that on Christmas Day, I fear that she is rather sad. I confess that I shall not be reading it. I should add that when the hon. Lady reached the point of comparing the Prime Minister to Catherine the Great, I felt that it was a case of “more desperate than despot”.

In this season of good will, I think that I should conclude with good news. Growth in the economy is 1.5% higher than it was a year ago, and retail sales are up. We are net exporters of cars, and the automotive industry produced more cars in the first 11 months of this year than it did in the previous 12. Manufacturing and services are up. Moreover, 2.7 million people have been taken out of income tax altogether, and every basic rate taxpayer can look forward to a benefit of at least £700 after next April. Fuel duty has been frozen, unemployment is down, and employment in the private sector is up by more than 1.6 million. There are fewer workless households than at any time since records began. That, I think, is a source of good cheer for Christmas present and hope for Christmas future—and I am afraid that, for the Opposition, it means no return to their Christmas past.

[Dr Matthew Offord (Hendon) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what the Government can do to protect people—especially the elderly and disabled—who are disadvantaged by having no access to, or ability to use, the internet in order to obtain the best prices for financial, insurance and other services?

[Mr Lansley]

Let me add another item to my hon. Friend’s list. Access to NHS services for those who do not have internet access is also very important. It was certainly very important to me when, as Secretary of State for Health, I was involved in the delivery of patient choice and information through NHS Choices.

We will do all that we can to protect vulnerable people by helping those who are offline to gain access to online services. We will increase access to the internet, improve digital skills, and ensure that people are aware of the benefits that going online can bring. A new cross-Government digital inclusion team has been established in the Cabinet Office as part of the Government Digital Service with the aim of driving forward the digital inclusion agenda, and we plan to publish a digital inclusion strategy early in the spring. Given my hon. Friend’s interest in these matters, he may wish to meet the Cabinet Office team to explain how he feels his constituents could benefit from the strategy.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, and all hon. and right hon. Members a very merry Christmas?

When we return in the new year, the Backbench Business Committee will be taking part in a pilot scheme allocating a 90-minute Westminster Hall slot—which is currently allocated by you, Mr Speaker—every Tuesday from 9.30 until 11 am. Will the Leader of the House help me to advertise this to as many hon. and right hon. Members as possible?

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, of course, I would be delighted to do that and I look forward to having opportunities to do so. If that can be anticipated, we might look to see whether it can be added to the advertisement of the debates to Members through the business statement.

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

On behalf of my Select Committee, may I thank you, Mr Speaker, and the whole House and the staff and everybody else for all their work this year?

I thank the Leader of the House for bringing forward the Water Bill on the first day back. There is currently an omission in the Bill, however, concerning something that many constituencies have suffered from: the surface water run-off going into combined sewers. Will my right hon. Friend explain why we have not had a clear business week to allow us to table amendments in the usual way? You will be pleased to know, Mr Speaker, that the Select Committee has tabled amendments, but we have not been able to do as thorough a job as we might otherwise have done.

[Mr Lansley]

If I may, I will have a discussion with my hon. Friend about how we can ensure that if she and other Members have, during the passage of the Water Bill, a desire to table amendments, there is provision for them to do so.

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

May we have an urgent statement on EU membership and immigration, but this time can we have it from the person at the Dispatch Box who is actually pulling the strings of the Conservative party and setting the agenda, which can only be Nigel Farage?

[Mr Lansley]

I think the hon. Gentleman is living in some kind of fantasy world. I can assure him that Nigel Farage is not pulling the strings. If I may revert to being a constituency Member of Parliament for this purpose, I take particular pleasure in the fact that before the last county council elections there was one UKIP county councillor in South Cambridgeshire and after it there were none.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

During 13 years of Labour misrule, things got worse and worse. Under this coalition, things have got better and better. Under Labour England lost 21 times to Australia and lost five series, despite what the shadow Leader said last week. Under this coalition Government, we have won more than we have lost, and we have won two series. Is not the truth that the only way we are going to regain the Ashes is by having a Tory Government?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to admire my hon. Friend’s optimism in trying to derive a good story out of the English team’s performance in Australia, and I hope he will be proved right in the fullness of time, in the same way as in the fullness of time we have always discovered that unemployment is higher when a Labour Government leave office than when they take office. Under this coalition Government employment has increased and unemployment has decreased.

[Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker.

Yesterday Commissioner Potocnik released the clean air programme for Europe. It announced tightening of the NOx and SOx—nitrous oxides and sulphur oxides— regulations for air quality, quite against what the Government had assumed, which was that they were going to be relaxed. May we have a debate on this matter in Government time, given that the Government are now facing serious infraction proceedings, to ensure we have the air quality in this country that we need?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that there will be questions to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Thursday after the House returns. He might wish to raise that important and interesting matter at that time, and I will ask the Secretary of State to respond to him.

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

I have spoken to the Leader of the House on several occasions about my concerns over the environmental statement on HS2 that has been issued by the Department for Transport. The fact that it is tens of thousands of pages long is putting great strain on our environmental organisations, because the Department has given them only eight weeks over the Christmas period in which to respond to it. Furthermore, the memory sticks containing those tens of thousands of pages had to be recalled because of omissions and errors, and new ones had to be issued. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on the possibility of extending the consultation period immediately?[Official Report, 6 January 2014, Vol. 573, c. 2MC.]

[Mr Lansley]

I know how assiduously my right hon. Friend is pursuing the interests of her constituents in relation to this matter. I am not in a position to extend the period as she requests, not least because the 56-day consultation period for the environmental statement that precedes the production of a report by the person appointed by the House was determined not by the Department for Transport but by the House, by means of orders made in June relating to changes in the Standing Orders covering hybrid Bills.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

May I draw the Leader of the House’s attention to the business in Westminster Hall on 23 January? He has set down only half the afternoon for a debate on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office report on human rights. That is completely inadequate for a debate on human rights around the whole world, the UK’s role in upholding them and the Foreign Office’s responsibility for them. It is simply not proper to try to debate all that in one and a half hours; we need at least a full afternoon or a debate in this Chamber.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that the time in Westminster Hall on that Thursday was allocated on the initiative of the Liaison Committee. If that debate were to show that there was a demand among Members for additional debating time, it would be open to him and other Members collectively to go to the Backbench Business Committee and to seek to secure a further debate.

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

May we have a debate about the increase in the number of apprenticeships and the fall in unemployment, particularly youth unemployment, under this Government? In my constituency, the number of apprenticeships has increased from 420 in 2009-10 to more than 1,000 last year. At the same time, the claimant count has fallen from 3.2% to 2.4% and, for 18 to 24-year-olds, from 7.1% to 4.4%.

[Mr Lansley]

None of us is remotely content with the level of youth unemployment, but, happily, the latest figures have shown that the level has been reduced by 19,000 on the quarter. The youth claimant count has gone down 106,000 since the election, and the number of young people not in employment, education or training is at its lowest for a decade. My hon. Friend is right to say that apprenticeships are terribly important from this point of view, with 1.5 million starts since the election. It is our objective that they, together with work experience and the new traineeships, will ensure that all young people acquire qualifications and experience through education, work, apprenticeships or traineeships.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Rail overcrowding is so acute in my constituency that Northern Rail is laying on buses to take passengers by road when they cannot get on the trains, and I know of at least one constituent who has been hospitalised after being overcome in the crush. Please may we have an urgent statement and debate on the Government’s plans for diesel and electric rolling stock in the north of England?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady has just missed Transport questions—[Hon. Members: “She was here.”] I beg her pardon. I did not mean that she was not here. I meant that she did not get her question in—[Hon. Members: “She did.”] Oh, I apologise. If she has asked that question, she has, from a business point of view, already had a chance to raise it. [Hon. Members: “She wants a better answer.”] My answer would be to draw her attention to the unprecedented £38 billion of investment that is being provided through Network Rail, which is increasing capacity on the railway system across the country.

[Mr Speaker]

I am sure that the Leader of the House would agree that repetition of points in the Chamber is not an entirely novel phenomenon.

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

We have already had a question about broadband, but I wonder whether I may ask the Leader of the House about it too. We had an announcement last week about broadband throughout the UK and the extra money that is being made available. This issue affects every constituency, throughout the UK. Because we still have anomalies in cities, towns and rural areas, may we have time in this Chamber to allow Members to discuss the problems in their constituencies relating to the roll-out of broadband throughout the UK?

[Mr Lansley]

I suggest to my hon. Friend that, given the widespread interest among Members in the roll-out of broadband across the country, this may be a subject that he and other Members collectively wish to approach the Backbench Business Committee about? I thought last week’s announcements were very positive. With Connecting Cambridgeshire, in my constituency, we are looking forward to having 98% superfast broadband coverage by the end of 2015, and that is very encouraging.

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

May we have an urgent statement on Government secrecy, given that they are still refusing to release the document they commissioned on food banks, that they will not give any information on the financial position of the NHS trusts, and that they are refusing to release the Shrewsbury documents, citing “national security”? What happened to transparency?

[Mr Lansley]

This is the most open and transparent Government ever. We are publishing more data about more of the activities of government than has ever been the case. We are not only publishing what is available, but, increasingly, we are making sure that we genuinely audit the outcomes of what we are doing and publish those results.

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

May I wish you and your family a very merry Christmas, Mr Speaker? This weekend, I attended the deployed service families Christmas party in Plymouth, and may I take the opportunity to wish them all a very merry Christmas, too? I was reminded that stepchildren of service families are not treated in the same way as blood relatives or adopted children, and they often have to deal with some of the emotional issues that many of their stepbrothers and stepsisters also have to deal with, especially at this time. May we have a debate on the involvement of stepfamilies in the armed forces?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend will be interested to know that the definition of a child of service personnel is

“a legitimate or legitimated child or step-child”

of a service family who is below the age of 18. Under departmental regulations both are treated equally. If he has a specific example of unfair treatment that he wishes to raise, the best thing would be to raise it directly with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), who is responsible for defence personnel, welfare and veterans. I know that she will be happy to look into any matter that he raises.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

May I not only extend the season’s greetings to you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House, hon. Members and House staff, but pay tribute to our emergency services for the work they do over this period and the work they have done all year? On those services, the Leader of the House will have heard my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) ask in Transport questions about the under-resourcing of coastguards and marine safety. Is it not time that we debated the issue in this House, following the debacle in 2010-11, so that we can deal with that under-resourcing? Marine safety is far too important to be left to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Treasury.

[Mr Lansley]

I did indeed hear that question, and I heard the reply from the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), and his explanation of how this programme was being rolled out in the way that was anticipated from 2011. I know how carefully the hon. Gentleman looks after the interests of his constituents, and I will take the opportunity to speak to my hon. Friend to see whether he can provide any further information.

[Henry Smith (Crawley) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the oversight and support given to free schools? I very much regret that on Friday last week an Education Minister in the other place announced a withdrawal of funding from the Discovery New school in my constituency, despite the fact that a new management team had just been put in place and there was a new head teacher. May we also have a statement from my right hon. Friend the Education Secretary?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure my hon. Friend knows, as do other hon. Members, that the vast majority of free schools are performing well, with three quarters of them rated good or outstanding. But he also knows that where there is failure, we will not hesitate to intervene and take action. Children must be given the education they need and deserve, no matter what type of school they attend. Since Discovery New school was placed in special measures by Ofsted in May, the Department monitored progress closely. The trust had not provided evidence that it was making the changes required to secure the long-term future of the school. As my hon. Friend said, my noble Friend Lord Nash did notify the trust that the Department would terminate its funding agreement. If I may, I will speak to my noble Friend and make sure that he has an opportunity to speak directly to my hon. Friend about the circumstances for the children. The children will be looked after as a consequence of this, but in relation to the business of the House, if my hon. Friend has any continuing concerns, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be responding to questions on Monday 6 January.

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

This Christmas children from the Central African Republic right through to the middle east will die in refugee camps. Will the Leader of the House allow us Government time to discuss their response to this humanitarian crisis?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and ministerial colleagues have been at the Dispatch Box rightly updating the House on humanitarian support. I think we can take pride in the fact that this country is the most generous and active donor of humanitarian aid to those in need as a consequence of the conflict in Syria, but I will continue to keep in close contact with my hon. Friends at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so that the House is updated.

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

May we have an urgent debate on relations between the Israelis and Palestinians in the west bank? Although we all wish the talks in America every success, there are serious issues about Palestinian olive groves being cut down and very badly polluted by sewage and industrial waste.

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend knows that the Government share his concerns about the difficulties facing Palestinian olive growers. This is a particularly sensitive issue, given that olive trees are a national symbol and the sole source of income for many Palestinian farmers. We continue to express our concerns to the Israeli Government about this and about the destruction and damage to Palestinian property, including olive trees, whether it is by the authorities or by extremist settlers. The context is, of course, the enduring tragedy of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and we are doing everything we can as a Government to support efforts, including by the US Government, to achieve a lasting two-state solution.

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

May I wish you, Mr Speaker, a merry Christmas?

May we have a debate on the impact of VAT on tourism products and the local economy? In Northern Ireland, VAT on tourism is 20%. We have a land border with the Republic of Ireland, where VAT on tourism has continued to be 9%. That has placed us at an unfair competitive disadvantage.

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady will know that my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland are very aware of the importance of the tax relationship between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. I will of course raise these issues with them. She will understand how difficult it is in the EU context ever to reduce VAT rates, but that does not mean that that is the only potential source of tax competition.

[Pauline Latham (Mid Derbyshire) (Con)]

The Leader of the House said he wanted to end the year on a happy note; I would like to start next year on a happy note. May we have a debate on the success in getting the unemployment figures down? In my constituency, the figure is 385 lower than it was a year ago and 35 lower than it was in October this year.

[Mr Lansley]

I would be delighted if we had such an opportunity early in the new year. I cannot promise it immediately, but I hope that it will arise. My hon. Friend is quite right. The most recently published data show that in the east midlands, for example, the number of people unemployed has fallen by some 6,000. In many regions there have been similar substantial decreases in unemployment, which is very encouraging, and at the same time vacancies continue at a record level.

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

A constituent of mine contacted me this week to tell me that his daughter, an agency worker at the passport office in Durham, will be made redundant in the new year when her job and others will be transferred to India. It is a tragedy not only for her, but for the region, as every job in the north-east is precious. May we have a debate on the scandal of Government and Government agency jobs being transferred overseas?

[Mr Lansley]

I will of course, because of the personal circumstances of the hon. Lady’s constituent, raise that with Home Office Ministers and ask them to respond to her directly. If she has any additional information, I would be happy to include it in the query. On the general point, it is encouraging that the most recent data show a reduction in unemployment in the north-east.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Merry Christmas, Mr Speaker, and happy Gita Jayanti. Yesterday we launched the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus in a packed Committee Room 14—there was literally standing room only—as hundred of Hindus from across the country came together for what was possibly the biggest ever launch of an all-party group. May we have a debate in Government time on the enormous contribution made by the 1.6 million British Hindus to the economy, the stability of our society and the fabric of Great Britain?

[Mr Lansley]

I am glad my hon. Friend has had an opportunity to raise that. I am sure that many Members across the House share his evident pleasure at the establishment of the all-party group and the fact that so many Hindus from across the country came here to celebrate it. I cannot promise a debate at the moment—he will understand the pressure on legislative time. As a member of the Backbench Business Committee, he will understand how precious its time is, too, but it might be able to give the matter the necessary priority in due course.

[Kevin Brennan (Cardiff West) (Lab)]

May we have a debate on the House’s recesses? We talked earlier about September sittings. Is it not ludicrous that we come back for two weeks and then have the party conferences for three weeks before coming back again? May we have a debate on moving the party conferences to the early part of September so that the House can have a clear run through? And merry Christmas!

[Mr Lansley]

And a merry Christmas to the hon. Gentleman.

I do not think that the arrangement is ludicrous; it is conventional. We will take that suggestion away, as we regularly look at these matters, but I do not hold out any immediate promise to him.

[Mr Speaker]

I have always thought that the party conferences could perfectly well take place at weekends. I cannot for the life of me see why we have to go away from our main place of work for that rather self-indulgent exercise. But I would not want to express any views that could be considered to be controversial.

[Julian Sturdy (York Outer) (Con)]

May we have a debate on what constitutes “high risk” when it comes to referrals for breast cancer screening? A constituent of mine whose mother and two sisters have sadly been diagnosed with breast cancer has bizarrely not been assessed as high risk and, as a consequence, has been denied access to screening, which is causing her and her family great distress, as I am sure hon. Members would understand.

[Mr Lansley]

I am sure that my hon. Friend is right about the distress it must cause. If he can provide me with further details, I will ask Health Ministers to advise on the circumstances he has brought to the House’s attention.

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

I have been a bit of a curmudgeon this morning, but I have always thought the Leader of the House a thoroughly good man. I wish for my constituents, as he will for his, the warm glow one gets from reading “A Christmas Carol”, but does he agree that a lot of people up and down this country are suffering “Hard Times”? Will he look at Angela Merkel’s remarks this week that when the income band for the rich and super-rich gets so far away from not only the poor, but average people, democracy is threatened and put in peril? May we have a serious debate on income distribution in our country?

[Mr Lansley]

In the spirit in which the hon. Gentleman raises this, I think we often do have that debate, and we need to do so. In what were undeniably tough times—we will not debate why they occurred; they occurred for a number of reasons—we were very clear as a coalition Government that those with the broadest shoulders should bear the biggest burden. That is why the top 1% in terms of income pay 30% of the tax going to the Exchequer and why the proportionate increase in tax paid is highest among those who earn the most.

[Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the procedures that are in place to vet in advance the credentials of organisations that set up Christmas fairs and festivals? My right hon. Friend may have seen reports of the problems with Winter Wonderland in Milton Keynes last weekend. Although trading standards is now looking into it and people have been promised a refund, it left many families bitterly disappointed, and local charities that would have benefited from the fair have lost out.

[Mr Lansley]

Yes, my hon. Friend is right; I did indeed see the reports, because my constituency is not far from his. One of the beneficiaries would have been Papworth Trust, which is based in my constituency, so I felt precisely the sense of distress that many families felt about this. It is difficult; hard cases make bad law. The last thing we could contemplate is having some kind of regulatory process before people are able to set up such an event. However, trading standards can certainly look at the consequences and the lessons to be learned from something of the kind he describes.

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

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.

Will the Leader of the House ask his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government proactively to come to the House to make a proper oral statement on the provisional local government finance settlement, which would see Birmingham lose spending power at about twice the national average? The Leader of the House will know that yesterday there was lot of criticism of the fact that Ministers had to be called to the House. I found out that the local authority in Birmingham was not even told about the details of the announcement until 12.33 pm —after the urgent question had started. If this House is going to debate the concerns of our constituents and local authorities, this really is not good enough. May we have a proper statement straight after Christmas?

[Mr Lansley]

The Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), responded to an urgent question yesterday and did so very well. As he said to the House, the information on the local government finance settlement was distributed in a way that is consistent with previous years. In fact, laying it by means of a written ministerial statement is exactly the same process as was adopted by the previous Government in the last year before the election.

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

Given the ongoing need to raise funds for the public purse, may we have a statement setting out the reasons why the Government think it is still necessary to own Channel 4?

[Mr Lansley]

I will, if I may, ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport to respond to my hon. Friend in relation to that.

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

Police in Devon and Cornwall get less per head than those in leafy Surrey. Our transport infrastructure investment is less than that in any other part of the country, despite the problems we have with flooding on the main line. Plymouth’s public health statistics are worse than those in almost any other part of the country on a whole range of levels, yet we get only £47 per head in Plymouth compared with £77 in Portsmouth and £66 in Bristol, and Windsor and Maidenhead do infinitely better. May we have an urgent debate on the funding distribution and formula basis of all these decisions, because regionally and in Plymouth we lose out?

[Mr Lansley]

I will not go through all those things, but the hon. Lady will know of the focus being given by the Department for Transport to improving routes, including the A30 across Bodmin. My hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile) has asked questions about that and I and other Ministers have responded to them.

I held discussions with Plymouth city council two or more years ago about how actively it was considering bringing people together to promote public health in the city. As such, all local authorities have seen an increase in their allocation of public health resources.

[Martin Vickers (Cleethorpes) (Con)]

This evening I will attend a public meeting to discuss the recent floods in my constituency, particularly those that have affected residents in Barrow Haven who, understandably, will want some answers. Although we have had an opportunity to meet the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and there has been a written statement, as yet there has not been an oral statement or time for a debate in the House. Could the Leader of the House provide Government time for such a debate early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend rightly raises important points on behalf of his constituents. Given that he has had a meeting with the Secretary of State, I will consult the Secretary of State on how my hon. Friend and other Members whose constituencies have been particularly affected by the recent flooding might be given further information. Given the current pressure on time, I regret that I cannot promise a debate in the House on these matters, but we will make sure that all Members are properly informed.

[Mrs Madeleine Moon (Bridgend) (Lab)]

One group of people who will not be having a restful Christmas are carers. The Leader of the House has given a list of ways in which life is improving under this Government, but life for carers has not improved. Their income limit has not increased and one of the carers in my constituency, Mrs James, has her income assessed on a weekly basis, because she works on a zero-hours contract. If, in one week out of four, she earns £1 over the £100 allowance, she loses her carer’s allowance for the entire month, even though her income for the rest of the month might be £25 one week and £35 the next. Instead of paying lip service to carers, could we have a genuine debate on how we can provide proper support and income for them so that they can feel valued by this House?

[Mr Lansley]

I will ask my colleagues at the Department for Work and Pensions to respond to the hon. Lady on the circumstances she describes with regard to the carer’s allowance. On the more general issue, carers should understand that individual Members, the House and the Government support them. I think that is evident from our allocation of some £400 million to ensure that carers have access to more respite breaks; from the Children and Families Bill, which delivers additional support to children who are carers; from our commitment to deliver health checks and support to carers; and from all the additional carer rights in the Care Bill—the hon. Lady will no doubt take part in the debate on that—which sets out for the first time a comprehensive structure of rights for carers.

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

The cost of motoring is a significant part of household expenditure and it also has a broader economic impact, because most goods are moved by road. I recognise that there has been cross-Government action on the issue—including the cut in fuel duty, stopping the escalator and work on insurance fraud—but please could we have a debate to consider the progress made and ask what more can be done to help?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend is right. I think that motorists in general can take heart from the way in which the Government have ensured that additional costs are not loaded on to them. Had the previous Government still been in office, fuel duty would have been an extra 20p per litre by the end of this Parliament as a consequence of their fuel escalator, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has taken away. I also think that the work of the Office of Fair Trading on motor insurance claims offers the prospect of relief to motorists in terms of their insurance premiums, as does the Ministry of Justice’s work on the response to whiplash.

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

Further to questions on local government spending, I see that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is to be given a new role as the head of Minitrue, to guard against the risks of doublethinking in our local authorities. Given the discrepancies in the answer to yesterday’s urgent question on local government spending, might it not be an idea to start with a debate on the accuracy of answers given to Members of the House?

[Mr Lansley]

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government sets out to speak in plain English and in terms that are entirely accurate.

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

Like many councils, Stroud district council is busy formulating and agreeing our local plan, but in the meantime we are effectively circled by developers who are picking off field after field. Their plans are often rejected by the planning committee, but we are obviously open to the risk of an inspection. May we have a debate about that and about how we can assist local areas to defend themselves against unscrupulous developers?

[Mr Lansley]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. It is very important to have a local plan in place, which is why it is encouraging that three quarters of authorities have now published one. In fact, just over half of them now have an adopted local plan. It is important to achieve that, so the intention of Stroud district council to submit its local plan for examination will give more weight to that plan in decision making, and help to guard against developments that are not determined locally.

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

Tech City UK has a budget, funded by the taxpayer, of just over £2 million, but it has recently been very coy about revealing exactly how it spends that money, despite being probed by Tech City News. Does the Leader of the House not agree that transparency about how taxpayers’ money is spent is vital? Will he remind Ministers to ensure that any body funded by their Department is required to be as transparent as possible about its spending?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Lady is of course right that the principle of transparency applies and is one that we seek to pursue. If I may, I will raise that issue with Ministers in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

On Tuesday night, the press were briefed about a welcome introduction of restrictions on certain benefits for immigrants from Bulgaria and Romania. Will the Leader of the House explain how this House has been informed of those restrictions, what the legislative mechanism is for their introduction, whether they include restrictions on tax credits and whether they will also apply to other EU member states?

[Mr Lansley]

The House was made aware by the fact that regulations to that effect were laid on Wednesday morning; they are subject to the negative procedure, so they can be brought into force. In that sense, they are available for the House to see, and if any hon. Member wishes to pray against them, they can be prayed against under the normal arrangements.

On my hon. Friend’s other points, I do not know that the regulations extend elsewhere or in any sense beyond this country, but the measures we have taken are informed by a great deal of work done by the Government to examine the benefit arrangements available to those who exercise their free movement rights inside the European Union. That work gives us confidence that we can introduce the proposed measures.

[Mr John Spellar (Warley) (Lab)]

I am sure that the Leader of the House was shocked by the revelations in the Daily Mirror about the abuse of expenses at Essex county council under its Tory leader Lord Hanningfield. It will clearly be of concern to the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, who regularly lectures local government about the importance of the prudent use of public money. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate on that issue and ensure that it is led by the plain-speaking Secretary of State who, as an Essex MP since 1992, could explain what he has done to stop the abuse by his party colleagues in his own county?

[Mr Lansley]

My noble Friend the Leader of the House of Lords made a statement in the House of Lords the day before yesterday, in which he said that he was “completely dismayed” to read reports in the press about the behaviour of a Member of that House. The Member in question is not a Conservative peer, but he was formerly the Conservative leader of Essex county council. I share that dismay, but those matters are for the House of Lords, rather than for this House.

[Stuart Andrew (Pudsey) (Con)]

May we have a statement on what the UK response has been to the situation in South Sudan?

[Mr Lansley]

We are following developments in South Sudan with great concern. The British ambassador has spoken to the President of South Sudan. The Minister for Africa, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), is speaking with regional Foreign Ministers. We have called for restraint and for differences to be resolved through dialogue, and we have underlined the importance of protecting civilians.

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has advised against all travel to Juba and has been helping British nationals to leave. A UK military aircraft is en route to Juba to evacuate British nationals today. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been contacting British nationals in the country and offering consular assistance.

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

When the Leader of the House went home last night, did he not feel a certain amount of shame at being part of a Government who have presided over 500,000 people presenting to food banks? If so, can we have another debate on food banks so that he can express that shame?

[Mr Lansley]

I am proud to be a member of a Government who have seen the number of workless households in this country fall to its lowest ever level. Work is the best route out of poverty.

[Andrew Miller]

Answer the question.

[Mr Lansley]

It is undeniably the case that in the tough times that we faced and with the largest deficit in the OECD, it was necessary to reduce debt in this country. It is impossible simply to ignore the fact that living standards in this country have taken a hit as a consequence of what happened under the last Government. I am proud that this Government are leading the kind of economic recovery that holds the greatest prospect of giving the greatest number of people access to rising living standards in the future.

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

May we have a debate on the future provision of paediatric services nationally? Yesterday, the trust special administrator for the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust recommended the removal of many paediatric services, including in-patient and overnight paediatrics, from Stafford hospital. The main basis for that recommendation is that there are too few consultants to maintain a full rota of eight to 10 consultants. However, there are five or six consultants at the hospital and many services across the country run with far fewer than that. If that logic is pursued, there is a great threat that dozens of paediatric services across the country will face closure.

[Mr Lansley]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who continues to be a tireless advocate, on behalf of his constituents, for the services that are being provided at Stafford hospital in very difficult circumstances. I appreciate that. The points that he raises can be made to Monitor, which will consider the report of the trust special administrator. After Monitor has done that, a report will go to the Secretary of State for Health for a final decision in the new year. None the less, I think that my hon. Friend’s constituents will be comforted to know that the paediatric assessment unit, which has paediatric doctors, will continue to be available at Stafford hospital under the proposals.

[Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab)]

In the spirit of the festive season, may we have a debate on whether Ministers should be obliged to make new year’s resolutions? I encourage Ministers to resolve always to make statements to the House before doing so to the press, to introduce well-thought-out and coherent legislation, and to smile a little more often than the Deputy Leader of the House.

[Mr Lansley]

That was a bit of a “Bah, humbug!” moment at the end, unfortunately. In all those respects we do not need to make new year’s resolutions, since they are part of our common practice and custom.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

As you are aware, Mr Speaker, I have been calling for several weeks for a debate in Westminster Hall or on the Adjournment on the planning regulations for solar PV panels in rural locations. As the Leader of the House will know, in rural north Essex—the northern part of my constituency—more than 300 acres of solar PV panels are being planned, which will affect the villages of Liston, Belchamps, Foxearth and Twinstead. The matter is a continued aggravation to my constituents and they would very much appreciate a debate on this important issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Frankly, I cannot say that I was much aware of the hon. Gentleman’s current preoccupation, but I assure him that I am now.

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, Mr Speaker, so am I. My hon. Friend may wish to raise the issue with Ministers from the Department for Communities and Local Government when they answer questions early in the new year. In addition, since there will no doubt be Members elsewhere in the House who have similar concerns, my hon. Friend might try to use the good offices of the Backbench Business Committee to seek time for a debate on the issue.

[Thomas Docherty (Dunfermline and West Fife) (Lab)]

I am sure that during his earlier exchange with the hon. Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) about the merits of Nigel Farage, the Leader of the House simply forgot to say how delighted we all were that Mr Farage failed to get elected to the seat of Buckingham at the last general election. May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to the amendment that stands in the name of the whole Procedure Committee, the chair of the 1922 committee, the chair of the parliamentary Labour party, and other hon. Members, to order No. 9 about the calling of amendments at the end of the Gracious Speech? Can the Procedure Committee therefore invite the Leader of the House to bring it on early in the new year?

[Mr Lansley]

I am, of course, familiar with the amendment to which the hon. Gentleman refers, and it has been on the remaining orders for some time. I confess that time is pressing but the issue is not pressing in that sense. If I may, I will advise the House in due course about when it would be suitable to debate that matter.

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

Further to the earlier question from the hon. Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew), will the Leader of the House offer the prospect of a full statement, before the House rises, from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office about what the UN Secretary-General has described as a deeply concerning situation in South Sudan, with more than 500 people dead since the weekend, 20,000 people seeking refuge with the United Nations, and violence spreading out from the capital, Juba? Will the Leader of the House give a full guarantee to concerned families about the safety of UK nationals who are still in that country?

[Mr Lansley]

I deliberately gave a fuller answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Stuart Andrew) than I might otherwise have done, because I am aware it is the final day before the House rises and there might not be another opportunity for Foreign and Commonwealth Office Ministers to update it. If the hon. Gentleman is in his place, and were he to catch the eye of the Speaker, it is open to him to raise the issue again during the pre-recess Adjournment debate that follows statements to the House. I took care this morning to ensure that what I said was up to date and full regarding the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s response to the situation.

[Derek Twigg (Halton) (Lab)]

Ministers have now admitted that there are delays in processing personal independence payments, which are impacting on people with long-term debilitating illnesses such as cancer. Will the Leader of the House arrange an urgent debate in Government time so that we can examine why those delays are occurring and what the Government are doing to remedy them?

[Mr Lansley]

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman has previously raised this issue with Ministers. To be practical, during the recess I will ask Ministers to respond to him directly so that we can see the position early in the new year.

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

The behaviour on the Government Benches yesterday during the food bank debate, with Members laughing at the plight of individuals having to go to food banks, was truly shocking to my constituents and many other people up and down this land. May we have a debate about the huge increase in the numbers of homeless people and people sleeping rough, and see whether that also causes amusement on the Government Benches?

[Mr Lansley]

I am sorry but I do not accept at all the hon. Lady’s premise about the debate yesterday. I think it best for Members not to assume that because they can see what is happening on the other side of the House, they can also hear what is happening. Frankly, that brings the House into disrepute unnecessarily, which is not something I would encourage. On rough sleeping and homeless people, the Government continuously try to ensure that as few people as possible are sleeping rough, and that support, including hostel places, is available for all those who are sleeping rough.

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

The Leader of the House will know that the Department for Transport has been promising all year to publish a Green Paper on graduated licensing for newly qualified drivers, to try to reduce the number of young people killed on our roads. This morning, in answer to a written question from my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden), the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond), essentially said that the matter is being postponed indefinitely. May we have a debate on that or a statement from the Department for Transport, so that the House can be informed about what is going on?

[Mr Lansley]

The hon. Gentleman knows that we have discussed this matter before in business questions, so I am interested in the point he makes. I confess that I have not seen that answer to that question. I will look at it and talk to my hon. Friends at the Department for Transport to see whether we can advise him further on their plans.

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

On Monday of this week, 615 of my constituents lost their jobs at Sharp’s solar plant in Wrexham when investment, which was hard won in 2004 under the previous Government, ended. May we have a debate on this Government’s chaotic investment policy on renewables, which is deterring international investors from bringing jobs to the UK for constituents such as mine, who will have no jobs this Christmas?

[Mr Lansley]

I heard my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change, set out plans that are giving people increasing confidence in the prospects for renewables investment in this country. I will of course look at the situation the hon. Gentleman raises, which must be of concern to his constituents in Wrexham in particular, and ask my hon. Friends at the Department for their response. The general context, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, is that we are making tremendous progress on private sector jobs, with more than 1.6 million more private sector jobs since the election.

[Andy McDonald (Middlesbrough) (Lab)]

Happy Christmas, Mr Speaker.

May we have a debate on the proliferation of low-paid bogus self-employment arrangements, especially in the hospitality industry, which are responsible for so many personal cost of living crises?

[Mr Lansley]

Happily, the hon. Gentleman may recall that during the autumn statement the Chancellor set out some of the ways Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs is continuing to bear down on schemes that are clearly designed to avoid tax. If I recall correctly, they included issues relating to the question of employment and self-employment, and they will be pursued in that context.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

Merry Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to everyone in the House.

May we have a statement, as early as possible next year, from a Treasury Minister to tell us why millionaires are paying less tax this Christmas than they were last, before the Chancellor makes a decision in the Budget to ensure that millionaires pay less tax next Christmas than they are this?

[Mr Lansley]

I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not think we need a statement. First, as I said earlier, the 1% with the highest incomes are paying 30% of tax. Secondly, the highest rate of income tax is now higher than it was in every month of the previous Labour Government, except for the last month. Thirdly, 2.7 million of the lowest earners have been taken out of income tax altogether.

Detainee Inquiry

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Minister without Portfolio to make his statement, I should say to the House that the subject matter concerns certain right hon. Members personally. I know that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) wishes to catch my eye. I have said to him that in these exceptional circumstances I am prepared to allow him latitude in phrasing his remarks and rather more time to make them than would be usual. Even so, I know he appreciates that brevity will assist, as this is not a debate.

11:43

[The Minister without Portfolio (Mr Kenneth Clarke)]

With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement on a report being published today by the former Court of Appeal judge, the right hon. Sir Peter Gibson, on the treatment of detainees. It may first be helpful to remind the House of the circumstances in which Sir Peter’s inquiry was set up.

In the statement he gave to the House in July 2010, the Prime Minister explained that questions had been raised about the degree to which, in the years immediately after the horrific events of 11 September 2001, British officers had worked with those from foreign security services who were treating detainees in ways they should not have done. The Prime Minister made it clear that it has never been suggested that United Kingdom intelligence officers were themselves directly responsible for the mistreatment of detainees. Nevertheless, the allegations of involvement had done harm to our reputation as a country which believes in human rights, justice and the rule of law and had called into question the robustness of the rules under which our services operate.

The Prime Minister then set out his determination and the determination of the whole coalition Government to get to grips with these allegations so that the security services could get on and do their vital job of keeping us safe. First, he announced that we would seek to settle the civil compensation cases brought against the Government by the former Guantanamo detainees. In due course, a significant settlement was agreed with them in November of that year. Secondly, he introduced vital reforms to improve the operational, parliamentary and judicial regulation of the agencies. Thirdly, he invited Sir Peter Gibson to hold an inquiry that would deal properly with the historical allegations. Sir Peter was asked to begin immediately with his preparatory work, and his inquiry was due to start formally when the police investigations into these matters had concluded. The Prime Minister made it clear that he expected the inquiry to take no longer than a year.

Sir Peter and his panel and the Government have been frustrated in their hopes of progress by how long the police investigations have taken. It was not until January 2012 that the Crown Prosecution Service and the Metropolitan police issued a joint statement announcing that there was insufficient evidence to bring prosecutions in the two criminal investigations that had been preventing the start of the inquiry’s public work, but at the same time they also announced that new investigations would begin into alleged renditions to Libya in 2004. Of course, it is important that these matters be investigated properly by the police, but it raised the prospect of a still further indeterminate delay before Sir Peter could begin to call witnesses and hear evidence.

With the panel’s agreement, therefore, I announced in a statement to the House that the detainee inquiry would produce its report based solely on its preparatory analysis. This report was to highlight any particular themes or issues that should be the subject of further examination. A classified version of the report was to be presented to the Prime Minister, and an open version was to be made public. Nevertheless, the report is a substantial piece of work and the product of extensive independent analysis of some 20,000 written documents, some of which have not been examined by any previous review. It finds no evidence in the documents to support any allegation that UK intelligence officers were directly responsible for the mistreatment of detainees held by other countries overseas, and no material has been referred to the police for further consideration, but it identifies 27 issues that require further examination, grouped under four broad themes: interrogation and treatment; rendition; guidance and training; and matters relating to policy and communications.

The period concerned was one in which we and our international partners were suddenly adapting to a completely new scale and type of threat from fundamentalist religious extremists, and many UK intelligence officers had to operate in extraordinarily challenging environments, subject to real personal danger. Everyone in the Government and the agencies accepts, however, that this bravery has to be combined with clear rules of proportionality and accountability to ensure that we uphold the values we are working hard to defend. So, while we accept that intelligence operations must be conducted in the strictest secrecy, we also expect there to be strict oversight of those operations to ensure that at all times they respect the human rights that are a cornerstone of this country’s values.

The questions raised by Sir Peter’s report, combined with the other reviews that have been conducted of the period, paint a picture of Government and agencies struggling to come to terms with the new level of threat faced by this country. It is now clear that our agencies and their staff were, in some respects, not prepared for the extreme demands suddenly placed on them. The guidance regulating how intelligence officers should act was inadequate. The practices of some of our international partners should have been understood much sooner. Oversight was not robust enough, and there was no mechanism in the civil courts for allegations against the security and intelligence services to be examined properly. Most of those problems related to a relatively short period of time in the early 2000s, but they risked some damage to our reputation as a nation that prides itself on being a beacon of justice, human rights and the rule of law. I believe I speak for the whole House when I say that if failures and mistakes were made in that period, it is a matter of sincere regret.

From its very first days in office, this Government have been determined to enact reforms that ensure that the problems of the past cannot be repeated. Those reforms, and changes made under the previous Government, mean that the framework within which our agencies now operate is very different from that during the period that Sir Peter’s report describes. We have finalised and published consolidated guidance, setting out very clearly how intelligence that could lead to a detention should be handled, and how detainee interviews overseas should be conducted. Compliance with this guidance is monitored by the independent Intelligence Services Commissioner who reports annually to the Prime Minister. We have made it clear that Ministers must be consulted whenever an intelligence officer involved in a planned operation believes a detainee is at serious risk of mistreatment by a foreign state, even if that raises the risk of a terrorist action going ahead. We have dramatically improved Parliament’s ability to oversee the actions of the agencies—we did that through the Justice and Security Bill, which I took through the House on behalf of the Government last year. The Intelligence and Security Committee is now a Committee of Parliament, fully independent of Government, and the Prime Minister can no longer appoint its Chairman. It can require information of the intelligence agencies, not just request it. It has a new statutory right to review past intelligence operations and, for the first time, the Committee and its staff will have direct access to agency papers.

Finally, the Justice and Security Bill, which is now an Act of Parliament, introduced new court procedures to ensure that if allegations are made that things have gone wrong, even the most secret intelligence activities can be examined by an independent judge in a civil court of law. The combination of these reforms means that a line has begun to be drawn under a difficult period of the past. Despite that, it remains important that we deal properly with the 27 issues that Sir Peter’s report raises. It would be wrong to leave those issues, many of which relate to matters of policy, unexamined for the unknown amount of time it will take for the police to complete their related investigations. Equally, it would be wrong to ask a judge to examine material which in any way could compromise a live criminal investigation. It is the combination of those police investigations and the fact that they thwart a judge’s inquiry that have led to the frustrating delay in this case, which is felt by everyone involved.

Therefore, the Prime Minister has discussed and agreed with the Intelligence and Security Committee of Parliament that it will inquire into the themes and issues that Sir Peter has raised, take further evidence, and report to the Government and to Parliament on the outcome of its inquiry. Additional resources will be provided to the Committee to undertake that work, so that it does not affect the work it is currently doing on the killing of drummer Lee Rigby in Woolwich earlier this year, and its work on the following inquiry it has announced it will be undertaking into the necessary balance between privacy and security as regards communication interception.

To assist the Committee with its work, the Prime Minister has already asked the agency heads to provide him with full and detailed responses to the questions raised in the panel’s report for which they are responsible. He has also asked the Intelligence Services Commissioner to provide his views on current compliance with those aspects of the consolidated guidance that he monitors. Both of those reports will be made available to the Committee in full by the end of February next year.

I hope and expect that by the end of next year the ISC will have finished its report. I also hope that the police will have finished their investigations. It will then be possible for the Government to take a final view as to whether a further judicial inquiry still remains necessary to add any further information of value to future policy making and the national interest.

11:55

[Sadiq Khan (Tooting) (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his statement and Sir Peter Gibson for his work and the interim report.

As I respond to the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s statement, I should make it clear that I have not had sight of the redacted version of Sir Peter Gibson’s interim report, which is published today.

I am confident that I speak for the whole House when I say that MPs from all parties condemn all forms of inhumane, cruel and degrading forms of treatment. Our freedoms and the high standards we promote in protecting human rights distinguish us as a nation, and our influence across the globe is strengthened as a result. Those freedoms are fundamental to our society, and our security and intelligence services work on an ongoing daily basis to protect us and the freedoms we hold dear.

We owe those services a debt of gratitude for keeping this country safe from threats—work that is dependent on men and women taking grave personal risks on a daily basis. Again, I know I speak on behalf of Members from all parties and the public in thanking them for their crucial role. Notwithstanding the crucial work that the agencies do to keep us safe, any allegations of involvement by members of our security and intelligence services in serious breaches of the law need proper and full investigation.

Any acts that might contravene the law in the ways alleged would run counter to everything our nation stands for and believes in. For that reason, it is important there is a full and proper investigation, exposing any wrongdoing and bringing those responsible to account. We also need to ensure that the appropriate lessons are learned and that there is no repeat in the future. We need to do that in as independent, open and transparent a manner as possible, in a way that maintains the confidence of the public.

It is now almost two years since the Minister stood at the Dispatch Box and announced that his Government’s inquiry, led by Sir Peter Gibson, was to be abandoned because of ongoing criminal investigations. I have some questions for the Minister that I hope he will be able to answer this afternoon. Why has there been such a long delay in the publication of Sir Peter Gibson’s report? Of course, we understand why sensitive parts of the report need to be redacted, but who decided which sections were redacted?

The Minister was categorical in January 2012 that a future judge-led inquiry would be restarted at an appropriate time in the future. That is particularly important in light of the commitments made by the Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary and the Deputy Prime Minister that it had to be an independent judge-led inquiry. Bearing in mind that the interim inquiry by Sir Peter Gibson has identified 27 issues that require further examination, why have the Government changed their mind about the importance of the restarted inquiry also being judge-led?

There are recent examples of a judge successfully examining material in an inquiry without compromising criminal investigations. Will the Minister therefore explain why he has handed the inquiry into the issues that Sir Peter has raised over to the ISC rather than a judge? I have great respect for the Committee’s work and recognise that it has increased powers and increased resources, but does the right hon. and learned Gentleman believe that his original aspirations—and those of the Prime Minister, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Secretary—for the inquiry to be as independent, open and public as possible can be met by such an investigation?

Bearing in mind that much of the litigation in this area will inevitably be conducted under closed material proceedings, the scope and coverage of which the Government extended last year to include such cases, does the Minister agree that there is even more reason to ensure that any investigation is as independent and transparent as possible, and has the confidence of the public? Does the Minister believe that the public will have greater confidence in an ISC investigation than in a judge-led one? If so, will he explain his thinking?

Organisations representing detainees and their families had concerns that Sir Peter Gibson’s original inquiry was not compliant with articles 3 and 6 of the European convention on human rights. They chose to disengage from the process. I asked the Minister back in January 2012 what he intended to do to ensure that the inquiry’s legitimacy was bolstered by working to re-engage those groups and organisations. The interim findings, published by Sir Peter Gibson today, could have been used as an opportunity to show the non-governmental organisations and the public that the judge-led inquiry was working under its terms of reference to win back the confidence of the public. Does the Minister think that that is an opportunity missed?

My final question for the Minister is what additional steps he and the ISC will take to address the perception—fair or unfair—that today’s announcement of the ISC taking over the inquiry is a whitewash? Ultimately, the key aims are to get to the bottom of what happened and to ensure that lessons are learnt and justice is done, as well as maintaining public confidence. We will work constructively in any way we can to satisfy those aims.

[Mr Clarke]

First, I certainly share the right hon. Gentleman’s frustration with the delay, which was not contemplated by the Prime Minister or anyone in government when we embarked on this process. Indeed, we are extremely anxious to inquire as necessary as quickly as possible so that we can draw a line under this matter, learn lessons and ensure that the House can be totally confident that there would be no similar problems in future. The delay has been caused by the length of time taken for the police to investigate these matters. No politician has control over the police and it is right for them to inquire into issues where they believe it is justifiable to do so, but the result has been a timeless delay. Nobody has been able to proceed, in Sir Peter Gibson’s case, to the calling of witnesses and the taking of evidence, because that could compromise any criminal procedures and investigations that needed to take place in due course.

I join the right hon. Gentleman in praising the work of Sir Peter and his panel in producing this report, which, in the circumstances, is extremely valuable, but as the panel makes clear, it can come to no conclusions and make no findings of fact or conclusive allegations against anybody, and nor can it clear anybody conclusively, because it relied on documents that were frustrated when it came to calling witnesses.

Only one passage in the report is redacted. We did our best to reach agreement with the panel on the redactions and we were anxious to publish as much as possible, as was the panel. The redactions relate to a matter that is already subject to a public interest immunity certificate in the courts. In my and the Government’s opinion, there was no going back on that. Sir Peter and the panel acknowledge in the text that the redaction is of no significance to the general narrative and the issues set out in the report.

The Prime Minister was quite clear about preferring a judge-led inquiry. When he said that almost two years ago, I said we would set up the judicial inquiry once the police investigations were over and we could get the inquiry under way. That has not proved possible, however. Nobody contemplated at that time that in December 2013 we would still be trying to work out when we would be capable of proceeding.

A judge-led inquiry normally involves the publication of evidence as the inquiry proceeds, although in cases such as this the evidence is sometimes redacted. The whole process of a judicial inquiry could conceivably compromise a criminal investigation. It is true that some recent inquiries, such as that conducted by Lord Justice Leveson into a totally different matter, proceeded although criminal investigations were taking place, but Lord Justice Leveson avoided, very scrupulously, any areas that might compromise the criminal investigation. The trouble with Sir Peter Gibson’s scope is that the only matters that he is considering are the subject of criminal investigations, so the same situation could not arise. The Prime Minister has therefore come up with the solution of referring the issue to the Intelligence and Security Committee in the House of Commons.

I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can be persuaded that that is a very good way of proceeding. The ISC’s inquiry can start now, whereas a judge-led inquiry could not. Moreover, the House of Commons has greatly strengthened the ISC. When we debated these matters last year, Members in all parts of the House agreed that we should make the ISC independent, more powerful, and capable of calling for, rather than merely requesting, the information that it wanted. I think that we now have an opportunity to demonstrate that its work is a valuable addition to all the other requirements in our constitution to ensure that the activities of our intelligence services are properly accountable, and that, as far as is feasible, there is some democratic oversight of what can be done.

Finally, the right hon. Gentleman reminded me that, two or three years ago, non-governmental organisations and perfectly reasonable lobbies had criticised Sir Peter Gibson and refused to co-operate with him because, in their view, his inquiry did not comply with article 3 of the European convention on human rights. I remember that exchange, which disappointed me at the time. The organisations concerned appeared to be arguing for a full-blooded public inquiry in which everyone would be represented—detainees present, press sitting in the gallery at the back—and in which a great deal of evidence would be produced that would be of enormous value to this country’s enemies. No country in the world would sensibly deal with matters in that way. I think that the process we are adopting, with the use of the ISC, is the best way of ensuring that our intelligence services remain as strong and effective as we all want them to be, that their bravery is respected, and that they are protected when they carry out work on behalf of all of us, while also ensuring that there is proper scrutiny and a proper inquiry so that we can be reassured that the highest ethical guidelines are being followed.

[Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con)]

May I, through the Minister, give the House an assurance about the work that the Intelligence and Security Committee has agreed to undertake?

As Members will know, in 2005 and 2007 the Committee published reports on the treatment of detainees and on rendition. Those reports turned out to be unsatisfactory and incomplete, because the intelligence agencies had not provided the Committee with all the relevant information, which, at the time, they were under no statutory obligation to do. As the Minister has said, that has now changed: the agencies are required to provide all the information, and the Committee’s own staff can go directly to them and inspect their files. It is on that basis, and on the basis of the extra resources that we will be given to prevent our other work from being interfered with or delayed, that the Committee believes that it can fulfil this duty, and is very willing to do so.

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for explaining why we gave the ISC more powers, and why that very powerful Committee, with its very strong membership, is capable of exercising its responsibilities and—we hope—producing the information that we require. The Gibson report did indeed indicate that when it had previously tried to conduct inquiries into detention and rendition, the Committee had not been given access to much fuller information involving all the incidents of detainee mistreatment that had been complained about, and the full internal investigations of rendition that had taken place. I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend’s Committee will rectify that when it returns to the subject.

[Mr Jack Straw (Blackburn) (Lab)]

Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for allowing me a response at greater length than is usual. May I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his statement and the care he has taken in handling this matter, which I personally appreciate, and may I say that I share many of the sentiments he has expressed?

I greatly welcome today’s announcement that the Intelligence and Security Committee will now inquire into the questions raised by Sir Peter Gibson’s interim report, and that all relevant witnesses will be able to give testimony in person? Such a further inquiry is, surely, imperative given that the 27 sets of issues Sir Peter identifies have been based entirely on the available documents, and not on any statements, or oral examinations of witnesses?

May I tell the House that, as Foreign Secretary, I acted at all times in a manner that was fully consistent with my legal duties and with national and international law, and that I was never in any way complicit in the unlawful rendition or detention of individuals by the United States or any other state?

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware, as Sir Peter brings out in his interim report and has long been known more widely, that in early January 2002 I agreed that the UK should not stand in the way of UK nationals who were detained in Afghanistan by the United States being transferred to Guantanamo Bay, and that I did so after careful legal advice and because, at the time, it was the only practical alternative to their remaining in custody in Afghanistan? But will the right hon. and learned Gentleman also accept that we never agreed in any way to the mistreatment of those detainees or to the denial of their rights, that we made repeated objections to the United States Government about these matters, and that I was able to secure the release of all British detainees by January 2005?

Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that we should never forget the context: that the period covered by this report was the aftermath of the world’s most appalling terrorist atrocity ever, on 11 September 2001, and that in this period there was a continuing and profound anxiety about further terrorist outrages to come—anxieties that were all too well placed, as we all discovered on 7 July 2005?

Finally, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman agree that throughout this difficult period it was the exemplary professionalism and bravery of our armed forces and of the staff of our intelligence and security agencies which ensured that, in so far as was humanly possible, our nation and its people were kept safe?

[Mr Clarke]

I have the greatest respect for the right hon. Gentleman and I have considerable sympathy with him for the frustrating personal position in which he finds himself. There has been briefing around this matter and allegations have been made, and he has had no opportunity of appearing before Sir Peter and giving evidence, which he was anxious to do, and helping Sir Peter and the panel establish what actually happened during the period in question. He will now have the opportunity to do so when the ISC looks into these matters. Obviously, I cannot give any opinion on the issues the right hon. Gentleman raises because they relate precisely to what we are trying to get someone to investigate and reach a conclusion on, but it is certainly the case, as Sir Peter’s report makes clear, that one of the issues that will have to be looked at is whether Ministers were properly informed in full about what was going on and what necessary ministerial authorisation there was.

I also share the right hon. Gentleman’s final sentiment. I hope that all Members agree that we want the toughest and most effective intelligence services we can get and that we want our intelligence services to be at least as effective as those of any other nation. But we are a democracy and we also want to know that what they do is proportionate, complies with essential ethical standards and is authorised by a Minister, and that all the activities are carried out by people who are accountable to the Ministers responsible and to Parliament as well, when possible. That is the conclusion I hope we will eventually reach.

[Mr Andrew Tyrie (Chichester) (Con)]

The security services do a great job and they deserve our support, but I do not think this statement will help them. It is truly shocking that Britain has facilitated kidnap and torture, and the decision to abandon this judge-led inquiry will, I think, come to be seen as a mistake. Does the Minister agree that it is as essential for the standing of the intelligence services, on whom we depend, as it is for the wider public that we get to the truth about the extent of Britain’s involvement, as only that way can we restore trust? The Minister has said that the ISC will complete this work, but what confidence can the public have in its conclusions when that same body wrongly concluded that Britain was not involved in 2007, only to be flatly contradicted by a High Court ruling the following year? Is it not the case that the ISC’s new powers about which we have just heard are in any case heavily qualified—papers may be withheld on grounds of sensitivity and the ISC’s remit on operational matters is only permitted in certain circumstances?

[Mr Clarke]

First, I share my hon. Friend’s determination that we get to the truth of these matters and that they are investigated. Indeed, I share his concern that anybody from the United Kingdom should be involved in unlawful rendition, and I used to support his campaigns when we were both in opposition. I disagree with him about the way we are progressing now. The judge-led inquiry cannot proceed with taking evidence from people and publishing evidence alongside continuing police investigations which may or may not lead to some further criminal proceedings if anyone is eventually prosecuted. The question is do we, frustratingly, just continue to wait—I think it is more than three years since the Prime Minister made his statement—or do we seek to demonstrate that we really have now got a parliamentary Committee with the powers and authority required to do the job and report back to this House and the Prime Minister on its findings and recommendations?

I am sorry that my hon. Friend is dismissive of the Committee’s powers. He took part in the debates last year. We have considered them and the Committee has far more powers than it previously had. One of the things it will be looking at is how, when the previous Committee investigated treatment of detainees and rendition, it did not appear to have been supplied with information that was in fact being shared with others inside the Government and which had been assembled by the agencies for their own use. I think it is highly unlikely that that will be repeated and I think the present Committee can be relied upon to use the powers to demand papers and to go to the offices and look through the records of the agencies in order to revisit its conclusions on those matters.

[Margaret Beckett (Derby South) (Lab)]

May I ask the Minister to confirm my understanding of what he has said, which is that Sir Peter and his team have identified a large number of questions, many of them fairly familiar, to which they have been unable to find answers in the documents they have studied, and that in consequence they have not drawn conclusions? I ask him to reaffirm that that is the case, because my strong suspicion is that there will be those who will try to draw conclusions nevertheless.

[Mr Clarke]

Given that somebody has been briefing in advance, which I give the assurance is certainly not me or anybody with my authority, it is already clear that people are drawing the conclusions that we would anticipate them drawing if they already happened to be on one side of the argument or another before we started, and that, I am afraid, will continue. The right hon. Lady makes an extremely important point, and Sir Peter makes it clear at least twice in the report he is publishing today that it is quite wrong, and indeed impossible, to make findings of fact, and certainly any findings concerning any individuals involved, before he has called evidence, called them before him if necessary, given them an opportunity to explain and completed these investigations. That is why this inquiry identifies issues, which the ISC will now consider and decide whether and how to pursue. It has not made any findings of fact. In this country it would be quite wrong to make findings of fact of any kind, or to draw adverse inferences against anybody, when nobody has given any evidence, nobody has been challenged, and nobody has been given a chance to give their own explanation of events.

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

May I reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) that the agencies do not have the power to withhold sensitive material from the ISC, of which I am a member? If they wish to do so, they have to appeal directly to the Prime Minister. In every other respect, they have to give us what we want to see. May I also remind the House that the ISC has been keen to get to grips with this matter, and that it actually started its own investigation, which had to be stayed when the Gibson inquiry was set up? Finally, may I give the House a personal assurance that, notwithstanding the context of trying to bring Libya back within the comity of nations, there are members of the ISC—one third of whom are senior Labour Members—who, far from endorsing any whitewash, would take a great deal of convincing that it was ever reasonable, proportionate or justifiable to supply people to Colonel Gaddafi’s regime?

[Mr Clarke]

I endorse what my hon. Friend says about the determination of the ISC to help the House to bring these matters to a proper conclusion and to form its judgments on them in due course.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

Is not the heart of the issue the lack of effective accountability of the security services, and the fact that the ISC is not an ordinary parliamentary Committee? It is appointed by the Prime Minister and reports to him. Are not the Minister’s proposals just a way of sidestepping the need for a serious examination of the accountability issue and for holding an independent judge-led inquiry rather than the process that has been set out?

[Mr Clarke]

I have addressed that point already, and I would have hoped that my earlier answer would have satisfy the hon. Gentleman. My starting point is the same as his. We need the intelligence services, and I share the gratitude that many have expressed for the bravery and determination that they demonstrate in protecting the citizens of this country from the undoubted threats to their lives and safety. I want intelligence services that work properly. Indeed, I hope that they will steal the secrets of our serious enemies. I also hope that they will alert us to what those enemies are proposing to do, and help us to frustrate them. It is the experience of quite a number of people in this House that that is exactly what the intelligence services do, and that they do it very effectively.

It is also important, as the hon. Gentleman says, that what the intelligence services do is proportionate to the scale of the risk posed, that they are accountable and that, when they start going in for subterfuge, it is authorised by a Minister who is democratically accountable to this House. That is what marks out our intelligence services from those of totalitarian regimes, and that must always be the case. Those standards must apply to all the activities involved, including collecting data, surveillance and the activity of the agencies in the field. I am afraid that, in the modern world, such activities will always be necessary to protect the safety of our citizens, so long as we are not damaging our values and so long as we can be confident that everything is accountable and authorised by the proper people.

[Richard Ottaway (Croydon South) (Con)]

The Foreign Affairs Committee published its human rights report in October. In it, we expressed our concern that no progress had been made in agreeing with human rights groups how a successor to the detainee inquiry might proceed on a more transparent basis. I have heard what the Minister has just said about human rights groups, but given that we owe a lot to their efforts—there would have been no Belhaj investigation without them, for example—will he initiate discussions to see whether any common ground can be established?

[Mr Clarke]

It is also possible that there would have been no Belhaj investigation if someone in Colonel Gaddafi’s entourage had not carelessly left their papers lying about when fleeing Tripoli. That is no doubt one of the matters that will be inquired into in due course. I have the greatest sympathy with the human rights organisations; they are on the side of the angels, and they expound principles with which I wholeheartedly agree. However, I continue to believe—as I stated when we were arguing about closed sessions in civil proceedings last year—that they are being wholly unrealistic if they think that the intelligence services can be effective while the details of all their operations are being discussed in open court. We are not here to feed the media, or to help people who are gathering evidence for whatever civil litigation they might wish to bring. We are here to ensure that we have truly effective, working intelligence agencies that protect the citizens of this country. We make them accountable, but we also need to exercise common sense and have regard to their safety as we go about inquiring into their activities.

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

I welcome the report, and I believe that the whole House will welcome the statement from my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). We would expect nothing less from such a distinguished parliamentarian who has served the House and this country extremely well. May I reiterate the point that he made about the importance and desirability of oral evidence being taken? Much has been written about that, but perhaps we will now have the opportunity to set out the facts.

[Mr Clarke]

I very much hope so. Like me, the hon. Gentleman obviously regrets that it has taken three years to get to this point. I hope that the ISC will be able to report back by—who knows?—the end of next year.

[Rory Stewart (Penrith and The Border) (Con)]

It seems curious that, if a judge-led inquiry cannot proceed while a police investigation is going on, an ISC inquiry should be able to proceed. Another, more interesting, issue is the question of democratic accountability. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kensington (Sir Malcolm Rifkind) is a man of deep experience, and we are lucky to have him in the House. If the time should come when he decides to step down, however, we will need procedures of democratic accountability. Will my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister look into implementing the proposal in the Wright report that there should be an elected Chair of the ISC, subject to prime ministerial veto, who is ideally a member of the Opposition?

[Mr Clarke]

As I said in my statement, the problem with a judge-led inquiry is that it is normal, having taken evidence from witnesses, for it to produce evidence as the inquiry goes along. The ISC can proceed in whatever way it wishes, however, and it is not likely to do that. So we can start to proceed with the ISC inquiry, whereas to proceed with a judge-led inquiry could be more difficult and would certainly give rise to some controversy. I do not think that one route is necessarily preferable to the other, so long as both are strong, independent and effective in coming to their conclusions.

Whether we have done enough to strengthen the ISC will no doubt be easier to decide when it has completed the three important reports that it is working on. It is now looking into the background agency information on the murder of Lee Rigby, as well as examining the whole question of collecting material, surveillance and the balance between security and privacy. And it is now going to look into the considerable matters of detention and rendition, although I presume that it will not undertake all those inquiries contemporaneously. We wish the members of the ISC well in their labours; they have taken on a considerable amount of responsibility. If, at the end, we decide that the Committee needs to be strengthened further, that will be the time to look into that. It will not be a matter for me anyway; it will be for the House to decide on the procedures for appointing the Committee.

[Mr Speaker]

It is clear that the members of the Committee are not only immensely distinguished colleagues—it would be impossible to overstate the extent of their distinction—but destined to be very busy bees in the period ahead.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend has already mentioned this point, as has the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw), but may I reiterate how grateful we should be to the men and women of the security services? They often work in dangerous and lonely conditions, and they have to act with great gallantry, for which they get scant recognition. The House must recognise that fully.

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely with my hon. and gallant Friend. He understands how much the forces in the field, as well as the public in this country, depend on the accuracy of the intelligence available to them and on the ability of the people who work on our behalf to infiltrate the organisations with which we unfortunately sometimes find ourselves faced. I endorse all his sentiments in full.

[Mr Andrew Mitchell (Sutton Coldfield) (Con)]

My right hon. and learned Friend is to be commended for the candour and openness of his statement to the House today. Is it not clear that the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) was dealing with unprecedented and extraordinary circumstances in the aftermath of 9/11, and many people, of all different political persuasions, looking objectively at the decisions he took, will conclude that he discharged his duties then with complete responsibility and acted with total integrity?

[Mr Clarke]

I would expect that, certainly, and absolutely nothing in this report casts doubt on that integrity at all. The right hon. Member for Blackburn has the misfortune of being named in it because he had that most responsible office at the time, but he has already given his statement, as it were, to this House and it is quite obvious that the problems he was dealing with were immense and unprecedented, and that a great deal was done while he was Foreign Secretary to protect this country from further harm.

[Jacob Rees-Mogg (North East Somerset) (Con)]

Following on from the questions from my hon. Friends the Members for Chichester (Mr Tyrie) and for New Forest East (Dr Lewis), will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to give an undertaking on behalf of the Prime Minister that the reserve power to refuse sensitive information to the ISC will not be used?

[Mr Clarke]

As there is that reserve power, I cannot give an absolute guarantee that it will be a dead letter when we start. The Prime Minister is as anxious to get these matters resolved—to draw a line under them—as everybody in this House is. So it is inconceivable to me that the Prime Minister will be persuaded to start using reserve powers just to cover up embarrassment or to avoid the thing going too far, and I certainly hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) is reassured by that; it is not what the reserve power is for. Unfortunately, there are occasions when there are just disagreements about how dangerous it is, or otherwise, for particular information to be disclosed widely at all. The Prime Minister has the invidious task of making the final decision on that if a real conflict arises, but there is no reason to anticipate at this stage that the ISC and the agencies are going to be in any conflict that would give rise to that.

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

Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that perhaps the answer to the question posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is that the ISC’s proceedings will be covered by parliamentary privilege. Has an assessment been made of the effect of privilege on the course of the ongoing police investigation, as I suspect it would be helpful in making sure that the two inquires are kept separate?

[Mr Clarke]

It is certainly important that the two are kept separate. I seem to recall that when the ISC was given its new status there was quite a bit of discussion about the extent to which privilege would apply to this particular parliamentary Committee, which is of course set up by statute, which is not usual for most of the others. I assume that the ISC can afford the full protection of privilege to the witnesses who are called before it, and that, again, ensures that they cannot suddenly find that this is all being held against them if they find themselves later, by any chance, in the unfortunate position of having to give evidence about the same facts again.

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

I understand that there were junior operatives on the front line who were raising these issues quite early on and whose concerns were ignored by the management of many of the agencies. Can my right hon. and learned Friend reassure the House that procedures are now in place for those who have information to be able to blow the whistle and for their concerns to be taken seriously?

[Mr Clarke]

I will not try to paraphrase the report, but that is one of the things it raises; there were about 40 occasions when our officers were raising queries about the treatment of detainees they were involved with and sometimes joining in the interrogation of. The question is: how were the queries handled? Not all of them appear to have been referred to Ministers, but these are the issues that are raised. This does underline that the agents involved were perfectly alert, and had the usual sensitivities, to the fact that the foreign officers with whom they were liaising were not necessarily following the same standards that we would wish. The thing I should emphasise, and should have emphasised more as I have gone through, is that this is what the consolidated guidance put out by the Prime Minister underlined when he put it out; it provided absolute clarity, for the first time, about how such concerns should be handled, and gave much better and clearer guidance to the officers themselves about what they should do if they are becoming concerned about the conditions in which detainees are being held.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

These matters are clearly difficult for the police to investigate. My right hon. and learned Friend, like everybody else, is clearly frustrated at the amount of time this is taking. In his discussions with the Home Office, has he come to the conclusion that this is due to a lack of resources, of leadership or of co-operation with other Governments? What can be done to speed up the police investigation?

[Mr Clarke]

I wish I could find some way of speeding up the police investigation—I have wished that several times in the course of the past two or three years. But it is a fundamental principle that police investigations in this country are not subject to political control, and it is just not possible for a Government Minister to start intervening and questioning or second-guessing what the police are doing. I am assured that the police are carrying out thorough investigations and I only have estimates of when they might finish. That is why we have come to the situation, which has dissatisfied some of my colleagues, where we really have to get on and inquire into this, and the best way of proceeding is to put our new ISC to the test.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the Minister and to colleagues.

High-speed Rail

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Before I call the Chair of the Transport Committee to make the Select Committee statement, it might be helpful to the House if I explain, again, briefly the new procedure, to which it agreed recently and first used last week. In essence, the pattern is the same as for a ministerial statement. Mrs Louise Ellman will speak to her subject for up to 10 minutes—there is no obligation to take all that time—during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members who rise to put questions to Mrs Ellman on the subject of her statement and call Mrs Ellman to respond to those in turn. Members can expect to be called only once. These interventions should be questions and should be brief. Front Benchers may take part in the questioning, although it would be seemly for them to hold their horses, as I am keen first to hear the contributions of Back-Bench Members.

12:37

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

(Select Committee Statement): I am pleased to have this opportunity to make a statement about the Transport Committee’s recent report on high-speed rail. The crowded west coast main line currently combines long-distance inter-city, inter-regional and commuter passenger services, together with freight. Network Rail predicts that by the middle of the next decade the line will be unable to meet demand for new train paths and there will be increasing levels of overcrowding. In 2011, we looked in detail at the Government’s proposals for a new high-speed rail line from London to Birmingham and onwards to Manchester and Leeds. Phase 1 is due to be completed by 2025, and phase 2 by 2032-33. This proposed new line is a major piece of national rail infrastructure and must be seen as part of the wider rail network. We commissioned our own research into HS2, and considered the capacity the alternatives could provide. We concluded that only HS2 could deliver the step change in capacity needed to accommodate forecast long-term demand on the line.

Our new report looked again at HS2, in the light of the revised strategic case published by the Department for Transport in October and the research by KPMG on the line’s regional economic impact. The Department’s case rests on a prediction of 2.2% per annum growth to 2036. Demand is assumed to stop growing after that, only three years after completion of the line. Capacity remains the key issue and no new information has emerged to challenge the conclusion we reached on this question two years ago. Alternatives to HS2, based on upgrading the existing line and changes to train configurations, would not provide a long-term answer to the capacity challenge. These alternatives would themselves be costly and cause considerable disruption over a long period.

In addition to addressing capacity issues, the line will increase connectivity between our major cities. It can help to promote growth in the UK’s city regions and contribute to a rebalancing of the economy. This, however, is not automatic. Local authorities and local enterprise partnerships must develop economic development strategies to ensure that this takes place, and the Government must back these. The Department must become more proactive in ensuring that HS2, as part of the nation’s infrastructure, brings maximum benefit.

UK firms and workers must have the opportunity to secure employment from this major investment, starting with its construction. This requires specific initiatives to make businesses across the country aware of the possibilities. Action must be taken to enable all regions to benefit from improved services and a more successful economy. KPMG’s assessment of the regional economic impacts has generated considerable controversy. This is useful work, but there are limitations to its findings and the research should be developed further.

The report highlights the varying effects HS2 can have on different areas. This research reinforces the importance of taking steps to ensure that the benefits are spread as widely as possible. Work should now be prioritised to widen access to the high-speed network, improving journey times on the classic railway and promoting additional local and regional services on capacity freed up by the new line. This means that the Department, HS2 Ltd and Network Rail must work together.

Control of costs is essential. The estimated cost of HS2 over a 20-year period is £28 billion, plus £14 billion contingency and £7.5 billion for rolling stock. These are major amounts of money—

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

Will my hon. Friend give way? [Interruption.] I am sorry for trying to intervene.

[Mrs Ellman]

It is vital that the costs are actively managed.

Consideration should be given to speeding up delivery, including looking at options from building north to south, as well as northwards from London. Sir David Higgins, the incoming chairman of HS2 Ltd, should address this. Indeed, Sir David has already told the Committee that he will be looking at these issues, and we will be pursuing this further with him.

Concerns have been expressed that funding for the new line will squeeze other transport budgets. This is a serious issue. There is, however, no evidence that this is happening, looking at projected funding allocations, and we would not accept this situation if it arose. Vigilance is required.

Any major investment of this nature taking place over many years inevitably involves risks, but the risks of not going ahead with HS2 outweigh the risks of doing so. Without this investment, the west coast main line will become increasingly overloaded. Commuters will suffer overcrowding and delayed journeys. It would not be possible to provide new services, and the growth of rail freight will be stifled. Governments will be tempted to raise fares to control demand. The opportunity to reshape the economy and boost growth in the north and the midlands will have been lost. As our continuing debates about airport capacity show, once the opportunity to make a bold investment decision for the future has been missed, it may have gone for decades.

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

I congratulate the hon. Lady on taking part in this procedure, which is new and must be a little daunting. Perhaps she will forgive me for thinking that I was listening to another Government Minister presenting a report. I find it surprising, after two years, that the Transport Committee, whose role it is to scrutinise the Department for Transport, has produced a 27-page report—eight pages of which list contents, so it is probably a 19-page report—on what is, in effect, the largest infrastructure project in the western world. I hope her Committee will be returning to the subject again and again and asking the right questions.

Why did the Committee take oral evidence only from the supporters of HS2 or paid Government consultants, when there were 29 others who responded, including many of those who expressed criticisms of HS2? If the hon. Lady is so concerned about the control of costs, why is she advising the Government on how to spin their lines on cost by suggesting that they refer to a £28 billion sum, rather than the £50 billion that has been budgeted? If she is aware of the risks, as she said in her statement, can she tell me whether she has read all the Major Projects Authority reports on this project, and if so, can she tell us more about what she plans to do to identify those risks that are still being concealed by the Government?

Lastly, if Sir David Higgins has been asked to find ways of reducing the cost of HS2, and if the hon. Lady’s Committee has asked him to consider building phase 1 and phase 2 concurrently, and incorporating the Heathrow link in phase 1, what examination has she made of the effect of that on the bottom line of this project which—forgive me if I say so—may be pushing the price tag up even further?

[Mr Speaker]

I gently remind the House that the latitude that I thought it appropriate to extend to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) in the previous set of exchanges was exceptional and should not now be mimicked by other right hon. or hon. Members.

[Mrs Ellman]

The right hon. Lady raises a large number of questions. I will attempt to answer some of them, but I am mindful that other hon. Members wish to make a contribution and ask their questions in the limited time available to us.

I am aware that the right hon. Lady has a long-standing opposition to the project and that she is assiduously putting forward the concerns of her constituents. However, this is a national issue and I remind her that this report is a follow-up to a major inquiry conducted two years ago, where independent consultants were appointed to conduct new research into the specific alternatives put forward as possible replacements for the HS2 proposals. The recent inquiry considered 33 pieces of written evidence, in addition to the evidence we heard, and the issues raised in those written pieces of evidence were used as a basis for questions to the witnesses we had in front of us. We also questioned Sir David Higgins before his appointment to HS2 Ltd and we will continue to do so.

Costs are important, and it is important that those costs are broken down, so that people can see the individual components. Yes, I have read the reports, and ultimately those reports must be analysed against the need to provide continued capacity for the increasing demand on the line from passengers and for freight. This is a continuing process and the Committee will consider what further work it intends to do on this, together with the very detailed work that will take place on the hybrid Bill, should approval be given for that to go forward.

[Frank Dobson (Holborn and St Pancras) (Lab)]

It would be idle of me to pretend that I am in favour of this project. In view of the fact that the report pays very little attention to compensation and mitigation measures, will my hon. Friend agree to the Committee looking into the proposition that the measures for compensation and mitigation that apply in my constituency are not even half as good as those measures outside London? For example, it would cost an extra £170 million to put the HS2/HS1 link in a tunnel that goes under Camden Town—that, apparently, has been ruled out on grounds of cost—when £2.759 billion is being spent on tunnelling elsewhere, with £812 million being spent in the Chilterns alone?

[Mrs Ellman]

My right hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the serious issues relating to compensation, which might well affect his constituents, and I take seriously the points he raises. The Committee concentrated its inquiry on the project’s strategic impact. However, I accept that the points he raises are extremely serious. Our remit is to consider the strategic impact of the proposed investment. There are other avenues by which the issue he raises can be addressed, but I will report his comments to the Committee for its consideration.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on introducing the report. In another life I served very happily alongside her on the Transport Committee. She stated that the Committee’s support for HS2 is not unqualified, particularly with regard to the Heathrow connection. Has the Committee considered what impact the expansion of aviation in the south-east, whether through further capacity at Heathrow or elsewhere, would have on the project? Does she think that it would have been better to wait until we have the Davies report?

[Mrs Ellman]

I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman’s comments. He draws attention to the importance of having an integrated transport policy so that rail, road, aviation and maritime issues can be considered together, and the Committee made remarks of that nature in our initial report two years ago. However, decisions have to be made. The Committee repeats its concern that no decision has yet been taken on the serious question of a direct link to Heathrow. However, we do not have the remit to look at aviation policy at the moment. Indeed, our recommendation is that we think there should be a third runway at Heathrow, but we do not have the authority to take a decision on that. Currently the timetable set out by the Government means that the Davies commission will not report until the summer of 2015. No guarantee has been given on when a decision on airport capacity will be made after that, although I hope that it is soon. Given the timetable for High Speed 2, it seems impractical to say that no decision could be taken on that until well after 2015. However, the point he makes is important and well taken.

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

I welcome the report and place on the record my support for the High Speed 2 programme. I particularly endorse what my hon. Friend has said about the importance of connecting the strategy for HS2 with local and regional economic strategies. She will be aware of the fear that HS2 might serve to draw investment and business activity from north to south, rather than in the opposite direction, so it is important that proper economic planning takes place to address that. Does the Committee have plans to consider local transport strategies, which are important in ensuring a match between strategic plans for HS2 and the development of local economies, and for investment not only in local rail networks but in local bus networks, light rail and other forms of local transport?

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the great importance of local, and indeed regional, work being conducted to ensure that the potential benefits of High Speed 2 are enjoyed in all parts of the country. Initially, the responsibility for doing that is being taken up in some local areas—I know that a lot of work is being done in the west midlands and in the Manchester area—but it is not good enough to leave that entirely to those local and regional authorities. In the Committee’s future questioning of Ministers and High Speed 2 itself, and specifically Sir David Higgins, I intend to pursue that issue so that, as well as individual authorities taking their own initiatives, there is some kind of national oversight of what is being done. After all, this is one of the biggest national investment decisions to be taken for a very long time. There has to be some responsibility from the Government as well as from localities to ensure that its benefits are felt and that the work to ensure that that happens is carried out.

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

On a day when the newspapers are full of reports of the Chief of the Defence Staff’s concern that the armed forces are being hollowed out, does the hon. Lady understand why some of us feel that such a costly project betrays a warped sense of priorities? In particular, has her Committee devoted any attention to the fact that even in the short time that the project has been in the public domain the estimated cost has increased from about £30 billion to about £50 billion? What concept does she have of our being able to stick even to that higher figure?

[Mrs Ellman]

The report emphasises that costs must be controlled and that the whole programme must be actively managed to ensure that there is good value for money. In looking at value for money, we must consider the impact that the investment can have and the consequences of not making it. The consequences for the nation would be that our national network would not be able to deliver the results that are required for a prosperous economy that can benefit all parts of the country.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

I warmly welcome the Committee’s unanimous conclusion that there is a political, economic and transport case for building southwards, from Leeds and Manchester, at the same time as building northwards from London. I want to ask a specific question about the Committee’s support for building additional links between the conventional and the high-speed networks. It is already proposed that there should be a spur from the Yorkshire arm of HS2 to link with the conventional track at York, with high-speed trains running as far as Church Fenton, which is five miles from York. Would it be possible to upgrade that last five miles so that people in York, which is a major rail hub, could use high-speed services directly—an example of the sort of improvement in connectivity that the Committee is considering?

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend draws attention to the importance of connectivity and ensuring that all parts of the country benefit. He indicates a specific proposal that would improve connectivity to his constituency and the areas around it. I hope that he will put that proposal forward, perhaps developed by the local authority and the local transport authority, during the consultation so that it can be considered as part of the wider benefits of HS2. It is exactly the kind of thing that the Transport Committee advocates should be taken forward.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

It would be great if all the jobs were British, but does the hon. Lady agree that, under EU rules, it is highly unlikely that we will be able to keep all the work within the United Kingdom, and that we will have to have companies coming in from outside to build the track?

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. The issue of jobs is extremely important. It is absolutely essential that opportunities are given to UK companies and workers to take advantage of the employment opportunities that will be provided by this major scheme. The Committee has already raised this issue and been told that there will be a road show conducted by HS2 Ltd that will go across the country promoting job opportunities—similar to the way in which action was taken in relation to Crossrail. Following the road show, it is absolutely essential that Ministers become involved and ensure that the promotion of job opportunities is a major part of the scheme.

[Mr Andy Slaughter (Hammersmith) (Lab)]

I welcome the Committee’s continued support for HS2, as I welcome the investment in my constituency in the interchange at Old Oak Common. Would that support not be consolidated if we had certainty on matters, particular the Heathrow link, which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) mentioned? The Government seem as intent on delaying that decision as they are on pushing the project forward. At the very least, will my hon. Friend endeavour to ensure that the moribund proposal for an estuary airport is withdrawn? We might not agree on the number of runways we want at Heathrow, but if we had certainty that Heathrow would continue to thrive, we could resolve that issue, which would mean certainty on the route of HS2.

[Mrs Ellman]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. I agree about the importance of securing the Heathrow link. I repeat what I have said previously in relation to the possibilities of an estuary airport: the problems in relation to cost, environmental impacts and the need to close Heathrow airport and London City airport are likely to be insuperable barriers to its being pursued further.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

My constituents are understandably worried, as I am, that the KPMG report indicated that there could be a net economic disbenefit to Kettering of £50 million. Will the Transport Committee encourage the Government and HS2 Ltd to commission further research from KPMG or another independent body to try to assuage some of the genuine concerns in constituencies such as mine? If High Speed 2 does come, surely all of us would want it not to have a negative impact on large parts of our country.

[Mrs Ellman]

The hon. Gentleman raises very important issues. The KPMG report is a very useful piece of research that identifies areas that are due to benefit from High Speed 2 but also areas that would not benefit. When the Committee questioned KPMG about its findings, it became clear that some considerations had not been taken into account, including the latest information on rail improvements being planned for the areas concerned, the possibilities of rents being increased, and the impact of freight developments. Those are just some examples of aspects that had been missed out. Our report says that further reports should be commissioned, and I am sure that the Committee will take a continued interest in that. More research in this very important area should be pursued. It is vital not just that areas that are seen to benefit are made aware of that, but that areas that are worried that they would not benefit are able to get maximum support so that they could share in the positive aspects of HS2.

[Mr Sheerman]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. The fact that the hon. Gentleman sought to intervene on the Chair of the Transport Committee when I had indicated at the outset that the procedure was analogous to that of a ministerial statement, in which hon. Members should not intervene but rather wait their turn, suggests to me that he was not present at the outset to hear my wise words. Moreover, I have since been advised that he did indeed beetle into the Chamber a couple of minutes into the hon. Lady’s statement. The concepts of the hon. Gentleman, on the one hand, and brass neck, on the other, are by no means unrelated. In a spirit of Christmas generosity, on this one occasion I shall allow him to put his question, which I think he wants to hear and which he imagines that perhaps the House might also wish to hear.

[Mr Sheerman]

My office is a long way from here, Mr Speaker, and I ran as fast as I could. I apologise to you and to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman). She knows that I am a great admirer of hers and of the work of her Select Committee, and of Select Committees in general.

My hon. Friend also knows that I started off as a passionate supporter of HS2 until I started reading the international research that suggests that rather than empowering regional cities and making them more affluent and wealthy, such projects have the opposite effect and would drain even more power and influence away from the regions towards London and the south. The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills came out with a very similar view this morning. Did my hon. Friend take evidence about that research, and did she take evidence from the former Chancellor of the Exchequer? Why did she put so much emphasis on KPMG? Those of us who live in Yorkshire and saw what it did—or failed to do—in the banking sector do not trust KPMG further than we can throw it.

[Mrs Ellman]

I thank my hon. Friend for his question and thank the Speaker for permitting these important issues to be raised. The Committee questioned KPMG because it had conducted the most recent research on this very specific area. However, the Committee’s reports are based on contributors additional to KPMG.

When we conducted our original major inquiry two years ago, we visited France and Germany to see for ourselves the impact of high-speed rail. It became clear that there are major potential benefits to high-speed rail provided that the local and, in the case of France and Germany, regional authorities take advantage of them and provide the necessary economic development support to make them a reality. That is what I would like to happen here in the UK, and that is what the Select Committee report advocates.

[Mrs Gillan]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. In respect of this new procedure, I said to the House that an hon. Member may expect to be called only once. However, as the House will know, just occasionally hope can trump expectation. I call Mrs Cheryl Gillan.

[Mrs Gillan]

A very happy Christmas to you, Mr Speaker, and to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), who has dealt with the questions with charm and a great deal of skill. This is merely a point of clarification. In response to my earlier series of questions, the hon. Lady said that she had read the MPA reports on HS2. Can she confirm that that is the case?

[Mrs Ellman]

I have read the reports put forward on HS2. I have not read reports that have not been disclosed in public.

Point of Order: Rectification Procedure

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

On a point of order in connection with the code of conduct to rectify a failure fully to declare an interest, I call Mr Ian Murray.

[Ian Murray (Edinburgh South) (Lab)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker—thank you very much. On 11 September this year, I spoke in a debate on part 3 of the Transparency of Lobbying, Non-party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Bill, when I said:

“I also refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.”—[Official Report, 11 September 2013; Vol. 567, c. 1002.]

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards for the robust but fair way in which she has dealt with the complaint and the conclusion that she reached. Following her advice, I now recognise that I should have gone further than just drawing the House’s attention to the register and should have referred to the specific entry in the register that was relevant, and also should have done so earlier in the debate. I therefore apologise to the House.

[Mr Speaker]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, as the House will be.

Bill Presented

Energy Demand Reduction Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)

Sir Andrew Stunell, supported by Zac Goldsmith, Dr Alan Whitehead, Joan Walley, Mr John Leech, Mark Durkan, Kelvin Hopkins, Katy Clark, Natascha Engel, John McDonnell, Dr Julian Huppert and Mike Gapes, presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to draw up and implement a strategy for energy demand reduction; and for connected purposes.

Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 28 February, and to be printed (Bill 150).

Backbench Business

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Christmas Adjournment

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

13:07

[Mr David Amess (Southend West) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

I wish to raise a number of issues before the House adjourns for the Christmas recess, and I promise the House that I will get through them as quickly as I possibly can. There is a danger that I will appear grumpy throughout my speech, because I have a long list of complaints about all manner of things, but I assure the House that I intend to be cheerful right at the end.

You and I, Mr Speaker, care about this place, and anything I am going to say about it is in no way a criticism of your good self. Under your stewardship, you have introduced a number of changes to our proceedings. We get through the Order Paper and we have the Speaker’s lectures; there are all manner of things that I absolutely welcome. However, there are a number of developments in the House that I am not a fan of. I think it was a big mistake to change our Tuesday sittings to the hours that we have now. I very much regret that we have Prime Minister’s questions only on a Wednesday; I would like to return to 15 minutes on a Tuesday and a Thursday. The Press Gallery is constantly empty, and we need to look at what its purpose is these days. Since we changed our sitting hours, the wonderful staff of the House of Commons, who work so hard, have been affected. The catering facilities have been devastated, and that has had all sorts of repercussions for a number of our staff—I greatly regret that.

I am also worried about little things, such as access to the Crypt. When I first came here, I could press the bell to draw the attention of someone in the Members’ Cloakroom and gain admittance immediately, but now a song and dance seems to be made if Members want to take their constituents to see the Crypt. The point of this place, as I have always understood it, is that there were 646 democratically elected Members of Parliament and everyone worked here to support us in our work, but it is increasingly as if we are the strangers in our own place.

I think we should have a dedicated police and security force. I do not understand why that is not the case. It used to be a job for police officers as they approached retirement, but we are increasingly seeing new police officers every day and two or three officers carrying guns around. I do not understand what is going on.

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

As a previous Chair of the Joint Committee on Security, I have to say that the security threats to this place have increased over the years and that the idea of having only eminent but elderly police officers who are approaching retirement does not necessarily fit in with today’s policing needs.

[Mr Amess]

I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend. I have been here so long that one of the officers who carries a gun came up to me and asked, “Do you remember taking me around the House of Commons when I was a schoolboy?”, so I understand that things have changed dramatically in the time I have been here. I am not complaining about that; what I am saying is that there seems to be constant change in personnel. I think it would be better to have an established group who understand how the place works. I certainly do not approve of the constant, huge change.

I worry about this place. The damage started in 1997, when huge powers went to quangos. If the place were shut for a few weeks, would anyone notice? That is what I worry about. Where has the power gone from this place? I fully accept that I am no longer fashionable: I do not send e-mail Christmas cards, I am not on Twitter, I do not blog and I am not on Facebook.

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

My hon. Friend’s very life is a statement of fashion. On his point about where power has gone, this year’s Session must be the first time that Parliament has stopped a war on which the Executive were hellbent.

[Mr Amess]

I am so glad my hon. Friend has reminded me of that. I tell everyone that it has been a long time since my being here has made a huge difference, but I and other colleagues certainly made a difference over Syria. If only I had had the good sense to do that earlier on Iraq, things might be different.

My second moan is about the Chilcot inquiry, on which £7.4 million has been spent. I want the results, just as I did on Leveson. I have asked lots of questions and I am told that the reason for the delay is the huge number of recorded conversations involving the two previous Prime Ministers and President George W. Bush, but I am certainly not going to shut up on this matter. I want the Chilcot report and I want to know exactly what went on behind the scenes.

The Freedom of Information Act has led to all sorts of consequences for all of us. It is crazy that people can make requests without us knowing who they are or their addresses. Why do the media host abusive remarks that are very offensive to constituents and, occasionally, politicians, although, of course, we have extremely broad backs? It is absolutely gutless that we do not know who the people are or their addresses. There is no reason for the media to host such very offensive remarks, which are often about constituents.

On air pollution, there is a hidden killer among us, in the very air we breathe: small particles—particulates—created largely by processes of combustion. Once breathed in, they attack the cardiovascular system and cause excess mortality. The proportion of mortality caused by particulates in England is 5.4%, but in my constituency the figure is 5.7%.

Some of the environmental damage arises out of burning coal or biomass, but a lot also comes from the tailpipes of cars. In fact, particulate emissions from diesel have been increasing.

Road fuel gases offer impressive reductions in particulate loads. In fact, particulate emissions from cars running on road fuel gases are negligible. Thanks to a concession from a previous Conservative Government, fuel duty is lower on road fuel gases than on petrol and diesel.

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

The hon. Gentleman was making a very good point about emissions from cars, but then he spoiled it by making a party political point about fuel duty, which is neither here nor there. As a fellow east Londoner—the hon. Gentleman is originally from east London—I say to him that east London is in desperate need of river crossings. Opponents say that they would encourage traffic and create more emissions, but the emissions in east London are caused mostly by static traffic that cannot move because it is sitting on either side of the Blackwall tunnel. There are more bridges in west London and less pollution. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that pollution can be dealt with by moving traffic, as opposed to static traffic?

[Mr Amess]

The hon. Gentleman and I celebrated West Ham beating Tottenham 2-1 last night and I absolutely agree with him. I hope that a number of us will persuade the Government to support a new crossing.

The nice thing about cars running on gases is that they offer the motorist a cheaper and cleaner alternative. The autumn statement contained a 10-year pledge to keep stable the advantage of certain road fuel gases over conventional fuels. That is all to the good, but the road fuel gases that are being given that boost are used not in ordinary vehicles, but only in heavier or commercial vehicles. The only fuel to receive a knock in the statement was autogas—or liquefied petroleum gas—which is another road fuel gas used by 160,000 British motorists, so they have been put on the trajectory of a gradually reducing benefit from running cleaner cars. It seems an oversight to discriminate in favour of some fuel gases, so I hope the Treasury will look at that issue.

The hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) is the secretary of the all-party group on fire safety and rescue and I am its chairman. He and I know that it is becoming increasingly apparent that we are not learning many lessons from serious fire incidents. If we look at the causes of major incidents over the past few decades, we will see that there are many common features and similarities. One example is the 2009 Lakanal House tower block fire, in which six people were killed and 20 injured. Many of the causes of that fire, as well as other, more recent fires, were the same as the Summerland fire 40 years ago. The Summerland inquiry recommended that architectural training should include a much extended study of fire protection and precautions. Yet 40 years later, what on earth has happened? I believe that many lives are being lost unnecessarily because we are not implementing that advice. I hope the Government will do something about it.

I am also worried about the Disclosure and Barring Service, previously known as the Criminal Records Bureau. A number of my constituents have had issues with it and one constituent in particular—a young man with Asperger’s—is finding it very hard to find employment because of it. A DBS certificate is now needed before people can apply for many jobs, including in schools and even cleaning positions, but my constituent is not able to obtain such a certificate, because it has to go through a recognised organisation. Given that the certificate is required before people can start jobs, my constituent is in a very difficult position.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

Does the new system forbid me from taking my children and other children to a cricket match when it is a school event, or has that silliness been sorted?

[Mr Amess]

I am not sure it has been sorted, but I will write to my hon. Friend on that particular point. It is crazy that individuals are not able to make stand-alone applications but have to go through an organisation. That needs to be changed.

Last month, head teachers in Southend West had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Education. It was a first-class meeting in which the one issue they raised was their concern about school governors. Head teachers require advice and guidance on a vast array of issues in order to ensure that their school is well governed. Although parents may have the will and dedication to be school governors, they do not always have the specialised knowledge. Head teachers in Southend feel very strongly that they need more professionals from the financial sector. They would be an important asset to many school boards and would provide important and necessary advice. Not enough financial professionals are currently volunteering for such posts, so I hope that the Secretary of State will send out a message about getting more of them to be school governors.

Lots of my constituents have issues about the changes in how blue badges for disabled people work. I simply think that the new system is crazy. One constituent who has difficulty with mobility was previously eligible for a blue badge and had one for six years. I thought that as someone aged, they encountered more difficulties, but under the new system it seems that as they age, they suddenly become more able, which is crazy. Since the policy changed in April, my constituent has been told that he is no longer eligible and his appeal has subsequently been rejected. Only this morning, I was told that a young lady with one arm, for whom we managed to get a blue badge for the past three or four years, has suddenly had it stopped. That is absolute madness: something needs to be done and someone needs to take responsibility. On this occasion, I ask the coalition Government to fix the problem.

I am the chair of the all-party group on hepatology, and hepatitis is a public health issue of great concern to me. Public Health England estimates that some 215,000 people are living with hepatitis C in the UK, and it is shocking that many of them remain undiagnosed. Hep C is an infection that causes significant liver damage, potentially resulting in cancer, and it can go undiagnosed for many years owing to the lack of symptoms or their generic nature. Despite the high figures, further data from Public Health England suggest that if treatment was increased to just 10% of those with moderate hepatitis C and 20% of those with more advanced hepatitis C, the number of people experiencing liver failure or liver cancer would fall by more than 2,000 in the next 10 years. In my constituency, Southend University Hospital NHS Foundation Trust ranks 31st among hospitals in England for the use of hepatitis B and C treatment, according to the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s innovation scorecard, and that could certainly be improved.

I have received constant criticism from my constituents about SEPT—South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust—mental health services. All hon. Members know that mental health services are Cinderella services, but when we meet constituents who have a loved one with a mental health problem and we try to get assistance for them, we find that services are often lacking. I hope in the new year to have a dedicated Adjournment debate on that subject.

For anyone who wants to know, mental health services in my area were headed until last month by Dr Patrick Geoghegan. When I was the MP for Basildon, he was a hospital porter. I am not sure how someone goes from being a hospital porter to being the chief executive—I think that he was paid £230,000—but I could go on and on about it. He took retirement last month, but the culture continues: he has been replaced by his long-serving deputy. That situation is simply not good enough. I have complained to Monitor, the Care Quality Commission and the health service ombudsman, but I seem to be getting absolutely nowhere, so I ask the Deputy Leader of the House—I think that he smiles occasionally—to have a word with the Minister of State, Department of Health to see whether he can be more robust on the issue.

At this time of year, we think about animal welfare. I spoke in a debate on live animal exports last year, including about how the long-distance transport of live animals causes them huge distress. The exotic pet trade, in particular, is a huge cause of animal suffering. It is also a conservation issue for some species, a concern to human health and safety, and a possible source of invasion by non-native species, which costs the United Kingdom about £1.7 billion every year in management and control.

In 2002, I co-sponsored a ten-minute rule bill, the Endangered Species (Illegal Trade) Bill, which called for increased penalties under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act 1976, including in relation to exotic pet trading. If only that Bill had become law 11 years ago, we would not be in the mess we are in now. It would be good to have a wider debate about the Belgian and Dutch models, in which a positive list limits the type of animals that people are allowed to keep. That is supported by the Federation of Veterinarians in Europe.

I will end on a cheerful note. I have a constituent called Ray Woodcock, a great granddad, who recently broke the Guinness world record for the highest bungee jump into water. He jumped 383 feet from a crane into a flooded quarry to raise money for the Southend Taxi Drivers Charity Fund for Children. I think that is absolutely marvellous.

I want to link that to my final point, which is about the city of culture. Hon. Members will be aware that I was somewhat disappointed that Southend was not chosen as the city of culture for 2017, but I am delighted to tell the House that Southend was selected last month as the alternative city of culture. The launch took place at Genting casino, with Patti Boulaye announcing who had won as the alternative city of culture. We also had James Bourne, Jo Wood and an array of celebrities—Bruce Forsyth and Lee Mead are supporting us—of which the list goes on and on. I have to tell the House that, as of a month ago, Southend-on-Sea is at cultural war with Hull city: the Thames versus the Humber; Leigh-on-Sea fish versus faggots; Southend United versus Hull City. Between now and 2017, the United Kingdom and the world will realise how rich the culture is in Southend.

Madam Deputy Speaker, I wish you and everyone who works here a very happy Christmas and a wonderful new year.

13:27

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

I join the hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) in wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the House staff a happy Christmas and a great 2014. It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Gentleman, a fellow West Ham supporter, especially on the day after one of our rare wins this season, which has struck a cheerful note. I will not speak on as many subjects as he did. I want to cover only two—the Deputy Leader of the House is nodding in approval—which are the individual case of my constituent Mrs Afsana Lachaux, and the firefighters pension dispute, about which I shall speak briefly.

Afsana Lachaux is a friend of mine, who has been a constituent. She moved to Dubai, but is now stranded there. She is a UK citizen and a Muslim in a Muslim country, but being a woman, she is at a great disadvantage because she is in dispute with her husband over the custody of their child following the breakdown of their relationship.

For nearly three years, I have tried to help the family to resolve this case. I had very good support from the former Foreign Office Minister, the right hon. Member for North East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt), and I have engaged with the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Hugh Robertson), while our staff in Dubai have also tried to do what they can to help, so I am not making any criticism about that. There has been criticism from the family, who do not think that enough is being done by me, the Foreign Office or our consular staff in the Emirates, but if I was in the family’s position, I would probably feel exactly the same. Their relative—their mother, their sister—has been completely stranded. She has been accused by her estranged husband, who has a record of domestic violence, of all manner of criminal activities. She has been arrested by the Dubai police. She has been jailed. She has been beaten up. She has had the most horrendous experiences at the hands of the Emirati authorities in Dubai.

Sadly, although Afsana is a Muslim, because she is a woman in a Muslim country and because she is being reported by a man, even though he is French and, I believe, is not a Muslim, she has to explain and defend herself to each set of police officers who come to arrest her and, when she goes to report at police stations and is detained, she has to go through the elaborate process of explaining her circumstances all over again. She is not able to work and is surviving on what her family can send to her from London.

To compound Afsana’s misery, she found out last month that her husband had divorced her and had successfully sued for custody of their child in a sharia court in Dubai more than 12 months ago. The rule in the UAE and under sharia law is that if 12 months have lapsed and the decision of the court has not been challenged, it is no longer appealable and is upheld. She was divorced and lost custody, but was not even aware of the fact.

As Members can imagine, this woman, who has been brutalised, feels totally isolated, completely let down by everybody in authority and persecuted by the authorities in Dubai. She has now found out that she has lost those legal cases. That is a dreadful situation to be in.

I am taking the opportunity to raise the matter this afternoon to demonstrate to the family that people here care about Afsana and that the Foreign Office and the consular officials are working on the case. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, has agreed to meet me and I have had meetings with his predecessor on the matter. We have tried to meet the French ambassador. I have had a meeting in the past two years with the UAE ambassador. Sadly, given that child custody is involved and given the nature of the case, it is very difficult to penetrate the legal procedures in the Emirates and in Dubai.

I want to place on the record my appreciation for the efforts that have been made. I hope that we can redouble them to help Afsana escape and to challenge the custody decision of the courts in Dubai. Afsana’s sister, Rosina Aman, who is my constituent, and her son, Rabbhi Yahiya, will appreciate everything and anything that can be done to help their relative.

The second issue that I want to raise is the firefighters pension dispute. There is pretty much consensus among those on both Front Benches that the retirement age for firefighters had to be changed. That was certainly the case when I was fire Minister. The terms of the pension scheme were that firefighters had to take compulsory retirement after 30 years’ service or on reaching the age of 55. It was felt that a number of firefighters could work and wanted to work past that. The changes to the rules were supported by the Labour Government and they have been amended recently by the coalition.

There has been a big change in the situation that has led to the fire disputes that have raged across our country for months. When we put forward our proposals, my understanding was that firefighters would not be penalised if they had to retire early on the basis of fitness or health and that their pensions would not be unfairly reduced if they could not stay on until 60. That has changed partly because of the cuts, partly because of austerity and partly because of the success of the fire service in reducing the number of calls, fires, deaths and injuries. That is partly the result of better building regulations and procedures being introduced over the past 50 years, notwithstanding the point that the hon. Member for Southend West made about fires, which was entirely valid. Overall, because we mostly live in double-glazed and insulated homes with central heating and because fewer people smoke, there are fewer fires. The fire service’s education and prevention teams have been extremely successful in reducing the number of fires, and therefore the number of injuries and fatalities. The authorities therefore think that we need fewer firefighters and fire stations.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that we discard far too early the experience of firefighters who have given most of their lives to saving lives? If firefighters are not fit to do the really physical work, there are key jobs that they can do in fire prevention, fitting smoke alarms and giving general advice to all sorts of public authorities. Their experience should be used for the betterment of society, not thrown away.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because that is exactly the point that I was trying to establish. When we anticipated the extension of the retirement age to 60, we did not think that every operational firefighter would be fit and healthy enough to work until 60. We thought that opportunities would be found for them in back-room jobs in fire prevention, school education and all manner of support roles to ensure that we took advantage of, and did not waste, the experience that they had accumulated over many years on the front line. However, because of austerity and the cuts and reductions that have been made in the service because we do not need as many fire stations and firefighters, there are many fewer such positions for firefighters who are not fit to fulfil other duties.

Under the new rules that the Government are trying to push through, firefighters are faced with a massive reduction in their pension if they go before 60. We never anticipated that there would be such a punitive element in the pension arrangements because, as part of the new deal, firefighters are being asked to contribute another 2.6%, which takes their deductions up to 12.6%. Many of us know the fire Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), and we have a lot of time for a number of the things that he does. Everyone on the Government Front Bench keeps describing the firefighters pension scheme as generous. It is a good scheme, but they are expected to pay 12.6% for it and the reason for that is deaths and injuries. The scheme is valid and valued, as it ought to be, because of the nature of the job.

Colleagues regularly stand up in this House to applaud the role that has been played by the emergency services in dealing with some tragedy, disaster, flood or storm. These people risk their lives for us on a daily basis. In their view, they are being forced to take industrial action because nobody is listening. They might have to take a hit of up to a 50% cut in their pension because they cannot last until 60. I am 61 and am relatively fit. I know what that job is about because I did it for 23 years. I know what it is like to be on strike. No emergency service worker wants to go on strike. They risk their lives for 365 days a year and then they have to walk out the door and deny the community that they want to protect the ability, discipline and professionalism that they have built up.

This is a monstrous situation. My appeal to the Deputy Leader of the House is that he takes the strong message back to the fire Minister, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and the Prime Minister that we need serious negotiations. As the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) said, if there are places for firefighters to work away from the front line, they will fill those places.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I will raise this matter, among others, when I speak. My hon. Friend should be aware that the general secretary of the Fire Brigades Union has received a letter from the fire Minister that is dated 18 December, which suggests that he is willing to meet again. The union is responding immediately because it is willing to meet the Minister any time, any place. However, there must be serious negotiations to settle the dispute. There is the potential to avoid strike action if the Minister is serious.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend because it is excellent news that the fire Minister has held out an olive branch to the Fire Brigades Union by saying that he is prepared to sit down with it, and that the union is contacting the Department for Communities and Local Government to set up the meeting. Nobody here wants to see any more fire strikes. Another series of strikes has been announced but I am convinced that nobody in the fire service wants to see more strikes. The last thing that the general public want to see is the withdrawal of any emergency service, with the cost and disruption that it causes to the authorities who have to provide the best possible cover.

In conclusion, I am grateful to the Foreign Office for what it is doing. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) for indicating that the fire Minister has extended an offer of talks. I hope that those talks take place. Like the hon. Member for Southend West, I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff a very happy Christmas.

13:40

[Sir John Randall (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Con)]

To me, this is a bit like groundhog day; this debate seems to have come full circle. The only difference is that I used to be on the Opposition Benches when I took part in it. I am delighted to see that some of the familiar faces from recess Adjournment debates are still around. It is one of the best opportunities we have to raise issues that we cannot always raise over the course of the Parliament.

As I said, I possibly come a little bit like the ghost of recess Adjournments past, and Members who are listening keenly may be able to hear the jangling of chains from my previous jailors, which I have not quite thrown off. Keeping to the Dickensian theme, I come here, as always, with “Great Expectations”, but I am rather of the Micawber school and think that something will turn up. There was a lot to be said for Mr Micawber, and his view of economics is one we would all share in with regard to annual income and expenditure. Hon. Members across the House ought to remember that.

While on the subject of Mr Micawber, when my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) spoke about culture and Southend—the two words are closely linked—I was reminded of an excellent production of “David Copperfield”. Mr Micawber, and various other roles, were played by a gentleman called Adrian Preater from Hotbuckle Productions, which is touring around the country. If any hon. Members wish to see that production in one of their local theatres, I can probably supply them with upcoming tour dates in the spring, and would be happy to do so. At the moment—I am reticent to say this, Madam Deputy Speaker—the company is appearing in a pantomime in Walton-on-Thames and doing MacLaddin. I am afraid that is somewhat Scottish in nature, and possibly takes a rather comical view of that, which I am sure would be disapproved of, although I hope to go and see the production at some stage. I am plugging the company so much because I am hoping for a role in its pantomime next year, and that at least one colleague from across the House will join me as one of the other ugly sisters, or something. We will have to see.

I have a few areas bottled up that I wish to discuss, and I will try not to detain the House for too long. My remarks will be more a trailer of things to come in the coming year; I will not really touch on some of the big feature films such as High Speed 2 and the third runway, because those will probably run and run. While we all enjoy Christmas, however, there are many people affected by those major transport infrastructure plans who have yet another year of great uncertainty ahead.

In my borough—not in my constituency but that of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (Mr Hurd)—are the wonderful, superb facilities offered by Hillingdon outdoor activities centre. That is very much under threat because a certain railway is planned to go straight through its middle and it will not be able to function. We are all trying to find a site for its relocation because it is a fantastic facility. It is not just for young people; it has lots of facilities for disabled people and serves a wide area. It is almost unique and must be found a new home if HS2 goes ahead.

We are discussing those who will have an uncertain Christmas and future, and I know the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) will almost certainly mention what will happen to many of his constituents who face losing their homes, places of worship and, as we know, the places where the dead are buried. Those serious issues concern us greatly and I understand the passion they engender.

We are lucky to have in the Colne valley a lot of gravel pits that are used for various things such as sailing and wildlife habitats. I shall visit the Broadwater site in January to see whether anything can be done to relocate the Hillingdon outdoor activities centre there.

I must declare my interest as a member of four wildlife trusts. It is always difficult to balance different interests with different habitats. Apart from looking at the impact of HS2 on my constituency, I will look seriously at its impact on ecology all along the line. Not too far from my constituency, a little further up the line, are colonies of Bechstein’s bats. That may not seem the most pressing issue, but they are an endangered species in Europe and we must take serious note of that, as well as many other things. Although it is unlikely that Mrs Randall is listening to this debate, I am hoping she knows that on my Christmas list is a bat detector. I now have a bit more time and I am going to try to find where all the bats are. They can be detected by their different frequencies. In the new year, if anyone sees me walking around holding something in my hand outside the House of Commons or in the environs of the Palace, I will be trying to find out “who’s bats” and where they are.

Reading the report earlier, I noticed that HS2 will also impact on the barn owl population, although there are some measures to address that. I hope that when HS2 Ltd looks at such matters, it will take the advice of wildlife trusts, and others, on how to mitigate the impact of the project.

The country can set an example, but on an international scale there is one pressing area in which I know the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been active and where we must keep up the pressure. The Virunga national park in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is threatened because 80% of the land has been allocated for oil concessions. It was, I think, the first wildlife park, and it was set up a long time ago at the beginning of the 20th century. It contains important biodiversity, including mountain gorillas and okapis. We must keep up that pressure, and although it is not strictly within our competence, this country is in a position to lead on those issues.

Where we do have competence is in our own country, and in the forthcoming months I shall raise the issue of the protection of our upland habitats. England’s habitats are vital stores of beauty, biodiversity and sequestered carbon, but they seem to be mismanaged. They sustain populations of endangered or critically listed species such as black grouse, curlews, hen harriers and freshwater pearl mussels. Despite the protection that has been afforded in many ways, a lot of bird species have declined in numbers.

While not wishing to seem too ambitious with my Christmas list, I have asked for something else—in fact, I have actually purchased it to ensure I get it because by and large in this world it is better to make sure we get what we want. It is an excellent piece of work—a bird atlas—compiled recently by the British Trust for Ornithology. It is a follow-up to a previous work, and before any of us had heard of the big society, this was an example of the big society in action. Volunteers go throughout the British isles, map the bird species they have seen over a period of several years, and then put them into a huge compilation. The important thing this time around is that we can compare it with the previous one, which I think was published 10 years ago, and see exactly what has improved and what species have declined. Some populations have declined dramatically—the whinchat population is down by 57%; curlews are down by 44%; and lapwings by 32%—and we have to take note of that. There have been huge reductions in some species. Not all of those problems are man-made. Some are due to climate change. However, there are things we can do.

One of the things that I am most upset about is the striking loss of a species called the hen harrier. The male hen harrier is a magnificent grey creature. The female is also magnificent, but not quite so grey—more brown, really. It is estimated that its habitat in England could sustain more than 300 pairs. Last year was the first time ever that no hen harriers bred in England—a direct result, I think, of man’s intervention. Unfortunately, one habitat that hen harriers like is the grouse moor—grouse are one of their favoured prey. You can probably sense, Madam Deputy Speaker, where the conflict lies. Grouse moors are managed commercial interests. However, they do not have to be managed quite in the way they are and some offences that are committed will be criminal.

A recent report by the Law Commission set out recommendations following consultation on potential changes to wildlife law. Much in the report was very good. I was a little disappointed to see that it did not go down the line of suggesting that the Government should introduce a provision for vicarious liability, where employers are legally responsible for wildlife crimes committed by their employees. I know that is a contentious subject, and if I was still in the Whips Office I would be tut-tutting because it falls into the “rather difficult” category. However, we cannot afford to lose species such as the hen harrier just because commercial interests have taken the view that wildlife is in their way. We must do something about it.

The first wildlife laws were introduced in 1954. I am pleased to say that it was 10 years later, in 1964, when I was a very small boy, that I first became a member of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds. I have been a member for 50 years. It is an interest that was with me a long time before I gained all the other interests that I mention in this House or elsewhere.

On the subject of crime, legal aid charges for the criminal Bar have not previously been within my competence or even interest, but I have suddenly become aware of them. Raising this matter will, unfortunately, put me slightly at odds with some of my colleagues, but I think these things have to be said from time to time, and at Christmas they may just forgive me for doing so. I am lucky, because I am not a lawyer—the legal profession is probably very lucky that I am not one too, but that goes without saying. I have discovered that the criminal Bar and criminal barristers are receiving a real-terms reduction of 30% in very high cost cases, and there are other reductions as well. In real terms, they are losing income. It is very easy for us in this House to think of all barristers as being extremely well paid and that they can afford it and so on. That perception is rather like the one of Members of Parliament: we are portrayed as always being extremely well paid, and that we can do without this and that.

Sometimes the truth is not always the popular perception. In fact, only a few—a significant few—earn very high fees. The level of competence in defence cases will be reduced, because chambers will use their most junior members. I apologise to the legal profession for not quite understanding exactly what goes on, because I try to keep well away from the law—I find, by and large, that that is a useful thing to do. I can see, however, after talking to people, that the reductions could lead almost to the extinction of the self-employed criminal Bar as a specialist referral profession of excellence. There will be an increase in cost to the taxpayer eventually, even though the reason for the reductions is to make savings; I will come back to the issue of savings in a moment. There might also be an impact on the quality of the judiciary, because the judiciary are promoted from the criminal Bar and people will have been taken out of the system. What worries me most is that what we value most highly in this country is, I think, our legal system: the jury system and the fact that people can get a high-quality defence when they need it.

I understand why we have to make savings— Mr Micawber was right. I also understand, however, that there are costs involved with prisoners not turning up on time. I am sure that if I was sitting on the Opposition Benches I might mention some of the organisations, which are more private than public, that are responsible for bringing prisoners to court. The interpreter system is costly and sometimes interpreters are not always there at the right time. Any delays in the court system—aside from the potential misery caused to defendants, the prosecution and witnesses—bring with them a large element of cost. That all has to be looked at, and I will return to that. I may have to do a bit more work on understanding how it all works—I always think that when people talk about the Bar, they are talking about something else, but I shall have to move away from old habits.

Moving effortlessly on to my final remarks, as I mentioned earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West, one of my previous roles was Chair of the Joint Committee on Security. In that role, I found a greater understanding of how this place is secured and looked after. I would like to thank publicly the work of the police and the security people in this place. I would also like to thank the Metropolitan police. I was listening to the “Today” programme earlier and the Metropolitan police have not had the best of years. That always happens when one or two things have gone wrong, or when there has been a bad apple. That can happen, as we know, in every walk of life and in every profession. We should not lose our faith in the Metropolitan police and we should thank them for what they do. While we are back at home on Christmas day, or whatever we are doing over Christmas, police will be guarding the Palace of Westminster. They will be outside Downing street, whatever the weather, and potentially subject to real threats. I remember going out with the police a few years ago. They had just had a call through to go to a pub where a big fight was going on. They did not know what to expect—there could have been knives or firearms—but they went out of the van unarmed. We owe them all a huge debt of gratitude. I still think, as I am sure many other Members do, that we have the finest police service in the world.

I would also like to thank publicly—because they are not seen publicly—the civil servants who helped me when I was in the Whips Office, both in opposition and, more especially, in government. They were wonderful. They had to put up with all sorts of things going on. Do not think for one minute, Mr Deputy Speaker, that government is anything but a smooth and efficient operation without crises and so on, but occasionally such things might happen, and at those times two people in particular, Mr Roy Stone and Mr Mark Kelly, have been on hand. Normally they work under the title of “the usual channels”, but they are more than that; they are absolutely unusual in their devotion to duty and their abilities. I would like to put on the record my thanks to them.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was not deputy Chief Whip, but I was Vice-Chamberlain of the Household, and I saw at first hand the excellent work of “the usual channels”, which must be one of the most modest generics ever dreamt up for two of the most professional civil servants that one could possibly come across. I fully endorse everything the right hon. Gentleman says about the usual channels.

[Sir John Randall]

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that. We know exactly how hard those people work.

In conclusion, Mr Deputy Speaker, I would like to wish everybody in the House, regardless of what side they sit on or what their views are—even, just about, those who want to build a runway in my borough—a happy Christmas. We are going to have an exciting new year. That is my promise to hon. Members.

14:01

[Eric Joyce (Falkirk) (Ind)]

I want briefly to talk about eating disorders, a subject that I have become aware of in detail recently and which deserves a lot more time. I have done a wee bit of research, and although it might have been discussed at length in this place, I do not know that it has, so I think it deserves more time. I will briefly mention it now, and then perhaps go away, do a bit more research and come back to speak about it in the new year. It would not do for a Member to speak about something they did not know much about, would it? That would never happen.

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

It happens every day.

[Eric Joyce]

No way. I cannot believe that level of cynicism, to be perfectly honest. We all research our subjects well before speaking.

I recently became aware of several such cases in the UK, including in the English health system—I am not simply talking about my own constituency, in Scotland, where this is a devolved issue. The number of young people suffering from eating disorders, particularly anorexia, has grown considerably. They tend to be in their early teens and they tend to be girls, although not always. It becomes obvious to parents when their child loses a substantial amount of weight, which can happen quickly, and there are various patterns that are easily observed. In the first few stages, it will sometimes seem that the child is trying to lose weight, perhaps to fit into a dress, because of fashion imperatives or whatever. Some weight is lost quite quickly, and the parents will be watching, but not necessarily thinking it a medical issue.

Then it continues. Over a brief period of perhaps three or four months, I child can lose 25% of their body weight. A child who is, say, 8 stone or 8 stone 2 lbs can drop below 6 stone very quickly before the parents have grasped what is going on. Then, they will alert their local GP, who might, or might not, be completely switched on to the subject, and in due course, they might, or might not, get a referral to local services dealing with that kind of thing. The hon. Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) briefly referred to mental health services in his area. The configuration of those services is pretty much the same in most areas, as far as I can see, although they operate slightly differently in Scotland.

By the time it gets to the NHS, the problem will usually be quite advanced. Often, if the child continues to refuse to eat, they will be admitted to accident and emergency in a period of weeks because their vital organs will be starting to fail, and they will be going slightly mad—that is my non-clinical term. The essence of it is that once a child gets to that stage, it is very hard and takes a long time for them to recover, because people have to persuade them of the common sense of eating—that it is good for them, that they should treat food like they would medicine. It will take years and years to get that child back on track, if ever they do get back on track, so it is essential that the disorder is identified earlier.

It is clear from reading papers by excellent organisations such as Beat that there is a gap in provision. Beat is an organisation that works on this issue, and I urge Members to google it and look at its website. The gap in provision is no one’s fault, as such; it is simply that the NHS, despite a considerable increase in funding over the past 10 or 12 years, is hard pressed. It works its budget hard, but by the time people approach the local services for those with eating disorders, they do not have the resources.

This is a subject that should concern everyone in this place. Having spoken to a lot of people about this, I have noticed that if someone has a child heading towards being admitted to A and E, their best chance is to put them in a private hospital using private resources. There is a clear pattern. The NHS will do what it can, but if someone can afford private health care, the child will stand a much better chance. This is not just about jumping the queue or opting for minor elective surgery; it is about life and death—some 20% of sufferers actually die—and the well-being of young men and women over many years. If a parent can beg, borrow or steal the cash, my advice, unquestionably, would be to use private provision.

We should all be sitting up and paying attention to that, because it is clear that the relevant services in the NHS are overwhelmed. Hon. Members might have a few cases, but my instinct is that we will all have more of them in the relatively near future, because it is a growth area. People are still not terribly sure what eating disorders are, but I can assure hon. Members, from the cases I have looked at, that they are devastating for those involved, and it is clear—this is what worries me most—that private provision is people’s best chance. The NHS should look carefully at how it resources its relevant mental health services for eating disorders.

I will stop there, Mr Deputy Speaker, except to wish you and every Member of the House a wild and crazy, or quiet and pleasant, Christmas.

14:07

[Jeremy Lefroy (Stafford) (Con)]

It is a great honour to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce). If he wishes, I invite him to my constituency, because South Staffordshire and Shropshire mental health care trust has an excellent unit dealing precisely with eating disorders. I had the pleasure of visiting it a few months ago, at the invitation of Sarah Robertson, a constituent of mine. He is most welcome to come and see the excellent work it does and find out more about it.

I wish to remember the men and women of 3 Mercian who are currently serving in Afghanistan. It is one of the regiments due to be disbanded, but I am glad that the name of the Staffords will be remembered. As my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) will know, it will be combined—we hope—with the names of the Cheshires and the Sherwood Foresters.

[Bob Stewart]

It is definite that the Staffordshire regiment will live on in the Mercian regiment. It must do. It is a great regiment. It will combine with the Cheshires and the Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters. From my point of view, as an ex-Cheshire officer, we will get a huge number of Victoria Crosses when the Staffords join us; my regiment only has two.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. We all share his sentiments, and our thoughts and prayers are with 3 Mercian and the other regiments and units serving in Afghanistan, including the tactical supply wing of the RAF, which is also based in my constituency.

I want to dwell for a moment on the report of the trust special administrators on the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust, which came out yesterday. There are a number of good things in the report. Within the remit they were given—I think that that will need to be considered by this House because it needs quite a lot of change—they have done some good things. Those include recommending a merger of the University Hospital of North Staffordshire with the Stafford element of the Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. They have also recommended that Cannock hospital goes to the Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals Trust. For Stafford, that is a good thing. We will become part of a large university hospital trust and be able to share services across a wider area. In addition to the excellent staff that we already have, we will be able to attract high-quality staff from across the country.

We are also retaining our accident and emergency department. At the moment, it is open for only 14 hours a day, but that is better than the nothing that was proposed earlier this year. However, I still believe that we need a 24/7 A and E department. Perhaps our use of the current department will reveal the need for an increase in hours, but at least we have retained the department and we can build on it in the future.

We have also retained acute services. At the start of the year, it was thought that Stafford would become a community hospital—not an acute hospital. I am glad to say that those fears have not been realised. The recommendations also include, for the first time, provision for a frail elderly unit, which is incredibly important as it builds on the work of the Cure the NHS group, founded by Julie Bailey, and the Francis report that came out as a result of that. I hope it will be a beacon for the care of elderly people across the country. It will show that in Stafford we can do such things to the highest standards. We will also have a large range of other services. The trust special administrators have said that 90% or more of current attendees at Stafford and Cannock will be able to continue to use those services. Cannock hospital has also been retained. In fact, more work will go on at Cannock, 60% of which has been unused for many years. I welcome that, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley).

A lot of good things are going on in Stafford, and I welcome that. However—and this is a big however—there are things that I oppose and will continue to oppose, the most important of which revolves around paediatric services. Yes, there will be a paediatric assessment unit, but it will be linked with A and E and, therefore, open for only 14 hours a day. That means that children who get sick overnight will have to travel 20 or more miles to the nearest unit. That is not acceptable for my constituents or indeed for the constituents of surrounding constituencies. In addition, it will not be a consultant-led paediatric unit, and it will have no in-patient beds for children. That is a problem for children who turn up at night with serious illnesses, or perhaps a very high temperature. Their parents will be extremely worried and will want their child to be taken in and observed for perhaps a day or two before they return home. If the child’s condition is more serious, they will want them sent to a major unit such as in Stoke or Birmingham.

Provision for those who need in-patient child and adolescent mental health services in Staffordshire—indeed, throughout the country—is not nearly sufficient. Our general hospital in Stafford takes in a number of such young people, some of whom are suicidal. It should not have to do that, but it takes them in because there is nowhere else for them to go. I do not believe that the administrators’ proposals take that into account, although the issue was raised in the consultation.

The original proposals said that no women could give birth in Stafford, unless they were having a home delivery, but I am glad to say that the administrators have listened to the people and have recommended that we should have a midwife-led maternity unit. However, that is still not enough, because we need a consultant-led unit. With our growing town, the Army coming in and the number of houses being built, we will get up to the 2,500 to 3,000 births a year in the coming year, and that will justify such provision, networked together with the University Hospital of North Staffordshire. I will continue to make that case to Monitor and to the Secretary of State.

The question of the critical care unit was also raised. I am glad to say that the administrators accepted the need for a level 3 critical care unit at Stafford, but we need to look at the details in the report, because I want to ensure that the unit is robust and will be maintained and sustained. There are question marks over that, but as I am not an expert on the matter, I will have to wait for the consultants and clinicians in my constituency to get back to me with the details.

I pay tribute to the community in Stafford, Cannock and the surrounding areas who have shown such resilience. When downgrading the hospital to a community hospital was first proposed, they showed tremendous support for its work. As is well known, the hospital has been greatly troubled over the years, but it has come on tremendously in the past two or three years. Only two weeks ago Stafford had the best hospital standardised mortality ratio in the whole of the west midlands. That is a far cry from where it was four or five years ago. I pay great tribute to the community for coming together in marches of up to 50,000 people.

[Heidi Alexander (Lewisham East) (Lab)]

Many of the things that the hon. Gentleman describes are of course familiar to me, given that Lewisham also experienced the first ever use of the trust special administration process. Earlier in his remarks, he referred to the remit that the TSA had been given in Staffordshire. He said that that remit may have to be looked at in future. What are his thoughts on clause 118 of the Care Bill, which looks to extend and augment the powers of trust special administrators in the future?

[Jeremy Lefroy]

I am pretty sceptical about it. When that Bill comes back to the House, I will make some remarks on it if I am given the opportunity to do so. In fact, I would take my remarks much wider than that. I have written a paper to Monitor on all the faults of the TSA process that I have experienced at first hand. One in particular is that when an administrator is installed, the trust loses its board. The chief executives and the executives lose their support. I am not saying that the TSAs do not try to do some work, but their focus is on the financial side and the future. Inevitably, they are not so focused on running the hospital now, and that is a serious omission. There are many other serious points that I want to make, and I would welcome a debate on the whole matter.

We have had two experiences of TSAs. One was under the National Health Service Act 2006, which affected Lewisham, and the other was under the Health and Social Care Act 2012, which affected Stafford. We should look at the matter carefully, because there will be others in the future. Indeed, we need to assess whether the whole process of a company-like administration is the best way to cope with a failure in the hospital context, and I am pretty sceptical about that. Perhaps we can use our mutual experience to consider that.

I want to return to the enormous support of the community. It was exemplified in two marches in April and then again in September. There were also rallies, at which I had the honour to speak. Indeed, at a children’s disco in Stafford, which was organised by the Support Stafford Hospital group, more than 200 children and their families came together to show their support for the paediatric services offered by the hospital. We have come a long way since the beginning of the year with our support for the hospital and, more importantly, for the services for my constituents, but we have much more to do.

I want to touch on a number of other areas that affect my constituents. We have already heard today at some length about High Speed 2. I will not go into too many details other than to say that the railway line runs straight through four villages in my constituency. I understand the national need for increased capacity, but I do not think that this is the right solution. I wish that the approach to HS2 and rail capacity had been similar to that of aviation. Instead, what we seem to do with railway capacity is to come up with a solution and then look around for problems for it to address. With aviation, we are doing it the other way around, although I know that the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and others might not necessarily agree with some of the solutions. On rail, we need to look again at whether this line drawn on a map is the right line.

We also need to consider mitigation measures and compensation. It comes back to what I have said time and time again to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport: we need to be reasonable and fair in our compensation, as the French are with such schemes, not miserly. I am afraid that I have seen instances of my constituents who were dealt with in a less than generous manner when their whole life was affected. We are talking about a railway whose construction is not due to start in my constituency until 2026. That means 30 years of blight and waiting for this thing to happen, if it ever does.

I also want to mention Staffordshire university. It has an important campus in my town, but it is considering moving away perhaps partially and perhaps fully. That would be a major error. The university is very good for Stafford and Stafford is very good for the university. When it was a polytechnic in the 1960s, it was one of the first in the country to introduce a course in computing, through English Electric. It has produced many fine graduates over the years. I will continue to support tertiary education in Stafford with all my might and I hope that it will continue to be provided by Staffordshire university.

Let me also raise the question of a western access road in Stafford. I was talking to somebody from a neighbouring village last night who said that they never come to Stafford because of the congestion and traffic. That is partly because of the popularity of the town, but it also shows that the road network—the town has two rivers, a canal and two main line railways, the one from Birmingham and the west coast main line, that merge—has an infrastructure problem. The western access road, for which we need £25 million, would help in some way to alleviate the congestion and make Stafford an even more attractive place for people to come to.

Many good things have happened this year in Stafford. The unemployment rate for jobseekers has fallen to 2.2% from about 3.6% three years ago. The number of apprentices has more than doubled in the past two years. Two new business parks are being built. I apologise to my constituents for the problems with traffic congestion that those roadworks are causing, but the parks will result in many hundreds if not thousands of highly skilled jobs being created for the area. We had the great news earlier this year that two more signal regiments will come to Stafford from 2015, with 1,000 servicemen and women and their families. Stafford is a very loyal town that is tremendously supportive of the armed forces and we will welcome them with open arms.

We also have a town centre development that will, I hope, start fairly soon. A brand new Marks and Spencer, a brand new Debenhams and many other shops will be coming to the town centre. We are also seeing housing development. I am not someone who believes that we should not build many more houses—we need more houses for our young people and families. However, they need to be the right kind of houses. We need to ensure that they are fit for older people, who might want smaller properties, less of a garden or a bungalow that it is all on one level. We need to build houses that enable families to have a side room or side apartment to care for relatives. We need to be imaginative.

[Sir John Randall]

My hon. Friend is making a very good speech about his constituency. As he is talking about house building, may I make a plea as someone who might well have to go out in delivery vans with furniture in the next few days? They make the doors smaller now and it is impossible to get a three-piece suite through them.

[Jeremy Lefroy]

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have been out with the Staffordshire furniture exchange twice in the past two years and I have the same problem getting furniture through the doors.

I also welcome the new care village being built in the north of Stafford, with different levels of residential care. That is being pioneered by Staffordshire county council and I would welcome any hon. Member who wants to come along and see what is being done there. I believe that it is a template for the future.

That brings me to the subject of our local councils: South Staffordshire district council, Stafford borough council and Staffordshire county council, led by Brian Edwards, Mike Heenan and Philip Atkins respectively. They have all taken some difficult but far-reaching decisions over the past few years in difficult times and have been able to balance the books and to maintain and improve services.

While we are on the subject of housing, I want to bring up one matter that has proved contentious in politics in the past few months—that is, the question of the spare room rent, the spare room subsidy, the bedroom tax or whatever one wants to call it. There has been a lot of understandable debate in the House and I believe that we will need to consider the issue quite carefully. The principle of it is based on what the previous Government introduced in the private sector, and I believe that that principle is probably right. However, the percentage of rent that has been introduced at the beginning results in genuine difficulty in many parts of the country. Eventually, a decision will have to be taken on whether it will result in a no-eviction policy or in evictions.

I urge the Government to consider how, without getting rid of a policy that has real merit in helping people to move into other accommodation, they can deal with the fact that the cost of 14% or 25% of rent is far too high for most people at the beginning, particularly when there are no other properties for them to move to. I will leave that one in the air as it is slightly off my subject of Stafford, although it affects my constituency and those of other colleagues.

Let me conclude—I can see that you are impatient for me to do so, Mr Deputy Speaker—by talking a little about the international scene. As a member of the Select Committee on International Development—I am honoured by that membership and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Gordon (Sir Malcolm Bruce) for his excellent leadership of the Committee—I have been privileged enough to see some of the excellent work that the Department for International Development has been doing around the world. I pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development for her work.

I was glad to see that yesterday the UK announced strong support for the International Development Association, the World Bank fund for the poorest countries in the world. Under the previous Government, the UK was, rightly, the largest and second largest donor at various times and we have maintained leadership in that regard. It is an extremely important multilateral fund that was given a great deal of praise in the multilateral aid review produced by the Government in 2010. It is vital for tens of millions of people around the world, whether it is helping them to access better health care, better education or better sanitation—all those matters on which this House rightly places such importance.

In my role as chairman of the all-party group on malaria and neglected tropical diseases, I commend the Government for the tremendous work they have done, following on from that of the previous Government, to support work in malaria research and intervention around the world. Indeed, they have increased the amount provided for the neglected tropical diseases that blight the lives of some 1.4 billion people around the world, which can often be tackled for a limited amount of money—sometimes less than $1 per person per year.

Recently in the House we have had some excellent debates on religious persecution. I commend all those who have spoken on the subject and brought it to the attention of the House. I believe that it is something that the House needs constantly to consider. Indeed, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales has spoken eloquently about it in recent days. I believe that this House has a leadership role to play not just in this country but internationally.

At this time, we should not forgot those who are suffering—irrespective of their faith or indeed if they be of no faith—particularly in Syria. It is vital that we do not accept the situation in Syria as if it were somehow normal. We must not allow this killing, which goes on day in, day out, to be viewed in the same way as Biafra, Vietnam and all the other seemingly endless crises were when I was a boy. We almost became immune to them, but let us never become immune to this horror. Unfortunately, we are seeing it in the Central African Republic and the killing has started again in South Sudan. Whatever else this House does, it is vital for it to bring these matters to public and international attention time and time again. If we do not do it, often nobody else will, including other Parliaments around the world. I truly believe this is vital.

I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, your colleagues and all House staff for the work they do; I wish all a very happy Christmas, and thank you for your indulgence.

14:31

[Lyn Brown (West Ham) (Lab)]

It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who has entertained us with a very thoughtful speech this afternoon. I am going to follow up the health theme, but my discussion of it is going to be a little more graphic. If any hon. Ladies or hon. Gentlemen wish to leave, I shall not take it as a personal affront. They might find it more comfortable to go off and get a cup of tea.

I want to talk about hysteroscopy, particularly when undertaken without anaesthetic. This topic was brought to my attention by my constituent, Debbie, who lives in Plaistow. She was diagnosed with womb cancer or uterine cancer last year. She contacted me because the process of diagnosis, rather than the cancer itself, caused her

“the most distressing and painful experience”

of her life. Debbie underwent a procedure called hysteroscopy, which looks inside a patient’s uterus and is used to investigate symptoms such as pelvic pain, abnormal bleeding and infertility. Biopsies are often taken and tissue is often removed. The patient’s vagina is opened with a speculum, as during a cervical smear test, and a hysteroscope is inserted. A hysteroscope is a thin tube with a light and camera on the end, as well as any other instruments that might be needed. As I am sure I need hardly point out, this procedure is highly uncomfortable and clearly has the potential to be very painful indeed.

At present, the NHS Choices website explains

“a hysteroscopy should not hurt, but women may want to take a pain killer such as ibuprofen beforehand”.

As well as a hysteroscopy being an out-patient procedure, the NHS website says that

“the procedure can also be carried out under general anaesthetic, which may be recommended if your surgeon expects to do extensive treatment at the same time or if you request it.”

So far, this sounds fairly reasonable: it will not necessarily be pleasant, but there are options and the procedure can be carried out with or without pain relief and with or without local or general anaesthetic.

Let me tell Debbie’s story in more detail. Through Debbie, I have also heard stories from other women across the country. Debbie told me:

“I was in absolute agony. The consultant who performed my procedure knew I was in pain but carried on regardless. A nurse had to push me back down on the bed as I stiffened like a board. She had to hold me there and had hold of my hands too as I was trying to reach down and stop the procedure. All I could think was that if I made the consultant stop, I would have to come back and endure the whole thing again. This procedure, without anaesthesia, is barbaric. It is absolute torture. It needs to be stopped. At the very least, the patient should be informed that it could be extremely painful and have options explained and open for her. That way, she can make an informed decision as to whether to go ahead without anaesthesia.”

[Bob Stewart]

That sounds absolutely horrific. The hon. Lady did not explain whether Debbie was asked whether she would like a general anaesthetic. I presume that she was not asked and that the procedure went ahead without it.

[Lyn Brown]

Her very next sentence explains that:

“I was given no options. I have complained to the PALS department and to be quite honest I am not happy with their reply. At one point it mentions that the hospital gets more money for the procedure to be done as an outpatient! Is this what it boils down to? Money? Disgusting!”

Jan from Cheshire said:

“I had a hysteroscopy in Cheshire. This hospital is a private hospital but I was there as an NHS patient, as it was the hospital that my doctor could get me into the quickest, for investigations into abnormal bleeding. I saw the consultant in September of 2011, and was given an evening appointment to attend for a hysteroscopy, and was told that the procedure would be done under local anaesthetic. At the evening appointment, I was given a local anaesthetic, but after several attempts at performing the hysteroscopy, the consultant apologised and said that she was unable to perform the procedure and did not want to attempt it again under a local anaesthetic as, in her words, ‘it would be inhumane to continue under a local’. I was sent home and told to take co-codamol for pain relief, and that I was to return the next day for the procedure to be done under a general anaesthetic. I have got to say that even though I had a local anaesthetic”—

if Members have been paying attention, they will know that my constituent Debbie was not offered that—

“the procedure was still very uncomfortable and painful. I have to say that I think offering a hysteroscopy without any form of anaesthetic is barbaric.”

Jo from Chesterfield said:

“I had already had biopsies done in clinic with no anaesthetic, done like a smear with swabs but going through the cervix. I had found this painful but nothing prepared me for what was to come. I had been given a leaflet to outline the procedure but it mentioned nothing about pain or discomfort. I was asked to go behind a make-shift cubicle in the corner, take everything off and put on a gown. I was then asked to sit in a contraption that looked like some Victorian birthing chair, it was very uncomfortable and awkward to sit in. I felt so undignified…I have never felt such pain. I felt like my whole abdomen had been blown up, the pressure was so intense, then sharp prodding pains, I had tears in my eyes, the nurse did come and hold my hand. I just looked at the ceiling and held my breath, praying for it to be over.

When he’d done, the doctor asked ‘did you find that a bit painful?’. I replied ‘no it was excruciating’, he just remarked that most women are fine with it but perhaps I had a low pain threshold and that if I were to need further treatment I would need a General Anaesthetic as I was sensitive. I was quite gob smacked and in so much pain I didn’t really reply. I struggled to my car and drove home, I was in agony for days. I felt almost like I’d been violated, like a piece of meat, but thought perhaps it was just me, perhaps I was being a wuss. It wasn’t till I spoke to other ladies that I discovered it needn’t have been this way. My treatment on a whole I feel was done very wrongly, cutting corners and saving money, at my expense. The hysteroscopy should not have been done this way, it’s almost inhumane.”

Katharine from Bath said:

“My GP referred me for day-case hysteroscopy under local anaesthetic…He told me to pay for a course of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy to lower my Blood Pressure to qualify me for NHS day-care surgery as opposed to more expensive NHS inpatient surgery. During the Cognitive Behavioural Therapy the psychologist told me to go straight to the gynae-oncology surgeon at the hospital and have my persistent inter-menstrual bleeding properly investigated. My GP was furious at this suggestion but eventually gave in. The gynae-oncology surgeon told me that ‘you’ve had it for so long it won’t be anything sinister’. He eventually agreed to an inpatient hysteroscopy under General anaesthetic. I waited months for the operation. It showed late stage womb cancer which had spread to the lymph nodes. I had a radical hysterectomy and a long course of external radiotherapy”.

Jenny from Barnsley said:

“I went into the clinic and was given an ultrasound and very quickly was approached by a senior registrar who said I had a very thick womb but they could do a biopsy there and then.

My GP had mentioned that this procedure can be difficult but they would give me a local anaesthetic.

To be honest I was in such shock. I was led into a room where there was a very nice sister and nurse. I sat in a chair and the senior registrar began by filling my womb with water.

Then the hell began when they inserted whatever and did the biopsy. I have not experienced such pain even in childbirth and I told her so. I also said my GP had said they would give me some local anaesthetic and then she asked if I wanted some. Rather like closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. It was too late then as they were in there.

The sister told me she nearly stopped the doctor. They were very caring then but only offered me one paracetamol. They said to me don’t let the woman who is waiting outside see you or it might put her off.”

The 21-year-old sister of Michelle, from Scotland, went for a hysteroscopy after noticing some bleeding after intercourse. The gynaecologist asked a nurse to assist while he proceeded to perform a rather forceful examination, and then carried out the hysteroscopy with no warning or pain relief. Michelle received a phone call from her distraught sister, who had gone into shock in the car park, had passed out next to her car, and was bleeding.

Gillian in Leeds said:

“Before the procedure, I received a leaflet with my appointment letter—no mention of any general or local anaesthetic, but after what the doctor had told me I wasn’t expecting it to be too bad”.

She said that the nurse

“managed to get the hysteroscope through my cervical opening…when she took each sample—6 in total—my pain level shot through the roof.

“What...infuriates me most is the fact that SOME people are given pain relief as a matter of course at their hospitals…why the hell should I, and others, have to suffer just because of which hospital we went to?”

Patricia from Fife said:

“I was offered no pain relief and the Dr. who did it didn’t get enough in the end so I had to go under general anaesthetic to get it done again.”

The procedure that she experienced, while conscious,

“was very traumatic and painful…I felt them cutting away the biopsy inside…afterwards the nurse who had held me down said to me ‘I wouldn’t have let them do that to me without a general anaesthetic’ so why did she let me go through it?’”

Maureen from Norwich said:

“The letter…advised I took either ibuprofen, or paracetamol about two hours before the appointment. The scan showed something abnormal, so I waited and then saw a very nice lady doctor. I then went on to endure the procedure, it took about fifteen minutes and it was certainly a lot more than uncomfortable.”

She felt very sick, and was in pain, but

“the nurse who was there kept saying how well I was doing. I was at the limit of my endurance, only the thought of having to go back again stopped me from asking the procedure to be stopped.”

I have received so much correspondence about this issue, via my friend Debbie, that I could speak at length and give many more examples, because what I wanted to do today was give those women a voice. However, I think that the House will understand the direction in which I am going.

Some women have received no pain treatment at all—no anaesthetic to dull the pain. Some have received a local anaesthetic, but, given the severity of their conditions, a number of them have found that that is not enough. Others have received a general anaesthetic, either on request or because their doctors were aware that the procedure involved might be more extensive than had been expected. A study of a group of women conducted over five years in Melbourne established that over 10% of the group would not accept a local anaesthetic again, because of the pain and the need for the procedure to be repeated owing to a failure to secure a biopsy sample.

I have found it difficult to obtain information about this issue, but I think that certain facts are clear. Some women are being given no pain relief options at all. That aspect is not being explained to them by the doctor when they get to the hospital. Some feel that they are not being treated with compassion and respect, and that very little or no consideration is given to their dignity or their well-being. Some are experiencing a procedure that fails and needs to be repeated. One has to ask how often that happens, and what the cost is to the NHS.

Some women are clearly receiving treatment that is not in line with the guidelines issued by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which acknowledges that

“outpatient hysteroscopy can be associated with significant pain, anxiety and embarrassment”.

While the RCOG’s guidelines emphasise throughout that it is possible for women to have an acceptable out-patient experience, and some women do, there is clearly a serious problem, in that the current standard practice is failing a significant group of women very badly. It is appalling that, in some cases, no pain relief is even offered. I have read a range of the information leaflets that various hospitals offer to support their hysteroscopy out-patient clinics, and I am glad to note that local anaesthetic is mentioned in almost all of them, but they are not open enough about the pain that women may experience during and after the procedure, and there is inadequate reference to the option of undergoing the procedure with a general anaesthetic.

[Bob Stewart]

May I ask what percentage of women feel no pain whatsoever? Is there such a percentage, or does everyone experience pain—in which case, we must sort the matter out?

[Lyn Brown]

I honestly cannot answer that question, although I can say that at the different times in my life when I have had internal examinations the pain has varied, and that as I have got older, the examinations have become more painful. I have been told by some women who have had babies—which, sadly, I have failed to do—that they have found the examinations less painful after their pregnancies. However, some have told me that they become more painful with the menopause. Indeed, when my mother had a similar examination, she told me that it had been excruciating, and that was when she was quite old.

I am not sure that there are any research findings out there that would answer the hon. Gentleman’s very sympathetic question—certainly I have not found any—and I think that this is something that we need to know more about. However, a study published by the British Medical Journal in 2009 concluded that a local anaesthetic injection was the best method of pain control for women undergoing hysteroscopies as out-patients.

I have struggled to decide what I need to ask the Government to do in order to ensure that women receive the best possible care and treatment while undergoing this procedure. It is difficult for me to know that, because I am not a medic. However, I do think it is reasonable to ask the Government to use all the influence they have over policy in this area to require the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence to work with the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to issue authoritative guidelines. I also think the Care Quality Commission may well have a role to play in ensuring that best practice is delivered locally at each hospital.

[Bob Blackman]

I have listened with horror to these terrible experiences suffered by women. Is the hon. Lady aware of any other such treatments to either men or women where anaesthetics are not provided yet people are in such pain on such a general basis? That would clearly be a matter of the whole health service not doing a proper job, compared with a narrow field that we can possibly deal with very quickly.

[Lyn Brown]

I have not heard from others but my guess is that, should this debate be heard outside these walls, we collectively in this Chamber may well hear from our constituents who have endured similar experiences.

[John McDonnell]

A fair amount of survey work was done in respect of the all-party group on endometriosis, which produced very similar findings of inconsistent practices and practices that were incompatible with the well-being of the individuals.

[Lyn Brown]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention and I will look at that research if he signposts me towards it.

I promised Debbie that I would make her voice and the voice of other women who have had similar experiences heard today, and I hope I have done that, but merely hearing the voices is not enough. This Government have the mantra of no decisions about me, without me, and that policy needs to be adopted in gynaecological procedures so that I and other hon. Members do not have more Debbies coming to our surgeries to tell us about their horrific experiences. I am hoping that the Deputy Leader of the House will take this to the Department of Health on Debbie’s behalf and on behalf of the other women, and I would hope that I will receive some communication from it in the new year telling me that Debbie, Jan, Jo, Katharine, Jenny, Michelle, Gillian, Patricia, Maureen and the many other women I have heard from will be well and truly heard.

May I thank hon. Members for staying in the Chamber for my contribution this afternoon and may I also wish everyone, including the staff of this House, a happy Christmas and a very happy and prosperous new year?

14:51

[Bob Blackman]

(Harrow East) (Con): It is an honour to follow the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown). Last night I endured the great pain of West Ham inflicting a second home defeat on Tottenham in a season, which has not been known since I have been alive. At the beginning of her speech, I wondered whether the pain that the ladies she mentioned were going through was anything like the emotional pain I felt last night, but my pain pales into insignificance compared with what women are being put through at the hands of the NHS, and I thank her for bringing that matter to the House’s attention.

It is the great benefit of these debates that we can bring matters that otherwise would not be aired to the Chamber. At this time of year, when we often think of ourselves, our parties and our families, we should also think of those underprivileged people who are less fortunate than ourselves. I shall concentrate on the private rented sector, the overuse of beds in sheds and the massive overcrowding in many parts of the country, which is a growing menace to the whole of our society.

It is a fact of life that 9 million people now rent their homes right across England. That is fine and people make that choice—or alternatively, they have no choice. In my own borough of Harrow there are now twice as many privately rented homes as there are homes in the entire socially rented sector, whether it be council or housing association properties.

I am a member of the Communities and Local Government Committee. When we looked at the private rented sector, one of the problems highlighted in the evidence we received was that the poorer quality of the private rented sector housing damages the health and well-being of the people who live in those homes. The English housing survey conducted earlier this year shows that properties in the private rented sector have the lowest proportion of the three standard insulation measures—cavity wall insulation, good loft insulation and full double-glazing—and they are most likely to fall into the lowest energy efficiency bands. Over a third of private rented homes are not classified as meeting the decent homes standard. We would not expect people to live in socially rented accommodation of that standard, and the number of private rented homes is almost double that of socially rented homes. At the same time, almost one in five fail the housing health and safety tests, compared with just 9% of social sector dwellings. Also, damp is more likely to be found in private rented sector accommodation than in any other type of housing, and it is less likely to be dealt with by landlords. That is a scandal that must be addressed.

There are currently few requirements on landlords, and few ways in which tenants can complain about a property and get things put right. Tenants often refuse to complain about the quality of a property because the landlord could evict them rather than fixing the problem. These problems often befall those on the lowest incomes, who have the least choice about where to live. They and their families therefore have to live in unacceptable conditions. Landlords often evict tenants without reasonable cause, and the tenants have no right of redress, even when they have not caused a problem. Tenants do not have the rights that they probably should have.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I am listening to the hon. Gentleman’s speech with interest. I intend to follow much the same theme when I speak later. Does he agree that one of the many problems associated with the private rented sector is the six-month assured shorthold tenancy? It gives the landlord no incentive to respond to a tenant’s demands and, because the tenant has no security of tenure after the six months, they are unlikely to complain. Also, the tenant has no incentive to do anything in the community because their prospects of remaining in the area are so limited.

[Bob Blackman]

When we were gathering evidence for our report, the Communities and Local Government Committee went to Berlin, where people have much longer tenancies and where a partnership approach is taken between the tenant and the landlord. That is a much more appropriate way of dealing with these matters. Unfortunately, the use of six-month assured shorthold tenancies has grown in this country, more often than not to protect landlords by giving them the right to evict a tenant and recover the property if they so choose. These concerns clearly need to be addressed. We need longer tenancies that give greater assurance to tenants and place greater responsibility on landlords. It would also be helpful if landlords became members of the housing ombudsman service. In that way, they would be more likely to carry out the necessary work and the tenant would have a means of complaining if that did not happen.

I am sure that all hon. Members have houses in multiple occupation in their constituencies. When five or more persons form two or more households in a building, it is a requirement for the landlord to register that property as an HMO. Unfortunately, there can be all sorts of issues involved, including whether fire safety standards are being met. It is a fact of life that, under the terms of the Housing Act 1985, the maximum penalty for operating an unlicensed HMO is currently £20,000. In my borough, there are 89 registered HMOs. I encountered a case three weeks ago in which a three-bedroom semi-detached property was found to be housing no fewer than 11 adults, none of whom was connected in a family sense. They were sharing bedrooms and all the other facilities, and they were each paying £160 a week in rent. That was a nice little earner for the landlord. The property was not registered as an HMO. There are now 100 such cases under investigation in Harrow, and I believe that they represent the tip of a very large iceberg.

[Lyn Brown]

I recognise much of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Those problems are certainly replicated in Newham. During the last Parliament, I tried to get HMOs reclassified according to the actual occupancy, rather than to the size of the house. Does he agree that such a reclassification would be very helpful?

[Bob Blackman]

I agree completely that that is one remedy we have to take on board.

I cannot speak about what is happening outside London, but in London the charges for HMO applications vary: Harrow council charges £1,200 for an application, which lasts for five years, and then there is an £850 renewal fee; Brent, our near neighbour, charges between £800 and £1,200, depending on the licence length; Ealing charges £970 plus £30 per habitable room; and Lewisham charges £180 per unit of accommodation, up to £1,800. Non-London authorities seem to charge much less. The fee seems to be discretionary and a council could drop it to encourage registrations, thus enabling properties to be examined and tenants to be protected.

As we have seen, we also face a challenge on beds in sheds. The Prime Minister was taken this week to a property in Southall that would have disgraced a third world country, yet a number of individuals were being forced to live in incredible conditions there. The Government have taken some action to try to close down beds in sheds, but often we are talking about illegal immigrants in accommodation tied to a job they are undertaking, which is provided through gangmasters and the equivalent. In addition, service providers such as local authorities and the health service are being forced to provide services without any income coming in; these properties will attract a certain amount of council tax, but not the sort of sum they should, given the number of people living in them.

Last May, £1.8 million was given to nine councils to tackle the problem of beds in shed: Brent, Ealing, Hillingdon, Hounslow, Newham, Peterborough, Redbridge, Slough and Southwark were all given money. The trouble is that that addresses only the tip of the iceberg; it does not address all the other boroughs where the problem is occurring. Ealing subsequently stated that it had carried out 4,500 site inspections in a year, in addition to unannounced fortnightly raids, but unfortunately the landlords were running rings around the officers.

In February, a BBC “Inside Out” investigation found two high street estate agents renting out beds in sheds without residential planning permission, including one in Willesden Green, in Brent. Rent payments of £1,000 per month were being taken. It was noted that the owners often claim that these converted buildings are more than four years old and so cannot have planning enforcement taken against them by the local authority.

Some actions have been taken across England on this issue. Slough borough council spent £24,000 on conducting a heat map across the borough during the early hours of the morning. That identified 6,139 properties where it was believed that beds in sheds were operating—that is just in one borough, which shows the extent of the scandal. The hon. Member for West Ham referred to Newham, and the Communities and Local Government Committee has taken evidence about the action that its mayor and council are taking to identify and take enforcement action against the outhouses that are being put up without planning approval. I believe that that work has been extended to tackle other illegal activities by landlords. I understand that over the past year the council has taken 80 enforcement actions on beds in sheds, but a further 230 are still pending against properties in multiple occupation, which shows the extent of the problem in one London borough. We might have extended negotiations with landlords, but it seems as if these rogue landlords, who give other private landlords a bad name, need to have stringent action taken against them.

We must also consider the fire risk. The London fire brigade has estimated that over the past four years there have been 341 fires in buildings that appear to have had people living in them when they should not have been. Those blazes have caused nine deaths and 58 serious injuries.

I have mentioned the fact that illegal immigrants are often in such properties. We might reason why that would be. Migrants who are not here legally are often given low-paid jobs, are paid in cash and have insufficient income to pay the normal rents for accommodation, so they take accommodation from the employer or gangmaster in order to maintain their presence here. They also want to be able to send money home to their families. They are kept in poor conditions, under threat of being reported to the authorities and sent home. There is a lot of anecdotal evidence of people traffickers accommodating their victims in illegal structures, particularly in the London borough of Ealing. Furthermore, if the trafficked victims escape and get work as undocumented migrants, they may resort to living in illegal structures anyway because the rents are often lower and more affordable from their low earnings.

[Lyn Brown]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his kind words about Newham. The action that the council has taken over the past couple of years has been important and effective in probably saving lives. We had a death in a shed from a fire way back before 2010. Local schools tell me anecdotally that people who are here legally and who have status are not necessarily aware of their rights. People who have come from abroad and are living here on very low incomes are exploited by the unscrupulous landlords he has been talking about.

[Bob Blackman]

Clearly, as the hon. Lady says, people who are here legally and have the proper status are often not aware of their complete rights and therefore are exploited by unscrupulous individuals acting as landlords.

One of the consequences of the changes in housing benefit has been to encourage young people under the age of 35 to go into shared accommodation because that is the only rate of housing benefit they will qualify for. I welcome that as a move towards ensuring that accommodation is used properly, but as more and more people share housing in the private rented sector, there is the unfortunate consequence of overuse and overcrowding of such properties.

Under the right circumstances a local authority may be able to force a landlord to repay rent or housing benefits if an HMO is unlicensed. Unfortunately, it appears that this is not well known among the public or even among London authorities or councils outside London. If it were known about, it would immediately dissuade landlords from taking in vulnerable people on benefits and exploiting them.

What do we do about the problem? It is up to local authorities to enforce the rules. If a landlord is operating an HMO—I have written to my council about a huge number of properties that I suspect are HMOs but are unlicensed—appropriate and stringent enforcement action needs to be taken to fine the landlord and to make sure that the properties are brought up to a decent standard. A clear attitude should be adopted towards rogue landlords who give good landlords a terrible name.

Proper advice needs to be given to people who rent properties so that they understand their rights, what they can demand and what they can take on. There should be accreditation and licensing for private landlords, particularly those that choose to operate HMOs. It should be for Government and the Department to ensure that tenants and landlords are educated about their rights and responsibilities.

There is hope on the horizon. There was a case in which a landlord, who happens to live in my constituency, was operating a property empire in the neighbouring borough of Brent, where he put 28 flats into four houses. He was prosecuted and ordered to pay £303,112 under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. This demonstrates that local authorities can use their power to stop rogue landlords in their tracks and take appropriate action. Rogue landlords will listen to only one thing: losing their income and assets. We must ensure that the people living in those properties are given decent facilities to live in.

[Jeremy Corbyn]

The hon. Gentleman is making an important contribution. Does he agree that it would be a good idea to have much better co-ordination between London boroughs, perhaps through the Mayor’s office, on chasing down rogue landlords and, as the Select Committee recommended, to have a much simpler form of harmonisation for all the regulations so that landlords and tenants know their rights within the existing law, never mind those that might be introduced in future?

[Bob Blackman]

I completely concur with the hon. Gentleman. We must rationalise the regulations to make them simpler and easier to understand and to ensure that the responsibilities are clearly understood. We must co-ordinate action across the London boroughs in particular, but the whole of England—and beyond, I suspect—is affected by those activities. Whether that co-ordination is done through London Councils or the Mayor’s office, for example, should be determined outside this Chamber.

However, it is equally clear that one of the problems is the level of bureaucracy. The mayor of the London borough of Newham pointed out that a landlord has to fill out a form for each property when registering, which seems to make no sense for the landlords who operate a good service, compared with the rogue landlords, who ignore the rules anyway. We need to identify those landlords and the properties that are not properly registered and ensure that the rules, which should operate for everyone’s benefit, are implemented thoroughly and appropriately. I think that there is a potential for doing what the London borough of Brent did last year when it enforced the rules on a particular rogue landlord to ensure that all the others understand their responsibility and know that they will not get away with it.

In my borough I have called on the council to operate a similar heat map so that we can identify, in the early hours of the morning, all the properties that do not have planning permission and are not registered as HMOs but appear to have people living in them. Anecdotally, I know that in many parts of my constituency homes have been built in gardens. Of course, they have been built as garden huts to shelter lawnmowers and other items of garden equipment, but uniquely they have kitchens, bathrooms, beds, windows, curtains, central heating and double glazing. That is clearly an affront to the planning rules. It means that the council is losing council tax income and that people are frequently being forced to live in substandard properties.

It is clear that this is the tip of an iceberg. It needs Government action now. I welcome the fact that they have undertaken to fund a few local authorities that have a problem, but we need to encourage every authority that realises it has a problem to take enforcement action to end it and to bring the people causing it to justice.

I conclude by wishing you, Madam Deputy Speaker, the staff and all hon. Members a merry Christmas and a happy, peaceful, prosperous and above all, particularly from my perspective, healthy new year. I trust that we will all have an enjoyable time over the recess.

15:13

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

That was an extremely helpful speech from the hon. Member for Harrow West—

[Bob Blackman]

Harrow East.

[John McDonnell]

I am sorry—how could I?

I hope to re-launch our housing campaign in Hayes and Harlington in the new year, and many of the themes the hon. Gentleman set out are echoed in many constituencies across London. Some of the solutions he set out—particularly the engagement of local authorities—are critically important. I welcome the Government’s additional money for Hillingdon, but it did not go far enough. A much more serious approach is needed.

My hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) made a terrific speech, which needed to be made, although it was excruciating to hear about the pain that women have gone through. If she needs support in campaigning on any of the issues she raised, I am sure that she secured it across the House today.

I wish to raise a number of issues as briefly as possible. It would be remiss of me not to mention the threat to my constituency from the proposed third and fourth runways at Heathrow. Many of my constituents, particularly in Harmondsworth and Longford, will be sitting down this Christmas faced with the threat of their homes being bulldozed. We saw what happened with the original third runway proposal for Sipson, where a compensation scheme was introduced and BAA bought up virtually all the properties. People are living in those properties, but the life of the village—some have described it as a shell; I do not think it is that bad—is somewhat different from what it was. We are engaging the new residents in community life as best we can, but the blight caused by the threat of a runway being built over their homes has resulted in the loss of a large number of residents who had lived there for generations.

The threat now extends across to Harmondsworth and Longford, and beyond into West Drayton, which was represented by the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) in former years. A population of 10,000 to 15,000 people now face an overall threat to their accommodation and from noise and pollution. Parents are sitting down at Christmas thinking that their home is going to be demolished some time in the future. They are planning their children’s education knowing that two of the best schools in our area—Heathrow and Harmondsworth primary schools—would be bulldozed as well. It looks as though other schools, particularly along the M4, perhaps Pinkwell and Harmondsworth primary schools, would be rendered unusable as a result of noise and air pollution.

The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talked about Cherry Lane cemetery becoming an issue again. The last time we had this misfortune, the BAA documents that were leaked to us demonstrated that the road network that would service the new runway and the expanded airport ran through Cherry Lane cemetery. In particular, it ran through the children’s area of the cemetery, and that of course caused immense distress within my community. That threat will return with the road structure that would be proposed for the new third and fourth runways.

I am also worried that Harmondsworth village will be obliterated, and that includes St Mary’s church and the mediaeval barn. Linked to St Mary’s church is the graveyard, which is still being used. Ironically, Keith Dobson, one of the prime campaigners with me over the past 40 years against a fourth terminal, a fifth terminal and a third runway, is buried in St Mary’s churchyard. It would be a tragedy if we had to disinter the bodies of our relatives and friends as a result of this.

[Sir John Randall]

There are also a number of war graves in St Mary’s churchyard, and that is something else we have to consider.

[John McDonnell]

The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in our previous campaign, John Wilkinson, who was the Member for Ruislip-Northwood and served on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, raised that very point. It was one of the key issues that was raised at the time of our very broad-based campaign against the expansion of Heathrow airport.

I want Members to go away and think how devastating the announcement from the Davies commission is for these families. However, I am optimistic, as I think the right hon. Gentleman is, that we can defeat this. Any Government who sought to expand Heathrow airport, which would impact on perhaps 2 million people in terms of noise and air pollution, would face opprobrium. The political impact would be significant; I think it would determine a shift in a number of seats. On that basis, I cannot see any Government politically sustaining the policy of expanding Heathrow airport.

Just in case anyone tries, let me give this warning: we will campaign on a scale that this Government and previous Governments have never seen before. It will be a campaign in which we mobilise local residents, but because of the impact across London, it will unite communities across London. There are already plans for a march all the way from Harmondsworth through every constituency affected—all the way through west London and into central London—which will garner support as we go along. It will be a crusade that will march right the way through west London and pick up hundreds, if not thousands of people in opposition to the Government. There will also be support from green campaigners who are concerned about the impact of the expansion of Heathrow airport on climate change. There will be direct action campaigns by environmentalists.

Last time this happened, a climate camp appeared in my constituency: 1,000 people turned up overnight, built a village and launched a direct action campaign, which contributed to influencing the Conservative party to change its policy. I warn the Government that people will not lie down and let their homes be bulldozed and their schools demolished, and they will not be threatened with having to dig up their dead from the cemetery. People will fight back, and as part of that fightback I will convene a meeting at Heathrow primary school on 16 January. I encourage Members to come along, because it will be the first discussion among local residents on the implications of the Davies announcement.

On the HS2 link, which the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip has mentioned, ours is the only area in the whole country that does not yet know where HS2 will go. We have been denied the opportunity to engage in a consultation on the route, because the Government will not reveal the route into the airport. That has resulted in uncertainty in the community. It will be a blight on the area and, to be frank, the community is angry, because it no longer trusts politicians or Governments on any issue of infrastructure in our area. I do not mean this as a party political point, but for the Prime Minister to explicitly say,

“no ifs, no buts, there will be no third runway”,

only for us now to face not only a third but a fourth runway, does not inspire confidence in the Government’s attitude to any infrastructure development in our area, including HS2.

I urge all parties in the House to agree that the decisions on the options for runway and aviation expansion and for the HS2 route into Heathrow airport should not be delayed beyond the next election. The Davies commission was politically and strategically timed to report after the next general election, to get every political party off the hook. The electorate will not find that acceptable. They will see it as another politician’s ploy not to be honest with the people who will be affected by both schemes.

It behoves all political parties to come to an agreement that the final report of the Davies commission should be published before the general election, and individual political parties should go into that election explaining honestly to the electorate their position on aviation expansion. They also need to explain to my community their position on the link between HS2 and Heathrow. It will be seen as fundamentally dishonest of all the political parties if they do not state their case and demonstrate to the electorate their position on aviation expansion. If they do not make their position clear, people will see through them and they will get angry, and when people get angry with politicians and feel that the democratic and parliamentary process is not working for them, they will take to the streets. It will encourage even more direct action and more disillusionment with politics in this country.

I also want to address the Fire Brigades Union dispute, which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) has mentioned. We face potential strikes by firefighters on Christmas eve, new year’s eve and beyond. None of them want to take action and go on strike; they want a resolution. The dispute stems from the previous Government’s proposals to increase the retirement age of firefighters under the pension scheme. The Williams review submitted evidence to the Government of concerns about the physical capacity of firefighters undertaking duties beyond a certain age. That was ignored by the Government, and they went ahead.

My hon. Friend mentioned the argument made with regard to other jobs, as did the hon. Member for Harrow West—

[Bob Blackman]

East!

[John McDonnell]

I am so sorry. I have a directional problem: I am lost once I get north of the A40, I am afraid.

It was proposed that those firefighters who were incapable of completing all of their duties could be moved to other roles, but then, unfortunately, the cuts took place and we identified that, in one year, there were only 15 vacancies to which front-line firefighters could be transferred in way that would enable them to continue in work and to pay into their pension and earn a wage. The reason for the disputes was that employers and the Government refused to recognise that there was an issue about the capability and fitness problem faced by firefighters. A strike took place, which at least led to a breakthrough in that employers recognised that there was an issue that had to be addressed. Negotiations took place on eight points, but they basically foundered on two main ones.

The first, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, was the risk of having no job and no pension. Firefighters find that they physically cannot do the job, which all the evidence points towards. To be frank, I do not want a geriatric firefighter coming up a ladder to rescue me, and all the evidence demonstrates that as firefighters reach 55 or 60, their capability goes down. In addition, there is further evidence about the—short—longevity of firefighters after they retire.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

My hon. Friend referred to the Williams inquiry. Williams said that estimates were that from 20% up to 90% of firefighters would not be able to work until 60, so there is a big demand for alternative employment for them or for their pensions to be honoured.

[John McDonnell]

I thought that the FBU was fairly reasonable in simply asking for some guarantee to take back to its members about their having either a job or a pension. It is as simple as that: the problem is that people cannot be in the situation of having no job and no pension. As I have said, the employers and the Government accepted that there was an issue to address, but how were firefighters to gain such a guarantee? That is the problem of the dispute at the moment.

In the negotiations, the fire Minister eventually offered a change to the national framework so that there is guidance to employers that some form of security should be given to firefighters in the form either of a job or of a guaranteed pension. The problem about the national framework is that it is guidance; it is not legally enforceable. The FBU has brought cases, so there is case law, and Lord Justice Rix has clearly demonstrated that the framework is guidance that employers can ignore. It is as simple as that. One problem with Ministers coming and going is that when Ministers give guidance, some employers perhaps abide by it for a period, but Ministers come and go and Governments come and go, and employers eventually interpret the guidance as they see fit.

The FBU put forward a draft proposal that instead of guidance, the fire Minister should adopt regulations linked to the pension scheme. If he had accepted that, one of the main points of the dispute would have been resolved, but that was refused. The FBU has warned of further strike action. It has balloted its members and received overwhelming support for strike action. As a result of the legal process that unions have to go through, it has now had to call the dates for the strikes. The Minister wrote yesterday to say that he was willing to meet it again, but as I said in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse, the FBU is willing to meet any time, any place—wherever the Minister wants—but the talks have to be meaningful, not just another round of public relations stunts or spin.

I have a lot of time for the fire Minister, but given the seriousness of the dispute, I would say at this point that the issue has reached Secretary of State level. As happened in the last fire dispute, the Secretary of State has to come to the table to start negotiations. In the last fire dispute under the previous Government, I remember the Prime Minister getting involved at one point to try to hammer out the issue so that people were not put at risk. We are within days of another dispute leading to another strike, and the Secretary of State needs at least to get involved in starting off negotiations. His coming to the table would demonstrate a seriousness of intent.

The other issue, which I will not go into in depth, is that of contributions. That was mentioned by my hon. Friend, who gave the figures in percentage terms. Under the new pension scheme, there will be an increase in contributions each year for four years: for members of the 2006 scheme, contributions will go up from 8.5% in 2011 to 12.6% in 2015. A firefighter on a salary of £29,766 will pay more than £4,000 a year for their pension alone if those increases are imposed. That is a significant increase for people who are on a relatively modest wage for professionals in this field.

I urge all Members, because the onus is on all of us, to ensure that we lay the path for negotiations to head off the current dispute. I think that the Secretary of State needs to come to the table for meaningful discussions to resolve the matter. I am happy to assist in the discussions at any time and to try to get people together. The FBU has made it very clear over the past 24 hours that it is willing to talk, but that the talks must be serious.

Another staffing issue that I want to raise relates to staff in this House. The dispute of the Commons Tea Room staff has still not been resolved a year on. To make Members aware of what happened, let me say that elements of the new management decided to reinterpret the contract that some of the Members’ Tea Room staff had been working on for more than 20 years. They decided that the old contract had been misinterpreted by the previous management and introduced what was effectively a reduction in pay and conditions. The dispute has gone on and negotiations have taken place, but it has not been resolved. I am told that the next stage is that the individual members of staff are getting together as a group to meet management again.

We are well served by those staff. They work incredibly hard, sometimes with demanding Members coming in at all hours and wanting all sorts of foodstuffs. They always serve us with a smile. I think that they deserve a bit more respect than they are getting. Trying to tear up their conditions of service when some of them have been working there for two decades is just not acceptable.

Last week, I met the security staff here who are members of the Public and Commercial Services Union. I am chair of the PCS parliamentary group. New rosters were imposed on the security staff earlier this year. There was a strike, but it did not resolve the issue and the rosters were still imposed. The new rosters reduce the flexibility of the work and impact on carers. Those people are largely women, because they tend to be the carers in society, but it affects parents generally and other types of carers. The staff have demonstrated to management that the new rosters are costing more than the old ones because of the high levels of overtime that have to be paid and the lack of flexibility.

The security staff are employed by the Metropolitan police on a contract. That contract is up for renegotiation in 2015. The staff are worried that they are being set up for privatisation. They want to enter into negotiations with management so that staff are able to continue with that contract or, if the Metropolitan police do not want the contract, the staff can be brought in-house. If Members have the time, they should speak to the security staff, because they are unhappy and disgruntled. They are worried not only about their terms of service, but that their service is not good enough because they do not have the flexibility that they used to have, that it is costing more and that their position will be undermined in the longer term.

I want to make two last points. The right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) spoke about the Metropolitan police. I am anxious about what is happening in the Met. A range of cuts are feeding through. Safer neighbourhood teams were one of the best policing reforms that were undertaken by the last Government. It is good to have a local sergeant, two police constables and a couple of police community support officers located within the ward and to have the guarantee that they will not be pulled out of the ward for other extraneous duties. The cuts that are coming through now are undermining safer neighbourhood policing in our areas. There are not sufficient PCs, the recruitment of PCSOs is not happening and safer neighbourhood teams are being combined. That is breaking down the local connection.

The retirement of a large number of officers who had long service means that we have lost a lot of experienced police officers. When we lose that experience we also lose the supervision, and I am anxious about that. In my constituency, as in many across London, we are losing police officers and their visibility on the streets is being reduced. At the same time—I agree about this with the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip and we share the same borough—the quality of policing we receive is superb. The police work extremely hard under extremely difficult circumstances and with reducing resources.

Finally, I will refer to one happy piece of news. The Independent Workers Union of Great Britain is a small trade union that has been running a campaign to secure the living wage for cleaners, particularly in central London and the City. One employer that has been a difficult nut to crack is a company called MITIE. The union organised its workers and there have been disputes and demonstrations. MITIE issued a letter to all its staff, basically saying that any appearance on a demonstration related to the living wage would be interpreted as gross misconduct and they would be dismissed. After a short campaign by the cleaners and an early-day motion in this House, and thanks to the hard work of the union organiser, Chris Ford, negotiations have taken place over the past couple of days. MITIE is now in negotiations with the union about the living wage in relation to the contract. It has withdrawn its threatening letter to the staff and even sent out a letter apologising to them. I congratulate the IWGB—in particular the organiser, Chris Ford—on that success, and also the employer for seeing sense and coming back to the negotiating table. I hope that will send a message to other employers.

We all sort of glamorise John Lewis as a wonderful mutual—apart, that is, for the fact that it has outsourced its cleaners who are not part of the mutual system and not paid the London living wage. Again, the IWGB has been running a campaign on that, and I have been on the picket lines, trying to urge that company to recognise that its cleaners should be part of its mutual structure and paid properly. The other group of workers who I think will be mobilised over the coming period are fast-food workers. They are largely not unionised and many are on the minimum wage with poor employment conditions. We have convened a meeting in the House of Commons next year to bring together all those unions, and others who want to campaign for the rights of fast-food workers in the new year.

In the spirit of Christmas, I wish hon. Members a happy Christmas and a determined and campaigning new year.

15:37

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

It is good to follow the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell). He made a powerful case about ensuring proper consultation on HS2 and the new runways at Heathrow, and I understand his concerns. Perhaps the issue does not cause me quite so much concern representing Tiverton and Honiton down in Devon, but I can see his concern and that of his constituents.

I want to raise a particularly difficult case that concerns the struggle of one of my constituents to obtain compensation for serious trauma caused to him back in the ’80s. I will give a brief background to the case. My constituent was living on an Army base in Cyprus in the late ’80s with his father, a GCHQ employee. My constituent experienced serious sexual abuse at the base from the age of 12 to 17 from a paedophile gang of military personnel from both the UK and the United Nations.

My constituent is seeking compensation for the serious damage caused to him while living on that Army camp in Cyprus, but I understand that he is not eligible for compensation through the Criminal Injuries Compensation (Overseas) Scheme because his father was not military personnel, even though he was attached to the Cyprus base. There is a UK national Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, but my constituent is excluded from that because the offences took place outside the United Kingdom. There is also a Europe-wide scheme, but again my constituent is excluded by reason of the offences taking place prior to the implementation of that scheme. My constituent is excluded from other possible avenues for compensation. He is at present without a remedy for the grievous harm he has suffered. I understand that GCHQ comes under the jurisdiction of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, so it might be thought reasonable for it to implement a matching scheme to provide compensation for those in my constituent’s position, or, alternatively, to offer a one-off compensation award under the same principles as the overseas scheme.

I have met Ministers and military police. I think and hope that in 2013 the case has been dealt with much more sympathetically and in a much better manner. The military police dealt with my constituent’s case in a very high-handed and ineffective way, and I want very much for him to have closure in this matter. We need to find some form of compensation, whatever it is, just to say that somebody has owned up to the fact that it was not dealt with properly, and that the abuse he sustained all those years ago still affects him now. I have met him several times. I do not know whether the Deputy Leader of the House can help in any way, but I seek help from him because this is a very serious matter.

Moving on to other constituency matters, I would like to talk about the A30/A303. I hear in this House huge problems for the Government in trying to get HS2 going and the trouble with Heathrow airport. I assure the Government that they would have much less trouble dualling the A30/A303.

[John McDonnell]

I don’t suppose the hon. Gentleman would like a runway, would he?

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for the idea that we could have a runway for Heathrow, but I think we are about 180 miles away. That is a long way away, but I understand his sentiments.

Returning to the A30/A303, from Exeter to Honiton the A30 is all dualled. It then goes from Honiton to the Somerset border, where it is not dualled. As it gets towards the Somerset border it splits off, with one part going on to Yeovil and the A30 carries on and goes into the A303. I want to see this part dualled in particular, and not just because it is in my constituency. Believe it or not, I am not just making a plea for my constituency, because it then travels up through Somerset and into Wiltshire. Of course, it passes by some rather interesting stones—I think they are called Stonehenge. How to pass them—whether we should build a tunnel and so on—has always been a thorny problem.

I think that, in all, nine sections of the A30/A303 need to be dualled. As a Government, we need to start picking up and running with these individual schemes. The greater the amount of dual carriageway on the road, the more we will have a second arterial route into the west country. Devon and Cornwall in particular, and Somerset too, rely a lot on tourism. Our businesses are hugely affected by the speed of travel. If the M5 is blocked, there is just carnage because traffic cannot get through.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I was not expecting to intervene, but as my mother-in-law lives along the A303—not that I necessarily want to rush to get to my mother-in-law’s—I know the road has congestion points that create huge tailbacks, particularly leading back from Stonehenge towards London. I sympathise with my hon. Friend, and I am, of course, very much looking forward to seeing my mother-in-law on Boxing day.

[Neil Parish]

I thank my hon. Friend for his comment. On this occasion, it being Christmas, I am sure he will be delighted to see his mother-in-law. To be serious, he is absolutely right. Travelling the A30 down into Cornwall, one finds large tailbacks on every long stretch of non-dualled road, but on short non-dualled roads, there is always much less of a tailback. I hope we will get a dual carriageway, tunnel or something past Stonehenge, but if not, at least a lot more dualling on the road would speed up the process. The other day, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury announced a pipeline of funding, so I asked him to turn on the tap. I am looking forward to the tap being turned on and that road being built.

On a third constituency matter, Feniton is a village on the outskirts of Honiton that was flooded many times last year and which has been under threat this year, yet several planning applications have been made for 200 homes in the village. These proposed homes have been refused by the district and parish councils, and the local population oppose them hugely because the infrastructure is not there. These homes will create more surface run-off and cause more flooding. I want the Planning Inspectorate to consider that point. I understand that the planning Minister is issuing guidance to planning inspectors to ensure that the infrastructure of a village or town is taken into consideration when appeal decisions are being looked at. It is imperative that this matter be treated in that way, because Feniton could be swamped by these homes and the infrastructure—the roads, the sewerage system and the schools—would be overloaded.

On a general point about flooding throughout my constituency, we are on an alert even as we speak. We must learn the lessons of flooding. No, we cannot stop it raining, and no we cannot stop flooding, but we can ensure that our rivers and tributaries are dredged and we can enable more local management of waterways so that the people who know exactly when the rivers are too high, when sluices need to be opened and when drainage points are blocked can do that work. The result would be a lot less flooding. It is good that the Government are negotiating Flood Re with the insurance companies. That means that my constituents should be able to get insurance at a reasonable cost. I also want to emphasise the fact that sometimes the Environment Agency’s flood-prevention schemes can be very expensive, but local people could help bring that about and do a lot of self-help.

On a final issue, we are about to agree yet another reform of the common agricultural policy. Under the new settlement, money will be taken for so-called capping or modulation, although we do not know whether it will be 9%, 12% or 15%; we are waiting for the Government to say exactly how much. I make this plea: we must make good use of the money we take from farmers and put in place good environmental schemes that will help not only agriculture, but the environment, grasslands and hills, such as those in Devon.

[Mr Newmark]

I thank my hon. Friend for allowing me another bite at the cherry.

Last Friday, I met my local farmers, and they raised with me a good question about the modulation that my hon. Friend could put to the Secretary of State or Ministers. According to many farmers, 15% is an extraordinarily high figure, and some justification for why it is not 9% or 9.5%, as in other EU countries, would be useful.

[Neil Parish]

I had better be quick because, Madam Deputy Speaker, you are looking me very sternly.

Yes, 15% is very high. We must use this modulated money to put in place environmental schemes that are necessary. We must not take money from farmers unless we know exactly what we are going to do with it. In the end, the family farms in Devon and across the country are important, not only to farming, but to the countryside itself.

I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and Mr Deputy Speaker a happy Christmas. I also thank all the staff throughout this building for their good work this year and wish them a happy Christmas.

15:49

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate. Sadly, I start with a complaint. Although I welcome the opportunity of a Christmas Adjournment debate and the fact that a Member can raise any issue they want, the system that we have had in other times when there have been themed debates with a Minister replying is a far more satisfactory way of dealing with parliamentary business. I do not doubt that the Deputy Leader of the House will report in great detail to each Minister concerned and ensure that we get an answer, but the whole point of the House of Commons is to hold the Government and Ministers to account rather than using it as a sounding-board Chamber where anyone can raise anything they like and it then disappears into the ether.

I strongly compliment the staff here—as I am sure does everyone else—for their work, loyalty, and sympathy to both Members and the public. They often do a difficult job, and I admire them enormously and want to put on record my thanks to them. As a Parliament, we should value them a lot more. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, the treatment of the staff in the Tea Room, their change of contracts and deteriorating working conditions are simply not good enough. We should be much better employers and we should value the service and the loyalty that those staff give us. We need to remember that we should provide a good example of employment practices and not work on the basis of gross exploitation of people. Indeed, we should not be losing our very good and experienced staff. We should reflect on that. None the less, in the same spirit as everyone else, I wish all the staff here a good Christmas and new year and thank them for the work that they do.



Like the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman), whom I compliment on his contribution, I want to raise the issue of housing in London. I represent an inner-city constituency, which has somewhat different characteristics from those of Harrow. Nevertheless housing is a huge issue. Roughly speaking, my borough divides 40:30:30—council and housing association houses and social rented accommodation make up about 40% of the borough’s housing; private rented houses about 30% and owner-occupied houses 30%. The owner-occupation rate is well below the national average, and falling very fast. The private rented sector is well above the national average and rising very fast. The social ownership section is increasing a bit through the work of the housing associations and the council’s commendable building programme to try to provide homes for people who desperately need them.

The problem we have is an enormous housing list of people in often desperate housing need. The chances of them being housed in a council-owned house or a housing association place are very limited, so the council fulfils its obligations to them in the only way it can, which is by placing them in the private rented sector. Many of those private flats are not in the borough; they are some distance away. That in itself creates a problem. The applicants accept the accommodation because they have no choice. They aspire to return to the borough, so the large numbers of families who are placed outside the borough make very long journeys to ensure that their children maintain a place at the same school, which is important from the point of view of the continuity of education for primary school-aged children.

The other issue is that the benefit level cap on housing expenditure, the housing allowance, is way below the average rent in the private sector. The transitional money the Government approved on the introduction of the cap is drying up and disappearing. Frankly, what we are going through is nothing more than a process of social cleansing from inner London, as families on benefit—sometimes in work, and sometimes not in work, as it affects them almost equally—can no longer remain in the borough and must therefore be accommodated elsewhere. That exacerbates the whole problem.

We have a high degree of housing stress among those families. I meet families all the time and I am very worried about the impact of such a degree of housing insecurity on a whole generation of children as they grow up. Members of this House all earn a good salary, have reasonable accommodation to live in and do not feel a sense of housing insecurity. We should try and put ourselves in the mindset of young parents trying to bring up children in the private rented sector knowing that they have no security of tenure and could lose their flat within six months. If they complain, they are likely to find that their tenancy is terminated. The effect on the parents is extreme stress, but the effect on the children is great uncertainty about their place in life and the ability of their parents to provide for them. We are damaging a whole generation of people through the housing policies that are being adopted in this country.

I am not making a partisan point, because my party, when in government, certainly did not do enough to build the necessary new housing. It certainly did not do enough to bring in much tougher regulation of the private rented sector any more than this Government have. I applaud what my council is trying to do by developing new council properties of a good and high standard and what it has achieved through the decent homes standard. The estates are in a much better condition than they ever used to be. Nevertheless, we live in an area where property prices are rising fast. I think I am right to say that more than 80% of the borough does not earn enough money to be able to buy a property within Islington, so the only option for those people is the private rented sector.

There are areas in which the sector must be reformed, and quickly. I have with me a copy of the report by the Communities and Local Government Committee on the regulation of the private rented sector, which is an interesting, well-written document that calls for the simplification of the regulation of the private rented sector and better education of both landlords and tenants. I agree with all that. Sometimes, the report’s proposals are a bit too timid but I agree with the general thrust of what it is trying to say.

We must be a little bolder. I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill on the subject, and I want to see fundamental change in three areas of the private rented sector. The first is the role of the letting agents. At the moment, there is almost no regulation of letting agents. Anyone can set up a letting agency, there are no checks on them whatsoever and anybody can claim to be a letting agent and start renting out properties. I think they should all be regulated so we know who is working where, so that they have to provide proper information to all prospective tenants, and so that they are not allowed to introduce arbitrary and often totally unfair charges such as search fees, which are always non-returnable and often expensive. There should also be much clearer explanation for prospective tenants of what they are getting into.

Agents are also often deeply discriminatory. A sign in a window that reads “No DSS” shows first of all that they are deeply out of date with the structure of the social security system in this country—it is now the Department of Work and Pensions and it is a housing allowance, not DSS as it was about 20 years ago—and also fundamentally discriminates against somebody who is perfectly legally claiming what they are entitled to from the DWP. Why should they not be allowed to rent because they are claiming? The investigation by “Panorama” showed the race discrimination and racial profiling by the agencies, which are a scar on our society that deeply disfigures people’s lives and life chances. Discrimination is wrong in any aspect, whether it be financial in respect of benefit claimants or racial discrimination as operated by some agents. We must have proper regulation of these agencies.

A number of London boroughs are actively considering setting up their own letting agency to manage the number of people they place within in the private rented sector and offering the service to landlords and tenants alike. I think that would be a wholly good thing—it would be properly run, properly managed and probably a lot cheaper for everyone concerned than the present system.

The second area relates to points raised by the hon. Member for Harrow East about the condition and maintenance of private sector properties. Yesterday, I met an interesting gentleman from the Electrical Safety Council, who told me his concerns—they were held by the fire service and many others, too—about the lack of regular electrical checks in the private rented sector. It can often be an extremely dangerous place to be. There are supposed to be gas checks and all kinds of checks, but they are often never carried out.

I have had experience of tenants in the private rented sector making wholly legitimate complaints about the condition of their flat—the lack of insulation, the poor quality windows, the high energy bills they incur because of all that and infestation by vermin. They usually find that nothing is done about that, and if they contact the environmental health service, they might find their tenancy terminated at the first possible opportunity by the landlord. It is scandalous that if tenants try to exercise their rights, they lose their property. Although that might mean that environmental health can enforce better conditions for the next tenant, it is not much help for the tenant who has been evicted for having the temerity to try to exercise their rights.

The third area is probably the most controversial—the question of the rent levels charged. If I look across the whole country, I realise that the rent levels charged in the private rented sector vary enormously, often over quite short distances. The rent levels in central London are massive; if we move a short distance towards the outer London boroughs, the rent levels are a bit less; if we move a bit further out of London, they become much less; if we move to other regions in the country, the rent levels might not be the main problem, but there could be other areas of regulation.

My private Member’s Bill—I have no notion of whether it will ever become law; certainly not in this Parliament, although I hope the idea will become law at some point—is not only about empowering local authorities to set up letting offices and agencies, but about requiring simplified advice to be given to landlords and tenants about how the properties will be operated. Authorities will also have the power to impose a level of regulation on the rent levels charged in the private sector.

In that respect, a number of formulae could be adopted. One would be simply to take a figure and declare it to be a reasonable rent for the area. Rent levels could be based on the capital value of the property and the cost of maintaining its value if money has been borrowed to purchase it. Alternatively, because the structure of the private rented sector is changing fast, we could require large private sector landlords—there are some of them around nowadays—to provide at least 50% of their properties for rent at an affordable level, as we would require for any new large housing development.

If we do not regulate the private rented sector, we are condemning, in the case of my borough, a third of the population to a life of insecurity—and the numbers of private rented properties are likely to rise considerably over the next few years. All the predictions are that while it is around 17% nationally now, it will probably be 25%, if not more, by the end of this decade. Other countries manage to have a pretty fully regulated private rented sector. The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to the Select Committee visit to Germany, which has a very regulated private rented sector—often, interestingly, with much larger landlords, who often manage the properties a lot better.

One of the problems in my constituency is that it contains a large number of very small landlords who only ever think of the headline return in the form of the rent. They never think of the cost of maintenance, the cost of repairs, or the cost of simply managing a property. We need to devise a much better system. The Select Committee report was a good start, but the Government’s response was more than disappointing. No doubt we shall return to the issue in the future.

Let me end with this thought. We all want to enjoy a nice Christmas—who doesn’t?—but we also want to enjoy a degree of security in our lives, and I think that we should consider for a moment the very large number of people who live in the private rented sector. Not all landlords are bad; some are good, decent, generous people who look after their tenants in the way in which we would all want to be looked after ourselves; but, unfortunately, not all of them are like that. There are some terrible rogue landlords, and some terrible practices. We used to say awful things about Rachman and what he did in winkling secure tenants out of north Kensington all those decades ago, but there are very few secure tenancies now. Landlords no longer need to winkle people out. They can end assured shorthold tenancies after six months, move another tenant in, and charge the new tenant a higher rent—and so the whole situation continues.

If we are to maintain the social and cultural diversity of London, and indeed other cities, we must maintain the diversity of housing, and of housing options and opportunities. Like all Members, I visit hospitals, Royal Mail sorting offices, police stations and fire stations. I always ask people where they live, and I find that fewer and fewer of them can afford to live in central London. They are commuting for longer and longer distances, at greater and greater cost to themselves.

We must address the housing issue. Yes, we can do that by building more houses and providing greater security and better conditions, but what is crucially and urgently needed is proper regulation of the private rented sector, so that we can provide the sense of security that we would all want for ourselves.

[Bob Blackman]

On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. At the beginning of my speech, I inadvertently failed to draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. May I correct that through your good offices, and apologise to the House?

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

I think that the clarification is already on the record.

16:07

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I want to begin, rather than end, my speech by wishing all the staff of the House, and the police, a happy Christmas. They serve all of us here in Parliament extremely well, and I hope that they will have a relaxing Christmas holiday and a happy new year.

I also want to thank certain groups in my constituency which I know will be working very hard over Christmas. The Salvation Army does a tremendous job in looking after the homeless, not just in Braintree but, I believe, in all our constituencies, and Braintree Foyer looks after young people very well when they have nowhere to go. Then there are the church groups, which serve our food banks incredibly well. As we know from our recent debate on the subject, the use of food banks has increased—there is no denying that—and many of the church groups in our communities are playing a leading role in that regard.

Let me now issue a plea to everyone in my constituency, and to all who are listening here. Many elderly people will be alone this Christmas, and if someone can spend just one or two hours with an elderly person, it will make a very big difference to that person at this very important time of the year.

I promised that I would be brief, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I will be, but I want to raise one constituency issue. I want to talk about two aspects of infrastructure, the first being trains. Unfortunately, we in Braintree are not well served by trains. There is a main line to Witham and then onwards, and there is a branch line from Witham to Braintree. As a branch line, we only get one train an hour. That causes enormous problems, and ever since I became a candidate in 1999—long before I was an MP—I was calling for a loop to be put in between Braintree and Witham because that will allow more people to travel along that line rather than waiting the one hour, as they have to, or getting in their cars.

The big problem is that Braintree has grown enormously even in the past 15 years that I have lived in the area. As a result, when people get on the train at Braintree they find that it is already at capacity, so by the time it reaches Cressing or White Notley, let us say, on the way to Witham it is often totally full. That creates huge problems, and one way to alleviate that pressure is to build a loop between Braintree and Witham.

I ask Greater Anglia and Abellio, who are the controllers of the train line, to think about these three Cs: capacity, cancellations and communication. With capacity, the issue is that the trains are often full at peak times, as I have mentioned, so it would be very useful for them to think about investing in that loop which I and others have been asking for. That will take people off the roads and on to the trains, and as they will be using the train services more, it will make the loop more economically viable.

The second C is cancellations. In the past month or so there have been three cancellations of the 6.45 am train. If someone is planning to catch a train at Cressing and they have a meeting in London that morning, and the 6.45 am train is cancelled and they do not know about it in advance, they have a big problem. The bigger problem is that, unfortunately, Greater Anglia has not put on any other services, such as a bus service, to take them to Witham, and it might not even inform passengers that there is a problem.

That brings me to my third C: communication. It is very important that Greater Anglia communicates with passengers, explaining that there is a problem, rather than passengers simply standing on the platform and seeing the train whizz past them. That can be extremely frustrating if they have a morning meeting in London or elsewhere.

I therefore ask Abellio and Greater Anglia to think about those three issues of capacity, dealing with cancellations with care and efficiency, and communicating with passengers. That is extremely important. They should think seriously about building a loop between Braintree and Cressing, because I think that will deal with a lot of the problems they face. I know from having talked to Braintree district council and Essex county council that they would be willing to put in some money to try to get this loop between Braintree and Cressing, as would local businesses. So again I make my plea to Abellio and Greater Anglia to think about building this loop, and perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport—the ex-Chief Whip and my ex-boss—will also consider that plea of mine.

My second infrastructure point is to do with the A120, and it relates very much to something my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) was saying. Drivers come up the M11, let us say, and then get on to the A120 at Stansted and have a beautiful two and three-lane highway all the way to Braintree, but when they get to Braintree they hit Galleys corner, which is known as cholesterol corner for two reasons: first, because of the KFC, the McDonald’s and the other fast food outlets that are located there, and secondly, because a major traffic blockage forms there.

While I appreciate that when the new Secretary of State took up his post he generously gave us a little over £300,000 to deal with the little pinch-point at Galleys corner, unfortunately that only dealt with a tiny piece of the problem. What we really need to do is dual the road the eight or nine miles between Braintree and Marks Tey in order to alleviate the blockage. I want Members to imagine a fast road that goes all the way from London through to Stansted and then on to Braintree, and then suddenly it stops. For eight or nine miles, there is a single-lane carriageway, the A12, to Marks Tey, at which point the road becomes the A120, and a dual carriageway, again, and continues all the way to Harwich.

Alleviating the pinch-points along this transnational, perhaps trans-European, network is important. Many groups in Braintree have campaigned for this to happen, including the Braintree business council, the Braintree business forum, Councillor Siddall, who is in charge of businesses on Braintree district council, and my friend Malcolm Hobbs. They have all have campaigned for the dualling of the road.

I do not deny that this would be an expensive project. It could cost up to £300 million, which is an enormous amount. However, time is money, and if people are stuck in their cars, that can be expensive for them. There are local groups in Braintree that are willing to invest in the project, and we could form a public-private partnership to achieve this. Essex county council, Braintree district council and various local businesses have all said that they would put in some money to alleviate the problem.

I make a direct plea to the Secretary of State for Transport and even to the Chancellor himself, who has been extremely generous in giving money to other infrastructure projects around the country, to alleviate this minor road block by putting some money into this project. It would create jobs locally and alleviate pressure and blight in several areas.

I shall leave the House with those two thoughts: a rail loop between Braintree and Witham, and the dualling of the road between Braintree and Marks Tey. Achieving those two goals would make me very happy and, more importantly, it would make my constituents who are trying to use the roads and public transport very happy. I shall also take this opportunity to wish everyone, including you, Mr Deputy Speaker, a happy Christmas and new year.

16:17

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

There is quite a lot to respond to, and I hope to be able to touch on most of the points that have been raised. I shall certainly respond to those Members who are still in their place. I was perhaps hoping that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) would not reappear, because the duration of my speech would have been halved if I had not needed to respond to all the points that he raised. He has returned to his place, however, so I shall respond to him for starters.

My hon. Friend raised concerns about certain House matters, including Tuesday sittings, Prime Minister’s questions and the fact that the Press Gallery was always empty. Those are things that the House can discuss, and Members will be able to tell us whether they are happy with the Tuesday sittings and whether they are content to keep Prime Minister’s questions as a half-hour slot on a Wednesday, rather than reverting to the two 15-minute slots on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern that there were too many quangos, but I hope he welcomes the fact that the coalition Government have got rid of a substantial number of them. He asked about the Chilcot inquiry. If he is familiar with its website, he will be able to look at the latest exchange of correspondence on that matter and to see where we are at. Obviously, we want the inquiry to publish its findings, and we should not try to pre-empt their content.

My hon. Friend also expressed concern about some aspects of freedom of information. He then went on to talk about air pollution, describing it as a hidden killer. I agree with him on that. The fact that people do not visibly drop dead from air pollution means that it is not treated with the same seriousness as heart attacks and strokes. He was right to say that its principal source, apart from industry, is the tailpipes of the cars and other vehicles that we all drive around in. The Government take the issue seriously and we are working towards the legally binding pollution limits set out in European Union legislation. My hon. Friend also rightly highlighted the importance of alternative fuels, such as liquefied petroleum gas, and the fact that they can make a big difference to air quality. He went on to touch on the issue of fire safety.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

rose—

[Tom Brake]

I will give way when I have finished this point. Again, I agree with my hon. Friend that it is important that we all learn lessons from fire incidents and that best practice is spread effectively. On that point, I give way to someone who knows an awful lot about these matters.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

I was going to pick up the point on pollution. European regulations require air quality to be up to a certain mark, but London is failing on so many counts that we have a five-year derogation. If fines are levelled against the UK, will they have to be paid for by the UK Government or the Mayor of London?

[Tom Brake]

I wish I had not given way, because I do not know the answer to that question. However, I am sure that we can secure a written response for the hon. Gentleman, who has highlighted the fact that we have significant air quality issues to address in London. The Mayor does need to tackle them firmly. I know that he has launched certain initiatives, but the impact of vehicles is significant and we need to examine wider measures to try to tackle the problem.

My hon. Friend then discussed the Disclosure and Barring Service, which was previously the Criminal Records Bureau. I suspect that many hon. Members will have encountered issues with the CRB and the DBS relating to turnaround times. Often it is not clear where the delays are occurring, because sometimes they are in securing a response from the police. He touched on the issue of school governors, and I think we can all agree that they play an essential role and make a substantial contribution. I suspect that many hon. Members will have been, or may still be, a school governor. As he stated, they need specific skills, and he identified finance as an area where we perhaps need more people coming in. I encourage them to do so.

My hon. Friend touched on the issue of blue badges. He, like me, and I am sure other hon. Members, has experienced some issues relating to the changes that have taken place with that service. I am sure he represents very effectively his constituents who are experiencing difficulties because they were in receipt of a badge but now are finding that it is not available to them.

My hon. Friend mentioned hepatitis. The Department of Health recognises the public health importance of tackling viral hepatitis in England; it imposes a significant burden on the NHS, so he was right to highlight the importance of tackling it. He referred to the South Essex Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust, which provides mental health services, expressing some concerns about that. Clearly I am not going to refer to any individual cases, but I hope that one thing he would take as a positive step forward is the fact that the Government and the Minister who leads on these issues have been strong in pushing for parity of esteem; in other words, people with mental health issues should be treated in exactly the same way as we would expect people who need to go through the acute health service to be treated. They should get identical quality of care and should see pathways that operate just as effectively.

My hon. Friend also touched on the exotic pet trade, which is a serious contributory factor to the threat of extinction faced by many endangered species. The UK Border Force is responsible for dealing with that, and we need to ensure that anyone dealing in that particular trade follows the rules and completes the right paperwork to ensure that everything is above board.

My hon. Friend mentioned Ray Woodcock, a great granddad who has just broken a Guinness world record, jumping 384 feet down into a flooded quarry. I will make sure that the Chief Whips hear of that, because it may have other potential uses for MPs who misspeak in this place.

Finally, my hon. Friend talked about Southend’s city of culture. It brought a smile to my face when he identified Southend as the alternative city of culture. That is something we can all smile about and welcome. I am sure we will follow developments carefully. I thank my hon. Friend for opening the debate. That leaves me a little bit of time to respond to the other contributions.

The first point that the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick) raised was about Afsana, a constituent of his who is stranded in Dubai. I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has had the support that he needed from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the consular staff, although I understand perfectly why the family will feel that that is not sufficient, given the very serious predicament that their family member is in. I am pleased to hear that a meeting with the Minister has already been agreed, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will pursue the matter as assiduously in that meeting as he has done previously. I am sure that the FCO and consular staff will do everything in their power to help resolve the problem, although all of us who have had experiences of constituents abroad dealing with other legal systems know that that is one of the biggest challenges any Member of Parliament can face in taking up issues on behalf of constituents.

The hon. Gentleman touched on the issue of firefighters’ pensions. He obviously has extensive knowledge of that, which he brings in a very positive way to the Chamber this afternoon. He highlighted some aspects and recognised that it is a good scheme for firefighters. He will know, and I know as a result of a chance meeting with a firefighter while I was out canvassing at the weekend, that the contribution that firefighters make to their pensions is quite significant. The figure that I was quoted was £900 a month as a pension contribution. I am aware that the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Brandon Lewis), has stated his willingness to engage with the Fire Brigades Union, and I hope that will be pursued, as it is not in the interest of the FBU, the Government or the wider public for strike action to go ahead. If there is a possibility of the talks finding a resolution, let us pursue that option.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Sir John Randall) is in his place. I wish him every success in seeking out that plum role in panto. That was everyone’s cue for “Oh no, you don’t”, but they were too slow. My right hon. Friend referred to HS2 and the third runway. It is clear that, particularly in relation to HS2, there will be many opportunities to discuss that further in the months and years to come.

My right hon. Friend dwelt at some length on his interests. From the trip that we both undertook to Venezuela and Brazil some year ago, I know about his interest in environmental matters, wildlife and especially bird life. I recommend that he does not walk around Clapham common in the dark with his bat detection material. He may want to choose another location. He spoke about the Democratic Republic of the Congo and concerns there about its wildlife park. I agree that that is a significant issue, but the DRC has a much wider range of issues that we need to contribute towards resolving, as well as that concern. My right hon. Friend raised the issue of upland habitats here. He may have the opportunity at DEFRA questions on 9 January to raise that and other environment-related matters that he referred to.

There are a couple of issues that I will draw to the attention of the Ministry of Justice—vicarious liability and the changes to legal aid, which my right hon. Friend flagged up. He finished by thanking both the Metropolitan police and the staff of the House, and I join him in that. We all know as Members of Parliament that unfortunately the activities of a very small number of people tend to rub off on the activities of others who have no involvement in inappropriate activities.

The hon. Member for Falkirk (Eric Joyce) raised the serious issue of eating disorders. It is something the Government take very seriously, particularly among young people. We know that those most affected are young people between the ages of 14 and 25, and there might be as many as 1.1 million people—a substantial number—in the UK directly affected. Since April the relevant services have been commissioned by NHS England, so Members who represent English constituencies should raise concerns on the matter with it.

The hon. Member for Stafford (Jeremy Lefroy), who is no longer in his place, raised a large number of issues. He wanted us to remember 3 Mercian, which we will do. He referred to the role of the trust special administrator at Mid Staffordshire NHS Foundation Trust. I think that he was pleased with some of the outcomes of the process but had concerns about others. I echo those concerns in relation to my local hospital, St Helier. It is a category 6 hospital, so one of the safest in the country, and the best in England, Wales and Northern Ireland for dealing with hip fractures, yet it is proposed, as a result of a clinician review, that its A and E and maternity departments should close, which I will fight very hard.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of other health-related issues, which he might want to raise in health questions on 14 January. He also touched on HS2. Given that today we had Transport questions, in which HS2 featured prominently, followed by a statement from the Chair of the Transport Committee, I do not think that there is anything further that I could add. Finally, I was pleased to hear him speaking up for the Government’s position on international development. Following the actions of the previous Government, we are ensuring that we deliver 0.7% of GNI for international development. That gives us credibility around the world when we are talking about the subject. We are recognised internationally for that.

Like other Members, I winced and shuffled in my seat when the hon. Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown) described the painful process of hysteroscopy. I hope that she, on behalf of us all, will thank her constituent and the other women for providing that information. I think that we need a considered response from the Department of Health. Perhaps more guidance could be issued, whether for patients or doctors, because clearly she has identified a pattern with that procedure and I think that it needs a detailed response.

The hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) talked about beds in sheds. Members will know that the Prime Minister has visited Southall to look at that issue. We heard other contributions this afternoon on the private rented sector. It was clear from the cross-party consensus that emerged that something needs to be done. I am sure that the Backbench Business Committee would respond positively to a cross-party request to discuss those issues, because clearly it is unacceptable that people are living in sheds. It was noted that in Slough there were just over 6,100 houses where people were potentially living in sheds, although I suspect that some of them were cannabis farms, because of the heat generated. He also highlighted the number of fires that had happened over a three-year period—just under 350, with nine associated deaths. This not only has a very negative impact on the people who are having to live in those conditions; sometimes the consequences are significantly more serious.

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has yet responded to the housing Minister, the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Keighley (Kris Hopkins), who has written to him to say that he would be happy to meet him to discuss his concerns. He set out in his speech some possible solutions that I am sure the Minister would want to hear. Other Members made some important points that I am sure the Department for Communities and Local Government would appreciate hearing about.

The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised the issue of the third runway. On behalf of his local community, he has been an articulate and consistant advocate of not building that runway, under the coalition Government and under the previous Government. He also discussed HS2, the Fire Brigades Union dispute, and staffing in the House of Commons. He then talked about safer neighbourhood teams. As a London Member of Parliament, I think that unfortunately the changes that have happened mean that there is less visibility on the streets, and people are raising that in terms of the profile of the police. That is an area that we need to monitor. On the living wage, he highlighted the more positive developments in relation to MITIE and flagged up the actions that John Lewis might like to take in this respect. The Government are very supportive of employers who want to take that route, although one could take the view that some employers might find it difficult to provide the living wage.

The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) referred to a very difficult case of abuse involving UK and UN personnel that occurred many years ago and did not comply with or satisfy any of the compensation schemes that were available. I can understand why his constituent and he would want closure on the issue. I will certainly draw it to the attention of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Ministry of Defence in terms of possible solutions.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned an infrastructure proposal regarding the A30 and the A303 and a bid for dualling, although he did not offer it up as an extremely long runway for Heathrow. He then talked about the village of Feniton and his concerns about flooding and the impact of housing development. There may be an opportunity for him to raise those issues as soon as we get back, because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will respond to questions on 9 January and the Department for Communities and Local Government will respond to questions on 13 January.

The hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) complained that we were not having a themed debate today. He may or may not be aware that the Backbench Business Committee discussed the matter and felt that today’s debate should be in this format. Perhaps next time it will feel that it should be in the previous format, with themes. Perhaps housing could have been a theme for today’s debate, or fire brigade disputes—who knows what would have been appropriate? We have a Member here who will feed back the hon. Gentleman’s concerns, and we will see what decision the Committee makes for future pre-recess Adjournment debates.

I echo the hon. Gentleman’s praise for the contribution that the staff in this place make to the way in which we work. He then dwelled on housing in London, picking up the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East. He described the particular challenges faced in a borough like Islington—which I know about reasonably well having lived there some years ago—as regards the cost of housing and the need to build more affordable homes. I am not sure whether the Government would want to follow the hon. Member for Islington North down the route of regulating letting agencies, but he has identified an issue with private landlords that requires a solution. I will make sure that the proposal in his private Member’s Bill is drawn to the attention of the Department for Communities and Local Government to see whether it can provide a solution. Given that we have had substantial contributions on the issue of housing and the private rented sector in particular, the Backbench Business Committee may look favourably on a request for a debate early in the new year.

My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who has just left his place, thanked organisations in his constituency, including the Salvation Army and church groups. I am sure we would all want to echo those remarks. I will visit my local Salvation Army tomorrow to pick up some gifts for me to give to a family who cannot afford presents this Christmas. The Salvation Army is making a positive contribution at this festive time of year, as are church groups by organising lunches for people who might otherwise be alone.

My hon. Friend also referred to a couple of transport infrastructure projects and I will make sure that the Department for Transport is made aware of those two bids. I do not intend to visit cholesterol corner—it does not sound like a nice place to go—where people can get their arteries blocked in more ways than one: from KFC and McDonald’s to the traffic congestion at the junction.

I believe that I have touched on most or even all of the points that have been raised. In conclusion, I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and the Clerks, the Door Keepers, the shadow Deputy Leader of the House the hon. Member for Penistone and Stocksbridge (Angela Smith), every Member who has contributed to the debate, and the civil servants who have provided support to ensure that I and others were well briefed, as well as our constituency and Westminster staff. As Members of Parliament we are uniquely privileged in the positions we hold in this House and none of our work would be possible without the contribution that a whole range of people make to our lives.

I will finish with a big smile on my face, just to dispel the notion that I might be auditioning for “Grinch 3”. I wish everyone a merry Christmas and a happy new year.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Before I put the question, may I thank all the Members who took part in the debate and wish everybody who stayed behind all the best for Christmas and the new year? I also thank all the staff of this House, wherever they work in it, for their efficiency and for making the lives of all Members so much easier. I also thank the public who visit this rare House of ours. Right, let’s put the question!

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.

Criminal Justice (North Wales)

Thursday 19th December 2013 Commons Chamber

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

16:43

[Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this evening, Mr Deputy Speaker. I echo your festive greetings and wish you, your family and everyone in the House a merry Christmas. I also thank all the staff who have worked so hard for us over the past year. I would also like to extend Christmas greetings to the Under-Secretary of State for Justice, the hon. Member for North West Cambridgeshire (Mr Vara), to whom I apologise for detaining him this evening. He has only recently been installed—or should I say reinstalled?—in Government and it is a pleasure to have him back, but I am afraid that some of my remarks will be critical of his Department. I am sure that things will start to look up because of his appointment.

I should first declare an interest as a non-practising solicitor. I have not worked in private practice since I was elected in 2001, but I bring previous experience of working in the criminal justice system in north Wales, as well as in Merseyside and Cheshire. I have many connections, which I maintain, with people working in the criminal justice system in north Wales, including solicitors, barristers, magistrates, magistrates’ clerks, probation officers and police officers.

I have never known such a state of flux in the criminal justice system in north Wales and, even more worryingly, such a lack of information for the community as a whole about the Government’s justice policy and how it will operate in future. It is creating enormous uncertainty for court staff, businesses connected to the courts and magistrates who commit time and substantial energy to the service, as well as for court users generally.

Magistrates courts and criminal justice are important to their communities. Summary justice is hundreds of years old, and it depends upon local input for effectiveness. It is indeed ironic that a Government who purport to promote localism appear determined to erase local justice from the map. What is this Government’s agenda for north Wales?

Magistrates and solicitors approached me early this year, when Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service in Wales issued a consultation document on the review of local justice areas in North Wales, the gist of which was to merge six magistrates court benches into three. When I read it, I was struck by the fact that none of the reasons given for that proposal referred to court users, but instead focused on issues such as

“a more cost effective and viable financial base”,

and “reduced administrative burdens”, as well as

“improved flexibility in the listing of cases within larger justice areas”.

In my town of Wrexham, there is real concern about the proposed merger of the local bench, which has been established for hundreds of years, with Flintshire. That would enable Wrexham cases to be listed in Mold, which would have a substantial impact on defendants, witnesses, lawyers, probation officers, magistrates and clerks. It would be the latest in a long line of changes to court work in north Wales that have centralised fine enforcement, road traffic cases and TV licensing work, taking local work away from courts in an effort to centralise.

The effect in Wrexham might be even more profound, as North Wales police currently intend to move custody facilities from the town centre to Llay, which is situated between Wrexham and Mold. The current custody facilities are immediately adjacent to Wrexham magistrates court, but I am concerned that if they move to Llay and the Ministry of Justice succeeds in its bid to merge magistrates benches, the combination of both factors will form part of a future case for moving magistrates’ business away from Wrexham completely. We might be seeing the start of a process that ultimately leads to the closure of the magistrates court in the largest town in north Wales.

I know from speaking to north Wales parliamentary colleagues from all parties that there is real concern across north Wales about the Ministry of Justice’s courts agenda. In response to the consultation earlier this year, I lodged a detailed submission on 21 April 2013, five days before the closure date. I made various points about the usage of the courts, and I raised issues relating to travel, impacts on local businesses—they have expressed their concerns to me about the proposal—and the additional cost to the public purse from increased travel costs. I concluded:

“I would also welcome the opportunity to discuss these matters with Wrexham Magistrates.”

I heard nothing for some time.

It is striking how remote the criminal justice system is from Members of Parliament in north Wales. There appears to be no willingness to engage with us on the part of the Ministry of Justice or Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service. That contrasts with our relations with the police force, the chief constable and even the new police and crime commissioner. The Ministry of Justice seems to be pursuing various agendas, thick and fast, without any consultation with the local community. What is the policy on courts and probation, and where is it leading? Even on the issue of Wrexham prison, where more information has been given, we still do not know whether it will be run by the public or private sector.

The roaring silence in response to my submission on court mergers continued. I wrote chasing e-mails. Eventually, on 22 May, I was informed that the consultation had been withdrawn

“as there was insufficient support from amongst the magistrates for a merger to proceed at this time”.

I was then astonished to be informed by local solicitors that the court service had cancelled the sittings in Wrexham on Mondays and that they were to be heard at Mold. It appeared that the proposals that had been envisaged in the consultation document were being taken forward despite the consultation and despite the reasoning that had been given by the local justices’ clerk for the withdrawal of the consultation. The proposals were proceeding without anyone bothering to have a consultation and expressly against the wishes of the local magistrates, who had not supported them.

The court is crucial to Wrexham. It is the biggest town in north Wales and a population centre. It is served by bus routes in a way that Mold is not and it supports small and larger solicitors practices that employ my constituents. Moving the magistrates court is of such importance to various groups in the town that they contacted me—something that they do not do often. They have asked me to look after their interests and the interests of the town. However, the court service has still not met me, despite my request, to tell me what is going on. I am willing to meet it, but I feel excluded.

Not everyone is excluded from the consultation. A lot of private discussion has been going on, from which the public and other interested parties have been cut out since the withdrawal of the public consultation document. On 2 July this year, the Secretary of State for Justice attended a political meeting of Wrexham Conservatives. In a report to Wrexham magistrates in August 2013, Sally Kenyon, the chair of the Wrexham bench said:

“I had the pleasure of meeting Chris Grayling…in Wrexham in July. I raised our concern that Wrexham is to lose the police cells adjacent to the court building”.

There is then a substantial passage setting out the views of the Secretary of State on his plans relating to the Ministry of Justice estate in north Wales. It quotes extensively, but selectively, from correspondence with the chair of the Wrexham bench. The Secretary of State concluded his correspondence by saying that

“there are no firm plans in relation to the relocation of criminal work to Mold.”

When I wrote to the Secretary of State subsequently for information on his discussions concerning Wrexham courts, he said:

“The purpose of my visit to Wrexham was for a private luncheon, rather than Departmental business”.

It is very clear, however, that departmental business was discussed at that private luncheon. In his letter to me of 10 October, on Ministry of Justice notepaper, the Secretary of State concludes with the same phrase that he used in his letter to the chair of the Wrexham bench:

“there are no firm plans in relation to the relocation of criminal work to Mold”.

In a letter to the Minister, I asked to meet him to find out about the agenda of the Ministry of Justice for the courts in north Wales. I am still waiting for a reply. A series of written parliamentary questions on the issue were answered with obfuscation and avoidance. I have, therefore, secured this debate.

Will the Minister please confirm that the Secretary of State conducted departmental business at what he described as a “private luncheon”? In particular, will he confirm that the Secretary of State discussed Wrexham magistrates court and Wrexham police cells with the chair of Wrexham bench? Will he release the full text of the Secretary of State’s letter to the chair of Wrexham magistrates bench so that the public can have confidence in the process, and so that all magistrates can see the full text of the correspondence? Does the Minister think it appropriate that the people of north Wales should be excluded from discussions on the future of criminal justice in north Wales? Does he think it appropriate for privileged access to the Secretary of State to be given to individuals because of political connections?

Will the Minister please arrange a briefing session for north Wales MPs to tell us, openly and honestly—as I am sure he will—what HM Courts Service intends to propose for north Wales? We had a consultation that was withdrawn as long ago as April, and actions have been taken by HM Courts Service to bring together services since then without any consultation or anyone having the opportunity to make representations. Does the MOJ have any intention to consult the people of Wrexham and, more broadly, of north Wales, on its proposals for courts in north Wales?

The way this issue has been handled to date is, quite simply, the worst I have encountered in 12 years as an MP. It has been conducted evasively, incompetently and, quite bluntly, with secrecy. I hope that the Minister will now open up the process so that MPs and the people of north Wales can be consulted about the criminal justice system in our area, and so that we know what is going on and can make appropriate representations.

16:57

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

I thank the hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) for the kind comments he made at the outset of his remarks about my appointment. I assure him that it is no inconvenience for me to be here today, notwithstanding the fact that it is the last debate before the Christmas recess. I congratulate him on securing this debate. It is an important issue—all the more reason why I am pleased to be here—not only for the hon. Gentleman but for his constituents. That is evident from the number of parliamentary questions he has submitted, the correspondence in which he has engaged, and the fact he has secured this debate.

The hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues, and I hope that during my speech I will address some of his concerns. I apologise that the letter he wrote to me received a reply that was sent by e-mail only yesterday. As a colleague, I appreciate how many e-mails we all get, but it is somewhere in the system and I apologise for the delay, which should not have happened. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman has had difficulty trying to arrange meetings with local judicial staff and, as far as I am able, I will try to assist to facilitate that meeting for him and his colleagues.

It is important to recognise two issues. We are talking about the potential merger of two benches, which is a matter for the judiciary. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that constitutionally, the judiciary is independent of the Executive. A potential merger of benches is a matter for the magistrates to come to a conclusion on, working with the justice clerk. The management of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service falls within the Ministry of Justice, so there is departmental responsibility at our end. As I proceed with my remarks, I hope I will address some of the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Let me be clear at the outset: the delivery of criminal justice is a crucial priority for the Government. That is why, among other measures, we are investing in the digital courtroom, as part of the strategy and action plan for reform of the criminal justice system. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that effective magistrates courts are the cornerstone of our justice system. They deal with 95% of the criminal cases that go through the courts in England and Wales.

17:00

Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 9(3)).

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(John Penrose.)

[Mr Vara]

The work that magistrates do in north Wales and across the court service is absolutely vital. The partnership between the magistracy and officials who manage the courts is an essential prerequisite for the successful operation of our magistrates courts. In the case of magistrates courts, this partnership is built up through regular meetings between bench chairs and officials, providing the opportunity to discuss the conduct of court business, including listing arrangements. It is therefore to be expected that the chairs of Wrexham and Mold benches would discuss the potential arrangement of local justice areas in north Wales during meetings with officials.

As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the local justices issues group concluded in late 2012 that the reorganisation of local justice areas, including the merger of the Wrexham and Flintshire local justice areas, would provide the most efficient framework for the administration of justice in north Wales.

I am aware that the hon. Gentleman took the time and trouble to respond in detail to the consultation. However, as he will be aware, the consultation was suspended when it became clear that the wider proposals for north Wales no longer had the support of all the bench chairs, as had been previously understood. Following further consideration, the proposals were withdrawn. I hope the hon. Gentleman will take away from that the fact that the voice of the people who took the trouble to take part in the consultation was heard. This is a decision based on views taken in by outsiders, and not on decisions taken at the top.

[Ian Lucas]

On that point, the difficulty is that steps were taken subsequently, in terms of the transfer of business between the two courts, that seem to pursue the agenda suggested in the withdrawn consultation.

[Mr Vara]

I appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but the listing of cases is a matter for the judiciary to decide as it sees best so that it can get the business done and hear as many cases as possible. It is important to recognise that distinction. As far as the consultation is concerned, it was pulled. I understand that there is talk among the magistrates—not at the Ministry of Justice end, but among the magistrates—that there may be another consultation, but that is a matter I hope he will be able to address in direct communications with them. As I said at the outset, I will try to facilitate a meeting for him.

It is important to appreciate that any new proposals to merge local justice areas in north Wales would be subject to a consultation. I am aware that the bench chairmen for Flintshire and Wrexham are keen to consult on mergers, because they believe they will result in a more efficient and effective structure for the magistracy in north-east Wales.

If a consultation does go ahead, all local magistrates, local authorities, members of the local criminal justice board and other interested parties—including, of course, all local MPs and other locally elected officials—will be able to comment. It would be for the justices clerk and the local justices issues group to consider the responses to the consultation and, should there be a case for merger, they will then formulate their final recommendation in respect of the new structure.

In considering changes to local justice areas, account will of course be taken of access to justice and how to deal effectively with the business of magistrates courts. This will include the needs of local communities and the wider criminal justice system infrastructure, the deployment of magistrates and their need for support, and the workload and deployment of Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service staff.

I emphasise that changes to local justice areas take place periodically and are driven by the need to create listing efficiencies and deploy magistrates as efficiently as possible. If a new consultation on changes to local justice areas in north Wales takes place, it should not be viewed as an automatic precursor to the closure of a courthouse. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware, North Wales police has announced plans, following public consultation, to improve service provision in north Wales, but these will not automatically lead to the closure of magistrates courts. We are aware that the police will vacate their existing premises in Wrexham in 2016-17, which will have implications for the court and how it deals with custody cases, but when circumstances change in this way, the Courts and Tribunals Service will need to assess the most appropriate way for criminal cases to be effectively delivered in the area.

The hon. Gentleman might feel that the lack of cells will automatically lead to the closure of the court, but that is not the case. He did not dwell on this in his speech, but he will be aware of it and the consultation by the local police. I can reassure him that an open and transparent consultation process is used when deciding whether to close a court. Crucially, any proposals on the future of a court are considered with emphasis on the local area and how justice is best served there. Several factors will be taken into consideration before starting a consultation, including an assessment of the work load and utilisation of the court. The Courts and Tribunals Service also takes into account whether a suitable alternative location for the work is available and whether it could be accommodated elsewhere without a detrimental impact on service levels. If a consultation is published, it is important that local stakeholders and partners and elected officials be properly engaged to ensure that all relevant views are taken into account.

There is then a full analysis of all responses received before any decision is made. The response to the consultation is always accompanied by an impact assessment. I hope that this reassures the hon. Gentleman that when there are proposals to change the deployment of magistrates or the court estate, proper and distinct processes are followed, ensuring that decisions are made only once the views of relevant parties have been considered through the open and transparent consultation processes. I stress that the Government are committed to providing court users in north Wales with proper and effective access to justice. In so doing, hard-working taxpayers rightly expect us to reduce the cost of operating courts and tribunals while maintaining an effective service for court users.

In this country, we have one of the best justice systems in the world. Whatever decisions are taken, it is always central to our thought process that we ensure this world-class justice system continues. On that note, I conclude by wishing you, Mr Deputy Speaker, the court officials and the hon. Gentleman a merry Christmas. Also, I extend a special greeting to the security staff, who look after us while we do our work and ensure we can do it safely.

Question put and agreed to.

17:08

House adjourned.

Ministerial Correction

Thursday 19th December 2013 Ministerial Corrections

Thursday 19 December 2013

Tomlinson Report

Thursday 19th December 2013 Ministerial Corrections

The following is an extract from the response given by the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Sajid Javid) to the hon. Member for North East Derbyshire (Natascha Engel) during the Westminster Hall debate on the Tomlinson report on 17 December 2013.

[Natascha Engel]

I am sorry to press this, but one of the very serious issues is the foot dragging, and the more time that is taken, even if it is under the guise of making sure that every i is dotted and every t is crossed, means more small and medium-sized businesses are unnecessarily going under, so the time pressure is really serious. I want to re-emphasise that the FCA must be put under pressure by the Treasury to ensure that the review is done as quickly as possible.

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the gist of the hon. Lady’s comments, but I am not sure what she means by foot dragging. The report was published on 22 October. On 23 October, it was given to the FCA, and, within days, the FCA announced that it would investigate, so it would be wrong to accuse the FCA or anyone else of foot dragging, but she is right to suggest that we must stay on top of this and make sure it is handled in a timely way.

[Official Report, 17 December 2013, Vol. 572, c. 166WH.]

Letter of correction from Sajid Javid:

An error has been identified in the response provided during the Westminster Hall debate on the Tomlinson report.

The correct response should have been:

[Sajid Javid]

I agree with the gist of the hon. Lady’s comments, but I am not sure what she means by foot dragging. The report was submitted to BIS on 22 October. On 23 October, it was given to the FCA, and, within days, the FCA announced that it would investigate, so it would be wrong to accuse the FCA or anyone else of foot dragging, but she is right to suggest that we must stay on top of this and make sure it is handled in a timely way.

Petitions

Thursday 19th December 2013 Petitions

Thursday 19 December 2013

Housing Development off Hillside Close (Bozeat, Northamptonshire)

Thursday 19th December 2013 Petitions

The Humble Petition of the residents of Bozeat, Northamptonshire and the surrounding areas,

Sheweth,

That the proposed housing development, application number WP/2013/0332 on the land off Hillside Close, Bozeat, is unacceptable because the scale and location of the development is out of character with the village and would extend the village boundary.

Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House urges the Department for Communities and Local Government, and the Borough Council of Wellingborough to work together to ensure that this development does not occur.

And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, &c.—[Presented by Mr Peter Bone, Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 774.]

[P001289]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government:

The Borough Council of Wellingborough is responsible for the day-to-day planning of their area. The Government’s policy is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of a local planning authority unless it is necessary to do so. This is because local authority Councillors are elected to represent the views of local people and, in the main, it is these Councillors who are in the best position to decide whether a development should go ahead. In determining a planning application the local planning authority are required to have regard to all material considerations including the development plan, national policies and views expressed by third parties. It is, of course, for local planning authorities to provide whatever justification that may be appropriate to give for their decisions and procedures.

Officials have been in contact with planning officers at the Borough of Wellingborough Council. If the Council are minded to approve the planning application the Secretary of State will carefully consider this case against call-in policy, as set out in the Written Statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Nick Boles), Official Report, 26 October 2012, column 71WS. The policy makes it clear that the power to call in a planning application will only be used very selectively. The Government are committed to giving more power to councils and communities to make their own decisions on planning issues, and believes planning decisions should be made at the local-level wherever possible.

Certain Care Proceedings in Birmingham

Thursday 19th December 2013 Petitions

The Petition of a mother living in Birmingham, Yardley,

Declares that the mother was betrayed by her barrister Andrew Neaves in care proceedings in Birmingham.

He allowed the judge to conclude that she accepted the need for a care order when she clearly did not.

Also, in cross examining his own client he asked and she responded:

Q. I think in these proceedings you have already made a number of statements, which we see in the bundle and also on your behalf a response to the threshold has been made, which resulted in an agreed threshold document. Is that right?

A. Yes.

Q. And is what you have said in the course of your statements to this Court true and accurate?

A. Yes.

Q. I am not going to take you in detail to your statement. What I am going to ask you about are matters in particular of more recent moment, but before I do I want to ask you first of all about the threshold document that has been agreed in this case. Do you accept that the threshold document contains agreed information before the Court, which illustrates that in the past your parenting has not been good enough?

A. Yes.

Following this District Judge Asokan concluded in her judgment of 26th September 2012 paragraph 21:

“All the parties agreed that the threshold criteria pursuant to s.31 of the Children Act 1989 has been met. I am therefore, empowered to make an order in this instance.”

The mother, however, did not agree that the threshold criteria had been met merely that the facts in the threshold criteria were true. The mother takes the view that the threshold criteria do not meet the threshold of “significant harm” as referred to in the Children Act 1989. The threshold criteria referred to accidents that happened to the children, an attempt by a child to open the door of a clothes dryer, an attempt by the young children to leave the house when a visiting Social Worker left the front door open, having a Staffordshire Bull Terrier dog that sat on a child’s torso and having inadequate stair gates.

The mother appealed the decision and HHJ Hindley refused permission to appeal. This had the effect of preventing the case and the malpractice of Mr Neaves from being considered by the court of appeal and was refused on the basis of jurisdiction by the court of appeal on 26th September 2013 reference [2013] EQCA Civ 1158. Furthermore the appeal was considered to be out of time because of a delay in obtaining a judgement. HHJ Hindley argued that because the mother had a barrister at the hearing in court of first instance that it was possible to appeal without the judgement. However, given that the mother’s argument is that her barrister undermined her case it would be quite surprising if the barrister had assisted her in putting that argument to an appellate court.

The Petitioner therefore requests that the House of Commons establishes an inquiry into her case and the general difficulty faced by parents getting their cases considered by the appellate system particularly when victims of malpractice by legal advisors and whether the Access to Justice Act 1999 should be changed to ensure that all cases can be considered at least on paper by the Court of Appeal.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by John Hemming, Official Report, 8 October 2013; Vol. 568, c. 1P.]

[P001224]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Justice:

First I should say that we make no comment on the allegations made in the petition against the barrister acting for the mother in this case. The legal profession is independent and self-regulating and there are independent regulatory authorities in place to address any allegations of conduct matters.

As to the Petitioner’s request to review this particular case the President of the Family Division, Sir James Munby, was very clear in his judgment and summarised his findings as follows:

“As will be appreciated, this is not, as the mother asserts, a second appeal. It is an attempt to appeal not against a decision on appeal but from a decision of an appellate court—here Judge Hindley — to refuse permission to appeal to that court. Accordingly, section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 applies (see also FPR PD30A, para 4.5):

“No appeal may be made against a decision of a court under this section to give or refuse permission”.

The President therefore considered that the application was fundamentally misconceived. The full judgement in this case can be found at:

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2013/1158.html.

With regards to the proposal that all cases should be considered by the Court of Appeal, the rationale for re-routing appeals away from the Court of Appeal has been established in history. Principles specifically applicable to the appeals process in family cases, which were set out in “Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Report to the Lord Chancellor” by Sir Jeffrey Bowman in 1997, included that:

“Certain appeals which [formerly reached] the Court of Appeal should normally be heard at a lower level provided that they are heard by a court or judge with a superior jurisdiction to the court or judge who made the first instance decision” ¹.

The Bowman Review recommended the establishment of a specialist committee to rationalise the routes of appeals in family cases and to bring them in line with the underlying principles outlined for civil appeals. The Lord Chancellor consulted on specific proposals for implementing reforms to the family appeals system. The relevant recommendations were enacted in the Access to Justice Act 1999.

There are statutory rights of appeal to the Court of appeal from the determination of a judge of a county court (section 77 of the County Courts Act 1984) and from a judgment or order of the High Court (section 16 of the Senior Courts Act 1981). In line with the policy of the Bowman Report outlined above, the general position in family proceedings is that appeals from decisions made at district judge level and below in a county court and High Court are taken away from the Court of Appeal and routed to a county court or the High Court as the case may be. The power in section 56 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 has been used to achieve this rerouting (see the Access to Justice Act 1999 (Destination of Appeals) (Family Proceedings) Order 2011 (S. I.2011 /1044). An order under section 56 is made by the Lord Chancellor after consulting the Heads of Division and follows the affirmative resolution procedure.

Circumstances remain where the Court of Appeal hears the appeal. Section 57 of the Access to Justice Act 1999 enables appeals to courts other than the Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court to be re assigned to the Court of Appeal. Where a judge of a county court or of the High Court makes a decision on hearing an appeal, a second appeal to the Court of Appeal is possible where the Court of Appeal considers that the appeal would raise an important point of principle or practice or there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.

Looking at the appeals procedure more generally a party who is dissatisfied with the decision of a district judge has a right of appeal to a judge of the county court subject to obtaining permission to appeal. No permission is required against a committal order or a secure accommodation order under section 25 of the Children Act 1989.

An application for permission to appeal may be made to the court at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made or to the appeal court (which would consist of a judge of a county court where the decision being appealed was made by a district judge). Where the court refuses an application for permission at the hearing at which the decision to be appealed was made, a further application for permission may be made to the appeal court. Rule 30.3 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010 is the relevant court rule relating to applying for permission. And this is supported by paragraphs 4.1 to 4.24 of the Appeals Practice Direction 30A. As the President stated in his judgment on this case section 54(4) of the Access to Justice Act 1999 provides that there is no appeal against a decision to grant or refuse permission to appeal.

The time limits for appealing are set out in rule 30.4 of the Family Procedure Rules 2010. The general rule is that the person who brings or seeks to bring the appeal must file the appellant’s notice at the appeal court within such period as may be directed by the court which made the decision to be appealed or where that court does not make a direction, the appellant’s notice must be filed 21 days after the date of the decision which the person wishes to appeal. The period for filing the notice by the court which made the decision to be appealed may be longer or shorter than 21 days. Rule 30.7 provides that an application to vary the time limit for filing the notice must be made to the appeal court. The case management powers in Part 4 of the Family Procedure rules give the court power to extend or shorten the time for compliance with a rule, practice direction or court order (even if an application for extension of time is made after the time for compliance has expired).

The Family Procedure Rule Committee consulted on certain amendments to the appeals rules in a targeted consultation of interested parties between 27 July and 20 September 2013. They are now considering amendments to the rules and supporting practice directions in consequence of the setting up of the new family court. Consideration is also being given to the routes of appeal from decisions of judges as part of the work related to the setting up of the new family court.

¹Recommendation 10. “Review of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Report to the Lord Chancellor”. September 1997. Department for Constitutional Affairs. p.141.

Use of Statistics by the Department for Work and Pensions

Thursday 19th December 2013 Petitions

The Petition of residents of the UK,

Declares that the Petitioners believe that Mr Iain Duncan Smith, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, has used incorrect facts and statistics relating to the Disability Living Allowance; and further declares that an online petition demanding that the Work and Pensions Select Committee holds Mr Duncan Smith to account for his use of statistics has gathered more than 105,000 signatures.

The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Work and Pensions Select Committee to question Mr Duncan Smith at their earliest convenience to hold him to account for his use of statistics and further requests that the House requires Mr Duncan Smith to retract any incorrect statistics that may have been circulated in the public domain by his Department.

And the Petitioners remain, etc.—[Presented by Liz Kendall, Official Report, 19 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 20P.]

[P001296]

Observations from the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions:

The comments in the Petition from Residents of the UK dated 19/11/13 have been noted. The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) takes great care to ensure that the statistics it releases into the public domain are accurate and this is underpinned by robust procedures for assurance.

DWP has strict guidelines and procedures in place around the publishing of statistics. All statistical releases must comply with the Code of Practice as governed by the UK Statistics Authority.

A Work and Pensions Select Committee took place on 9 December 2013 during which the Secretary of State answered questions specifically relating to DWP statistics and his own use of those statistics. This followed a Work and Pensions Select Committee Hearing on 10 July 2013 at which DWP’s Director of Communications and the Head of Profession for Statistics gave evidence, both regarding the release of statistics and the measures in place to ensure these are accurate and complete. Both hearings were part of routine Parliamentary procedures by which the Department and its Ministers are held to account. The minutes are published by Parliament: http://www. parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/ commons-select/work-and-pensions-committee/publications/.

DWP has made around 500 statistical releases available since 2010. In that time, DWP Ministers have received just two letters from the UK Statistics Authority, raising concerns from them about the Department’s use of a particular statistic—although neither of these related to Disability Living Allowance.

Almost all of DWP’s main statistical series have been accredited by the UKSA Statistics Authority as complying with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics. The few that remain are currently awaiting assessment. This shows that the controls in place for the release of statistics are effective in ensuring statistics released are accurate and comply with the Code of Practice.

Westminster Hall

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

Thursday 19 December 2013

[Nadine Dorries in the Chair]

Backbench business

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

Immigration (Bulgaria and Romania)

Thursday 19th December 2013 Westminster Hall

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—(Anne Milton.)

13:30

[Nigel Mills (Amber Valley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to start this debate on an important topic of great national interest. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for providing us with the time to debate this topic before the Christmas recess. I think that most of us here find it a pity that we cannot debate the matter on a substantive motion in the main Chamber, where we could have tested the will of the House with a vote.

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

Can my hon. Friend explain why that is? It was completely in the power of the Backbench Business Committee to put this debate in the Chamber, rather than the Rag, Tag and Bobtail Adjournment debate happening there at the moment.

[Nigel Mills]

I think I am grateful for that intervention. It is not for me to answer for the Backbench Business Committee; my hon. Friend has more experience of that Committee, so perhaps he can explain later.

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman tabled an amendment to the Immigration Bill, which was last debated on 19 November. Although the Bill has completed Committee stage, there is no date, even in today’s business statement, for when the Bill will be brought back to the House of Commons. Does he regret that his party’s business managers did not give him that opportunity?

[Nigel Mills]

That is the point that I was alluding to. It would have been better to have had this debate during consideration of the amendment to the Immigration Bill on Report, so that we could have dealt with the issue on the Floor of the House before the restrictions were lifted, which, sadly, is likely to happen in less than two weeks’ time. However, I am afraid that House business management is even further above my pay grade than the machinations of the Backbench Business Committee, so it is probably not wise for me to be drawn on that subject.

The right hon. Gentleman takes me to my first theme. The Minister and I—alone, sadly—have debated this topic before, at Committee stage. A month has passed, and a few things have changed. I was the lone signatory to the amendment at that point, but more than 74 MPs have now signed it for Report. A few of the facts have probably changed since then as well; obviously, there was already a petition with more than 150,000 signatories, but since that point, we have learned that despite the Government’s many welcome measures over the course of this Parliament, net migration rose in the last year, which causes concern to those of us who are committed to our manifesto promise to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands. Can that be achieved, especially if large numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians take advantage of the lack of restrictions? The Government have made a series of welcome announcements of policies to tackle immigration. Welfare measures were introduced to Parliament yesterday.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, but I put it to him that perhaps those measures, particularly the changes in benefits, risk being too little too late. They also risk feeding a minority’s views and prejudices about immigrants. My experience is that the vast majority come here to work, and they work hard. They come not because of the benefits, but because the average salary here is so much higher than in their home country. Would it not be a better option to extend the transitional controls and stop people coming in, to give us time to assimilate those already here? Given that whichever route the Government take, they will be challenged, they might as well go for the better option.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with everything that my hon. Friend says. If he has read the speech I made in Committee, he will have seen that I focused on the argument about the impact on our labour market, which is already and still disrupted by the recession. If he has not read that speech, luckily I can give most of it again, seeing that we are debating much the same topic. I fear that I may have to give the same speech in a few weeks’ time, when we debate the Immigration Bill.

My hon. Friend is right that it is important to get the tone of any debate about immigration right. We are not looking to insult people or make untrue claims; we are looking at what is in our national interest and the public interest. We are still experiencing higher unemployment than we would like; it is higher than before the recession, and even though it has decreased significantly in recent months, it is still the main problem.

That is not to say that the Government are wrong to try to ensure that our welfare system is no more generous than those of other western European nations, and to tackle some of the potential weaknesses, such as the fact that we still have a system based on entitlement, not contribution. A fundamental reform of the system may well be required. I wholeheartedly support the measures announced; perhaps we could have gone further.

I have an interesting question that I hope the Minister will answer later: how many people do the Government think their new measures will catch? How many fewer people do they estimate will come over the next five years than would have come without the measures? I suspect that the number is not very large, but the information would be welcome.

Why are we concerned about the potential level of immigration from Romania and Bulgaria once the restrictions are lifted? We have talked about people coming here to abuse our welfare system, to the extent that that is actually the case, but there are real concerns about the impact on our health service. The fact that we have free health care, which is, of course, very welcome, makes us a little more attractive a destination than many other western European nations where the situation is not quite as simple.

[Mr Douglas Carswell (Clacton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this important issue. The United Kingdom is one of only five European Union member states with a system in which non-contributory unemployment benefits are paid to people looking for work. Surely we cannot have totally unrestricted movement of people within the EU and retain our system of non-contributory unemployment benefits. At the same time, the European Commission is pushing to ensure that all EU nationals have the same rights as British nationals to claim non-contributory payments in this country. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is what is at stake? We must make a choice between the welfare system that the Labour party put in place after the second world war, and the grand project of the European grandees. We cannot have both.

[Nigel Mills]

I agree with what my hon. Friend says. He leads us to a fundamental tension. Can we allow freedom of movement when there are such disparities of wealth between the new nations joining the EU and others, and when the attractiveness of our benefit system means that it is very different from what people experience in their country? There is a tension between the welfare system that we would like and the impact that it has when there is free movement of people, and we must resolve that, one way or another.

It would be far better for the European Court not to produce such ludicrous decisions. Those of us on the Eurosceptic side of the debate probably welcome perverse decisions that further lower the reputation of the EU and the UK, but if I were in the Court’s shoes, I am not sure that I would be quite so creative.

The NHS is attractive to people coming here, and there are also concerns about whether we have enough housing to accommodate large influxes of migrants over the next five years. Those of us who are experiencing great discomfort due to local plans to comply with existing housing targets probably do not fancy adding a few more hundred thousand people throughout the country, and seeing how many more houses we will have to find on our green belt. There are also impacts on other public services, notably schools, in areas where there is high pressure from immigration.

[Mr Andrew Turner (Isle of Wight) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend not agree that 2 million new people in this country over the past 10 years is far too many? We must find out what the Government foresee in future.

[Nigel Mills]

I think there is general agreement that the level of migration over the past decade was clearly higher than the country could cope with. Members of the previous Government are now recognising that they made mistakes, especially relating to the accession of the A8 countries a decade ago. It is worth reminding ourselves that 5,000 to 13,000 people a year were predicted to come from those countries, and more than 1 million actually came. That was a spectacularly bad prediction.

[Andrew Bingham (High Peak) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, which is hugely important to our constituents, on what is probably one of the prevailing issues that they face. On his point about previous accessions, does he agree that the last Government’s lamentable failure to control immigration has left a long and large shadow of memory across our constituents’ minds? They are fearful that it will all happen again. Some of those fears may be unjust, but the concerns are occupying our constituents’ minds greatly.

[Nigel Mills]

Yes, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. It can be no surprise that the public have great concern about what might happen when new nations have unfettered access to free movement, given that our experience with other eastern European nations gaining such freedom is that so many of their nationals chose to come to this country. I accept that most of them chose to come here to work, but that leaves us with the fundamental question of how to deal with that when unemployment in this country is still far higher than we would like.

[Mr Brooks Newmark (Braintree) (Con)]

I realise that my hon. Friend is trying to make progress, but he makes an important point about the contradiction between people coming from Europe, eastern Europe in particular, because they believe jobs are here, and the perception of people locally that they are taking jobs. The reality is that many local people simply will not take those jobs; that is why they are being filled by eastern Europeans. That is the skills gap at the low end. It is not that there are no jobs; many people locally will simply not take the jobs, because they do not want to work for such pay or in those particular roles. That is the issue.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. One of the drivers of the Government’s welfare reforms is to encourage people to take work if they are offered it; if they choose not to take work that is available, they do not get the benefits that they would presumably like to keep. For the welfare reforms to work, however, we need jobs to be available, so that people can be gently encouraged to take them, even if they are perhaps not their first choice. If the jobs that exist are taken by those who have just arrived in this country, those necessary and important welfare reforms become much harder to achieve. We must remember that a first job can be the start of the career ladder; it is not necessarily the end of it. Encouraging people to take jobs even if they do not think that they are suited to them, or if the jobs are not quite what they are after, is perfectly appropriate policy.

I shall try to get back to the thread of my argument. Let me set out why I tabled an amendment in Committee to keep in place transitional restrictions—and I am grateful that 73 other MPs have chosen to sign that amendment for Report. Looking at the criteria in the accession treaties that allowed us and other western European nations to keep restrictions until the last possible minute, we were allowed the restrictions, and chose to keep them, because there was still serious disruption in our employment market.

Two years ago, the Government commissioned an independent assessment from the Migration Advisory Committee of whether the test was still being met. The main criteria looked at were levels of employment and unemployment, the claimant count, and vacancies, both in 2011 and pre-recession. The pre-recession level of employment was 72.7%; two years ago, that was down at 70.6%. Unemployment before the recession was 5.1%; two years ago, it was 7.8%. The claimant count was 3% pre-recession and 4.6% two years ago; vacancies had been 621,000, but were down to 469,000. Those figures were the justification for saying, “We need to keep these restrictions for another two years. Our labour market can’t cope with the potential disruption of a large number of people arriving.”

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

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. He has the problem in a nutshell. In my constituency, unemployment is down to 2.4%, but many of those who remain unemployed are harder to place, and we need to do more work with them. The last thing that they need is competition from another wave of immigrants. We also need to look at the argument about what the level of immigration could do to the Romanian and Bulgarian economies. What effect will the departure of their brightest, young and best—the keen people willing to travel across the continent to find work—have on the Romanian and Bulgarian economies? That needs to be taken into account.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend is right. The idea behind those nations wanting to join the European Union was to grow their economies and to provide better living standards for their people. That must be harder to do if what looks like the best option for their brightest people is to leave for a better wage elsewhere.

I return to the test that was run two years ago. If we were to apply it now, with the excellent unemployment data from the end of November announced this week—we all accept and welcome those figures, which are a great improvement on where we were at the start of this Parliament, or even on the position two years ago, or at the start of the year—employment would be at about 72%, which is still down on where it was before the recession. Unemployment is still 7.4%, which is well up on the 5.1% before the recession; the claimant count is still at 4%, compared with 3%; and vacancies are up to 545,000, which is still down on 621,000. My contention is that if the treaty had allowed us to extend the restrictions for a further period, I can see no reason why we would not have sought to retain them, in the light of that analysis.

[Bob Stewart (Beckenham) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for letting me intervene, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. The real dilemma is that as our economy picks up, so will the attractiveness of coming to this country. That is almost a problem: as we get better, more people will want to come here. Does he agree?

[Nigel Mills]

That is one of those welcome problems, in that we all want our economy to be growing so strongly that we become a much more attractive place—but there are clearly downsides in dealing with the legacies of recession, with unemployment and especially youth unemployment still far higher than we might like. We need to get our own people who are struggling into the jobs that growth generates.

To return to my contention, if the treaty had allowed the restrictions to continue for a further period, I am in little doubt that we would have wanted to extend them, if we could, and that brings us to my next point. We signed that treaty a decade ago, but we had not at that point predicted a catastrophic recession, which would take many years to recover from—we are still trying to recover from it—and we had not appreciated just what the level of immigration from the previous accession wave would be, which was far in excess of our estimates. I suspect that had we known those two things when we were signing the treaty, we would never have agreed to restrictions on those two countries being lifted so soon or at this point in the economic cycle.

The question becomes, does Parliament say, “We have to accept that we approved the treaty”—it was passed by this House—or actually do we have the right to say, “With hindsight, that was a mistake and it is now not in our national interest to continue with what we agreed”? We need to change that. Let us simply keep the restrictions already in place for a further defined period—that is a proportionate response to a clear problem—at least until our economy is fully recovered from the shock experienced in the recession. That is not an unreasonable or disproportionate thing to do.

It is worth noting that I was only trying to keep the restrictions that have been in place since Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU. That would not stop completely people from those two countries finding work here. If able to find work in this country and get a work permit, they have been permitted to work here since they joined the EU—that would not change. So my suggestion of not lifting restrictions that are already in place is proportionate at this point. If the Government are not minded to accept that relatively gentle and proportionate measure, I sincerely hope that they think again in the two weeks left before the new year and try to find some other way of keeping the restrictions.

Some interesting policy ideas have been announced as different ways to tackle the problem. I was quite attracted by the idea that accession countries whose gross domestic product per capita is well below the EU average should not get full access to freedom of movement until their GDP was nearer the EU average—perhaps three quarters of the average. That would tackle the issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), because it would mean that the brightest people in those countries could not leave; they would have to stay there and find ways to grow their own economy.

The gross national income per capita in both Bulgaria and Romania is about $16,000, compared with our GNI of $37,000, so those two countries would fail the test, were we to apply it now. That test is attractive, but its prospective introduction would not fix the problem that might well hit us from 1 January. Surely it would therefore be better to keep the restrictions we have in place while we are trying to achieve those reforms.

The second idea, which was leaked this week, was to have a cap on EU migration. Again, that is an attractive idea and one that, I suspect, would contribute greatly to enabling us to meet our target of net migration in the tens of thousands, although there would be some practical issues with enforcing a cap, and I suspect that other EU member states might not be as keen on the idea. But I find it intriguing that although it is seemingly impossible to try, in response to a clear issue in our employment market, to keep in place for a bit longer restrictions that have been allowed until now by the accession treaty, it is thought that a complete and utter unravelling of freedom of movement—even between the main western European nations—might be possible. I am afraid that I am not so optimistic that we could achieve that aim in a renegotiation; but even if it could, it is a measure for a long time in the future, not one that can help us out in the coming years if large amounts of people decide to come here.

Finally, I have some questions for the Minister. I understand that Governments have had their fingers burnt making estimates in the past, but will he set out whether the Government believe that a large number of people from Romanian and Bulgaria will try to come to the UK when the restrictions are lifted? Independent estimates suggest figures of between 30,000 and 70,000 people a year for the next five years, which would put the total at something like 350,000. I do not expect an accurate assessment, but do the Government think that number is way over the top, is an underestimate or is about right? The people of this country want to know whether their fears are unrealistic or entirely realistic.

Given that nearly all western European nations have kept the restrictions in place until the last minute, I would presume that those countries fear that there might be an issue. It is also worth noting that Romania and Bulgaria will not be joining Schengen on 1 January, as they were meant to, again because of concerns across Europe about what that might entail.

[Mr Carswell]

My hon. Friend is looking at public policy responses to this problem and has outlined some important ideas, but surely there is one blindingly obvious policy solution that we need to consider seriously, which is to withdraw this country from the EU completely. Is it not absurd that people need a visa to come to this country from Singapore, a country with an incredibly high number of talented and able people—we would benefit from greater labour mobility for such people—but we have unrestricted movement of people from Bulgaria? If we were outside the EU, like Switzerland, where one in five members of the labour force is a non-Swiss national, we could benefit from all the advantages of labour mobility and have all the necessary requirements to control it.

[Nigel Mills]

My hon. Friend is clearly right. However, sadly, I do not think that we can convince the Government to pull us out of the EU in the next fortnight, and so we probably need to take some different measures in the meantime. He may have noticed that the five-year period I am proposing for keeping the restrictions will take us well past the referendum that we hope will take place on our EU membership. At that point, the people will have been able to choose whether they want to stay in and have unrestricted migration or to leave and reintroduce our border controls. I hope he would agree that a five-year time frame for keeping the restrictions would be one way of helping to meet his aspirations in that situation.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

My hon. Friend said that the Bulgarians and Romanians have not joined the Schengen agreement, although that had been expected. Is that an agreement that they made but have subsequently decided not to stick with, or an agreement that they made with the rest of Europe in which we were not involved?

[Nigel Mills]

As I understand it, Schengen is an agreement between nations rather than a treaty, and, fortunately, one that we are outside as we were thankfully not required to join. Having had a pleasant meeting with the Bulgarian ambassador in a TV studio not that long ago, I know that there is some annoyance among those nations because they feel that they have met the criteria for Schengen but are not being permitted to join it. There were some strong quotes from Mr Barroso on why that was not to be the case; he used language that I would not want to use in a debate in immigration, but there we go.

I am a little over the time that I promised I would take with my remarks, so I will conclude. I do not think that any other measure has been trailed or announced that can tackle this matter in the right time frame. There is widespread concern, as anyone who reads almost any of the newspapers can see. I have already mentioned the Daily Express petition with 150,000 signatures; yesterday we saw a campaign in The Sun and today there is an editorial on the issue in The Daily Telegraph. It is an issue of great concern. The Government need either to give us convincing reassurance that the problem will not arise or to take some action to protect our employment market and protect those people in our constituencies who are struggling to find work. The only realistic answer is to keep proportionate restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians in place for a further period. I urge the Government to act before those restrictions are lifted on 1 January.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Gentlemen, we have permission to impose time limits on speeches in this debate, but if everybody keeps their remarks to about 15 minutes in length I hope that we will not need to do so. The wind-up speeches will begin at 4 o’clock, so if Members keep to that 15-minute guideline we will not need to impose any limits, but if speeches take longer we will have to impose a limit of eight to 10 minutes.

13:56

[Keith Vaz (Leicester East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship for the first time today, Ms Dorries. I welcome the measured way in which the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) put his case. I congratulate him and the hon. Members for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) and for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) on applying to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. It is good to see so many people here in Westminster Hall on the day that the House rises, but what a pity it is that the debate is not being held in the Chamber itself, where we could have had an even longer and more detailed debate.

[Mr Newmark]

I respect the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is here, but I find it strange that an enormous amount of Conservative Members are here to discuss this important issue. I cannot believe that the issue is of concern only to those Members of Parliament who happen to be Conservatives or to their constituents. Surely there are Labour MPs with the same concerns, so why have they not joined him here today?

[Keith Vaz]

The remit of the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee does not extend to controlling the diaries of members of the parliamentary Labour party, but it is their loss: I think it is important that we should be here participating in this debate.

We should start by acknowledging the strong and important relations that we have with Bulgaria and Romania. I visited both countries while I was Minister for Europe, when we started the enlargement process. The ambassadors representing the two countries here are excellent, as are our ambassadors in Sofia and Bucharest; in particular, I want to acknowledge the way in which Martin Harris, our ambassador in Bucharest, is ensuring that good relations between our two countries are fostered even at this challenging time.

The Home Affairs Committee has been looking at the issue of the transitional restrictions for a number of years and has made a number of recommendations. Earlier this year, with the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless), who is currently sitting on my right, and the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr Clappison), I went to Bucharest to meet members of the Romanian Government and to talk with members of the Romanian community. If there are regrets—I have a few regrets in my speech—my primary regret is that the Immigration Minister and the Home Secretary have not taken the opportunity over the past year to go to Romania and Bulgaria and engage with those Governments. We talk about push and pull factors—why it is people decide to travel all the way from Bucharest or Sofia to live in Leicester, London or Manchester—and we should have worked with other Governments to find out the problems and look at the issues.

For example, in response to the hon. Member for North West Leicestershire (Andrew Bridgen), the hon. Member for Amber Valley referred to the number of talented people leaving Romania and Bulgaria. When we were in Bucharest, we spoke with the president of the Romanian equivalent of the British Medical Association. He lamented the fact that so many talented young Romanian doctors had decided to leave Romania to work in the United Kingdom and in other countries—on average they trebled or even quadrupled their salaries when they came to our countries—which was having a detrimental effect on Romania and Bulgaria. That is why I wish that the Home Secretary and the Immigration Minister had visited, because they would have been able to establish a dialogue and try to see what we could have done to help those countries.

One way in which we could have helped was in respect of the huge amount of money that was allocated to Romania when it joined the European Union. It may surprise Members to note that 87% of the £20 billion that was given to Romania in pre-accession funds have still not been accessed, because sufficient assistance is not being given to the Romanian Government to ensure that they get the funds. If those funds were accessed, the jobs that people seek to find here might have been made available in those countries. Across the House, we all support the enlargement of the European Union; I cannot remember an occasion in the past 26 years when any party has voted against enlargement. We allow countries to join the European Union, but then we leave them on their own. Our Ministers should have engaged more—under the previous Government and under this Government—to ensure that there was proper access to those funds.

The big question that remains unanswered is why we still do not have estimates of how many people will come here next year. On 21 October 2008, the then shadow Immigration Minister, the right hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), said that one of the greatest failures of the last Government was the failure to predict the consequences of enlargement in 2004. Given that, research should have been conducted so that we would be aware—at least have estimates—of the numbers that would be coming into this country. For the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for Amber Valley—the pressure on housing, on schools and on the health service—if we had even estimates it would be helpful. When we went to Bucharest, we came across a university that had conducted research and had produced estimates. It is very remiss of this Government not to have done the same.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the people most vulnerable to the next wave of mass immigration are not the people in this room? They are previous immigrants, particularly the last wave of immigrants. Competition for jobs, housing and public services will be intense, particularly in inner city areas such as his constituency.

[Keith Vaz]

It is intense, but I think we can deal with such issues. It is right that in the first wave of enlargement, a million people came, but a lot of those people have returned. We will come on to benefits later, but what upsets people more than anything else is the issue of those who, for example, claim benefits in the United Kingdom—38,000 from the EU—yet their children live in other EU countries. There are simple changes that we could make to satisfy our constituents, because I do not believe that the Romanians and Bulgarians who will come to this country are coming to go on benefits. They are coming to work. The migration process is for that purpose. Last week, the Select Committee had before it the chairman of the Migration Advisory Committee. We specifically asked Sir David Metcalf whether the Government asked him and his committee to conduct research into the number of people coming into this country after 31 December. He specifically said no. He said that they are set their homework by the Government, and the Government did not ask them to do that. I think that that is big mistake. We have estimates of annual migration that vary from 10,000, according to the Bulgarian ambassador; 20,000, according to the Romanian ambassador; and 50,000, according to Migration Watch. We have such problems because the Government were not prepared to ask the very body they established.

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

On the issue of changing the benefits system, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is difficult to contemplate the Government making changes when, at the moment, they do not even have data on the nationality of individual claimants? Back in January this year, I was told in answer to a parliamentary question that the UK’s benefit payment systems do not record details of claimants’ nationality. The most basic information is not being sought by the Government.

[Keith Vaz]

I agree with the hon. Gentleman; he is absolutely right. That is why we wanted the Migration Advisory Committee to assist.

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

On that specific point, we asked the Migration Advisory Committee in 2011 the question about the labour market, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) referred. In its response, the committee stated:

“It would not be sensible, or helpful to policy makers, for us to attempt to put a precise numerical range around this likely impact.”

That was the advice it gave us, and that was the advice we followed.

[Keith Vaz]

I say to the Minister, for whom I have enormous respect—he is a hard-working and fair Immigration Minister, and I have seen quite a few in my time—he has obviously not had the time to read the evidence of Sir David Metcalf. I specifically asked him that question after it was also raised by others, and he said:

“we have never been tasked to make estimates of the numbers coming from Romania and Bulgaria.”

He said that last week. The Minister has quoted something from 2011, but frankly the chairman himself has not been asked yet.

[Mr Harper]

David Metcalf was right in what he said, and I have read the transcript. The point is that he and his committee said that asking them to do that work would not be sensible or helpful because of the uncertainty, so it seemed pointless to ask them, because they had replied to the point when we commissioned them in 2011.

[Keith Vaz]

That may be so, but that is not what he said to us last week. Perhaps the Government, because of the importance of the issue, should have kept in regular touch with Sir David Metcalf. If they had done so, perhaps he would have updated what he said in 2011.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

Surely the point is that the British public do not really care who said what to whom. They are disgusted that Her Majesty’s Government have failed in their basic duty to provide the British public with a realistic estimate of how many immigrants we might expect from 1 January.

[Keith Vaz]

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The public would have liked figures. Now that we have the former Foreign Secretary’s mea culpas on the issue of estimates, it is important that we have them, even though there are only 12 days to go. So the first issue is estimates. The second is the confusion about what will happen on 1 January. According to the permanent secretary Mark Sedwill in evidence to us last week, Olympic-style arrangements are being put in place at our airports from 1 January onwards. As far as I am concerned, that is pretty tough stuff. There is obviously an expectation that a lot of people will turn up on 1 January.

In her evidence to us on Monday this week, the Home Secretary said that it was business as usual. So we have the permanent secretary thinking that there will be Olympic-style security and the Home Secretary thinking that it will be business as usual. Just to be sure, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and I will be at Luton airport on 1 January. Mrs Dorries, that is not far from your constituency of Mid Bedfordshire. If you would like to join us, you are more than welcome. The first flight from Romania gets in at 7.40 am. The hon. Gentleman has said that he will be up at that time. The second flight comes in at 9 pm, but we will be there for the first flight to see what arrangements have been put in place and how many people turn up. If the only way to do it is with our own eyes, and nobody else wants to have estimates, I am afraid we will have to do that.

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

I am listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who is going to make an excursion to an airport to see what is going on. I think he is doing that more for the media than for anybody else. I hope he recognises that there is already a right for visa-free travel for Romanians and Bulgarians to the UK right now. It has been in existence since 2007, so what will he achieve by going to an airport? He can see people coming through already, even today, let alone waiting until the new arrangements are in place in January.

[Keith Vaz]

The only thing that I can say to the hon. Gentleman is that he should come and join us. If he thinks for one moment that the media will turn up at 7.40 am after the biggest party of the year—31 December —he will be very surprised. I do not expect that any of them will be there, but the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and I, who are not big partygoers and who both abstain from the usual parties on new year’s eve, will be there.

However, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) makes a more valid point, in that people are already here. Of course they are, and therefore, if they are already here, we should also be considering what is happening to those people. At the end of the day, 1 January is the critical time. That is when the restrictions are to be removed.

[Mr Newmark]

I have been listening carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and I am still not sure of his direction of travel, if I may say that. I am not sure whether he is saying that Romanians and Bulgarians will suddenly buy tickets to get on a plane to come here and live off our exceedingly generous benefits system, and if so, we have heard what the Government are doing, which is to put far greater restrictions on the ability of those to come here, before they can claim benefits or even housing or anything like that—the Government are trying to deal with that issue; the longest period of time that somebody can claim will be six months, and they have to wait three months—or is he saying that they are coming here because there are lots of jobs?

[Nadine Dorries (in the Chair)]

Order. Mr Newmark, interventions should be brief.

[Keith Vaz]

Let us be clear: I do not think that they are going to come here to go on benefits; I think that people who come to this country from those countries are coming to get jobs. I do not think they are coming here to be part of the benefits system.

[Mr Ellwood]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way very quickly on that point?

[Keith Vaz]

I shall make some progress and if there is time, I shall certainly give way again.

There is a more fundamental issue here—that of freedom of movement. One cannot have freedom of movement without movement, which is why I think the fundamental issue is our presence in the European Union and what we are prepared to take, as far as the negotiations are concerned, should the Government win the next election and should the Prime Minister start on his discussions with EU colleagues. At the end of the day, we need to have a fundamental discussion about that, and if it means changing treaties, so be it. That is why I favour a referendum on our membership of the EU, because this issue is a sideline. I will probably—most likely—be on the other side to the vast majority of those in here, but I am saying that I want the right to make that case. I think that this is a village story at the moment for Westminster. Why can the people not have a say on the whole issue of freedom of movement? We can discuss Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia and what will happen when Turkey becomes a member of the EU, but at the end of the day, that is one of the fundamental issues that we need to address.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Keith Vaz]

I will for the last time, yes.

[Andrew Bridgen]

I totally agree that the people want an EU referendum. From what he said, I take it that the right hon. Gentleman will be voting Conservative at the next election.

[Keith Vaz]

No. I will not be voting Conservative. I shall be voting for myself and hopefully, I will still be the Labour candidate at the next election. However, I hope to be able to persuade the leader of the Labour party and others of the necessity to hold a referendum on the day of the next general election and not afterwards, because frankly, by then it will be too late. We should put something of that importance to the British people.

Finally, there are so many issues that need to be resolved before 31 December. Only yesterday, in one of the courts in Lincoln, Judge Sean Morris talked about the fact that it is now taking up to seven months for criminal records to be provided for those who come from Romania, who are subject to prosecution in our courts. Before the cut-off date of 31 December, so many issues need to be resolved that have not been resolved. We should have resolved those earlier, rather than leaving it to the very last minute. The Government should think carefully about how they will proceed after 31 December and see whether, because I do not believe for a moment that there will be any further opportunities to discuss this issue—of course, because Parliament is rising shortly—we should revisit some of the issues that have not been resolved and try to resolve them as quickly as possible.

I shall end where I began. We are in the EU and we have good relations with the two countries. We welcome people who come to this country from Romania and Bulgaria as equal EU citizens, but we want them to play their part fully in the life of our country. If they are to be treated as equal EU citizens, and if there are problems with the way in which the system operates, we need to sort those out for the next time.

14:09

[Mr Peter Bone (Wellingborough) (Con)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, and to follow the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), who, as usual, is speaking good sense. I was delighted to hear a shift in his position on the EU; up to now, he has been entirely against us coming out of the EU, and he has moved to being probably against us coming out. That is really good news.

[Keith Vaz]

I will definitely be on the other side from the hon. Gentleman on the issue.

[Mr Bone]

I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman has prejudged my position on the referendum; I want entirely to hear what our Prime Minister achieves.

I am delighted that the excellent Minister for Immigration is here. The only thing I have to say about that is that we know that the Government have decided to give that Member of Parliament the most difficult area to deal with—the one that they are in trouble on. It is good to see him here, but it is a worry that the Government are relying not on getting the problem sorted out, but on having a very able Minister defend an absolutely impossible position.

One of the cornerstones and key strengths of the coalition is its tough stance on cutting immigration, which Labour allowed to soar to eye-watering levels. In 2010, we pledged to

“take steps to take net migration back to the levels of the 1990s—tens of thousands a year, not hundreds of thousands.”

That is a common-sense policy, with overwhelming support. After a decade of Labour incompetence on the issue, it is long overdue.

The progress that we have made on cutting immigration to date is testament to the efforts of the Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May). I strongly believe that lifting the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants would jeopardise all the good work we have done, not only on getting immigration down, but on building new homes, improving public services and lowering unemployment.

Bulgaria’s new ambassador to the UK has claimed that hardly any Bulgarians want to move to the UK once restrictions are lifted, and that, more than anything, the change will hurt their economy. If that is the case, he should welcome continued restrictions. Government figures show that although overall immigration is down, eastern European immigration is bucking the trend, and is increasing. The number of people from Romania and Bulgaria settling in the UK has risen sharply, up from 37 in 2011 to 2,177 in 2012. Clearly, if the restrictions are lifted, those figures will increase dramatically, making them completely incompatible with the Government’s aim to reduce immigration.

[Mr Andrew Turner]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for allowing me to interrupt him. The number that we wish to control is the number of people from outside Europe. It is true, of course, that until now, we have got the figures for migration from within Europe down as well, but there is no promise from the Government that that will continue.

[Mr Bone]

I completely agree with my hon. Friend. There is no guarantee at all. I am arguing that because of the removal of the restrictions, we will break that important promise.

It is common sense for us as a country to continue the restrictions, and the only obstacle to that is the European Union. That, however, is not an arrangement that the British people signed up to. The last time the people had a vote on the European Economic Community was in 1975. Needless to say, we now have an EU. When the EEC was in existence, it was a small group of prosperous western European countries. Now, the EU takes in poorer countries in central Europe that were formerly in the communist bloc. Old EU regulations and laws that applied to the European Economic Community have become seriously out of date; as a result, the EU is forcing on us a wave of immigration that the British public do not want and did not vote for, and that will have negative repercussions for our economy and our people.

This is the time when we need to stand up to the European Union and say, “Enough is enough.” Parliament is answerable to the British people, and therefore has sovereignty over the UK’s borders. We do not need to be told by a post-democratic body what our immigration policy is. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister stated that our country should welcome only those who came here to work hard. Relaxing the current arrangements and deregulating immigration from these two countries would do exactly the opposite.

I thoroughly welcome the Government’s Immigration Bill, and the proposals to restrict the access that immigrants have to the wealth of benefits that we offer. One such proposal is for an initial three-month period before benefits can be claimed. Migration Watch UK concludes that there are “very strong financial incentives” for Bulgarians and Romanians to move to the UK, partly due to the much higher wages and living standards in the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ellwood]

I agree with my hon. Friend that EU laws are out of date, and that the income per capita is different in other countries, and that that is why people might want to move, but does he agree that rules are already in place allowing any Bulgarian or Romanian to come and gain work here? Doctors, nurses and so on can come already under the current arrangements, so my question is: who will be in the tranche of people arriving in January and February?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention; my hon. Friend makes a very good point. He is right to say that Bulgarians and Romanians can come here if they satisfy the current requirements. I am absolutely in favour of continuing with that. The problem—it is a good point that he brings up, and it is one that I was moving on to—is that in Bulgaria the minimum wage is 73p an hour, and in Romania it is 79p, but in the UK the minimum wage is £6.31 for over-21s—nearly 10 times more than in Romania and Bulgaria. Bulgaria and Romania are two of the poorest members of the EU and do experience, I am afraid, levels of corruption. In 2010, gross domestic product per capita was £3,929 in Bulgaria and £4,682 in Romania, compared with Britain’s £22,426. Furthermore, there are 1.5 million people seeking work in Bulgaria and Romania.

It undoubtedly makes economic sense for individuals from these countries to migrate to the UK, regardless of whether they have the skills that we require. By lifting current restrictions, we leave ourselves wide open to a new wave of economic refugees, hoping to reap the rewards that this country has to offer. Those are pull factors that clearly cannot be addressed by reforming what benefits are available to immigrants. The UK is a fantastic place to live, and that is something to be proud of. Reforming the benefits system can only do so much; it cannot go far enough on its own when the fundamental issue is the lack of control that we appear to have over our borders.

The EU states that it has the power to control such reforms—common-sense reforms that are so badly needed to stop the abuse of public services by immigrants whom the EU is apparently forcing on this Government. There are still questions about how far the Immigration Bill can go before it is incompatible with EU law and the free movement of people. We are therefore left in a preposterous scenario in which the EU is trying to control not only who can come into this country, but what they can claim when they get here. It is an outrageous state of affairs, and we, the Parliament of the United Kingdom, need to say that we are ultimately sovereign over our own borders and the laws relating to domestic affairs.

The truth of the matter is that we do not know the extent of the upheaval that the removal of the restrictions will mean for our country, because we do not know how many people will come over. That is exactly the point that the right hon. Member for Leicester East made so powerfully. We learned that lesson from the 2004 influx of Polish immigrants. The Labour Government got it completely wrong and estimated that only 13,000 Poles would arrive; the figure turned out to be more than 100,000 a year at its peak.

Migration Watch UK has estimated that 50,000 immigrants will arrive from Romania and Bulgaria per year over the next five years. People might say, “Well, that’s Migration Watch,” but an independent think-tank, the Democracy Institute, has found to its surprise that

“the most alarming of the forecasts…is actually insufficiently alarmist.”

The institute projects that at least 70,000 immigrants from Romania and Bulgaria will arrive in the UK annually for the next five years, if the restrictions are lifted.

A poll by the BBC—not an organisation favourable to Eurosceptics—found that 1% of Romanians and 4% of Bulgarians said that they were looking for work in the UK. That would translate into 350,000 potential jobseekers in the UK. That is wholly contrary to our policy aims of cutting immigration and protecting the UK’s interests. At a time when we are making real inroads into cutting unemployment, the impact that an influx of immigrants would have on the job market would be detrimental to those looking for work and those on low wages.

[Keith Vaz]

In a very helpful intervention, the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) pointed out that of course Romanians and Bulgarians can at the moment work in this country as self-employed people, and the hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) said that he was happy with that. Does he agree that if we were able to speed up the length of time that it took them to get national insurance numbers, that would be one way of ensuring that the system works without having to change it?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. The simple answer is no. I think that we need to control our own borders. I do not think that we should be tinkering with the mechanisms; we should have complete control of what we do, as I think the right hon. Gentleman said in his concluding remarks.

A recent report on the economic effects of immigration found that those on the lowest wages feel the biggest impact of immigration, as immigration holds back the wages of the least well paid. We should be supporting those hard-working people, not eroding their wages by allowing uncontrolled immigration from countries with such vast economic differences. Moreover, although unemployment is down, youth unemployment is proving stubbornly high. With nearly 1 million under-25s still unemployed, the focus should be on helping them into jobs, not allowing into the job market an inpouring of immigrants who are looking for work.

[Mr Newmark]

Will my hon. Friend at least acknowledge that the Government’s policy, in the autumn statement, of abolishing the jobs tax for under-21s will encourage many small businesses, especially retailers, to hire young people? I go back to the question that I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills): there is a skills gap at the lower end, so who will fill that skills gap if we do not have people coming in from eastern Europe to plug that hole?

[Mr Bone]

I am grateful for that intervention. No one in this Chamber is prouder than me of what this Government are doing to lower unemployment, and of the great efforts that the Prime Minister is making, but my hon. Friend is completely wrong on the second bit of the argument. We should not be paying jobseeker’s allowance to people who have the opportunity to work, but do not want to work. That is how those jobs will be filled—not by bringing people in from central Europe. Gosh, I got quite cross about that.

[Andrew Bridgen]

Does my hon. Friend agree that this Government’s policy of raising personal allowances in order to incentivise our indigenous population to take lower-paid jobs and to find work provides a further incentive for immigrants to come to our country?

[Mr Bone]

My hon. Friend proves the point that the basic requirement is to regain control of our borders. We do not have to worry about all the different arrangements, but we should be able to say to people from the EU, “No, you cannot come in unless we say so.” As the right hon. Member for Leicester East said, this goes back to the fundamental issue of whether we can get that control and still remain in the European Union. If we do not take decisive action now to control who settles in the UK, the figure will only rise. If we do not continue the restrictions, more unemployed migrants without the skills that we need will arrive in this country.

Not only is unrestricted migration from Romania and Bulgaria detrimental to many of the coalition’s key values and policy, but public opposition to lifting the restrictions is overwhelming. Two of the country’s leading newspapers, The Sun and the Daily Express, which many Members in the Chamber will agree speak for the British people, regard it as essential that the restrictions remain in place. The Sun found that

“42% of Brits believe slamming the door on EU migrants is of utmost importance and another 20% say it should be a major aim”.

The newspaper went on to say that if the Prime Minister could not achieve that, we should come out of the European Union.

The Daily Express has consistently opposed our membership of the EU. Its petition demanding the continuation of restrictions attracted more than 150,000 people, all of whom went to the trouble of cutting out a little slip from the paper and posting it. Many hon. Members in the Chamber had the great pleasure of taking those slips to Downing street and delivering them to the Prime Minister. On an e-petition on the Downing street website, another 150,000 people are demanding that the restrictions be kept in place. On the last day of term, 22 Members of Parliament have come to a Westminster Hall debate, in which we cannot even divide on the matter. Even the Chief Whip is here to listen to the debate. We know that the Chief Whip and the Government really want to tackle the problem, but the issue that they are wrestling with is whether to put the EU first and stay part of the club. Do they want to avoid offending the political elite and the leader of the Liberal Democrat party, or do they want to put the British people first?

I hope that later in the debate the Chief Whip will catch your eye, Ms Dorries, and stand up and say that he has a message from the Prime Minister that the restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration will continue.

14:33

[Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con)]

The pleasure of serving under your chairmanship, Ms Dorries, is matched only by my joy at listening to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) when he opened the debate. I was also heartened by the contributions from the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone).

It says a lot that no Liberal Democrat MPs are present to debate this important issue. Not one of them could be bothered to turn up to the debate. They have gone on holiday a day earlier rather than talk about the most important issue on our constituents’ minds. At least the Labour party has one right hon. Member present on the Back Benches, and of course a presence on the Front Bench. There are 16 Conservative Members of Parliament here, because we listen to the concerns of our constituents and we know that this is an important issue.

[Mr Chope]

Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the Liberal Democrats are not here because they know that in the quad—the extraordinary way in which the coalition is run—they have an effective veto? There is no need for them to come, because they know that they have a stranglehold over Government policy.

[Mr Hollobone]

That may well be right. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that in a debate on a subject of such importance, some Liberal Democrat Members should have been present, not only to tell us their views but to listen to those of other Members of Parliament. Parliament is here to debate such issues, whether we agree with each other or not. By not turning up at all, Liberal Democrats are effectively refusing to engage with this important question.

Let me put my cards firmly on the table. I am not a supporter of our membership of the European Union. I believe that we should leave, and I support the Conservative party’s call for a referendum to give my constituents and others across the land their say about whether we should remain members. It represented a catastrophic loss of confidence in the nation’s future in the 1960s and 1970s that we decided to join the then Common Market, which mutated into the European Economic Community, the European Community and finally the European Union.

An individual would have to be in at least their mid-50s to have been able to take part in the referendum in 1975 on whether we should remain members, so a whole generation of the British public have never had their say on the matter. I am four-square behind the Conservative party manifesto promise to give the British people a say in 2017 on whether we should stay in or get out. I will vote to leave. I do not believe that renegotiation will work. I am not entirely convinced that Her Majesty’s Government will take the renegotiation as seriously as they should, but more or less nothing that could be achieved in the renegotiation would convince me that Britain was better off in the European Union. One reason for that is the cost; our annual membership fee is £10 billion and rising. Over the course of the coalition Government’s term, our total membership subscription will be almost twice what it was under the final term of the previous Labour Government. Our membership fee is simply too expensive. The other big reason why I will vote to leave is the reason we are here today.

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

Before my hon. Friend moves on to that point, he expressed a certain scepticism about the renegotiation. Is it his understanding that that renegotiation is happening now, or will it not even start until 2015?

[Mr Hollobone]

My understanding is that the renegotiation has not started. The Government are undertaking a balance of competences review—a ridiculous name that nobody understands the meaning of—and are coming up with a list of items on which we will apparently renegotiate the terms of our membership. As far as I can tell, no chief negotiator has been appointed and renegotiation is not a Government policy but a Conservative party ambition.

The Liberal Democrats and the Labour party are doing their best to frustrate the private Member’s Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton), which promotes an EU referendum. I am not entirely convinced, because no member of the Government has yet clarified this, whether if that Bill were to succeed in the other place and become an Act, it would form part of Government policy. We wait to hear from the Liberal Democrats on that.

[Mark Reckless]

Can my hon. Friend help me in a related area? Is the target of cutting immigration from the hundreds of thousands to the tens of thousands Government policy, or is it merely an aspiration of our party because the Lib Dems do not agree?

[Mr Hollobone]

I would welcome clarification from the Minister on that point, as would my hon. Friend. I welcome the Conservative party approach to cutting immigration, but I do not think it goes far enough. If I get to that part of my speech, I want to demonstrate why I do not think that aim can be achieved, not least because of our lifting of the restrictions on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration. I am as sceptical as my hon. Friend about the way in which Conservative members of the Government, or the Government as a whole, may or may not start to renegotiate the terms of our membership of the European Union. I welcome the opportunity that I hope my constituents will have in 2017, under a majority Conservative Government, to have a say in a referendum.

The previous Labour Government’s lifting of the restrictions on immigration from the A8 eastern European countries was a catastrophic mistake. I would welcome a clear and frank apology from the shadow Minister, the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson), for that huge “spectacular mistake”—the words of the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw). Under the leadership of the Labour party, the Home Office estimated a maximum net inflow from the A8 nations of 13,000 a year through to 2010. In the end, the total is one million and rising. Her Majesty’s Government under the coalition have declined to estimate the numbers at all, lest they make a similar error. That is not good enough. They should have at least tried to commission some research to have some feel of the number who might come to our shores, not least because local authorities, schools, hospitals and police services need to know the potential impact of immigration on their communities.

The only helpful estimate we have is provided by Migration Watch, which I think everyone agrees has a tremendous reputation on immigration matters.

[Mr Ellwood]

My apologies, Ms Dorries, I did not intend to make another intervention—I feel I have had my share already—but there is an important matter about my hon. Friend’s point. I looked carefully at the comparison with Poland and the Migration Watch numbers. It made a direct comparison with Poland, which I am afraid is disingenuous. When many Polish people decided in 2004 to come to the UK, other possible countries were closed to them, because they had used their rights and closed their borders. The Migration Watch numbers are slightly misleading because they compare the Polish numbers then with Romanian and Bulgarian numbers now.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am sorry to have provoked my hon. Friend into yet another intervention, welcome though it is. I am afraid he needs to read Migration Watch’s report more closely.

[Mr Ellwood]

I was given a presentation by Migration Watch.

[Mr Hollobone]

My hon. Friend needed to pay more attention to the presentation. The estimate is 30,000 to 70,000 a year, with a central estimate of an increase of 50,000 a year in the population for five years, as the right hon. Member for Leicester East said. The estimate is based in part on the precedent set by the A8, but also on the growth rate of the current Romanian and Bulgarian population in the UK and the number of national insurance numbers issued, as well as the disparity in incomes and living standards between the UK and Romania and Bulgaria. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) will appreciate that the disparity between us and Romania and Bulgaria is rather bigger than the one between us and Poland. A Romanian or Bulgarian moving to the UK to work at the minimum wage could increase his take-home pay by four and a half to five times, after accounting for the cost of living. Families could increase their income by between eight and nine times. To put it another way, workers on the minimum wage in the UK could earn in one hour roughly what could be earned in a day in Romania or Bulgaria.

There are other factors to consider. Spain and Italy, where unemployment is now very high, especially among the young, have nearly one million Romanian and Bulgarian workers each. A worker from Romania or Bulgaria could increase his take-home pay in Spain or Italy by at least 50% if he or she were to move to the UK. Another serious issue, to which I have not had a satisfactory response from the Minister despite raising it on the Floor of the House, is that Romania is known to have issued some 600,000 passports to ethnic Romanians from Moldova. Moldova is not a member of the European Union and yet a significant proportion of its population has the right to move to, live in and work in the UK. I am sure that that was never the intention of the accession treaties. The number of ethnic Roma from Romania and Bulgaria who might migrate is another factor to consider, but the numbers are extremely uncertain. Substantial numbers of Roma people live in poor conditions in a number of EU countries. An estimated 2.5 million Roma live in Romania and Bulgaria.

There have been welcome changes, such as the Government’s announcement about out-of-work benefits for people coming from Romania and Bulgaria. The announcement was good, but do the measures also apply to tax credits? I would like a specific response from the Minister. Does the new three-month rule for entitlement to out-of-work benefits extend to people from other EU member states or only to those from the new entrants, Romania and Bulgaria?

Crime is a big concern. To put the issue into a pithy sentence, I would say that we are importing a wave of crime from Romania and Bulgaria. I put it as strongly as that deliberately. There are no powers to deport EU citizens, unless they have been convicted of an offence that attracts a two-year prison sentence or a sentence of 12 months or more for an offence involving drugs, violence or sexual crime. We should be able to deport any foreign national, whether from an EU or non-EU state, to their country of origin if they are convicted of any crime in this country. That is one thing on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who said that on the Floor of the House when he was Prime Minister, but sadly his Government did nothing. The right hon. Member for Leicester East, who is currently conversing with you, Ms Dorries, mentioned Judge Sean Morris, who said in court the other day to Romanians and Bulgarians,

“don’t come here and commit crime.”

He has delayed sentencing one such criminal, because of his frustration with delays of six months and more in obtaining criminal records from the Romanian authorities, and he has called on Ministers to do something about it. In Westminster Hall some months ago, I raised directly with the Minister the issue of the number of criminals from Romania and Bulgaria coming to our shores. There is a crime wave, particularly in London and particularly on the London underground, to do with Romanians.

[Kate Hoey (Vauxhall) (Lab)]

I am sorry to arrive in the middle of the hon. Gentleman’s speech. He raises an issue that resonates closely. Just across the river from the House of Commons, there is an increasingly difficult problem with many people doing exactly what he describes in the Waterloo area. Everyone gets involved—the police and the community safety teams—but at the end of the day, they can do nothing to get those people, some of whom do not even have the right to be here as EU citizens, out of the country. People are getting angry. I hope the Minister will respond to that.

[Mr Hollobone]

I welcome the intervention from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), not least because, as always, she knows what she is talking about. She is a proud champion of the concerns of her constituents, who will be rightly concerned about that issue.

[Mr Harper]

Given that two hon. Members have raised the question, and given that my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) takes part in crime fighting directly, I think it would be helpful to give an answer. The order I signed and laid before the House on 6 December, which I will set out in more detail later, enables us to remove from the UK people who are not here to exercise treaty rights—those committing low-level, but damaging crimes, begging and sleeping rough—and importantly stop them from coming straight back again, unless they are coming to exercise those rights. That is an important power and change that goes some way to addressing the concerns of my hon. Friend and the hon. Lady.

[Mr Hollobone]

It does indeed go some way, and I am grateful for it, but sadly the changes do not go far enough. Those people can be sent back under the order he mentions to their country of origin, but in a certain amount of time, they can come back to our shores. I have a private Member’s Bill on the Order Paper that would ban foreign nationals who commit an offence in this country from ever returning to our shores. I think that measure would enjoy popular support.

The scale of this crime wave is really quite startling. Romanians are seven times more likely to be arrested in London than British nationals; Romanians account for more than 11% of all foreign offenders in the UK, despite currently making up just a tiny proportion of foreign residents here; and last year Romanians accounted for almost half of all arrests for begging and a third of arrests for pick-pocketing in the capital. I declare in my interests that I am a special constable with the British Transport police on the London underground, and I can say that eight out of 10 pick-pockets are from Romania. So the whole thing is completely out of control and the Romanian authorities need to provide the British police with information about the Romanian criminals that they know are in this country far more quickly than they are currently providing it.

The background to all this is that we are a crowded island. What the British people object to is not the nationality of someone coming to our shores, the colour of their skin or the language that they speak. What my constituents object to—what the British people object to—is the numbers coming to our shores, with which our crowded isle cannot cope.

We are now told that, according to official Government statistics, some 43% of new housing requirements are because of immigration. Immigration is driving up our population to unsustainable levels, and we have a population boom that is fuelled by EU migration. Indeed, Polish immigration has contributed almost half of the UK’s recent population growth. Half of all foreign-born residents currently in the UK have come here since 2001. From 2001, the number of foreign-born residents rose by almost 3 million, and yet in the 50 years beforehand only 2.7 million people arrived in the UK from abroad. There has been more immigration to our shores since 1950 than there was in all the time between 1066 and 1950. We are one of the most densely crowded countries in the European Union.

The vast majority of people who have come here in recent times have come from Poland. Poles are now the second largest group of foreign-born nationals in the UK, with only Indians having a larger presence. Figures from the Office for National Statistics show that in 2011 there were 7.5 million non-UK-born residents in the country—13% of the population—and it is migration that has contributed to just less than half of that population change in the last 60 years. The non-UK-born population has almost quadrupled since 1951, from 4.3% of the population to 13.4%. My contention is that our crowded island cannot cope with this level of population increase, because our population is set to rise, according to official statistics from the ONS, by 9.6 million people by 2037, reaching a total of 73.3 million people, a level of population that our country has never had to cope with before.

Unless we close the door to immigration from EU states, my contention—on behalf of my constituents—is that our country will struggle to cope, and not just in our capital city or our other big metropolitan areas but in semi-rural areas, such as my constituency of Kettering, where the number of houses is set to increase by a third within the next 25 years.

14:53

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

It is a pleasure to work under your chairmanship today, Ms Dorries.

I am delighted to participate in this important debate. It has been very interesting so far and I very much look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in response to many of the points that have been made. However, a myth can be halfway round the world before the truth has got its boots on, so I welcome the opportunity this debate gives to add some facts and figures, and indeed corrections, to some of the quite barmy assumptions that have been made in the wider debate—not necessarily here today—that then get repeated and seem to gain credence.

I wish to challenge a couple of the points that have been made already today. My hon. Friend the Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell), who is no longer in his place, suggested that we should adopt Switzerland’s immigration policy, or that our relationship with the EU should be that of Switzerland. Well, read any of the Swiss newspapers or visit Switzerland, and guess what the key issue is for the Swiss? It is immigration, and the numbers of immigrants into that country are proportionally much higher than they are for the UK.

The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) is also no longer in his place; I do not know why people decided to depart just as I got to my feet. He made some interesting points about jobs. That issue needs to be clarified, because it is very much the case that Romanians and Bulgarians can work here. First, they have the right to travel here visa-free and, secondly, they can indeed work here, whether they are self-employed, have particular expertise—as doctors, nurses and so forth—or participate in agricultural work. There are restrictions in place, of course, for temporary work permits, and there are quota schemes, to allow low-skilled workers to come here too. I understand that the biggest group of foreign nationals who helped to build the Olympic stadium actually came from Romania. Apparently, there were more Romanians working on that stadium than people of any other nationality.

[Mr Joe Benton in the Chair]

I am not arguing that more or fewer Romanians and Bulgarians should come here. I am simply saying that this important aspect of the debate on immigration needs to be considered in a sensible and measured way. We need to have a policy that is not determined by fear. I genuinely worry that the debate around immigration—to mention this is to slip slightly into a bigger debate on whether we should be in or out of the EU—has become very binary. It is the little Englanders, if you like, versus the multicultural open-door approach, but I would argue that in many cases that does not apply, by any stretch of the imagination.

[Mark Reckless]

First, little Englanders versus the multilateral open-door people—I do not know if the hon. Gentleman puts himself in the second category, but if he does I wonder if it more a sign of his own narcissism than anything else.

[Mr Ellwood]

The hon. Gentleman makes my point for me, because in trying to make his point, he brackets me. I am trying to say that we should not have these brackets, but unfortunately the way that the arguments often go is that people get shunted, one way or another, into these brackets. I am saying that they are wrong and it does not help the debate about what we are focusing on today, which is immigration and dealing with the prospect of what will happen on 1 January with Bulgaria and Romania. I would like to have a more cognitive debate, a more measured debate, and less one that is based either on fear or emotion. Consequently I apologise to my hon. Friend if in any way he felt offended by what I said.

Managed migration certainly has enormous benefits: for education; for business; and for filling the gaps in the labour market, which have been mentioned already.

[Mr Chope]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Ellwood]

I will just finish this point. However, the key word is “managed”. I am looking around the Chamber and—Ms Dorries, you seem to have changed. [Laughter.] I am looking around the Chamber and I think that we would all agree, bar possibly the Front-Bench spokesmen, that migration has not been managed well, particularly during the last decade.

I give way to my hon. Friend from a neighbouring constituency.

[Mr Chope]

I was going to take up the same point about the issue of “managed” migration. Is not the issue that we face, in dealing with our constituents’ concerns about immigration, that at the moment we as a country are not in a position where we can manage our own borders and decide who can come to our country, and who can stay and receive benefits. Surely we should be emphasising that, as a sovereign country, we should be able to determine these issues ourselves and not have solutions to them imposed on us by the European Union?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend makes an important point. I listened to his contribution earlier too. I was making the point that, during the past decade, huge mistakes have been made—I will discuss them shortly—but now there are measures in place to rectify that situation.

I am honoured to represent Bournemouth East, a wonderful part of Great Britain that very much reflects the national approach to running a liberal, open, free market economy. As a seaside town, we are reliant on both domestic and overseas visitors. We are served by an international airport and we have a university that is internationally recognised as one of the best in the world for digital and creative arts. We attract international businesses. JP Morgan, a US bank, and one of the biggest banks, is the largest employer in Bournemouth; our water company is run by a Malaysian company; our Yellow Buses transport company is French-owned; and, yes, the football club is owned by a Russian. Our tourism sector is huge. We are heavily reliant on overseas workers to do the jobs many British people refuse to do, because the dog’s breakfast of our benefits system has perverse incentives, resulting in people being worse off if they gain part-time employment. That left gaps in the employment market that needed to be filled.

I worry that, unless our debate on immigration is measured, rational and, of course, resolute, the unintended consequence of leaping to solutions, such as those calls we heard today to leave the EU, will damage or possibly kill off genuine international interest in inward-investment opportunities, as well as export prospects and British influence abroad. The perception will prevail—indeed, it will be promoted by other countries that are competing against us—that Britain is not open for business.

We should not forget our heritage and who we are. We are a nation with a rich history of immigration, as my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr Newmark), who is sadly no longer in his place, articulated in a previous immigration debate. This island has been invaded, or settled in other forms, by Angles, Jutes and Norsemen in the dark ages, Normans, Jews and Huguenots in the middle ages, Italians and Irishmen in the 1800s and, more recently, people from the Caribbean and the Asian sector, as well. Our monarchy was, on more than one occasion, short of an obvious candidate for the top job, and we invited outsiders to fill that post, such as William and Mary of Orange, for example, or George I, Queen Anne having no surviving children. We need to be honest about our past.

We have also taken more than a shine to emigrating to all corners of the globe in the past 600 years. Britain has prospered, since the war, thanks to expanding trade links with Europe, and British and European security has improved, thanks to Britain championing the case for bringing nations that languished behind the iron curtain into NATO and the EU. We have been one of the strongest supporters of the single market. Naturally, our concerns about Bulgaria and Romania will be repeated when, in due course, Turkey, Ukraine and Bosnia hopefully enter the wider market. It is in our interests that the European market should grow, for all our citizens and businesses to have the opportunity to work in other European countries.

It is no coincidence that our attitude to being international now means that 80% of the cars that we produce are exported, 50% of them into the EU. That would not happen if we did not have the approach to internationalism that we have today.

[Mr Bone]

It is blatantly obvious that, when there is a £50 billion current account deficit with the EU, it will continue to trade with us and export. It is absurd to make any other argument.

[Mr Ellwood]

Again, I am invited to wander away from the debate about immigration, into the wider, albeit important, debate about the virtues of the EU. What would happen if we went down my hon. Friend’s route and left the EU? If he thinks for a second that the countries remaining in Europe would leave tariffs as they are or allow us to have similar tariffs to Switzerland, and so on, he is wrong. We would then be seen as the competition and France would be first to say, “Let’s make it tougher for Britain to participate or trade with us.” That is exactly what would happen.

There is a notion that we can somehow say no to the EU or park the matter to one side and look to the emerging markets. Let us take one huge example. We tried to sell the Eurofighter to India, a close Commonwealth country, but it went with the French Rafale aircraft instead. It is not so simple to say, “Let’s ignore the EU” and suddenly embrace the Commonwealth, which we anticipate would have closer relationships with us.

[Mark Reckless]

Of course, my hon. Friend’s example may reflect the wisdom or otherwise of naming products we are trying to export with the “Euro” prefix. More worryingly, it is preposterous to say that tariffs would go up, when Germany sells more to us than it does to any other country in the world, including France. The EU is treaty bound to negotiate a free trade agreement with any state that needs it.

[Mr Ellwood]

I do not think the name of the aircraft was the precursor of the deal falling through or the reason why it did so. I could have said “Typhoon”, as my hon. Friend is aware.

The majority would agree with the approach that I have spelled out, but fundamental flaws, out-of-date practices and British schoolboy errors have allowed a scale of migration into the UK over one decade that is incomparable with the spikes in migration on this island in all its history, as I mentioned earlier. That is what concerns my constituents and those of other hon. Members.

Let us look at some of those mistakes. Like other hon. Members, I am sorry that there are now no Labour Back Benchers—[Interruption.] I am sorry; apart from the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who was not here at the beginning, there are none here to put the case. And there is not a single Lib Dem here, either.

Under Labour, in 2004, there was a deliberate policy of uncontrolled migration, resulting in more than 1 million people coming from central and eastern Europe, who now live here. Why? Because the UK completely opted out of the transitional controls on new EU member states. Britain was the only country to do so, ignoring the right to impose a seven-year ban before new citizens could come and work here. We were almost all alone in Europe.

[Kate Hoey]

On that point, many members of the Labour party were against that at that time. Indeed, my hon. Friends on the Front Bench at the moment have said that that was the wrong decision and have apologised for it.

[Mr Ellwood]

I am not sure that the apology will be accepted by a nation that is now having to live with the consequences. As we have seen, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw) is now embarrassed to admit that that was a huge mistake. I am sorry that the hon. Lady was not more vocal at the time or that her voice was not listened to, because that decision has had a profound effect, not only in respect of migration, but on the balance in the UK, as has already been mentioned.

[Andrew Bingham]

Does my hon. Friend agree that that has also had a profound effect on the British population’s approach to migration, as we face 31 December?

[Mr Ellwood]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Aside from the administrative errors, pressures on housing, benefits and health services, and so on, as he implies, the scale of migration in the last decade has challenged the very Britishness of some communities—what defines us: our values; our culture; who we are. Of course, that is an evolving thing and measured migration can be absorbed into it, but when overloaded—when diasporas move here on such a large scale—there is such an impact that it can be unmanaged, in that sense, and have a negative impact on those who are already here.

Let us not slip away from what Labour did in the last decade that was so wrong. It introduced eight Acts of Parliament, but it had no control over immigration despite those and illegal immigrants were free to abuse our state services. Migration from non-EU member states also increased during that time. Indeed, twice as many came from non-EU countries as EU countries. I hope that the Minister will confirm that that is so.

In the five years leading up to the economic downturn—this is the real message—more than 90% of the increase in employment was accounted for by foreign nationals. We were creating jobs in this country and giving them to people from overseas. That cannot be right. To put that another way, one in 10 new jobs was given to a British person. I am pleased to say that that is not the case today with the 1.1 million new private sector jobs that have been created. To compound matters, employers targeted eastern European countries, to pay less than the minimum wage. In 2009, for example, 2,000 firms were fined for doing this. Thanks to stricter rules, that figure has now fallen.

Another area of abuse was student visas, and we felt the impact in Bournemouth too. Bogus students were attending bogus colleges, but, thankfully, that has also now stopped. International education is clearly important, with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills estimating that it is worth £8 billion. It is important to get our approach right, and given the importance of language schools to Bournemouth, people there expect us to.

Arguably, Labour’s biggest failure was failing to inspire a younger generation to work. Thanks to the something-for-nothing culture, a skills gap developed. If it does not pay to work, or if British people lack the necessary skills, that creates a huge space in our labour market for people from overseas to fill. We cannot blame people for wanting to come here and work hard, but the real answer lies in training our own people to fill these jobs. If we add to that the way in which the benefits system was abused, we can see why we ended up with the mess we inherited in 2010.

I am pleased to see the changes the Government have introduced. When passed into law, the Immigration Bill will upgrade the previously dysfunctional UK Border Agency, making it easier to send offenders back overseas. It will also cut the abuse of the appeals process, which originally had, I think, 17 different stages that could be put to appeal. In addition, it will oblige temporary immigrants seeking to stay longer than six months to pay a surcharge on their visa to cover NHS costs, should they use the health service. Finally, it will tackle sham marriages, to which more than 10,000 visa applications were linked every year.

As the Prime Minister announced last week, we are building a welfare system that encourages work and that is not so accessible to migrants, so no one can come to this country and expect to get out-of-work benefits immediately. We will not pay those benefits for the first three months. If, after those three months, an EU national needs benefits, we will no longer pay them indefinitely. Migrants will also be able to claim for only a maximum of six months unless they can prove they have a genuine prospect of employment. In addition, there will be a minimum earnings threshold, and if migrants do not pass the test, access to benefits such as income support will be cut. Finally, newly arrived EU jobseekers will not be able to claim housing benefit.

Those are welcome changes. If people are not here to work, or if they are begging or sleeping rough, they will be removed. They will be barred from re-entry for 12 months, unless they can prove there is a proper reason for them to be here, such as a job. Such steps have already been taken by other countries, such as Holland and Germany.

As we have seen, the Government’s policies are having an impact, with a drop in net migration of more than one third. Immigration from outside the EU is now at its lowest level for 14 years. With the new measures I have described, however, that drop will continue.

[Mark Reckless]

My hon. Friend refers to a drop in net immigration of more than a third. Is he sure his figures are up to date?

[Mr Ellwood]

The best person to clarify that will be the Minister, but those are the figures that I have been presented with. Indeed, they were put forward by the Home Secretary when the Immigration Bill was read for the Third time a couple of weeks ago.

To return to a point on which I think there will be more common ground, given what my hon. Friends have already said, the EU needs to change. It needs to recognise that its rules are out of date. There is a disparity between the income per head of joining members and that of other member states. It is so large that it is not surprising that some people will choose to abandon their own country and move to a richer one.

[Andrew Bridgen]

My hon. Friend mentioned rough sleeping. What does he think the impact on the number of rough sleepers in London and our major cities will be of relaxing the transitional arrangements with Bulgaria and Romania after 31 December?

[Mr Ellwood]

In a way, that point has already been answered. There are those who get through the system and who are here already, which is why it was rather bizarre that the right hon. Member for Leicester East was going to go to Luton airport to watch people coming through. If people are determined to get through the system, they can already get here visa-free. However, the Prime Minister has made it clear that that will no longer be tolerated under the new rules.

It is important we take the lead in the EU. Some of my hon. Friends have no faith in what can be achieved, but I believe that, for the first time in many years, Britain is taking the lead in the EU, and British influence is increasing. Labour gave away our opt-out and our fishing rights, and it opened our borders when Germany, France and others decided to keep theirs closed. In contrast, this Government have managed to secure a trade deal with South Korea, and there is a trade deal with America in the offing. We have also had the first ever reduction in the EU budget, and there is an EU patent agreement—something that extends right across Europe.

Those things came about not just because of agreement in Europe, but because they were British-led initiatives. When we decide to step forward and we understand what is going on, other nations around Europe follow us. I am not sure Labour particularly understood that, and nor, if we are fair, did this Government. We can influence the direction of travel in Europe; we do not have to leave that to France and Germany, and we should not have an attitude that says we should. If we do leave things to them, and we do not affect the decisions that are made upstream before legislation is created, we have no right to complain about the outcome.

In conclusion, migration is a sensitive subject at any time, but thanks to the disastrous decisions taken by the previous Government, it has become very emotive indeed. We are overdue tougher migration rules, and I am pleased this Government are now producing them. However, the challenge posed by new EU immigrants could have been avoided had tougher decisions been taken further down the line.

[Several hon. Members]

rose—

[Mr Joe Benton (in the Chair)]

Order. Before I call the next speaker, may I remind hon. Members that I propose to start the winding-up speeches at 4 o’clock?

15:09

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

It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on initiating the debate. I also congratulate my 73 parliamentary colleagues who, like me, signed his amendment to the Immigration Bill, although, regrettably, it will not be considered this side of 1 January 2014. However, it is an important amendment that would extend the transitional controls for an extra five years, and we will debate it next year.

Let us be clear about what the debate is not about: it is not about a zero-immigration policy, and it is not about closing this country’s borders to every other country in the world. It is, however, an expression of concern about the fact that, while my hon. Friend the Minister and his predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), have done sterling and impressive work in restricting influxes of unskilled labour from non-EU countries, we have not been able to effect the same restraint in respect of EU countries. That is the heart of the matter.

Just to be crystal clear, I want to put on record my gratitude to our splendid Home Secretary and the two Immigration Ministers we have had in this Parliament, who have moved this country much more towards the Australian model. We now have a rigorous points system for those who wish to come into this country from outside the EU; those people must have skills and something positive to contribute. However, when it comes to the EU, because of its quite pernicious freedom of movement rules, we are having to have this debate.

All of us in the room who speak to our constituents know that this is the No. 1 concern for the public after the economy. Only a few days ago, in a national newspaper, the opinion pollsters Harris found, in a very large poll, that 82% of adults in this country did not want the transitional controls that currently exist for Romania and Bulgaria to be lifted, while 85% thought that migration was putting huge pressure on our schools, hospitals and housing stock.

Although the 74 signatories to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley are predominantly Conservative Members, this debate is not a purely Conservative party concern. It is a fatal misreading of British public opinion to assume that it is something to do with Conservative Members being worried about the UK Independence party. It is much more important, for reasons I shall develop, but we know one thing about this issue: two rather good Labour former Home Secretaries do not have a problem with the proposal. In recent days, we have heard from the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) on his concerns about what may happen on the streets of Sheffield when transitional controls are lifted; and from the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Straw).

It is worth repeating why the right hon. Member for Blackburn thought the influx from a new EU accession country had deleterious consequences for civil society and the economy. He said, a matter of days ago, about the events of 2004:

“Thorough research by the Home Office suggested that the impact…would in any event be ‘relatively small, at between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010.’

Events proved these forecasts worthless.”

There is, then, some cross-party agreement on the potential influx of Romanians and Bulgarians from 1 January. We are talking about an indeterminate number. I shall disagree in only one respect with my hon. Friends the Members for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) and for Wellingborough (Mr Bone): I understand why Home Office Ministers will not enter the territory of forecasting numbers; they would almost certainly be proved wrong.

Let us explore how many Bulgarians and Romanians might be attracted to living, settling and working in our country. It is estimated that 23,000 workers from Romania and Bulgaria have come to this country in the past 12 months, under the existing rules; they have been able to come if they are self-employed or work in agriculture, or, equally, if they can get a work permit to do a job that the UK Border Agency thinks cannot otherwise be done by an indigenous British worker. They certainly like coming to Britain; 23,000 did in the last 12 months.

We also know from the statistics that there are now 135,000 Romanians and Bulgarians working in the UK, which compares with a 1997 figure of 2,000. A leap from 2,000 in 1997 to 135,000 this year is pretty persuasive evidence that people in that part of south-east Europe rather like what is on offer in the United Kingdom. Also, in the past 12 months, one in six applications for vocational courses in British colleges was made by people from Romania or Bulgaria.

As we have already heard, Migration Watch UK estimates that the number of Romanians and Bulgarians coming here to work or seek work could be anything over 50,000 a year for five years. I do not know whether that is correct, but we can certainly expect a considerable number over and above the number of Poles who came between 2004 and 2010, as the right hon. Member for Blackburn so powerfully reminded us. Ministers generally have my respect, but it is not good enough to say, on the basis of virtually no evidence, “Well, Romanians and Bulgarians will probably prefer Germany as a destination.” I have seen no evidence for that, but hope I have cited evidence that there are many reasons to suspect that they will want to come to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Hollobone]

I am enjoying my hon. Friend’s impressive speech. Is not London one of the big United Kingdom pull factors? It is the biggest city in Europe apart from Moscow, and the most cosmopolitan city in the world where everyone speaks or learns English. It is a city such as no other country in Europe has.

[Mr Ruffley]

Indeed. I am reminded of Cecil Rhodes’s comment that to be born a free-born Englishman was to have won first prize in the lottery of life. English as the world language is obviously the reason why so many migrants want to come from within and outside the EU, and attend language schools in this country. My hon. Friend is correct in suspecting that London will be a huge magnet for Romanians and Bulgarians. There are perfectly understandable reasons for them to want to come to this country, and many will no doubt want to work hard. Perhaps some will take jobs illegally under the minimum wage level of £6 an hour. We do not criticise those individuals who want a better life; we merely suggest that what I have outlined is a luxury that the country cannot afford, now or in the future.

[Mr Harper]

On the argument about where people might go, my hon. Friend considered the facts regarding the number of Romanians and Bulgarians who are already here, but let us look at the other countries mentioned. Italy did not have transitional controls, and there are 1 million Romanians and Bulgarians there. Spain and Germany did, and 500,000 Romanians and Bulgarians went to Germany and 1 million to Spain. I do not say that that is conclusive, but it may be one aspect of what was meant when it was suggested that there is a range of options for Romanians and Bulgarians besides coming to the United Kingdom.

[Mr Ruffley]

One could argue that in Germany and the other countries my hon. Friend mentioned, job vacancies for Romanians and Bulgarians are perhaps pretty much full up now, and they may want to try their luck in the United Kingdom, where, if they do their research, they will understand there are many job vacancies that remain unfilled, despite the economic recovery, and that there could be rich job pickings. However, I do not think that the argument can be made conclusively either way.

I am getting rather tired with the argument that all immigration to this country is by definition good, in economic terms. First, I pray in aid a 2008 report of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee, which made the point that total output can be driven up by increasing the number of people in the country. The greater the population, the greater the economic growth. That is an economic truism that no one disputes. However, the Committee also said that that was beside the point. What matters is not GDP, but GDP per capita. A much larger population, generating a higher total output, means there is a bigger cake; but there are also more people who want a slice of it.

The key point, which the Home Secretary and her Ministers have identified, is that this is not just about getting bodies into the country to generate more economic growth; it is about getting the right people in, with the skills and specialisms that we need. That, almost by definition, means small numbers of immigrants, who will meet a high-skill, high-value-added specification—not tens or even hundreds of thousands, as there were in the case of Poland and other accession countries in 2004. I fear that what happened then will also happen with Romania and Bulgaria.

If anyone is thinking of references for the debate, many arguments have recently been made about work by University college London that argues that immigrants contribute more in tax than they ever take in benefit. I do not have time to say why that work is grossly inadequate. Another grossly inadequate body, in my view, is the Office for Budget Responsibility, which in the past six months has blithely said that, unless this country has 7 million more immigrants between now and 2050, we will not cut our deficit and our national debt. Those figures are “Through the Looking Glass” stuff. I repeat again that the current Home Office Ministers understand that truth, but they are not able to say that they have made it tougher for EU migrants to come here, as they have with non-EU migrants. As a result of the EU treaties, Ministers have not been able to impose such welcome discipline on the number of EU migrants coming into this country.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) talked about the polarity—which he helped to set up, if he will allow me to say so—between little Englanders and free traders. I like to think that I am a free trader, and I want to run the Prime Minister’s global race, as I am sure we all do. I can hardly wait to run that race. As a free-market, right-of-centre—nay, right-wing—Conservative, I believe in free trade and Britain facing outwards to the world, but we should still understand that the best way to earn our way in the world is not to open our doors willy-nilly to an undifferentiated mass of workers from other countries, when we have no way of sifting to see what skills they have and how highly specialised those skills are. We can do that for workers from the rest of the world, but we cannot do it for workers from the EU.

Over the past year, as we all know, the British economy has begun to recover, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and his tenacity in sticking to his economic project. Private sector employment is now at an all-time high. In the past, as the number of job vacancies increased, the response from employers in this country would have been to increase wages to attract the best workers. When the economy grew, wages grew. That is a fairly uncontroversial proposition, but that link seems to have been broken in the current recovery. The number of people in employment has increased, but real wage growth has been flat.

With gross migration to this country running at some 500,000 a year, and with many of those migrants coming from low-income countries, there is not much incentive for employers to increase wages. In 2004, when the Labour Government lifted the restriction on Polish and other eastern European workers coming into this country, the average wage in Poland was just 42% of the average wage in the UK. If a Polish plumber could more than double his salary by coming over to fit bathrooms in Wellingborough rather than Warsaw, who could blame him for jumping on the next easyJet flight? Good luck to him.

Although some think that lifting restrictions on Bulgarians and Romanians will somehow produce a different outcome, we should bear in mind the following facts, which have been alluded to in earlier contributions. Average wages in Bulgaria and Romania are currently 31% and 34% of average wages in the UK respectively. That is even lower, relative to the UK, than Polish wages were in 2004.

Wage levels in the UK have been fairly flat recently, but since 2004, wages paid to workers in so-called elementary occupations, such as manual labourers and cleaners, have declined by 8%. Wages have not been flat. At the very lowest end, we have seen a very large fall in wages. Cleaning jobs and labouring jobs are hard, difficult and often monotonous work, but they are the sorts of jobs that many immigrants drift towards, at least when they first arrive in a country and need a job fast. Many immigrants have a strong work ethic. It is not surprising that several academic studies in many countries have found a close link, over time, between the scale of migration to a developed country such as ours and the wages of less-skilled workers. Those wages go down or stay flat.

If the restrictions are lifted—and it looks as if they will be—and there is an influx into this country of an indeterminate number of Bulgarians and Romanians, jobs in the elementary occupations might be paid at below the legal minimum wage. Why might that be? Paying below the minimum wage is, of course, illegal, but it is certainly anecdotally true that many immigrants do not have a tendency to inform the authorities that they are receiving £3 or £4 an hour, rather than the £6-plus that is the legal minimum in this country.

The problem of British workers being undercut by EU workers—in this case Bulgarians and Romanians—who are willing to accept extremely low wages, sometimes perhaps illegally low wages, may get worse in the coming year. This statistic has been mentioned before, but it bears repeating: the legal minimum wage in both Romania and Bulgaria is under 80p an hour; in the UK it is well over £6 an hour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough recited. One factor that we all know, and which has also been referred to, is that British workers do not want low-paid jobs. We hear all the time that young people do not want to take jobs in domiciliary care, nursing homes and so on. Suffice it to say that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is doing excellent work in reforming the benefit system, but there is more to do.

We cannot say yet that the welfare reforms have been a success. As Andrew Green, the chairman of Migration Watch UK, reminds us, it is inexcusable for British employers not to give British workers a level playing field on recruitment. The key point is that, with 1 million young people not in employment or training, it is imperative that they are given a chance to get on the work ladder. The route to proper employment has to start somewhere, and 1 million young people in our country are not doing anything at all. It is fairly inevitable that the influx of Bulgarians and Romanians will crowd out the opportunities for young people to move off benefits and into productive work.

I will close my remarks by saying that we may have lost the argument on lifting the controls, but I hope that this debate, and the further debates that I trust we will have in 2014, will move on to new territory. That territory must include the views attributed to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, who I understand has floated a cap on EU migrants to this country of 75,000. EU migrants to this country should be blocked from claiming benefits not just for three months, but for three years or more. Finally, freedom of movement from poorer countries should be restricted, and we should insist that such movement may happen only when the GDP of those countries has reached 75% of the UK’s GDP. I hope that those of us here today, and those who support my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, will press the Prime Minister to put such radical reform of freedom of movement at the very top of his list of renegotiation items when he comes to renegotiate this country’s future as it relates to the European Union.

15:39

[Mr Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing this important debate. I share his frustration at not being able to have a debate on the splendid new clause he has tabled on the Immigration Bill prior to the day of reckoning: 1 January 2014. The Government’s failure to organise such a debate is symptomatic of the causes of much cynicism among the public, because there is a big credibility gap between the politicians—the elected representatives—and our electors, who are absolutely of one mind that we must do something to address the problem. The Government, instead of addressing it and facing up to my hon. Friend’s new clause, have decided to defer consideration until the new year.

Those of us who argue that we should continue with transitional arrangements are finding common cause with Romania’s jobs Minister, Mariana Câmpeanu, who was reported in The Sun on Sunday on 15 December as being concerned that Romania has lost 3 million people since joining the European Union, many of whom are its most able and mobile workers. She said that she could do nothing to stop such people leaving for what she described as a “better life”, but she despaired that this country has a benefits system that discourages our people from working.

The same article, which was drawn to my attention in particular because one of the companies mentioned is based in my constituency, describes British companies going to Bucharest to recruit Romanian workers. The example from my constituency is of a company that goes out to recruit heavy goods vehicle or van drivers, because the HGV and van drivers available in this country are not prepared to do the extraordinary out-of-hours work or the one-off. They are prepared only to work the regular 40-hour week, and Romanian workers are much more flexible. If the Minister is not already aware of it, it is worth drawing his attention to a further complication caused by the driver qualification card, which the European Union now demands that professional drivers possess. Many van and HGV drivers in this country do not have it, and they must go through an expensive safety course in order to get one. In Romania, however, almost all of them have the card. The article quotes a taxi driver who says:

“You only have to drive for 10 minutes to pass the test.”

Such people will come to this country with this EU qualification, which will enable them to access work that our own people will not unless they undergo expensive training.

That is another adverse consequence of our membership of the European Union. The challenge for the Minister is how to solve the problems, which are of such concern to our constituents, if we do not leave the European Union. What is being said at the moment is, “Don’t worry; we’re going to change the rules.” My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley) was just saying that the Prime Minister had floated a cap on the number of immigrants. That is the point. He has floated the idea, but he knows that he cannot possibly deliver. If there was any doubt about that, why is it that the European Court of Justice is now considering our habitual residence test, which is a modest control over access to benefits? We might hope that the European Union was moderating its view and becoming more reasonable about our country’s rights to decide who should be able to access taxpayer-funded benefits, but there is no evidence on the ground that that is what is happening. In fact, it is quite the reverse.

Meanwhile, as I heard in this room yesterday when I was in the Chair, our constituents are complaining about numbers of rough sleepers and homeless people, shortages of housing and of school places, particularly in primary schools, and pressure on hospitals. We have heard today about the pressure on the criminal detection and enforcement agencies, because of the propensity of certain groups of Romanians to engage in low-level crime. We have problems with building on green-belt land and so on. So many of these problems are associated with the fact that we are allowing this country’s population to rise far faster and to a greater extent than the people want. We are a small island. We are the most densely populated part of the European Union. Enough is enough. We are now facing large numbers of additional people coming to our country and we can do nothing about it.

Most of the figures are fiddled. When one prepares for a debate such as this, one is normally surprised at the information that comes from the brilliant researchers in our House of Commons Library. I will close by drawing attention to the disparity that they have identified between the number of people estimated to have come from Bulgaria and Romania on one criterion—the one that the Government use—which says that net migration averages at fewer than 10,000 since 2007, and on another, which shows that the increase has been 25,000 a year or 148,000 in total over that period. The helpful Library note also refers to a report from July 2012 by the Office for National Statistics and states that

“there is evidence to suggest that estimates of migration flows between 2001 and 2011 may have underestimated the full extent of international migration.”

When the Government say that they are going to reduce net migration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands, they are using figures that probably underestimate by half the actual extent of that migration. Even those figures are not correct.

In responding to the debate, I hope that the excellent Minister will be able to say how he thinks we can sort out these problems quickly, in line with the wishes of the British people and without leaving the European Union.

15:47

[Mark Reckless (Rochester and Strood) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope) and I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) on securing the debate.

I was elected to this Parliament on the basis of a promise to cut immigration from hundreds of thousands a year to no more than tens of thousands a year. Many of my constituents voted for me on that basis. They had had enough of a Labour Government who oversaw uncontrolled immigration for year after year after year, and they wanted to see immigration cut. As a Member of this place and of the Select Committee on Home Affairs—I am delighted to have its Chair, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), next to me—I have found that whenever we hold an inquiry into immigration all manner of people want to come in to tell us why there should be more immigrants for their particular vested interest, but hardly anyone, except Migration Watch UK, which is a superb, independent and thoroughly respected think tank, will put the counter-argument—

[Mr Harper]

And the Minister.

[Mark Reckless]

And of course the Minister, and his predecessor from Kent, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green), who also put forward that case.

Although the Government have taken a lot of action on immigration, much of which is in the detail of what has been done—I credit both Ministers for their work in that area—I am concerned that in several key areas we have relaxed what we should have done and perhaps originally intended to do. One such area was the number of people whom we allow in on inter-company transfers. When the Prime Minister went to India, he came under pressure, from Liberal Democrats and the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, to put in place this loophole whereby people with incomes of down to the £24,000 or £30,000 level are allowed to come in for a certain period but then leave, and other people come in and also earn below the proper cap for inter-company transfers. That has put people in the IT industry in particular under intense pressure in terms of holding down wages in that sector and, I fear, has also increased the number of people in the country.

Another area is post-study work, which expanded under the Labour Government. As far as I can see, anyone can come here and do any course, and then stay on and work afterwards, or indeed while they are doing the course, with few if any questions asked. I was delighted when the Home Office said that it would get rid of that, but unfortunately it was then watered down under pressure from universities and, as ever, the Liberal Democrats. I would love to hear from the Minister whether they signed up to that policy, and whether it is a Government policy.

We then said that anyone who comes here and gets a degree from a university can stay on and work. We are subsidising our university sector through our immigration policy. The Government go on as though everyone else does it, but they do not. I studied in America, and it is difficult to stay on there afterwards. I think only Australia has a more obviously generous system than we do. Our universities should compete on the basis of their academic excellence, not on the basis of “If you come and study with us rather than with some other competitor, you’ll be able to stay on and work in the British labour market, and potentially stay on for ever thereafter.” The fact that we have allowed that loophole makes net migration higher than it otherwise would be, and we are further from hitting our target.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said that we have cut net migration by more than a third. I am afraid that his figures are significantly out of date, if indeed they had a solid basis when produced. He referred to a couple of weeks ago, “on Third Reading of the Immigration Bill”, which he may be aware has not actually happened yet.

[Mr Ellwood]

I said Second Reading.

[Mark Reckless]

I believe you said Third Reading. We shall see what the record says.

However, Third Reading has been delayed. It will not happen till the new year, although we do not know when. Perhaps the Minister can tell us that as well. Many of us think that it would be sensible to have a debate, or indeed a vote, on the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley before the restrictions are lifted on 1 January rather than afterwards.

At the moment, the latest figures, up to June 2013, give 182,000 as the net migration figure, compared with the figure for 2009-10, the year before the election in which the coalition Government came to power, when it was 214,000. So net migration has been cut by just under 15%, which is barely one seventh, not more than one third, but I promised my constituents that if they elected me—if they had a Conservative or perhaps at least a Conservative-led Government—we would deliver on our promise to cut immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands.

I was extremely concerned to read an interview apparently given by the Prime Minister to The Daily Telegraph in which he seems—perhaps I am wrong—to set aside that target. He seems to accept, or at least suggest, that the immigration target might not be hit, because we are taking in more people from the European Union. If we are not going to hit the target, as we promised our electors we would, we should change policy to ensure that we do hit it, either by getting rid of loopholes for Indian IT workers, post-study work or numerous others I could mention, or by taking some action on EU immigration.

I am pleased to say that at least some action is taking place. The change on benefits to three months is sensible, and I am pleased that it will be introduced before 1 January. It shows that Government can work on such things quickly when they want to. It is a shame that the same has not happened with regard to the Immigration Bill. We need the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley.

We have talked about estimates. To quote the Minister in The House magazine—I hope that this is accurate; I am sure it is—

“We consulted the Migration Advisory Committee on that question, and it advised us that making an estimate was not practical because of the number of variables, so we have not done so.”

The Chair of the Home Affairs Committee mentioned that point and asked Professor Sir David Metcalf:

“If Ministers had said to you, ‘Sir David, could you please give us some estimates about the number of people coming in after 31 December?’, you would have happily obliged?”

He answered:

“Yes, that is the role of the Migration Advisory Committee…if we were tasked by the Government to make such an estimate, it would be absolutely our job to do that, yes”.

But that estimate did not come.

I do not know what the numbers will be. I look forward to my trip to Luton on 1 January. Perhaps the Victoria coach station will also be another big point of entry. We can talk to some of those people and ask them whether they will be employed, or whether they purport to be self-employed, as they have had to do in most cases before. That will give us some interesting answers.

The big difference is that respectable, proper employment agencies can now go out and recruit proactively in Romania and Bulgaria. They can go to employers and offer them the service of bringing in people, often highly skilled people prepared to work hard, sometimes for much lower wages than people here, although we have a minimum wage in the formal sector. We do not know how large that sum will be; the Government have not given us an estimate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone) made many strong points. I do not share his confidence or certainty that the numbers will be very large, but it is certainly possible, and we should have had a strategy to deal with that and prevent large numbers from coming here. It is good that we now have policemen from Scotland Yard out in particular villages in Romania to spread the message, but when the Select Committee went to Bucharest, I did not see any evidence of such a strategy.

Indeed, I said to Martin Harris, the excellent ambassador there, “What are you doing to reduce the numbers likely to come after 1 January?” He looked at me as though he had misheard or misunderstood what I had said and answered, “That’s not our job.” I said, “How do you mean? You work for the Government.” He said, “There’s free movement. Under EU law, they’re allowed to come. It’s not my role to reduce the numbers. I haven’t had any instructions to that effect.” He was managing the process and explaining things to both sides, but he did not see it as his role in any way, or think that it was Government policy, to try to hold down the numbers of people coming.

There has been more evidence over the last weeks, and possibly months, that that is the policy, and I hope it succeeds. If it does not succeed, and if the Migration Watch numbers are coming from Romania and Bulgaria, it is difficult to see how we will hit the net migration target, as I promised my constituents we would. I hope that we will hit it, and that we will see action to do so.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley tabled his amendment, and then the Minister came to the Select Committee and told us that the amendment was illegal. I found that comment extraordinary. It is an amendment to primary legislation. For a Minister to come to the House and say that an amendment to primary legislation is unlawful comes close to contempt of the House, although I do not accuse him of that. It is this House that sets the law, and the Government who are bound by the law as determined by this Parliament, yet he seems to think that some other law might be higher and bind him in a way that the law of this Parliament does not.

The Minister has a reason for thinking that. The ministerial code says:

“The Ministerial Code should be read alongside the coalition agreement and the background of the overarching duty on Ministers to comply with the law including international law and treaty obligations”,

but in this country, our constitution has always been dualist in its approach to international law. International law binds, and binds Ministers, only to the extent that it is also the law of the land as passed by Parliament. If the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley succeeds, that will be the law that binds Ministers, not any previous agreement they may have happened to enter into with their counterparts overseas, except to the extent that that is part of our domestic law.

On that issue, the Thoburn case of the metric martyrs, involving Lord Justice Laws, is often quoted, but in my view, my hon. Friend’s amendment is consistent with that principle. It suggests that there are some bits of legislation that we have passed that are not to be repealed by accident; we must be express and clear that we intend to do so. However, my hon. Friend’s amendment refers to the European Union accession treaties. It would make no sense for him to add “notwithstanding the European Communities Act 1972”, because those European Union treaties flow from that Act.

If my hon. Friend, as the promoter of that amendment, says clearly that it is intended to have that effect, and if those Members who vote for it succeed, as I hope, in amending the legislation to include it and put it into law, that will be the law. The Minister, like anyone else, will be bound to apply that law, as will our judges. If Romanians and Bulgarians come to this country and take employment contrary to that law, we will look to the courts to enforce it. We made a promise to our constituents to cut immigration from hundreds of thousands to tens of thousands per year. We must keep that promise.

15:59

[Mr David Hanson (Delyn) (Lab)]

I thank you, Mr Benton, and your co-Chair, Ms Dorries, for sharing today’s proceedings. The debate has been interesting and has generated some important issues that we need to reflect on, and I welcome the opportunity to do so. In particular, I welcome the fact that today I have learned about, if nothing else, the new year’s eve and new year’s day arrangements of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) and the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless). In itself, that has been illuminating—that was said before you were in the Chair, Mr Benton, but they are spending new year’s day morning at Luton airport to check on the immigration status of arriving individuals and their destinations accordingly.

I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) brought the debate to the House. We had a similar debate on his new clause in the Immigration Bill in Committee on 19 November. We completed consideration in Committee on that day, but the Bill has still not returned to the House—according to today’s business statement, its return is not planned even for the first week of January. The hon. Gentleman has, however, tabled another amendment to the Immigration Bill for consideration on Report.

Many hon. Members have mentioned the new clause tabled by the hon. Gentleman. The debate on it will be an interesting one to have—in essence, it will be the same as today’s. I must say to the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Rochester and Strood and others who have referred to the new clause, however, that that is still primary legislation. For the measure to take effect, the Bill would have to complete its passage through the Commons and another place and, even then, as the Minister said in Committee on 19 November:

“The only way of doing so would be to negotiate a change to those treaties. Given that this would require the unanimous agreement of all member states, including Bulgaria and Romania, the Government’s judgment—which I think is the right one—is that there is no prospect of achieving it.”

[Mr Bone]

Is it right for the House to interpret therefore that Her Majesty’s official Opposition will not be supporting the new clause?

[Mr Hanson]

That is perfectly correct. The new clause is trying to unpick treaties that are the responsibility of Government to negotiate. Primary legislation would not impact on that. Even the hon. Member for Amber Valley said in Committee a little later that

“trying to get this country to breach various treaties it has signed is probably not a very sensible way of pursuing our diplomatic mission, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.”––[Official Report, Immigration Public Bill Committee, 19 November 2013; c. 401-02.]

I say that simply because the issue is important, and we need to address it, but I am not clear that the new clause or having the debate before or after Christmas would change the fundamental position.

[Nigel Mills]

For clarification, does the right hon. Gentleman accept that I was saying that trying to do that in a Committee of a dozen or so MPs was not the right way forward. It was better for the whole House to consider it.

[Mr Hanson]

My contention still stands. Having said that, we have had a calm and rational debate, which is the best way in which to approach the issue—in a calm and measured way. I agree with the approach taken by the hon. Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood), at least in the first half of his speech, on some of the benefits that wider immigration can bring to the United Kingdom.

In response to the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr Hollobone)—I say this on the record for the House—my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and my right hon. Friends the Members for Blackburn (Mr Straw) and for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) have said clearly that mistakes were made in 2004 when transitional requests and controls were not put in place. It is a reasonable presumption to say that now. It is something that I am aware of, although at the time I was dealing with other matters in Government, and we have to accept that difficult, challenging and mistaken decisions were made at that time.

[Mr Hollobone]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Hanson]

I will, although I am anxious to make my points, because I only have 15 minutes.

[Mr Hollobone]

Is that an apology? I have not heard the word “sorry”.

[Mr Hanson]

The hon. Gentleman should accept that, as the Front-Bench spokesman for my party in this Chamber today, what I am saying on behalf of my party is in support of what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said, that we made some mistakes in 2004. Those mistakes had consequences; we should have interrogated the numbers further and we should have looked at the possible impact both culturally and economically over that time. I know that the combination of immigration and inadequate labour standards in many cases meant that there was a pressure on wages and employment; some of the jobs that came into the country through economic growth were taken by people from outside the United Kingdom. I know from my own constituency in north Wales that there are pressures even now on the labour market and on cultural issues, because of that immigration.

[Mr Ellwood]

As the right hon. Gentleman is in confessional mode, perhaps I can encourage him to recognise as well that, even once the gates were open, the reason why so many chose to come to the UK was simply the benefits system—people could come here straight away, not even bother to work and gain benefits immediately. Does he agree that that was also a mistake back in 2004?

[Mr Hanson]

That was, which is why in March of this year my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), on behalf of the official Opposition, suggested the measures that the Prime Minister introduced only yesterday—some 14 days before 31 December, when transitional controls for Romania and Bulgaria expire.

Lest we think that the problem is now solely an Opposition one, let me quote what the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady) said in 2005, on 24 November, in the debate on the accession for Bulgaria and Romania:

“There is broad cross-party agreement on the objective of bringing Bulgaria and Romania into the European Union…The Conservative party has always been an enthusiastic supporter of enlargement, whether that has involved the 10 states that joined last year, or Bulgaria and Romania, or Turkey and Croatia.”

There are no Liberal Democrats present in the Chamber today, but in the same debate the Deputy Prime Minister said:

“I should also like to join in this festival of cross-party consensus, which I trust will be a rare, if valuable occasion.”—[Official Report, 24 November 2005; Vol. 1641, c. 1716-18.]

[Keith Vaz]

My right hon. Friend is taking absolutely the right approach. Another feature of the previous Government, however, was that Ministers constantly went to visit their EU counterparts and engaged in a dialogue about what was happening concerning enlargement. Does he agree that what we should have seen in the run-up to the restrictions being lifted is British Ministers going to see their Romanian and Bulgarian counterparts to look at the push and pull factors and to work out what could be done to assist?

[Mr Hanson]

That would be valuable. We have to have some positive dialogue. Statements have been made in the Chamber today that paint a picture of people from Bulgaria and Romania in one particular category—not all individuals are in the categories referred to today by some hon. Members. We need to look at what measures we can put in place before 31 December, including those the Opposition have suggested in response to the issue.

Members have mentioned a number of issues. There is potentially downward pressure on wages, because of people being undercut. There are recruitment agencies recruiting solely from eastern Europe, which was mentioned again by the hon. Members for Rochester and Strood and for Christchurch (Mr Chope). There are pressures on certain economic markets run by gangmasters with minimum wage, as mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley); people are coming to this country because they believe that a £4 or £5 an hour wage packet is better than a £2 an hour equivalent wage packet in their home country. Whatever happens on 31 December and whatever numbers of individuals come to the United Kingdom, I therefore want to see a real focus by the Government on enforcement of the minimum wage as a starting point. We need to put some effort in, not only through Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, but by looking at the possibility of giving local authorities the power to enforce the minimum wage, so that we can have greater enforcement, potentially stopping the undercutting of wages that the hon. Gentleman and others have referred to.

We need to look at enforcement of the Equality Act 2010. The hon. Member for Christchurch mentioned recruitment from eastern Europe. It is illegal to recruit individuals based on their race or nationality under that Act, but it is not widely enforced. I have discussed that with the Minister and he has agreed to look at it and refer it to the Equality and Human Rights Commission.

[Mr Harper]

I have done so.

[Mr Hanson]

I am glad the Minister has done that, because I recently gave chapter and verse in the Immigration Bill Committee on a number of recruitment agencies that are recruiting to fill positions in the United Kingdom solely with people from abroad.

We need to take greater action on the enforcement of housing regulations. Only yesterday, I was pleased to see the Prime Minister—again, I give credit when it is due—visiting a raid on a beds-in-sheds encampment in Southall. One aspect of immigration that greatly upsets my constituents in north Wales is when individuals share properties in squalid conditions and so are able to undercut wages locally, because the low standard of their accommodation means they do not have the outgoings that other people have. We also wish to look at extending legislation on gangmasters. It is perfectly reasonable to put controls in and extend gangmaster legislation to sectors to which it does not apply at the moment, such as catering and tourism.

There is action that we can take, but—and this is not intended to provoke a political fight—I genuinely do not think that the approach that some hon. Members are taking, of arguing that the transitional controls should be extended beyond 31 December, is the right one: we know, as do they, that that is a matter for treaty negotiation. Nor do I think, speaking with genuine humility, that the approach of withdrawal from the European Union is one that I can support. The European Union provides significant investments to constituencies such as mine. It also provides significant employment and a proper standard of working conditions across the board.

Furthermore, although this might not be a common thought at the moment, just under 100 years ago my grandfather was fighting Germans, Romanians and Bulgarians in the trenches and Turks in the middle east. But now, we have not had a world war for a generation and there is a stability that would surprise my grandfather if he were alive today. People from Germany, Romania, Bulgaria and Britain now sit in the same chamber to discuss issues of common economic and social interest whereas in his generation Europe was at war. That view of the European Union and the potential of a strong future Europe might not be a common one, but it is one that I hold passionately.

[Mark Reckless]

I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Gentleman’s grandfather was fighting the Romanians during the first world war, because I understand that Romania was on the allied side in that conflict.

[Mr Hanson]

My grandfather was fighting Germans and Bulgarians, but let us put that aside. He was in the trenches at Neuve Chappelle in 1915 and at the Somme in 1916, and in Sinai in 1917. He was fighting people who now sit in the same Parliament here and elsewhere in Europe. That is good for the stability of Europe. Perhaps I made a slip, but the point I am making is that the stability we have gained, through a wider economic union and through shared social conditions, is a good thing. Hon. Members have stated we should withdraw, but in my view that would be a bad thing.

We need to look at how we can put labour market conditions in place after 1 January to strengthen our position. I would also, if I may, stretch out a hand of friendship to the hon. Member for Bournemouth East, who made a strong case for looking at other areas of immigration, including student immigration, tourism and business investment. There may not actually be that many people coming from Bulgaria and Romania in January at all—whether to claim benefits or to work—but the danger is that today’s debate could send a signal that Britain is closed for business, when there is a positive case to be made for some aspects of immigration and for managed migration. However, we need to have controlled migration, to remove people who are here illegally and to ensure that we have strong borders. We also need to ensure that we deport foreign criminals, as the hon. Member for Kettering said; I have to tell him that since my time as Prisons Minister, the rate of removal of foreign national offenders has fallen by 13.5%.

There are things that we can and should do, but we should approach the matter in a calm and measured way on 1 January. I also look forward to a calm and measured debate on the remaining stages of the Immigration Bill.

16:15

[The Minister for Immigration (Mr Mark Harper)]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Benton. I agree with the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) that the blend of you and Ms Dorries could not have been bettered. I congratulate my hon. Friends the Members for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Wellingborough (Mr Bone), for Kettering (Mr Hollobone), and for Bury St Edmunds (Mr Ruffley), who collectively made a bid to the Backbench Business Committee for the debate.

I will not spend a great deal of time being partisan—that is not my natural way—but I want to make a couple of points. Part of the reason for the concern that our constituents have—a number of hon. Members touched on this—is the record of the previous Government, and the fact that they did not put transitional controls in place for the previous accession of new EU member states. Of course, the important thing was not just that we did not have them, but that we were the only significant country that did not have them. That was the reason for the very significant influx then, and that is a different position from the one that we face now.

My hon. Friend the Member for Kettering tried to get the right hon. Member for Delyn to say sorry, but it is, of course, the hardest word, and he could not quite bring himself to say it. Interestingly, the Opposition have never said that they accept that they made any mistake on non-EU immigration. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East (Mr Ellwood) said, that was twice as large—twice as many people came from outside the EU—and it was completely controllable, as there were no issues about free movement. The Labour Government also messed that up, but not only have we heard no apology for that, we have not even heard an acknowledgement that it was a mistake. Perhaps in due course that statement will arrive; we wait with bated breath.

The other thing that we have been criticised for is not taking action previously. The shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), has criticised us for not having made changes to the benefits system. It slipped my mind during our debate on this topic last week, but she was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in the previous Administration. I am sure that the right hon. Member for Delyn will leap up and correct me if I am wrong, but I do not recall either of them acknowledging at any point, while he was at the Home Office or she was the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, that there was a problem with benefits for immigrants; nor, frankly, do I recall them doing anything about it. We are being criticised by the Opposition for not having taken any steps when our Immigration Bill is before the House and we have laid out steps in secondary legislation to deal with people’s concerns; that is a little bit on the rich side, but we will not be spending too much time on that.

I am sure that you will be pleased to hear, Mr Benton, that I will not spend too much time on the bigger issue of our membership of the European Union.

[Mr Bone]

Go on!

[Mr Harper]

Tempting though I find the invitation from my hon. Friend to say more, I will just observe this: we were not, as we have discovered, blessed by the presence of any Liberal Democrats in this debate, but I note that there were only two Labour Back Benchers here—sadly, neither is here now. Interestingly, both support a referendum on our membership of the EU, and both attended the House on a Friday to support the excellent European Union (Referendum) Bill promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton). The right hon. Member for Delyn is a little isolated: the only Labour Members who were here today, aside from him, are in favour of a referendum on our EU membership, want us to renegotiate that membership, and were willing to vote for that excellent Bill. Perhaps he should reflect on that and think about whether it might be more sensible for the Labour party to change its official position to support the Prime Minister when he leads that renegotiation after we win the general election with a Conservative majority Government, and then support us when we put that new position to the people.

I will say a few words on our record. We have reduced net migration. I will act as referee between my hon. Friends the Members for Bournemouth East, and for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless): net migration is down by nearly a third since its peak. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood was right about the latest figures, but what my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East said was correct before those came out. The reduction is now nearly a third, rather than over a third. Non-European economic area migration is at its lowest level for 14 years, and is back to the level that it was at when we were last in power by ourselves. That is significant progress.

[Mark Reckless]

I was talking about the last year under the previous Government, rather than the peak. Is the Minister concerned by the increase in visa applications? They had gone down to 500,000 a quarter in the first half of the year, but are now up to about 530,00 for the third quarter.

[Mr Harper]

It depends on the sort of visa applications. Some people coming to Britain do not count as immigrants, because they are not here for a long enough period of time. I will have to check the information, but my understanding is that our visa numbers suggest that the downward trend on non-EU migration will continue, based on our reforms. It is right to say—this goes to the heart of the debate—that the reason for the increase in the last set of figures was an increase in migration from the European Union, but not from eastern Europe. Interestingly, it was from the more traditional countries—the western European countries, with which there is not a massive disparity in GDP, although our economy has been rather more successful than theirs in creating jobs.

My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley made a key point about employment. We might disagree about the solution, but his concern is well placed. My hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth East made this point strongly, too. Between 2003 and 2008, when the economy was growing under the previous Government, more than 90% of employment growth was accounted for by foreign nationals. Yes, the economy was growing under Labour, but the benefit was largely going to people who were not UK citizens—not the people for whom we all work. We have made a difference. Since the Government came to power, our immigration and welfare reforms have made it more worth while for British citizens to be in work.

Our skills agenda, more rigorous education and more apprenticeships are helping to make a difference. Since the second quarter of 2010, there has been a 1.1 million net increase in employment, and more than three quarters of that rise in employment has been accounted for by UK nationals, so the employment growth that we have seen since we came to power has largely benefited UK citizens, which is a significant turnaround. It is exactly what we wanted to achieve, and it is being achieved not only by the Home Office, but by our policies on immigration, on welfare, and on apprenticeships, training and education, which are all aligned and delivering the same outcome. That is significant, and it means that hundreds of thousands of families in Britain today have somebody in employment; they would not have had somebody in employment if the policies followed by the Labour had continued. That is welcome, and it is something of which we can be proud.

We are still committed to bringing down net migration. My hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Strood referred to the Prime Minister’s remarks. Just to be clear, he was drawing attention to the difficulty of the task, particularly given the problems in some of our western and southern European neighbours’ economies. In the interview, he reasserted the importance of delivering on our policy; he was simply drawing attention to the fact that it is a little more difficult than we had first thought, because of the difficulty in the European economies, but we are absolutely still committed to the policy.

It is worth putting the numbers in context. It is still the case with our reforms that, even having driven down migration from outside the European Union, 48% of immigration to Britain is from outside the EU, compared to 36% from the EU; the remainder are British citizens who have been overseas for more than a year and are returning to the United Kingdom. We should remember that many British citizens go to other European countries. According to the 2010 figures, there were 2.2 million EU nationals in the UK and 1.4 million Brits in EU countries. Interestingly, only five European Union countries have more than 100,000 citizens in the United Kingdom, and it is not the ones people might think: France, Germany, Ireland, Italy and Poland. In the case of Ireland, there are historical reasons not connected to the EU. Poland is the only non-traditional country that has a significant number, which is 500,000.

If we balance the figures with the countries in which our citizens live, there are only two European Union countries where the net number of EU citizens in the United Kingdom is more than 100,000. There are 145,000 more Germans living in Britain than vice versa, and Poland has a significant number—519,000 more. Of course, Spain is the opposite way round: there are 750,000 more Brits living in Spain. It is worth putting that in context, so that we can have the rational, sensible debate that the right hon. Member for Delyn talked about.

Turning to the specific points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, and to his new clause to the Immigration Bill, it is worth remembering—I agree with the right hon. Member for Delyn on this point—that for that Bill to take effect, it has to go through our House and the other place. Whether we had debated the new clause this side of Christmas or the other side of Christmas, it would have made no difference, because the measure cannot become law until the Bill progresses through Parliament, and that is not likely to happen until towards the end of this Session. As the Leader of the House has said, the legislative agenda is quite packed. Only yesterday, five or six Acts of Parliament got Royal Assent, and—this is rather above my pay grade, so I have to be very careful, because the usual channels are in the room—the business will be scheduled in due course, but it will not make a difference to when the measure becomes law.

I fear that the right hon. Member for Delyn is right: the previous Government signed the accession treaties and we supported them. Of course I am not pretending that we did not support them. The treaty came into effect in 2007, and the seven-year transitional controls expire at the end of the year. It is worth being careful about language. We are not lifting them; they expire. They cease to have any legal effect, because of the terms of the accession treaties. I am not doing anything to lift them; they simply become legally ineffective at the end of the year, because of the provisions.

[Mr Bone]

Will the Minister give way on that point?

[Mr Harper]

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I am trying to cover the points made in the debate. I have listened to the debate, and I only have three and a half minutes to try to cover the other points that people have raised.

Unlike the previous Government, who chose not to apply controls, we have extended them to the maximum length possible, so I feel that the strategy of my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley is not going to work. Although it is perfectly reasonable for colleagues to have concerns, I hope that they will have seen—of course, I knew these things were in the pipeline when we debated them in Committee, which, obviously, my hon. Friend did not—the order that I signed a couple of weeks ago, which puts in place tough rules about limiting jobseeker’s allowance to six months. It puts in place the controls that I talked about in response to points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering and the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey).

We will be able to remove, and stop returning to Britain, people who are here not exercising their treaty rights—who are here begging, rough sleeping and engaged in criminality. If Members look at some of those tough changes, they will see that they address things that our constituents are concerned about, so I urge Members who have signed the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley, and those who have not done so, to look at the changes that we have brought forward. I think that they will see that they address many of their concerns.

My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have laid out their thinking about the discussions we need to have on the new accession countries and free movement generally. We can have that negotiation only when there is a new Government. We are constrained by the coalition with our Liberal Democrat colleagues. The renegotiation strategy is not the current Government’s policy, but it is the Conservative party’s policy, which we will put before the people at the election.

The final point is that we should remember that the transitional controls are about employment. A significant number of people—102,000 Romanians and 53,000 Bulgarians—are already here, according to the Office for National Statistics. They are working, or are self-employed, self-sufficient or studying. They are already in Britain. As one or two hon. Members suggested, some people already here might not entirely be doing what they purport to be doing. They might be working. We might find that they regularise their status in the new year. The point is that the controls are about whether people can work, not whether they can come to Britain. People can come to Britain for three months, but they can stay only if they are exercising treaty rights. We have given ourselves the power to remove people if they are here not exercising treaty rights—not working, studying or being self-sufficient—and we can stop them coming back to the UK to cause damage.

We want people who come here to work, contribute and pay taxes. The legislative changes that we will make with the Immigration Bill, and that we have made in secondary legislation, address the concerns. I urge hon. Members to study the changes. If they do so, they will be reassured that the Government are taking the tough action that our constituents want. We have a good story to tell our constituents.

Question put and agreed to.

16:30

Sitting adjourned.

Written Statements

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

Thursday 19 December 2013

Zero-hours Contracts

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills (Vince Cable)]

Today I am publishing a Government consultation on zero-hours contracts. The Government are part way through an ambitious programme of employment law reform designed to make the UK labour market flexible and fair. As a part of this work, the Government are seeking views on a range of options for ensuring zero-hours contracts are both flexible and fair.

Zero-hours contracts have a role in a flexible labour market. They can help businesses respond to changes in demand, and support individuals who want the freedom and flexibility to fit their work around their other commitments. They can also offer a pathway to further employment for young people. The Government wish to maximise these opportunities while minimising and preventing any abuse or exploitation of individuals on zero-hours contracts.

This consultation builds upon an information-gathering exercise the Government undertook this summer. This found a number of benefits associated with zero-hours contracts but also identified issues around exclusivity clauses, where individuals on zero-hours contracts are being prevented from working for another employer; a lack of clarity in the information and transparency in contracts provided to individuals; and issues over levels of uncertainty individuals on zero-hours contracts reported they experienced.

The consultation seeks views on a range of options the Government have to address in order to take action. It runs until 13 March 2014.

Copies of the consultation will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Public Bodies 2013

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

The Cabinet Office is today publishing the “Public Bodies 2013” data directory on gov.uk. This provides a single source of top-level data including on all UK Government-sponsored non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs), now published wholly online in an improved data format.

Cross-Government Contract Management

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Paymaster General (Mr Francis Maude)]

Outside providers deliver high-quality public services every day. Public services are too important to too many people to be allowed to be the monopoly of the public sector. We need a vibrant mix of the very best suppliers—a hybrid economy of diverse partners. But the key to ensuring taxpayer value and high-quality services is in improved supplier management.

On 11 July, the Justice Secretary made a statement to the House about significant anomalies in the billing practices under the Ministry of Justice’s electronic monitoring contracts with Serco and G4S. Since then the Government’s response have been rigorous. The Justice Secretary has led extensive work within the Ministry of Justice. At the same time I initiated a cross-Government review with PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC), Moore Stephens and a highly experienced oversight group. This reviewed 28 of the largest contracts held by Serco and G4S worth £5.9 billion in total.

Today we publish those two reports. They provide clear evidence that contract management in Government requires improvement. There were examples of good practice and skilled work by officials across Whitehall. But in the majority of contracts reviewed across Government there are weaknesses in the way contracts are managed, some of which are significant.

The cross-Government review found no evidence of deliberate acts or omissions by either firm leading to errors or irregularities in the charging and billing arrangements on the 28 contracts investigated.

The review found that there were deficiencies in key controls being applied to the invoice and payment processes and there is therefore a risk that over-charging may have occurred. The review’s assessment of the deficiencies has determined that, in all but three cases, the impact is considered unlikely to be material (where ongoing work will establish with more confidence the significance and impact of the risks identified). Nevertheless, the issues found across Government are sufficiently important that senior management attention is recommended. The failings could, if left unchecked, lead to future erroneous charging for services delivered or opportunities missed to intervene at the right point in order to make necessary corrections.

These weaknesses fall into seven themes and the report makes eight specific recommendations to address them. Work is already under way to address problems with commercial capability and contract management as part of the civil service reform programme. Indeed for the past three years, the Government have been frank about our challenges in these areas.

The new recommendations from this review build on our ongoing work through the efficiency and reform group, including to establish a Crown commercial service and professionalise procurement under the leadership of the newly-created chief procurement officer in the Cabinet Office. The review underscores the urgent need to address these long-standing weaknesses and we will redouble our efforts to do so. I accept the report and its recommendations in full and I have placed a copy of the report in the Library of the House.

Today marks the conclusion of the reviews that the Cabinet Office and the Ministry of Justice have been conducting into Serco contracts. No further evidence of impropriety has been found beyond those on the electronic monitoring and prisoner escorting contracts.

Over the past few months Serco has engaged constructively with Government, setting out a corporate renewal plan that is now well advanced. We expect to provide a final opinion on the adequacy of the plan in January, following advice from the oversight group and independent advisers, who will also continue to monitor implementation. As set out by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Justice, we have agreed a settlement with Serco to recompense the taxpayer £68.5 million excluding VAT for the overcharging found in an audit of Ministry of Justice contracts.

This is a positive step forward for both parties and one that Government welcome.

Alongside the discussions with Serco, we have continued to engage G4S, and anticipate a further update in due course.

Insurance Growth Action Plan

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Sajid Javid)]

The insurance industry is a vital asset for the UK. It employs over 300,000 people across the country, attracts global capital, serves the needs of consumers, and is a major British exporter. This Government are therefore committed to making the UK one of the most competitive places in the world for insurance.

The Government are today launching a UK insurance growth action plan, which sets out five areas where action will be taken by Government and industry, working with other partners, to strengthen the sector’s contribution to economic growth and work together to enhance the UK’s position as a global leader in a truly global industry.

The UK industry in overseas markets

The Government will develop a co-ordinated, targeted approach to promotional and other activity, focusing on five key markets—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia and Turkey—including establishing a programme of senior Government and private sector visits, as well as prioritising financial services and insurance within upcoming free trade negotiations.

The UK as a location for insurers

The Government will develop a programme to target overseas insurers to move their domicile to the UK, including developing a marketing campaign setting out the business case for locating in the UK, and the regulatory authorities have committed to streamlining authorisations processes for prospective insurance applicants.

Insurers as long-term investors in the UK

Building on the successful outcome the Government negotiated on the solvency II directive, the following insurers—Aviva, Friends Life, Legal and General, Prudential, Scottish Widows, and Standard Life will work alongside partners with the aim of delivering at least £25 billion of investment in UK infrastructure in the next five years.

Serving UK insurance customers

The Government want to see an insurance sector that helps customers manage risk, puts its customers first—by harnessing the power of new technology and creating products that meet their needs—and has their trust and confidence. The Government ask that the industry commits to ensuring consumers are able to access the insurance products they need with information that enables them to make informed choices.

Skills and diversity in insurance

The Government’s aim is to see an insurance work force in the UK representative of the customers it serves and well equipped to meet their needs. To this end, the Government welcome industry’s proposals to: establish a gateway project to help people find apprenticeships and graduate training places within insurance; double the number of technical apprentices over the next five years; and strengthen the pipeline of senior female executives in the insurance industry.

Copies of the UK insurance growth action plan will be available on the gov.uk website and have been deposited in the Libraries of both Houses.

Future Reserves 2020

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr Philip Hammond)]

I have today placed in the Library of the House a paper setting out the planned growth of the trained strength of the reserve forces, together with the enlistment targets for the next five years that will support that growth.

Contingencies Fund Advance

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The Department of Energy and Climate Change requires a cash advance of £1,500,000 from the Contingencies Fund in 2013-14 to fund the costs of assuming the concessionary fuel allowances of former miners who lost their entitlement as a result of the restructuring of UK Coal in July 2013.

On 15 November, the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that the Government would guarantee the concessionary fuel allowance and, where appropriate, the alternative cash in lieu entitlements of the 1,500 former miners who lost their entitlement as a result of the restructuring of UK Coal with all entitlements to be backdated to July 2013 subject to any change in personal circumstances.

The Department intends to rely on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act for this spend. The advance is urgent to avoid hardship and potential ill-health effects in the winter months. Accordingly, parliamentary approval for additional resources of £1,500,000 for this new service will be sought in a supplementary estimate for the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Pending that approval, urgent expenditure estimated at £1,500,000 will be met by repayable cash advances from the Contingencies Fund.

Electricity Market Reform

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

I wish to inform the House that today the Government are publishing the electricity market reform (EMR) delivery plan. As laid out in my 18 July statement, Official Report, column 112WS, it was our intention to publish the final EMR delivery plan before the end of the year, subject to Royal Assent of the Energy Bill.

EMR is a central component of the Energy Act 2013 which received Royal Assent yesterday, and will address the need to attract unprecedented levels of investment in the UK electricity sector over the coming decades as we replace our ageing energy infrastructure with a diverse mix of low-carbon generation, and meet the expected increases in electricity demand as sectors such as transport and heat are electrified.

Following the consultation on the draft delivery plan for EMR in July 2013, and the Government’s announcement of contract for difference (CfDs) strike prices for renewable technologies on 4 December 2013, the delivery plan sets out further detail on the supporting methodology and analysis which underpin the final CfD strike prices.

It also confirms Government policy on the capacity market reliability standard of three hours loss of load expectation (LOLE). Government are introducing a capacity market to drive investment and have today confirmed the level of system security that will be required under mechanism.

The delivery plan also confirms the Government’s intention to introduce competition immediately for more established technologies.

Alongside the final delivery plan, I have published the summary of responses and the Government’s full response to the consultation on the draft delivery plan.

I have also published the latest report from the system operator—National Grid—which lays out the underpinning analysis conducted to support the decisions contained in the delivery plan, and a report on that analysis from the independent panel of technical experts.

Accompanying the delivery plan is a revised draft version of the CfD with improvements made to contract terms since the summer to support developers to bring forward investment at lower costs to consumers. Together with strike prices, this package will make the UK one of the most attractive for clean energy developers.

The Government have today sent out draft investment contracts for consideration to the 16 renewable electricity projects which met the minimum threshold evaluation criteria of the final investment decision (FID) enabling for renewables process.

I will deposit copies of the delivery plan in the Libraries of both Houses, and associated documents are available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/electricity -market-reform-delivery-plan.

Common Agricultural Policy in England

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Owen Paterson)]

Today I am publishing the Government’s response to the recent public consultation on the implementation of the common agricultural policy (CAP) in England. This will determine how we distribute £15 billion of funds over the next CAP period. It will see us investing at least £3.5 billion in rural development schemes, of which over £3 billion will be spent on improving the environment.

The decisions I am announcing are:

12% will be transferred from farmers’ pillar 1 direct payments to pillar 2 rural development. This money will improve the environment, grow the rural economy and create jobs.

A review will be held in 2016 into the demand for agri-environment schemes and the competitiveness of English agriculture. This is with the intention of moving to a 15% transfer rate from pillar 1 direct payments to support the final two years of the pillar 2 rural development programme.

5% of the new rural development programme funding will be allocated to the local enterprise partnerships (LEPs) through the growth programme. In total 13% of rural development funds will be spent on growth-focused schemes, including LEADER and farming competitiveness. I will ensure that there is a meaningful role for LEPs to help deliver growth through all of these elements of the programme.

The new CAP greening requirements will be implemented through the basic measures set out in the EU regulation. We will work with interested groups on how we apply the ecological focus area options to deliver real benefits for pollinators without adding complexity.

We will help upland farmers by equalising the upland and lowland direct payment rates. We will take a decision about the moorland rate in spring 2014. This will allow us to carry out further modelling of the impact on upland farms.

We will keep the implementation of direct payments as simple as possible by applying the minimum reduction on basic payments over €150,000 and keeping rules on the new active farmer test to a minimum.

Having considered carefully the wide range of views expressed through the consultation, I believe that this package delivers better value for taxpayers, is fair to English farmers and supports this Government’s commitment to improve our natural environment. Environmental schemes will get a higher proportion of the rural development budget than now.

In addition to making ecological focus areas deliver benefits for pollinators, my Department will work closely with farming and environmental organisations on how the Campaign for the Farmed Environment will deliver targets at local level for protecting watercourses, providing habitat for farmland birds, wildlife and pollinators. We will review the success of this at the end of 2015.

Rural business schemes have already successfully transformed the prospects of thousands of businesses and farms, created 8,500 rural jobs across the country, safeguarding another 9,700. We want to build on this track record of success.

Within a smaller overall CAP budget these decisions will help to grow the rural economy and improve the environment.

Geneva II Negotiations on Syria (Women's Participation)

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

On 11 November I informed the House that the Government were determined to ensure that the Geneva peace talks include a direct role for women’s groups in accordance with UN Security Council resolutions 1325, 2016 and 2122 on women, peace and security. I said we believe it is vital that women participate fully in decisions about the future of Syria, as they have an indispensable role to play in rebuilding and reconciling Syrian society. I announced that we would work with UN/Arab League Special Envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, his team, international non-governmental organisations and other countries to make this a reality. And I said that we would work with the UN and its agencies to ensure that we give the women’s groups the support they need to participate effectively—[Official Report, 11 November 2013; Vol. 570, c. 643].

I would like to update the House on the steps we have taken to support this commitment.

I have written to Mr Brahimi who has responsibility for deciding the format of the talks. I have also written to Foreign Ministers of members of the UN Security Council and the core group of the Friends of Syria, to like-minded EU Foreign Ministers and to EU High Representative Cathy Ashton. I have asked them all to work with the United Kingdom in three areas:

First, both sides should be encouraged to appoint women to their delegations. The United Kingdom is focusing its efforts on working with President Al-Jarba and the Syrian National Coalition. We are working with them to ensure strong female representation in the opposition delegation and to develop their capacity on gender issues.

Secondly, the UN should ensure that gender advisers and expertise are made available to all parties at Geneva, in accordance with UN Security Council resolution 2122. We have also called for the appointment of an empowered, senior-level, full-time gender expert to Mr Brahimi’s team.

Thirdly, we have called upon the UN to facilitate a clear role for women’s groups and civil society in the Geneva II process itself. We have provided Mr Brahimi with a proposed format for a civil society consultative body at Geneva, comprised of women’s groups and civil society organisations and appointed through a mechanism determined by the UN. We would expect women to make up 50% of the membership and leadership. The consultative body would have regular access to the UN mediation team and the official delegations, could take part in specific negotiations if requested, and would support Geneva II by providing advice, position papers and recommendations. Its representatives would speak at the opening ceremony of the talks, along with UN Women. It should be seen as an independent, non-aligned voice, which plays particular attention to the interests and views of women and under-represented groups. Under our proposals, the consultative body would be based in Geneva, operating in the same venue as the official talks, and would be part of the institutional structure for Geneva II.

The UK stands ready to provide technical and financial assistance to support this direct role for women at the Geneva conference and during the transitional process.

International Development Association of the World Bank

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

The UK has secured important reforms to the way the World Bank delivers aid at international negotiations that were completed on Tuesday.

The International Development Association (IDA) is the part of the World Bank which delivers development assistance to the world’s poorest countries. The IDA negotiations that took place in Moscow this week reached agreement on the 17th replenishment of IDA that will cover the period July 2014 to June 2017.

Following successful engagement from the UK and others, the IDA has agreed to:

Greater emphasis on improving value for money, including better tracking of cost-effectiveness. IDA will also improve its monitoring of private sector finance it attracts;

Increased focus on fragile states and conflict countries, providing investment linked to programmes’ results and performance;

A stronger focus on improving lives and prospects of girls and women and better tracking of the impact of relevant initiatives; and

New guarantee instruments to enable IDA to raise more finance from the private sector.

These reforms build on good progress made over the past three years. IDA was one of the strongest performers in the Department for International Development’s recent review of all its multilateral funding. The refreshed multilateral aid review, published earlier this month, rated IDA as very good value for money.

IDA17 funding will have a substantial impact on the lives of millions of poor people. Thanks to this investment 200 million children will receive life-saving vaccines, 1 million women will be offered loans to help start businesses and up to 20 million people will get access to electricity for the first time. IDA17 will also provide health services for 65 million people and access to clean water for 32 million people.

This week’s negotiations secured a total of over £34 billion in total resources for IDA17. In light of strong results and the reforms made since the last IDA replenishment as well as a commitment to further reforms, the UK has agreed to contribute an average of £938 million per year for the next three years to this total. Britain will also provide concessional loans, to be paid back to the UK, worth £500 million over the three-year period.

Contracts Update

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

On 11 July, Official Report, column 573, I made a statement to the House about significant anomalies that my Department had identified in the billing practices under MOJ’s electronic monitoring contracts with G4S and Serco. An initial audit of the contracts had found that the MOJ had been charged by the two companies in ways not justified by the contracts and for people who were not in fact being monitored. Their conduct under these contracts is now subject to a criminal investigation by the Serious Fraud Office.

G4S and Serco withdrew from the ongoing competition for the next generation of electronic monitoring contracts. The new contracts will deliver state-of-the-art GPS tracking technology, better value for money and robust contract management arrangements.

From the outset I made clear that I intended to take robust action to deal with evidence of unacceptable conduct by suppliers under my Department’s contracts, and to recover any monies overpaid as a result of these practices.

I requested an audit of every contract my Department holds with G4S and Serco. I also asked for an independent review into the health and robustness of all aspects of contract management across the MOJ. Today marks the conclusion of these reviews. This statement deals with matters relating to my Department’s contracts. The Minister for the Cabinet Office will be making a separate statement on the cross-Government review of contracts held by the two companies and on their progress in achieving corporate renewal.

Serco

Serco agreed to a forensic audit of the electronic monitoring contract, conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers, including examination of email traffic relating to the contract. On the basis of this analysis Serco has now agreed to repay £68.5 million excluding VAT. This figure reimburses the Government for money owed on the electronic monitoring contract and for other costs incurred, including the cost of investigating these matters. It also includes £4.2 million which will be set against future costs incurred as we transition to new electronic monitoring arrangements. I am satisfied on the basis of PricewaterhouseCoopers’s forensic audit, and having taken appropriate advice, that this represents a good deal for the taxpayer. As with all full and final settlements, in the event of criminality being established with material impact, we would look again at our contractual position.

On 28 August I announced that Serco’s contract for escorting prisoners to courts (the PECS contract) had been referred to the City of London police. This followed the discovery that members of Serco staff had been recording prisoners as having been delivered ready for court when in fact they were not. Serco agreed at that point to repay past profits and forgo future profits earned on the PECS contract, and the company has now confirmed that it will repay past profits amounting to £2 million excluding VAT. The contract remains subject to MOJ supervision and is being robustly managed.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers audit did not find any further evidence of material issues on Serco contracts beyond electronic monitoring and PECS.

G4S

MOJ’s audit of G4S contracts has uncovered problems with two further contracts held by G4S for facilities management in the courts. Specifically, the audit revealed serious issues relating to invoicing, delivery and performance reporting against both contracts. While at this stage my Department does not have evidence to confirm that dishonesty has taken place, we have today, following legal advice, referred both matters to the Serious Fraud Office in order to establish whether this is the case.

The PricewaterhouseCoopers audit did not find any further evidence of material issues on any other MOJ contracts held by G4S.

Unlike Serco, G4S has not yet agreed a position on repayment. However, discussions are ongoing and I remain determined to pursue all legal options to recover the taxpayers’ money.

Rehabilitation Reforms

In the light of these developments, both G4S and Serco have decided to withdraw from the MOJ competition for rehabilitation services. This means that neither company will play a role as a lead provider of probation services in England and Wales in this competition.

However, the Government have left open the possibility of either supplier, as part of their corporate renewal, playing a supporting role, working with smaller businesses or voluntary sector providers in order to support our objective of achieving a diverse market. Any proposals will be considered as part of a rigorous evaluation process, and will take account of the Government’s wider assessment of the companies’ progress in achieving corporate renewal.

MOJ contract management review

While it is evident that both suppliers’ conduct under these contracts has been wholly unacceptable, I made clear in my statement in July that my Department had been found wanting in its management of the electronic monitoring contracts. Officials took immediate steps to address the emerging issues. A new contract management team was put in place to manage the electronic monitoring contracts and members of MOJ staff were placed permanently at each contractor’s site to monitor performance on the ground. The PECS contract was immediately placed under close supervision.

I also asked Tim Breedon, the MOJ’s lead non-executive director, to conduct an independent review of all aspects of contract management across the Department. This review was informed by a detailed assessment by PricewaterhouseCoopers of the 15 largest and highest risk contracts from across the MOJ. Each was assessed against the NAO framework of best practice in contract management.

The review found evidence of good practice but also significant and long-standing weaknesses in the MOJ’s management of contracts. The report makes proposals for action to achieve best practice across seven distinct areas. These proposals are consistent with those emerging from the cross-Government review. I am very grateful to Tim Breedon for overseeing this comprehensive review. I have commissioned a programme to implement the report’s findings in full across the MOJ and will have processes in place to do this by the end of March 2014. A copy of the report is being placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

National Security Strategy/Strategic Defence and Security Review

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

On behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister and other members of the National Security Council (NSC), I am pleased to present the third annual report of progress in implementing the 2010 National Security Strategy and Strategic Defence and Security Review. Copies are today being placed in the Library of the House.

Over the last year the Government have continued to focus their efforts to build the United Kingdom’s prosperity, extend our influence in the world and further strengthen our security as set out in 2010. It remains clear that our national security depends on our economic security and vice versa. In creating the National Security Council, the Government have established an effective way to ensure prompt, coherent, co-ordinated and well-informed decision-making on defence and security in the round, directing the Government’s long-term strategy and responding to the issues of the day.

The global economic slowdown and the parlous state of Government finances in 2010 had a serious economic impact. Over the last 12 months, the Government have continued to focus effort overseas to increase exports and encourage inward investment in the UK, helping UK business to ensure success in the global race for economic success. To support the UK in this race we are deploying more diplomats to the fastest growing parts of the world, upgrading existing posts and opening new ones. We are also striking new relationships beyond our traditional alliances—Britain’s influence in the world is expanding, not shrinking. The UK’s economy is growing, new jobs are being created and we continue to cut the deficit. We used our 2013 G8 presidency to make commitments to boost jobs and growth by: advancing trade; ensuring everyone pays their fair share of taxes; and promoting greater transparency. For the first time, G8 leaders agreed unequivocally to reject ransom payments to terrorists. A statement on the outcomes of the 2013 G8 presidency is being laid before Parliament today.

In defence, a balanced budget means that MOD can now afford its future equipment programme, investing in the critical capabilities we need for today and in the future, including in areas such as cyber. Tough negotiations with industry led to a renegotiation of the last Government’s flawed contract for the aircraft carriers, agreeing a cost of £6.2 billion and moving to a model which properly incentivises industry efficiency. We expect to launch HMS Queen Elizabeth in 2014, with flying trials from the carrier beginning in 2018. We will also be ordering three new offshore patrol vessels for the Royal Navy. In July, the Government published an unclassified version of the Trident alternatives review, a Cabinet Office-led study into alternative deterrent systems and postures. The review demonstrated that no alternative system is as capable, or as cost-effective, as a Trident-based deterrent. Government policy remain to maintain a continuous at sea deterrent and proceed with the programme to build a new fleet of ballistic missile submarines.

On the armed forces covenant, the whole of Government are working to ensure that no serving or former armed forces personnel, or their families, are disadvantaged for the enormous sacrifices they make for their country. This ensures that they are recognised as valuable members of society, and are able to go from strength to strength in the vital and often dangerous role they undertake on behalf of the country. We should be proud that 397 local authorities (98% of those in Great Britain) have signed the community covenant and are working to bring service and local communities closer together. Funding for the covenant will endure, with a further £10 million per year to be made available from 2015-16. In addition, £100 million of LIBOR fines is being used to support a range of good causes, including further funding for the armed forces community and service charities; and we have made around £200 million available to help members of the armed forces get on the property ladder.

The UK will host the 2014 NATO summit in Wales on 4 and 5 September. The summit will be an historic opportunity to look to the future—to ensure that the Alliance, which is the bedrock of our defence, is well equipped for future challenges and reinforces our critical transatlantic security relationships. It will also mark transition of our effort in Afghanistan. By hosting the summit, we will underline both our own and our allies’ shared-commitment to our collective security.

The National Security Council has set a clear strategic direction on Afghanistan. Although challenges remain, the Afghan National Security Forces continue to grow in capability, confidence, and capacity; and we will continue to support them. UK forces will cease combat operations, and security transition remains on track to be achieved, by the end of 2014. We continue to work closely with the Governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and other international partners, in an effort to help find a long-term political settlement to the conflict. The UK will maintain current development assistance of £178 million per annum until 2017 to help Afghans tackle extreme poverty, create jobs and achieve sustainable economic growth.

In the middle east and Africa, we have played a leading role in the efforts to seek a negotiated settlement over Iran’s nuclear programme; to end the conflict in Syria; to restore order in Mali and to support Libya’s democratic transition. In Syria, the UK has been at the forefront of alleviating the crisis, committing £500 million in aid. In May 2013, the second London Somalia conference galvanised international support behind the Somali Government’s plans for security, political process, public financial management and justice.

Instability and conflict continue to threaten our national security. This year we improved our cross-Government early warning capabilities, and last year introduced the £20 million early action facility (EAF) within the conflict pool to allow us rapidly to respond to early warnings and opportunities to prevent conflict. The EAF has this year committed £12 million to support Government policy in Syria and neighbouring countries on top of existing multi-year conflict pool funding and humanitarian assistance. The UK’s response to Typhoon Haiyan in the Philippines has clearly demonstrated the difference that humanitarian aid and support from the armed forces can make in disaster situations.

In the spending review, we announced that in April 2015 a new £1 billion conflict, stability and security fund will be introduced bringing together defence, diplomatic, development, security and intelligence capabilities, replacing the conflict pool. The strategy for this fund will be set by the NSC taking a long-term view of British interests.

The autumn statement confirmed that the Government will meet their commitment to spend 0.7% of the UK’s gross national income (GNI) on official development assistance (ODA) for the first time in 2013, and meet our promise to the world’s poorest. We will be the first G8 country to reach the 0.7% target.

This year, I co-chaired the high-level panel on what should replace the millennium development goals when they expire in 2015. The panel’s report was published in May 2013, recommending goals for ending extreme poverty by 2030 and putting in place institutions like the rule of law and good governance, which are key to tackling conflict. The report also highlighted the importance of peace and security for development. The Government will now work intensely to ensure that the UN negotiations on the final set of post-2015 goals end up with inspiring and crunchy goals which take forward this vision.

The threat of weapons proliferation and arms control remains serious. This is why we worked hard, alongside civil society and like-minded partners, to secure the UN General Assembly’s adoption of a strong arms trade treaty in April 2013. As part of our G8 presidency, the UK has also been chairing the global partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction, which has 27 members and co-ordinates international funding of around $2 billion a year towards counter-proliferation programmes.

The events in Woolwich, and the attack against the Westgate shopping mall in Nairobi, are a reminder that the threat that the UK faces remains both serious and sustained and that the nature of the threat is evolving and diversifying. In response to Woolwich, the extremism taskforce was established to agree practical steps to fight against all forms of extremism. The police and security services have continued to contain the threat from Northern Ireland related terrorism. Against this backdrop, the Government continue to ring-fence funding (£563 million for 2013-14) for counter-terrorism policing capabilities.

In October 2013, we launched the new National Crime Agency (NCA) to better identify, disrupt and cut serious and organised crime. Within the NCA, the new national cyber-crime unit has the specialist capabilities and necessary skills to identify, mitigate and tackle online crimes and criminals’ use of new technologies.

The Government have also reformed border roles and responsibilities, meeting targets for seizures of some of the most harmful materials which criminals try to import; making high-quality decisions about who comes to the UK; and enabling better co-ordination of intelligence and operational activity at borders.

We are also investing in the future. The transformative national cyber-security programme (NCSP), supported by £860 million of investment through to 2016, is now delivering real change in UK cyber-security capabilities including through partnership with industry to improve businesses’ security. We will continue to develop this collaborative approach to boost UK cyber-security, and a report on progress and forward plans for the NCSP was laid before Parliament on 12 December with an announcement of a number of new initiatives and the focus for future efforts to make the UK one of the safest places to do business in cyberspace.

G8 (UK 2013 Presidency)

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

[The Prime Minister (Mr David Cameron)]

I would like to update Parliament on the outcomes of the UK presidency of the G8 and the costs of the 2013 G8 summit in Lough Erne.

Progress

Since the G8 summit on 17 and 18 June, we have made very good progress on trade, tax and transparency, benefiting countries across the world including the poorest nations. The UK has today published an end-of-year G8 2013 UK presidency report that summarises commitments made at Lough Erne, progress made since June, and next steps. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

Trade

The EU and Canada reached agreement on key elements of a comprehensive free trade deal in October, while progress continues on the EU-US and EU-Japan trade deals. The World Trade Organisation (WTO) struck a landmark deal at Bali earlier this month, including measures to cut border bureaucracy. This deal will boost the global economy by £70 billion per year.

Tax

The OECD plans to present a single standard on automatic tax information exchange by February 2014. The OECD is also implementing an action plan to address tax-avoidance and to ensure multinationals report what tax they pay where.

Transparency

G8 countries have published national action plans setting out how they will ensure companies know who owns and controls them. I announced on 31 October that the UK will make its central registry of beneficial ownership publicly accessible. In the extractives sector, US and EU law will require companies to report their payments to all Governments. The US, UK and France, Germany and Italy have announced that they will sign up to the extractive industry transparency initiative. Finally, on open data, G8 members have produced or are preparing open data action plans setting out how Government data will be “open by default” where possible.

On kidnap for ransom, the G8 unequivocally rejected the payment of ransoms to terrorists and called on others to follow this lead. The G8 undertook to work together to prevent kidnaps and to help resolve hostage incidents by sharing best practice and expertise. Since Lough Erne, G8 members have focused on improving co-ordination in travel advice to high-risk areas, strengthening collaboration on kidnap response, and building an international consensus.

The G8 also agreed to continue support for Libya’s democratic transition, and in the margins of the Lough Erne summit there was agreement to train up to 7,000 Libyan troops. On 16 December, the United Nations Security Council issued a presidential statement reaffirming support for Libya’s ongoing democratic transition.

The UK looks forward to maintaining momentum on these issues during 2014, working with the Russian G8 presidency, Australian G20 presidency and other partners.

Benefits for the UK

The successful 2013 G8 summit in Northern Ireland demonstrated to the global community that it is a first-class destination for business and tourism. It showcased this part of the UK by maximising the opportunities for inward investment and highlighting internationally what Northern Ireland, its people and businesses have to offer. The summit prompted a subsequent international investment conference in Belfast on 10 and 11 October which brought together 150 potential and existing inward investors.

Summit costs

The total estimated cost of putting on a safe and secure G8 summit was £82 million, split between the costs of the event itself (accommodation, food, logistics) and the costs of policing and security in Northern Ireland. This cost less in real terms than when the UK hosted the G8 summit at Gleneagles in 2005. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office managed the logistical arrangements for summit in Enniskillen, the most westerly town in the United Kingdom, at a net cost of just over £10 million. Twelve Government Departments will contribute towards these costs, consistent with the funding of similar cross-Whitehall events such as the Papal visit in 2010.

The Lough Erne summit was also the safest G8 summit in memory, with only two arrests and a broad range of peaceful protests and campaigns in Belfast and Enniskillen. The Northern Ireland Office co-ordinated policing and security for the G8 with the Police Service of Northern Ireland (PSNI), other security partners and across Whitehall. The total costs of the police and security operation were approximately £72 million.

The PSNI was responsible for the operational delivery of a secure summit, involving almost 5,000 PSNI officers supplemented by 3,600 mutual aid police officers from police forces in England and Wales, and Scotland. This was the first time that police officers from Great Britain had been deployed to Northern Ireland for public order duties under “mutual aid”.

The PSNI operation cost approximately £40 million, of which £26 million was funded by HM Treasury from the reserve and the rest met by the Northern Ireland Executive. The deployment of 3,600 mutual aid police officers cost just under £29 million; central Government Departments are meeting these costs. Additional national security measures and specialist military support cost approximately £3 million; these costs will be met by the Northern Ireland Office and MOD. HM Treasury has supported the process of apportioning G8 policing costs throughout.

The estimated costs of the summit are set out in tables 1 and 2 below.

Drug Driving

Thursday 19th December 2013 Written Statements

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

In May 2012 the Government introduced primary legislation to Parliament that would create a new offence of driving with a specified controlled drug in the body above the specified limit for that drug. The Crime and Courts Act 2013 sets out the framework for the new offence.

Regulations now need to be made to specify the drugs to be included in the legislation and the limits to be specified. I have today published a consultation seeking views on the Government’s proposed limit for amphetamine to be included in these regulations. The proposals follow an earlier consultation conducted over the summer on the proposed 17 drugs and limits for 16 of them. We did not propose a limit for amphetamine as we sought views in that consultation on what a suitable limit might be. We have analysed the responses and concluded that the limit should be 50 microgrammes/L.

In the earlier consultation we proposed a zero-tolerance approach to deal with those who drive under the influence of illegal drugs as this sends the strongest possible message that you cannot take drugs and drive.

We also put forward our approach for dealing with drivers who use drugs which have recognised and widespread medical uses but which can also affect a patient’s ability to drive and are sometimes misused. We know that the vast majority of people who use these drugs are doing so responsibly and safely and that is why our approach does not unduly penalise drivers who have taken properly prescribed medicines. The limits we proposed follow the recommendations of the expert panel, which in the vast majority of cases, will avoid the new offence catching out drivers who have taken properly prescribed or supplied drugs in accordance with the directions of a health care professional or the drug manufacturer. This will avoid inconveniencing the public and taking up police time.

We considered that amphetamine needed to be treated differently because it had significant medical use but was also commonly used illicitly. The full explanation of the analysis for the rationale and consideration of the responses for the proposed amphetamine limit is set out in the consultation document.

We believe the proposed limit of 50 Migrogrammes/L is above the therapeutic range for most who are taking amphetamine legitimately but would also be effective in catching those who are abusing amphetamine.

The consultation starts today and closes on 30 January 2014 and copies will be laid in the Libraries of both Houses.

We will then publish our consideration of both consultations in 2014 soon after the close of this consultation and finalise the regulations in readiness for Parliament who will need to approve them before they become law.